Analysis of Human H 1986 Mon N

-
law V
c
C.X
m
U$Q, hh
PLEASE RETURN
ANALYSIS OF HUMAN HEALTH RISKS OF USDA FOREST SERVICE USE OF
HERBICIDES TO CONTROL NOXIOUS WEEDS IN THE NORTHERN REGION
COLLECTION
STATE DOCUMENTS
AUG 11 1966
Prepared by MONTANA STATE LIBRARY
1515 E. 6th AVE.
HELENA, MONTANA 59620
Edward C. Monnig
USDA Forest Service
Northern Region
Cooperative Forestry and Pest Management
P. 0. Box 7669
Missoula, Montana 59807
Montana state library

1515 E.6th AVE.
Helena, Montana 59620
February 1986
0F HUMAN HEALTH RISKS OF

USDA FOREST SERVTCF ticit nr,
herbicides to control noxious
weeds in the northern region
ft I
C table of contents
, „ Page
1. INTRODUCTION
1- 2 0 *51603 A3S ° CUted » ith

Applications'
2
1.3 Affected Population..
2
1.4 Affected Population Exposure
and Dose
#
1.5 General Toxic Effects of
Herbicide Exposure
1.6 Gomparisons of Dose and
Effect Levels
3
1.7 Carcinogenic and Mutagenic
Effects
3
1.8 Note on Data Sources
1.9 Metric Usage, Scientific

Notation and Other Issues
4
2. RISK ANALYSIS
2- 1
model Projects
m F0REST SERV1CE SPRAE
ahd the
5
2.1.1 Small, Open-Range/Forest,
Model Project
y
2.1.2 Mid-sized, Open-Range/Forest,
Model Projects
?
2.1.3 Large, Open-Range/Forest,
Model Project
9
2.1.4 Model Right-of-Way/Riparian
Project
2-2
projects
*111 misappi- i “TI0^ assocuted with herbicide
sprat
13
2.2.1 Error of Measurement During
Manufacturing
2.2.2 Errors of Measurement in
the Field
13
2.2.3 Excess Swath Overlap During
Application
n
2.2.4 Use of A Herbicide Not
Scheduled for A
Particular Area. .
14
2.2.5 Treatment of an Area Not
Scheduled for Treatment
14
l
\
TABLE of CONTFWTS, conr .
Page
2.3 AFFECTED POPULATIONS
2.3.1 Small Open-Range/Forest

Proiecf
Affected Population
15
2 ‘3 ‘2 “^' 8ized Open-Range Projects:
Affected Populations..
16
2.3.3 Large-sized Projects:
Affected Populations
i6
2.3.4 Right-Of-Way Projects:
Affected Populations
2.4 EXPOSURE LEVELS FOR AFFECTED
„
POPULATIONS
18
2.4.1 Introduction to Worker
Exposure and Dose
2 -4 - 2
: . f:!:!":?
2 -4 ' 3
Open-Range°Projects
°° S ”
27
2.4.3. 1 worker Doses, Small Projects
2.4.3. 2 General Population, Direct

Dose from Drift
„
2. 4. 3. 3 General Population, Oral
Doses
2. 4. 3. 4 General population, Reentry
and Oral Doses
3I
2.4.4 Affected Population Doses
from Mid-Sized
Open-Range Proiects ’
39
2.4.41 Worker Doses, Mid-sized
Projects
3g
2. 4. 4. 2 General Population, Direct
Dose from Drift
| 39
2. 4. 4. 3 General Population, Oral
Doses
• 47
2. 4. 4. 4 General Population, Reentry
and Oral Doses
47
2’4’5
POP“ lati °"
Pro^ctf Open-Range
47
2. 4. 5.1 Worker Doses, Large
Proiects.
47
2.4. 5.2 General Population, Direct
Dose from Drift
49
11
TABLE of CONTENTS, ormh
2.4. 5. 3 General Population, Oral

Doses
54
2. 4. 5. 4 General Population, Reentry
and
Oral Doses
54
2 '4 '6 0pU a “°'‘ &Posute ard
£ i Doae from
Right— of— Way Pro jects ....... . .
54
2.4.6. 1 Worker Doses
54
2.4.6. 2 General Population, Direct
Dose from Drift,
56
2.4. 6. 3 General Population, Oral Dose,
Beef and
Vegetation
57
2. 4. 6. 4 General Population, Doses
from Aquatic
Contamination.........
61
2.5 REVIEW OF GENERAL TOXICITY
DATA FOR HERBICIDES
64
2.5.1 Toxicity of Pesticide
Formulations
69
2.5.2 Toxicity of Herbicide Product
Impurities
69
2.7 2. 5. 2.1 Dioxins and Phenolics in
2,4-D...
69
2. 5. 2. 2 Nitrosoamine Formation from
Glyphosate 72
2.6 DOSE/TOXICITY LEVEL COMPARISONS
74
2.7.1
2.6.1 Discussion of ADI and NOEL
Comparisons for the
General Population Doses.........
91
2.6.2 Discussion of ADI and NOEL
Comparisons for
Worker Doses....
92
PROBABILITIES OF IRREVERSIBLE
IMPACTS
96
Amitrole Mutagenesis Tests....
96
2.72. Atrazine Mutagenesis Tests....
98
2.7.3 2,4-D Mutagenesis Tests
98
2.7.4 Dicamba Mutagenesis Tests..,..
98
2.7.5 Glyphosate Mutagenesis Tests..
98
2.7.6 Hexazinone Mutagenesis Tests.,
99
TABLE OF CONTENTS rrmt-
,
Page
2.8 2.7.7 Picloram Mutagenesis Tests

