# Docket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306

Page 1 of 2 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

# UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

November 25 , 2015

PC Code: 011001, 011002, 011102, 011103, 011104, 011107, 011110, 011111, 011112

DP Barcode: 418385

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Preliminary Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the

Registration Review of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts

FROM: Donna Judkins, Ph.D., Biologist

James Lin, Ph.D., Environmental Engineer ERB2/EFED ( 7507P)

James Breithaupt, Agronomist Donna M. Randall, Senior Biologist RASSB/AD (7510P)

REVIEWED Melissa Panger, Ph.D., Senior Scientist BY: Ronald Parker, Ph. D., Senior Environmental Engineer

ERB2/EFED ( 7507P)

THROUGH: Brian Anderson, Branch Chief

Elyssa Arnold, Risk Assessment Process Leader ERB2/EFED ( 7507P)

Steven Weiss, Branch Chief Laura Parsons, Associate Branch Chief RASSB/AD (7510P)

TO: Moana Appleyard , Chemical Review Manager

Linda Arrington , Branch Chief RMIBV /PRD (7508P)

Sandra O’Neill

, Chemical Review Manager Rose Kyprianou, Reevaluation Team Leader Lance Wormell, Branch Chief RMB2/AD (7510P)

# Page 2 of 2

This memorandum transmits the preliminary ecological risk assessment for the registration review of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts. This case includes both conventi on al agricultural use patterns and antimicrobial use patterns. Therefore this ecological risk assessment do cument was jointly prepared by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) and the Antimicrobial s Division (AD). Based on currently registered uses and labeled rates, this preliminary assessment identifies potential risks to non

- target organisms (i.e., terrestrial invertebrates, bir ds, and mammals). This assessment is focused on species that are not Federally listed as threatened or endangered (referred to as “listed”). Due to the ubiquity of boron in the natural environment and its moderate to low toxicity, an abbreviated assessme nt was conducted here for the registered pesticide uses. Some currently labeled uses and application rates of boric acid and sodium borate salts pose a potential for adverse effects, i.e., risk, to terrestrial invertebrates, birds, mammals, reptiles, terr estrial

- phase amphibians, aquatic organisms, and terrestrial plants. For the terrestrial vertebrate animals, risk is primarily associated with the granular formulations and bait uses. For aquatic organisms, risk is primarily associated with discharge of s wimming pool, hot tub and spa effluent directly to surface waters or to storm drains and roadways and potentially from storage practices of post

- treated wood . For terrestrial plants, risk is primarily associated with discharge of effluent from swimming po ols, hot tubs and spas to the landscape. Section 3.1.2 addresses ambiguous label language that could be revised to reduce conservative assumptions used in assessing potential risks. Elimination of gaps in pollinator toxicity data would also help present a clearer risk picture.

# Docket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306



# Preliminary Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration Review of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts

USEPA PC CODES: 011001, 011102, 011103, 011104,

011107, 011110, 011111, 011112

Boric Acid

CAS 10043

- 35

- 3 PC Code 011001



# 25 November 2015

Environmental Fate and Effects Division Assessment Prepared by Donna Judkins, Ph.D., Biologist Jim Lin, Ph.D., Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) Environmental Risk Branch II 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Mail Code 7507P Washington, DC 20460 Reviewed by Melissa Panger, Ph.D., Senior Scientist Ronald Parker, Ph. D., Senior Environmental Engineer Approved by Brian Anderson, MEM, Branch Chief, ERB II
Antimicrobials Division Assessment Prepared by James Bre i thaupt, Agronomist Donna M. Randall, Senior Biologist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs Risk Assessment & Science Support Branch (RASSB) Antimicrobials Division (AD) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Mail Code 7510P Washington, DC 20460 Reviewed and Approved by Laura Parsons, Associate Branch Chief , RASSB Steven Weiss, Branch Chief, RASSB

# Docket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306

2 

# Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 7 1.1 Use Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 7 1.2 General Risk Picture

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 8 1.2. 1 Crop and Indoor/Outdoor Conventional Use Patterns

................................ .............. 8 1.2.2 Antimicrobial Use Patterns

................................ ................................ ..................... 10 1.3 Major Uncertainties and Data Gaps

................................ ................................ ............... 10 1.4 Risk Reduction Options

................................ ................................ ................................ . 11 2 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 13 2.1 Problem Formulation Update

................................ ................................ ......................... 13 2.2 Chemical Identification

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 14 2.3 Use Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 15 2.3.1 Target Pests and Mode of Action

................................ ................................ ............ 15 2.3.2 Currently Registered Pesticide Uses

................................ ................................ ....... 15 2.3.3 Label Uncertainties

................................ ................................ ................................ . 25 3 Exposure Assessment

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 27 3.1 Environmental Fate Summary

................................ ................................ ........................ 27 3.2 Aquatic Exposures

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 29 3.2.1 Monitoring Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 29 3.3 Te rrestrial Exposures

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 30 3.3.1 Birds and Mammals

................................ ................................ ................................ 30 3.3.2 Terrestrial Invertebrates

................................ ................................ .......................... 31 3.3.3 Terrestrial Plants

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 31 4 Effects Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 32 4.1 Aquatic Toxicity Data

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 32 4.2 Terrestrial Toxicity Data

................................ ................................ ................................ 34 4.3 Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

................................ ................................ ....... 36 5 Environmental Risk Assessment

................................ ................................ ........................... 38 5.1 Risk Estimates

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 38 5.1.1 Aquatic Organisms

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 38 5.1. 2 Terrestrial Species

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 39 5.2 Risk Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 43 5.2.1 Incidents

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 43 5.2.2 Impair ed Streams and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)

............................. 46 5.2.3 Agricultural Use Risk Characterization

................................ ................................ .. 47 5.2.4 Antimicrobial Uses Risk Characterization

................................ .............................. 49 5.2.5 Key Uncertainties and Assumptions

................................ ................................ ....... 52 5.2.6 Risk Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 53 6 List ed Species of Concern

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 54 7 References

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 55

Appendix A Risk Quadrant Figures and Tables

................................ ................................ ...... 60 Appendix B Boron Mineral Usage and Consumption

................................ ............................. 62 Appendix C Environmental Background Levels of Boron

................................ ...................... 64

# 3

Appendix D Releases of Boron from Household Products and Manufacturing and Industrial Processing 65 Appendix E Submitted Studies

................................ ................................ ................................ 66 Appendix F GENEEC Modeling Summary for Boric acid and Sodium Borate Salts.

........... 77 Appendix G T

- REX Model Input and Output

................................ ................................ ......... 78 Appendix H TERRPLANT Input and Output

................................ ................................ ......... 86 Appendix I Ecotoxicity of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts

................................ .............. 87 Appendix J ECOTOX

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 118 Appendix K Summary of Incident Information

................................ ................................ ..... 122

# 4

List of Tables Table 1.1. Evidence of Risk to Taxonomic Groups from Current Agricultural and Non

Agricultural Outdoor Uses of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts.

................................ . 9 Table 2.1. Crop and Indoor/Outdoor Conventional Use Sites for Boric Acid (011001) (application timing when needed).

................................ ................................ .................... 16 Table 2.2. Crop and Indoor/Outdoor Conventional Use Sites for Boric Acid Sodium Salt (011104) (application timing when needed).

................................ ................................ .... 16 Table 2.3. Crop and Indoor/Outdoor Conventional Use Sites for Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate (011002).

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 17 Table 2.4. Crop and Indoor/Outdoor Conventional Use Sites for Sodium Borate Pentahydr ate (011111) (application timing when needed).

................................ ................................ .... 18 Table 2.5. Crop and Indoor/Outdoor Conventional Use Sites for Disodium Octabora te Tetrahydrate (011103).

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 18 Table 2.6. Antimicrobial Use Patterns and Application Rates

................................ .................... 21 Table 2.7. Pounds of Boric acid and Sodium Borate Salts (as Boron) (a) 

# Reported to the California Pesticide Monitoring Program from 2009 through 2013.

................................ 25 Table 3.1. Chemical Properties of Boric Acid.

................................ ................................ ............ 27 Table 3.2 Chemical and Physical Properties of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts in this Case.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 28 Table 3.3. Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts Screening

- level EECs.

................................ ..... 29 Table 3.4. T

- REX Calculated EECs as Foo d Residues for Terrestrial Animals from Labeled Agricultural and Non

- Agricultural Outdoor Uses of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 30 Table 3.5. T

- REX Calculated EEC for Granular Applications.

................................ ................... 31 Table 3.6. Calculated EECs for Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Plants near Application Areas for Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts.

................................ ................................ ............... 31 Table 4.1. Toxicity Endpoints Selected for Risk Estimation for Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts.

................................ ................................ ............... 33 Table 4.2. Toxicity Endpoints Selected for Risk Estimation for Terrestrial Organisms Exposed to Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts.

................................ ................................ ........... 35 Table 4.3. Toxicity Endpoints Selected for Risk Estimation for Terrestrial Plants Exposed to Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts.

................................ ................................ ............... 36 Table 5.1. Acute and Chronic Aquatic Water Column Invertebrate RQ Values for Agricultural and Non

- Agricultural Outdoor Uses.

................................ ................................ ................ 38 Table 5.2. Acute and Chronic Fish Risk Quotients for Agricultural and Non

- Agricultural Outdoor Uses.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 39 Table 5.3. Aquatic Plant Risk Quotients for Agricultural and Non

- Agricultural Outdoor Uses. 39 Table 5.4. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute and Chronic Avian Dose

- and Dietary

- Based Risk Quotients for Agricultural and Non

- Agricultural Outdoor Uses.

................................ ..... 40 Table 5.5. Amount of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts in the Immediate Application Area from Granular Broadcast Applications Expressed as Avian LD50 per Sq uare Foot from TREX Calculations.

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 40 Table 5.6. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute and Chronic Mammalian Dose

- and Dietary

- Based Risk Quo tients for Agricultural and Non

- Agricultural Outdoor Uses.

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

# 5

Table 5.7. Amount of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts in the Imme diate Application Area from Granular Broadcast Applications Expressed as Mammalian LD 50 

# per Square Foot from TREX Calculations.

................................ ................................ ................................ . 42 Table 5.8. Adult Honey Bee Contact Risk Quotient from Maximum Ground Spray Application of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts for Agricultural Uses.

................................ ........ 42 Table 5.9. Terrestrial Plant Risk Quotients from Maximum Ground Spray Application of 0.0625 lb a.e./A to Ornamentals, Soybeans and Other Uses.

................................ ....................... 43 Table 5.10. Summary of incidents reported in the EIIS Database from use of boric acid and sodium borate salts.

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 43 Table 5.11. The certainty index in EIIS was based on the following.

................................ ......... 44 Table 5.12. Ecological and domestic animal incidents associated with boric acid and sodium borate salts, according to the Aggregate Database. 1



# ................................ ......................... 44 Table 5.13. Detail Showing Animal Incidents by PC Code and Product from the Aggregate Database Query.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 45 Table 5.14. Detail Showing Plant Incidents by PC Code and Product from the Aggregate Database Query.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 46

# 6

List of Figures Figure 1.1. Graphic Summary of Potential Risks from Current Agricultural and Non

Agricultural Outdoor Uses of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts.

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

# 7



# 1 Executive Summary

The preliminary risk assessment (PRA) examines the potential ecological risks associated with labeled uses of boric acid an d sodium borate salts based on the best available scientific and commercial information on the use, environmental fate and transport, and effects of boric acid and sodium borate salts on non

- target organisms.



# 1.1 Use Summary

Boric acid and sodium borate salts (sodium tetraborate decahydrate, sodium tetraborate pentahydrate, sodium tetraborate anhydrous, disodium octaborate tetrahydrate, disodium octaborate anhydrous and sodium metaborate) are inorganic compounds used as insecticides, acaricides, algaecides, fu ngicides and wood preservatives (including cellulosic materials). There are numerous types of products for these compounds. The product formulations include wettable
or water

- soluble powder, dust, liquid concentrate, paste, pellet, bait, granule, soluble concentrate and solid. Multiple types of use sites have registered uses, including: agricultural application to numerous food/feed crops; indoor residential areas including pet quarters and wood preservation; aquatic nonfood residential; indoor food hand ling/storage sites and non

- food sites; outdoor residential; forestry; terrestrial non

- food crops; medical/veterinary areas; aquatic non

- food industrial (sewer systems) sites; in

- can/in

- container material preservative for latex paints, stains, and coatings for surfaces and inks and dyes; material preservative for polystyrene (plastic) for insulation; material preservative for coatings used in manufacturing gypsum board and gypsum board paper; recirculating cooling water system sites; and recreational water s ystems (i.e., swimming pools, spas and hot tubs). The wood preservative uses includes both industrial application sites (i.e., wood treatment facilities), cardboard and particle board manufacturing facilities, and interior and exterior sites of in

- place ( in situ) wooden/cellulosic structures, wood posts, poles, timber, dimensional lumber, and railroad crossties. Hereafter, the term “ a gricultural and n on

- a gricultural outdoor u ses” will include all outdoor agricultural, forestry, terrestrial non

food crops and residential pest applications and insect baits, but will exclude outdoor industrial and recreational water systems , material preservatives and wood preservation uses. The use sites, formulation types, target organisms and application methods/rates for each of the above active ingredients of this Reregistration Case are discussed in greater detail in the 1993 Registration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document for boric acid a nd it s sodium borate salts (US EPA, 1993).

All sodium borate salts in this case yield boric acid (H 3 

# BO 3 

# ) upon contact with water and depending on pH, salinity, and boron concentration also yield mono and polyborate ions. Boric acid is the predominant fo rm present under most of the environmental conditions being considered for this case. Therefore, boric acid or boron will be treated as the chemical stressor for this assessment. Boric acid should persist indefinitely until absorbed and metabolized by a plant or animal. As an acid, boric acid will be present in the water column, and will be very mobile. Boric acid is the stable form of boron in the environment, and is not expected to break down any further. Boric acid may act as a Lewis base and comple x with an electron pair donor. Boric acid dissipates from the point of application by transport from the site in surface or ground
water.

# 8 

# 1.2 General Risk Picture
Boron is an essential nutrient for aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates and plants, in small
q uantities. There is also evidence that boron is essential or if not essential, beneficial in birds and mammals, in small quantities. At insufficient boron concentrations impairment to sperm production, embryogenesis, and reproduction has been observed in fish and in amphibians. It is essential in cell wall structure and function for plants. However, at higher concentrations in the environment boron is toxic to these organisms. For plants, the range between essential nutrient and toxic impact is relative ly narrow. Boric acid is classified as practically non

- toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Similarly, boric acid is classified as practically non

- toxic to moderately toxic to terrestrial birds and mammals depending on the taxon as well as whether th e classification is based on boric acid or elemental boron. For birds, all acute toxicity endpoints were from studies that did not have toxicity at any concentration tested, but the test levels could not rule out slight or moderate toxicity. Boric acid i s classified as practically non

- toxic to terrestrial invertebrates based on the traditional honeybee acute contact test. However, the pollinator studies associated with EPA’s recently developed pollinator risk assessment guidance have not yet been submitt ed. Also, boric acid is used as an insecticide and is known to damage the exoskeleton of arthropods, and so it is reasonable to assume that arthropods in the immediate treatment area would be affected by application of boric acid. Aquatic plants had toxi c endpoints in the parts per million range but terrestrial plants did not have measureable effects for most test species in the highest treatments which are higher than application rates in terms of pounds per acre. The United States National Ambient Wate r Quality criterion for boron in irrigation water for protection of crops is 750 ppb.

1.2.1 Crop and Indoor/Outdoor Conventional Use Patterns Given the amounts of naturally occurring boron found in the environment , the amount of

non

- pesticidal use, and its mod erate to low toxicity, an abbreviated assessment was conducted here for the registered pesticide uses. This consisted of scree ning checks to see if broad
taxo nomic groups are at risk. In most cases, risk concerns were limited to terrestrial invertebrates in the immediate treatment area, but there was some uncertainty with potential effects to birds and mammals when the most conservative assumptions were applied due to label deficiencies in specifying maximum application rates.

Figure 1.1 and Table 1.1 g ive a broad overview of the potential risk concerns and supporting evidence for registered uses of boric acid and sodium borate salts for outdoor agricultural and non

- agricultural uses.

# 9

Figure 1

. 1

. Graphic Summary of Potential Risks from Current Agricultural and Non

- Agricultural Outdoor Uses of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts

.

Table 1

. 1

. Evidence of Risk to Taxonomic Groups from Current Agricultural and Non

Agricultural Outdoor Uses of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts.
Predominant Evidence of Negligible Risk Predominant Evidence of Risk

Fish, aquatic invertebrates and aquatic plants: Al l RQs <LOC for listed and non

- listed species. No incidents reported. Mammals: For granular uses, at max imum app lication rate, one sq uare f

oo t of treated area would contain between 39

- 919x the rat LD 50 

## ; for flowable uses, risk wasn’t as clear

-- using conservative assumption of weekly applications at max imum app lication rate, one size/feeding class of mammals had non

- listed species acute LOC exceeda nce and four groups of mammals had listed species acute LOC exceedance. Incident data also support the po tential for risk to these taxa (especially for the bait uses). 

## Limited Evidence of Negligible Risk Limited Evidence of Risk

Terrestrial plants: All RQs < LOC for listed and non

listed species. No incidents reported except five plant incidents that were not associated with outdoor registered applications

. However, some evidence from open literature that woody plants may be damaged (see 47 5.2.3.2 )

. Birds (also reptiles and terrestrial

- phase amphibians): For granular uses, even though no toxicity was measured in the highest doses tested, at the max. app. rate one sq ft of treated area could not be precluded from containing up to 6.5

- 580x the quail LD 50 

## ; for flowable uses, using conservative assumption of weekly applications at the maximum application rate: one size/feeding group of birds had listed species LOC exceedance. Incident dat a may support the potential for risk to domestic animals (especially for the bait uses), but information was not available to determine if any of these were bird incidents. Terrestrial Invertebrates : Risk is assumed, rather than calculated. Products regis tered as insecticides and acaricides so expect localized effects in the immediate treatment area. No chronic toxicity data or larval toxicity data available.
Note: See Appendix A for key to quadrant placement.

# 10

1.2.2 Antimicrobial Use Patterns Given the amounts of naturally occurring boron found in the environment, the amount of

non

- pesticidal use inputs to the environment , and boron’s moderate to low toxicity to animals

, an abbreviated assessment was conducted herein for the registered antimicr obial uses. The agency believes there are risks of concern associated with the industrial wood preservative use pattern primarily with post

- treatment storage of treated wood, and that there are risks of concern to aquatic organisms and terrestrial plants associated with the recreational water biocide use pattern due to discharge of pool, spa and hot tub water effluent to storm drains (which no label prohibits), or discharge to wetlands, or surface waters which not all labels prohibit. Additionally, discha rge of pool , spa and hot tub effluent to the landscape may pose risks of concern to terrestrial plants from boron. No risks of concern were identified for the material preservative use in : interior/exterior paints, stains, and coatings ; ink and dyes; coat ings for manufacturing gypsum board and gypsum board paper; and polystyrene

.



# 1.3 Major Uncertainties and Data Gaps

Uncertainties specific to this assessment include:

 Label uncertainties were found for many agricultural and non

- agricultural outdoor uses, most ly because the annual maximum application rates and application intervals were not specified. Also many of the non

- agricultural uses were for non

- broadcast types of applications (e.g., spot treatments) that are difficult to quantify on a spatial scale or to estimate runoff potential. The role of attractants in bait stations was also unknown.

 Label uncertainties regarding maximum application rates were found for the swimming pool, spa and hot tub use , mostly because of language which does not allow calculation of a maximum exposure level such as the following : labels either specified the addition of a number of pellets or tablets but the weight of individual tablets or pellets are unknown; labels called for filling up automatic dispensers or containe rs but information about volume of such containers is not stated on the labels ; labels with sanitizer or stabilizers present did not require monitoring of boron levels but require or allow multiple reapplications based on chlorine residual levels or on the disappearance of a portion of the pellets

. t ablets , or granules ; labels call for monitoring by a dealer of the product followed by addition of more product but do not specify what is being monitored and what monitored value triggers the need for addition of the product ; a value to be monitored is provided but it is not clear if the value is expressed as the product or boron equivalents

.

 Label uncertainties for determining maximum application or residues were found for the wood preservative (including wood composites) use and were mostly due to the following: addition of product to an unknown volume of water with area or volume of wood or wood composite to be treated not specified; nebulous or incomplete i nstructions for drilling holes and injecting paste or solutions where one or more of the following

# 11

pieces of information is missing such as the number of holes per area, diameter of holes, depth of holes, vertical and horizontal spacing of holes, total amo unt of product to be applied per cubic foot of wood; amount of area that a pre

- packaged wrap or pouch packaging covers.

 The largest data gap was for pollinator toxicity. No acute oral, chronic toxicity data or larval toxicity data were available. These e xposure routes remain significant uncertainties for the assessment of the impact of boric acid and sodium borate salts on pollinators. The problem formulation for boric acid and sodium borate salts was completed in 2009, prior to the introduction of the requirements for chronic testing on honey bees (USEPA et al., 2014). The Agency expects to publish additional guidance on addressing gaps in bee toxicity data for pesticides that have undergone Regis tration Review in the near future.

Data gaps include:

 Terrestrial invertebrate studies:

o Non

- guideline (Tier 1): Honey bee adult acute oral toxicity

o Non

- guideline (Tier 1): Honey bee larvae acute toxicity

o Non

- guideline (Tier 1): Honey bee adult chronic oral toxicity

o Non

- guideline (Tier 1): Honey bee larvae chronic toxicity

o Non

- guideline (Tier 2): Semi

- field testing for pollinators (tunnel or colony feeding studies)

o Non

- guideline (Tier 2): Field trial of residues in pollen and nectar

o OCSPP 850.3040 (Tier 3): Field testing for pollinators



# 1.4 Risk Reduction Options
Except for recommendations provided for the recreational water and wood preservative uses, no additional modifications are recommended for the other antimicrobial use patterns such as the material pres ervative uses. For the agricultural and non

- agricultural outdoor use labels,

w ithout clearly delineated application rates on labels, risk reduction options were not possible to meaningfully analyze. Any labeling specifications that would help to clearly define the application area, timing and duration would make the risk more containable, since risk concerns are mostly confined to the immediate treatment area.

Evidence from incident data suggests that domestic and wild animals may be attracted to bait st ations and traps. This risk may be reduced by label language specifying careful placement of baits and traps to reduce chance of exposure and changes to products to eliminate or reduce attractants that attract nontarget organisms.

 Recreational water use (i.e., Swimming pools, spas and hot tubs)

o Add language to all labels prohibiting the discharge of effluent from swimming pools, or spa and hot tubs to storm drains or road ways.

o Require all labels to include language requiring a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or notification of the permit authority prior

# 12 to discharge of effluent from swimming pools, and spas and hot tubs into lakes, streams, ponds, estuaries, oceans or other waters.

o Require all labels to include language req uiring notification of the local sewage treatment plant authority prior to discharge of swimming pool, or spa and hot tub effluent to the sewer system.

o On labels requiring monitoring, the chemical being monitored and limits associated with it needs to be clearly stated.

o Uses where boron concentration greater than 0.75 ppm boron can occur in pool or spa and hot tub water based on application instructions should prohibit discharge to the landscape and require discharge solely to the sewer system.

 Wood prese rvative use

o Require treated wood during storage either between treatments at wood treatment facilities or prior to transport into commerce be covered to prevent leaching and

run

- off from treated wood to the soil at wood treatment facilities. Wrapping wood before going into commerce and keeping it wrapped until final use would prevent leaching off

- site.

# Docket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306

13 

# 2 Introduction

The preliminary risk assessment (PRA) examines the potential ecological risks associated with labeled uses of boric acid and sodium borate sa lts based on the best available scientific and commercial information on the use, environmental fate and transport, and effects of boric acid and sodium borate salts on non

- target organisms. The risk assessment methodology used current policies, guidances, and tools. This assessment is focused on species that are not federally listed as threatened or endangered (referred to as “listed”).

A problem formulation for registration review and conduct of the ecological risk assessment of boric acid and sodium borate salts was developed in 2009 (USEPA , 2009a ). 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 boric acid and sodium borat e salts. The problem formulation sets the objectives for the risk assessment and provides a plan for analyzing the data and characterizing the risk (USEPA, 1998). A brief overview of the problem formulation, along with updates, is provided in Section 2.1

.



# 2.1 Problem Formulation Update
At the time of the problem formulation in 2009 the Agency did not anticipate conducting an ecological risk assessment for the indoor uses of boric acid and sodium borate salts (USEPA, 2009 a ). Since the problem formulation was posted, antimicrobial use patterns once identified as indoors have been reclassified under new use patterns in recognition that these uses may result in environmental releases to different degrees (40 CFR Part 158 Subpart W). Boric acid and sodium borate use patterns affected include recreational water system use patterns such as swimming pools, and spas and hot tubs; and the recirculating cooling water system use pattern (industrial water process system). A new use of boric acid as an in

- can/in

- container preservative for latex paints, coatings and ink was registered in 2010.

Several ecological risk assessments have been completed since the USEPA 1993 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) and include a 2006 assessment by the US Forest Service (USFS), and specifically for outdoor agricultural use (DP 3118066, 2006), liquid ant bait (DP 335979, 2007), and granular bait for fire ants and red imported ants (DP 349994, 2008). An ecological hazard assessment was conducted by the Agency in 2010 for the new use of boric acid as an in

- can/in

- container preservative for interior/exterior latex paints, stains, and coatings for surfaces; inks and dyes; and for coatings for use in manufacturing gypsum board and gypsum board paper (DP 368504).

EPA Region 5 conduc ted toxicity testing of aquatic organisms with boric acid in 2011 to support two states in the region updating boron water quality criteria for protection of aquatic life and to support ongoing consultations with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the En dangered Species Act. New criteria were developed and adopted by the state of Illinois in 2012, and Boron water quality guidelines for protection of aquatic life were updated by the British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection in 2003 (Mos s and Nagpal, 2003) and by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment in 2009 (CCME, 2009).

# 14

The risk conclusions from these agency’s ecological risk assessments are summarized below:

 For agricultural and non

- agricultural outdoor use sites , excep t bait stations (DP 318066):

Because of the low toxicity of boric acid to a wide variety of organisms, and due to the high levels found naturally in the environment, the agency determined that a full screening risk assessment was not warranted at the time. This conclusion was made in both the agency’s risk assessment conducted to support the 1993 RED and in a more recent (2006) assessment by the US Forest Service. Terrestrial invertebrates that are directly exposed at the time of application (the mode of action is by contact and is not systemic) were the only organisms considered to be at risk in these assessments. However, some new toxicity data were available and so risk quotients for aquatic and terrestrial animals and plants were recalculated.

 For bai t stations use sites (DP 335979):

No aquatic exposure is expected from the use of enclosed bait stations. Based on the proposed use pattern (enclosed bait stations that are intended to be accessible only to crawling insects), crawling insects that are sma ll enough to gain access to the interior of the bait stations are the only taxon that would clearly be exposed. Fish, aquatic invertebrates and aquatic and terrestrial plants would not be expected to be exposed. E xposure of non

- target terrestrial organis ms other than crawling insects would not be expected unless they are attracted to the bait stations. However, there is some uncertainty due to the potential use of attractants that might also attract mammals, birds, reptiles and terrestrial

- phase amphibians; the agency does not at this time have an effect method of assessing this and incidents with domest ic animals show that exposure is possible, and this exposure is likely dependent on attractants present.



# 2.2 Chemical Identification
Boric acid and sodium borate salts include the following registered active ingredients:

PC Code CAS Registry No

. Chemical Na me 011001 10043

- 35

- 3 Boric acid (H 3 

# BO 3 

# ) 011002 1303

- 86

- 2 Boric oxide (B 2 

# O 3 

# ) 011102 1303

- 96

- 4 Sodium tetraborate decahydrate (Na 2 

# B 4 

# O 7 

# •10H 2 

# O) 011103 12280

- 03

- 4 Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate (Na 2 

# B 8 

# O 13 

# •4H 2 

# O) 011104 7775

- 19

- 1 Sodium metaborate (NaBO 2 

# ) 011107 12008

- 41

- 2 Disodium octaborate anhydrous (Na 2 

# B 8 

# O 13 

# ) 011110 12179

- 04

- 3 Sodium tetraborate pentahydrate (Na 2 

# B 4 

# O 7 

# •5H 2 

# O) 011111 11130

- 12

- 4 Sodium borate pentahydrate (H 3 

# BO 3 

# Na + 

# •5H 2 

# O) 011112 1330

- 43

- 4 Sodium tetraborate anhydrous (Na 2 

# B 4 

# O 7 

# )

Of these nine PC Codes, two have no active manufacturing use or end

- use product registrations (PC Codes 011002 and 011112). The active ingredients in this Case are inorganic pesticides which have in common the release or formation of boric acid and borate ions when in contact with aqueous media.

# 15

Many different formulations are registered for products containing boric acid or sodium borate salts, including liquids, soluble and emulsifiable concentrates, granulars, powders, dusts, pellets, tablets, solids , paste, baits and crystalline rods. The percentage of active ingredients in these products may range from less than 1% to 99

- 100%. Boric acid and sodium borate salts may also be used as inerts in the formulations of other pesticide products.

The chemic al and physical properties of boron, boric acid and the sodium borate salt compounds covered in this Case are provided in Section 3.1

. All boric acid salts yield boric acid (H 3 

# BO 3 

# ) upon contact with water. The primary form in the environmentally relevant pH range and environmental concentration range for freshwater is boric acid. In estuarine/marine waters depending on pH and boron concentration, boric acid is predominate below pH 8.2 with increasing borate ion concentrations at higher pHs. Both boric

a cid and borate ions can contribute to toxicity. Therefore, both boric acid and boron (total sum of boric acid and borate ions) will be treated as the chemical stressors for this assessment. Results were converted to boric acid equivalents (a.e.) or boron equivalents, as appropriate to the exposure models used.



# 2.3 Use Characterization

2.3.1 Target Pests and Mode of Action Boric acid and sodium borate salts act as acaricides, algaecides, fungicides and insecticides and are used on a variety of agricultural (includi ng food/feed), non

- agricultural, residential, commercial, medical, industrial and food/feed handling sites. The antimicrobial uses of boric acid and sodium borate salts combined include use as an insecticide/fungicide wood preservative, an algaecide in re circulating cooling water systems (industrial process and water systems) and recreational water systems (i.e., swimming pools, spas and hot tubs), and as a broad

- spectrum fungicide and bactericide material preservative for polystyrene (plastic) for insulat ion, latex paints, stains, coatings, inks and dye.

These compounds act as acaricides and insecticides by acting as a stomach poison, interfere with the metabolic process, or through starvation by killing off digestive track microflora (e.g., bacteria) tha t allows insects to digest cellulose, or by abrasion or absorption of waxes from exoskeletons causing them to dry out ( desiccate ). When used as algaecides, they act by causing desiccation or interruption of the photosynthesis pathway and metabolism (e.g., locks up the nucleotide co

- enzymes nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide [NAD+] and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate [NADP+]). In fungi borates stop the production of reproductive
spores.

2.3.2 Currently Registered Pesticide Uses

2.3.2.1 Crop and Indoor/Outdoor Conventional Use Patterns

Table 2.1 to Table 2.5 lists the registered use sites according to PC Code. The tables are based on the draft use tables provided by Borate Task Force.

# 16

Table 2

. 1

. Crop and Indoo r/Outdoor Conventional Use Sites for Boric Acid (011001) (application timing when needed).

Site Application Type/Equipment Max Single Application Rate Barns/Barnyards/Auction Barns Crack and crevice and/or spot treatment/ Duster/ pressure sprayer/ spreader 20 lb /1 K sq. ft

Commercial/Institutional/Industrial Premises/Equipment (Outdoor) Perimeter treatment/ spreader 0.1875 lb / 1 K sq. ft

Drainage Crack and crevice and/or spot treatment, mop, duster 1

-- (L) 1 

### / 0.495 lb / 1 gal

Manure Dust/duster/spray/pressure sprayer 1

-- (L)

Non

- Agricultural Uncultivated Areas/ Soils Crack and crevice treatment/duster, contact and/or surface treatment/mop/spreader 1

-- (L) / 0.495 lb / 1 gal

Ornamental and/or Shade Trees Band Treatment/ spreader 0. 1875 lb /1 K sq. ft Ornamental Lawns and Turf Broadcast/ spreader 0.1 lb / 1 K sq. ft Paths/Patios/pave Areas (roads/sidewalks) Perimeter treatment/ spreader 0.1875 lb /1 K sq. ft Recreation Areas Contact and/or surface treatment/ spreader/ duster 0.2 l b / 1 K sq. ft

1 

### This notation is thought to mean one liter, but is unclear and is an uncertainty.



## Table 2

. 2

. Crop and Indoor/Outdoor Conventional Use Sites for Boric Acid Sodium Salt (011104) (application timing when needed).

Site Application Type/Equipment Max Single Application Rate Drainage System, Fencerows/Hedgerows, Non

- Agricultural Rights

- Of

- Ways, Non

Agricultural Uncultivated Areas/Soils, Paths/Patios, Recreation Areas, Urban Areas Broadcast/hand

- carried granule applicator, power granule applicator, 3 lb /100 sq. ft 2 applications /year 90 days MRI

# 17

Table 2

. 3

. Crop and Indoor/Outdoor Conventional Use Sites for Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate (011002).

Site Application Type/Equipment (Application Timing) Max Single Application Rate Alfalfa, Cocoa, Coffee, Corn

– Field, Corn

– Pop, Corn

– Sweet, Corn (Silage), Grass Forage/Fodder/Hay, Pome Fruits, Tobacco Spray/ground (foliar) 0.0327 lb/A (7 days MRI)

Almond, Apricot, Cherry, Nectarine, Peach, Pecan, Pistachio, Plum, Walnut (English/Black) Spray/ground/hand held sprayer/hose

- end sprayer/ trigger spray bottle (foliar) 0.0327 lb/A (7 days MRI) 0.0143 lb/A (4 days MRI)
Apple 0.0143 lb/A (4 days MRI) Avocado, Banana, Basil, Bushberries, Caneberries, Cress

– Water, Grapefruit, Guava, Lemon, Mango, Marjoram/Oregano, Melons

– Cantaloupe, Nasturtium

– Garden, Orange, Ornamental and/or Shade Trees, Ornamental Herbaceous Plants, Pap aya, Parsley, Peanuts, Pineapple, Rosemary, Soybeans (Unspecified), Subtropical/Tropical Fruit Spray/ground (foliar) 0.0625 lb /A (7 days MRI)

Grapes, Hops, Stone Fruits, 0.0327 lb/A (10 days MRI) Beans,

– Dried

- Type,

- Succulent (Lima),

- (Snap), Blackberry, Blueberry, Broccoli, Cabbage, Carrot (including Tops), Cauliflower, Celery, Citrus, Cucumber, Eggplant, Garbanzos (including Chick Peas), Garlic, Lentils, Lettuce

– Head, Lettuce

– Leaf, Melon s, Onion, Peas

– Southern, Peas

– unspecified, Pepper, Potato

– White/Irish, Pumpkin, Raspberry (Black

– Red), Spinach, Squash (All or Unspecified), Sugar Beet, Tomato, Strawberry Spray/ground/hand held sprayer/hose

- end sprayer/ trigger spray bottle (foliar) 0.0625 lb /A (7 days MRI) 0.0286 lb /A (4 days MRI)

Flavoring/Spice Crops 0.0286 lb /A (4 days MRI)

Non

- Agricultural Uncultivated Areas/ Soils Bait application/bait station, perimeter treatment/ package applicator, duster/ ant trap (when needed) 1

-- (L)

Ornamental Lawns and Turf Residential Lawns Bait application/package applicator (when needed), Spray/hand held sprayer, hose

- end sprayer, pump

up sprayer, trigger spray bottle (foliar) 0.0001969 lb/ft (30 days MRI) 0.0003287 lb /1K sq. ft (4 days MRI) Ornamental Nonflowering Plants, Ornamental Woody Shrubs and Vines Spray/ground/hand held sprayer/hose

- end sprayer/ trigger spray bottle (foliar) 0.0625 lb /A (7 days MRI) 0.0006547 lb /1 K sq. ft (4 days MRI) Paths/Patio Bait application/ syringe (when needed) 0.0094 lb / bait Recreation Areas Void treatment/Duster (when needed) 1

-- (L)

# 18

Table 2

. 4

. Crop and Indoor/Outdoor Conventional Use Sites for Sodium Borate Pentahydrate (011111) (application timing when needed).

Site Application Type/Equipment Max Single Application Rate Drainage System Crack and crevice and/or spot treatment 0.5 oz / ft



## Table 2

. 5

. Crop and Indoor/Outdoor Conventional Use Sites for Disodium Octaborate Tetrahydrate (011103).

Site Application Type/Equipment (Application Timing) Max Single Application Rate Almond, Avocado, Cherimoya, Citrus, Cranberry, Grapes, Pome Fruits. Small Fruits, Stone Fruits, Strawberry, Subtropical/Tropical Fruit, Tree Nuts Bait application/bait station (foliar) 1 part (L) (14 days MRI)

Barns/Barnyards/Auction Barns Void treatment /foam application, injection equipment, mist blower, surface treatment/ sprayer, brush, roller, (when needed) 1 part (L)

Commercial/Institutional/Industrial Premises/Equipment (Outdoor) Bait application/bait station (when needed) 1

-- (L)

Compost/Compos t Piles Compost treatment/by hand, dust gun (when needed) 19.6 lb / 1K sq. ft

Forest Trees (All or Unspecified) Stump treatment/ backpack sprayer, hand held sprayer (when needed) 1.225 lb/ 1 K sq. ft

Manure Broadcast/by hand, dust gun (when needed) 19.6 lb /1 K sq. ft Nonagricultural Outdoor Buildings/ Structures Injection treatment/injection equipment, void treatment/low pressure ground sprayer, mist
sprayer 5.021 lb /1 K sq. ft

Non

- Agricultural Uncultivated Areas/ Soils Mop, void treatment/ dust gun, sprayer (when needed) 0.49 lb / 1 gal 1.5 lb / (L)

Recreation Areas Void treatment/ sprayer, crack and crevice treatment/ sprayer (when needed) 1.47 lb /1 gal

Refuse/Solid Waste Sites (Outdoor) Outdoor treatment/ by hand, dust gun, sprayer (when needed) 19.6 lb /1 K sq. ft



# According to the use site classifications from California Department of Pesticide Regulation (see Table 2

. 7 ), the agricultural use site is the same as agricultural crops and the bait stations use site is similar to pest control. These two use sites have been evaluated previously. Therefore, the a dditional use sites that need to be considered are aquatic areas, forest trees, landscape maintenance, premises/structure, right of way, sewage systems and wood protection treatments. Specifically, the use sites for right of way and wood protection treatm ent will be under the assessment from Antimicrobial Division (AD). The use sites of sewage systems including septic tanks and sewers would represent the enclosed systems, therefore, no exposure routes are available for non

- target organisms. Notes on thes e additional use sites are as follows:

1) Aquatic areas: For the drainage uses, the rates are 3 lb/100 sq. ft (2 applications per year with 90 days MRI) for boric acid sodium salt (PC code 011104), 0.5 oz/ft for sodium borate pentahydrate (PC code 011111), and 0.495 lb/gal for boric acid (PC code 011001). The

s pot application is for cracks and/or the crevices, with a mop or the duster as the equipment.

# 19

2) Forest trees: This use is only for disodium octaborate tetrahydrate (PC code 011103). It is for spot treatment on stumps, and can be applied with either a backp ack sprayer or a hand held sprayer when needed. The application rate is 1.225 lb/1000 sq. ft.

3) Landscape maintenance: For sodium tetraborate decahydrate (PC code 011002), the rate is 0.0003287 lb/1000 sq. ft. For boric acid (PC code 011001), the applicatio n rate on ornamental lawns and turf is 0.1 lb/1000 sq. ft (4.356 lb/ac).

4) Premises/structure: For boric acid (PC code 011001), the use rate is 20 lb/1000 sq ft. for barns/barnyards/action barns. The spot treatment is on cracks and/or crevices with the duste r, pressure sprayer or spreader. For disodium octaborate tetrahydrate (PC doe 011103), the use rate is 19.6 lb/1000 sq. ft. to treat refuse/solid waste sites (outdoor) by hand with a dust gun, or sprayer when needed.

5) Other uses: For disodium octaborate te trahydrate (PC code 011103) the rate is 19.6 lb/1000 sq ft. on manure with broadcast by hand with dust gun when needed.

It is a general understanding that application rate s for a use site expressed as amount per 1000 sq ft. together with the labeled appli cation equipment would indicate a spot treatment. Considering the amounts of borate ion found naturally in the environment (30 to 100 ppm in soil, 1 to 200 ppb in fresh water, and 4.5 ppm in ocean water), the spot treatments on aquatic areas, forest trees , and premises/structures are not expected to meaningfully impact background borate concentrations. The same argument can be made for landscape maintenance with the rate of 4.356 lb/ac. The high use rates on manure and premises/structures are hand applie d and so, conceptually, the scale is also expected to be limited. Given the localized nature of these additional uses, risk is assumed to be localized for these uses.

2.3.2.2 Antimicrobial Use Patterns For evaluating environmental exposure, the application rates that are critical for the risk assessment are in Table 2.6

.