99
2.7.8 Carcinogenic Potential of
Herbicides
99
SYNERGISM/ CUMULATIVE EFFECTS.
125
3. ACCIDENT SCENARIOS
127
3.1 Background
127
3.2 Truck Spills
127
3.2.1 Probability of Occurrence
127
3.2.2 Worst-Case Truck Spill..
130
3.2.3 Probability of a Worst-Case Truck Spill..
134
3.3 Worst-Case Aircraft Spill
135
3.3.1 Probability of Occurrence
136
3.3.2 Worst-Case Aircraft Spill
137
3.3.3 Probability of Worst-Case
Aerial Exposure
137
3.4 Other Accident Exposure
Scenarios
138
REFERENCES
139
APPENDIX A
A-l
appendix b
B-l
iv
A
TABLE INDEX
Page
Table 2.1 Pesticide application rates
. 6
Table 2.2 Summary of 2 4-D dose data
Lavy et al. (1982) U
from Nash et al. (1982); ana
and
. 19
Table 2.3 Summary of worker dose data
from Lavy et al. (1984)
. 19
Table 2.4 Worst-case worker dose factors
. 22
Table 2.5 Highest drift deposition levels
collected on mylar
24
Table 2.6
25
Table 2.7 Application rates including mixing
errors and swath
overlap for open-range projects
28
Table 2.8 Worst-case worker dose levels from
spraying small
open-range projects for 1 day (three
projects per’day 29
Table 2.9 Worst- case dose levels to visitors
and residents in the
vicinity of a small, open-range
project sprayed with 2, 4-D
32
Table 2.10 Worst-case dose levels to visitors
project sprayed with
picloram or amitrole
33
hexazinone
34
glyphosate or dicamba
35
a 2 , 4-D/ picloram mixture.
....
36
Table 2.14 W r t case dose levels to visitors
? ! T and residents in the
vicinity of a small, open-range project
sprayed with
a ^ f4— D/ dicamba mixture.
. . .
37
Table 2.15 Worst-case dose levels to visitors and
residents in the
38
Table 2.16 Daily worker dose levels from
spraying mid-sized, open- range
projects 'v
39
v
4.
TABLE INDEX, cont .
Page
mid ~ Sized ’ °P en_ range project
sprayed
vit^TSf.!
40
4- and residents in the
lty ° f 3 “ ld_6ized 0 Pen-range
* project sprayed
K y with
wlcn
Picloram
Dic!'o or amitrole
41

n Si2ed ’ ° Pen- range ro ect
viti iexaainone^’ P i grayed
42
Table 2.20 aS d ° Se eVelS t0 visitors and residents
vicinn % -5 in the
pr °i ect grayed with
glyphosate
4- or TicZlT*'
43
Table 2.21 Worst-case dose leveis to visitors
° Pen- range pr ° dect s
P ra y* d with a
*
2. D/p ic loramîxture^
44
° Pen- ratlge Pr
2^4-D/ dicamba fixture* °i ect s P ra y* d with a i
45
812 ^'
Iînl.:!.?.:^ P«>J~t ‘prayed with
2.4-
46
Table 2.24
llZV™ l6VelS f ° r i “*“ k Urge,
*
48
Table 2.25 Worst-case daily dose levels
for truck drivers and
upervisors on large, open-range
projects
4g
3 large ’ °P en ~range
YlTl°
d, Picloram, or
amitrole..
*
50
3 la g6 ’ ° Pen " range
P ro J ect sprayed with a
IVS/?
2. ^
D/p ic loram mixture....
51
Table 2.28
leV6lS t0 visitors and residents
vicinityVn ope ”-”" 8e pr
in the
°^‘
‘S e
-1th a
52
Table 2.29 S d l6VelS C ° visitors and residents
S
vicinity in the
7 of 3 large » °P en range project
a ^
dir k
dicamba, f sprayed with
glyphosate, hexazinone, or atrazine!!.._. 53
M
TABLE INDEX, cont.

Page
Table 2.30 Worst-case worker dose levels from spraying of
right-of-way projects for 1 day...
55
Table 2.31 Application rates including mixing errors and swath
overlap for right-of-way projects.....
55
Table 2.32 Worst-case daily dose levels to visitors and residents
in the vicinity of right-of-way projects
sprayed with
2,4-D, picloram, amitrole, or dicamba
58
Table 2.33 Worst-case daily dose to residents in the vicinity
of
right-of-way projects sprayed with mixtures of 2,4-D/
picloram, or 2 ,4— D/dicamba. ...............
.. . . 59
Table 2.34 W r t CaSe dail y dose to visitors and residents in
? ! T the
vicinity of right-of-way projects sprayed with glyphosate,
hexazinone, or atrazine
60
Table 2.35 Summary of references for herbicide concentrations
in runo f f
62
Table 2.36 Summary of acute and chronic toxicity thresholds

based on test results with the most sensitive species
65
Table 2.37 Maximum fetotoxicity NOEL for most sensitive species and
Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) values
68
Table 2.38 Comparison of the acute oral toxicity of pesticide
active ingredients and pesticide formulations
............ 70
Table 2.39 Comparison of the acute dermal toxicity of pesticide

active ingredients and pesticide formulations......
71
Table 2.40 NOEL/ dose comparisons for workers on small, open-range

projects
75
Table 2.41 NOEL/ dose and ADI/ dose comparisons for maximum-exposed
residents and visitors in the vicinity of a small, open-
range project sprayed with 2,4-D
75
Table 2.42 NOEL/ dose and ADI/ dose comparisons for maximum- exposed
residents and visitors in the vicinity of a small,
open-range project sprayed with picloram
76
Table 2.43 NOEL/ dose and ADl/dose comparisons for maximum- exposed
open-range project sprayed with dicamba
76
Table 2.44 NOEL/dose and ADI/dose comparisons for maximum- exposed

open-range project sprayed with glyphosate
77
vn
TABLE INDEX, cont-
Table 2.45
8ed
open- range project sprayed
with
:ri"sr
2 ,4-D/piclora“!! ! 77
Table 2.46
residents “d -i—
opposed
open-range project sprayed
with^^-D/diLmba!!!!.’ 78
Table 2.47 NOEL/dose and ADI/dose comDari<mn«
comparisons for maximum- exposed
residpnr and visitors
residents
<5 •
_ •
in the vicinity of a small
with amitrole ...
.
?g
Table 2.48
“I ^° M .n«im»m-exp„sed
residents and
!nd visitors in the vicinity
of a small
with hexaainone. ..!?!!
| Vj
Table 2.49 HOEl/dose and ADI/dose
comparisons for maximum-exposed
resxdents and visitors in the
vicinity of a smaU
with atrazine [ 7g
Table 2.50 NOEL/dose comparisons for
workers on mid-sized
z
open-range projects... ’
80
Table 2.51
C °" Pari *°" 8 —
»d visitors in the vicinity of aimum-exposed
residents and
mid-sized *
open range project sprayed
with 2,4-D
* 80
Table 2.52
maximum-exposed
residents and
lld visitors
m
the vicinity of a mid-sized
with picloram
•••••••••••a • ••••• 81
Table 2.53 NOEL/dose and ADI/dose
ex 08 * d
residents and visitors in ?
the vicinitv nf *
open-range project sprayed ’
with dicamba.f...?
"****••••••••••••••• 81
Table 2.54 Worst-case NOEL/dose and ADI/dose
comparisons for
maximum-exposed residents and
visitors in the vicinictv
of a mid-sized, open-range
project sprayed with^hâte
82
Table 2.55 NOEL/dose and ADI/dose for
maximum-exposed residents
and visitors in the vicinitv
project aprayed with
of a
'
/
‘""’'"“"S'
I.A-D/picfora^”!' • # t # # # # # 83
Table 2.56 NOEL/dose and ADI/dose comDar-i enne
residents and visitors in Jhe
vicLitv
with 2 ,4-D/dicamb^.
gJ
Table 2.57 NOEL/dose and ADI/dose
comparisons for
resident, and visitors in «™-onposed
the vicinitv "f 8
open-range project sprayed ’
with amitrole!.
•••••••••• 83
Vlll
TABLE INDEX, cont.
Page
Table 2.58
A I dose comparisons for
? (
residents and visitors maximum-exposed
in the vicinity of a
pen-range project sprayed mid-sized
with hexazinone
| 84
Table 2.59
residents and Til'itlT,
“”P" i30ria f“ r »a*imum-expo S ed
open-range
84
Table 2.60 BOEL/dose and ADI/dose
comparisons for backpack
prayers on large, open-range
projects
85
Table 2.61
066 truck drivers and
"upîso'rron^ra
P rvisors on large, open-range projects
g5
Table 2.62 NOEL/ dose and ADI/dose conoari<!nn C
residpntc and visitors
residents •
•_
in the vicinity of a
open-range project sprayed large
with 2,4-Dor picloram!
86
Table 2.63
residents and visitors in the maximum-exposed
vicinity of a large
with glyphosate or dlimba
86
Table 2.64
“I/ 0Se '“"prisons
for maximum-exposed
residents and
anl visitors
? in the vicinity of a large
sprayed uith *•*-»'»*««-
«
87
Table 2.65
ADI
>° 5e ‘°"’' llrt3 °” 3 f»r maximum-exposed
»d visitors
residents and in the vicinity of a large
open-range project sprayed uith
a.itrole or atrazlne
87
Table 2.66
036 '°"e“ison 6 for
“K?
residents and visitors in the maximum-exposed
vicinity of a large
open-range project sprayed with
hexazinone...
Table 2.67 Dose comparisons for workers
on right-of-way projects.
88
Table 2.68
*“2 ^1, i ° 3e comparisons for
residents and visitors in the
. maximum-exposed
vicinity of right-of-way
projects sprayed with 2,4-D or
picloram
89
Table 2.69
08 ® 0mP arisons for maximum- exposed
^-J
residents and visitors ?in the
vicinity of right-of-wav
projects sprayed with dicamba or
glyphosate 89
Table 2.70 ADl/d ° Se comparisons for maximum-
residents “2
and visitors in the vicinity
exposed
of right-of-way
€ projects sprayed with 2, 4-D/picloram
mixtures...
7
9Q
IX
TABLE INDEX, cont.
Page
Table 2.71 A
? (
I d ° Se 'prisons
maximum-exposed for
residents and visitors in the vicinity of right-of-way
projects sprayed with 2 ,4-D/dicamba
mixtures. 90
Table 2.72 3nd A1 I dose comparisons for
? { maximum-exposed
residents and visitors in the vicinity of right-of-way
projects sprayed with amitrole,
atrazine, or hexazinone 91
Table 2.73 NOEL/dose comparisons for backpack
sprayers using
worst-case estimates, high-dose
estimates, and
average— dose estimates..
94
Table 2.74 A summary of the possible roles
for selected short-term
tests in chemical hazard assessment
^
Table 2.75 Cancer probabilities for workers
spraying small
open-range projects for 1 day
J 104
Table 2.76 Cancer probabilities for visitors
project sprayed with 2,4-D.... 105
picloram. .........
*
106
“L°e f 3 Small «°P—^

project sprayed with^
107
Table 2.79 Pr0 abUit i f ° r visitors and residents
vicinir f 3 Sm3U
, r
° pen' range Project sprayed
in the
2 4-D/oLtn
u / picloram mixture-
’
with a
108
Table 2.80
vic^n>
2,4-D/ dicamba
Pr °p abilitieS f° r
Spr3yed ^
visitors and residents in the
3
109
Table 2.81 r abilit 8 f ° r vi3itors and residents
^
vicinitv off 2 881311 ° pen" range
’
in the
Project sprayed with
amitrole
110
Table 2.82
°?S-
mi
Ca
r
r probab rlities for workers
-sized, open-range projects.
from spraying
Table 2.83 Pr °5abil ie9 f° r visitors and residents