2.3.2.3 Overview of Pesticide Usage

Boric acid and sodium borate salts have more uses in commerce than as pesticides. The annual total and major consumptive uses are discussed in detail in Appendix B

. No national scale pesticide usage information is available for boric acid and sodium borate salts. The 2004 Kline Report estimated U.S. consumption of borates for the wood preservative use as around 4.80 million pounds with potential to increase at an a verage annual rate of 1.7% over five years to 5.2 million pounds by 2009. Disodium tetr aborate pent ahydrate (D T P) , the active sodium borate salt in all swimming pool and spa and hot tub use labels for the boric acid and sodium borate salts case, is not li sted among the common specialty biocides for

# 20

use in recreational water systems (includes swimming pools and spas) in the 2004 Kline Report. The consumption of “Other” specialty biocides is reported as 0.550 million pounds in 2004 with the potential to inc rease at an average rate of 3% over five years to 0.625 million pounds by 2009. Boric acid, the active ingredient for the material preservative use pattern in paints, coatings, and stains, is not listed among the common specialty preservative biocide for paints and coatings in the 2004 Kline Report. The consumption of “Other” preservatives for paints and coatings is 460,000 pounds in 2004 with potential for increase to 587,000 pounds in 2009. Currently there is no consumption for the recirculating coolin g water system use. This is because while there is a manufacturing use product (MP) registered for formulating an end

- use product for the recirculating cooling water system use, there are no end

- use products registered for this use.

# Docket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306

21 Table 2

. 6 . Antimicrobial Use Patterns and Application Rates

Use Pattern Use Site Application Type/ Equipment Treatment Site % B in EPs [% ai] Application Rate Frequency

Industrial processes and water systems Recirculating cooling

water systems; water systems --------------- --- On technical label only and this information is not provided on technical label , no end

- use products

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

Bacteriocide Absorbent material such as

cat litter --------------- --- On technical label only and this information is not provided on technical label , no end

- use products

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

Material preservative Manufacturing facilities of

interior/exterior latex paints, stains, and coatings Any stage in manufacturing
process Latex paints, stains and coatings

intended for interior and exterior surfaces (wood, shakes, cinder block, vinyl & aluminum siding, stucco, primed metal, hard board, fiber cement board, unglazed brick, concrete) 17.48 % (powder) [100% BA] 0.087% to 1.4% B by

weight of finished product At manufacturing

Material preservative Manuf

acturing facilities of coatings for gypsum board and gypsum board paper Any stage during manufacturing
process Waterborne coatings for use in

the manufacture of gypsum board and gypsum board paper 17.48 % (powder) [100% BA] 0.087% to 1.4% B by

weight of finished product At manufacturing

Material preservative Manufacturing facilities of

inks and dye s Any stage during manufacturing Inks and dyes 17.48 % (powder) [100% BA] 0.087% to 0.7% B by

weight of finished product At manufacturing

Material preservative Manufacturing facilities of

p olystyrene insulation Mixed with polystyrene beads prior to bead expansion Polystyrene beads 20.6% (powder) [98% D O T] 0.6 to 1.0% B by weight of

finished product At manufacturing

Material preservative Manufacturing facilities of

w af er board Added when wood

wafers are mixed with wax emulsion Waf er board components 4.9 % (RTU) [43.5 % DTD ] 0.0045 to 0.009% B by

weight At m anufacturing (a)



### Material preservative C ellulose insulation Surface spray C ellulose insulation (manufactur ing or in situ ) 20.6% (powder) [98% D O T] 0.041% B by weight of

treated insulation At manufacturing

, or remedial, preventative in situ treatment

Material preservative Industrial/manufacturing

facilities and in situ Dip, spray, brush, roller Paper and cardboard 2.063% ( RTU ) [0.89% BA+9.1%DOT] 0.000035 lbs B per square

foot At manufacturing, or remedial, preventative in situ treatment Swimming pool algaecide R esidential, public,

commercial, institutional swimming pool
broadcast Water in swimming pools (j) 

### 14.8 % (powder) [99.5% & 100% DTP]

1.2%, 3.0% & 4.42% (Granular) 35.0 to 35.6 mg B/L Initial Startup

30

- 50 mg B/L Maintenance ( b ) 

### 0.14 to 0.40 mg B/L Initial application (c )


### 0.14 to 0.40 mg B/L /w eek Superchlorination or Shock treatment ( d) 

### 0.0.018 to 0.30 mg B/L / day Maintenance ( e )

# 22

Use Pattern Use Site Application Type/ Equipment Treatment Site % B in EPs [% ai] Application Rate Frequency

[8%, 20%, & 29.8% DTP] 0.142 to 0.285 mg B/L Algae treatment (f)



### 0.285 mg B/L Winterization
Automatic chlorinators, floaters and skimmers Water in swimming pools (j) 

### 0.74% to 1.48% (Pellets and tablets) [5% & 10% DTP]

1.2% & 4.42% (Granular) [8% & 29.8% DTP] 0.14 to 0.17 mg B/L Initial Startup (c,g )



### 0.14 mg B/L per week Shock Treatment (g,h ) 

### 0.0076 to 0.036 mg B/L / day Maintenance (g,i )


### 0.142 to 0.285 mg B/L Algae Treatment ( f ) 

### 0.285 mg B/L Winterization Spa and hot tub water systems R esidential, public,

commercial, institutional spas and hot tubs broadcast Water in spas or hot tubs 14.8 % ( Powder ) [100% DTP] 33.4 mg B/L Initial application

Amount not specified

- take to dealer for testing Maintenance

Wood preservative (fungicide, insecticide, termiticide) Industrial t reatment facility Pressure treatment Dimensional lumber, timbers, plywood, millwork, and other engineered and solid wood products that are used only in interior, above ground applications or exterior , above ground applications which are protected but may be exposed to

occa sional sources of mo isture, forest wood products, fencing, posts 0.16% to 5 % (RTU) [0.89% to 5.0% BA; 0.89% BA+ 9.1%DOT ; 43.5% DTD ; 10% DOT ]

0.87% ( EC ) [5% BA]

1.4%, 11.05% (Soluble Concentrate) [8% BA; 25% BA+45% DTP]

4.6% to 20.8 % (granular /powder ) [26.3% , 100% BA ; 98%

, 99% DOT ] Impregnation

specifications to adhere to those of the the Ameri can Wood Protection Association (AWPA) or the company. [*Note there are two products that have dual use as fire retardant and wood preservative] 0.004 to 0.79% B by weight of treated w ood At manufacturing

17.48 % ( granular ) [100% BA] AWPA not identified:

0.07 to 0.14 lbs B / ft 3 

### 0.004 to 0.71% B by weight of treated wood At manufacturing

Industrial treatment facility Antisapstain dip or spray F reshly cut lumber and wood

products: logs, poles, posts, composites, veneers and wood, chips/sawdust or other similar byproducts intended for non

- food contact papermaking. 1.6% ( EC ) [9% BA]

20.6% (powder) [98% DOT] 0. 0 1 6 % to 5 % B by weight

of solution A t manufacturing

# 23

Use Pattern Use Site Application Type/ Equipment Treatment Site % B in EPs [% ai] Application Rate Frequency
Industrial/ Manufacturing facilities and in situ Spray, dip, or flood Wood or wood products such as oriented strand board (OSB), plywood a nd LVL 0.16 to 4.12 % ( RTU ) [0.89% BA+9.1%DOT; 20% BA ; 16.7 to 19.6% DOT ] 0.16% to 3.5% B

– dip At manufacturing,

Brush, Dip , spray diffusion Logs and lumber for interior or

exterior use ; unseasoned wood utility poles, pilings, posts 0.16% to 20.6 % (RTU ) [0.89% BA ; 43.5% DTD ; 16.7% DOT; 25.3% ]

20.6% , 20.8% (powder) [98% , 99% DOT] 0.16% to 4.9% B solutions At manufacturing, prior to placement in service

In situ Temporary wrap diffusion Wood products 4.9% (RTU) [4.9% DTD] 0 .068 to 0.203 lbs B per ft 3 

### In

- service structures Industrial/ Manufacturing facilities and in situ Brush , spray or roll onto surfaces

I nterior and exterior wood, wood

foam composite and cellulose insulation 0.16% to 4.12% (RTU) [0.89% BA ; 10%, 19.6% DOT ] 5.3% (FC) [25.3% DOT] 20.6% (powder) [98% DOT] 0.00007 to 0.0041 lbs B

per ft 2 

### Preventative and remedial treatment

Industrial/ Manufacturing facilities and in situ Inject paste, foam

, solutions

Logs, utility poles, posts, railroad

ties, timber, lumber, plywood, OSB, particle board and other cellulosic materials 2.063% to 30.6 % ( RTU ) [0.89% BA+9.1%DOT ; 

## 10% BA+4.5%DTP+5%ZB ; 40% to 43.7 % DTD ; 25.3% ; 30% DOT ]

5.3% (FC) [25.3% DOT] 20.6% (powder) [ 98 % D OT ] 0.14 to 2.84 lbs B per ft 3 (k) 

### In

- service p r e servative

Industrial/ Manufacturing facilities and in situ Insert solid rods into drilled holes Seasoned wood including

lumber, timbers, logs, millwork, poles, piles, posts, crossties, laminated beams, etc. 24.56% , 25.41% (solid rods) [96.65% , 100% DOA] 0.022 to 0.066 lbs B per ft 3 

### Remedial and preventative
treatment s

In situ Air or mechanical
pressure pump solution into cavity Building structures 0.16% (RTU) [0.89% BA] 3.18% (EC) [12.5% DOA] 20.6% (powder) [98% DOT] 0.0 026 to 0.118 lbs B per

ft 3 

### Preventative and remedial treatment

# 24

Use Pattern Use Site Application Type/ Equipment Treatment Site % B in EPs [% ai] Application Rate Frequency
Inject powder , foam into wall voids and galleries Building structures 20.6% (powder) [98% DOT] 0.00 26 to 0.62 lbs B per ft 2



### Spray

- ground line Building construction, crawl

spaces and basement 20.6% , 20.8% (powder) [98% , 99% DOT] 0.0020 to 0.0052 lbs B/ft 2
(h) 

### Ground line wraps (includes both RTU wraps and pastes that are brushed or troweled on and then wrapped)

- Utility poles, posts, railroad ties,

timber bridges, and other wooden /timber structures 1.96% to 6.27% (RTU) [0.85% B+8.65% DOT

, 10% BA+4.5% DTP+5%ZB; 35% BA ; 40% to 43.7 % DTD ] 0.005 to 0.497 lbs B per ft 2
(l) 

### In

- service preventative or control

Brush, trowel or roller Rail ties

– tie plate area (~0.7 ft 2 

### ) 4.5% & 4.9% (RTU) [40% & 43.5% DTD] 0.055 to 0.108 lbs B per ft 2 

### In situ

BA: boric acid; DOT: disodium octaborate tetrahydrate; DOA: disodium octaborate anhydrous; DTD: disodium tetraborate decahydrate; DTP: disodium tetraborate pentahydrate; EC: emulsifiable concentrate; FC: flowable concentrate; RTU: ready

- to

- use; ZB: zinc borate
(a) 

### There is no language on wood preservative labels which have preventative, pre

- treatment, or remedial in

- situ applications which prohibit treatment of these materials.
( b ) 

### Labels represented here require monthly monitoring to maintain these levels.
( c ) 

### Labe l calls for repeating initial treatment with product until chlorine residual reaches a designated level. Therefore these val ues may underestimate the maximum rate

. ( d ) 

### Concentration of boron is decreased only by backwash and water loss from splash out. L abel application instructions call for an initial shock treatment followed by weekly shock treatments. A ssuming weekly shock treatment s and no los s from water loss or splash out, the amount of boron applied would result in : 1.8 to 5.09 mg B/L in 90 days ; and 7.4 to 20.7 mg B/L in a year

. Label s also allow for more frequent shock treatment applications such as if bather loads are high, water appears hazy or dull, unpleasant odors or eye irritation occurs, or after a heavy rain. The values given here do no t assume more frequent application and therefore may underestimate maximum boron concentrations. ( e ) 

### Concentration of boron is decreased only by backwash and water loss from splash out. Label application instructions call for daily application. Assuming daily applications and no loss from water loss or splash out, the amount of boron applied would result in: 0.125 to 2.09 mg B/L in a week ; 1.60 to 26.8 mg B/L in 90 days ; and 6.5 to 109 mg B/L in a
year

. Label s allow for more frequent application s than on ce daily to maintain a designated chlorine residual so under some situations the estimates may be on the low side.
( f ) 

### Label allows for repeat applications as needed , given values assume a single annual treatmen t with the higher value for heavy algae growth and the lower for light algae growth.
( g ) 

### These values do not reflect all end

- use products as the quantity of product per tablet or pellet was unknown for some end

- use products. The range of applied boron was higher for broadcast a pplications, and therefore it is likely the range here is under r e presented

. ( h ) 

### Concentration of boron is decreased only by backwash and water loss from splash out. Label application instructions call for an initial shock treatment followed by weekly sho ck treatments. A ssuming weekly shock treatment s and no los s from water loss or splash out, the amount of boron applied would result in : 1.8 mg B/L in 90 days; and 7.4 mg B/L in a year

. Label s also allow for more frequent shock treatment applications such as if bather loads are high, water appears hazy or dull, unpleasant odors or eye irritation occurs, or after a heavy rain. The values given here do not assume more frequent application and therefore may underestimate final boron concentrations in some si tuations

. ( i ) 

### Concentration of boron is decreased only by backwash and water loss from splash out. Label application instructions call for daily application. Assuming daily applications and no loss from water loss or splash out, the am ount of boron applied would result in : 0. 053 to 0.25 mg B/L in a week ; 0.68 to 3.2 mg B/L in 90 days ; and 2.76 to 13.0 mg B/L in a
year

. Label s allow for more frequent application s than once daily to maintain a designated chlorine residual so under some s ituations the estimates may be on the low side.
( j ) 

### Based on label instructions can have an initial/shock treatment plus weekly shock treatments plus daily maintenance treatment s. There is also nothing prohibiting the use of or intermixing of broadcast an d automatic chlorinates, floaters and skimmers. Therefore, total boron application assuming all these actions occur is approximately 0.33 to 0.53 mg B/L in a week; 2.62 to 5.14 mg B/L in 90 days; and 10.3 mg B/L to 20.5 mg B/L in 365 days.
(k) 

### Not all labels provide instructions on the number of holes to drill, their spacing, depth, or diameter or the amount of EP as a result that will be applied per cubic foot of wood.
(l) 

### Not all labels provide how many square feet the wrap will cover so that a application s in pounds of EP per square foot can be calculate

.

# Docket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306

25 The following pesticidal usage information for 2009 through 2013, the most current information available, in Table 2.7 is from California Department of Pesticide Regulati on. The State of California requires full reporting of agricultural pesticide use in the state. The legal definition of agricultural use in this program is broad and includes reporting requirements for pesticide applications to parks, golf courses, cemet eries, rangeland, pastures, and along roadside and railroad rights

- of

- way. In addition, all postharvest pesticide treatments of agricultural commodities must be reported along with all pesticide treatments in poultry and fish production as well as some li vestock applications. The primary exceptions to the reporting requirements are home

- and

- garden use and most industria l and institutional uses 1



# . According to Table 2

. 7 , the biggest use in California is on Premises/Structure, followed by Rights of Way uses.

Table 2

. 7

. Pounds of Boric acid and Sodium Borate Salts (as Boron) (a) 

## Reported to the California Pesticide Monitoring Program from 2009 through 2013.

Site Name Reporting Year
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Agricultural Crops 51 36 51 125 93 Aquatic Areas, Water Areas (All Or Unspec) 0 0 127 0 0 Forest Trees, Forest Lands (All Or Unspec) 230 467 1221 507 3603 Landscape Maintenance 210 1520 164 1718 180 Public Health Pest & Regulatory Pest Control, Urban Areas And Invertebrate Pest Control 190 274 3 292 437
Premises/Structures (Agricultural, Farm, Household, Domestic Dwelling, Structural) 44818 95835 84277 94932 96679
Rights Of Way (b) 

## 11237 8006 11011 7684 14824 Sewage Systems 50 0 0 0 0
Wood Protection Treatments 1427 650 0 174 0
Total Used 58216 106791 96856 105436 115818

Source: CalPIP at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm accessed June 22, 2015

(a) 

### Values reported in the database as pounds of active ingredient (boric acid, borax, boron oxide, disodium octaborate tetrahydrate , sodium metaborate tetrahydrate, disodium octaborate an hydrous, and sodium tetraborate pentahydrate) were converted for this assessment to boron equivalents. The sodium tetraborate pentahydrate product reported as used, actually contains sodium borate pentahydrate.

(b) 

### Products used were primarily for treatme nt of wood poles and posts as compared to other applications in rights

- of

- way. Relative to the wood preservative uses, the herbicide, treatment of tree root diseases, and pest control (e.g., ant and roach baits) ranged from 3.2 to 109 lbs per year



# 2.3.3 Label U ncertainties

Man y lab e l s do not contain annual maximum application rates or application intervals for both agricultural and non

- agricultural outdoor uses. Also many of the non

- agricultural uses were for non

- broadcast types of applications (e.g., spot tre atments) that are difficult to quantify on a spatial scale or to estimate runoff potential. For these applications, risk is assumed to coincide mainly with the immediate application area. Additionally, for antimicrobial uses, the water processing systems and recirculating cooling water system uses and bacteriostatic use in/on

1 

# http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm accessed June 22, 2015

# 26

absorbent material such as kitty litter are included on technical label s , but do not appear on end use product labels.

# 27



# 3 Exposure Assessment

For crop applications standard available models were used to evaluate potential exposures to aquatic and terrestrial organisms as described at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm . The model results are summarized in this Chapter. A qualitative approach was used to assess risks from the antisapstain, wood preservative, material preservative, and recreational water treatment use patterns so no EECs were modeled for these use patterns. For the qualitative assessment information on natural background levels and loading to environmental media ( Appendix C ), and anthropogenic nonpesticidal sources of boron loading to the environment ( Appendix D ) were used to characterize risks from the antimicrobial use patter ns.



# 3.1 Environmental Fate Summary
The chemical properties of boric acid are listed in Table 3. 1 . Submitted chemistry and fate studies are listed in Appendix E . Some physical and chemical properties of boric acid and the related compounds are listed in Tabl e 3.2

. Boric acid should persist indefinitely until absorbed and metabolized by a plant or animal. As an acid, boric acid will be present in the water column, and will be very mobile. Boric acid is the stable form of boron in the environment, and is not expected to break down any further. Boric acid may act as a Lewis base and complex with an electron pair donor. Boron will readily leach from treated wood exposed to rain, or run

- off. Boric acid dissipates by transport in surface or ground water.

Tab le 3

. 1

. Chemical Properties of Boric Acid.



# Parameter Value Source Common name Boracic acid, ortho boric acid salts, borofax Merck Index, 1983

Chemical name Boric acid Pesticide type ( Chemical class ) Inorganic salt CAS number 10043

- 35

- 3 Merck Index, 1983 Empirical formula H 3 

## BO 3 

## Molecular mass (g/mol) 61.84 Vapor pressure Volatile with steam Henry’s Law Constant (atm

- m 3 

## /mol) Not calculated Solubility in water (g/L) 1 g/18 mL cold water 1 g/4 mL boiling water Merck Index, 1983

Log K ow 

## Not applicable pK a 

## (or pK b 

## ) pH of 0.1 molar solution: 5.1 Merck Index, 1983

# Docket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306

28 Table 3

. 2 Chemical and Physical Properties of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts in this Case.

Property Boric Acid (1) 

### Boron Oxide (1) 

### Borax (1) 

### DOT (2) 

### DOA (2) 

### Borax Pentahydrate (1) 

### Anhydrous Borax (1)



### Chemical Abstracts Registry (CAS) No. 10043

- 35

- 3 1303

- 86

- 2 1303

- 96

- 4 12280

- 03

- 4 12008

- 41

- 2 12179

- 04

- 3; 11130

- 12

- 4 1330

- 43

- 4

U.S. EPA Pesticide Chemical Code 011001 011002 029601 or 011102 011103 011107 011110 011112

Synonyms boron trihydroxide;

trihydroxy borate; orthoboric acid; boracic acid Boric oxide; boron

trioxide; anhydrous boric acid Disodium tetraborate

decahydrate; borax decahydrate; borax 10 Boron sodium oxide,

tetrahydrate; Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate (DOT) Boron sodium

oxide, anhydrous; Disodium octaborate anhydrous (DOA) Sodium tetraborate

pentahydrate; Borax 5 Sodium tetr aborate;

borax glass; disodium tetraborate; fused borax

Chemical Formula H 3 

### BO 3 

### B 2 

### O 3 

### Na 2 

### B 4 

### O 7 

### · 10H 2 

### O Na 2 

### B 8 

### O 13 

### · 4H 2 

### O Na 2 

### B 8 

### O 13 

### Na 2 

### B 4 

### O 7 

### · 5H 2 

### O Na 2 

### B 4 

### O 7


### Molecular Weight 61.83 69.62 381.43 412.52 340.46 291.35 201.27

Boron Content 17.48% 31.05% 11.34% 20.96% 25.41% 14.85% 21.48%

Physical State Solid; white or

colorless crystalline granules or powder Solid; white or

colorless vitreous granules Solid; white or

colorless crystalline granules or powder Solid; white colorless

powder Solid, clear, glass

like Solid; white or

colorless crystalline granules or powder Solid; white or

colorless vitreous granules
Boiling Point 30°C 1,860°C none identified 567 o 

### C ( decomposition)C Not established none identified 1,575°C (decomposes)

Melting Point 171°C (closed space)

450°C (anhydrous, crystal form) 450°C >62°C (closed space) 815 o 

### C 1000 o 

### C <200°C (closed space) 742°C

Density (at 20 °C) 1.51 2.46 1.73 320 to 480 kg/m 3 

### 1.81 2.37
Vapor Pressure: At 20 °C none identified none identified none identified Negligible NA none identified none identified

At 25 °C none identified none identified none identified none identified none identified Log K ow 

### none identified none identified none identified Inorganic

- NA Inorganic

- NA none identified none identified Log K oc 

### none identified none identified none identified Inorganic

- NA Inorganic

- NA none identified none identified Solubility in: Water 55.6 g/L cold water

250 g/L boiling water rapidly hydrates to

boric acid 62.5 g/L at 25°C 223.65 g/L @ 20 o 

### C 100% by wt 35.9 g/L at 20°C 482.4 g/L at 100°C 24.8 g/L at 20°C 331.2 g/L at 100°C

Other Solvents methanol, acetone,

alcohol, glycerol alcohol, glycerol glycerol Not relevant Not relevant glycerol ethylene glycol

(1) 

### Source: Health Effects Support Document for Boron (EPA

- 822

- R

- 08

- 002, 2008). (2) 

### Material data safety sheet for technical

# Docket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306

29 An acceptable wood leaching study for the leaching of boric acid from treated lumber by rainfall was submitted (MRID 46074205) and found to be acceptable. The study was submitted to support registration of the end

- use product Wolsin FL

- 35. In this AWPA E20

- 08 study, the leaching of boric acid as a component mixture wi th the separate active ingredients fenpropimorph and propiconazole was studied. Lumber was pressure treated with Wolsin FL

- 35, to a retention of 0.025 lbs a.e. per cubic foot (0.0044 lbs boron equivalents per cubic foot)

. B oric acid leaching occurred separate ly from the other compounds. The leaching rates of boric acid were 1.82 μg/cm 2 

# /day (maximum), 0.01 μg/cm 2 

# /day (minimum), 0.32 μg/cm 2 

# /day (average), and 38 μg/cm 2 

# (cumulative).



# 3.2 Aquatic Exposures

Table 3.3 tabulates screening level EECs based on th e GENEEC model for the previous crop use assessment. At that time, the application rate of 0.07 lb a.e./A was used. The rate is a little higher than the current allowed maximum application rate of 0.0625 lb a.e./A for the agricultural use sites (see Appe ndix F for all modeling inputs and results).

Table 3

. 3

. Boric A cid and S odium B orate S alts S creening

- level EECs.

GENEEC Modeled Use Type of Application Peak

Exposure (μg/L) 21

- day Average

Exposure (μg/L) 60

- day Average

Exposure (μg/L) One application of 0.07 lb

a.e./A Ground 4.10 4.09 4.09

52 applications of 0.07 lb a.e./A (7

- d interval) Ground 213 213 213



# 3.2.1 Monitoring Data Analyses of boron levels in fresh (surface water and public water systems) and sea water have been published (summarized in EPA IRIS, 2004 and ATSDR, 1992). Concentrations of boron in fresh water vary, depending upon environmental conditions and local soil levels, but concentrations in fresh water normally range from < 0.01 to 1.5 p pm (average of 0.1 ppm) but may be higher in areas of very high soil boron levels. A survey of 989 public water supply systems in the United States showed that 90% had concentrations of 0.4 ppm or less and 99% had concentrations less than 1 ppm. On avera ge, sea water contains higher boron concentrations (range 0.5 to 9.6 ppm; average 4.6 ppm).

Boron has been identified as a cause of impairment in fifty four streams (sixty

- four counting tributaries) in the U.S. that are listed as impaired under section 30 3(d) of the Clean Water Act. These water bodies have been assigned TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) 2 

# for boron ranging from 0.75 ug/L to 2,000 mg/L, and almost all TMDLs in the Office of Water database are currently 750 ug/L, which is the same as the Nat ional Ambient Water Quality Criteria for boron of 750 μg/L for long

- term irrigation 3 

# (for more details see Section 5.2.2 ).

2 

## http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation_cy.cause_detail_303d?p_cause_group_id=885

3 

## http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed 6/23/2015.

# 30 

# 3.3 Terrestrial Exposures

3.3.1 Birds and Mammals EECs for birds and mammals through dietary items based on agriculture uses were calculated u sing T

- REX v.1.5.2. EECs are based on application rates, number of applications, and intervals presented in Table 2

. 1 to Table 2

. 5

. A foliar dissipation rate of 35 days was used for this analysis to estimate dissipation after each application. Model inputs are detailed in Appendix G . Resulting upper bound exposure estimates to birds and mammals are given in Table 3.4

.

Table 3

. 4

. T

- REX Calculated EECs as Food Residues for Terrestrial Animals from Labeled Agricultural and Non

- Agricultural Outdoor Uses of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts

.

Food Type Dietary

- Based EEC

(ppm a.e. ) ( Mammals and B irds) Dose

- Based EEC for Birds (mg a.e. /kg

- bw) Dose

- Based EEC for Mammals (mg a.e. /kg

- bw)

All Size Classes Small

(20 g) Medium

(100 g) Large

(1000 g) Small

(15 g) Medium

(35 g) Large

(1000 g) Application Rate of 0.0625 lb a.e./A x 1 application 

## Short grass 16.8 19.1 10.9 4.88 16.0 11. 1 2.57 Tall grass 7.70 8.77 5.00 2.24 7.34 5.07 1.18 Broadleaf plants 9.45 10. 8 6.14 2.75 9.01 6.23 1.44 Fruits/pods 1.05 1.20 0.68 0.31 1.00 0.69 0.16 Arthropods 6.58 7.49 4.27 1.91 6.27 4.34 1.01 Seeds 1.05 0.27 0.15 0.07 0.22 0.15 0.04 Application Rate of 0.0625 lb a.e./A x 52 applications (7

- day interval) 

## Short grass 116 132 75.2 33. 7 110 76.3 17.7 Tall grass 53.1 60.4 34.5 15.4 50.6 35.0 8.11 Broadleaf plants 65.1 74.2 42.3 18.9 62.1 42.9 9.95 Fruits/pods 7.24 8.24 4.70 2.10 6.90 4.77 1.11 Arthropods 45.4 51.7 29. 5 13.2 43.2 29.9 6.93 Seeds 7.24 1.83 1.04 0.47 1.53 1.06 0.25



# Exposure estimates for the highest use rate for liquid broadcast applications (for multiple agricultural and non

- agricultural uses) presented in Table 3. 4 are based on the maximum use rate of 0.0625 lb a.e./A at 1 application and at 52 applications (with a 7

- day interval). The latter is a conservative estimate since the labels do not specify an annual maximum application rate.

For granular applications, the highest use rate is 3 lbs a.e./100 sq. ft at 2 applications (with a 90

- day interval) for drainage s ystems, fencerows/hedgerows, rights

- of

- way, recreation areas, and other uses. Table 3. 5 shows that this application rate would result in 13.6 g a.e./square foot.

# 31

Table 3

. 5

. T

- REX Calculated EEC for Granular Applications.

Use Type of Application Application Rate Granular EEC Drainage System, Fencerows/Hedgerows, Non

- Agricultural Rights

- Of

Ways, Non

- Agricultural Uncultivated Areas/Soils, Paths/Patios, Recreation Areas, Urban Areas Broadcast/hand

- carried granule applicator, power granule applicator 

## 3 lb /100 sq. ft (1310 lb a.e./A) 2 applications /year 90 days MRI 13.6 g a.e./sq ft



# 3.3.2 Terrestrial Invertebrates

The Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees (USEPA et al., 2014) provides equations for the calculation of EECs for bees. The Tier I exposure method is intended to account for the major routes of pesticide exposure that are relevant to bees (i.e., through diet and contact). Exposure routes for bee s differ based on application type. Bees foraging in a field treated with a pesticide through foliar spray, such as boric acid and sodium borate salts , could potentially be exposed to the pesticide through direct spray as well through consuming contaminat ed food. Foraging honey bees may also be exposed to pesticides via consumption of water from surface water, puddles, dew droplet formation on leaves, and guttation fluid; however, the Tier I exposure method does not include quantification of exposures via these
routes.
The EECs for a single foliar application of boric acid and sodium borate salts at the maximum application rate are calculated below. 4



# Adult Contact EEC = 0.0625 lbs a.e./A * 2.7 μg a.e./bee = 0.169 μg a.e./bee

3.3.3 Terrestrial Plants

EECs for te rrestrial plants were calculated using TERRPLANT v.1.2.2. TERRPLANT inputs are detailed in Appendix H . Resulting upper bound exposure estimates to terrestrial and semi

- aquatic (wetland) plants are given in Table 3. 6 . EECs are based on the maximum single

a pplication rate for terrestrial uses, solubility, and spray drift fraction. The default spray drift assumptions in the model were updated to reflect the most recent spray drift modeling guidance with 6% for ground applications and 12% for aerial applicatio ns (USEPA, 2013).

Table 3

. 6

. Calculated EECs for Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Plants near Application Areas for Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts

.

Use Site Single Max.

Application Rate (lbs a.e. /A) EECs (lbs a.e. /A)

Ground

Dry Areas (Total) Semi

- Aquatic Areas (Total) Spray Drift

Ornamentals, Fruits, Soybeans, etc. 0.0625 0.00375 0.0319 0.000625

4 

## Based on food consumption rates for larvae (0.124 g/day) and adult (0.292 g/day) worker bees and concentration in poll en and nectar.

# Docket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306

32 

# 4 Effects Analysis

Boron is an essential nutrient for plants, fish, aquatic invertebrates and if not essential beneficial to a number of phylogenetic groups, in low quantities. Toxicity of boric acid and the sodium borate salts in this case may be partially dependent on pH, there is contradictory evidence in the results included in the literature

– see Appendices I and J for an annotated compil ation of toxicity information. A list of submitted studies considered is found in Appendix E and a list of open literature papers co nsidered from the July 2014 ECOTOX query (USEPA, 2009b) is found in Appendix J

. These papers were screened and d ata from some of these studies were used in this assessment because they were more sensitive than available data from submitted studies; these were reviewed according to the approved procedures (USEPA, 2011). Summaries of the most sensitive aquatic and ter restrial toxicity data for boric acid and sodium borate salts are found in the following sections.



# 4.1 Aquatic Toxicity Data

A list of aquatic toxicity endpoints used in risk calculations is found in Table 4.1. Boric acid is practically non

- toxic to slightly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates, depending in part on the taxon, but also in part on whether the toxicity classification is based on boric acid or elemental boron ( Table 4.1 , also see Appendix I ), which is an artifact of the weight per volume clas sification scheme. Estuarine/marine invertebrates may be slightly more acutely sensitive than freshwater invertebrates with the most sensitive useable acute endpoints being 80.1 mg a.e./L (LC 50 

# for the whiteleg shrimp, Li, et al., 2008) and 260 (LC 50 

# for the small daphnid, Ceriodaphnia dubia , Dethloff, et al., 2009), respectively. Conversely, estuarine/marine vertebrates were slightly less sensitive with the most sensitive useable acute endpoints being 555 (LC 50 

# for the sea bream, Furuta, et al., 2007) an d 404 (LC 50 

# for the fathead minnow, EPA, 2010a,b), respectively. However, the fathead minnow endpoint was from a lower pH (6.75) than the sea bream endpoint (pH of 8.1

- 8.2) and the toxicity endpoint was actually higher than the sea bream at higher pH (fat head minnow LC 50 

# of 784 mg a.e./L at a pH of 7.75). The guideline (850.1075) allows for the pH in freshwater studies to range from 6.0 to 8.0, and so the lower fathead minnow endpoint is still useable. Studies conducted to examine the effect on pH in fre shwater species by the agency (USEPA 2010a,b) found no pH effect on toxicity.

# 33

Table 4

. 1

. Toxicity Endpoints Selected for Risk Estimation for Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts.

Taxon Exposure

Duration Guideline Most Sensitive Species Tested Toxicity Value Acute Toxicity Category Study

Classi

fication MRID or

Citation Expressed as mg a.e./L Expressed

as mg B/L

Freshwater Invertebrates Acute NG Daphnid, Ceriodaphni a dubia 48

- hr EC 50 

### =

260 48

- hr EC 50 

### =

45.5 Practically

Nontoxic Supplemental/

Quantitative Dethloff, et al.,

2009 (E118810)

Chronic, Reproduc

tion ACR invert



### method Daphnid,

C. dubia NOAEC = 8.9 NOAEC = 1.6 N/A ACR invert 

### = 29.2 (see Table I 4 in Appendix I ) Lewis and

Valentine 1981; Gersich 1992 (see Table s I 1 and I 3 in Appendix I )

Freshwater Fish Acute ASTM E729 which is comparable to 850.1075 Fathead

minnow, Pimephales promelas 96

- hr LC 50 

### =

404 96

- hr LC 50 

### =

70.6 Practically

non

- toxic on a.e. basis, slightly toxic on a B basis Acceptable EPA, 2010a,b

Chronic, Early Life Stage 850.1400 Fathead minnow, P. promelas NOAEC = 42 1 

### NOAEC = 7.3 1 

### N/A Acceptable 48914601

Estuarine/ Marine Invertebrates Acute NG White leg shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei 96

- hr LC 50 

### =

80.1 96

- h LC 50 

### =

14.0 Slightly

Toxic Supplemental/

Quantitative Li, et al ., 2008

(E111738)

Chronic N/A No Data

-- -- N/A

-- 2



### --

Estuarine/ Marine Fish Acute OECD 203 Red sea bream, Pagrus major 96

- hr LC 50 

### =

555 96

- hr LC 50 

### =

97 Practically

non

- toxic on a.e. basis, slightly toxic on a B basis Supplemental/

Quantitative Furuta, et al

.,

2007 (E166696)

Chronic N/A No Data

-- -- N/A

-- 3



### --

Non

vascular plant Tier I and

Tier II 850.4500 Freshwater blue

- green algae, Anabaena flos

- aquae IC 50 

### = 81.3

NOAEC = 9.2 4 

### IC 50 

### = 14.2

NOAEC = 1.6 4 

### N/A Acceptable 48820801

Vascular plant Tier I and

Tier II 850.4400 Duckweed, Lemna gibba IC 50 

### = 163

NOAEC = 60 5 

### IC 50 

### = 28.5

NOAEC = 11 5 

### N/A Acceptable 48820802

B = elemental boron; ASTM = Amer. Soc. for Testing and Materials; ACR = acute to chronic ratio; N/A = not applicable; NG =

non

- guideline;

-- = information unavailable.

1 

### Based on significantly reduced total length.

2 

### ACR values derived from freshwater organisms are not always applicable to estuarine/marin e counterparts and vice versa. An ACR from each group is usually needed to provide evidence that the ACR is the same for both (Stephan et al. 1986). For boron

, an ACR based on a freshwater invertebrate may not be applicable for saltwater invertebrates be cause its use results in a value below background levels (background level of B in seawater is about 5 mg/L). Therefore no chronic value was calculated.

3 

### At this time there is evidence that an ACR derived using a freshwater species is not applicable to e stuarine/marine species. Therefore, while an estimated ACR might be derived from the fathead minnow, its application to a saltwater fish is suspect.

4 

### Based on significantly reduced AUC (area under the curve).
5 

### Based on significantly reduced final bioma ss.

# 34

The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) publ ishes Aquatic Life Benchmarks 5 

# for freshwater species based on toxicity values for the most sensitive species from the most recent risk assessments. The aquatic life benchmarks have been published for boric a cid salts. These are not the same as endpoints used in this assessment since those values have been updated (see Table 4.1 ). The newer fish endpoint is similar and is a definitive value; the invertebrate endpoint is lower than the freshwater invertebrate acute endpoint, but similar to the estuarine/marine invertebrate endpoint.

Form Fish (μg/L) Invertebrates (μg/L) Acute Acute Boric Acid Salts >400,000 66,500



# 4.2 Terrestrial Toxicity Data
A list of terrestrial toxicity endpoints used in risk calculations is found in Table 4.2 for animals and Table 4.3 for plants.

5 

## Office of Pesticide Programs ’ Aquatic Life Benchmarks. http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/aquatic_life_benchmark.htm

# 35

Table 4

. 2

. Toxicity Endpoints Selected for Risk Estimation for Terrestrial Orga nisms Exposed to Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts.

Taxon Exposure

Duration Guideline Most Sensitive Species Tested Toxicity Value Acute Toxicity Category/ Study Classi

fication MRID Expressed as a.e. Expressed as B

Mammals Acute Oral N/A Rat LD 50 

### = 450
mg a.e. /kg

- bw 1 

### LD 50 

### = 79

mg B/kg

- bw 1 

### Moderately

toxic/ Acceptable 00005584/

Weir and Fisher 1972 2

- Generation Chronic N/A Mouse NOAEL= 150 mg a.e./kg

- diet 2 

### NOAEL = 26

mg B/kg

- diet 2 

### N/A/

Acceptable 00005584

Birds Acute Oral 850.2100 Bobwhite quail, Colinus virginianus LD 50 

### >1,625 mg

a.e./kg

- bw LD 50 

### >284 mg

B/kg

- bw At most slightly

toxic on a n a.e. basis and at most moderately toxic on a B basis / Acceptable 00100657

Modified Study/Acute Dietary 850.2100/

850.2200 3 

### Canary

Serinus canaria LC 50 

### >11,000 mg

a.e. /kg

- diet

NOAEC = 1870 mg a.e./kg LOAEC = 4570
mg a.e./ kg

- diet 4 

### LC 50 

### >1920 mg

a.e. /kg

- bw

NOAEC = 327 mg a.e./kg LOAEC = 799
mg a.e./ kg

- diet 4 

### Practically

nontoxic on a n a.e. basis and at most slightly toxic on a B basis/ Supp lemental

Quantitative 48851202

Sub

- acute Dietary (8 day study duration, 5 day exposure) 850.2200 Both mallard and bobwhite LC 50 

### >5,620 mg

a.e./kg

- diet 5



### (0/10 mortalities) LC 50 

### >982 mg

B/kg

- diet 5



### (0/10 mortalities) Practically

nontoxic on an a.e. basis and at most moderately toxic on a B basis/ Acceptable ACC254367

Chronic Reproduction 850.2300 Mallard duck A. platyrhynchos NOAEC = 249 mg

a.e./kg

- diet (21.2 mg a.e./kg

bw estimated daily dose) 6 

### NOAEC = 43.6

mg B/kg

- diet (3.7 mg B/kg

bw estimated daily dose) 6 

### N/A/

Acceptable 49009801

Terrestrial Non

- target Inverte

brates Acute Contact NG

- similar to 850.3020 Honey Bee LD 50 

### = 363 μg a.e./bee LD 50 

### = 63 μg

B/bee Practically

nontoxic/ Acceptable 40269201

-- = information unavailable; a.e. = acid equivalents; B = boron; mg/kg

- bw = milligrams per kilogram body weight; mg/kg

- diet = milligrams per kilogram of diet N/A = not applicable; NG = non

- guideline method.

1 

### Based on mortality.

2 

### Based on decreased parental organ weight, fertility, and decreased pup weight.
3 

### This study design (850.2200 modified) is an acceptable alternative to the standard oral acute toxicity test (850.2100) which administers a single dose of test substance. The alteration was made because preliminary work by the study authors showed that canaries quickly regurgitated the single dosage of boric acid. The primary study endpoint was survival. Observations were als o made on body weight, food consumption, and changes in behavior. Body weight at study initiation was 18.0 to 29.4g.