Sir!nl -J in the
f 3 mid_Slzed 0 Pen-range project sprayed
*
with 2 4-D
~
’
- Ill
x
TABLE INDEX, conf-

withîcloram.r^'t^t^:
112
Table 2.85 Cancer probabilities for
sprayed
113
:““ Sl ° f a mld ' Slzed
i
^Pen-range project sprayed with
*
114
115
Table 2.88 r U ie f
”*««•
ViSlt ° rS a "d
vi=inItv o^ -; -
r i» the
° pe °" ran8e !>»)«« sprayed
„ith
MUrile.!!.!.!^!^^’
116
Table 2.89 baily cancer probabilities for
backpack sprayers on
large, open-range projects
117
Table 2.90 Daily cancer probabilities for
truck drivers and
supervisors on large, open-range
projects 117
3 large PeD- range P r °i ect sprayed with
ITS ’
?
118
119
Table 2.93 Cancer probability for visitors
lar8e> ° Pen- range P r °j ect ^Prayed
rr^l°V
Z,4-D/dicamba mixture or amitrole with a
120
Table 2.94 Daily cancer probabilities for workers
spraying riparian/
right-of-way projects ^
120
riparian/ri Sht-of-way projects sprayed
D, picloram, or glyphosate with
121
f riparian/ri S ht -° f -way projects
? sprayed with
a 2 ,4-D/picloram mixture
122
xi
TABLE INDEX, cone.
Page
Table 2.97 Cancer probabilities for
r iP arian/r ight-of-way
projects sprayed with
a 2 ,4-D/dicamba mixture
or amitrole...
123
Table 2.98 Lifetime risk of death or cancer
resulting from
everyday activities
124
TaMe 3 '' V St ' C ‘ S "
d09 a"d
°l l probabilities from dermal
exposure from an aerial 3 pill
138
Xll
1
1 . INTRODUCTION
land in Region
r&s; :il “ «r^ ts/:r
n
e ltin8 f hetbicw =
DSDA Forest Service
«•
r
"
(Northern Region). These ris/anaT!*
1
exposures might occur as a e3 °J mly
deternin e what human
.
the probability and

result of Forest v f
1Clde ^Plications and
extent of adêrsf health efflcts
~ P 48 «">. tb... analyses ° f th ' S '
SeÛo^
1. Identification of important elements
program including sizes of spray
in the herhir,*^ t
plication
areas locating "“*»
herbicide application rates ,'
\nl âlSn^Ls
2 .
and accWer,ts that «•

8 P J and a determination of the
probabilities of these events.
C C U d ^ Udatd0n P<,te " tiall

programs (population at risk) y »«ected by spray
4. o
?:uSt« L:o»nt%s^s rp 0 ::dbu 5 f th e affe
r
ed p ° p “ i “ i °-
unavoidable ensure
:?:o° d
"» “
5
-
8
o flK indicati " s “ «-»> -- -ft. p
6. Comparison of dose IgvgIs f from c*. Qn />

which safety thresholds can be
assumed
• .
(from Step
l°
5 )f
^ leVeU £°r
7. i
?c :n«r
i
L hLi“b™t
a a
cannot be assumed for the

t Pr ba
;itionl) f:r h J i 1
U
ty 0f irreversib l« effects
Sa£eCy thresholds “
population a£ risk
^
greater ^“uîrthfliin'bo
jr^r^replr^
Sections 2.1 through 2.7 correspond
tîii^to^^-iiSSS. 1
^
*“
Based on a review of noxious

weed control strategies Dast- »nn t „ •
ss-ssr
I^TnS M
-
Che 24^800^000
TV ‘°" Pris * ° Percent of
North Dakota and
prrmarrl, involved ground
vestl s^âk ‘L^wle^ 'L™
application of the herb!^" ! clH^"
2
are analyzed. I”'! '5* e “ tlre p ™8ram acreage for Eegion

The potential
truck spine) are auo
llnyzir
°f ° f «
ta “rophic accidents (e.g..
large
1
i
CtiVi the Pr0babiUC •* «rors.
«r„"s Lr:;«I“puienrceriIcI ^ ? Mixing
model projects. In addition, the dlif t'o/herh
intrinsic to the application'nT-nroQc
”^
1116 and are assu “'i iu
erbicide spray is considered
.
the
6Ven wlth the S round
used in these projects. application nethods
^Gtcnninstion of rstc or Drohahi i i hw «

°! errors and accidents is
difficult. These calculations
are based 0 P
available, and, where necessarv ,n„r
^ ^^
03 C inci dence reports
• where
the Poisson distribution in fUnCtions based on
order t^deJeraLe
rate. Mixing errors that ° f the * Ccident
to the point that increased
ove™n«n£«rSl5 T** re a e d * # ° CCUr
herbicide consu.ption wo^d be no t ":r
L«3 Affected Population
Two populations are considered

in this risk
group of operators, supervisors
and 5
^ T
The r lrSt includes the
?
, .
the application of herbicides P *5 son ° el directly involved in