4 

### Based on 5

- day weight gain.
5 

### Based on no mortalities in highest treatment.

6 

### Based on % hatchlings/ live embryos.



# Boric acid is practically non

- toxic to moderately toxic to terrestrial birds and mammals depending on the taxon as well as whether the classification is based on boric acid or elemental boron ( Table 4.3 , also see Appendix I ), since the molecular weight of boric acid is greater than elemental boron and the classification is based on concentration (weight per volume. For birds, all acute t oxicity endpoints were from studies that did not have toxicity in the highest treatment

# 36

due to low toxicity, but the test levels could not rule out slight or moderate toxicity. Toxicity to passerine bird species was tested, but preliminary studies with or al dosing to canaries resulted in regurgitation and so a dietary acute was conducted. Even with test concentrations in the diet of >11,000 mg a.e./kg

- diet, mortality was not found, though changes in body weight, food consumption and behavior were seen at 4570 mg a.e./kg

- bw. Boric acid is classified as practically non

- toxic to terrestrial invertebrates based on the traditional honeybee acute contact test (LD 50 

# of 363 μg a.e./bee, MRID 40269201). However, pollinator studies associated with new Agency guid ance have not yet been submitted.

Table 4

. 3

. Toxicity Endpoints Selected for Risk Estimation for Terrestrial Plants Exposed to Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts.

Test Type Most Sensitive

Species Tested Guide line Toxicity Value MRID lb a.e./A lb B/A

Terrestrial Plants Tier I and Tier II Most sensitive

monocot: Could not be determined 1 

### Seedling

Emergence 850.4100 using TGAI 2 

### IC 25 

### > 5.0

NOAEC > 5.0 IC 25 

### > 0.87 NOAEC > 0.87 48885402 Most sensitive dicot: Oilseed rape IC 25 

### > 5.0 NOAEC = 0.65 3 

### IC 25 

### > 0.87 lb NOAEC = 0.11 Most sensitive monocot and dicot: Could not be determined 1 

### Vegetative

Vigor 850.4150 using TGAI 2 

### IC 25 

### > 0.2

NOAEC > 0.2 IC 25 

### > 0.03 NOAEC > 0.03 48885401

1 

## Species tested: monocot (corn, Zea mays ; onion, Allium cepa ; ryegrass, Lolium perenne ; and oat, Avena sativa ) and dicot (common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris ; cucumber, Cucumis sativus ; oilseed rape, Brassica napus ; radish, Raphanus sativus ; soybean, Glycine max ; and tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum ).

2 

## This study was conducted with TGAI (technical

- grade active ingredient) rather than the recommended TEP (typical end use

- product) for conventional use patterns and since plants from conventional use patterns may b e exposed directly to the whole product, some uncertainty exists as to potential effects from adjuvants in formulated products for these use patterns.

3 

## Based on significant reduction of 9.9% in in shoot length at 1.4 lb a.e./A (p<0.05).



# For most plant species tested, boric acid did not cause measureable effects in the highest treatments tested, 5.0 lb a.e./A for seedling emergence and 0.2 lb a.e./A for vegetative vigor (MRIDs 48885401 and 48885402), with the exception of reduced shoot length in oilseed rape at treatments of 1.4 lb a.e./A and higher.



# 4.3 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 studies include acut e, subchronic and chronic toxicity, including assessments of carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, developmental, reproductive, and general or systemic toxicity. These studies include endpoints which may be susceptible to endocrine influence, including effects o n 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 its reregistration decision for boric acid and sodium borate salts , EPA reviewed these data and selected the most sensitive endpoints for relevant risk

assessm ent scenarios from the existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA

# 37

section 408(p), boric acid and sodium borate salts are subject to the endocrine screening part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).

EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whether certain substances (including pesticide active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect produced by a “naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may d esignate.” The EDSP employs a two

- tiered approach to making the statutorily required determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a chemical substance to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the next stage of the EDSP where EPA will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tes ts 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 pesticide chemicals. Between October 2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call

- ins for the first group of 67 chemicals, which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. A second li st of chemicals identified for EDSP screening was published on June 14, 2013 6 

# and includes some pesticides scheduled for registration review and chemicals found in water. Neither of these lists should be construed as a list of known or likely endocrine dis ruptors.
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 screening battery, please visit our website. 7

6 

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

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2009

- 0477

- 0074 for the final second list of chemicals.

7 

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

# 38



# 5 Environmental Risk Assessment

For this pre liminary risk assessment (PRA) of boric acid and sodium borate salts , the deterministic RQ method was used to provide a metric of potential risks for the agricultural use patterns

. A qualitative approach was used to assess risks from the antimicrobial use patterns.



# 5.1 Risk Estimates

The RQ 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 levels of concern (LOC), which are the Agency’s interpretive policy such that when acute or chronic risk LOCs are exceeded, the need for regulatory action may be considered. 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 organi sms. For acute and chronic risks to animals, the LOCs are 0.5 and 1.0, respectively, and for plants, the LOC is 1.0. The LOC for terrestrial invertebrates is 0.4. For listed aquatic animals, the acute LOC is 0.05 and for listed terrestrial animals the acut e LOC is 0.1. For each taxon, RQs are generated and risks are discussed. This discussion includes consideration of additional data and lines of evidence.

5.1.1 Aquatic Organisms Calculated RQs for aquatic invertebrates, fish and plants are presented in the foll owing sections ( Sections 5 .1.1

- 5 .1.3 ; Tables 5.1

- 5

. 3 ) based on the calculated peak EECs of 0.0041 mg a.e./L for one application and 0.213 mg a.e./L for weekly applications at the maximum application rate for ornamentals, soybeans and other crops ( Table 3

. 3 ).

5.1.1.1 Aquatic Invertebrates

No L OC exceeda nces were calculated for aquatic invertebrates ( Table 5.1 ).

Table 5

. 1

. Acute and Chronic Aquatic Water Column Invertebrate R Q Values for Agricultural and Non

- Agricultural Outdoor Uses

.

Use Sites Freshwater RQ Estuarine/Marine RQ
Acute Chronic Acute 1 

## LC 50 

## = 260
mg a. e ./L NOAEC = 8.9 mg

a.e./L LC 50 

## = 80.1 mg a.e./L
One application of 0.07 lb a.e./A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 52 applications of 0.07 lb a.e./A (7

- d interval) <0.01 0.0239 <0.01

Bolded values exceed the LOC for non

- listed species of 0.5 for acute risk or 1.0 for chronic risk. Shaded values exceed the LOC for listed species of 0.05 for acute risk or 1.0 for chronic risk.

1 

### No acceptable chronic toxicity estimate was available; therefore, the freshwater chronic RQs will be assumed to apply to estuarine/marine species.



# 5.1.1.2 Fish

No L OC exceeda nces were calculated for fish ( Table 5.2 ). Fish are also surrogate species for aquatic

- phase amphibians.

# 39

Table 5

. 2

. Acute and Chronic Fish Risk Quotients for Agricultural and Non

- Agricultural Outdoor Uses

.

Use Sites Freshwater Estuarine/Marine
Acute Chronic Acute 1


## LC 50 

## = 404 mg a.e./L NOAEC = 42

mg a.e./L LC 50 

## = 555 mg a.e./L One application of 0.07 lb a.e./A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 52 applications of 0.07 lb a.e./A (7

- d interval) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Bolded values exceed the LOC for non

- listed species of 0.5 for acute risk or 1.0 for chronic risk. Shaded values exceed the LOC for listed species of 0.05 for acute risk or 1.0 for chronic risk.

1 

### No acceptable chr onic toxicity estimate was available; therefore, the freshwater chronic RQs will be assumed to apply to estuarine/marine species.



# 5.1.1.3 Aquatic Plants

No LOC exceeda nces were calculated for aquatic plants ( Table 5.3 ).

Table 5

. 3

. Aquatic Plant Risk Quotients for Agricultural and Non

- Agricultural Outdoor Uses

.

Use Sites Vascular Non

- vascular Non

- listed Listed Non

- listed Listed IC 50 

## = 163 mg a.e./L NOAEC = 60

mg a.e./L IC 50 

## = 81.3 mg

a.e./L NOAEC = 9.2

mg a.e./L One application of 0.07 lb a.e./A <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 52 applications of 0.07 lb a.e./A (7

- d interval) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02

Bolded values exceed the LOC of 1.0



# .

5.1.2 Terrestrial Species

5.1.2.1 Birds

Table 5.4 gives RQ calculations based on both one application and the conservative estimate assuming weekly applications at the highest broadcast application rate of 0.0625 lb a.e./A. Birds are also surrogate species for terrestrial

- phase amphibians and reptiles. No LOC exceeda nces were found from one application. One size/feeding class (small birds feeding on short grass) could potentially exceed the listed

- species LOC (0.1) but this is based on an endpoint that was non

- definitive (greater than >) due to lack of toxicity at the highest dose rate. This is almost certainly an artifact of the study design and conservative assumption of weekly applications. The available dietary endpoint for birds, when screened using TREX, did not result in any LOC exceeda nces

.

# 40

Table 5

. 4

. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute and Chronic Avian Dose

- and Dietary

- Based Risk Quotients for Agricultural and Non

- Agricultural Outdoor Uses

.

Dietary Item Avian RQs Acute Dose

- based Size Classes Acute Dietary

- based Chronic

Dietary

- based 20 g 100 g 1000 g Adjusted LD 50 

## = >1170 mg a.e./kg

- bw 1 

## Adjusted LD 50 

## =

>1490 mg a.e./kg

bw 1 

## Adjusted LD 50 

## =

>2110 mg a.e./kg

- bw 1 

## LC 50 

## =

>5620 mg a.e./kg

- diet 1 

## NOAEC =

249 mg a.e./kg

- diet Application Rate of 0.0625 lb a.e./A x 1 application 

## Short grass <0.0 2 <0.0 1 <0.01 <0.01 0.07 Tall grass <0.0 1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 Broadleaf plants <0.0 1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.04 Fruits/pods <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Arthropods <0.0 1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Application Rate of 0.0625 lb a.e./A x 52 applications (7

- day interval) 

## Short grass <0.13 <0. 06 <0. 02 <0. 02 0.52 Tall grass <0. 06 <0. 03 <0. 01 <0. 01 0.24 Broadleaf plants <0. 07 <0. 03 <0. 01 <0. 01 0.29 Fruits/pods <0. 01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 Arthropods <0. 05 <0. 02 <0. 01 <0. 01 0.20 Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03

Bolded values exceed the LOC for non

- listed species of 0.5 for acute risk or 1.0 for chronic risk.
Shaded values exceed the LOC for listed species of 0.1 for acute risk or 1.0 for chronic risk.

1 

### These endpoints are non

- definitive, greater than (>) values due to lack of toxic response in the highest treatment. Therefore, the RQs presented here that are calculated using those endpoints are less

- than (<) values and are upper

- bound estimates for screening



# .

For granular applications, the use rate for drainage systems, fencerows, etc. was higher but more localized. The amount calculated of 13.6 g a.e./sq. ft. (see Table 5

. 5 ) was compared to the available no n

- definitive av i a n oral dosing toxicity endpoint and showed that the potential for up to 581 times the LD 50 

# may be present per sq. ft. for small birds, up to 91.5 and 6.48 times the respective LD 50 

# for medium and large birds.

Table 5

. 5

. Amount of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts in the Immediate Applica tion Area from Granular Broadcast Applications Expressed as Avian LD50 per Square Foot from TREX Calculations.

Avian Weight C lass (grams) Avian LD 50 

## /ft 2



## 20 <581 1


## 100 < 91.5 1


## 1000 < 6.48 1

1 

### The LD 50 

### used was a non

- definitive (greater than > ) value due to lack of toxicity in the highest treatment and so these estimates of toxicity per area are upper

- bound estimates only and are not true estimates of the toxicity expected.

# 41

5.1.2.2 Mammals

No LOC exceeda nce s were found from one application. Using the conservative assumption of weekly applications did produce an LOC (0.5) exceeda nce for non

- listed medium mammals feeding on short grass and a listed

- species LOC (0.1) exceeda nce for the other two size classes i n that feeding group. Also medium mammals feeding on tall grass and broadleaf plants had listed

- species LOC exceeda nce s.

Table 5

. 6

. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute and Chronic Mammalian Dose

- and Dietary

- Based Ris k Quotients for Agricultural and Non

- Agricultural Outdoor Uses

.

Dietary Item Mammalian RQs

Acute Dose

- based Size Classes Chronic Dose

- based Size Classes Chronic Dietary

based 15 g 35 g 1000 g 15 g 35 g 1000 g

Adjusted LD 50 

## = 989
mg a.e./kg

- bw Adjusted

LD 50 

## = 800
mg a.e./kg

- bw Adjusted

LD 50 

## = 346
mg a.e./kg

- bw Adjusted

NOAEL = 161 mg a.e./kg

bw Adjusted

NOAEL = 130 mg a.e./kg

bw Adjusted

NOAEL = 56.4 mg a.e./kg

bw NOAEC =

249 mg a.e./kg

diet
Application Rate of 0.0625 lb a.e./A x 1 application 

## Short grass 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.05 0.02 Tall grass 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.04 <0.01 0.02 0.01 Broadleaf plants 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.05 <0.01 0.03 0.01 Fruits/pods <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Arthropods 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.01 Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Application Rate of 0.0625 lb a.e./A x 52 applications (7

- day interval) 

## Short grass 0.13 0.77 0.11 0.66 0.06 0.35 0.13 Tall grass 0.06 0.35 0.05 0.30 0.03 0.16 0.06 Broadleaf plants 0.07 0.43 0.06 0.37 0.03 0.20 0.07 Fruits/pods 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.04 <0.01 0.02 0.01 Arthropods 0.05 0.30 0.04 0.26 0.02 0.14 0.05 Seeds <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01

Bolded values exceed the LOC for non

- listed species of 0.5 for acute risk or 1.0 for chronic risk.
Shaded values exceed the LOC for listed species of 0.1 for acute risk or 1.0 for chronic risk.



# The higher granular application for drainage systems, fencerows, etc. was calculated to be 13.6 g a.e./sq. ft. (see Table 5.7 ). When compared to the mammalian oral dosing toxicity endpoint, this application rate showed that up to 919 times the LD 50 

# may be present per sq. ft. for small mammals and up to 487 and 39.4 times the respective LD 50 

# for medium and large mammals.

# 42

Table 5

. 7

. Amount of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts in the Immediate Application Area from Granular Broadcast Applications Expressed as Mammalian LD 50 

## per Square Foot from TREX Calculations.

Mammalian Weight class (grams) Mammalian LD 50 

## /ft 2



## 15 919 35 487
1000 39.4



# 5.1.2.3 Terrestrial Invertebrates The RQ based on honey bee acute contact toxicity did not exceed the pollinator LOC (0.4) at the maximum broadcast spray rate ( Table 5.8 ). However, boric acid and sodium borate salts ar e registered insecticides and a caricides and so terrestrial invertebrates in the immediate application area would be assumed to be at risk. Additionally, contact toxicity data may have underestimated the risk since boric acid is known to be a stomach poison

.

Table 5

. 8

. Adult Honey Bee Contact Risk Quotient from Maximum Ground Spray Application of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts for Agricultural Uses

.

Use Application Rate EEC RQ 1



## Ornamentals, Soybeans and Other Uses 0.0625 lb a.e./A 0.169 μg a.e./bee <0.01

1 

### Based on contact LD 50 

### of 363 μg a.e./bee (MRID 40269201).


# No toxicity data are available for calculation of chronic RQs for adult bees or for acute or chronic RQs for bee larvae. Therefore, there is uncertainty regarding the potential acute and chronic effects of boric acid and sodium borate salts on honey bee la rvae as well as potential for chronic effects on adult bees and, likewise, other terrestrial invertebrates. While boric acid and sodium borate salts are not known to be systemic, residues from sub

- lethal concentrations of spray drift on plants may be prese nt in pollen and/or nectar and represent a route of exposure for bees through both contact and ingestion. Therefore, additional data on pollinators is needed to fully characterize the risk associated with boric acid and sodium borate salts use to all deve lopmental stages of honey bees, as sensitivity may vary according to life

- stage and length of exposure (adult vs. larval and acute vs. chronic, respectively). These data are required under the Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees (USEPA et al., 2 014).

5.1.2.4 Terrestrial Plants

No LOC exceed a nces were calculated for terrestrial plants ( Table 5.9 ).

# 43

Table 5

. 9

. Terrestrial Plant Risk Quotients from Maximum Ground Spray Application of 0.0625 lb a.e./A to Ornamentals, Soybeans and Other Uses.

Type of Plant Type of Exposure Dry Areas Semi

- Aquatic Areas Spray Drift Only

Monocot Non

- listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dicot Non

- listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Bolded RQ values exceed the LOC of 1.0.



# 5.2 Risk Characterization

Risk characterization considers the weight of evidence to determine the potential for any of the boric acid and sodium borate salts labeled uses to result in unacceptable adverse effects. The weight of evidence in this risk assessment included the risk estimates, information on natural background levels and other non

- pesticidal sources of boron to the environment, any incidents associated with uses and information on environments already at risk such as TMDL sites.

5.2.1 Incidents

Reviews of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS, version 2.1.1 , USEPA, 2009c ), Incident Data System (IDS), and the Avian Monitoring Information System (AIMS) for ecological incidents involving boric acids and associated salts were completed on July 7, 2015. Queries were done using PC Codes 011001, 011002, 011102, 011103, 011104, 011107, 011110, 011111 and 011112 for the EIIS and IDS databases and for the names boric, borate and boron for the AIMS database. Output summary tables and spreadsheets are found in Appendix K

. The AIMS database query did not yield any bird incidents, bu t the other two did return some ecological incidents; mostly plant incidents except for one desert tortoise ingestion incidents. Note that a lack of reported incidents does not imply that no incidents occurred.

Table 5

. 10

. Summary of incidents reported in the EIIS Database from use of boric acid and sodium borate salts.
Type of Incident/Species Affected PC Code

Implicated EIIS Database 1



## Certainty/ Legality Incident

ID Number Notes Non

- Plant: Desert tortoise 011102 Highly Probable/ Unknown I022156

- 001 In California in 2010 a tortoise was killed by ingesting borax. Plant: Unknown woody plant 011110 Possible/ Unknown I018719

- 006 In Ohio in 2007 five plants were damaged by equipment rinse from home exterior use. Unknown shrub 011110 Probable/ Accidental Misuse I008688

- 008 In 1998 an unknown number of shrubs were damaged from accidental spill from a swimming pool use.

1 

### Queried July 7, 2015.

# 44

Of the 3 incidents reported in the EIIS database ( Table 5.10 ), two involved damage to plants and one involved mortality to a desert t ortoise from ingesting borax. None were known to be from registered uses, one was from a spill, one from equipment rinsing and the one involving the tortoise was highly probable (see Table 5.11 ). In the tortoise incident, the tortoise was found dead. High levels of boron residues were detected in its liver and it had large q uantities of boron in its gut. The cause of death was attributed to poisoning from the ingestion of borax but the source of the borax or its legality of use was unknown. It does, however, add support to the line of evidence that if terrestrial vertebrates can be exposed to toxic levels of boric acid and sodium borate salts

.

Table 5

. 11

. The certainty index in EIIS was based on the following.
Certainty Index Criteria

Highly probable Pesticide was confirmed as the cause through residue analysis or other reliable evidence, or the

circumstances of the incident along with knowledge of the pesticide's toxicity or history of previous incidents give strong support that this pesticide was the cause.

Probable Circumstances of the incident and properties of the pesticide indicate that this pesticide was the

cause, but confirming evidence is lacking.

Possible The pesticide possibly could have caused the incident, but there are possible explanations that

are at least as plausible. Often used when organisms were exposed to more than one pesticide. Unlikely Evidence exists that a stressor other than exposure to this pesticide caused the incident, but that

evidence is not conclusive.

Unrelated Conclusive evidence exists that a stressor other than exposure to the given pesticide caused the

incident.



# Of the 1390 incidents reported in the Aggregate database between 1990 and present, only 4 of these (0.3%) were plant incidents ( Table s 5.12 ); all others were either domestic animal or human incidents.

Table 5

. 12

. Ecologi cal and domestic animal incidents associated with boric acid and sodium borate salts , according to the Aggregate Database. 1



## Exposure Severity Code Description Number of Incidents

DA Domestic Animal

- Fatality 26

DB Domestic Animal

- Major 14
DC Domestic Animal

- Moderate 63
DCDE Domestic Animal

- Moderate, Minor and Unknown 665

DD Domestic Animal

- Minor 131

DE Domestic Animal

- Unspecified 5
ONT Other Nontarget 0

PB Plant Damage

- Minor 4

WB Wildlife

- Minor 0

1 

### Queried July 7, 2015 (1990

- present).


# Of the 806 incidents that did not involve another active ingredient, the animal and plant incidents were further subtotaled by PC Code and product ( Tables 5.13 and 5.14 ). Of the 802 domestic animal incidents, 567 were linked with sodium t etraborate decahydrate products (PC

# 45

Code 011102). Many, perhaps most, of the domestic animal incidents appear to be from consumption of baits and traps, though it was not quantifiable from the available information. For example, 269 of the 802 incidents were attributed to an unspecified type of Terro Ant Killer product. Based on the tally of available domestic animal incidents, it is not possible to determine if the incidents are the result of indoor or outdoor uses. The incidents associated with any

ou tdoor use are more relevant to the ecological risk assessment for these chemicals. The line of evidence, however, does suggest that animals may be attracted and exposed to baits and traps if used outdoors.

Of the four plant incidents, all were associated with a swimming pool algicide ( Table 5.14 ). This is consistent with findings from the EIIS database above, where one of the two plant damage incidents was also attributed to the swimming pool use.

Table 5

. 13

. Detail Showing Animal Incidents by PC Code and Product from the Aggregate Database Query.

PC Code Product Name Number of Animal Incidents Subtotal by

PC Code

0 11001 ADVANCE LIQUID ANT BAIT 

## 1 215

BORIC ACID POWDER 

## 5

DRAX ANT KILL GEL 

## 2

ENFORCER ROACH RIDD 

## 48

GREENLIGHT SNAIL & SLUG BAIT 

## 1

HOT SHOT POWDER 

## 58

HOT SHOT ANT BAIT 

## 3

HOT SHOT ANT GEL 

## 4

HOT SHOT UNSPECIFIED 

## 5
INTERRUPT CARPET POWDER (DISCONTINUED) 

## 2

MOTHER EARTH GRANULAR SCATTER BAIT 

## 19

ORTHO ANT

- STOP ANT KILLER DUST/POWDER 

## 7
PRESCRIPTION PERMA

- DUST PRESSURIZED BORIC ACID DUST 

## 1

PRO BORADUST INSECTICIDE DUST (CANADA 19480) 

## 1

REDZONE BAIT 

## 1

SPECTRACIDE PRO 99% BORIC ACID DUST 

## 2

TERRO INSECT/ANT BAIT 

## 42

VERTAGREEN BORIC ACID INSECTICIDE POWDER 

## 13 0 11102 388B ANT GEL BAIT 

## 4 567

AMDRO KILLS ANTS ANT KILLER/BAIT 

## 7

ANT

- B

- GON MAX ANT KILLER LIQUID (ORTHO) (CANADA) 

## 1

BORAX 

## 3

GRANT'S KILLS ANTS ANT KILLER 

## 2
HOME DEFENSE MAX ANT TRAPS (ORTHO) (CANADA) 

## 2

PCPA 23372 

## 1

PRESCRIPTION 388B ADVANCE ANT GEL BAIT 

## 3
RAID LIQUID ANT KILLER TRIGGER SPRAY CANADA ONLY 

## 49

TERRO ANT KILLER UNSPECIFIED 

## 269
TERRO ANT KILLER II LIQUID ANT BAITS 

## 200
TERRO OUTDOOR LIQUID ANT BAIT STAKES 

## 6

# 46

PC Code Product Name Number of Animal Incidents Subtotal by

PC Code

TERRO OUTDOOR LIQUID ANT BAITS 

## 20 0 11103 CELLUTREAT DOT WOOD PRESERVATIVE 

## 1 13

COMBAT LIQUID ANT BAIT 4 PACK .75 OZ 

## 2
NATURE'S GUARDIAN NATURAL FLEA AND TICK HOUSEHOLD SPRAY 

## 1

SPECTRACIDE TERMINATE TERMITE & CARPENTER ANT KILLING DUST 

## 6

TIM

- BOR INSECTICIDE 

## 3 0 11110 ENDURE 

## 1 1 011001, 011102 ENFORCER ANT BAITS II 

## 6 6

Total Animal Incidents 802



## Table 5

. 14

. Detail Showing Plant Incidents by PC Code and Product from the Aggregate Database Query.

PC Code Product Name Number of Plant Incidents

011110 BIOGUARD ALGAE OPTIMIZER PLUS 

## 4



# 5.2.2 Impaired Streams and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) There are streams in the U.S. with boron impairments, based on information from the EPA Office of Water and the State of California. Based on the EPA Office of Water (OW) website, there are 54 streams (64 with tributaries) in the U.S. with boron impairments and associated TMDLs. Of these streams, 46 are located in the western U.S. (CA, NV, UT, AZ) and 8 are located in the Midwest (IL and KS) 8 

# . According to the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board comment on TMDLs in Gowda et al., 9/13/2012 9 

# , there were 31 water bodies in California that were impaired due to high concentrations of boron. The 2008

- 2010 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) l ist for California 10 

# contains 15 stream segments in the Central Valley, 11 segments in the Central Coast region, 4 segments in the Los Angeles region, and 1 segment in the Lahontan region that exceed water quality standards for boron. Four of the total 31 water bodies impaired for boron statewide currently have a TMDL in place.

Boron impairments can occur from a variety of sources, and are associated with natural sources and human activity. These known natural sources include groundwater, atmospheric de position, and minerals, and the known man

- made sources include irrigation, oil and gas, mining, and municipal exposure through WWTPs and runoff. There are also many unknown sources of causes for boron impairment in various watersheds. However, no impairm ents have been conclusively tied to any pesticidal uses at this time.

8 

## http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_impaired_waters.control?p_cause_name=BORON (accessed on 6/4/15)

9 

## Gowda et al, September 13, 2012, DP Barcode D40 4927, TMDL comment from State of California

10 

## http://www. waterboards.ca. gov/water issues/programs/tmdl/integrated201 0 .shtml , state

- specific database

# 47

The existing TMDLs range from 0.75 ug/L to 2,000 mg/L, and almost all TMDLs in the Office of Water database are 750 ug/L. The National Ambient Water Quality Criteria for boron is 750 μg /L for long

- term irrigation 11 

# . Some of the reasons for a lower value may be that some states have more stringent criteria than the National recommended value. The states of Minnesota and Illinois, are in the process of revising or developing water qualit y criteria for protection of aquatic life (USEPA, 2010a). There is another TMDL of 5,000 μg/L in the Office of Water database for livestock watering.

5.2.3 Agricultural Use Risk Characterization

5.2.3.1 Aquatic Risk Discussion For aquatic biota, the calculated peak EEC s of 0.0041 mg a.e./L for one application up to 0.213 mg a.e./L for weekly applications at the maximum application rate for ornamentals, soybeans and other crips, did not produce LOC exceeda nce s. This is also consistent with much higher water quality crit eria. EPA’s Office of Water only has a national ambient water quality criterion for long

- term irrigation, which is 750 μg/L (4.3 mg a.e./L; U.S. EPA, 1986). Canada has two water quality criteria of 1.2 mg B/L (6.9 mg a.e./L) for aquatic life and 5.0 mg B /L (28.6 mg a.e./L) for wildlife and livestock watering (Moss and Nagpal, 2003). These range from three times as high to an order of magnitude higher than the conservative estimate assuming weekly applications.

However, there are registered algicidal use s for swimming pools and other contained systems that are part of the uses overseen by AD. Clearly, algae would be at risk if the application rates were at those levels, but the pesticidal application rates subject to runoff and
spray drift did not cause LOC exceeda nces and so algae in natural ecosystems would not be presumed to be at risk. Incident data (see Section 5.2.1 above) did not produce any fish kills or other incidents involving aquatic biota.

5.2.3.2 Terrestrial Risk Discussion For terrestrial organisms, application rates assessed only produced LOC exceeda nce s when the most conservative assumptions were used for flowable uses. However, for granular uses, this was not the case

– the application rate modeled was simply the maximum rate. Clearly effects may result for most taxa in the immediate application a rea.
For avian risk from runoff and spray drift, only the most conservative estimate of weekly applications exceeded the listed species LOC for one size class/feeding group (small birds feeding on short grass) using oral dosing data. The toxicity endpo ints used were non

- definitive, greater

- than values due to no toxicity in the highest treatment and were upper

- bound estimates only. A dietary toxicity study using a small passerine (the canary) did not have effects at a high dietary rate than is typically tested, of 11,000 mg a.e./kg

- diet. So, the evidence of risk is unclear, but likely low for flowable uses.

For mammalian risk from run off and spray drift, LOC exceeda nces were seen in all size classes feeding on short grass and medium

- sized mammals fee ding on other types of plants,

11 

## http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed 6/23/2015.

# 48

though only one size/feeding class had a non

- listed LOC exceeda nce (RQ of 0.77) and this is using the conservative assumption of weekly applications. So, the implication is that effects may be possible but the evidence for r isk is not strong, applying only to weekly applications, but especially applicable to medium

- sized mammals feeding on short grass.

For more localized granular applications, the higher application rate resulted in a potential (though this is an upper

- bound estimate due to a non

- definitive endpoint) for an amount between 6 and 581 times the avian LD 50 

# to be in one square foot of the treated area. For mammals, this is a more realistic estimate since the LD 50 

# was definitive. For mammals, this granular applic ation rate would result in 29 to 919 times the LD 50 

# per square foot. This clearly shows that mammals in the immediate treatment area could be exposed to toxic amounts of boric acid; however, information was not available for calculating toxicity based on number of granules consumed.

Risk from inhalation or drinking water exposure was not scree n ed using SIP and STIR models when the problem formulation was written since those models had not yet been released. A check using the models showed that inhalati on would not be expected to be an important exposure route, but that drinking water could, due to the high solubility of boric acid (55600 mg/L, see Table 3

. 2 ).

The potential for toxicity from exposure in the immediate treatment area was substantiated by 806 domestic animal incidents (though whether these were from indoor outdoor uses was unclear), resulting largely from consumption of insect baits a nd traps and one incident where a desert tortoise was killed by ingesting borax. The exposure of wildlife, especially mammalian, may depend largely on whether animals will ingest the granules or contents of bait stations or traps. The incident reports su ggest that animals may ingest them. Ingestion of granules may be incidental when granules fall on food items. The risk from bait station and trap ingestion may be reduced by label language specifying careful placement and elimination, reduction or replac ement of attractants to more selectively attract target organisms.

Risk to terrestrial invertebrates is more assumed than confirmed, partly due to lack of pollinator toxicity data. No toxicity data are available for calculation of acute oral or chronic R Qs for adult bees or for acute or chronic RQs for bee larvae. Therefore, there is uncertainty regarding the potential acute and chronic effects of boric acid and sodium borate salts on adult and larval honey bees. While boric acid is not a systemic compou nd, residues from sub

- lethal concentrations of spray drift on plants may be present in pollen and/or nectar and represent a route of exposure for bees through both contact and ingestion. Therefore, additional data on pollinators is needed to fully characte rize the risk associated with boric acid use to all developmental stages of honey bees, as sensitivity may vary according to life

- stage and length of exposure (adult vs. larval and acute vs. chronic, respectively). These data are required under the Guidanc e for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees (USEPA et al., 2014). The Agency expects to publish additional guidance on addressing gaps in bee toxicity data for pesticides that have undergone Registration Review in the near future. No incidents associated with boric acid involving terrestrial invertebrates, such as bee kills, have been reported to the Agency. However, since boric acid and sodium borate salts ar e registered insecticides and a caricides terrestrial invertebrates in the immediate application area are assumed to be at risk.

# 49

For terrestrial plants, the maximum single application rate did not cause LOC exceeda nce s from runoff and spray drift

. As previously mentioned, when used as an algicide, boric acid and sodium borate salts act by causing desiccation or interruption of photosynthesis. Some trees are reportedly sensitive to boron toxicity, at levels of 0.5 to 1 ppm in the soil. Symptoms of boron toxicity can occur in older leaves and resemble symptoms of high salinity or of iron or mangane se deficiencies (Kratsch, 2004). Since woody plants are not represented in the terrestrial plant toxicity tests, this is an uncertainty. Therefore, sensitive plants in the immediate application area may be affected. Incident reports helped substantiate that plant damage may occur if plants come in direct contact with products, though these were mostly from swimming pool algicides, rather than broadcast uses.

5.2.4 Antimicrobial Use s Risk Characterization

5.2.4.1 Recirculating Cooling Water System Use and Any Use Not L isted on the Label There are manufacturing use products (EPA Reg. #1624

- 117 and 19713

- 604) with directions for use in formulating end

- use products for use in water processing systems, recirculating cooling water systems and one label (EPA Reg #19713

- 604) includes a statement for manufacture of end

- use products with “any specific use(s) not listed on the label”. The boric acid manufacturing use product label (EPA Reg #1624

- 117) also includes formulation of bacteriostatic products for use in/on absorbent ma terials for inhibiting the growth of bacteria which causes odor, i.e. kitty litter, for which there are currently no active end

- use products. There are also no active end

- use product registrations with the active ingredients in these products for the wate r processing systems or recirculating cooling water systems use patterns. There are no active end

- use products for these active ingredient with uses other than those specified on the labels. These manufacturing use product labels do not provide applicati on rates for the specific listed uses nor for specific uses(s) not on the label. Formulators and repackagers of this product into end

- use products are instructed that they are responsible for obtaining their own registrations for the specific listed uses and any specific use(s) not listed on the label. As there are no end

- use products for the water processing systems use; the recirculating cooling water system use; the bacteriostatic use for absorbent materials; or for any use not specifically listed on t he label, there are currently no environmental exposures or risks from such uses. If a request for an end

- use product with the recirculating cooling water system use or any other use is submitted to the Agency a hazard assessment and risk assessment, as n eeded, woul d be performed at that time.

5.2.4.2 Recreational Water Biocide Use (Swimming Pools and Spas and Hot Tubs) The primary loss of boron from a swimming pool, spa, or hot tub will be due to a substantial amount of water being removed from these due to dr aining of the system, splash

- out, backwashing , or dilution from heavy rains. Evaporation of water will concentrate boron in these systems as boron as aqueous boric acid and borate ion s will not degrade further. Therefore labels that set repeat applicatio ns and amount of product to be applied based on free chlorine residual or cyanuric acid residual levels, or disappearance of the number of tablets in a feeder or skimmer will potentially result in boron building up in these waters over time. The Agency ha s determined that there are conditions under which discharge of effluent from swimming pools, and hot tubs and spas treated with disodium tetraborate pentahydrate will pose risks of concern to aquatic organisms. These conditions consist of discharge of ef fluent to storm drains (which no

# 50

label prohibits), or discharge to wetlands, or surface waters which not all labels prohibit. Additionally, discharge of pool effluent to the landscape may pose risks of concern to terrestrial plants from boron. The incide nt reports include impacts to plants from swimming pool effluent.

While not all labels for the swimming pool, and spa and hot tub uses are written in a manner where the maximum boron concentration can be determined based on label application instructions, those labels with the highest initial and maintenance application rates provide maintenance limits of 30

– 50 ppm boron. This concentration level exceeds the most sensitive NOAEC and IC 50 

# endpoint values for algae/cyanobacteria (1.6 ppm and 14.2 ppm, res pectively), which given its use as an algaecide in pools is not unexpected, but it also exceeds the most sensitive NOAEC and IC 50 

# values for aquatic vascular plants (11 and 28.5 ppm boron, respectively), the most sensitive NOAEC and IC 50 

# endpoints for fres hwater invertebrates (1.6 and 45.5 ppm boron, respectively) and marine/estuarine invertebrates (<14 ppm boron, and 14 ppm boron, respectively), the most sensitive NOAEC endpoint for freshwater fish (7.3 ppm boron). The 30

– 50 ppm boron concentration also exceeds the National Ambient Water Quality Criterion of 0.75 ppm boron, set for irrigation water, indicating that release of such waters to the landscape has the potential to directly impact terrestrial plants.

Discharge of swimming pool and spa and hot tub effluent to the sewer system is not expected to result in upsets of wastewater treatment facilities or unacceptable adverse effects to aquatic and terrestrial organisms due to the relatively very low use compared to other boron inputs, diffused over a large area. From the Kline 2009 market survey, the predominant algaecides used for recreational waters are the quarternary ammonium (quat) compounds . All “other” algaecides used for recreational water (pool, spa and hot tub) are estimated to comprise le ss than 0.625 million pounds annually. Conservatively setting the annual amount of boron used for recreational waters equal to this combined 0.625 million pounds and conservatively assuming that all swimming pool and spa and hot tub effluent is discharged to the sewer system the amount of boron added to other down

- the

- drain domestic municipal sources of boron (e.g., soaps and detergents, foodstuffs, lotions and other personal care products, water softeners ) would comprise far less than 0.7% of the total bo ron municipal load. The predominant input to most municipal sewage systems is expected to be from washing agents; the annual amount of boron used domestically in detergents and soap is on the order of 85 million pounds annually based on extrapolation of U SGS percent consumption and historic consumption levels (see Section 2.3.2.3, Appendices B and D ). With an activated sludge respiration inhibition (ASRI) median inhibition concentration (IC 50 

# ) of >1,000 mg B/L, effluent from treated swimming pools and spa s and hot tubs, which would contain at most around 50 mg B/L, would not impact the functioning of wastewater treatment facilities.

Label language issues for the swimming pool and spa and hot tub use that would reduce risks include the following considerat ions. Labels do not prohibit the discharge of effluent (treated water) from swimming pools, or spa and hot tubs to storm drains, roads, or to the landscape . Not all labels have language requiring a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or notification of the permit authority prior to discharge of effluent from swimming pools, and spas and hot tubs into lakes, streams, ponds, estuaries, oceans or other waters. Additionally, not all labels require notification of the local sewage t reatment plant authority prior to discharge of swimming pool, or spa and hot tub effluent to the sewer system. Not all labels state the maximum amount of boron to be maintained or if they do make a

# 51

statement the type of testing required is not specified o n the label. This requires testing which some labels recommend be performed at least once a month. A number of labels recommend taking the water to a dealer to have the water tested, others specifically state the type of testing to perform, and some make no mention of the appropriate type of testing to perform. The label should specifically state the compound to be tested and a limit, for it to be an enforceable value. Uses where boron concentration greater than 0.75 ppm boron can occur in pool water ba sed on application instructions should prohibit discharge to the landscape and require discharge solely to the sewer system.

5.2.4.3 Wood Preservative Uses The wood preservative use is the predominant pesticidal use for boric acid and the sodium borate salts but this use constitutes less than 1% of borates consumed annually. The agency believes that the only potential risks of concern for the wood preservative use are associated with the post

- treatment storage of treated wood.

Based on information provided by the wood preservation industry

, over half of the amount consumed for wood preservation consists of industrial applications to wood and engineered wood products for framing and sills. The largest environmental exposure in this case is expected to occur at the industrial facilities from effluent discharge and loss to soils from leaching and run

- off from treated lumber during post

- treatment storage. Except for a few labels

, there is no requirement for treated wood to be stored under cover or under condition s that would prevent leaching and run

- off from rain events during storage. The effluent discharge route is not expected to result in unacceptable adverse effects because industrial point sources that discharge effluent into surface waters are subject to N PDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permitting process via the EPA's Office of Water. Label statements for these use patterns require users or dischargers to contact the EPA or appropriate state agencies before discharging effluent into surface waters. There is a national ambient water quality criterion for boron in surface waters which permit writers can use to set effluent limits. Additionally, there is information available on the toxicity of boric acid to activated sludge organisms which can be used to ensure upsets of treatment facilities do not occur from boron loads. Once incorporated into the building frame where they are relatively protected from moisture, borate

- treated lumber is not expected to result in any detectable change in environmental background levels.

The second highest wood preservative use is for treatment of rail road ties. These can be treated at industrial sites or treated in situ . Industry has indicated it is industry practice to apply creosote or copper naphthenate over borate treatment, both creosote and naphthenate are relatively insoluble in water. The same conditions and conclusions discussed above about industrial applications and environmental discharges apply for the rail road tie treatments. The AWPA retention for railroad ties is 0.25 pounds as DOT per cubic foot (0.052 pounds as B per cubic foot). While the rail road tie use pattern requires a high application rate, the amount used annually is about 1% of that a pplied as fertilizer annually. Given the low toxicity of boric acid and the sodium borate salts, exposure of wildlife to rail road ties is not considered to be either an acute or chronic concern.

The third highest wood preservative use is for in situ treatment and remedial treatment of structures. This includes treatment on the interior of structures and exterior. Exterior

# 52

applications require use of waterproof wrapping between the treated area and the surrounding soil which will reduce leaching to surrounding soils, and the interio r use is expected to result in little to no wildlife exposure

. W hile there is potential for some of the boron from the exterior treatments to leach to the environment, these will be localized small areas and compared to the amounts applied as fertilizer t o soils the pounds used annually are relatively small ( approx. 1% ).

5.2.4.4 Other Material Preservative Uses

The in

- can/in

- container material preservative use of boric acid in interior/exterior paints, stains, and coatings for surfaces; inks and dyes; and in coat ings for manufacturing gypsum board and gypsum board paper are new uses added since the 1993 RED. The material preservative use for polystyrene (plastic) for insulation was added in March of 2000. The material preservative use for indoor/exterior paint, stain, and coating for surfaces, inks and dyes, and coatings for manufacturing gypsum board and gypsum board paper were added in March of 2010.