’ihe second nr*
the population-at-large who
lft SP US ^ could directly MMact “heebie
° n sprayed vesetation and
V
h ' " embers o£
th \ i ’ indirectly contact'the 'a
P
ic this hn„a health
£££?”«
1.4 Affected P opulation Exposure
and Dorp
The exposure rate and the

doses to the affected nnmiieh'
sources. Several studies have measured P 1 tl0n a e based on severa
f
workers and these findings are l * aonccntratio,' s in
applied in th'« pesticide
to the general population
h“e been
analyze worst-case impacts. In
eLUu*
ottef^ Som-T
I* H T"
13
'
p
1
” 0" 6 Casas dd5as
a'
data ia » rd to «
maximum drift rates, dermal °
exposure and abaorptf^teranf^ Stak^
U.5 General Toxic Eff e cts of
Herbicide Exnnsnrm
v
for :h"nic“ipi'^:
^ UeS ” rsssi
provlded for che animal species cost
sensitive to each herbicide.
h
the1eihic”de: i? tlT^Tsl
^ £°
%
3
—6 Comparisons or
of Dose
uose and Effect T.pvÎc
Levels
‘««ted population are

compared
comparison indicates the possibility
7 off adverse human ^ ^
berbicides of interest. This
maximum calculated doses. health impacts from the
—7 Carcinogeni c and Mutagenic

Effects
nut enic pote,,tui

demonstrated animal carcinogen
and’hac h J es
™ f
Section 2.7, amitrole is a
carcinogen. Questions have gnated a Probable human
m
!*
beenn raised
1
of 2,4 -d, pic T,
. 8 iî^:
herbicide is a carcinogen if any
a a
anima^t^'d
sibie
* !? alyS1S assumes that a
?
Carcin ° 8enic
r
activity, no matter how ve*.
response from the maximum doses
Th^ pâH lit
3 1111111311 carclno en i c
S
calculations are based on the
areâlculay c
animal test data and use
1 2 ‘? ‘
*
™
predictive code! that tends to
overestimate inct^n« of
“"^“"“rvative
1.8 No te on Data Sources
A variety of data sources

are used in this analvsi*
Forest Service Agriculture
Handbook No. 633
in
(S iS
•
"
extensive data on the human
inspected by contacting the

Office for the National
health effects
.herbicides, including the herbicido!
tfects and !h
^pesticide^
Fo^Hn
theP environmental effects
forests in Region 1 or at the

3t
^
summarizes the
•
of 12
Handb °° k N °‘ 633 Caa ba
"
F ° reSt Su ?îsor
Missoula. Regional Office in
tffSfd!ta
db k 3 3 ' DS
it v a . b 0
“ th
8M SUD”arl ”S b ' albb - environmental
tbe ra» *»^t.
4- ae
:n u ;Mo£\^r!
analysis. Ill
0
pE
thC '' aUdit F »* da ta «»ed
in this
.SLra
£rbiei“
effects data used in the EPA
h,!uw«'
, J
checked against health
herbicideêeist"*^
8 r °° Pr ° CeSS ' Because ru„
used in support of the data
registration oro
health effects data were
discusled with
th the EP
1
"*?
•
UaT tensl vely b F “tbe

each of the herbicides tozlcolo § lscs responsible for
The neee ^
D 1 " Pllc,tl0 “ 3 of on-going
also reviewed with these studies were
tokicologiIts?
The validity of some
data submitted to n,n vva v .
falsified data provided by !” '’"“““"ed because of

Indu“rial Bio C ?“h
Lab °racorie6 (IBT) to support
certain pesticide registrations n „i, l vas the
Gdypboaate only herbicide in this
analysis that had a substantial*
support of registration
’’
“ tests Performed by IBT in
replaced or judged unnecessary 0 ” glyphosate ha ve either been
to moo
PP r registration.
•
in this risk analysis! No IBT data are used
Much of the general environmental

fate data on these
t-hooo k k- -j
herbicides
by investigators at University It was collected
4
m reviewing data on a particular
effect of interest ( e e
concentrations in water) values post - sQ P«7
, were selected fro™
f th.1i;
h d
maximize projected human health 3 P ° 01 that WOuld
impacts
and indu«rj\“bât«ieârf LiapirUr^Ûtorrifftc^^'r 7 0 "'”' 8 ’

’
w
in the data used in this * 7 Lnaccurrac ies contained

analysis
7 err nn the 8lde
-J of r
health effects. overestimating human
L.9 Metric Jsage, Scientific Not a tion and Other

Issues
Sib 18 r
in
“ tera"dlata a *-«• « possible
explicity detailed* “eps and calculations
As t hU
»
analytic methods aid terminology “ ttlize
Ihâ"^^^! •‘"''T
8 -*=* SSS'.ilS'E-i.
S l
impact.
rte1eJlipSiri“^«
The metric system is
fllr
vii
f t0 all °” the interested reader
h
to
Uh “
8 ° al ° f ‘5” anal ? sis is the calculation
of the human dose which
is’univer^n l° "“ riC ten" s typically as
the milligrams of coôujd
”£n
in W ST. '
HJ 0 *”"
1
(»8/kg). of body weight
Since we start Ltric i'thl
dose, we stay metric in
, I”” “ BlU e ” d “ P ” etrlC in the
supporting calculations!'
metric units
ar^provided'inârentheseîn'the'text^*
? e
v-« equivalents ta
the
Appendix B explains the use of

or small numbers in powers
scientific notation u ex
3 tl ?“ which v
Presses very large
of 10 R Pfl(1 erJ Unfamillar
consult this append^ with the system should
5
2. RISK ANALYSTS
2.1 description of the forest

service sprat program and the model
projects
P ide the ba8iS f0r
=f“h"1orest1^L .T the human health impacts
models s H
as discussed below?
k ”!"!
"
to control notions weeds In
“ d<!Slgn ° f the F °" st
Region 1. *,£*
program
^* «-t
reulârr^^n^ng'-^hê??:^
other control techniques such
3
?™ 31 8 F
?! •° X 0US weed infes tation,
as biol o*
!'
C ° ntr01 ’ fUnding
F
Service i. Region
prognosis for
factors. Regionwide spravine ? Sn fj ^ levels * «* 0 ther
10,000 P ° UndS ° r leSS
herbicide active ingredient (a
i )
special congressional appropriation
^19855 hl h Spr3y y6ar because of a
?
to rnn^ ^
less than 7,000 pounds of laDd,
herbicide a.i!) weie'praved'ê^
be th " -es/^thôV^rTwere
PP m at e en th “* di ‘ 3 » b3 «“
; e rcT„? o £ ê”o?:r No°fl
and annual use of less than
t T*
3 t0 c ntro1 noxious weeds in
10
1985
50 pounds"*13 6XPeCted ? ,
in the future because of the
nonselective nature of this herbicide.
lIHsSS
analysts with allowances for
application errors discussed in
Section 2?2
t e P C i e<i !P»
ô“°pr?????d i? Tab"? ? ?
U
“tion rate, in Region 1 are lower than
control of knapweed for several
ye^Hhen
^
wiu in ltseif -
y^T«nr" -
5 one^rtU-al^'i
areas IS amraved T.J
is sprayed
*
‘“T”^
^
^
des i 8
J
no <> us »«*»•
M
tad for spraying might only contain
IJPically, each of these infested
°f 1 with a portable spray
individually applicator.
6
Table 2.1~Pesticide application

rates.
Nominal application rate

in kilograms/hectare
Pesticide^ (pounds/acre)
2,4-D 2.2 (2)
Dicamba 1.1 (1)
Glyphosate 1.1 (1)
Picloram 1.1 (1)
2,4- D/ •
1.1 (1)
Picloram 0.3 (0.25)
2,4-D/ 1.3 (1.2)

Dicamba^ 0.7 (0.6)
In addition to the herbicides

whose U3e is
expected in Region 1 noxious weed
control
programs, this document analyzes
impacts of
t e use of amitrole, atrazine, and hexazinone
at nominal application rates of 1.1 kg/ha
(1.0 lb/acre). These herbicides have been
used to control noxious weeds
in other regions
of the Forest Service.
2
Applied as a tank mix of 1.0 part
2,4-D to
0.25 part picloram.
3
Applied as a tank mix of 1.0 part
2,4-D to 0 5
part dicamba.
W
ia lar 3" araas of ’Potty
F
tabuUting and%nalyzing the
further than one-haif mile apa«
.
"
thev
infestations
^ ^
it becomes difficult to
™ af £ »°
^ ~
grayed areas mere
»f
Reglonl!"
100 ' F0 St SerViCa “°“ ld
I'oOo'p'r^” L'p" j'”!; £
z&tt srjpisrs z - *
r set
* * S Can often be 10
times or more than the net area.
llllYll !”inSnar;aâbi:“
e<!
0 i“!
° ne
e
the th a
f " categories
riparian projects. Opeu-range/forest rlsht ~° f -” a y < Roa) > a "t
System land used for grazing or for nt-ho J
protectr^’involve areas of National Forest
purposes. agricult “ ral • commodity, or
Road right-of-way
1 way pro wildlife
6 P r °Jiects
ec ts invol
involve spraying strips of
land
7
IVlTl
"
Fo st s ^
a » i-.
part ° f the herbicide is
«p«u.
applied within 50 feet of
m
in riparian areas
Parallel street, channel!
variables have been combined
,
occurs with the sm-a
into one
"S^SiTJZE
in
f
j-
model
wat ® r * Most herbicide
projectile
^
spraying
<*'«
rlparla ° location
The four worst-case model

projects used in this risk anal « • •
open range projects anal y S13 include three
defined such that the

e
(small, mid-sized
right-of-way/ riparian project
The er>-
apparel rXk fLm'tJes
ions of these modei pr
* ar
f
,
and a combination road
° f the8e Pr °^ CtS a ^ .
«
2:ump tiot: °^ cts
risks involved^n any

1 0
actual project will^llmOSt
risks determined in the
model oroiect
certa ^ly be less than the ^^
*** ° f the nodels the
>
Although these model promts

overestimate the
cannot absolutely guarantee
include Ttlll
riskiest*
that ever »r
!
!° W iCh ifc WOUld be assigned,
" iU
Projects, the Forest Service
•
\ ^ .
risk than a corrLponding

ôderpro ect' wiU have less
Project will determine whether 1 1 3nalysis of
eacb
populations than that calculated
the pro jecôr^™? ^;!
t0 affeCted
in the generic analysis'!
— -*1 Small i
Op en-Ra nge/Forest. Model P rnj ..>.«•
applicatLnrto^pprofimateiro!! hectare 0 herbicide

a 4 hectare (10-acre) (1 acrel^f'of noxious weeds spread
plot. This plot i, « ? over
l0Cated in a southeast
quarter section of National
Forest System land d* A
AS J*
entire section (1 square shown in F rgure 2.1, the
mile or 64f/ \
System land. The private
section closesrL'thrsr
6 1 be National Fo ^st ' ^ .
contain a residence with four Pray area is assumed to

inhabitant- i ,
yards) from the spray project aPPr ° Ximately 200 meters (220
In addiMn^^J v.
.pswmcd to he di/ectly’do^d a ““ ita i»hebit ants
of are
conservative, siLe"!tion!l”!!!s11mi!!, ? loSt! tC a S ” aU P r °jcct is very .
of Federal land with few C °”pr Se large unbroken

or no «i!!t! iôlJ ? ;
expanses
national Forest System and 8 ' In those areas *•««
nîv!!! ?!^ lnl:erspersed
fashion, the private holdings 1!> a checkerboard
^™-^“r^ta
are most ^ft"
3 6
iSouLg! Id"
Populated ranches oiten
i^!s^ ',
^cû^L)
nf
backpack°sprayers! One-quarter
q
r
rt6r d3y
da
aS * Umed
18 Spent h"
^SPr3yed by tW ° individuals with
b T each applicator on this
project. spray
2 . 1.2 Mid-sized, Qpen-Range/F o rest . Model Projects
application to approximatf inV ° lve herbicide