Use of boric acid as a material preservative for interior/exterior paints, stains, coatings, dye, ink, and po lystyrene is not expected to result in unacceptable adverse effects to aquatic or terrestrial organisms. These end

- use products are used solely a t manufacturing facilities where they are mixed into these materials . A ll end

- use product labels require any discharge to wastewater containing the product to notify and obtain appropriate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). There is a national ambient water quality criterion for boron which permit writers can use for setting a boron limit a t these facilities, if required. The limit is for protection of irrigating crops, but is lower than the most sensitive aquatic life endpoints. In

service use of these preserved materials is also not expected to result in unacceptable adverse effects to a quatic or terrestrial organisms due to the relatively low content of boron in these materials, the relatively low loading to the environment compared to other uses of boric acid and borates (a portion would actually result in little to no release to the en vironment for the life of the material

— e.g., interior paints, stains and coatings, polystyrene insulation), the large dispersed area over which the preserved materials would enter into commerce. For example, from the Kline 200 4 market survey neither boric acid nor the sodium borate salts are listed as common biocides for preserving paints and stains. All “other” non

- common preservatives combined for use in paints and stains was estimated to comprise 0.46 million pounds annually in 2004 with potential to i ncrease to 0.587 million pounds by 2009. This would mean significantly less than 0.103 million pounds as boron is dispersed annually across the United States for this use. If all the boron was conservatively assumed to leach out of the paint annually and run

- off to water it would constitute <0.3% of the input to surface waters from th e detergents and soaps use (see Section 2.3.2.3, Appendices B and D ). The amount used for all the other material preservative uses is likewise low relative to nonbiocidal us es with releases to the environment, and to other biocidal use patterns (e.g., wood preservative).

5.2.5 Key Uncertainties and Assumptions For the assessment of risk from the swimming pool and the spa and hot tub uses, the agency assumed that the highest concentration of boron in water would be 50 ppm. This rate was based on the maximum limit listed on labels with close to 100% active ingred ient which als o contain monitoring and boron limit level s

. There are a number of labels which specify much smaller quantities of boron, also allow multiple applications, but have no monitoring requirements or limits for boron content of the treated recrea tional waters. Many of these labels

# 53

have monitoring and limits on the label but they are for sanitizers that are coactive ingredients with boron. Information about recreational water maintenance practices and product use patterns would reduce this uncert ainty.

5.2.6 Risk Conclusions

5.2.6.1 Agricultural and Non

- Agricultural Outdoor Use Patterns

Taxonomic groups with evidence of risk from registered uses of boric acid and sodium borate salts were:

 terrestrial invertebrates (risk is assumed based on the insecticidal uses of the chemicals), and

 birds and mammals (acute risk), primarily from the granular formulations and baits (though the evidence of risk for birds is uncertain due to non

- definitive endpoints)..

Taxonomic groups that had predominant evidence of negligi ble risk from registered uses of boric acid and sodium borate salts were:

 aquatic vertebrates,

 aquatic invertebrates,

 aquatic plants, and

 terrestrial plants.

5.2.6.2 Antimicrobial Use Patterns

Potential direct risk s exist for the fo llowing taxonomic groups from the swimming pool and spa and hot tub boron uses, if treated water is not disposed of properly:

 Aquatic vertebrates;

 Aquatic invertebrates;

 Aquatic plants; and

 Terrestrial plants.

Potential indirect effects to terrestrial animals (birds, mammals, amphibians, beneficial insects) may result from the direct loss of food resources or habitat.

Potential risks exist for the following taxonomic groups from the wood preservative use, if treated wood at industrial wood preservative treatment facilities are not properly protected from rain during storage before final use:

 Aquatic vertebrates;

 Aquatic invertebrates; and

 Aquatic plants.

# 54



# 6 Listed Species of Concern

Consistent with EPA’s responsibility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Agency will eva luate risks to federally listed threatened and endangered (listed) species from registered uses of pesticides in accordance with the Joint Interim Approaches developed to implement the recommendations of the April 2013 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) re port, Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides . The NAS report 12 

# outlines recommendations on specific scientific and technical issues related to the development of pesticide risk assessments that EPA and the Services must conduct in connection with their obligations under the ESA and FIFRA. EPA will address concerns specific to boric acid and sodium borate salts in connection with the development of its final registration review decision for boric acid and sodium borate salts

.

I n November 2013, EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries (the Services), and USDA released a white paper containing a summary of their joint Interim Approaches for assessing risks to listed species from pesticides. These Interim Approaches were developed jointly by the agencies in response to the NAS recommendations, and reflect a common approach to risk assessment shared by the agencies as a way of addressing scientific differences between the EPA and the Services. Details of the joint Interim Approaches are contained in the November 1, 2013 white paper 13



# , Interim Approaches for National

- Level Pesticide Endangered Species Act Assessments Based on the Recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences April 2013 Report

. Given that the agencies are continuing to develop and work toward implementation of the Interim Approaches to assess the potential risks of pesticides to listed species and their designated critical habitat, this ecological risk assessment supporting the r egistration review of boric acid and sodium borate salts does not describe the specific ESA analysis, including effects determinations for specific listed species or designated critical habitat, to be conducted during registration review. While the agencie s continue to develop a common method for ESA analysis, the risk assessment for the registration review of boric acid and sodium borate salts describes only the level of ESA analysis completed at this time. This assessment allows EPA to focus its future e valuations on the types of species where the potential for effects exists, once the scientific methods being developed by the agencies have been fully vetted. Once the agencies have fully developed and implemented the scientific methods necessary to comple te risk assessments for listed species and their designated critical habitats, these methods will be applied to subsequent analyses of boric acid and sodium borate salts as part of completing this registration review.

12 

## http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18344

13 

## http://www.epa.gov/espp/2013/nas.html

# Docket Number EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2009

- 0306

55 

# 7 References

Butterwick, L., N . De Oude, and K. Raymond. 1989. Safety Assessment of Boron in Aquatic and Terrestrial Environments. Ecotoxicology and Environmental safety 17: 339

- 371.

Fleischer, M. 1953. Recent Estimates of the Abundances of the Elements in the Earth’s Crust. U.S . Geological Survey, Geological Survey Circular 285. 14 pp. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1953/0285/report.pdf

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and ev aluation of the EPA food

- chain (Kenaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residues on plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13 (9):1383

- 1391.

Gowda, S., Jennings, P., and Bays, D. September 13, 2012. Responses to Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board's 60

- Day Public Comments on the Registration Review Preliminary Work Plan for PBSM. DP Barcode D404927.

Hoerger, F. and E.E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide residues on plants: Correlation of representative data as a basis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment. In F. Coulston and F. Korte, eds., Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Technology, Georg Thieme Publ, Stuttgart, West Germany, pp. 9

- 28.

Kopp, J.F. and R.C. Kroner. 1970. Trace elements in water of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Kratsch, H. 2012. Boron

- and Salt

- Tolerant Trees and Shrubs for Northern Nevada

– Special Publication from the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension, Reno, Nevada, April, 2012.

Lewis, M.A. and L.C. Valentine. 1981. Acute and chronic toxicities of boric acid to Daphnia magna Straus. Bull. Env. Contam. Toxicol., 27: 309

- 315.

Lindsay, W.L. 1979. Chemical E quilibria in Soils. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 449 pp.

Livingston, D.A. 1963. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 440

- G.

Maiera, K.J. and A.W. Knight. 1991. The toxicity of waterborne boron to Daphnia magna and Chironomus decorus and the effec t of water hardness and sulfate on boron toxicity, Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 20: 282

- 287.

Moss, S.A. and N.K. Nagpal. 2003. Ambient Water Quality Guidelines for Boron. Water Protection Section, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Canada. Available online at http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air

- land

-

# 56

water/water/ waterquality/waterqualityguidesobjs/approved

- wat

- qual

- guides/boron/boron

tech

- appnx.pdf

.
Nielsen, F.H. 2008. Is boron nutritionally relevant? Nutr Rev 66(4): 183

- 193.

Organisation for Economic Co

- operation and Development (OECD). 2004. Emission Sce nario Document on Water Treatment Chemicals. OECD Environmental Health and Safety Publications, Series on Emission Scenario Documents, Number 4. ENV/JM/MONO(2004)9. 76 pp.

Park, H. and W.H. Schlesinger. 2002. Global biogeochemical cycle of boron. Gl obal Biogeochemical Cycles 16(4):20

- 1

– 20

- 11.

Shacklette, H.T. and J. Boerngen. 1984. Element Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials of the Conterminous United States . United States Government Printing Office, U.S. Geological Survey Pro fessional Paper 1270. 63 pp. http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1270/pdf/PP1270_508.pdf

State of California. April 8, 2015. 2012 California Integrated Report Clean Water Act Sections 303(d) and 305 (b).

Troeh, F.R., and Thompson, L.M., 2005, Soils and soil fertility: Ames, IA, Blackwell Publishing, 498 p.

Turker, O.C., J. Vymazal and C. Ture. 2014. Constructed Wetlands for Boron Removal: A Review. Ecological Engineering. 64(2014) 350

- 359.

USEPA. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water. EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001. May 1, 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460. Available online at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm#altable

.

USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment . EPA/630/R

- 95/002F. Published in 63 FR 26846; May 14, 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washingto n, DC. April, 1998.

USEPA. 2004a. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Endangered and Threatened Species Effects Determinations. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C., January 23, 2004. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/consultation/ecorisk

- overview.pdf

.
USEPA. 2004b. Section 3 Registration Request for Proposed Use of Boric acid and its sodium salts on Wheat. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environm ental Fate and Effects Division. March 15, 2004. DP Barcodes: D284671, D284675, D284677, D284680, D274582, D274584, D274586, D274588, D294147.

# 57

USEPA. 2006. TERRPLANT v. 1.2.2 User’s Guide. Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Divis ion, Washington, D.C. December 26, 2006.

USEPA. 2008. Ecological Risk Assessment Addressing the Proposed Registration of Boric acid and its sodium salts for New Use on Rangeland . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environm ental Fate and Effects Division. December 17, 2008. DP Barcode: 348511.

USEPA. 2009a

. Dean, R. and W.P. Eckel, Registration Review

- Final Problem Formulation for the Ecological Risk Assessment of Boric Acid. Internal Memo to the Special Review and Rereg istration Division, dated May 4, 2009, DP Barcode: 359927.

USEPA. 2009b . ECOTOXicology Database, v. 4.0. Accessed on 14 November 2014. Available online at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/

.

USEPA. 2009c . Ecolog ical Incident Information System, v. 2.1. Accessed on 20 November 2014. Description online at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm

.

USEPA. 2009d

. Guidance for Selecting In put Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides , Version 2.1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, October 22, 2009. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm

USEPA. 2011. Evaluation Guidelines for Ecological Toxicity Data in th e Open Literature . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, May 9, 2011. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/policy_guidance/team_authors/endangered_s pecies_reregistration_workgroup/esa_evaluati on_open_literature.htm#memo

.

USEPA. 2013. Guidance on Modeling Offsite Deposition of Pesticides via Spray Drift for Ecological and Drinking Water Assessments . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effe cts Division, December 20, 2013.

USEPA. 2014a. BEAD Chemical Profile (BCP) for Registration Review: Propoxycarbazone sodium (122019). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Biological and Economic Analysis Division, October 22, 2014.

USEPA. 2014b. Boric acid and its sodium salts (122019) Label Use Report Package in Support of Registration Review. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Biological and Economic Analysis Division, September 10, 2014.

# 58

USEPA. 2014c. Boric acid and its sodium salts: Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Registration Review. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. December 4, 2014. DP Barcode: 423552.

USEPA. 2014d Impaired Waters, Cause of Impairment: Boron. Accessed June 4, 2015. http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_impaired_waters.control?p _cause_name=B ORON

USEPA, PMRA, and CDPR. 2014. Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees. Office of Pesticide Programs , USEPA, Washington D.C. Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Ottawa, ON, Canada. California Department of Pesticide Re gulation, Sacramento, CA. June 23, 2014.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2015. Boron Statistics and Information. Mineral Commodity Summaries: 2015. 2 p., accessed June 8, 2015 at htt p://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/boron/

USGS. 2014. Boron Statistics and Information. Mineral Commodity Summaries: 2014. 2 p., accessed June 8, 2015 at http://minerals. usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/boron/

USGS. 2013a. Boron statistics from 1975 through 2003; last modified September 15, 2005, in Kelly, T.D., and Matos, G.R., comps., Historical statistics for mineral and material commodities in the United States (201 3 version): U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 140, x p., accessed June 8, 2015 at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/historical

statistics/#boron

.
USGS. 2013b. Boron Statistics and Information. Mineral Commodity Summaries: 2013. 2 p., accessed June 8, 2015 at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/boron/

USGS. 2012. B oron Statistics and Information. Mineral Commodity Summaries: 2012. 2 p., accessed June 8, 2015 at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/boron/

USGS. 2011. Boron Statistic s and Information. Mineral Commodity Summaries: 2011. 2 p., accessed June 8, 2015 at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/boron/

USGS. 2010. Boron Statistics and Informat ion. Mineral Commodity Summaries: 2010. 2 p., accessed June 8, 2015 at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/boron/

USGS. 2009. Boron Statistics and Information. Mineral Commodity Summaries: 2009. 2 p., accessed June 8, 2015 at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/boron/

USGS. 2008. Boron Statistics and Information. Mineral Commodity Summaries: 2008. 2 p., accessed June 8, 2015 at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/boron/

# 59

USGS. 2007. Bo ron Statistics and Information. Mineral Commodity Summaries: 2007. 2 p., accessed June 8, 2015 at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/boron/

USGS. 2006. Boron Statistics and Information. Mineral Commodity Summaries: 2006. 2 p., accessed June 8, 2015 at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/boron/

USGS. 2005. Boron Statistics and Informati on. Mineral Commodity Summaries: 2005. 2 p., accessed June 8, 2015 at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/boron/

# 60



# Appendix A Risk Quadrant Figures and Tables

Risk quadrant figures and tables are a tool for use by EFED to better communicate with risk managers, who need to know which taxa have greater or lower risk and the certainty of the risk conclusions. The risk quadrant figure is extremely summarized to display the seve n assessed taxa in one of four quadrants, whichever quadrant represents the highest risk for the taxon. The risk quadrant table summarizes the rationales for the placement of the taxa in the figure, as succinctly as possible. A taxon is only discussed once in the table: in the quadrant matching its location in the figure.

For example, if there are chronic risks of concern to mammals and acute risks to mammals are not of concern, then the term “Mammals” appears in the upper

- right quadrant of the figure and the table. The table summarizes (under the “Mammals” heading) the chronic RQ range and any other salient lines of evidence for chronic risks of concern. In this example, the figure and table do not directly indicate low acute risks to mammals; it is implie d by the absence of discussion. Only the rationales for the location of the taxa in the figure are discussed in the table, with one exception: No Effect Determinations are summarized in the upper

- left quadrant of the table (not the figure).

The risk versu s certainty quadrants are represented as four color

- coded categories, as represented in the examples below. The left quadrants represent no risks of concern (i.e., no LOC exceeda nce s). The right quadrants represent a risk of concern (i.e., at least one LOC exceeda nce ). The upper quadrants represent higher certainty (i.e., a relatively complete data set and/or multiple lines of evidence support the risk conclusions). The lower quadrants represent lower certainty (i.e., a relatively limited data set and/or li nes of evidence are limited or conflicting).

While communication of risk is inherently subjective, use of subjective terminology or risk management values should be avoided. The intent of the risk quadrant figure is to simply display for the risk manager which taxa are of concern and the degree of confidence in the risk conclusions. The intent of the risk quadrant table is to simply explain the supporting evidence for the placement of taxa in the figure and serves essentially like a key to the figure. The table should not summarize all of the risk conclusions, just the conclusions that support the placement of taxa in the figure.

The risk quadrant figure and table are placed in an assessment’s Executive Summary, the risk transmittal memo, or may be used fo r formal or informal communications with risk managers. A key to the placement of taxa in the figure and graph is as follows:

# 61

Key to Four Color

- Coded Categories in Risk Quadrant Figures and Tables: Green: Greater Certainty of Negligible Risk Red: Greater Certainty of Risks of Concern

• No LOC exceeda nce with relatively complete data s et or risks have been mitiga ted

• High confidence in data

• 

## Fate and ecotox profiles clearly support lack of a risk

concern • Multiple line s of evidence predict effects will occur

• LOC exceeda nce s, fate, and ecotox icity profile should be considered

• Exposure is expected to occur based on fate profile and uses

• Probable or highly probable cause of incident(s)



## Yellow: Lower Certainty of Negligible Risk Orange: Lower Certainty of Risks of Concern

• No LOCs exceeded but other non

- compelling circumstances suggest that there may be issues

• Possible cause of incident(s)

• Missing endpoints, poorly spaced test concentrations, low confidence in data showing low toxicity

• An LOC exceeda nce is judged to not be of concern due to use pattern or other circumstances that limit exposure potential

• Low risk c alls based on extrapolated data • LOCs exceeded; however, lines of evidence predicting risk are either limited or conflicting

• Possible cause of incident(s)

• Chronic risk called for non

- persistent chemical

• Risk calls based on lack of data without other lines of evidence available

• Risk calls based on uncertain extrapolation methods or conflicting data

• Missing endpoints, poorly spaced test concent rations, low confidence in data

# 62



# Appendix B Boron Mineral Usage and Consumption

Reported domestic annual consumption of boron minerals, expressed as boric oxide equivalents (B 2 

## O 3 

## )) ranged from 252,926 to 416,116 metric tons (557.61 to 917.38 million pounds B 2 

## O 3 

## or 173.14 to 284.85 million pounds as B equivalents) from 1991 through 2003 (USGS 2013a). Information on the amount consumed annually from 2004 through 2014 has been withheld by the USGS (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013b, 2014; 2015) to avoid disclosing company proprietary data. According to the latest U.S. Geological Survey (2015) commodity summaries for boron, there are over 300 end uses for boron minerals. The relative annual boron mineral consumption annually by uses is summariz ed in Figure B1. For the past two decades over 75% of boron minerals (expressed as B2O3 equivalents) are typically consumed in five applications: the manufacture of glass; as components in soaps, detergents and bleaches; as fertilizers in agriculture; as a component in ceramic enamels, glazes, and frit; and as a fire retardant primarily with cellulosic insulation (USGS 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013a, b, 2014; 2015). The principal use of boron minerals has been in the production of g lass (borosilicate glass, insulation grade glass, textile

- grade glass fibers), comprising 50.9 to 80.0% of the annual reported consumption. Once incorporated into glass, the boron is relatively immobilized in terms of environmental exposure. Use in deter gents and bleaches ranks second representing 4.0 to 11.2% of the annual reported consumption. From 1991 to 2003, 13,800 to 38,500 metric tons (30.42 to 84.88 million lbs B 2 

## O 3 

## or 9.44 to 36.36 million pounds as B equivalents) were consumed annually for det ergents and bleaches. In soaps and detergents boron minerals are added to act as alkaline buffers, enzyme stabilizers, oxygen based bleaching agents, and water softeners . Agricultural use as a micronutrient in fertilizer is the third leading use of boron minerals ranging from 2.0% to 7.2% of the total reported consumption. The amount consumed annually for fertilizer ranged from 5,710 to 21,200 metric tons (12.59 to 46.74 million pounds B 2 

## O 3 

## or 3.9 to 14.51 million pounds as B equivalents) from 1991 to 20 03. Boron deficient crops occur primarily in the Atlantic coastal plains, the Great Lakes region, and the coastal Pacific Northwest. Annual consumption as fire retardants and as components in ceramic enamels, frits, and glazes ranged from <1.0 to 5.8% an d <1.0 to 5.2%, respectively. The remaining uses constitute 9.0 to 30.4% of the annual boron mineral consumption. These minor uses include the biocide uses as insecticides, wood preservatives, herbicides, and swimming pool water algicide treatment. Othe r minor uses include nuclear applications, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, toiletries, gypsum board, brake fluids, fuel additives, lubricants, metalworking fluids, adhesives, and water treatment chemicals to name a few.

# 63

Figure B1. The annual percent of boro n minerals consumed in the United States by end use from 1991 through 2011.

# 64



# Appendix C Environmental Background Levels of Boron

Boron occurs in nature, typically bound to oxygen, in the form of a number of closely related compounds, which differ chiefly in the water of hydration associated with the molecule and are not easily differentiated. Because of this, the following discussion refers to the group as "boron" or "the boron salts." Boric acid, borax, and boron

- containing salts are ubiquitous in the natural environment. Natural releases to soil and water occur from weathering of boron

- containing minerals, desorption from clays, and decomposition of boron

- containing organic matter (ATSDR 2010). The common range in soils is 2 to 100 ppm B (Lindsay 1979). Lin dsay (1979) provides 10 ppm B as an average background soil concentration. The U.S. Geological Survey’s (Shackelette and Boerngen 1984) estimate of the average background level in U.S. soil is higher at 33 ppm B. Eckel and Langley’s (1988) estimate of 26 ppm B as an average for U.S. soils is similar to the USGS estimate. Boron salts occur naturally in low concentrations in most unpolluted waterways. The average boron concentration in surface waters in the U.S. is about 0.1 mg/liter with higher averages in the western U.S. of 5 to 15 mg B/L (Butterwick et al. 1989). Surface waters in areas in California with boron

- rich ore deposits range from about 15 mg B/L in coastal drainage waters to 360 mg B/L in a lake (ATSDR 2010). Boron concentrations in seawate r average 4.5 mg/liter (Maier and Knight 1991). The largest flux component of the global geochemical boron cycle is the aerosolization of boron to the atmosphere from seawater, with an annual input of 1.44 Tg B per year, where Tg = 10 12 

## g (Park and Schles inger 2002). Other natural annual inputs to the air include volcanic emissions (0.017

- 0.022 Tg B/yr), soil dust (0.017

- 0.033 Tg B/yr), and plant aerosols (0.004 Tg B/yr) (Park and Schlesinger 2002). As an essential element for plants, boron is found in t he tissues, seeds and fruit of plants. Plant leaves contain about 25 to 100 ppm B (Troeh and Thompson 2005). Most of the naturally occurring boron is inorganic, but because it is an essential element for many organisms there is an organically

- bound compo nent. It is against this background of naturally occurring boron that judgments on the environmental fate and exposure of boron released from pesticidal uses must be made. Additionally, boron is an essential nutrient for plants, including aquatic plants, in small quantities. There is also evidence that it is an essential trace element for lower and higher order animals, including humans (Nielsen 2008; USEPA 2008). This means if the boron content in soil is too low plants may not thrive or if it is too l ow in water aquatic plants, fish, and invertebrates may not thrive.

# 65



# Appendix D Releases of Boron from Household Products and Manufacturing and Industrial Processing

Household Products

There are a number of anthropogenic sources of boron to effluent from househol d uses. A major anthropogenic input is soaps and detergents which was identified in Table X. Additionally there will be inputs to surface water via domestic waste from foodstuffs, cosmetics, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals (Hunt el al. 1991; Tjandraatmadja et al., 2008)

Manufacturing and Industrial Processing Releases to the Environment

The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Program 14 

# , which is a potential source of information on manufacturing and industrial releases of chemicals to the environmen t, has no information on release of boric acid and sodium borate salts. These chemicals are not required to be reported as part of the inventory program. The TRI program only contains information on the release of boron trichloride and boron trifluoride, both of which are classified as extremely hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), neither one is a pesticide. Boron releases to the environment are known to occur from the min ing of boron ore, from coal bed natural gas produced water, geothermal waste water, and in wastewater from coal

- burning power plants, copper smelters, and industries using boron compounds (ATSDR, 2010).

14 

## http://www2.epa.gov/toxics

- release

- inventory

- tri

- program/tri

- listed

- chemicals accessed June 10, 2015

# 66



# Appendix E Submitted Studies

Submitted Environmental Fate and Chemistry Studies

011102 Borax Acid Fate Bibliography

161

- 1 Hydrolysis
MRID Citation Reference

46955805 Kay, J. (2006) Public Data Waiver Request for the Submission of Hydrolysis, Photodegradation

in Water, Photodegradation on Soil, Anaerobic Soil Metabolism, Soil Field Dissipation, Long Term Field Dissipation Study, Confined Crop Rotation, and Accumulation in Fish: (Prev

- Am Ultra). Project Number: OA/200601. Unpublished study prepared by ORO Agri, Inc. 191 p.
161

- 2 Photodegrad ation

- water
MRID Citation Reference

46955805 Kay, J. (2006) Public Data Waiver Request for the Submission of Hydrolysis, Photodegradation

in Water, Photodegradation on Soil, Anaerobic Soil Metabolism, Soil Field Dissipation, Long Term Field Dissipation Study, Confined Crop Rotation, and Accumulation in Fish: (Prev

- Am Ultra). Project Number: OA/200601. Unpublished study prepared by ORO Agri, Inc. 191 p.
161

- 3 Photodegradation

- soil
MRID Citation Reference

46955805 Kay, J. (2006) Public Data Waiver Request for the Submission of Hydrolysis, Photodegradation

in Water, Photodegradation on Soil, Anaerobic Soil Metabolism, Soil Field Dissipation, Long Term Field Dissipation Study, Confined Crop Rotation, and Accumulation in Fish: (Prev

- Am Ultra). Project Number: OA/200601. Unpublished study prepared by ORO Agri, Inc. 191 p.

162

- 1 Aerobic soil metabolism
MRID Citation Reference

46986401 Pletscher, E. (2004) Determination of the Biological Elimination; Determination of the

Mi neralisation; Determination of Inhibition of Nitrification: (Prevam Ultra). Project Number: 435033. Unpublished study prepared by EMPA. 7 p.

162

- 2 Anaerobic soil metabolism
MRID Citation Reference

46955805 Kay, J. (2006) Public Data Waiver Request for the Submission of Hydrolysis, Photodegradation

in Water, Photodegradation on Soil, Anaerobic Soil Metabolism, Soil Field Dissipation, Long Term Field Dissipation Study, Confined Crop Rotation, and Accumulation in Fish: (Prev

- Am Ultra). Project Number: OA/200601. Unpublished study prepared by ORO Agri, Inc. 191 p.

164

- 1 Terrestrial field dissipation
MRID Citation Reference

# 67

46955805 Kay, J. (2006) Public Data Waiver Request for the Submission of Hydrolysis, Photodegradation

in Water, Photodegradation on Soil, Anaerobic Soil Metabolism, Soil Field Dissipation, Long Term Field Dissipation Study, Confined Crop Rotation, and Accumulation in Fish: (Prev

- Am Ultra). Project Number: OA/200601. Unpublished study prepared by ORO Agri, Inc. 191 p.

164

- 5 Long term soil dissipation
MRID Citation Reference

46955805 Kay, J. (2006) Public Data Waiver Request for the Submission of Hydrolysis, Photodegradation

in Water, Photodegradation on Soil, Anaerobic Soil Metabolism, Soil Field Dissipation, Long Term Field Dissipation Study, Confined Crop Rotation, and Accumulation in Fish: (Prev

- Am Ultra). Project Number: OA/200601. Unpublished study prepared by ORO Agri, Inc. 191 p.

165

- 1 Confined rotational crop
MRID Citation Reference

46955805 Kay, J. (2006) Public Data Waiver Request for the Submission of Hydrolysis, Photodegradation

in Water, Photodegradation on Soil, Anaerobic Soil Metabolism, Soil Field Dissipation, Long Term Field Dissipation Study, Confined Crop Rotation, and Accumulation in Fish: (Prev

- Am Ultra). Project Number: OA/200601. Unpublished study prepared by ORO Agri, Inc. 191 p.

165

- 4 Bioaccumulation in fish
MRID Citation Reference

46955805 Kay, J. (2006) Public Data Waiver Request for the Submiss ion of Hydrolysis, Photodegradation

in Water, Photodegradation on Soil, Anaerobic Soil Metabolism, Soil Field Dissipation, Long Term Field Dissipation Study, Confined Crop Rotation, and Accumulation in Fish: (Prev

- Am Ultra). Project Number: OA/200601. Unpu blished study prepared by ORO Agri, Inc. 191 p.



# Submitted Ecotoxicity Studies

011001 Boric Acid Eco Effects Bibliography

71

- 1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity MRID Citation Reference

145393 Beavers, J. (1984) An Acute Oral Toxicity Study in the Bobwhite with Firebrake ZB : Final

Report: Project No. 135

- 107. Unpub

- lished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 19 p. Boric Acid+ Zinc Oxide mix

48851202 Stafford, J.M. (2012) Canary ( Serin us canaria ) Dietary Acute Toxicity Test with Boric Acid.

Unpublished study performed by Smithers Viscient, Carolina Research Center, Snow Camp, NC. Project ID: 14018.4100. Study sponsored by Borate Testing Task Force c/o Lewis & Harri son LLC, Washington, D.C. Study initiated February 13, 2012 and completed May 30, 2012

.

# 68

71

- 2 Avian Dietary Toxicity
MRID Citation Reference

141770 Beavers, J. (1984) A Dietary LC50 Study in the Bobwhite with inert ingredient: Final Report:

Project No. 176

- 102A . Unpublished study; 14 p.

141771 Beavers, J. (1984) A Dietary LC50 Study in the Mallard with inert ingredient: Final Report:

Project No. 176

- 103 . Unpublished study; 13 p.

41017501 Sander, J. (1989) Safecide Bait: Determination of Mortality and Boron Tissue Levels in

Chickens and Turkeys Exposed to Litter Containing Orthoboric Acid. Unpublished study prepared by Phoenix Co., Inc. 5 p.

41 086601 Sander, J. (1989) Experimental Design and Tissue Residue Results, Addendum to

Determination of Mortality and Boron Tissue Levels in Chickens and Turkeys Exposed to Litter Containing Orthoboric Acid: SafeCide Bait. Unpublished study prepared by Phoen ix Co., Inc. 12 p.

850.2200 Avian dietary toxicity test
MRID Citation Reference

47054802 PC Code 075202 Frangos, J. (2007) Toxicity and Ecotoxicity Data on Sodium Fluoride . Project Number:

TR030107/JF. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikos Pty. Ltd. 222 p. Boric acid is mixed with Sodium fluoride as a product

850.2300 Avian Reproduction
MRID Citation Reference

49009801 Stafford, J.M. (2012) Boric Acid Reproductive Toxicity Test with the Mallard ( Anas

platyrhynchos ), Following OPPTS 850.2300 and OECD 206. Unpublished study performed by Smithers Viscient (CRC), Snow Camp, NC. Laboratory Project No. 14018.4103. Study sponsored by Borate Testing Task Force c/o Lewis & Harrison LLC, Washington DC. Study initiated October 3, 2011 and completed November 21, 2012.

49185901 Stafford, J.M. (2013) Boric Acid Reproductive Toxicity Test with the Northern Bobwhite ( Colinus

virginianus ), Following OPPTS 850.2300 and OECD 206. Unpublished study performed by Smithers Viscient (CRC), Snow Camp, NC. Laboratory Project No. 14018.4102. Study sponsored by Borate Testing Task Force c/o Lewis & Harrison LLC, Washington DC. Study initiated October 19, 20121 and completed May 15, 2013.

72

- 1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish MRID Citation Reference

143244 Sousa, J. (1984) Acute Toxicity of Firebrake ZB to Rainbow Trout ...; BW

- 84

- 10

- 1647.

Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Bionomics, Inc. 13 p. Boric Acid+Zinc Oxide

- mixture

40594601 LeLievre, M. (1988) Static Acute Toxicity of 20 Mule Team Boric Acid Granular Technical to

Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri): Report #88

- 2

- 2620: Study #10994.1187.6102.103. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Life Sciences, Inc. 25 p.

40594602 LeLievr e, M. (1988) Static Acute Toxicity of 20 Mule Team Boric Acid Granular Technical to

Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Report #88

- 2

- 2631: Study #10994.1187.6102.100. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Life Sciences, Inc. 26 p.

46074203 Hertl, D. (2003 ) Acute Toxicity of Wolsin FL

- 35 to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in a

96 hour Semi Static Test: (Final Report). Project Number: 14643230. Unpublished study

# 69 prepared by Institut fuer Biologische Analytik und. 78 p. Apparently a Mixture with Boric Aci d+Fenpropimorph + Propiconazole

850.1075 Fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine MRID Citation Reference

47054802 Frangos, J. (2007) Toxicity and Ecotoxicity Data on Sodium Fluoride . Project Number:

TR030107/JF. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikos Pty. Ltd. 222 p. Boric Acid+Sodium fluoride (075201)mix?

47069401 Fenzl, C. (2003) Wolmanit CX

- LP 15172 : Acute Toxicity Study for Zebra fish. Project Number:

WOL67. Unpublished study prepared by Austrian Research Center (ARC). 34 p. Boric Acid+Copper carbonate + bis

- (N

- Cyclohexyldiazeniumdioxy)

- Copper (PC Code 235500)

47069404 Hettler, W. (2007) Supplement to Data Evaluation Record Acute Toxicity to Fish, Freshwater:

(Protectol CX Type A). Project Number: WOLFH070102. Unpublished study prepared by Dr. Wolman GmbH. 19 p.

850.1400 Fish Early Life Stage
MRID Citation Reference

48914601 Hoberg, J.R. (2012) Boric Acid

- Early Life

- Stage Toxicity Test with Fathead Minnow,

Pimephales promelas , Following OPPTS Draft Guideline 850.1400. Unpublished study performed by Smithers Viscient, Wareham, MA. Laboratory Study No. 1 4018.6108. Study sponsored by Borate Testing Task Force c/o Lewis & Harrison LLC, Washington, DC. Study initiated October 25, 2011 and completed August 21, 2012

72

- 2 or 850.1010 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates
MRID Citation Reference

143245 Hoberg, J. (1984) Acute Toxicity of Firebrake ZB to Daphnids ...: Report #BW

- 84

- 10

- 1648.

Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Bionomics, Inc. 13 p. Boric Acid+ Zinc Oxide mixture

46074204 Hertl, D. (2003) Acute Toxicity of Wolsin FL

- 35 to Daphnia magna in a 48 hour Immobilization

Test. Project Number: 14642220. Unpublished study prepared by Institut fuer Biologische Analytik und. 69 p. Apparently a Mixture with Boric Acid+Fenpropimorph + Propiconazole

47054802 Frangos, J. (2007) Toxici ty and Ecotoxicity Data on Sodium Fluoride . Project Number:

TR030107/JF. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikos Pty. Ltd. 222 p. Sodium biflouride is mixed with Boric acid

850. 1300 Freshwater Invertebrate Life Cycle Test
MRID Citation Reference

48507004 Hooftman, R.N., D. van Drongelen

- Sevenhuijsen, and H.P.M. de Haan. (2000) Semi

- Static

Reproduction Test with Boric Acid, Manufacturing Grade and Daphnia magna (OECD Guideline No. 211). Unpublished study performed by TNO Nutrition and Research I nstitute, Department of Environmental Toxicology, Delft, The Netherlands. Laboratory Project ID: IMW

- 99

- 9047

- 10. Study sponsored by Borax Europe Limited, Guildford, UK. Study initiated July 12, 1999 and completed March 3, 2000.

72

- 3 or 850.1025 Oyster acute toxicity test (shell deposition) MRID Citation Reference

# 70

47320503 Gallagher, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2007) bis

- (N

- Cyclohexyldiazeniumdioxy)

- Copper: A

96

- Hour Shell Deposition Test with the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica). Project Number: 147A/230, 99F0679/899202. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 41 p. Contained in mixture with Boric Acid

72

- 3 or 850.1035 Mysid acute toxicity test
MRID Citation Reference

47320504 Gallagher, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2007 ) Bis

- (N

- Cyclohexyldiazeniumdioxy)

- Copper ; A

96

- Hour Static Acute Toxicity Test with the Saltwater Mysid (Americamysis bahia). Project Number: 147A/229 A, 99F0679/899206. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 42 p. Contained in mixture with Boric Acid

47320502 Thomson, N. (2007) Assessment of the Aquatic

- Phase Toxicity of bis

- (N

Cyclohexyldiazeniumdioxy)

- Copper to the Marine Fish Cyprinodon variegatus. Project Number: 99F0679/899201, 896/26, 07/007. Unpublished study prepared by Opus Plus Limited. 21 p. Contained in mixture with Boric Acid

47537801 Hettller, W. (2008) Supplement to Environmental Toxicity Studie s MRID No.'s 47320502,

47355201, 47210203 of Protectol CX Type A. Project Number: WOL/ETCXA/080831. Unpublished study prepared by DR. Wolman GmbH. 8 p.

141

- 1 Honey bee acute contact
MRID Citation Reference

40269201 Atkins, E. (1987) Laboratory Bee Adult Toxicity Dusting Tests (BATDT) for Boric Acid,

Powdered, 100% ai Technical: Laboratory Project ID: 445 and 446. Unpublished study prepared by Univ. of California

-- Riverside, Dept. of Entomology. 14 p.

850.3020 Honey bee acute contact toxicity
MRID Citation Reference

47125501 Schur, A. (1999) Assessment of Side Effects of Fenpropimorph to the Honey Bee, Apis

mellifera L. in the Laboratory. Project Number: 99343/01/BLEU. Unpublished study prepared by Arbeitsgemeinschaft GAB Biotechnologie. 23 p.

850.4225 Seedling emergence, Tier II
MRID Citation Reference

46325401 Jatzek (2003) Protectol CX Type A

- Determination of the Effect on the Emergence, Growth

and the Observation of Morphological Changes of Rice (Oryza sativa L.). Project Number: 03/0050/65/1. Unpublished study prepared by BASF Aktiengesellschaft. 42 p.

47069405 Schwartz, R. (2007) Supplement to The Rice Seedling Emergence Study for Protectol CX

Type A (CU

- HDO). Project Number: WOL ET070105. Unpublished study prepared by Dr. Wolman GmbH. 4 p.

48885402 Martin, J.A. (2012) Boric Acid: Seedling Emergence Test Following U.S. EPA OPPTS D raft

Guideline 850.4225. Unpublished study performed by Smithers Viscient, Wareham, Massachusetts. Study sponsored by Borate Testing Task Force, Washington, D.C. Study No.: 14018.6101. Study completed July 10, 2012

.

# 71

850.4250 Vegetative vigor, Tier II
MRID Citation Reference

46325401 Jatzek (2003) Protectol CX Type A

- Determination of the Effect on the Emergence, Growth

and the Observation of Morphological Changes of Rice (Oryza sativa L.). Project Number: 03/0050/65/1. Unpublished study prepared by BASF Aktiengesellschaft. 42 p. Boric Acid+Copper carbonate + bis

- (N

- Cyclohexyldiazeniumdioxy)

- Copper (PC Code 235500)

47069405 Schwartz, R. (2007) Supplement to The Rice Seedling Emergence S tudy for Protectol CX

Type A (CU

- HDO). Project Number: WOL ET070105. Unpublished study prepared by Dr. Wolman GmbH. 4 p.

48885401 Martin, J.A. (2012) Boric Acid: Vegetative Vigor Test Following U.S. EPA OPPTS Draft

Guideline 850.4225. Unpublished study performed by Smithers Viscient, Wareham, Massachusetts. Study sponsored by Borate Testing Task Force, Washington, D.C. Study No.: 14 018.6102. Study completed July 10, 2012

.

850.4400 Aquatic plant toxicity test using Lemna spp. Tiers I and II
MRID Citation Reference

46522304 Jovanovich, A.; Obenshain, K.; Kroger, K.; et. al. (2005) Specific Responses to #2 Deficiency

Review Notes for Impralit KDS: Non

- Target Plants. Project Number: 2003/0363. Unpublished study prepared by Keller and Heckman LLP. 20 p.

48820802 Softcheck, K.A. (2012) Boric Acid

- 7

- Day Toxicity Test with Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) Following

OPPTS Draft Guid eline 850.4400. Study performed by Smithers Viscient, Wareham, MA. Study number 14018.6103. Study sponsored by the Borate Testing Task Force c/o Lewis & Harrison LLC, Washington, DC. Study initiated 28 September 2011 and completed 30 April 2012.

850.5400 Algal toxicity, Tiers 1 and II
MRID Citation Reference

47210203 Hudson, B. (2007) Assessment of the Algal Toxicity, Tiers I and II (96H EC50) of Wolmanit

CX

- LP 15172 to the Marine Alga Skeletonema costatum, the Freshwater Algae Selenastrum capricornutum and Anabaena flos aquae. Project Number: 893/27, 06/083, 0101. Unpublished study prepared by Opus Plus Limited. 67 p. Boric Acid+Copper carbonate + bis

- (N

- Cyclohexyldiazeniumdioxy)

- Copper (PC Code 235500)

47355201 Cafarella, M. (2007) Wolmanit CX

- LP 15172 : Alga, Growth Inhibition Test with Navicula

pelliculosa. Project Number: 1111/000440, 20071476/01/UW, 1111/000/440. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Smithers Laboratories (Europe). 90 p. Boric Acid+Copper carbonate + bis

- (N

- Cyclohexyldiazeniumdioxy)

- Copper (PC Code 235500)

47537801 Hettller, W. (2008) Supplement to Environmental Toxicity Studies MRID No.'s 47320502,

47355201, 47210203 of Pr otectol CX Type A. Project Number: WOL/ETCXA/080831. Unpublished study prepared by DR. Wolman GmbH. 8 p.