lyThectlres (Nacres)
assumed to be located in’the
solh^ £nl^
NF NF NF
NAT IONAL FOR! ST
NF NF
VIND PRIVATE
DIRECTION
»
200 Meters
' *
k-ii RESIDENCE
NF NF
SPRAY NF
PROJECT
-1 Mile
Figure 2.1. Small and mid-sized

open-range/forest model spray
project.
9
located in an adjacent privately
owned section. As with
ltb the
tbe .Sma iller projects,
the closest border of all mid-«;iTod r.™*
200 meters upwind of the ? " “
•
a UBed t0 be l0Cated vithin’

residence
Spraying of this mid-sized
spray project is assumed
* k*
applicators with backpack 6 t0 b accomplished by two
P sprayers
s P ra y er3 - Each applicator spends 3 days
project. on this
— I* 3 La rge. Open- Range/Forest. Model

Project
In a typical year, the
National Forest Svsrem . , .
with continuous extensive 111 P ay relatively few areas

infestations of „ X1 ° US eed3,
•
^
assumes a large project of 200 heer fsoo Y risk analysis
r AS
2.2, the 200-hectare plot
National Forest system
U
as«™a n
H°?loca
‘"'a''
ted
'
on a 9-section
l"
plot of
System land with a residence
located 200 meters downwind.
y P '° i “t "eighboring residences vould
rolect 5 ”™°!
he highly Snuaial! Such
Urge tracts of ^tioual p ?!£“*"» VZ‘ 1116. conf 1 uratl0n
*
“
the interi “ r 0t
residences and sprayed areas aeain m-cc of private
risk of spray operations
to the
-
general public?
0 " 56 ™
?
3 *^ 6 b3SlS f ° r assessin
S
equipment^
6
units. Because worker exDosur.

that 40 hectares (100 acres)
8
v
!* SP yed
*
"
t ® rraia may be s Prayed^ «“*»—»«-spray
with backpack
backpack s Prayers, it is assumed
are^D
remainder uith "" ltS «“
2^.4 Model Right-of-Wa v/ Rjpar j an Prn^nt
*• a d to inyoWe both
either end of the spra^ rone <«“ -r ^ “ Uhi ” 6°
»
“^rTSST" °E
by thiS "0dal P rc> iect is

higher
National Forest ££ ^
is assumed to”paÛel“h” P S<!C °°d ' CfS)
point.
™ad approximately*!:!
eiy 13 teet
feetlrofth '[
from the closest
Immediately dnrmor _*l. spray
3 t area> the Sma11 stream is
to flow into a larger assumed
15 cfs stream
strea which is capable of
supporting a fishery.
i >
S. r inftStIsicSii d *;ie stSPriny6d: att
hand-held hoses affixed to
a patches
Tibackpack
Wltb
in road
s Pray equipment
or with
^-0^.
f n truck-mounted
f ! tanks. Less frequently the entire
right-of-way is s Wlth 3 tr* ck mount ed boom sprayer
7
off the side. extending 3 meters
IZZllTeZ* Td"
combinationôf spray nozzles mounted Z ? ”“hed ^
pa3S with a
off the front bumper plus the
3-meter
.WIND
direction
LAND
1 Mile
Figure 2.2.— Large,

open-range/fores t model spray
project
11
c
60 Meters
national forest
Spray |
Swath Private
6 Meters
Vide
1
»
— FOREST ROAD
n-
L
Residence
national forest
I
5 Miles
X
' VIND DIRECTION
Figure 2.3. Right—of— way model spray

project.
12
analyzed on the assumption that an a S° b®

area) are sprayed with a
additional 1.3 hectares (3 3 ,!L) }
hand-held nozzles or backpack sprayer.
13
2.2 ERRORS AND MISAPPLICATIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH HERBICIDE SPRAY
PROJECTS
•it area. L,Ua“s

IIo' lL «ST?
PP atlon
°
f hetbiCida aPPliad P
rates can be affected by
"
several factors including:
. Errors of measurement during

manufacture and formulation
. Errors of measurement during '
field mixing
. Excessive swath overlap during

application.
Hi °f a££ “‘ £ ”8 application rates

discussedHaHhisHectiou addrtron, too other misapplications
discussed in tMs section are
. Use of a herbicide not scheduled

for a particular area
. Treatment of an area not scheduled

for treatment.
s? ;.u "•i.sr-.-n:,;:.
— 2*1 Error °f Meas u rement During
Manufacturing
Pesticide manufacturers and formulators
are reouired hv fpa „ •
- •
Cha ° t e labeled ccacentration. 7

This sl.^ Ii
Pare ° t P J llC health and env i ronD,ent
.
al impacts of herbicide
sIIlrpIoIlLII
2.2.2 Errors of Measurement in

the Field
iCide J^lations require additional

aonl irap^ dilution for field
pplications. Errors can occur due to improper
calibration of moto •
equipment, unskilled use of measuring

instruments, etc Again the actu 1
r
mi w:rL-iiiriiriLr bably clast r about the appr °»" ata
\ b <dii-ht 0Q
to r 1 a
~
d
p“c^rh“rio^ti iiirii:i i t:"isn. fo in
;* } was assumed that 1 percent of the backpack-applied pestic
ic
^ ^
solution was accidentally mixe d de
at double strength. Both of these rates of
6" 1 1
effeCtS ° n pe9ticide ‘oopo.ition or
"
useâtes'woulîikel
Id likely ^
be noticed and improper dilution problems
corrected.
-~2,3 — cess Swath Overl ap During
Application
sprayed twice dufto s ^VerUp!