48507003 Hanstvelt, A.O., Oldersma, H. (2000) Determination of the effect of boric acid, manufacturing

grade on the growth of freshwater green alga, S elenastrum capricornutum. Study performed by TNO Nutrition and Food Research Institute, Department of Environmental Toxicology, The Netherlands. Study ID number IMW

- 99

- 9047

- 05. Report number V99.157. Study sponsored by Borax Europe Limited and submitted b y U.S. Borax. Study completed 07 March 2000.

48820802 Softcheck, K.A. (2012) Boric Acid

- 7

- Day Toxicity Test with Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) Following

OPPTS Draft Guideline 850.4400. Study performed by Smithers Viscient, Wareham, MA. Study number 14018.6103. Study sponsored by the Borate Testing Task Force c/o Lewis & Harrison LLC, Washington, DC. Study initiated 28 September 2011 and completed 30 April 2012.

# 72

48820803 Softcheck, K.A. (2012) Boric Acid

- 96

- Hour Toxicity Test with the Marine Diatom, Skeletonem a

costatum , Following OPPTS Draft Guideline 850.5400. Study performed by Smithers Viscient, Wareham, MA. Study number 14018.6106. Study sponsored by the Borate Testing Task Force c/o Lewis & Harrison LLC, Washington, DC. Study initiated 28 September 2011 a nd completed 30 April 2012.

48810804 Softcheck, K.A. (2012) Boric Acid

- 96

- Hour Toxicity Test with the Freshwater Green Alga,

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata , Following OPPTS Draft Guideline 850.5400. Study performed by Smithers Viscient, Wareham, MA. Stu dy number 14018.6104. Study sponsored by the Borate Testing Task Force c/o Lewis & Harrison LLC, Washington, DC. Study initiated 28 September 2011 and completed 30 April 2012.

48851201 Softcheck, K.A. (2012) Boric Acid

— 96

- Hour Toxicity Test with the Fresh water Diatom, Navicula

pelliculosa , Following OPPTS Draft Guideline 850.5400. Study performed by Smithers Viscient, Wareham, MA. Study number 14018.6105. Study sponsored by the Borate Testing Task Force, Washington, DC. Study completed 30 May 2012.



# PC Code 011002 Boron oxide B 2 

# O 3 

# ECO Effects Bibliography

Contains no additional ecotoxicity data



# PC Code 011102 Borax ECO Effects Bibliography

71

- 1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity
MRID Citation Reference

60198 Reinert, H.K.; Parke, G.S.E. (1976) Acute Oral Toxicity in Bobwhite Quail: Compound: Grotan

HD

- 11: Laboratory No. 6E

- 2370. (Unpublished study received Nov 15, 1976 under 10000

- 3; prepared by Cannon Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Hallemite Lehn & Fink, Mo ntvale, N.J.; CDL:226912

- A)

75031 Fletcher, D. (1973) Report to U.S. Borax Research Corporation: Acute Oral Toxicity Study with

Borax in Bobwhite Quail: IBT No. J2632 . (Unpublished study received Mar 12, 1973 under 1624

- 94; prepared by Industrial Bio

- Te st Laboratories, Inc., sub

- mitted by United States Borax & Chemical Corp., Los Angeles, Calif.; CDL:006476

- A)

100657 Fink, R.; Beavers, J.; Joiner, G.; et al. (1982) Final Report: Acute Oral LD50

-- Bobwhite Quail:

20 Mule Team Borax, Granular: Project No . 135

- 106. (Unpublished study received Apr 30, 1982 under 1624

- 94; prepared by Wildlife International Ltd., submitted by United States Borax & Chemical Corp., Los Angeles, CA; CDL:247369

- A)

145393 Beavers, J. (1984) An Acute Oral Toxicity Study in the Bob white with Firebrake ZB: Final

Report: Project No. 135

- 107. Unpub

- lished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 19 p.

71

- 2 Avian Dietary Toxicity
MRID Citation Reference

67969 Terrell, Y.; Parke, G.S.E. (1974) Report: Eight Day Dietary LC50 Study of Grotan HD II in

Bobwhite Quail and Mallard Ducks: Labo ratory No. 4E

- 3071. (Unpublished study received Feb 20, 1975 under 10000

- 3; prepared by Cannon Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Hallemite Lehn & Fink, Montvale, N.J.; CDL:232140

- E)

73956 Fletcher, D. (1977) Report to Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation: 8

- day Dietary LC 50 Study

with Borax in Mallard Ducklings: IBT No. 8580

- 10598 ; prepared by Industrial Bio

- Test Laboratories, Inc. Unpublished study; 12 p.

# 73

73957 Phillips, B.M.; Reinart, D.; Fletcher, D. (1977) Report to Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation: 8

-

day Dietary LC 50 Study with Borax in Bobwhite Quail: IBT No. 8580

- 10597 ; prepared by Industrial Bio

- Test Laboratories, Inc. Unpublished study; 12 p.

149195 Reinart, D.; Fletcher, D. (1977) 8

- Day Dietary LC50 Study with Borax in Bobwhite Quail: IBT

No. 8580

- 10597. Unpublished study prepared by Industrial Bio

- Test Laboratories, Inc. 14 p.

72

- 1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish
MRID Citation Reference

67968 Davis, A.C. (1974) Ninety

- six Hour LC50 of Grotan HD II in Rainbow Trout and Bluegill Sunfish:

Laboratory No. 4E

- 3069. (Unpublished study received Feb 20, 1975 under 10000

- 3; prepared by Cannon Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Hallemite Lehn & F ink, Montvale, N.J.; CDL:232140

- D)

90307 McCann, J.A. (1972) Steri

- soil: Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri) : Test No. 456. (U.S.

Agricultural Research Service, Pesticides Regulation Div., Animal Biology Laboratory, Fish Toxicity Laboratory; unpublished study; CDL:130478

- A)

90308 McCann, J.A. (1972) Steri

- soil: Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) : Test No. 444. (U. S. Agricultural

Research Service, Pesticides Regulation Div., Animal Biology Laboratory, Fish Toxicity Laboratory; unpublished study; CDL:130479

- A)

72

- 2 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates
MRID Citation Reference

60199 Reinert, H.K.; Parke, G.S.E. (1976) Report: Static 48

- Hour Toxicity Study of Grotan HD 11 in

Daphnids: Laboratory No. 6E

- 2371. (Un

- published study received Nov 15, 1976 under 10000

- 3; prepared by Cannon Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Hallemite Lehn & Fink, Montvale, N .J.; CDL:226912

- B)

122

- 1 Seed Germination/Seedline Emergence and Vegetable Vigor
MRID Citation Reference

46955802 Kay, J. (2006) Public Data and Waiver Request for the Submission of Seed Germination.

Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor Data: (Prev

- Am Ultra). Project Number: OA/200602. Unpublished study prepared by ORO Agri, Inc. 27 p.

122

- 2 Aquatic plant growth
MRID Citation Reference

46955801 Sullivan, J. (2003) The Acute Toxicity of Citrus Oil Products PREV

- Am to the Freshwater Algae,

Selenastrum capricornutum, Freshwater Crustacean, Daphnia magna, and the Freshwater Fish, Salmo Gairdneri. Project Number: 038801. Unpublished study prepared by Bioanalytical Corporation. 19 p.

141

- 1 Honey bee acute contact
MRID C itation Reference

# 74

46955803 Londzin, W. (2005) Acute Oral Toxicity for Honey Bees (Apis Mellifera L.): (Prev

- Am Ultra).

Project Number: B/12/05. Unpublished study prepared by Institute of Organic Industry, Branch Pszczna: Department of Ecotoxicological Studies. 22 p.

46955804 Londzin, W. (2005) Acute Dorsal Contact Toxicity for Honey

- Bees (Apis Mellifera L.). Project

Number: B/13/05: (Prev

- Am Ultra). Unpublished study prepared by Institute of Organic Industry, Branch Pszczna: Department of Ecotoxicological Studies. 22 p.

142

- 3 Simulated or Actual Field Testing
MRID Citation Reference

60632 Johansen, C.; Eves, J. (1967) Bee Research Investigations, 1967: Report No. 21866.

(Unpublished study received Mar 27, 1974 un

- der 4F1485; prepared by Washington State Univ., submitted by Chemagro Corp., Kansas City, Mo.; CDL:092011

- M)



# PC Code 011103 Sodium octaborate, tetrahydrate Eco Effects Bibliography

71

- 1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

107904 Fink, R.; Beavers, J.; Joiner, G.; et al. (1982) Final Report: Acute Oral LD50

-- Bobwhite Quail:

Polybor: Project No. 135

- 105. (Unpublished study received Apr 30, 1982 under 1624

- 2; prepared by Wildlife International Ltd., submitted by United States Borax & Chemical Corp., Los Angeles, CA; CDL:247364

- B)

71

- 2 Avian Dietary Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

100636 Fink, R.; Beavers, J.; Joiner, G.; et al. (1982) Final Report: Eight

- day Dietary LC50

-- Mallard

Duck: Polybor: Project No. 135

- 104. (Unpublished study received Apr 30, 1982 under 1624

- 2; prepared by Wildlife International Ltd., submitted by United States B orax & Chemical Corp., Los Angeles, CA; CDL:247364

- C)

100637 Fink, R.; Beavers, J.; Joiner, G.; et al. (1982) Final Report: Eight

- day Dietary LC50

-- Bobwhite

Quail: Polybor: Project No. 135

- 103. (Unpublished study received Apr 30, 1982 under 1624

- 2; prepa red by Wildlife International Ltd., submitted by United States Borax & Chemical Corp., Los Angeles, CA; CDL: 247364

- D)



# PC Code 01110 4 Boric acid , sodium salt ECO Effects Bibliography

71

- 2 Avian Dietary Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

# 75

73954 Fletcher, D. (1977) Report to Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation: 8

- day Dietary LC 50 Study

with Sodium Metaborate in Mallard Duck

- lings: IBT No. 8580

- 10602; prepared by Industrial Bio

Test Lab

- oratories, Inc. Unpublished study; 12 p.

73955 Phillips, B.M.; Reinart, D.; Fletcher, D. (1949?) Report to Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation: 8

-

day Dietary LC50 Study with Sodium Metaborate in Bobwhite Quail: IBT No. 8580

- 10601. Unpublished study prepared by Industrial Bio

- Test Laboratories , Inc. 12 p.

72

- 1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

MRID Citation Reference

74975 McCann, J. (1970) Permatox 100 Liquid Fungicide Concentrate: Rain

- bow Trout|: Test No. 267.

(U.S. Agricultural Research Service, Pesticides Regulation Div., A nimal Biology Laboratory; unpub lished study; CDL:104618

- A)

107146 McCann, J. (1971) Permatox Liquid Fungicide Concentrate: Fathead Minnow|: Test No. 381.

(U.S. Agricultural Research Service, Pesticides Regulation Div., An imal Biology Laboratory; unpub lished study; CDL :130367

- A)

110816 Hutchinson, C. (1971) The Acute Toxicity of Permatox 100 to Blue

- gill and Rainbow Trout

(Salmo gairdneri). (Unpublished study received Nov 5, 1971 u nder 1022

- 465; prepared by Bio nomics, Inc., submitted by Chapman Chemical Co., Memphis, TN; CDL:005434

- A)

72

- 4 Fish Early Life Stage/Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle Study

MRID Citation Reference

24964 McCann, J.A. (1972) (Ureabor: Toxicity to Rainbow Trout): Test No. 457. (U.S. Agricultural

Res earch Service, Pesticides Regu lation Div., Animal Biology Laboratory, unpublished report.)

24965 McCann, J.A. (1972) (Ureabor: Toxicity to Bluegill): Test No. 447. (U.S. Agricultural Research

Service, Pesticides Regulation Div., Animal Biology Laboratory, unpublished report.)

24967 Pitcher, F.G. (1974) Weedgard G: Toxicity to Rainbow Trout|: Test No . 773. (U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Chemical & Biological Investigations Branch, TSD, Animal Biology Laborato

ry, unpublished report.)

24969 Pitcher, F.G. (1973) Weedgard G: Toxicity to Bluegill|: Test No. 643. (U.S. Environmental

Protection A gency, Pesticides Reg

- ulation Div., Agricultural Research Center, Animal Biology Labo

- ratory, unpublished report.)

121

- 1 Phytotoxicity

MRID Citation Reference

5548 Uniroyal Chemical (1977) Vitavax

- 25 DB

-- Phytotoxicity. (Unpublished study received Feb 28,

1978 under 400

- 115; prepared in cooperation with Univ. of Idaho, Experiment Station; CDL:238076

- D)

# 76



# PC Code 01110 7 Disodium octaborate , anhydrous (B 8 

# Na 2 

# O 13 

# ) ECO Effects Bibliography

850.1300 Daphnid chronic toxicity test

MRID Citation Reference

48507004 Hooftman, R.; Van Drongelen

- Sevenhuijsen, D.; de Haan, H. (2000) Semi

- Static Reproduction

Test with Boric Acid, Manufacturing Grade and Daphnia magna. Project Number: IMW/99/9047/10. Unpublished study prepared by TNO Nutrition and Food. 37 p.

850.2300 Avian reproduction test

MRID Citation Reference

49009801 Stafford, J. (2012) Boric Acid Reproductive Toxicity Test with the Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos).

Project Number: 14018/4103. Unpublished study prepared by Smithers Viscient. 342p.

49185901 Stafford, J. (2013) Boric Acid: Reproductive Toxicity Test with the Northern Bobwhite (Colinus

virginianus). Project Number: 14018/4102. Unpublished study prepared by Smithers Viscient. 375p.

850.5400 Algal toxicity, Tiers 1 and II

MRID Citation Reference

48507003 Hanstvelt, A.; Oldersma, H. (2000) Determination of the Effect of Boric Acid, Manufacturing

Grade on the Growth of Fresh Water Green Alga, Selenastrum capriconutum. Project Number: IMW/99/9047/05. Unpublished study prepared by TNO Nutrition and Food. 31 p.



# PC Code 0111 10 Disodium tetraborate pentahydrate (B 4 

# Na 2 

# O 7 

# •5H 2 

# O) ECO Effects Bibliography

Contains no additional ecotoxicity data



# PC Code 0111 11 Sodium borate pentahydrate (H 3 

# BO 3 

# Na+•5H 2 

# O) ECO Effects Bibliography

Contains no additional ecotoxicity data



# PC Code 0111 12 Boron sodium oxide (B 4 

# Na 2 

# O 7 

# ) ECO Effects Bibliography

Contains no additional ecotoxicity data

# 77



# Appendix F GENEEC Modeling Summary for Boric acid and Sodium Borate Salts.

From previous assessment for use in screening.

Assumptions: Application rate of 0.07 lb/acre by ground spray, high boom, fine spray, no wet

- in, no spray drift buffer, no inc orporation, stable to all degradation processes, solubility 59,300 ppm. Either one application (Run #1) or 52 weekly applications (Run #2).

RUN No. 1 FOR borax ON any * INPUT VALUES *

-------------------------------------- ------------------------------ RATE (#/AC) No.APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO

- SPRAY INCORP ONE(MULT) INTERVAL Kd (PPM ) (%DRIFT) ZONE(FT) (IN)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- .070( .070) 1 1 .159300.0 GRHIFI( 6.6) .0 .0

FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED (FIELD) RAIN/RUNOFF (POND) (POND

- EFF) (POND) (POND)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- .00 2 N/A .00

- .00 .00 .00

GENERIC EECs (IN MICROGRAMS/LITER (PP B)) Version 2.0 Aug 1, 2001

-------------------------------------------------------------------- PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.10 4.10 4.09 4.09 4.09

RUN No. 2 FOR borax ON any * INPUT VALUES *

--------------------------------------- ----------------------------- RATE (#/AC) No.APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO

- SPRAY INCORP ONE(MULT) INTERVAL Kd (PPM ) (%DRIFT) ZONE(FT) (IN)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- .070( 3 .640) 52 7 .159300.0 GRHIFI( 6.6) .0 .0

FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED (FIELD) RAIN/RUNOFF (POND) (POND

- EFF) (POND) (POND)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- .00 2 N/A .00

- .00 .00 .00

GENERIC EECs (IN MICROGRAMS/LITER (P PB)) Version 2.0 Aug 1, 2001

-------------------------------------------------------------------- PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC

--------- ----------------------------------------------------------- 212.99 212.97 212.90 212.74 212.62

# 78



# Appendix G T

- REX Model Input and Output

Weekly Spray Applications:

TREX MODEL INPUTS These values will be used in the calculation of exposure estimates for foliar, granular, liquid and/or seed applications of pesticides.

Chemical Identity and Application Information

Chemical Name: Boric Acid Application Rate (lb ai/acre)

Seed Treatment? (Check if yes) FALSE Seeding Rate (lbs/acre)

Use:

Product name and form:
% A.I. (leading zero must be entered for

formulations <1% a.i.):
Application Rate (lb ai/acre) 0.0625

Half

- life (days): 35
Application Interval (days): 7

Number of Applications: 52

Are you assessing applications with variable rates or intervals? no You MUST specify application day in Columns F and G

- you may enter up to 30 applications

Assessed Species Inputs (optional, use defaults for RQs for national level assessments) What body weight range is assessed (grams)? Birds Mammals Small 20 15 Medium 100 35 Large 1000 1000

# 79

Endpoints

Avian

Endpoint Toxicity value Indicate test species below

LD50 (mg/kg

- bw)
1625.00 1
LC50 (mg/kg

- diet) 5620.00 1
NOAEL (mg/kg

- bw) 2 NOAEC (mg/kg

diet) 249.00 2 Enter the Mineau et al. Scaling Factor 1.15 Mammalian Acute Study Chronic Study Size (g) of mammal used in toxicity study Default rat body weight is 350 grams 350 20

Endpoint Toxicity value Reference (MRID) LD50 (mg/kg

- bw) 450.00 LC50 (mg/kg

- diet)
Reported Chronic

Endpoint 150.00
1 Is dietary concentration (mg/kg

- diet) reported from the available chronic mammal study? (yes or no) yes

Enter dietary concentration (mg/kg

- diet) 1000.00

Application Type: 1

2 Enter data below:

Is application rate given in lbs a.i./Acre? yes Application rate, lbs a.i./Acre, from B10 0.0 625

Do not use this input Do not use this input Do not use this input % incorporated 0.00%

# 80

Summary of Risk Quotient Calculations Based on Upper Bound Kenaga EECs Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Avian Dose

- Based Risk Quotients

Size Class (grams) Adjusted

LD50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods Granivore

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

20 1170.70 131.87 0.11 60.44 0.05 74.18 0.06 8.24 0.01 51.65 0.04 1.83 0.00

100 1490.36 75.20 0.05 34.47 0.02 42.30 0.03 4.70 0.00 29.45 0.02 1.04 0.00

1000 2105.19 33.67 0.02 15.43 0.01 18.94 0.01 2.10 0.00 13.19 0.01 0.47 0.00

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Subacute Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

LC50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

5620 115.79 0.02 53.07 0.01 65.13 0.01 7.24 0.00 45.35 0.01 Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

NOAEC (ppm) EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

249 115.79 0.47 53.07 0.21 65.13 0.26 7.24 0.03 45.35 0.18 Size class not used for dietary risk quotients Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Mammalian Dose

- Based Risk Quotients
Size Class (grams) Adjusted

LD50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods Granivore

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

15 989.02 110.40 0.11 50.60 0.05 62.10 0.06 6.90 0.01 43.2386 0.0437 1.5333 0.0016

35 800.23 76.30 0.10 34.97 0.04 42.92 0.05 4.77 0.01 29.8837 0.0373 1.0597 0.0013

1000 346.12 17.69 0.05 8.11 0.02 9.95 0.03 1.11 0.00 6.92864 0.02 0.2457 0.0007

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Mammalian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

LC50 (ppm) EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ 0 115.79 #DIV/0! 53.07 #DIV/0! 65.13 #DIV/0! 7.24 #DIV/0! 45.35 #DIV/0! Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

NOAEC (ppm) EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds/Large

Insects Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

1000 115.79 0.12 53.07 0.05 65.13 0.07 7.24 0.01 45.35 0.05 Size class not used for dietary risk quotients Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dose

- Based Risk Quotients
Size Class (grams) Adjusted

NOAEL EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods Granivore

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

15 161.19 110.40 0.68 50.60 0.31 62.10 0.39 6.90 0.04 43.24 0.27 1.53 0.01

35 130.42 76.30 0.59 34.97 0.27 42.92 0.33 4.77 0.04 29.88 0.23 1.06 0.01

1000 56.41 17.69 0.31 8.11 0.14 9.95 0.18 1.11 0.02 6.93 0.12 0.25 0.00

# 81

Single Spray Application:

TREX MODEL INPUTS These values will be used in the calculation of exposure estimates for foliar, granular, liquid and/or seed applications of pesticides. Chemical Identity and Application Information

Chemical Name: Boric Acid

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) 0.07

Half

- life (days): 35
Application Interval (days):

Number of Applications: 1 Are you assessing applications with

variable rates or intervals? no

# 82

Summary of Risk Quotient Calculations Based on Upper Bound Kenaga EECs Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Avian Dose

- Based Risk Quotients

Size Class (grams) Adjusted

LD50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods Granivore
EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

20 1170.70 19.13 0.02 8.77 0.01 10.76 0.01 1.20 0.00 7.49 0.01 0.27 0.00

100 1490.36 10.91 0.01 5.00 0.00 6.14 0.00 0.68 0.00 4.27 0.00 0.15 0.00

1000 2105.19 4.88 0.00 2.24 0.00 2.75 0.00 0.31 0.00 1.91 0.00 0.07 0.00

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Subacute Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

LC50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

5620 16.80 0.00 7.70 0.00 9.45 0.00 1.05 0.00 6.58 0.00 Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

NOAEC (ppm) EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

249 16.80 0.07 7.70 0.03 9.45 0.04 1.05 0.00 6.58 0.03 Size class not used for dietary risk quotients Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Mammalian Dose

- Based Risk Quotients

Size Class (grams) Adjusted

LD50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods Granivore

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

15 989.02 16.02 0.02 7.34 0.01 9.01 0.01 1.00 0.00 6.27353 0.0063 0.2225 0.0002

35 800.23 11.07 0.01 5.07 0.01 6.23 0.01 0.69 0.00 4.33585 0.0054 0.1538 0.0002

1000 346.12 2.57 0.01 1.18 0.00 1.44 0.00 0.16 0.00 1.00528 0.0029 0.0356 0.0001

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Mammalian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

LC50 (ppm) EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

0 16.80 #DIV/0! 7.70 #DIV/0! 9.45 #DIV/0! 1.05 #DIV/0! 6.58 #DIV/0! Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

NOAEC (ppm) EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds/Large

Insects Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

1000 16.80 0.02 7.70 0.01 9.45 0.01 1.05 0.00 6.58 0.01 Size class not used for dietary risk quotients Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dose

- Based Risk Quotients

Size Class (grams) Adjusted

NOAEL EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods Granivore

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

15 161.19 16.02 0.10 7.34 0.05 9.01 0.06 1.00 0.01 6.27 0.04 0.22 0.00

35 130.42 11.07 0.08 5.07 0.04 6.23 0.05 0.69 0.01 4.34 0.03 0.15 0.00

1000 56.41 2.57 0.05 1.18 0.02 1.44 0.03 0.16 0.00 1.01 0.02 0.04 0.00

# 83

Using Canary Data: Endpoints

Avian

Endpoint Toxicity value Indicate test species below Optional

Test Organism Body weight (g) Optional

Test Species Name

LD50 (mg/kg

- bw)
1625.00 1
LC50 (mg/kg

- diet) 11000.00 3 23.70 Canary
NOAEL (mg/kg

- bw) 2
NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) 249.00 2 Enter the Mineau et al. Scaling Factor 1.15



## Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Subacute Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

LC50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ
11000 129.68 0.01 59.44 0.01 72.95 0.01 8.11 0.00 50.79 0.00

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

# 84

Granular Applications:
TREX MODEL INPUTS These values will be used in the calculation of exposure estimates for foliar, granular, liquid and/or seed applications of pesticides. Chemical Identity and Application Information

Chemical Name: Boric Acid

Seed Treatment? (Check if yes) Granular Apps 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) 1310

Half

- life (days): 35
Application Interval (days): 90

Number of Applications: 2 Are you assessing applications with variable rates or intervals? no

LD50 ft

- 2
Application Type: 1 Make sure to enter an

1 application rate above

% incorporated 0.00%

Chemical: Boric Acid

LD50 ft

- 2

INPUTS Do not overwrite these numbers.
Application Rate: 1310 lbs / acre

% A.I.: 100.00% Avian LD50 (20g): 1170.70 mg/kg bw

(100g) 1490.36 (1000g) 2105.19 Mammalian LD50 (15g): 989.02 mg/kg bw

(35g) 800.23 (1000g) 346.12 Row Spacing: 0 inches Bandwidth: 0 inches Unincorporation: 100%

Row/Band/In

- furrow applications

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

# 85 lb ai/1000 ft row: N/A mg a.i./ft2: N/A bandwidth (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 Mamma l 15 N/A 35 N/A 35 N/A
1000 N/A 1000 N/A

Broadcast applications
Granular

Intermediate Calculations

mg ai/ft2: 13641.02

LD50 ft

- 2 wgt class (grams)
Avian 20 582.60

100 91.53 1000 6.48
Mammal 15 919.49

35 487.04
1000 39.41

# 86



# Appendix H TERRPLANT Input and Output

TerrPlant v. 1.2.2 Green values signify user inputs (Tables 1, 2 and 4). Input and output guidance is in popups indicated by red arrows. Table 1. Chemical Identity.
Chemical Name Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate PC code 11002 Use Ornamentals, Fruits, Soybeans, Etc. Application Method Ground Application Form Spray Solubility in Water (ppm) 55600 (rapidly hydrates to boric acid, this is boric acid

sol)

Table 2. Input parameters used to derive EECs. Input Parameter Symbol Value Units Application Rate A 0.0625 y Incorporation I 1 none Runoff Fraction R 0.05 none Drift Fraction D 0.01 none

Table 3. EECs for Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate. Units in y.

Description Equation EEC Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.003125 Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.03125 Spray drift A*D 0.000625 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.00375 Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.031875

Table 4. Plant survival and growth data used for RQ derivation. Units are in y. Seedling Emergence Vegetative Vigor Plant type EC 25 1 

## NOAEC EC 25 1 

## NOAEC
Monocot > 5 5 > 0.2 0.2 Dicot > 5 0.65 > 0.2 0.2

1 

## Toxicity values used were non

- definitive (>) due to low toxicity and no effects in highest treatment. RQs calculated from these (below) are upper

- bound values used for screening.

Table 5. RQ values for plants in dry and semi

- aquatic areas exposed to Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate through runoff and/or spray drift.* Plant Type Listed Status Dry Semi

- Aquatic Spray Drift
Monocot non

- listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Monocot listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Dicot non

- listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Dicot listed <0.1 < 0.1 <0.1 *If RQ > 1.0, the LOC is exceeded, resulting in potential for risk to that plant group.

# 87



# Appendix I Ecotoxicity of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts

There are a number of active ingredients under this Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts Case (Case). Toxicity data submitted to the Agency to support these active ingredients or available from Agency test laboratory files were either expressed in terms of the active ingredients themselves (e.g., boric acid, borax, etc.) or in terms of boron. Additionally , toxicity data in the open literature was sometimes expressed as the actual test substance (e.g., boric acid, borax, etc.) or in terms of boron. All of the active ingredients in this Case form primarily the mononuclear species, undissociated boric acid [ B(OH) 3 

## ] and borate ion [B(OH) 4 - 

## ], at low aqueous boron concentrations (e.g., <25 mmole B/kg or 270 mg B/L) with polynuclear borate species forming at higher concentrations (Zeebe et al. 2001). The mode of action for each of these active ingredients in non

- target organisms is unknown and may be due to the undissociated boric acid formed or due to a combination of the mononuclear and polynuclear species present. To compare toxicity results and to be able to bridge between these active ingredients, test resu lts of all the active ingredients covered in this case need to be expressed in the same units. The Agency has selected to express results for use in this assessment in both terms of boric acid equivalents (a.e.) and boron equivalents (B). This allows the Agency to use results in those models predicting boric acid exposure concentrations and those predicting boron exposure concentrations. Most environmental monitoring results (soil, air, water, biological tissues) are measured and reported as B, which

enc ompasses all forms of boron present. Also, National Ambient Water Quality Criteria are expressed in terms of B. The National Ambient Water Quality Value of 750 μg B/L is for protection of long

- term irrigation of crops, there are no national criteria fo r protection of aquatic life 15



## . The States of Illinois and Minnesota are working to develop state aquatic life criterion for boron (USEPA, 2010a).

Boron is an essential nutrient for plants, including aquatic plants, in small quantities. There is also some evidence that it is essential for some lower and higher order animals including humans (Nielsen 2008; USEPA 2008). This means if the boron content in soil is too low plants may not thrive or if it is too low in water aquatic plants, fish, and invertebrate s may not thrive. Nielson (2008) reviewed literature on effects of boron deficient conditions for a number of higher level organisms, he noted that deprivation of boron in food of adult frogs has been shown to impair reproduction and impair embryogenesis; and that zebrafish fed low boron food and exposed to low boron content waters (1.1 μg B/L) embryogenesis was impaired. Rowe et al. (1998) observed a U

- shape concentration response for trout and zebrafish.

Toxicity to Aquatic Organisms

There are no data gaps for freshwater fish and invertebrate toxicity data or for aquatic plant toxicity data. There is acute toxicity data for nonnative estuarine/marine fish and an invertebrate. There is no acute or chronic toxicity data for native estuarine/marine fish , shrimp, or mollusks. Because of the qualitative risk assessment approach taken, the data on acute freshwater mollusks, and the information on nonnative estuarine/marine shrimp and fish species the lack of this estuarine/marine toxicity data is not ident ified as a data gap for this assessment. The data summarized in this section consists of studies submitted by registrants to support boric acid and sodium borate salts; agency conducted studies with boric acid or sodium borate salts; and studies from the public literature, identified using ECOTOX, for missing taxonomic groups (e.g., estuarine/marine species) or for studies with a more sensitive endpoint than in the agency files (e.g., acute toxicity data E118810 for Ceriodaphnia dubia ). Appendix J

15 

## http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm accessed 6/23/2015

# 88

summarizes the results of the ECOTOX literature search that was conducted and the basis for excluding and including public literature for this toxicity profile.

a. Aquatic Animals Aquatic Invertebrates, Acute

– Technical Grade Active Ingredient

For the co mbination of boric acid and sodium borate salts use patterns acute toxicity tests for a freshwater aquatic invertebrate, an estuarine/marine mollusk, and an estuarine/marine shrimp species using the TGAI (technical

- grade active ingredient) are typically re quired to establish the toxicity of an active ingredient to aquatic invertebrates. The preferred test species is Daphnia magna for the freshwater invertebrate toxicity test and a species from either the Mysidae or Penaeidae family for the estuarine/marine shrimp toxicity test. The acute estuarine/marine mollusk test consists of either a shell deposition toxicity test with the Eastern oyster or an embryo/larval toxicity test with Eastern oysters, Pacific oysters, Blue mussels, or Quahogs. T oxicity test s u sing estuarine/marine species were not identified as data re quirements for this assessment due to the assumption that marine organisms are adapted to high levels of naturally

- occurring boron in seawater (see the problem formulation document, USEPA, 2009a ).

Results of acute toxicity studies from: studies submitted to the agency to support product registrations; agency test data; and results from the ECOTOX literature search with more sensitive values or for missing taxonomic groups are tabulated in Table I 1 for the boric acid and sodium borate salts case. From the ECOTOX literature search two studies were added to the agency’s acute aquatic invertebrate profile: data from Dethloff (2009, ECOTOX ID E118810) for a freshwater cladoceran, Ceriodaphnia dubia , w hich was more acutely sensitive than data contained in the agency’s files for freshwater invertebrates; and data for the estuarine/marine penaeid taxon (Li, et al., 2008, ECOTOX ID E111738) for which the agency had no data. Acute toxicity data for technic al grade boric acid is available for two freshwater cladocerans or waterfleas ( D. magna and C. dubia ), three freshwater mollusks (Fatmucket, Washboard, and Black sandshell), and an estuarine/marine penaeid shrimp, the whiteleg shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei

. There was no acute toxicity data specifically with the TGAI for any of the sodium borate salts in this case. However, because these other actives are expected to rapidly release boric acid upon dissolution in aqueous media and the concentrations tested a re below solubility limits these boric acid results are considered to be bridgeable for the TGAI of the other active ingredients in this case when their concentrations are expressed as either boric acid equivalents or as boron equivalents. Since the acute toxicity endpoints (48

- h EC 50 

## values for cladocerans, and 96

- h LC 50 

## values for other aquatic invertebrates) fall in the range 260 to >3169 mg a.e./L (45.5 to >544 mg B/L; Table I 1 ), boric acid is classified as practically nontoxic to aquatic invertebrates on an acute basis and slightly toxic to practically nontoxic based on B equivalents. The most acutely sensitive freshwater species is C. dubia with an acute 48

- h EC 50 

## of 260 mg a.e./L (45.5 mg B/L); this endpoint is selected for the use in risk estimates for this assessment (

# 89

Table 

# 4

. 1 ).

No studies on estuarine/marine species were submitted by registrants and were not required as part of the work pla n for this case. However, estuarine/marine data was found in the ECOTOX literature search and the most acutely toxic result, which was with the nonnative whiteleg shrimp, L. vannamei (Li, et al., 2008) was added to the toxicity profile. The estuarine/mar ine penaeid shrimp data is for a species not native to the coastal United States or its territories. However, it is a Pacific species and ranges from the Mexican state of Sonora to Peru. Given its taxonomic gr oup, range, habitat and biology 16 

## , toxicity da ta for this species is considered representative for native penaeid species. The whiteleg shrimp, L. vannamei, was more acutely sensitive to boric acid than freshwater species with a 96

- h LC 50 

## of 30.1 mg a.e./L (14.0 mg B/L ).

Table I 1. Acute Aquatic Invertebrate Toxicity Data for Technical Grade Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts Active Ingredients.

Species, Age or size %

Purity Exposure Conditions Acute Endpoints

Toxicity Category Study

Classification/ Source/ Comments Exposure Type
pH Water Hardness as mg CaCO 3 /L Temperature 

### 48

- h EC 50



### or 96

- h LC 50 

### (95% CI) mg a.e./L 48

- h EC 50



### or 96

- h LC 50 

### (95% CI) mg B/L Probit

Slope

Freshwater Invertebrate Species Daphnid Ceriodaphnia dubia <24 h old Boric

Acid % N.R. S 8.1 96 20 o 

### C 48

- h EC 50 

### = 260 (193

- 316) 48

- h EC 50 

### =

45.5 (33.7

- 55.2) NR Practically

non

- toxic on a.e. basis; Slightly toxic on B basis Supplemental

Quantitative/ ECOTOX ID E118810 (Dethloff, 2009) N.R. 168 20 o 

### C 48

- h EC 50 

### = 289 (256

- 324) 48

- h EC 50 

### =

50.6 (44.7

- 56.7) NR

Daphnid C. dubia, <24 h old Boric

acid

> 99.5% F 7.77 136 25 + 1 o 

### C 48

- h EC 50 

### =

440

Measured (1) 

### 48

- h EC 50 

### =

76.9

Measured Practically

non

- toxic on a.e. basis; Slightly toxic on B basis Acceptable/

EPA, 2010a,b

Water flea ( Daphnia
magna ), <24 h old Boric

acid Tech% SR 8.1

+ 0.1 148 + 7 20 o 

### C 48

- h EC 50 

### = 761 (658

- 875)

Nominal (2) 

### 48

- h EC 50 

### =

133 (115

- 153)

Nominal NR Practically

non

- toxic on both a.e. and B basis Supplemental

Quantitative/ Gersich 1984 (3) 

### /

Water flea ( D.
magna ), <24 h old Boric

acid Analyt

ical Grade S 7.1

-

8.7 166 18

- 21

o 

### C 48

- h EC 50 

### = 1293 (1144

- 1407)

Nominal 48

- h EC 50 

### =

226 (200

- 246)

Nominal NR Practically

non

- toxic on both a.e. and B basis Supplemental

Quantitative/ Lewis and Valentine 1981 (3) 

### / The no kill concentration was <200 mg B/L

16 

## Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations Cultured aq uatic species information
programme: Penaeus vannanmei http://www.fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/Penaeus_vannamei/en accessed July 30, 2015.

# 90

Species, Age or size %

Purity Exposure Conditions Acute Endpoints

Toxicity Category Study

Classification/ Source/ Comments Exposure Type
pH Water Hardness as mg CaCO 3 /L Temperature 

### 48

- h EC 50



### or 96

- h LC 50 

### (95% CI) mg a.e./L 48

- h EC 50



### or 96

- h LC 50 

### (95% CI) mg B/L Probit

Slope

Water flea ( D.
magna ), <24 h old Boric

acid 99.9% S 7.48 180 17 o 

### C 48

- h EC 50 

### = 777 (648

- 932)

Nominal 48

- h EC 50 

### =

136 (113

- 163)

Nominal NR Practically

non

- toxic on both a.e. and B basis Acceptable/

U.S. Animal Biology Laboratory, 1982

— TN 2750 (TN2862) (4) 

### / Temperature was not recorded on data sheets, but the protocol used called for 17 o 

### C Fatmucket clam ( Lampsilis siliquoidea ), <5 day old juveniles Boric

acid 99.6% S 8.0

-

8.1 86

- 90 19.8

-

20.2 96

- h EC 50 

### =

784

Measured 96

- h EC 50 

### =

137

Measured NA Practically

non

- toxic on both a.e. and B basis Acceptable/

EPA, 2010a,b/ INHS, Control av 0.6 mg B/L

Washboard mussel ( Megalonaias

nervosa ), <5 day old juveniles Boric

acid 99.6% S 7.7

-

8.2 86

- 90 20.3

-

21.0 96

- h LC 50 

### >3169

Measured 96

- h LC 50



### >544

Measured NA Practically

non

- toxic on both a.e. and B basis Acceptable/

EPA, 2010a,b/ INHS, control <0.02 mg B/L

Black sandshell mussel ( Ligumia
recta ), <5 day old juveniles Boric

acid 99.6% S 7.9

-

8.1 90

- 92 19.0

-

20.5 96

- h = 841

Measured 96

- h =147

Measured NA Practically

non

- toxic on both a.e. and B basis Acceptable/

EPA, 2010a,b/ Control <0.02 mg B/L

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate Species Whiteleg shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei Boric

Acid Unkno wn % SR 8.3±

0.2 [Salin

ity 20.0 ‰] 27.6

– 29.1 °C 96

- hr LC 50 

### = 80.1 96

- h LC 50 

### =

14.0 -- Slightly Toxic

on both a.e. and B basis Supplemental/

Quantitative/ ECOTOX ID E111738 (Li, et al

., 2008) a.e.: boric acid equivalent; B: boron equivalent; NR: not reported; NA: not applicable (i.e., probit method not a good fit); S: static; SR: static

- renewal; TN: test number; NG: non

- guideline.

(1) 

### measured: endpoint value(s) based on measured concentrations. Analytical method would measure boron, which would then be also considered measured for boric acid equivalents.

(2) 

### nominal: endpoint value(s) based on nominal concentrations.

(3) 

### Per the US EPA Boric Acid/Sodium Metabora te RED (USEPA 1993) these unvalidated public literature studies were submitted by registrants to support reregistration but were not assigned MRID numbers at the time of submittal by the Agency. The studies were conducted using acceptable protocols albeit the lack of submitted raw data and GLP compliance verification. The Agency classified these studies as supplemental data but usable quantitatively.

(4) 

### Study was conducted at the Agency’s Animal Biology Laboratory following Agency test guidance. Raw data is available and study is acceptable.



## Aquatic Invertebrates, Acute

– Boric acid and Sodium Borate Salts Formulations

Toxicity data with typical end

- us e products are required when it is known or there is concern for the potential for an ingredient or ingredients within the formulation to enhance the toxicity of the active

# 91

ingredient. Information may also be used for labeling purposes. While no specific concern was expressed for enhanced toxicity of boric acid or any of the sodium borate salts, information was available from agency laboratory testing and from stud ies submitted to support regist rations. The toxicity data from aquatic invertebrate studies using formulations are presented in Table I2 . One of the formulated products no longer has an active registration nor are there other active end

- use products for which it could act as a typical end

- use product and it is therefore not applicable to this a ssessment

. The wood preservative end

- use product, Wolsin FL

- 35, is highly toxic and has a higher toxicity than accounted for by boric acid alone (classified as practically nontoxic to D. magna ) or in combination with the other two active ingredients, fenp ropimorph and propiconazole) which are both moderately toxic to D. magna ( 48

- h EC 50 

## of 2.38 mg/L and 4.8 mg/L, respectively [MRIDs 45857207 and 00067925, respectively]). This indicates there are inert ingredients that add to or enhance the toxicity of the actives in the end

- use product

. Table I2. Acute Aquatic Invertebrate Toxicity Data for Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts Active Ingredient Formulations.

Species, Age or size % Purity Exposure Conditions Acute Endpoints

Toxicity Category of Test Substance Study

Classification/ Source/ Comments Exposure Type
pH Water Hardness as mg CaCO 3 /L Temperature



### x - h IC 50 

### (95% CI) mg t.s./L x - h IC 50



### (95% CI) mg a.e./L (1) 

### x - h IC 50



### (95% CI) mg B/L (2)



### Freshwater Invertebrate Species Water flea ( D.
magna ), <24 h old Prev

- Am Ultra ( 3 )



### Disodium tetraborate decahydrate 0.99% S 7.4

+ 0.5 122 20.2

o 

### C 48

- h EC 50 

### = 22.3 (18.8

- 26.3)

NOAEC = 9.33

Nominal 48

- h EC 50 

### =

0.143 (0.121

– 0.169)

NOAEC = 0.060 48

- h EC 50 

### =

0.0250 (0.0211

– 0.0295)

NOAEC = 0.0105 Slightly

Toxic /

MRID 46955801/

Water flea ( D.
magna ), <24 h old Wolsin FL

- 35 ( 4 )



### Boric acid 9.00% S 8.0 250 21.0

o 

### C 48

- h EC 50 

### = 0.30 (0.26

- 0.36)

Nominal 48

- h EC 50 

### =

0.027 (0.023

– 0.032) 48

- h EC 50 

### =

0.0047 (0.0040

– 0.0056) Highly

Toxic Acceptable/

46074204

Water flea ( D.
magna ) Grotan HD II ( 5 )



### Sodium tetraborate decahydrate (Borax) 41% S

-- -- -- 48

- h EC 50 

### = 22.8 (21.3

- 24.4)

Nominal End

- use p roduct is no

longer regis tered Slightly toxic Acceptable/

MRID 00060199/

a.e.: boric acid equivalent; B: boron equivalent; NA: not applicable (i.e., probit method not a good fit); S: static; TN: tes t number

(1) 

### This conversion assumes all the toxicity is attributable to the equivalents of boric acid in the formulation. Comparison of toxicity in terms of the actives and toxicity data based on each technical grade active ingredient in the test substance is n eeded to determine if the toxicity of boric acid was enhanced. (2) 

### This conversion assumes all the toxicity is attributable to total boron in the formulation. Comparison of toxicity in terms of the actives and toxicity data based on each technical grade active ingredient in the test substance is needed to determine if the toxicity of boron was enhanced. (3 ) 

### EPA Reg #72662

- 3, sodium tetraborate decahydrate 0.99%; 99.01% inert ingredients

-- Foliar treatment for a number of crops. ( 4 ) 

### EPA Reg # 71406

- 4, manufactu red by Dr. Wolman GMBH

— wood preservative uses . Fenpropimorph 5.41%; propiconazole 2.70%; boric acid 9.00%; inert ingredients 82.9% ( 5 ) 

### EPA Reg # 10000

- 3, manufactured by Hellemite Lehn & Fink Products Company. Sodium tetraborate decahydrate (Borax) 41%; potassium iodide 0.39%; 2

- chloro

- N

- (hydroxymethyl)acetamide 39%; inert ingredients 19.61%.


## Aquatic Invertebrates, Chronic

– Technical Grade Active Ingredient

# 92

A chronic freshwater invertebrate study with the TGAI is required to support the combined use patterns. The preferred freshwater species is the most sensitive of the acute freshwater invertebrates tested with boric acid or the sodium borate salts, when th is is not achievable a chronic test for a species for which there is acute data, conducted under the same environmental conditions is required to allow for calculation of an acute

- to

- chronic ratio (ACR) for use in estimating the chronic value for the most sensitive species. Boric acid toxicity data for one freshwater species, D. magna , from three studies submitted by registrants are summarized in Table I 3 . No data for the most acutely sensitive freshwater species. C. daphnia ( Table I 1 ) was submitted or fo und in the ECOTOX literature search. The NOAEC for D. magna ranged from 34 to 57 mg a.e./L (6.0 to 10 mg B/L; Table I 3 ). Two of the literature studies in addition to conducting chronic 21 day studies with D. magna also conducted concurrent acute tests fo r D. magna which provides more accurate ACRs, these are listed in Table I 4 . Using the most sensitive Ceriodaphnia dubia acute data from Table I 1 , along with the mean ACR from the D. magna data (see Table I 3 ), a NOAEC for the more acute sensitive C. dubia species was estimated to be 8.9 mg a.e./L (1.6 mg B/L) 17 

## . There was no acute toxicity data specifically with the TGAI of any of the sodium borate salts in this case. However, because these other actives are expected to rapidly release boric acid upon diss olution in aqueous media and the concentrations tested are below solubility limits these boric acid results are considered to be bridgeable for the TGAI of the other active ingredients in this case when their concentrations are expressed as either boric ac id equivalents or as boron equivalents.

Table I 3. Chronic Aquatic Invertebrate Toxicity Data for Technical Grade Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts Active Ingredients.

Species, Age or size %

Purity Exposure Conditions Chronic Endpoint

Study Classification/ Source/ Comments Exposure Type pH Water Hardness as mg CaCO 3 /L Temperature 

### NOAEC /

LOAEC mg a.e./L NOAEC /

LOAEC mg B/L

Freshwater Invertebrate Species Water flea ( D.
magna ), 1 st 

### instar Boric acid

99.9% SR 7.2

–

8.0 212 19.3

–

20.9 o 

### C 21

- d

57 / 103 21

- d

10 / 18

Measured Supplemental/

MRID 48507004/ Most sensitive endpoint was number of young produced per surviving female; adult survival was significantly reduced @ 320 mg a.e./L (56 mg B/L) Time to first brood release and growth of young were not assessed in the study. Water flea ( D.
magna ),
neonates Boric acid

Analytical Grade SR 7.1

-

8.7 166 (135

- 217) 18

- 21 o 

### C 21

- d

34 / 74 (4) 

### 21

- d

6.0 / 13 (4)



### Measured Supplemental

- Quantitative/

Lewis and Valentine 1981 (3) 

### / Mo st sensitive endpoint was brood size and total number of young produced.

17 

## NOEC = Acute endpoint/ACR = (45.5 mg B/L)/29.2 = 1.56 mg B/L

# 93

Species, Age or size %

Purity Exposure Conditions Chronic Endpoint

Study Classification/ Source/ Comments Exposure Type pH Water Hardness as mg CaCO 3 /L Temperature 

### NOAEC /

LOAEC mg a.e./L NOAEC /

LOAEC mg B/L

Water flea ( D.
magna ), <24 hr old Boric acid

Tech Grade SR 8.1

+ 0.1 148 + 7 19.5

–

20.5 o 

### C 21

- d

37 / 77.8 21

- d

6.4 / 13.6

Measured Supplemental

- Quantitative/

Gersich 1984 (3) 

### / Sensitive measurement endpoints included: mean number of broods per daphnid, mean total young per daphnid, mean brood size per daphnid and mean size (length)

No adults survived to reproductive age in the highest treatment concentration ( 105 mg B/L) but was significantly reduced at 59.3 mg B/L

Time to first reproduction was not affected at or below 59.3 mg B/L

. Estuarine/marine Invertebrate Species

---------------------------------------------- No data available

---------------------------------------------- a.e.: boric acid equivalent; B: boron equivalent; N.A.: not applicable (i.e., probit method not a good fit ); S: static; SR: static

renewal; TN: test number

(1) 

### measured: endpoint value(s) based on measured concentrations. Analytical method would measure boron, which would then be also considered measured for boric acid equivalents.

( 2 ) 

### nominal: endpoint value(s) based on nominal concentrations.

(3) 

### Per the US EPA Boric Acid/Sodium Metaborate RED (USEPA 1993 ) these unvalidated literature studies were submitted by registrants to support reregistration but were not assigned MRID numbers at the time of submittal by the Agency. The studies were conducted using acceptable protocols albeit the lack of submitted ra w data and GLP compliance verification. The Agency classified these studies as supplemental data but usable quantitatively.

(4) 

### Corrected for 0.17 mg B/L in the dilution water.



# Table I4. Freshwater Invertebrate Acute

- to

- Chronic Ratio (ACR) Values for Bor on Data. Test Species Source Acute Endpoint Chronic Endpoint Acute

- to

- chronic ratio (ACR) D. magna Lewis and Valentine 1981 226 mg B/L 6.0 mg B/L 37.7
D. magna Gersich 1992 133 mg B/L 6.4 mg B/L 20.8

Mean 29.2



## Chronic estuarine/marine invertebrate data was not required as part of the work plan for boric acid and sodium borate salts case. No data was found in the ECOTOX literature search. The use of the freshwater invertebrate ACR is not appropriate for boric acid and sodium borate salts. There ar e differences in how freshwater and saltwater species osmoregulate, in addition to other differences that can sometimes result in differences in ACRs between freshwater and saltwater invertebrates and this is likely the case for boric acid and sodium borat e salts. Use of the mean freshwater invertebrate ACR of 29.2 ( Table I4 ) with the acute value for the whiteleg shrimp ( Table I1 ) results in an erroneous chronic NOEC estimate of 0.47 mg B/L

— this value is over 10 times below the background boron level for s eawater of

# 94

5.0 mg B/L. The lack of an estuarine/marine invertebrate chronic value is not considered a data gap at this time based on the risk assessment approach taken.

Fish, Acute

– Technical Grade Active Ingredient Purity

For the combination of boric a cid and sodium borate salts use patterns acute toxicity tests for two freshwater fish species, one a cold water species and one a warm water species, and an estuarine/marine species using the TGAI (technical

- grade active ingredient) are typically required to establish the toxicity of an active ingredient to freshwater and estuarine/marine fish. The preferred test species are the rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) for the coldwater species, the bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus ) for the warmwater speci es, and one of three silverside species ( Menidia sp.) for the estuarine/marine fish. Toxicity test s using estuarine/marine species were not identified as data re quirements for this assessment due to the assumption that marine organisms are adapted to high levels of naturally

- occurring boron in seawater (see the problem formulation document, USEPA, 2009a ).

Results of acute toxicity studies from: studies submitted to the agency to support product registrations; agency test data; and results from the ECOTOX literature search with more sensitive values or for missing taxonomic groups are tabulated in Table I5 for the boric acid and sodium borate salts case. From the ECOTOX literature search two studies were added to the agency’s acute fish profile: data from Rowe (1998, ECOTOX ID E105984) for the zebrafish, Danio rerio , which appeared initially to be more sensitive than data contained in the agency’s files for freshw ater fish; and data for estuarine/marine fish (Furuta et al., 2007: ECOTOX ID E166696) for which the agency had no data. Acute toxicity data for technical grade boric acid is available for three warmwater species (Fathead minnow, Bluegill sunfish, and the Zebrafish), one coldwater species (rainbow trout), and two estuarine/marine species (Red sea bream and Japanese flounder). There was no acute toxicity data specifically with the TGAI for any of the sodium borate salts in this case. However, because thes e other actives are expected to rapidly release boric acid upon dissolution in aqueous media and the concentrations tested are below solubility limits these boric acid results are considered to be bridgeable for the TGAI of the other active ingredients in this case when their concentrations are expressed as either boric acid equivalents or as boron equivalents.

For freshwater fish species, the 96

- h LC 50 

## for boric acid ranged from 404 mg a.e./L to > 1100 mg a.e./L (70.6 mg B/L to > 192 mg B/L) ( Table I5 ); b oric acid is classified as practically non

- toxic to freshwater fish on an acute basis and slightly toxic to practically nontoxic based on B equivalents. The zebrafish is not native to the United States or its territories. The data included for this speci es in the table was found to be a greater than value and therefore the 96

- h LC 50 

## for this species is unknown. Other data within the acute fish profile have either definitive values or were tested to at least the OCSPP guideline standard of >100 mg a.i./L for a limit test for this soluble of a compound. This information was therefore not included in the toxicity range.

No studies on estuarine/marine species were submitted by registrants and were not required as part of the work plan for this case. Howeve r, estuarine/marine fish acute data was found in the ECOTOX literature search and data for the two most sensitive species (Red sea bream and Japanese flounder) were reviewed and added to the profile. Both the Red sea bream ( Pagrus major ) and Japanese flou nder ( Paralichthys olivaceus ) are not native species to the United States. The Red sea bream is distributed in the northwest Pacific from the east coast of China, Taiwan, and southern Japan to Indonesia and the Philippines. The Japanese flounder has a sim ilar but more limited range as that of the Red sea bream. Both species have similar counterparts that occur in the coastal waters of the United States and its territories with similar habitat and biology, therefore toxicity data for these species is consi dered representative for native estuarine/marine fish species. These sensitive saltwater species with 96

- h LC 50 

## values ranging from 555 to 618 mg a.e./L (97 to 108 mg B/L) had similar sensitivity to that of the most sensitive freshwater fish species ( Tabl e I5 ).

# 95

Table I5. Acute Fish Toxicity Data for Technical Grade Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts Active Ingredients.

Species, Age or size % Purity Exposure Conditions Endpoint

Toxicity Category Study

Classification/ Source/ Comments Exposure Type
pH Water Hardness as mg CaCO

3 /L Temperature 

### 96

- h LC 50



### (95% CI) mg a.e./L 96

- h LC 50



### (95% CI) mg B/L Probit

Slope

Freshwater Species Fathead minnow ( P. promelas ) Boric acid

99.9% 6.75

7.75 8.75 

## -- -- 404 784 761 70.6

137 133 Slightly

toxic on B basis and Practically

non

- toxic

on a.e. basis Acceptable/

EPA, 2010a,b/

Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ), 0.12 g, 19.8 mm Boric acid

99.9% S 7.54

-

8.18 132

- 168 24.6

- 25.1 578 101

Measured Practically

non

- toxic on both a.e. and B basis Acceptable/

EPA, 2010a,b/ GLEC,

Bluegill sunfish ( Lepomi s macrochirus ), Average 0.77 g, TL 40 mm Boric acid

100% S 7.4 52 20.5

+ 0.5

o 

### C 1021 (907

- 1310) 178

(158

- 229)

Measured (1) 

### NA Practically

non

- toxic on both a.e. and B basis Acceptable/

MRID 40594602/

Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ), 1.06 g Boric acid

100% S 7.2 52 12.5

+ 0.5

o 

### C >1100

0% mortality (0/20 fish) >192

Measured NA Practically

non

- toxic on both a.e. and B basis Acceptable/

MRID 40594601/

Rainbow trout ( O. mykiss ), Average 2.32 g, 58.6 mm Boric acid

99.9% S 7.7 36 9 o 

### C >800

0% mortality (0/10 fish)

Nominal (2) 

### >140 NA Practically

non

- toxic on both a.e. and B basis Supplemental/

Nolen, 1982 TN 27 51 (TN 2860)/

Zebrafish Danio rerio Embryo to larval stage Boric Acid

99.5% SR 7.2

-

7.4 0

- 200 12.5°C >74.4

(96

- h mortality NOAEC > 74.4) >13.0

(96

- h mortality NOAEC > 13.0) NR At most

Slightly toxic on both a.e. and B basis. Supplemental/

Quantitative/ ECOTOX ID E105984: Rowe, 1998 Does not meet standard for a limit test by OCSPP guidelines.

# 96

Species, Age or size % Purity Exposure Conditions Endpoint

Toxicity Category Study

Classification/ Source/ Comments Exposure Type
pH Water Hardness as mg CaCO

3 /L Temperature 

### 96

- h LC 50



### (95% CI) mg a.e./L 96

- h LC 50



### (95% CI) mg B/L Probit

Slope

Estuarine/Marine Species Red sea bream, Pagrus major 0.4g (tested up to 20.3g, but lowest
wt. most sensitive) Boric Acid

Unknown % SS 8.1

-

8.2 [salin

ity 35‰] 25°C 555 97

Measured (1) 

### 5.2 Slightly

toxic on B basis and Practically

non

- toxic

on a.e. basis Supplemental/

Quantitative/ ECOTOX ID E166696: Furuta, et al

., 2007

Japanese flounder Paralichthys olivaceus 0.05g (tested up to 70g, but lowest
wt. most sensitive) Boric Acid

Unknown % SS 8.1

-

8.2 [salin

ity 35 ‰] 20°C 618 108

Measured (1) 

### 12.65 Slightly

toxic on B basis and Practically

non

- toxic

on a.e. basis Supplemental/

Quantitative/ ECOTOX ID E166696: Furuta, et al

., 2007

‰: parts per thousand; a.e.: boric acid equivalent; B: boron equivalent; NA: not applicable (i.e., probit method not a good fit); NR: not reported; S: static; SS: semi

- static; TN: test number

(1) 

### measured: endpoint value(s) based on measured concentrations.

(2) 

### nominal: endpoint value(s) based on nominal concentrations.



## Fish, Acute

– Boric acid and Sodium Borate Salts Formulations

Toxicity data with typical end

- use products (TEPs) are required when it is known or there is concern for the potential for an ingredient or ingredients within the formulation to enhance the toxicity of the active ingredient. Information may also be used f or labeling purposes. While no specific concern was expressed for enhanced toxicity of boric acid or any of the sodium borate salts, information was available from agency laboratory testing and from studi es submitted to support registr ations. The toxicit y data from acute fish studies using formulations are presented in Table I7

. A number of studies conducted with formulations are not applicable to this assessment because they are no longer registered and also do not have an active end

- use product for whi ch they could act as a typical end

- use product. The end

- use product New Improved Ureabor was cancelled but there are active end

- use products for which it a representative typical end

- use product formulation result. No adequate studies using a TEP were

av ailable to assess adjuvant effects. The only acceptable study (MRID 46074203) used a product containing 9% boric acid , 5.4% fenpropimorph , and 2.7% propiconazole 2.7% ; th is product was several orders of magnitude more toxic than technical boric acid alon e to rainbow trout (practically nontoxic). It also has a higher toxicity than accounted for by boric acid in combination with the other two active ingredients, fenpropimorph and propiconazole which are both moderately toxic to rainbow trout ( 96

- h LC 50 

## of 3 .46 mg/L and 0.85 mg/L, respectively [MRIDs 45857206 and 00067923, respectively]). This indicates there are inert ingredients that add to or enhance the toxicity of the actives in the end

- use product

.

# 97

Table I7. Acute Fish Toxicity Data for Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts Active Ingredient Formulations.

Species, Age or size Test

Substance % Purity Exposure Conditions Endpoint

Toxicity Category of Test Substance Study

Classification/ Source/ Comments Exposure Type
pH Water Hardness as mg CaCO 3 /L Temperature 

### 96

- h LC 50 

### (95% CI) mg t.s./L 96

- h LC 50



### (95% CI)
mg a.e./ L (1) 

### 96

- h LC 50



### (95% CI) mg B/L (2)



### Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ), 1.01 + 0.34 g, 4.68 + 0.55 cm Wolsin FL

- 35

(Sinesto PFB (3 ) 

### ) Boric acid 9% SR 7.6

-

8.1 250 15

-

16

o 

### C 0.63 (0.38

- 2.0)

Measured 0.069

(0.040

- 0.092)

Nominal 0.012

(0.007

- 0.016)

Nominal H ighly toxic Acceptable/ MRID 46074203 Test was conducted at 1

- 2 o 

### C higher than standard guidance Rainbow trout ( O. mykiss ), Average 2.32 g, 58.6 mm P erma

- D ust

PT 240 (4 ) 

### Boric acid 20% S 8.3 36 9.0

o 

### C <100

100% mortality (10/10 fish)

Nominal <20.0 <3.50 Insufficient informa tion Supplemental/

Nolen, 1982

— TN 2749 (TN2861)/ 10% mortality @ 25 ppm t.s.

Rainbow trout ( O. my kiss ), Average 0.5998 g, 39.7 mm New

Improved Ureabor (5 ) 

### Sodium metaborate tetrahydrate 66.5% S 7.0 51.3 12.8

o 

### C (55

o 

### F) >180

10% mortality (1/10 fish)

Nominal 

## >112 >20 Practically nontoxic Supplemental/

MRID 24964 (McCann, 1972

— TN 0457)/

Rainbow trout ( O. mykiss ) Prev

- Am

Ultra ( 6 ) 

### Disodium tetraborate decahydrate 0.99% S 7.4

+ 1 122 15.4

o 

### C 47.9 (40.8

- 56.1)

NOAEC = 15.6

Nominal 

## 0.308

(0.262

– 0.360)

NOAEC = 0.100 0.0538

(0.0458

– 0.0630)

NOAEC = 0.0175 Slightly

toxic /

MRID 46955801/

Bluegill sunfish ( L. macrochirus ), Average 0.62 g, 34.6 mm New

Improved Ureabor ( 5 ) 

### Sodium metaborate tetrahydrate 66.5% S 7.0 51.3 18.3

o 

### C (65

o 

### F) >100 ppm

0% mortality (0/10 fish)

Nominal 

## >62.5 >10.9 Practically nontoxic Supplemental/

MRID 24967 (McCann, 1972 TN 0447)/

Zebra fish , NR Protectol CX

Type A [ Wolmanit CX

- LP 15172 ] (7 ) 

### B oric acid 5% 

## S 8.0

– 8.3 250 20

o 

## C 0.90 (0.56

– 1.8)

NOAEC = 0.56 0.045

(0.028

– 0.09)

NOAEC = 0.028 0.0079

(0.0049

– 0.0157)

NOAEC = 0.0049 Highly

toxic Acceptable /

47069401 & 47069404

R ainbow trout ( O. mykiss ), Average 0.60 g, 39.7 mm Steri

- Soil (8 ) 

### S 7.0 51.3 12.8

o 

### C (55

o 

### F) >180

0% mortality (0/10 fish)

Nominal End

- use p roduct is no

longer registered Practically nontoxic Supplemental/

MRID 00090307 (McCann, 1972

— TN 0456)/

# 98

Species, Age or size Test

Substance % Purity Exposure Conditions Endpoint

Toxicity Category of Test Substance Study

Classification/ Source/ Comments Exposure Type
pH Water Hardness as mg CaCO 3 /L Temperature 

### 96

- h LC 50 

### (95% CI) mg t.s./L 96

- h LC 50



### (95% CI)
mg a.e./ L (1) 

### 96

- h LC 50



### (95% CI) mg B/L (2)



### Rainbow trout ( O. mykiss ), Average 0.62 g, 40.3 mm Riverside

Weedgard G ( 9 ) 

### Sodium metaborate tetrahydrate 66.5% S 7.0 51.3 12

o 

### C >180

30% mortality (3/10 fish)

Nominal 

## End

- use product is no

longer registered Practically

nontoxic Supplemental/

MRID 24967 (McCann, 1974

— TN 0773)/

Rainbow trout ( O. mykiss ) Grotan HD

II (10 ) 

### Sodium tetraborate decahydrate (Borax) 41% S



## -- -- -- 134 (127

- 141)

Nominal End

- use p roduct is no

longer registered Practically nontoxic Acceptable/

MRID 00067968/

Rainbow trout ( O. mykiss ), Average 1.519 g, 51.8 mm Permatox 100

Liquid Fungicide Concentrate ( 11

) 

### Sodium metaborate octahydrate 13.66% S 7.0 51.3 12.8

o 

### C (55

o 

### F) 48

- h LC 50 

### =

0.47 (0.43

- 0.51) 

## End

- use product is no

longer registered Highly toxic Supplemental/

MRID 74975 (McCann, 1970

— TN 0267/ No control data

Rainbow trout ( O. mykiss ) ; Mean 0.75 g, 42

mm Permatox 100

Liquid Fungicide Concentrate (11

) 

### Sodium metaborate octahydrate 13.66% 

## S 6.7

– 7.3 -- 13

o 

## C

+ 0.5

o 

## C 0.15 (0.11

- 0.21) End

- use product is no

longer registered Highly toxic /

MRID 110816/ Trout succumbing to the test material exhibited darkening of coloration, hyperactivity, loss of equilibrium, and then settling to the bottom. Bluegill sunfish ( L. macrochirus ), Average 0.58 g, 34.5 mm St eri

- Soil (8 ) 

### S 7.0 41.04 18.3

o 

### C (65

o 

### F) >100

0% mortality (0/10 fish)

Nominal End

- use p roduct is no

longer registered Practically nontoxic Supplemental/

MRID 00090308 (McCann, 1972

— TN 0444)/

Bluegill sunfish ( L. macrochirus ), Average 0.883 g, 40.85 mm Riverside

Weedgard G ( 9 ) 

### Sodium metaborate tetrahydrate 66.5% S 7.0 51.3 18.3

o 

### C (65

o 

### F) >180

10% mortality (1/10 fish)

Nominal End

- use p roduct is no

longer registered 

## Practically

nontoxic Supplemental/

McCann, 1973

— TN 0643/

Bluegill sunfish ( L. macrochirus ) Grotan HD

II ( 10 ) 

### Sodium tetraborate decahydrate 41% S 280 (259

- 301)

Nominal End

- use p roduct is no

longer registered Practically nontoxic Acceptable/

MRID 00067968/

# 99

Species, Age or size Test

Substance % Purity Exposure Conditions Endpoint

Toxicity Category of Test Substance Study

Classification/ Source/ Comments Exposure Type
pH Water Hardness as mg CaCO 3 /L Temperature 

### 96

- h LC 50 

### (95% CI) mg t.s./L 96

- h LC 50



### (95% CI)
mg a.e./ L (1) 

### 96

- h LC 50



### (95% CI) mg B/L (2)



### Bluegill sunfish ( L. macrochirus ) ; Mean 1.2 g, 42

mm Permatox 100

Liquid Fungicide Concentrate (8) 

### Sodium metaborate octahydrate 13.66% 

## S 6.8

– 7.3 -- 18

o 

## C

+ 0.5

o 

## C 0.33 (0.23

– 0.45) End

- use p roduct is no

longer registered 

## Highly toxic /

MRID 110816/ Bluegill succumbing to the test material exhibited darkening of coloration, erratic swimming and hyperactivity, loss of equilibrium, and then settling to the bottom. Fathead minnow ( P. promelas ), Average 1.581 g, 56.85 mm Permatox 100

Liquid Fungicide Concentrate ( 11

) 

### Sodium metaborate octahydrate 13.66% S 7.0 51.3 18.3

o 

### C (65

o 

### F) -- End

- use p roduct is no longer registered 

## -- Unacceptable/ MRID 107146 (McCann, 1971

— TN 0381/ No control data

a.e.: boric acid equivalent; B: boron equivalent; N.A.: not applicable (i.e., probit method not a good fit ); S: static; TN: test number
(1 ) 

### This conversion assumes all the toxicity is attributable to the equiva lents of boric acid in the formulation. Comparison of toxicity in terms of the actives and toxicity data based on each technical grade active ingredient in the test substance is n eeded to determine if the toxicity of boric acid was enhanced.
(2 ) 

### This conv ersion assumes all the toxicity is attributable to total boron in the formulation. Comparison of toxicity in terms of the actives and toxicity data based on each technical grade active ingredient in the test substance is needed to determine if the toxicit y of boron was enhanced.
(3 ) 

### EPA Reg # 71406

- 4 manufactured by BASF Wolman GMBH , wood preservative uses

— Boric acid 9%; fenpropimorph 5.4%; propiconazole 2.7%; inert ingredients 82.9%
(4 ) 

### EPA Reg # 499

- 220, Boric acid 20%; and inert ingredients 80% this specific end

- use product is no longer active but it is typical for another active end

- use product Perma

- Dust PT 240 (EPA Reg # 499

- 384) that contains 35.5% boric acid and 64.55 inert ingredients (Use sites are nonfood/nonfeed residential, commercial, institutional, industrial food processing plants, and transportation premises)

. (5 ) 

### USDA Reg # 97428, 1624

- 90, m anufactured by U.S. Borax and Chemical Corporation Sodium metaborate tetrahydrate 66.5% (Boron Trioxide equivalent 22.6%); sodium chlorate 30.0%; bromacil 1.5%; inert ingredients 2.0%. While this specific end

use product is not active it is a typical end

- use product for Ureabor (alternate names Barespot Ureabor or Bareground Ultra) (EPA Reg # 33560

- 47 which contains less sodium metaborate tetrahydrate (49.0%). (Soil and foliar treatment noncrop areas such as drainage areas, vacant fields, roadways, rights

- of

- way, industrial, commercial, and institutional grounds and area etc.).
( 6 ) 

### EPA Reg #72662

- 3, sodium tetraborate decahydrate 0.99%; 99.01% inert ingredients. (Foliar treatment for a number of crops.)
( 7 ) 

### EPA Reg #71406

- 2, copper carbonate, basic 16.3%; bis

- ( N

- Cyclohexyldiazeniumdioxy)

- copper) 3.5%; bor ic acid 5%; and 75.2% inert ingredients.
( 8 ) 

### USDA Reg # 5

- 1. Manufactured by Empire Laboratories, Atlanta, Georgia

— 77% sodium chlorate and sodium borate (sodium tetraborate decahydrate) ; 23% inert ingredients.
( 9 ) 

### EPA Reg. # 9779

- 209 Manufactured by Riverside Chemical Company, Memphis, Tennessee. Sodium metaborate tetrahydrate 66.5% (Boron Trioxide equivalent 22.6%); sodium chlorate 30.0%; bromacil 1.5%; inert ingredients 2.0%.
( 10 ) 

### EPA Reg # 10000

- 3, manufacture d by Hellemite Lehn & Fink Products Company. Sodium tetraborate decahydrate (Borax) 41%; potassium iodide 0.39%; 2

- chloro

- N

- (hydroxymethyl)acetamide 39%; inert ingredients 19.61% . (Transferred to EPA Reg #365

- 77).

# 100 ( 1 1 ) 

### USDA Reg #1022

- 354, manufactured by Chapman Chemical Company. As reported in the studies the active ingredient and inert ingredient contents of this formulation were: s odium tetrachlorophenate 16.4 0 %; sodium salts other chlorinate phenols 4.43%; sodium metaborate octahydrate 13.66%; phenyl mercuric lactate 0.40; and inert ingredients 65.11%

. ( 12 ) 

### EPA Reg #83933

- 1, sodium fluoride 22.5%; boric acid 40.8%; and 36.7% inert ingredients.



## Fish, Chronic

A chronic fish study with the TGAI is required to support the combined use patterns. The preferred species is the most sensitive of the acute freshwater or estuarine/marine fish species tested with boric acid or the sodium borate salts, when this is not a chievable a chronic test for a species for which there is acute data, conducted under the same environmental conditions is required to allow for calculation of an acute

- to

- chronic ratio (ACR) for use in estimating the chronic value for the most sensitive s pecies. The most acutely sensitive freshwater fish species was the fathead minnow with 96

- hr LC 50 

## values ranging from 70.6 mg B/L to 137 mg B/L ( Table I6 ). The acute sensitivity of the two estuarine/marine fish species were within this same range, 97

- 108 mg B/L. There was a n acceptable fish early life study with the most sensitive freshwater species, the fathead minnow, and the results are summarized in Table I8

. The NOAEC for the fathead minnow was found to be 42 mg a.e./L (7.4 mg B/L; MRID 43914601) b ased on total length ( Table I9 ).



# The results of the D. magna life cycle data indicates that boron is potentially a reproductive toxicant for aquatic animals (most sensitive endpoints are brood size and number of young produced for D. magna ). Therefore, there is some uncertainty in the use of just a fish early life stage test to assess chronic risk as it does not specifically measure effects on reproductive endpoints and may result in underestimation of chronic risk to fish

. Boron is also a reproductive toxicant in mammals.

Table I8. Chronic Fish Toxicity Data for Technical Grade Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts Active Ingredients.

Species, Age or size %

Purity Exposure Conditions Endpoint



## Study Classification/ Source/ Comments Exposure Type
pH Water Hardness as mg CaCO

3 /L Temperature 

### NOAEC /

LOAEC mg a.e./L NOAEC /

LOAEC mg B/L



## Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ), 7 hour post

fertilized eggs Boric

acid 99.7% F 6.5

- 7.8 60

- 76 24

– 25 o 

## C 32

- d

42 / 74 Measured (1) 

## 32

- d

7.4 / 13 Acceptable/ MRID 48914601 (2 ) 

## / Most sensitive endpoint was total length; post

hatch survival and dry weight was significantly reduced @ 140 mg a.e./L (28 mg B/L)

# 101

Species, Age or size %

Purity Exposure Conditions Endpoint



## Study Classification/ Source/ Comments Exposure Type
pH Water Hardness as mg CaCO

3 /L Temperature 

### NOAEC /

LOAEC mg a.e./L NOAEC /

LOAEC mg B/L



## Fathead minnow ( P. promelas ), <24 h old fertilized embryos Boric

acid 99.7% F

-- -- -- -- -- Unacceptable/ EPA, 2010a,b/ Control mortality exceeded acceptable levels, and was attributed to handling issues and two of the control replicates were not included in the statistical analysis. If there were handling issues with the controls, effects in other treatments may also be impacted and not separable from treatment related impacts. Source of water was dechlorinated (carbon filtered) Traverse, MI tap water, GLEC, 60

- 90% control mortality in 2 replicates a.e.: boric acid equivalent; B: boron equivalent; F: flowthrough; N.A.: not applicable (i.e., probit metho d not appropriate in this case)

(1) 

### measured: endpoint value(s) based on measured concentrations.

(2 ) 

### Note: 

## 48914601 is a fish early life stage test. D. magna life cycle data indicates that boron is potentially a reproductiv e toxicant for aquatic animals (most sensitive endpoints are brood size and number of young produced). In avian reproduction study there was no effect on number of eggs laid per pair. The most sensitive endpoints were number of hatchlings per eggs s et,

a nd number of 14 d hatchlings per eggs set. Use of fish early life stage test may underestimate risks to fish.



## Other Aquatic Animal Data A study on boric acid toxicity to toad eggs (Takeuchi, 1958, Acc. 05015376) was submitted but not useable due to insufficient information, including missing pages, lack of supporting data and lack of information on controls. Two studies using tadpoles wer e submitted but not determined to be useable. In one (Ziof and Stephen, 1949, Acc. 05018639), solutions of various sugar alcohols (e.g., mannitol) were prepared with an unknown quantity of boric acid. Authors determined that tadpoles died more rapidly in those solutions with the greater number of hydrogen ions but the submission contained insufficient information (including not providing the number of tadpoles involved). In the other (Du Bois, et al., 1957, Acc. 05019853) the effect of boric acid solutio ns on the regeneration of amputated tadpole tails was studied. This study was determined to lack pertinence to regulatory assessments.

A submitted study (Linden, et al., 1979, Acc. 05020076) using a brackish water fish, the bleak ( Alburnus alburnus ), and a crustacean, the harpacticoid ( Nitocra spinipes ) received an abbreviated review

# 102

because it contained insufficient information and was done with a formulation that contained an additional active ingredient.

Table I6. Other Fish Toxicity Information for Technical Grade Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts Active Ingredients.

Species, Age or size % Purity Exposure Conditions Endpoint

Toxicity Category Study

Classification/ Source/ Comments Exposure Type
pH Water Hardness as mg CaCO

3 /L Temperature 

### 96

- h LC 50



### (95% CI) mg a.e./L 96

- h LC 50



### (95% CI) mg B/L Probit

Slope

Freshwater Species Zebrafish D. rerio Age/Size N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. Developmental EC 50 (1 ) 

### = 0.656 Development

al EC 50 (3) 

### = 3.75 N.R. N.A. Supplemental/ Qualitative/ ECOTOX ID E161191/ Padilla, 2011 ‰: parts per thousand; a.e.: boric acid equivalent; B: boron equivalent; N.A.: not applicable (i.e., probit method not a good fit ); N.R.: not reported; S: static; SS: semi

- static; TN: test number

(1) 

### This is not an LC 50 

### but a type of EC 50 

### (median effects concentration) that authors refer to as a developmental effect index , a half

- maximal activity concentration ( AC 50 

### ).



# a. Aquatic Plants

Testing with Technical Grade Active Ingredient For the combination of boric acid and sodium borate salts use patterns toxicity tests using technical grade active ingredient for four species of algae ( a green algae, a freshwater diatom, a saltwater diatom and a cyanobacteria or blue

- green algae), and a duckweed are typically required to establish the toxicity of an active ingredient to aquatic plants

. For the antimicrobial use patterns, a seedling emergence test with rice is triggered if the aquatic toxicity of the algae or duckweed is 1 mg/L of less. Aquatic plant toxicity studies for boric acid were recently reviewed and the endpoints presented below ( Table I 12 ). No data gaps were identified as data for all four algal species and a duckweed species was available, and the results did not indicate th at seedling emergence testing with rice was needed.

Table I12

. Aquatic Plant Toxicity Data for Technical Grade Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts Active Ingredients

.

Species % Purity Exposure Conditions Endpoint s

Study Classification/ Source/ Comments Exposure Type
pH Water Hardness as mg CaCO 3 /L Temperature 

### x - h IC 50



### (95% CI)

NOAEC/ LOAEC
mg a.e./ L x - h IC 50



### (95% CI)

NOAEC/ LOAED mg B/L
Duckweed ( Lemna gibba G3), inoculum culture was 2 days old Boric acid

99.7% SR 7.4

-

8.9 20X AAP Medium (1) 

### 23

- 25

o 

### C 7

- d

163 (139

- 191) 7

- d

28.5 (24.3

- 33.4) Acceptable/ 48820802 Most sensitive endpoint was biomass based on dry weight.

# 103 Species % Purity Exposure Conditions Endpoint s

Study Classification/ Source/ Comments Exposure Type
pH Water Hardness as mg CaCO 3 /L Temperature 

### x - h IC 50



### (95% CI)

NOAEC/ LOAEC
mg a.e./ L x - h IC 50



### (95% CI)

NOAEC/ LOAED mg B/L

60 / 130 11 /

22

Measured Green algae ( Pseudokirchneriel la subcapitata ) Boric acid

99.9% S 7.5

-

8.3 AAP Medium (2)



### 24.2 23 + 2

o 

### C 74.5

- hr

230 (180

- 320)

100 / 181 74.5

- hr

40.2 (31.5

- 55.9)

17.5 / 31.6

Nominal but confirmed with selected
measurements Supplemental

- Quantitative/

MRID 48507003/ Standard test is a 96 hour exposure study. Therefore results from this study may potentially under estimate toxicity as compared to results from a standard study. Also raw data was not provided so an independent evaluation of results was not possible. Estimate can be used as an upper bound of toxicity since 96

- hour endpoints would be expected to be eq ual or lower. Also, study redone (48820804). The most sensitive endpoint was area under the growth curve. Green algae ( P. subcapitata ), inoculum culture was 3 days old Boric acid

99.7% S 6.6

-

9.3 AAP Medium (2)



### 24.2 23

- 25

o 

### C 96

- hr

124 (87.2

- 177)

66 / 150 96

- hr

21.7 (15.2

- 30.9)

11.5 / 26.2

Measured Acceptable/

MRID 48820804/ Most sensitive endpoint was cell density and area under the growth curve. An algistatic/algicidal ancillary investigation documented that boric acid has an algistatic, rather than algicidal effect (at test termination cells from 1000
mg a.e./ L were exposed to 66
mg a.e./ L for 4 days

— 961 fold increase) Blue

- green algae ( Anabaena flos

aquae ), inoculum culture was 3 days old Boric acid

99.7% S 7.1

-

7.4 AAP Medium (2)



### 24.2 24

- 25

o 

### C 96

- hr

81.3 (58.2

- 113)

9.2 / 20 96

- hr

14.2 (10.2

- 19.8)

1.6 / 3.5

Measured Acceptable/

MRID 48820801/ Most sensitive endpoint was area under the growth curve. An algistatic/algicidal ancillary investigation documented that boric acid has an algistatic,

r ather than algicidal effect (at test termination cells from 160
mg a.e./ L were exposed to 10
mg a.e./ L for 4 days

— 81 fold increase). Freshwater diatom ( Navicula pelliculosa ), inoculum culture was 3 days old Boric acid

99.7% S 6.8

-

7.6 AAP Medium (2)



### 24.2 23

- 24

o 

### C 96

- hr

585 (488

- 703)

260 / 540 96

- hr

102 (85.3

- 123)

45.4 / 94.3 Acceptable/

MRID 48851201/ Most sensitive endpoint was biomass. An algistatic/ algicidal ancillary investigation documented that boric acid has an algistatic, rather than algicidal

# 104 Species % Purity Exposure Conditions Endpoint s

Study Classification/ Source/ Comments Exposure Type
pH Water Hardness as mg CaCO 3 /L Temperature 

### x - h IC 50



### (95% CI)

NOAEC/ LOAEC
mg a.e./ L x - h IC 50



### (95% CI)

NOAEC/ LOAED mg B/L

Measured effect (at test termination cells

from 1000 mg a.e./

L were exposed to 63 mg a.e./ L for 4 days

— 77 fold increase). Marine diatom ( Skeletonema
costatum ), inoculum culture was 8 days old Boric acid

99.7% S 7.1

-

8.7 AES Medium (3)



### Salinity 30

+ 2 g/L 21

- 22

o 

### C 96

- hr

388 (343

- 435)

270 / 510 96

- hr

67.8 (60.0

- 76.0)

47.1 / 89.1

Measured Supplemental

- Quantitative/

MRID 48820803/ Most sensitive endpoint was area under the growth curve. The final control density was slightly below test standards so uncertainty exists as to whether the cells were in optimum logarithmic growth phase. An algistatic/algicidal ancillary investigation documented that boric acid has an algistatic, rather than algicidal effect (at test termination cells from 1000
mg a.e./ L were exposed to 250
mg a.e./ L for 9 days

— 6.16 fold increase). AAP: algal assay procedure; AES: artificially enriched seawater

(1) 

### For this test t he 20X AAP medium recipe was amended to not include the boric acid ingredient (final concentration of 3.7 mg a.e./L or 0.65 mg B/L), which is a nutrient for duckweed

. This means controls were missing required nutrient levels of boron.

(2 ) 

### The AAP medium recipe contains 0.1855 mg boric acid/L. This level is required for nutrition of these algae species and is negligible relative to the added boric acid additions for exposure treatment concentrations.

(3 ) 

### For this test t he AES medium recipe was amended to not include the boric acid ingredient (final concentration of 2.10 mg a.e./L o r 0.37 mg B/L), which is a nutrient for this algal species

. This means controls were missing required nutrient levels of boron.



## The 96

- hour I C 5 0 

## for aquatic non

- vascular plants (algae) from boric acid exposure ranged from 81.3 (58.2 to 113) mg a.e./L for the freshwater blue

- green algae, Anabaena flosaquae (MRID 48820801, based on AUC, area under the curve), to 592 (533 to 657) mg a.e./L for the fr eshwater diatom, Navicula pelliculosa (MRID 48851201, based on biomass); respective NOAECs were 9.2 and 260 mg a.e./L ( Table I12 ). Anabaena is a bluegreen algae, which are not typically the most sensitive group

– this is likely due, at least in part, to t he protection from environmental stressors by their mucilaginous sheath. One possible explanation is the corrosive nature of boric acid that may damage the mucilaginous sheath. The second most sensitive algae tested had somewhat similar sensitivity with an I C 50 

## approximately fifty percent greater; the freshwater green algae, Pseudokirch neriella subcapitata , had a 96

- hour I C 50 

## of 125 (94 to 166) mg a.e./L and an NOAEC of 66, based on AUC.

The I C 50 

## for aquatic vascular plants from boric acid exposure was 163 (139 to 191) mg a.e./L for duckweed, Lemna gibba (MRID 48820802, based on final biomass) with an NOAEC of 60 mg a.e./L ( Table I12 ).

Testing with Formulations

# 105

Toxicity data with typical end

- use products (TEPs) are required when it is known or the re is concern for the potential for an ingredient or ingredients within the formulation to enhance the toxicity of the active ingredient. Information may also be used for labeling purposes. While no specific concern was expressed for enhanced toxicity of boric acid or any of the sodium borate salts, information was available from agency laboratory testing and from studies submitted to support registrations. Toxicity data with formulations are given in Table I13 below.

Table I 1 3 . Aquatic Plant Toxicity Data for Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts Active Ingredient Formulations.

Species, Age or size % Purity Exposure Conditions Endpoint

Study Classification/ Source/ Comments Exposure Type
pH Water Hardness as mg CaCO 3 /L Temperature



### x - h IC 50



### (95% CI)
mg t.s./L x - h IC 50



### (95% CI)
mg a.e./ L (1) 

### x - h IC 50



### (95% CI) mg B/L (2)



### Duckweed ( Lemna EP, Impralit KDS (3)



### Boric acid 8% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- / 46522304
Freshwater green algae, S. capricornutum ) Protectol CX Type A

[aka Wolmanit CX

LP 15172 ] (4) 

### B oric acid 5% S 7.52

– 8.7 OECD medium 21.2

–

23.0

o 

### C 0.15 (N.R.)

NOAEC = N.R. for biomass 0.0075 0.0013 Supplemental / 47210203 Control growth rate did not mee t standards; Biomass was most sensitive endpoint; Effect was identified to be algicidal. Freshwater green algae, S. capricornutum Prev

- Am Ultra (5)



### D isodium tetraborate decahydrate 0.99% S 7.4

+ 1 155 22.8

o 

### C 72

- h IC 50 

### = 40.4

NOAEC = 11.9

Nominal -- -- / MRID 46955801/

Freshwater cyanobacteria, Anabaena flos

aquae Protectol CX Type A

[aka Wolmanit CX

LP 15172 ] (4) 

### B oric acid 5% S 7.43

– 8.09 OECD medium 22.1

–

24.0

o 

### C 0.10

NOAEC = N.R. for biomass 0.005 0.000874 Supplemental / 47210203 & 47537801 Biomass was most sensitive endpoint; Effect was identified to be algicidal. Diatom, Navicula pelliculosa Protectol CX Type A

[aka Wolmanit CX

LP 15172 ] (4) 

### B oric acid 5% S 7.54

– 7.82 -- 22.8

–

24.9

o 

### C -- -- -- Acceptable / 47355201 & 47537801

a.e.: boric acid equivalent; B: boron equivalent; N.A.: not applicable (i.e., probit method not a good fit ); S: static; TN: test number
(1 ) 

### This conversion assumes all the toxicity is attributable to the equivalents of boric acid in the formulation. Comparison of toxicity in terms of the actives and toxicity data based on each technical grade active ingredient in the test substance is n eeded to determine if the toxicity of boric acid was enhanced.

# 106 (2 ) 

### This conversion assumes all the toxicity is attributable to total boron in the formulation. Comparison of toxicity in terms of the actives and toxicity data based on each technical grade active ingredient in the test substance is needed to determine if the toxicity of boron was enhanced. ( 3 ) 

### EPA Reg #75269

- 2, 12.47% copper carbonate, basic; 8% boric acid; 5.96% N

- decyl

- 1

- Decanamine, polymer with boric acid

, oxirane and 1,2

- propanediol ; and 73.57 % inert ingredients. (Wood preservative uses.)
( 4 ) 

### EPA Reg #71406

- 2, copper carbonate, basic 16.3%; bis

- ( N

- Cyclohexyldiazeniumdioxy)

- copper) 3.5%; boric acid 5%; and 75.2% inert ingredients. ( 5 ) 

### EPA Reg #72662

- 3, disodium tetraborate decahydrate 0.99%; 99. 01% inert ingredients. (Foliar treatment for a number of crops.)



## Toxicity to Terrestrial Organisms



# a. Terrestrial Animals Birds, Acute and Subacute

– Technical Grade Active Ingredient
A cute oral toxicity data with TGAI is required to establish the toxicity for each active ingredient

. Data is required for a passerine (songbird) species and either a waterfowl or upland game species . For the passerine study, regurgitation problems with using an oral dosing strategy resulted in a modified dietary passerine st udy (see footnote 2 to Table I15 , below) . The preferred waterfowl species is the mallard duck and the preferred upland gamebird species is the bobwhite quail. Avian acute toxicity data was available for three of the nine active ingredients in this case; r esults of these tests are tabulated below ( Table I 1 4 ). Boric a cid data was tested above 2000 mg a.e./kg

- bw, which is the cut

- off between practically non

- toxic and slightly toxic designation and therefore boric acid is considered practically nontoxic ( Table I 1 4 )

. The other two active ingredients on a technical basis were also tested over 2000 mg t.s./kg

- bw and are also considered practically nontoxic test substances on an acute oral basis. Because none of the tests exposed birds to boron in the diet a t over 2000 mg/L and the results are not definitive tests, boron may at most be considered moderately toxic ( Table I14 ). While no definitive comparison between acute oral toxicity can be made between all active ingredients in this Case given the availabl e data, the agency does believe given the similarity between the chemicals in this case that the information on a boric acid equivalent basis and boron equivalent basis can be considered representative for the other active ingredients not tested.

Table I14

. Acute Avian Oral Toxicity Data for Technical Grade Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts Active Ingredients

.

Species, Age or size Test

Substance (ts) % Purity Design

Exposure Type Endpoint Toxicity Category Study

Classification/ Source/ Comments mg a.e./kg mg B/kg

Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) Boric acid (H 3 

### BO) 

## 99.9% Oral , single

dose LD 50



## >2

, 150 LD 50 

## >376 B at most

moderately toxic (ts Practically

non

- toxic) Acceptable/

ACC 254367/ No mortalities observed Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ), 5 months Sodium

Tetraborate Decahydrate (Na 2 

### B 4 

### O 7 

### •10H 2 

### 0) 

## 100% Oral , single

dose 14

- d LD 50



## >1,626 (a) 

## 14

- d LD 50



## > 285 (a) 

## Practically

nontoxic on a ts basis but Acceptable/

MRID 00100657 / No mortalities observed (10 birds/tmnt)

# 107

Species, Age or size Test

Substance (ts) % Purity Design

Exposure Type Endpoint Toxicity Category Study

Classification/ Source/ Comments mg a.e./kg mg B/kg
Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) , 5 months Disodium

Octaborate Tetrahydrate (Na 2 

### B 8 

### O 3 

### •4H 2 

### 0) 

## 99.4% Oral , single

dose 14

- d LD 50



## >1,625 (a) 

## 14

- d LD 50



## > 284 (a ) 

## Practically

nontoxic on a ts basis but Acceptable/

MRID 00107904 No mortalities observed (10 birds/tmnt)

a.e.: boric acid equivalent; B: boron equivalent; mg/kg

- bw: milligrams per kilogram of body weight; N.R.: not reported
(a) 

### 14

- d LD 50 

### > 2,510 mg ts/kg

- bw



## Two subacute dietary studies one with a waterfowl and the other a gamebird species using TGAI

are required to establish the subacute dietary toxicity to birds. The preferred test species are mallard duck for the waterfowl species and bobwhite quail for the upland game bird . Results of these tests are tabulated below ( Table I15 ). Subacute data for a waterfowl and upland game bird species was available for two active ingredients in this case, boric acid and DOT; data for boric acid was also available for a passerine species. On a boric acid equivalent basis all results indicate these chemicals are pra ctically nontoxic on a subacute dietary basis. While no definitive comparison between subacute dietary toxicity can be made between all active ingredients in this Case given the available data, the agency does believe given the similarity between the chem icals in this case that the information on a boric acid equivalent basis and boron equivalent basis can be considered representative for the other active ingredients not tested.

Table I 1 5 . Avian Subacute Dietary Toxicity Data for Technical Grade Boric Aci d and Sodium Borate Salts Active Ingredients

.

Species, Age or size Test

Substance (ts) % Purity Design

Exposure Type Endpoint Toxicity Category Study Classification/ Source/ Comments mg a.e./kg

diet mg B/kg

diet Mallard duck (

A. platyrhynchos ), 1 day old Boric acid (H 3 

### BO) 99.9% Sub

- Acute

Dietary 8

- d LC 50



### >5,620 8

- d LC 50



### >982 B at most slightly

toxic (ts practically non

toxic) Acceptable/

MRID 00141771 (ACC 254367), Beavers 1984 / No mortalities observed. 10 subjects/group. Mallard duck (

A. platyrhynchos ), 14 days old Disodium Octaborate Tetrahydrate (Na 2 

### B 8 

### O 1 3 

### •4H 2 

### 0) 99.4% Sub

- Acute

Dietary 8

- d LC 50



### >12,000 (a) 

### 8

- d LC 50



### >2,100 (1 ) 

### Practically non

toxic Acceptable/

MRID 100636 / No mortalities observed. 10 subjects/group

Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ), 11 days old Boric acid (H 3 

### BO) 99.9% Sub

- Acute

Dietary 8

- d LC 50



### >5,620 8

- d LC 50



### >982 B at most slightly

toxic (ts practically non

toxic) Acceptable/

MRID 00141770 (ACC 254367), Beavers 1984/ No mortalities observed. 10 subjects/group.

# 108

Species, Age or size Test

Substance (ts) % Purity Design

Exposure Type Endpoint Toxicity Category Study Classification/ Source/ Comments mg a.e./kg

diet mg B/kg

diet Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ), N.R. Disodium Octaborate Tetrahydrate (Na 2 

### B 8 

### O 1 3 

### •4H 2 

### 0) 99.4% Sub

- Acute

Dietary 8

- d LC 50



### >12,000 (a) 

### 8

- d LC 50



### >2,100 (a) 

### Practically non

toxic Acceptable/

MRID 100637/ No mortalities observed. 10 subjects/group



## Canary ( Serinus canaria ), 11

- 15 months old Boric acid (H 3 

### BO) 

## 100% Sub

- Acute

Dietary (2 ) 

## 8

- d LD 50



## >11,025

NOAEC/ LOAEC 1,869 / 4568 (body wt gain

- day 0

- 5) 

## 8

- d LD 50



## >1

, 929

NOAEC/ LOAEC 327 / 798 (body wt gain

- day 0

- 5)

Measured 

## Practically non

toxic Supplemental/

MRID 48851202/ No mortalities observed out of 10 birds /group

a.e.: boric acid equivalent; B: boron equivalent; mg/kg

- bw: milligrams per kilogram of body weight; N.R.: not reported
(1) 

### 8

- d LC 50 

### > 10,000 mg ts/kg

- bw
(2 ) 

### This study design is an acceptable alternative to the standard oral acute toxicity test which administers a single dose of test substance . The alteration was made because preliminary work by the study authors show ed that canaries quickly regurgitated the single dosage of boric acid . The primary study endpoint was survival. Observations were also made on body weight, food consumption, and changes in behavior.

3 

### B ased on 5

- day w eigh t gain

.



# Birds, Acute and Subacute

– B oric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts Formulations Toxicity data with formulations from the agency’s files are given in Table I16 below. None of these formulations have active registrations nor are they a typical end

- use product for any active registrations and therefore are not useable in characterizing risk or hazards for this Case.

# 109

Table I16

. Avian Oral and Subacute Dietary Toxicity Data for Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts Formulations.

Species, Age or size Test Substance (ts) % Purity Design

Exposure Type Endpoint Expressed As: Toxicity Category Study

Classification/ Source/ Comments ts a.e. B
Bobwhite quail ( C. virginianus ) Grotan HD

- II (a)



## Sodium tetraborate decahydrate 41% Oral, single

dose LD 50 

### = 317

mg ts/kg

bw No longer registered Moderately toxic Acceptable /

MRID 000 60198 /

Mallard duck (

A. platyrhynchos ) Grotan HD

- II



## Sodium tetraborate decahydrate 41% Sub

- Acute

Dietary 8

- d LC 50 

### =

13,100 ppm (12,373

- 13,827) No longer registered Practically

non

- toxic Acceptable /

MRID 000 67969 /

Bobwhite quail ( C. virginianus ) Grotan HD

- II (a)



## Sodium tetraborate decahydrate 41% Sub

- Acute

Dietary 8

- d LC 50 

### =

8,200 ppm (7,354

- 9,046) No longer registered Practically

non

- toxic Acceptable /

MRID 000 67969/

a.e.: boric acid equivalent; B: boron equivalent; mg/kg

- bw: milligrams per kilogram of body weight; N.R.: not reported

(a) 

### EPA Reg # 10000

- 3, manufactured by Hellemite Lehn & Fink Products Company. Sodium tetraborate decahydrate (Borax) 41%; potassium iodide 0.39%; 2

- chloro

- N

- (hydroxymethyl)a cetamide 39%; inert ingredients 19.61%



## Birds, Chronic

– Technical Grade Active Ingredient

Avian reproduction studies using the TGAI are required for birds as they may be subject to repeated or continuous exposure to the active ingredients due to the persistence, especially preceding or during the breeding season. The preferred test species are mallard duck and bobwhite quail. Data for boric acid was submitted for both a mallard duck and the bobwhite quail ( Table I17 ) . The mallard duck

was m ore sens itive than the bobwhite quail. The mallard duck NOAEL for boric acid was 249 mg a.e./kg

- diet (43.6 mg B/kg

- diet) based on reproductive effects.

Table I 1 7 . Avian Reproductive Toxicity Data for Technical Grade Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts Active I ngredients.

Species, Age or size Test Substance (ts) % Purity Design

Exposure Type Endpoint Study Classification/ Source/ Comments mg a.e./kg

- diet mg B/kg

- diet Mallard duck (

A. platyrhynchos ), 27 weeks old Boric acid (H 3 

### BO) 100% Reproduction NOAEL = 249 (1) 

### LOAEL = 743 NOAEL = 43.6

LOAEL = 130 Acceptable/

MRID 49009801/ 16 pairs per level. Based on percent hatchlings/live embryos

. Bobwhite quail ( C. virginianus ), 20 weeks 4 days Boric acid (H 3 

### BO) 100% Reproduction NOAEL = 490 LOAEL = 971 NOAEL = 85.7

LOAEL = 170 Supplemental/

Quantitative/ 49185901 16 pairs per level. Based on percent hatchlings/live embryos and male weight gain. a.e.: boric acid equivalent; B: boron equivalent; mg/kg

- bw: milligrams per kilogram of body weight; N.R.: no t reported; ts: test substance (1) 21.2 mg/kg

- bw estimated daily dose

.

# 110

In addition to the submitted data, two avian reproduction studies testing borax have been identified in the available literature. They include a 28

- day dietary exposure study in broiler chickens (Rossi et al. 1993) and a 6 week reproduction study testing mallard ducks (Smith and Anders 1989) .The results of Rossi et al . showed decreased hatchability in offspring of chickens exposed to 250 ppm B. In male chickens exposed to borax (250 ppm B), an increase in the number of damaged spermatozoa was observed ( p = 0.051) (Rossi et al. 1993). Only one concentration of borax was tested in this study; thus, the NOAEL is <250 ppm B and the LOAEL is 250 ppm B. The results of Smith and Anders reported decreased hatching, post

- hatching growth and survival in the 1000 ppm B treatment group (NOAEL = 300 ppm B; LOAEL = 1000 ppm B). There was no effect of treatment on adult survival or egg fertility and no evidence of male reproductive toxicity was observed (NOAEL >1000 ppm B). The agency is assuming that on a boric acid equivalent basis and boron equivalent basis the boric acid results are representative of the toxicity for the other active ingredients not tested.

Birds, Other Data

Table I 1 8 . Other Avian Effects Data for Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts

.

Species, Age or size Test

Substance (ts) % Purity Design

Exposure Type Endpoint Toxicity Category Study Classification/ Source/ Comments American Kestrel ( Falco sparverius) EP (sodium

fluoride (98%) + boric acid) Reproduction N/A

-- / 47054802 / Sample sizes did not permit adequate statistical analysis of the reproductive data. Chicken Boric acid (H 3 

### BO) 100% Litter treated

with boric acid 14

- d LC 50 

### >

7.257 kg a.e./ ft 2 

### 14

- d LC 50 

### >

1.270 kg B/ ft 2 

### -- / 41017501 & 41086601 / No mortalities, 20 bird/group. (14

- d LC 50 

### > 16lb ts/ft 2 

### ) Turkey B oric acid (H 3 

### BO) 100% Litter treated

with boric acid 14

- d LC 50 

### >

7.257 kg a.e./ ft 2 

### 14

- d LC 50 

### >

1.270 kg B/ ft 2 

### -- / 41017501 & 41086601 / No mortalities, 20 bird/group.

(14

- d LC 50 

### > 16lb ts/ft 2 

### ) a.e.: boric acid equivalent; B: boron equivalent; mg/kg

- bw: milligrams per kilogram of body weight; N.R.: not reported; ts: test substance



## Mammals, Acute and Chronic

– Technical Grade Active Ingredient

Wild mammal testing is recommended on a case

- by

- case basis, depending on the results of lower tier laboratory mammalian studies, intended use pattern and pertinent environmental fate characteristics. In most cases, rat or mouse toxicity values obtained from the Agency's Health Effects Division (HED) substitute for wild mammal test ing. These data are not included in this appendix.

# 111

Terrestrial Invertebrates

– Technical Grade Active Ingredient

A honey bee acute contact study using the TGAI was previously recommended for boric acid because its proposed uses may result in honey bee exposure. Results of this test are tabulated below ( Table I19 ). Additional pollinator studies more recently requested are also included, though incomplete at this time. The contact LD 50 

## for the honey bee was >363 μg a.e./bee. More information is needed to assess risk to pollinators.

Table I 1 9 . Nontarget Insect Acute Toxicity.

Species Guideline

Test Substance Purity, % a.e. LD 50 

### (ug/bee) Study Classification MRID Expressed as μg a.e./bee Expressed as μg

B/bee

Honey Bee Apis mellifera 850.3020 1



### Acute Contact TGAI (20 Mule Team Boric Acid) 100% >363 (NOAEC 363) >63.5

(NOAEC 63.5) Acceptable 40269201 2



### Honey Bee A. mellifera OECD Guideline No. 213/EU

method C.16. Acute Oral Toxicity Test Substance was OA

- 01NL Unknown boric acid or boron. NA NA Not Reviewed; Review Pending Receipt of Active Ingredient information. 46955803

Honey Bee A. mellifera OECD Guideline No. 214/EU

method C.17. Acute Contact Test Substance was OA

- 01NL Unknown boric acid or boron. NA NA Not Reviewed; Review Pending Receipt of Active Ingredient information. 46955804

TGAI = technical

- grade active ingredient; NA = information not available;

1 

### Formerly Guideline 141

- 1.

2 

### Most of this information is also covered on pages 3

- 8 of a 1975 document (Atkins et al .).



## Table I20. Other Terrestrial Invertebrate Studies

.

Species Guideline

Test Substance Purity, % a.e. LC 50 

### (ug/kg

- diet) Study Classification MRID/Other

Citation Expressed as mg a.e./Kg Expressed as mg B/kg

Multiple Species 1 

### Field Study NA NA Not Reviewed; 1 

### Supplemental Information 000060632/

Johansen, 1967

Dipteran Anastrepha
suspensa NG

- Acute

Dietary Sodium Tetraborate Purity not given 48

- h LC 50 

### for 10d old

males = 11800 (3320

- 14500) mg boric acid/kg

- diet Slope 6.13 ± 1.96 48

- h LC 50 

### for 10d old

males = 2060 (580

- 2540) mg B/kg

- diet Slope 6.13 ± 1.96 Supplemental Quantitative 45356601



## NG

– non

- guideline study; NA = information not available.

1 

### Available copy illegible for the most part; appears to involve leaf

- cutting bee, alkali bee, harvester ants, a beetle, a fly parasite and possibly other species.



## A study of the effects of herbicides and foliar fertilizers on bees (Ostrovskil, 1955) was submitted for boric acid but not reviewed due to insufficient information. Another submitted study (Cherkasova, 1958) addressed the influence of boron on gas metabolism of the mulberry silkworm and was not reviewed due to unclear applicability in risk assessment for non

- target species

.

# 112

a. Terrestrial Plants

Table I21 . Summary of Most Sensitive Terrestrial Plant Toxicity Endpoints

– Tiers I and II

.

Species Tested Guideline Test Substance Purity, % a.e. Toxicity Value Study Classification MRID Expressed as lb a.e./A Expressed as lb B/A

Most sensitive monocot and dicot: Could not be determined Species tested: monocot (corn, Zea mays ; onion, Allium cepa ; ryegrass, Lolium perenne ; and oat, Avena sativa ) and dicot (common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris ; cucumber, Cucumis sativus ; oilseed
rape, Brassica napus ; radish, Raphanus sativus ; soybean, Glycine ma x ; and tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum ) Seedling Emergence 850.4100 TGAI 1 99.7% Monocot: IC 25 : >5.0 lb a.e./ A (95% C.I.: N/A) NOEC: > 5.0 lb a.e./A Dicot: IC 50 : >5.0 lb a.e./ A (95% C.I.: N/A) IC 25 : >5.0 lb a.e./ A (95% C.I.: N/A) NOEC: 0.65 lb a.e./ A; LOEC: 1.4 lb a.e./ A, based on 9.9 % in reduction in shoot length. Monocot: IC 25 : > 0.874 lb B/ A (95% C.I.: N/A) NOEC: > 0.874 lb B/A Dicot: IC 50 : > 0.874 lb B / A (95% C.I.: N/A) IC 25 : >5.0 lb B / A (95% C.I.: N/A) NOEC: 0. 114 lb B / A; LOEC: 0.245 lb B / A, based on 9.9 % in reduction in shoot length. Supplemental/ Quantitative 48885402

Vegetative Vigor 850.4150 TGAI 1 99.7% Monocot and Dicot: IC 25 : >0.2 lb a.e./ A (95% C.I.: N/A) NOEC: > 0.2 lb a.e./ A Slope: N/A Monocot and Dicot: IC 25 : >0. 035 lb B/ A (95% C.I.: N/A) NOEC: > 0. 035 lb B/ A Slope: N/A Supplemental/ Quantitative 48885401

1 

### This study was conducted with TGAI (technical grade active ingredient) rather than the recommended TEP (typical enduse

product) and since plants may be exposed directly to the whole product, some uncertainty exists as to potential effects from adjuvants in formulated products.



# Tables of Plant Study Data Showing Details from 48885401 and 48885402:

48885402 Seed Emergence (Tier II):

Table I22a. Summary of seedling emergence data by species comparing control to highest treatment (5.0 lb a.e./A).

Species Parameter Survival** Control Treatment % Difference Bean 100 100 0 Corn 100 100 0 Cucumber 100 100 0 Oat 100 100 0 Oilseed Rape 100 100 0 Onion 100 100 0 Radish 100 100 0 Ryegrass 100 100 0 Soybean 100 100 0 Tomato 100 100 0 ** For survival, the author said no mortalities, but a reviewer also counted lack of emergence as mortality

– the conclusions were the same either way.

# 113

Table I22b. Summary of seedling emergence data by species comparing control to highest treatment (5.0 lb a.e./A).
Species Emergence Control Treatment % Difference Bean 87 70 19 Corn 1 

## 87 70 19 1 

## Cucumber 2 

## 93 77 18 2 

## Oat 81 81 0 Oilseed Rape 97 83 14 Onion 81 88

- 8 Radish 77 93

- 22 Ryegrass 84 69 19 Soybean 77 77 0 Tomato 80 73 8

1 

### There was a significant reduction of 27% at the 0.31, 1.3 and 2.5 lb a.e./A test level. However, t he response was not dose

dependent or consistent across other endpoints and/or other treatment levels and was determined by visual inspection not to be treatment related

. 2 

### There was a significant reduction of 21% at the 1.2 and 2.5 lb a.e./A test level. However, t he response was not dose

- dependent or consistent across other endpoints and/or other treatmen t levels and was determined by visual inspection not to be treatment related.



# Table I22c. Shoot length and dry weight data.

Species Shoot length (cm) Dry weight (mg)

Control Treatment % Difference Control Treatment % Difference Bean 4.2 (1.3) 4.2 (2.5) 2 0.248 (0.065) 0.303 (0.213)

- 22 Corn 24.7 (7.7) 27.7 (7.1)

- 12 0.104 (0.040) 0.110 (0.051)

- 6 Cucumber 3.3 (0.8) 4.2 (1.5)

- 25 0.0361 (0.0128) 0.0684 (0.0281)

- 89 Oat 19.7 (2.8) 17.4 (2.0) 12 0.0267 (0.0034) 0.0257 (0.0081) 4 Oilseed Rape a 

### 6.6 (1.0) 5.9 (0.4) 12* a 

### 0.0755 (0.0146) 0.0805 (0.0127)

- 7 Onion b,c 

### 7.7 (0.6) 7.4 (0.3) 3 b 

### 0.0026 (0.0005) 0.0023 (0.0004) 13 c 

### Radish 1.8 (0.3) 2.0 (0.3) 8 0.0427 (0.0153) 0.0456 (0.0135)

- 7 Ryegrass 11.8 (1.4) 11.9 (2.0)

- 1 0.0038 (0.0007) 0.0038 (0.0013) 1 Soybean d 

### 6.6 (4.3) 5.9 (2.7) 10 d 

### 0.269 (0.060) 0.241 (0.044) 10 Tomato e 

### 3.2 (0.4) 3.1 (0.5) 2 e 

### 0.0160 (0.0034) 0.0163 (0.0034)

- 2

* Significantly different from control (p≤0.05).

a 

### There was a significant reduction of up to 10

- 14% at the three highest test levels; the response appeared to be dose dependent (Williams test, p<0.05)

. b 

### There was a significant reduction of 10% at the 0.65 lb a.e./A test level. However, t he response was not dose

- dependent or consistent across other endpoints and/or other trea tments and was determined by visual inspection not to be treatment related.

c 

### There was a significant reduction of 19% at the 2.4 lb a.e./A test level. However, t he response was not dose

- dependent or consistent across other endpoints and/or other treatment s and was determined by visual inspection not to be treatment related.
d 

### There was a significant reduction of up to 51% at the 0.30 lb a.e./A test level and the direction of the response was inverte d, with greater inhibition at lower doses. High inhibitions were due to variation in growth of this species; t he response was not dose

dependent and was not consistent across other endpoints and/or other treatment levels; I Cx values were uncalculable.

e 

### There was a significant reduction of 20% at the 0. 65 lb a.e./A test level. However, t he response was not dose

- dependent or consistent across other endpoints and/or other treatments and was determined by visual inspection not to be treatment related

.



## Most sensitive monocot: Could not be determined IC 50 

## : >5.0 lb a.e./A 95% C.I.: N/A IC 25 

## : >5.0 lb a.e./A 95% C.I.: N/A NOEC: 5.0

Most sensitive dicot: Oilseed rape, based on height IC 50 

## : >5.0 lb a.e./A 95% C.I.: N/A IC 25 

## : >5.0 lb a.e./A 95% C.I.: N/A

# 114

NOEC: 0.65 lb a.e./A LOEC: 1.4 lb a.e./A, based on 9.9% in reduction in shoot length.

Note: Due to slight differences in treatments, the NOEC for soybean and cucumber was 4.5 lb a.e./A, for all others except oilseed rape the NOEC was 5.0 lb a.e./A.



# 48885401 Vegetative Vigor (Tier II):

Table I23a. Summary of most sensitive parameters by species comparing control to highest treatment (0.20 mg a.e./A).

Species Survival Control Highest % Difference Bean 100 100 0 Corn 100 100 0 Cucumber 100 100 0 Oat 100 100 0 Oilseed Rape 100 100 0 Onion 100 100 0 Radish 100 100 0 Ryegrass 100 100 0 Soybean 100 100 0 Tomato 100 100 0



## Table I23b. Shoot length and dry weight data.

Species Shoot length (cm) Dry weight (mg)

Control Treatment % Difference Control Treatment % Difference Bean 29.6 (3.4) 

## 28.9 (2.1) 2 1.70 (0.38) 1.87 (0.50)

- 10 Corn 68.1 (9.0) 66.9 (4.7) 2 0.669 (0.165) 0.793 (0.126)

- 19 Cucumber 13.2 (2.9) 11.8 (2.5) 11 0.580 (0.273) 0.582 (0.312) 0 Oat 54.9 (3.2) 52.2 (3.9) 5 0.253 (0.036) 0.272 (0.051)

- 8 Oilseed Rape 7.1 (0.6) 7.0 (0.8) 1 0.720 (0.058) 0.691 (0.053) 4 Onion 18.8 (1.3) 18.2 (1.8) 3 0.0252 (0.0052) 0.0222 (0.0061) 12 Radish 3.4 (0.2) 3.6 (0.4)

- 7 0.317 (0.013) 0.325 (0.036)

- 3 Ryegrass 34.3 (2.2) 35.5 (1.7)

- 3 0.0822 (0.0135) 0.0871 (0.0218)

- 6 Soybean 25.7 (2.0) 23.9 (3.4) 7 1.481 (0.394) 1.637 (0.393)

- 10 Tomato 14.0 (2.5) 14.1 (1.3) 0 0.263 (0.061) 0.260 (0.058) 1



## Table I23c. Summary of endpoints. Species Endpoint NOEC EC 05 

## EC 25 

## EC 50 

## Bean None ≥0.2 >0.2 >0.2 >0.2 Corn* Dry Weight ≥0.2 162 1.25 0.0428 Cucumber None ≥0.2 >0.2 >0.2 >0.2 Oat None ≥0.2 >0.2 >0.2 >0.2 Oilseed Rape None ≥0.2 >0.2 >0.2 >0.2 Onion* Height ≥0.2 0.0968 1.28 >0.2 Ryegrass None ≥0.2 >0.2 >0.2 >0.2 Radish None ≥0.2 >0.2 >0.2 >0.2 Soybean None ≥0.2 >0.2 >0.2 >0.2 Tomato None ≥0.2 >0.2 >0.2 >0.2 * The response was not dose

- dependent and was not consistent across other endpoints and/or other treatment levels; NOEC and/or ECx values are unreliable.

# 115

Most sensitive monocot: Could not be determined IC 50 

## : >0.2 lb a.e./A 95% C.I.: N/A IC 25 

## : >0.2 lb a.e./A 95% C.I.: N/A NOEC: 0.2 lb a.e./A

Most sensitive dicot: Could not be determined IC 50 

## : >0.2 lb a.e./A 95% C.I.: N/A IC 25 

## : >0.2 lb a.e./A 95% C.I.: N/A NOEC: 0.2 lb a.e./A

Species Tested: bean, corn, cucumber, oat, oilseed rape, onion, ryegrass, radish, soybean and tomato.



## References for Appendix I: Ecotoxicity of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts

Atkins, E.L., E.A. Greywood and R.L. Macdonald. 1975. Toxicity of Pesticides and Other Agricultural Ch emicals to Honey Bees: Laboratory Studies, University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, LEAFLET 2287, 38 pp.

Beavers, J.B. 1982a. “Eight

- day dietary LC50

– Mallard duck

– Polybor. Final Report. TX

- 82

- 4.” Prepared by Wildlife International , St. Michaels, MD. Also referenced as 1984, so assume was resubmitted.

Beavers, J.B. 1982b. “Eight

- day dietary LC50

– Bobwhite Quail

– Polybor. Final Report. TX

- 82

- 3.” Prepared by Wildlife International, St. Michaels, MD. Also referenced as 1984, so a ssume was resubmitted.

Beavers. J.B. 1984a. "A Dietary Study in the Mallard with Boric Acid. Final Report.” Project No. 176

- 103. Prepared by Wildlife International Inc., St. Michaels. MD.

Beavers. J.B. 1984b. "A Dietary Study in the Bobwhite with Boric A cid. Final Report.” Project No. 176

- 102a. Prepared by Wildlife International Inc., St. Michaels. MD.

Cherkasova, E.V. 1958. The influence of boron on gas metabolism of mulberry silkworm. Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of the Turkmen SSR. (3):107

- 10 9.

Dethloff, G.M., W.A. Stubblefield, C.E. Schlekat. 2009. Effects of Water Quality Parameters on Boron Toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia . Arch Environ Contam Toxicol (2009) 57:60

– 67. ECOTOX ID: E118810.

Du Bois, A.M., G. Turian and A. Gonet. 1957. Effects of boric acid on growth; investigations on Allium
cepa and tadpole. Archives des Sciences 10;466

- 470.

Johansen, C., Eves, J. 1967. Bee Research Investigations, 1967: Report No. 21866. (Unpublished study received Mar 27, 1974 under 4F1485; prepared by Was hington State Univ., submitted by Chemagro Corp., Kansas City, Mo.; CDL:092011

- M).

Fink, R. 1982. Acute Oral LD 50 

## for Bobwhite Quail; Project No. 135

- 106; Prepared By Wildlife International LTD for U.S. Borax, Anaheim, California 92801.

# 116

Furuta, T., N. Iwa ta and K. Kikuchi. 2008. Effects of Fish Size and Water Temperature on the Acute Toxicity of Boron for Japanese Flounder, Paralichthys olivaceus, and Red Sea Bream, Pagrus major . Fisheries Science. Volume 73, Issue 2, p ages 1444

- 2906, April 11, 2007.

Geri sh, F.M. 1984. Evaluation of a Static Renewal Chronic Toxicity Test Method for Daphnia magna Straus Using Boric Acid. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 3(1):89

- 94.

Lewis, M.A. and L.C. Valentine. 1981. Acute and chronic Toxicities of Boric Acid to Da phnia magna Straus. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination Toxicology 27:309

- 315.

Linden, E., B.E. Bengtssop, O. Svanberg G. Sundstrom. 1979. The acute toxicity of 78 chemicals and pesticide formulations against two brackish water organisms, the bleak (Al burnus alburnus) and the harpacticoid ( Nitocra spinipes ). Chemosphere 8(11/12): 843

- 851.

Ostrovskil, N.I. 1955. Toxic effect of herbicides and foliar fertilizers on honeybees. Proceedings of the All

- Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. 20(2):32

- 34.

Padilla, S., D. Corumb,1, B. Padnosa, D.L. Huntera, A. Beamb,2, K.A. Houckb, N. Sipesb, N. Kleinstreuerb, T. Knudsenb, D.J. Dixb, D.M. Reif. 2011. Zebrafish developmental screening of the ToxCastTM Phase I chemical library. Reproductive Toxicology. 33 (2 012): 174

- 187. ECOTOX ID: 161191.

Rossi AF; Miles RD; Bootwalla SM; Wilson HR; Eldred AR. 1993. The effect of feeding two sources of boron on broiler breeder performance. Poultry Sci. 72: 1931

- 1934.

Rowe, R. I., C. Bouzan, S. Nabili, C. D. Eckhert. 1998. T he Response of Trout and Zebrafish Embryos to Low and High Boron Concentrations Is U

- Shaped. Biological Trace Element Research. Vol 66: 261

- 270. ECOTOX ID: 105984.

Smith GJ; Anders VP. 1989. Toxic effects of boron on mallard reproduction. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 8:943

- 950

Takeuchi, T. 1958. Effects of boric acid on the development of the eggs of the toad, Buto vulgaris formosus.” Scientific Reports of the Tohoku University, Series 4: Biology 24(1):33

- 34.

United States Environmental Prote ction Agency (USEPA). 1982a. Report on the Toxicity of Boric Acid 99.9% active ingredient to Daphnia magna. (U.S. EPA, Chemical and Biological Investigations Branch, Beltsville, Maryland, Static Jar, Test No. 2750, 3/1/82, unpublished report).

USEPA. 1982 b. Report on the Toxicity of Boric Acid 99.9% active ingredient to rainbow trout. (U.S. EPA, Chemical and Biological Investigations Branch, Beltsville, Maryland, Static Jar, Test No. 2751, 3/1/82, unpublished report).

USEPA. 1982c. Report on the Toxicity of Boric Acid (Perma

- Dust PT 240 20.0%) to rainbow trout. (U.S. EPA, Chemical and Biological Investigations Branch, Beltsville, Maryland, Static Jar, Test No. 2749, 3/1/82, unpublished report).

USEPA. 1993. EFED Science Chapter for Boric Acid/Sodium Metab orate RED (Chemicals #011001, 011103; Case #0024). Internal communication to the Special Review and Reregistration Division, June 1, 1993.

# 117

USEPA. 2010a. Final Report on Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Nitrate, Nitrite, Boron, Manganese, Fluoride, Chloride and Sulfate to Several Aquatic Animal Species. EPA 905

- R

- 10

- 002. USEPA Region 5. 174 pp. http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/wqs5/pdfs/techdocs/FINAL%2 0Report%20EPA

- 905

- R

- 10

- 002.pdf

USEPA. 2010b. Final Report on Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Nitrate, Nitrite, Boron, Manganese, Fluoride, Chloride and Sulfate to Several Aquatic Animal Species. Boron Tests: Appendices 18

- 26. EPA 905

- R

- 10

- 002. USEPA Region 5. 416 pp. http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/wqs5/pdfs/techdocs/FINAL%20Report%20EPA

- 905

- R

- 10

- 002.pdf

Zeebe, R.E., A. Sanyal, J.D. Ortiz and D.A. Wol f

- Gladrow. 2001. A theoretical study of the kinetics of the boric acid

- borate complex in seawater. Marine Chemistry 73: 113

- 124.

Ziof, H.F. and G. Stephen. 1949. Toxic effects of boric acid and its products with aliphatic polyhydroxy compounds. Naunyn

- Schmiedeheros Archiv fuer Experimentella Pathologie und Pharmakologie. 207:55

- 66.

# 118



# Appendix J ECOTOX

The agency performed a public literature search following OPP’s Evaluation Guidelines for Ecological Toxicity Data in the Open Literature 18 

## (Open Lit Guideli ne)

. As identified in the Registration Review Ecological Risk Assessment Problem Formulation for: Boric Acid Salts (USEPA, 2009) and the Open Lit Guideline, open literature studies are identified through the agency’s ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX) 19 

## . ECO TOX is a publically available knowledgebase, developed and maintained by the agency’s Office of Research and Development’s (ORD’s) National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL), containing aquatic and terrestrial plant toxicity res ults from open literature studies where single chemical (i.e., not mixtures) exposures were tested. ORD/NHEERL performed a comprehensive literature search on boric acid and the sodium borate salts contained in this case 20 

## . For data from an open literature paper to be eligible for inclusion in ECOTOX it must meet six minimum data requirements: (1) exposures are to single chemicals; (2) the toxic effects are on a valid aquatic or terrestrial plant or animal species; (3) the test was conducted on live, whole organisms; (4) concurrent environmental chemical concentration/dose or application rate data with the observed effect; (5) there is an explicit duration of exposure; (6) the data is quantitative not qualitative 20 

## . In vitro, bacteria, yeast and virus exposures are not included in ECOTOX.

Papers that were located using the ECOTOX open literature search strategy but rejected for entry into the ECOTOX knowledgebase due to one or more of the six inclusion criteria not being met are listed in Section 1 of Attachment 1 to this document. There were 2,347 papers excluded. The reason for a specific paper being excluded is listed for that paper in the “Keyw ords:” line for the citation. The following table summarizes the specific exclusions for these papers. While abstracts that are available for these papers are provided to the agency to allow the risk assessor to determine if there is information that sho uld be obtained for use in a weight of evidence approach, it was determined these papers were not useful for this assessment and none of these were required or reviewed further.

Reason Papers in Section 1 of Attachment 1 on Boric Acid or Sodium Borate Sa lts were Excluded from ECOTOX

Keyword Codes 21 

### Definition Number of Excluded Papers
ABSTRACT Abstract only, not a full article

— insufficient supporting documentation of study 10

BACTERIA Bacteria are the test organism, and data for bacteria are not included in ECOTOX. 30

BENEFICIAL EFFECT Study is on beneficial effects of the chemical, not toxic effects 11

CHEM METHODS No toxicity data, contains information only on a chemical method(s) 889

EFFLUENT Study report s effects associated with exposure to effluent, sewage, or polluted runoff and not to single chemical exposures. 19

FATE No toxicity data reported, contains fate information about the chemical in abiotic media. 143

FOOD Food study, no biological effects d ata for the chemical reported. 12

HUMAN HEALTH Human health effects; studies with human subjects or with animal subjects as surrogates for human health risk assessment. 90

18 

## http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/policy_guidance/ team_authors/endangered_species_reregistration_work group/esa_evaluation_open_literature.htm

19 

## http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/

20 

## http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/help.cfm?help_id=OVERVIEW&help_type=define&help_back=1

21 

## Based on ECOTOX exclusion categories discussed in more detail in Attachme nt I

- C at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/policy_guidance/team_auth ors/endangered_species_reregistration_work group/esa_evaluation_open_literature.htm#att_2

# 119

Keyword Codes 21 

### Definition Number of Excluded Papers

IN VITRO The paper does not report a biological effect on live, whole organisms; in vitro data is not included in ECOTOX. 46

INCIDENT

, SURVEY See INCIDENT and SURVEY 1

METHODS Methods paper with no usable toxicity test results. 5

MIXTURE Mixture study containing no data on single chemical exposure. 117

MIXTURE,NO CONC Mixture study containing no data on single chemical exposure and does not report concurrent exposure chemical concentrations/doses or application rates. 1

MODELING Paper reports models only, no new biological effects data. 9

NO CONC The paper does not report concurren t exposure chemical concentration s /dose s or application rate s with the effects. 2

NO DURATION The paper does not report an explicit duration of exposure. 1

NO DURATION,SURVEY A survey study measuring amounts of chemical present, but no usable quantification of exposure. Also l acks usable exposure duration information

. 1

NO SOURCE Citation found but either no source given in the citation or source is no longer available (e.g., publication wi thdrawn). 2

NO SPECIES The paper does not report the species that was tested; or the species cannot be verified in a reliable source. 2

NO TOXICANT Not a toxicology study; no primary toxicity data presented in paper. 34

NON

- ENGLISH The article is not published in the English language. 17

NUTRIENT Chemical is tested as a nutrient. 680

PUBL AS Author published data in multiple formats (e.g., thesis and peer reviewed journal); repeat of an already coded paper. 6

PUBL AS,REVIEW Author published data in multiple formats, this paper is a repeat of an already coded paper and it is not the primary source of biological effects data. 1

REVIEW The paper is not the primary source of biological effects data. 75

SURVEY A survey study measuring amounts of chemical present, but no usable quantification of exposure. Lacks either usable concentration or duration or both. 138

VIRUS A virus(es) is the test organism, and data for viruses are not included in ECOTOX. 2

YEAST Yeast is test organism, and data for y easts are not included in ECOTOX. 3



## An initial screen of the studies included in the ECOTOX database is conducted to eliminate those studies that have a low probability of usefulness in the risk assessment based on a set of standards the agency uses to evaluate the quality of studies and tha t can be readily screened against entries in ECOTOX data fields. ECOTOX papers that were eliminated as having a low probability of usefulness are listed in Section 2 of Attachment 1

. There were 199 papers eliminated. The reason for a specific paper bein g eliminated is listed for that paper in the “Call Number:” line for the citation. The reasons for elimination include one or more of the following: bacteria was the test organism for the active ingredients in this case (NO BACTERIA); no control included in the study or control information not reported (NO CONTROL); biological effects not part of study (NO EFFECT); no biological effect endpoint reported in the study (NO ENDPOINT); all exposures were to mixtures of chemicals (NO MIXTURE); study was on nutri tional aspect and not toxic biological effects (NO NUTRIENT); author published data in multiple formats, this paper contains a repeat of an already coded result (NO PUBL AS); test with the active ingredients was not with live, whole organisms (NO IN VITRO) . Over 140 of the studies contained no biological effect endpoints, with over 160 containing no biological effect endpoint and/or no control data.

The bibliography of all ECOTOX studies not eliminated are presented in Section 3 of Attachment 1 and the re sults from these studies are summarized in tables in Attachment 2 as follows:

# 120

Aquatic Animal Studies Table 1 for Aquatic Animal Studies (comparable species and endpoints) Boric Acid Case

................................ ......... 2 Table 2 for Aquatic Animal Studies (species not comparable) Boric Acid Case

................................ ........................ 38 Table 3 for Aquatic Animal Studies (endpoints not comparable) Boric Acid Case

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

Aquatic Plant Studies Table 1 for Aquatic Plant Studies (comparable species and endpoints) Boric Acid Case

................................ ........... 49 Table 2 for Aquatic Plant Studies (species not comp arable) Boric Acid Case

................................ ......... Not applicable Table 3 for Aquatic Plant Studies (endpoints not comparable) Boric Acid Case

.............................. None in ECOTOX

Terrestrial Animal Studies Table 1 for Terrestrial Animal Studies (comparable species and endpoints) Boric Acid Case

................................ ... 51 Tabl e 2 for Terrestrial Animal Studies (species not comparable) Boric Acid Case

................................ .................... 76 Table 3 for Terrestrial Animal Studies (endpoints not comparable) Boric Acid Case

................................ ................ 87

Terrestrial Plant Studies Table 1 for Terrestrial Plant Studies (comparable species a nd end points) Boric Acid Case

................................ ..... 134 Table 2 for Terrestrial Plant Studies (species not comparable) Boric Acid Case

................................ ...................... 177 Table 3 for Terrestrial Plant Studies (endpoints not comparable) Boric Acid Case

................................ .................. 178

The ECOTOX data is separated into a set of four major taxo nomic groupings: aquatic animals, aquatic plants, terrestrial animals, and terrestrial plants. Except for the aquatic plants, the data summary tables for each taxonomic group is split into three tables. Table 1 for each taxonomic grouping contains result s of studies that are comparable to the species and measurement endpoints from OCSPP guideline conducted studies submitted in support of registration or registration review actions. Table 2 for each taxonomic grouping contains results of studies that are from taxonomic groups not normally required in support of registration and registration review actions but the measurement endpoints are comparable to OCSPP guideline measurement endpoints. Table 3 for each taxonomic grouping contains biological effects m easurement endpoints that are not comparable to those used in risk estimate calculations conducted in support of registration or registration review. Because all aquatic plant taxonomic groups are comparable species to those required to support registrati on and registration review actions, the aquatic plant taxonomic group data are only separated into two tables

— Table 1 and Table 3.

The agency examined these tables to determine if there was data for comparable species and measurement endpoints to those from OCSPP guideline conducted studies for which the agency had no data and to determine if the open literature contained any measurement endpoints with lower values than that contained within the agency’s files. A list of the lowest toxicity values for e ach taxonomic group and measurement endpoint type in the agency’s files used for the open literature analysis are provided in the proceeding table. The values listed in this table are on a boric acid equivalent basis. Values highlighted in red in the tab les in Attachment 2 are lower than the respective taxonomic group and measurement endpoint type in this list of lowest toxicity values. However, it should be noted that the summary tables do not identify whether the results are reported as the test substa nce, boric acid equivalents, or boron equivalents. No attempt was made to go through each comment field to determine if a conversion to boric acid equivalents needed to be made on the results. However, a quick look at comment fields within the ECOTOX dat abase indicated that a large portion were reported on either a boric acid or boron equivalents basis and therefore it was thought this would highlight values of concern.

For freshwater fish there were acute 96

- h LC 50 

## values for six species of freshwater fish (bonytail, Colorado squawfish, flannelmouth sucker, razorback sucker, rainbow trout, and western mosquito fish) and a non

- native amphibian (African

- clawed frog). Definitive 96

- h LC 50 

## values ranged from 70 ppm B ( 429 ppm ae) for the red sea bream to 979 ppm B (5,600 ppm disodium tetraborate decahydrate or 3,362 ppm a.e.) for the western mosquito fish. The effect of age on toxicity to boric acid was studied with Colorado squawfish, bonytail and the razorback sucker

, in general the younger fish (10

- 31 days old) were more sensitive than older fish (>133 days old). The 96

- h LC 50 

## for the African clawed frog ranged from 73.4 mg B/L (420 mg a.e./L) to 239 mg B/L (1,365 mg a.e./L).

# 121 The results of this analysis of the ECOTOX open literature database consist of the following and are discussed in the boric acid and sodium borate salts ecotoxicity profile ( Appendix I ).

 More sensitive measurement endpoint values were identified for the following taxonomic groups and

measure ment endpoints resulting in the review of the following studies:

o Freshwater invertebrates, acute toxicity

— Ceriodaphnia dubia study (ECOTOX ID E118810);

o Freshwater fish, acute toxicity

—Zebrafish and

 Data for the following missing taxonomic groups and measur ement endpoints were identified and the study with the lowest values reviewed:

o Estuarine/marine penaeid shrimp, acute toxicity

— (ECOTOX ID E111738)

o Estuarine/marine fish, acute toxicity

— (ECOTOX ID )

# 122



# Appendix K Summary of Incident Information

EIIS Database:

Queries were done on PC Codes 011001, 011002, 011102, 011103, 011104, 011107, 011110, 011111 and 011112 on July 7, 2015. PC Codes 011001, 011002, 011103, 011104, 011107, 011111 and 011112did not yield any reported incidents. PC Codes 011102 and 011110 had a total of three reported incidents and the report summaries follow:

# 123

# 124

# 125

# 126

AIMS Database:

A query was done on PC Codes 011001, 011002, 011102, 011103, 011104, 011107, 011110, 011111 and 011112 on July 7, 2015. No incidents were found.

# 127

IDS Aggregate Database:

A query was done on PC Codes 011001, 011002, 011102, 011103, 011104, 011107, 011110, 011111 and 011112 on July 7, 2015. The report summaries follows; the first resulted f ro m a query of wildlife, plant and non

- target incidents, the second was for domestic animal incidents.

# 128

IDS Domestic Animal Incidents:

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    257+2 52$&+ .,//(5 32:'(5 'XVW                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 'XVW                      

    (1)25&(5 $ 17%$,76 ,, 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

    (1)25&(5 $ 17%$,76 ,, 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

    (1)25&(5 $ 17%$,76 ,, 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

    (1)25&(5 $ 17%$,76 ,, 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

    (1)25&(5 $ 17%$,76 ,, 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

    (1)25&(5 $ 17%$,76 ,, 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

    (1)25&(5 $ 17%$,76 ,, 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

    (1)25&(5 $ 17%$,76 ,, 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                       3&&RGHV6HOHFWHG 

,QJUHGLHQW1DPH $ OO

([SRVXUH6HYHULW\&RGH  $ OO 5HSRUWLQJ'DWH5DQJH 7R

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    7 ,0%25 ,16(&7,&,' ( 6ROXEOH &RQFHQWUDWH                      

    201, 6<1(5*< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

    +<'527( &+ 6,03/,&,7< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   257+2 52$&+ .,//(5 32:'(5 'XVW                      

  3&3$                      

  &$1$',$1 352'8&7  %25$;                      

  &$1$',$1 352'8&7  %25$;                      

  352'8&7  &$1$'$                      

   (12= 52$&+ $ :$< 'XVW                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

    (1)25&(5 $ 17%$,76 ,, 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

    (1)25&(5 $ 17%$,76 ,, 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   6<1(5*< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    683(5 38&. 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   %,2*8$5' $ /*$( 237,0,=(5 3/86 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

    *8$5'(; 61$37$%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

  &$1$'$ 5(*  %25$;                      

  &$1$'$ 5(*  %25$;                      

   %25,&$&,'                      

   7 ,0%25 ,16(&7,&,' ( 6ROXEOH &RQFHQWUDWH                      

   +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 5(*   'XVW                      

   %25,' 'XVW                      

   +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

  %25$; &$1$',$1 5(*                       

  %25$; &$1$',$1 5(*                       

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 ,0%25 ,16(&7,&,' ( 6ROXEOH &RQFHQWUDWH                      

   7 ,0%25 ,16(&7,&,' ( 6ROXEOH &RQFHQWUDWH                      

   '5$;$17 .,//*(/ 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

    (1)25&(5 $ 17%$,76 ,, 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

    (1)25&(5 $ 17%$,76 ,, 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

    201, 6<1(5*< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   %,2*8$5' $ /*$( 237,0,=(5 3/86 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

    +<'527( &+ 6,03/,&,7< 7 $%6 201, 6<1(5*< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

  %25,&$&,'                      

   $ 1752/ $ 17 .,//(5 )2508/$,, 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

   257+2 52$&+ .,//(5 32:'(5 'XVW                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 ,0%25 6ROXEOH &RQFHQWUDWH                      

   7 ,0%25 6ROXEOH &RQFHQWUDWH                      

   %,2*8$5' $ /*$( 237,0,=(5 3/86 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86 *UDQXODU                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

   :+,70,5( 37' 3(50$ '867 'XVW                      

   '5,&21 7 5($7(' :22' *UDQXODU                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

    63(&75$&, '352 %25,&$&,' '867 'XVW                      

    *8$5'(; 61$37$%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    %,2*8$5' $ /*$( 237,0,=(5 3/86 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86322/ 7 ,0( *UDQXODU                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   :2/0$1, =(' 7 5($7(' :22' 6ROXEOH &RQFHQWUDWH                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

   %25,' 'XVW                      

   %25,' 7 85%2 3UHVVXUL]HG /L T XLG                      

   '5,&21 7 5($7(' :22' *UDQXODU                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86 *UDQXODU                      

  %25,&$&,'                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

   '5$;$17 .,//*(/ 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &     257+2 $ 176723 $ 17.,//(5 '867 'XVW                      

    $ '9$1&( /,48,'$17 %$,7 'XVW                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

    %25,' 32:'(5 'XVW                      

  5$,' /,48,'$17 .,//(5 7 5,**(5 635$< &$1$'$                       

   %,2*8$5' $ /*$( 237,0,=(5 3/86 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 %$/$1&(' )25&/($1 322/6 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 &+/25,1,= (53/86 *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86 ,1 6$1,7,=(5 $ 1' 6+2&. $48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86322/ 7 ,0( *UDQXODU                      

    6<1(5*< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   '5$;$17 .,//*(/ 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 7 5$36 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86 *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   %,2*8$5' $ /*$( 237,0,=(5 3/86 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86322/ 7 ,0( *UDQXODU                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &     +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 7 5$36 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

  5$,' /,48,'$17 .,//(5 7 5,**(5 635$< &$1$'$ 21/<                       

    %25,&$&,'  'XVW                      

   :2/0$1( 6ROXEOH &RQFHQWUDWH                      

   08/7, )81&7,21$ / &+/25,1$7 ,1* 7 $%/(76 *5$18/$5 ,17(50(', $ 7( 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   $ 48$&+(0 &+/25,1,= (53/86 *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86322/ 7 ,0( *UDQXODU                      

   322/7,0( &+/25,1,= (53/86 *UDQXODU                      

  5$,' /,48,'$17 .,//(5 7 5,**(5 635$< 0/ &$1$'$                       

    257+2 $ 176723 $ 17.,//(5 '867 'XVW                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

   (&2 *5 *UDQXODU                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

   :2/0$1( 7 5($7(' :22' 6ROXEOH &RQFHQWUDWH                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86 *UDQXODU                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

    201, 6<1(5*< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

    63(&75$&, '( 7 (50,1$7( 7 (50,7( $ 1' &$53(17(5 $ 17 .,//,1* '867 :DWHU 6ROXEOH 3DFNDJLQJ                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 %$,76 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

  5$,' /,48,'$17 .,//(5 7 5,**(5 635$< &$1$'$ 21/< 0/                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

    +<'527( &+ 6,03/,&,7< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 %$/$1&(' )25&/($1 322/6 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

    %,2*8$5' (9(5<'$< &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 &+/25,1,= (53/86 *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86322/ 7 ,0( *UDQXODU                      

    201, 6<1(5*< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   5('=21( %$,7 'XVW                      

   1,%25 %25$7( ,16(&7,&,' ($1' )81*,&,'( :DWHU 6ROXEOH 3DFNDJLQJ                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &     63(&75$&, '( 7 (50,1$7( 7 (50,7( &$53(17(5 $ 17 .,//,1* '867 :DWHU 6ROXEOH 3DFNDJLQJ                      

   63(&75$&, '( 7 (50,1$7( 7 (50,7( $ 1' &$53(17(5 $ 17 .,//,1* '867 :DWHU 6ROXEOH 3DFNDJLQJ                      

   %25,' 32:'(5 'XVW                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

    257+2 $ 176723 $ 17.,//(5 '867 'XVW                      

  5$,' /,48,'$17 .,//(5 7 5,**(5 635$< &$1$'$ 21/< 0/                      

   '5,&21 7 5($7(' :22' *UDQXODU                      

   35$0,72/ 36 3(//(7(' +(5%,&,'( 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &     63(&75$&, '( 7 (50,1$7( 7 (50,7( &$53(17(5 $ 17 .,//,1* '867 :DWHU 6ROXEOH 3DFNDJLQJ                      

   (&25; 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

    63(&75$&, '( 7 (50,1$7( 7 (50,7( '()(1&( 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 'XVW                      

    63(&75$&, '( 7 (50,1$7( 7 (50,7( &$53(17(5 $ 17 .,//,1* '867 :DWHU 6ROXEOH 3DFNDJLQJ                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 7 5$36 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

  5$,' /,48,'$17 .,//(5 635$< &$1$'$ 21/<                       

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &     63(&75$&, '( 7 (50,1$7( 7 (50,7( &$53(17(5 $ 17 .,//,1* '867 :DWHU 6ROXEOH 3DFNDJLQJ                      

   +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 'XVW                      

   +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 'XVW                      

   35$0,72/ 36 3(//(7(' +(5%,&,'( 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 7 5$36 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

    201, 6<1(5*< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   322/7,0( &+/25,1,= (53/86 *UDQXODU                      

    %,2*8$5' 6$1,7,=(5 (9(5<'$< &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86322/ 7 ,0( *UDQXODU                      

    *8$5'(; 61$37$%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86 *UDQXODU                      

    63(&75$&, '( 7 (50,1$7( 7 (50,7( '()(16( 5($'<72 86(:22' 3(1(75$7, 1*7( 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   % $ '9$1&( $ 17%$,7 *(/ *UDQXODU                      

  5$,' /,48,'$17 .,//(5 7 5,**(5 635$< &$1$'$ 21/< 0/ &$1$',$1 5(*                       

   (&25; )5(6+%$,7 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   35$0,72/ 36 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &   $ 17%*21 $ 17.,//(5 /,48,' &$1$'$                       

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

   %25,' 'XVW                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   %25$7( 7 5($7(' :22' 7,0%25 6ROXEOH &RQFHQWUDWH                      

    257+2 $ 176723 $ 17.,//(5 '867 'XVW                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &     +276+27 0$;$775$; 8/75$ %5$1' 52$&+ .,//,1* *(/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   &% (;75$ ,16(&7,&,' ( 'XVW                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

    63(&75$&, '( 7 (50,1$7( 7 (50,7( &$53(17(5 $ 17 .,//,1* '867 :DWHU 6ROXEOH 3DFNDJLQJ                      

   *(,*< 35$0,72/ 3 ,1'8675,$/ +(5%,&,'( 3(//(76 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   (&2 *; *UDQXODU                      

  5$,' /,48,'$17 .,//(5 7 5,**(5 635$< 0/ &$1$'$ 21/<                       

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   63$*8$5' $ &&(6625< 63$6,/.(1 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

    ,17(55837 &$53(7 32:'(5 ',6&217,1 8(' 'XVW                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 8/75$ %5$1'$17 .,//,1* *(/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

   &(//875($ 7'27 :22' 35(6(59$7 ,9( :DWHU 6ROXEOH 3DFNDJLQJ                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &   5$,' /,48,'$17 .,//(5 7 5,**(5 635$< &$1$'$                       

  5$,' /,48,'$17 .,//(5 7 5,**(5 635$< &$1$'$ 21/< 0/ &$1$'$                       

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 8/75$ %5$1'$17 .,//,1* *(/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 8/75$ %5$1'$17 .,//,1* *(/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 8/75$ %5$1'$17 .,//,1* *(/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &     +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 8/75$ %5$1'$17 .,//,1* *(/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

    201, 6<1(5*< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   %,2*8$5' $ /*$( 237,0,=(5 3/86 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86322/ 7 ,0( *UDQXODU                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &     %,2*8$5' 6$1,7,=(5 (9(5<'$< &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

    6<1(5*< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86 *UDQXODU                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, )520 6(125(7 &+(0,&$/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

  5$,' /,48,'$17 .,//(5 7 5,**(5 635$< &$1$'$                       

  5$,' /,48,'$17 .,//(5 7 5,**(5 635$< 0/ &$1$'$                       

  %25$; &$1$'$                      

    35$0,72/ 36 3(//(7(' +(5%,&,'( 8&3$ 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   (&25; )5(6+%$,7 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &     +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 8/75$ %5$1'$17 .,//,1* *(/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, )520 6(125(7 &+(0,&$/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, )520 6(125(7 &+(0,&$/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &     +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

    63(&75$&, '(352 %25,& $ &,''867 'XVW                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 8/75$ %5$1'$17 %$,7 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

  5$,' /,48,'$17 .,//(5 7 5,**(5 635$< 0/ &$1$'$                       

    63(&75$&, '( 7 (50,1$7( 7 (50,7( &$53(17(5 $ 17 .,//,1* '867 :DWHU 6ROXEOH 3DFNDJLQJ                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &   5$,' /,48,'$17 .,//(5 7 5,**(5 635$< 0/ ',6&217,1 8(' &$1$'$                       

   (&25; 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

  %25$;                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

    63(&75$&, '( 7 (50,1$7( 7 (50,7( &$53(17(5 $ 17 .,//,1* '867 :DWHU 6ROXEOH 3DFNDJLQJ                      

   %,2*8$5' 683(5 38&. 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

    %,2*8$5' 6$1,7,=(5 (9(5<'$< &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86322/ 7 ,0( *UDQXODU                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, )520 6(125(7 &+(0,&$/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 7 5$36 )520 6(125(7 &+(0,&$/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

  %25$;                      

   %$17 *(/%$,7 *UDQXODU                      

  5$,' /,48,'$17 .,//(5 7 5,**(5 635$< 0/ &$1$'$                       

   %,2*8$5' 6:,07$%6 6287+ $ )5,&$ 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

   35$0,72/ 36 3(//(7(' +(5%,&,'( 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    63$*8$5' 63$6,/.(1 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

  5$,' /,48,'$17 .,//(5 7 5,**(5 635$< &$1$'$ 21/< 0/                      

  5$,' /,48,'$17 .,//(5 7 5,**(5 635$< 0/ &$1$'$                       

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 'XVW                      

    63(&75$&, '( 7 (50,1$7( 7 (50,7( &$53(17(5 $ 17 .,//,1* '867 :DWHU 6ROXEOH 3DFNDJLQJ                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   (&2;3 )5(6+%$,7 *UDQXODU                      

    +276+27 'XVW                      

    63(&75$&, '( 7 (50,1$7( 7 (50,7( &$53(17(5 $ 17 .,//,1* '867 :DWHU 6ROXEOH 3DFNDJLQJ                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    7 (552$17 .,//(5,, )520 6(125(7 &+(0,&$/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 7 5$36 )520 6(125(7 &+(0,&$/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   $ 48$&+(0 &+/25,1,= 253/86 *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   %,2*8$5' $ /*$( 237,0,=(5 3/86 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

    +<'527( &+ 6,03/,&,7< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

    201, 6<1(5*< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   %,2*8$5' 32:(5 38&.6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   %,2*8$5' $ /*$( 237,0,=(5 3/86 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    $ 48$&+(0 %$/$1&(' )25&/($1 322/6 &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86 *UDQXODU                      

   %$17 *(/%$,7 *UDQXODU                      

    63(&75$&, '( 7 (50,1$7( 7 (50,7( &$53(17(5 $ 17 .,//,1* '867 :DWHU 6ROXEOH 3DFNDJLQJ                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, )520 6(125(7 &+(0,&$/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 7 5$36 )520 6(125(7 &+(0,&$/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. :,7+ &/$5,),(5 *UDQXODU                      

    201, 6<1(5*< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   %,2*8$5' $ /*$( 237,0,=(5 3/86 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    $ 48$&+(0 %$/$1&(' )25&/($1 322/6 &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86 *UDQXODU                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 7 5$36 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

    %,2*8$5' 6$1,7,=(5 (9(5<'$< &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, )520 6(125(7 &+(0,&$/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

  3(50$ '867 35(685,=( '%25,& $ &,''867 &$1$'$                       

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

    63(&75$&, '( 7 (50,1$7( 7 (50,7( &$53(17(5 $ 17 .,//,1* '867 :DWHU 6ROXEOH 3DFNDJLQJ                      

   $ 48$&+(0 &+/25,1,= (53/86 *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. :,7+ &/$5,),(5 *UDQXODU                      

    %,2*8$5' 6$1,7,=(5 (9(5<'$< &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

    201, 6<1(5*< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   9 (57$*5(( 1%25,& $ &,' ,16(&7,&,' (32:'(5 'XVW                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &     +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 8/75$ %5$1'$17 .,//,1* *(/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

    63(&75$&, '( 7 (50,1$7( 7 (50,7( &$53(17(5 $ 17 .,//,1* '867 :DWHU 6ROXEOH 3DFNDJLQJ                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. :,7+ &/$5,),(5 *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86322/ 7 ,0( *UDQXODU                      

    *8$5'(; 61$37$%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

    +<'527( &+ 6,03/,&,7< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

    201, 6<1(5*< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   %$17 *(/%$,7 *UDQXODU                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &   $ 17%*21 0$;$17 .,//(5 /,48,' 257+2 &$1$'$                       

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 7 5$36 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 7 5$36 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

   7 (552 287'225 /,48,'$17 %$,7 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 8/75$ %5$1'$17 %$,7 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+&2. :,7+ &/$5,),(5 *UDQXODU                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, )520 6(125(7 &+(0,&$/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   59$/8(
6 52$&+.,// 'XVW                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &     ,17(55837 ,1'225 &$53(7 7 5($70(17 32:'(5 'XVW                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86 *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 &+/25,1,= (53/86 *UDQXODU                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, )521 6(125(7 &+(0,&$/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 7 5$36 )520 6(125(7 &+(0,&$/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   %$17 *(/%$,7 *UDQXODU                      

   027+(5( $ 57+ *5$18/$5 6&$77(5 %$,7 *UDQXODU                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. :,7+ &/$5,)(5 *UDQXODU                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 7 5$36 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 8/75$ %5$1' 52$&+ .,//,1* *(/ 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   3(50$ '867 %25,&$&,' '867 ',6&217,1 8(' 'XVW                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

   $ 48$&+(0 237,080 &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. :,7+ &/$5,),(5 *UDQXODU                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

    +<'527( &+ 6,03/,&,7< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

   027+(5( $ 57+ *5$18/$5 6&$77(5 %$,7 *UDQXODU                      

    1$785(
6 *8$5',$1 1$785$/ )/($$1' 7 ,&. +286(+2 /'635$<                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 7 5$36 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 %$,7 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

   $ 48$&+(0 237,080 &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 237,080 &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. :,7+ &/$5,),(5 *UDQXODU                      

    %,2*8$5' 6$1,7,=(5 (9(5<'$< &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &     +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 7 5$36 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

    *5((1/,*+ 761$,/ 6/8*%$,7 'XVW                      

   *5$17
6 .,//6$176 $ 17.,//(5 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

    $ 0'52 .,//6$176 $ 17.,//(5 %$,7 67$7,21 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   %25,' 32:'(5(' %25,&$&,' ,16(&7,&,' ( 'XVW                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. :,7+ &/$5,),(5 *UDQXODU                      

   %,2*8$5' 0$,17$,1 32:(5 &+/25 *UDQXODU                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 %$,7 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

  $ 17%*21 0$;$17 .,//(5 /,48,' 257+2 0/ &$1$'$                       

  +20( '()(16( 0$;$17 7 5$36 257+2 &$1$'$                       

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

    &20%$7 /,48,'$17 %$,7 ,PSUHJQDWH G0DWHULDOV                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

   $ 48$&+(0 237,080 &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    /(021 %5((=( 6&(17 /<62/ %5$1' ',6,1)(&7$ 17$// 385326( &/($1(5 6ROXEOH &RQFHQWUDWH                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 %$,7 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

   9 (57$*5(( 1%25,& $ &,' ,16(&7,&,' (32:'(5 'XVW                      

   /(021$// 385326( &/($1(5,1 7 +( 3285$%/( &217$,1(5 2= %277/( 6ROXEOH &RQFHQWUDWH                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 %$,7,, 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    $ 48$&+(0 237,080 &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. :,7+ &/$5,),(5 *UDQXODU                      

   %,2*8$5' 0$,17$,1 32:(5 &+/25 *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86322/ 7 ,0( *UDQXODU                      

    *8$5'(; 61$37$%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   37% $ '9$1&( $ 17*(/ %$,7 *UDQXODU                      

   027+(5 ($57+ *5$18/$5 6&$77(5 %$,7 *UDQXODU                      

   /<62/$// 385326( &/($1(5 6ROXEOH &RQFHQWUDWH                      

   *5$17
6 .,//6$176 $ 17.,//(5 )520 $ 1'52 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

    $ 0'52 .,//6$176 $ 17.,//(5 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 7 5$36 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

   03(;7 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   $ 48$&+(0 237,080 &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

   %,2*8$5' 0$,17$,1 32:(5 &+/25 *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86322/ 7 ,0( *UDQXODU                      

    *8$5'(; 61$37$%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

    201, 6<1(5*< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   322/6 7 ,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. :,7+ &/$5,),(5 *UDQXODU                      

   9 (57$*5(( 1%25,& $ &,' ,16(&7,&,' (32:'(5 'XVW                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    7 (552 /,48,'$17 %$,7 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

    $ 0'52 .,//6$176 $ 17.,//(5 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

   /(021$// 385326( &/($1(5,1 7 +( 3285$%/( &217$,1(5 6ROXEOH &RQFHQWUDWH                      

   9 (57$*5(( 1%25,& $ &,' ,16(&7,&,' (32:'(5 'XVW                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. :,7+ &/$5,),(5 *UDQXODU                      

   9 (57$*5(( 1%25,& $ &,' ,16(&7,&,' (32:'(5 'XVW                      

   027+(5( $ 57+ *5$18/$5 6&$77(5 %$,7 *UDQXODU                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

   9 (57$*5(( 1%25,& $ &,' ,16(&7,&,' (32:'(5 'XVW                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 %$,7 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552 /,48,'$17 %$,7 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   $ 48$&+(0 237,080 &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. :,7+ &/$5,),(5 *UDQXODU                      

   %,2*8$5' ,1+,%,7 237,0,=(5 3/86 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   %,2*8$5' 0$,17$,1 32:(5 &+/25 *UDQXODU                      

    *8$5'(; 61$37$%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

    +<'527( &+ 6,03/,&,7< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. :,7+ &/$5,),(5 *UDQXODU                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    027+(5( $ 57+ *5$18/$5 6&$77(5 %$,7 *UDQXODU                      

  352 %25$'867 ,16(&7,&,' ('867 &$1$'$                       

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, /,48,'$17 %$,76 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

   027+(5( $ 57+ *5$18/$5 6&$77(5 %$,7 *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 237,080 &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 6+2&. :,7+ &/$5,),(5 *UDQXODU                      

   %,2*8$5' 0$,17$,1 32:(5 &+/25 *UDQXODU                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   9 (57$*5(( 1%25,& $ &,' ,16(&7,&,' (32:'(5 'XVW                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &     $ 0'52 .,//6$176 $ 17 .,//,1* %$,7 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

    7 (552 08/7, 385326( ,16(&7 %$,7 'XVW                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, /,48,'$17 %$,76 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   %25,' 32:'(5(' %25,&$&,' ,16(&7,&,' ( 'XVW                      

   35(6&5,37, 21 7 5($70(17 %5$1' 3(50$ '867 35(6685,=( '%25,& $ &,''867 3UHVVXUL]HG 'XVW                      

   52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

   9 (57$*5(( 1%25,& $ &,' ,16(&7,&,' (32:'(5 'XVW                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, /,48,'$17 %$,76 7 (552 287'225 /,48,'$17 %$,76 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    9 (57$*5(( 1%25,& $ &,' ,16(&7,&,' (32:'(5 'XVW                      

   027+(5( $ 57+ *5$18/$5 6&$77(5 %$,7 *UDQXODU                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552 287'225 /,48,'$17 %$,76 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

    7 (552 3(5,0(7(5 $ 17%$,7 3/86 'XVW                      

   7 (552 287'225 /,48,'$17 %$,76 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

    7 (552 08/7, 385326( ,16(&7 %$,7 'XVW                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, /,48,'$17 %$,76 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

   $ 48$&+(0 237,080 &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

   %,2*8$5' ,1+,%,7 237,0,=(5 3/86 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    322/7,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   35(6&5,37, 21 7 5($70(17 %5$1' 3(50$ '867 35(6685,=( '%25,& $ &,''867 3UHVVXUL]HG 'XVW                      

   35(6&5,37, 21 7 5($70(17 %5$1' % $ '9$1&( $ 17*(/ %$,7 *UDQXODU                      

   027+(5( $ 57+ *5$18/$5 6&$77(5 %$,7 *UDQXODU                      

   (1'85( 7 HFKQLFDO &KHPLFDO                      

    $ 0'52 .,//6$176 $ 17.,//(5 5HDG\WR 8VH 6 R O X WL R Q                      

   9 (57$*5(( 1%25,& $ &,' ,16(&7,&,' (32:'(5 'XVW                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, /,48,'$17 %$,76 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

    7 (552 08/7, 385326( ,16(&7 %$,7 'XVW                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    7 (552 287'225 /,48,'$17 %$,76 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

    7 (552 3(5,0(7(5 $ 17%$,7 3/86 'XVW                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

   $ 48$&+(0 237,080 &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

   &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0 *UDQXODU                      

    201, 6<1(5*< 7 $%6 3HOOHWHG 7 DEOHWHG                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   9 (57$*5(( 1%25,& $ &,' ,16(&7,&,' (32:'(5 'XVW                      

   %25,' 32:'(5(' %25,&$&,' ,16(&7,&,' ( 'XVW                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 7 (552 287'225 /,48,'$17 %$,76 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    $ 48$&+(0 237,080 &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

   9 (57$*5(( 1%25,& $ &,' ,16(&7,&,' (32:'(5 'XVW                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, /,48,'$17 %$,76 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552 287'225 /,48,'$17 %$,76 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

    7 (552 08/7, 385326( ,16(&7 %$,7 'XVW                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   027+(5( $ 57+5 *5$18/$5 6&$77(5 %$,7 *UDQXODU                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

    7 (552 08/7, 385326( ,16(&7 %$,7 'XVW                      

    7 (552 3(5,0(7(5 $ 17%$,7 3/86 'XVW                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    35(6&5,37, 21 7 5($70(17 %5$1' % $ '9$1&( $ 17*(/ %$,7 *UDQXODU                      

    +276+27 0$;$775$; 52$&+ .,//,1* 32:'(5 :,7+ %25,&$&,' 'XVW                      

   $ 48$&+(0 &+/25,1,= 253/86 *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 237,080 &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

    &20%$7 /,48,'$17 %$,7 3$&. 2= ,PSUHJQDWH G0DWHULDOV                      

   9 (57$*5(( 1%25,& $ &,' ,16(&7,&,' (32:'(5 'XVW                      

   %25,' 32:'(5(' %25,&$&,' ,16(&7,&,' ( 'XVW                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, /,48,'$17 %$,76 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &     7 (552 08/7, 385326( ,16(&7 %$,7 'XVW                      

   7 (552 287'225 /,48,'$17 %$,76 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

    7 (552 3(5,0(7(5 $ 17%$,7 3/86 'XVW                      

   (1)25&(5 52$&+ 5,'' 'XVW                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

   $ 48$&+(0 237,080 &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

    &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86$48$ &+(0(3$  *UDQXODU                      

   322/7,0( 6+2&. *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 3/86 *UDQXODU                      

   9 (57$*5(( 1%25,& $ &,' ,16(&7,&,' (32:'(5 'XVW                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    35(6&5,37, 21 7 5($70(17 5%5$1' % $ '9$1&( 5/,48,' $ 17%$,7 *UDQXODU                      

   027+(5( $ 57+5 *5$18/$5 6&$77(5 %$,7 *UDQXODU                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552 287'225 /,48,'$17 %$,7 67$.(6 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, /,48,'$17 %$,76 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

    +276+27 52$&+ 32:'(5 'XVW                      

   $ 48$&+(0 &+/25,1,= (53/86 *UDQXODU                      

   $ 48$&+(0 237,080 &+/25,1$7 ,1* *5$18/(6 *UDQXODU                      

   027+(5( $ 57+5 *5$18/$5 6&$77(5 %$,7 *UDQXODU                      

   9 (57$*5(( 1%25,& $ &,' ,16(&7,&,' (32:'(5 'XVW                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

3DFNDJHDQG 6HT 3& &RGH 3URGXFW5HJ  3URGXFW 1DPH )RUP 7RWDO ,QF + ' + ( ' $ ' % ' & ' ( ' & ' ' ' ( : % 3 % 2 1 7 * % * & ' : % ' : & * : % * : & 6 : % 6 : & 3 ' % 3 ' &    7 (552$17 .,//(5,, 5HDG\WR 8VH                      

   7 (552$17 .,//(5,, /,48,'$17 %$,76 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   7 (552 287'225 /,48,'$17 %$,7 67$.(6 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   7 (552 287'225 /,48,'$17 %$,76 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

   7 (552 287'225 /,48,'$17 %$,7 67$.(6 5HDG\WR 8VH 6ROXWLRQ                      

    7 (552 3(5,0(7(5 $ 17%$,7 3/86 'XVW                      

   027+(5( $ 57+5 *5$18/$5 6&$77(5 %$,7 *UDQXODU                      

   9 (57$*5(( 1%25,& $ &,' ,16(&7,&,' (32:'(5 'XVW                      

3& &RGH ,QJUHGLHQW 1DPH 7RWDO ,QF +' +( '$ '% '&'( '& '' '( :% 3% 217 *% *& ':% ':& *:% *:& 6:% 6:& 3'% 3'&

 %RULFDFLG                      

 2UWKRERULFDFLG +%2                      

 %RUD[                      

 %RUD[ %1D2+ 2                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 

([SRVXUH 6HYHULW\ &RGH 'HVFULSWLRQ

'$ 'RPHVWLF$QLPDO)DWDOLW\

'% 'RPHVWLF$QLPDO0D M RU
'& 'RPHVWLF$QLPDO0RGHUDWH 3& &RGH ,QJUHGLHQW 1DPH 7RWDO ,QF +' +( '$ '% '&'( '& '' '( :% 3% 217 *% *& ':% ':& *:% *:& 6:% 6:& 3'% 3'&

 %RUD[ %1D2+ 2                       

 %RUD[ %1D2+ 2                       

 %RUD[ GHFDK\GUDWH                      

 6RGLXPERUDWH GHFDK\GUDWH                      

 %RURQVRGLXP R[LGH %1D2 WHWUDK\GUDWH                       

 %RURQVRGLXP R[LGH %1D2 WHWUDK\GUDWH                       

 'LVRGLXP RFWDERUDWH WHWUDK\GUDWH                      

 %RULFDFLG +%2VRGLXP VDOW                      

 6RGLXP PHWDERUDWH 1D%2                      

 %RURQVRGLXP R[LGH %1D2 SHQWDK\GUDWH                      

 6RGLXP WHWUDERUDWH 1D%2                      

3D J HRI

# 86(3$2IILFHRI3HVWLFLGH3URJUDPV,QFLGHQW'DWD6\VWHP

$ JJUHJDWH,QFLGHQW6XPPDU\5HSRUWE\,QJUHGLHQ W 5HSRUW'DWH	7LPH 30* 0 7RWDO5RZV5HWXUQHG 
([SRVXUH 6HYHULW\ &RGH 'HVFULSWLRQ

'&'( 'RPHVWLF$QLPDO0RGHUDWH0LQRUDQG8QNQRZQ

'' 'RPHVWLF$QLPDO0LQRU

'( 'RPHVWLF$QLPDO8QVSHFLILHG

':% 'ULQNLQ J :DWHU0RGHUDWH

':& 'ULQNLQ J :DWHU0LQRU

*% *URXQGZDWHU0RGHUDWHZLWKSRVVLEO\PL[HGW\SHVRIZDWHU

*& *URXQGZDWHU0LQRUZLWKSRVVLEO\PL[HGW\SHVRIZDWHU

*:% *URXQGZDWHU0RGHUDWH

*:& *URXQGZDWHU0LQRU

+' +XPDQ0LQRU

+( +XPDQ8QVSHFLILHG

217 2WKHU1RQWDU J HW

3% 3ODQW'DPD J H0LQRU

3'% 3URSHUW\'DPD J H0RGHUDWH

3'& 3URSHUW\'DPD J H0LQRU

6:% 6XUIDFH:DWHU0RGHUDWH

6:& 6XUIDFH:DWHU0LQRU

:% :LOGOLIH0LQRU

3D J HRI