^ °D is
14
District level is even simpler atl0nal Forest °r Ranger

and is often ?
herbicides depending on the weed
Possibility of applying the wrong
infestftions of the^
herbicide 0 fa vocation
oca
^
° r tW ° ° f tbe ab ° Ve
tTon'T’^
is small to
^
nonexistent.
More importantly, these

herbicides do not differ significant!
“
^^
•
human health and environmental 17 ” OSt areaS ° f

analysis presumes the use of
impact. Where differed
the herbicide resulting
f
* ng in the
th^most^s 1
most significant
impact in a particular location „ ,
2 ,4-D/picloram mixture will

tbia anal y sis Presumes
be used in rin^-’ that a
directions end Forest Service '“° hablt » ts . ^though label
^- 0
proximity to ware “
the "? e of picl<,ra "' ia
dose
TÎTtwo hithl-J *** relaClvel
environments and weak evidence y mobile in soil/aquatic
of carcinogenic
carcino potential for these herbicides
exists.
^b-D/piclorarb^sJreLsidei'arrmldrs f°“
e ™
£ns “se patterns (e.g.,
for this risk analysis and £aly C ° e9ta blish extreme
are not indicative
ind' scenarios
pesticide-nse policies. of Motional Forest System
2. 2.5 Treatment of an Area Not Sche d

nled for Tr..t...e
a «rce
area not schednled for treatment ° f ber tcide t0 a "
would iikSy ?
than those analyzed within S6Vere
the framework of the model
projects!
f #
2^M S“in tatSI".“
ei< ” ,t * 1 SPU1 °f h " bi ' lda « «nsitive areas is
!
15
2.3 AFFECTED POPULATIONS
C d r t0 C0 ” tr01
netir st :7? T? «» be
involved in the application of ° CC
herbîdee * truc
tûc“drivet
c drivers,
S mixer/ loaders *
handspray applicators ,
of the general public ’ subê” observers. The second set is composed

residents in the vicinitv of soVed !“!!'
tl0 “l group includes
consumers of products ™“. -
2^3 .1 Small Open-Range/Forest Projec
t : Affected Population
As discussed in Section 2 11 a _ ,* , .
backpack sprayers approxiCaCel,

one-,Lrt Vday
11 0 "
Llh’Vap™ a”. ??'
involved in the Candling

T icalra
.-’SpS.noTJJ'SS’^SlSSr
is
4
vith
-S; xjzzz "o srSa gs.zx °ihrk 1
zxzt zz zst •“*» - sr-sEr*- durins the

:
— t
garden ad ia cent to their

SusrindTireniylînd”^ Ihe^ray
slaughter a steer for personal consumption t0
herbicide-treated grass for a sufficient i^duUinf“^"tari!!!rti C h grazed on
herbicide in body tissues
time tto = llow
?/
11 maximum accumulation of / •
This htlf WlU

-i f
Pr ° Vlde the S ° le 3 °"" e »* -at for
these inhabitants VrCVda^
IIPmmmmm
“
:::: rd
: SFF“
Jo be 12 hours spent on forest land).
^
- S:::
..
Therefore, on average Forest
Region 1 receives about 1.25 visitor-day
;:‘.ss-s
forest visitors
lt0 :<lay
s
?“ C
^
SP ayin *^1 occ
per hectare per year
Per year assUmin S a random distribution of
«
visitation
high estimate of
0
®
^ I
/
?
^ random
T* i« areas with virtually no
distribution assumption will result in a
visitors to treated areas. Further, this risk
afteTspraying/
^ analysis
° f vi3itation t0 the Sma11 project occurs
immediately
F
?£r
percen/of'the
L-
This !S a
th
.
3
l
.
°I
eSt SyStem recreation records
Wild f °° dS
indicate that less than
risk anal y ais assumes that 1
vis itors collect 0.5 pound of edibles
from the treated areas
* ^ 1 percent 0 ‘*
very conservative estimate because

prime foraging areas such la
huckleberry end other berry fields,
have not been infested Vith nixies
“ede.
V
16
require two applicators 126 *1 Pr0;3eCt is assumed to

wit^baOkOS^pravOrs^'d
*
workers or supervisors
“^bUi^ '
projects are also

°L"
S d!?n “ ma ' ie for 50311
f
o h a ent a;cti “"
?hi :s^
garden location and consumption
mid-sized projects.
P of
t1
beef
b ^ f ° r SmaU pro ects
^f by residents are also made
j regarding
for
As with the small projects,

a visitor rat* n f i <>«; •*. , •
L
,
visitor-day/ acre) is Osed for (0.5
midsized Ppro° J t* sS Vl31tors are assumed to be
on-site shortly after spravine
sprayrng and 1i «percent of *.
the site . visitors gather wild food from
— ~ 3 Urge-sired Projects: affe c ted Pmi.ti...

Large, continuous infestation
areas nf , .
be treated with vehicle-mounted •“ thiS 3nalysis would
spray rigs ôueWe te rrain, treatment block
edges, and other hard to 8
reach places wofnd l k E Sprayed
applicators. This risk an f with hand-held
f
would be sprayed with a 80 P6rCent of the Project
vehicle-minted^P * 3y e uipment and area
the project area would be th at 20 percent of
sprayed with
^ ^^
The estimated portion h ari S ^hand ~ held application
sprayed bv hInd -I °K u devices,
0
worker exposure from these 7 increases apparent
projects because worka exposure
applications than from vehicle-mounted f
is higher from hand
sn
require 5 days of vehicle
and loading.
8 a8SUmed t0
iver who does his own mixing
^j
Six workers with
(40 hectares) in a total
of 30 Wworkerâ
8
° rker - days -
,
^ ^
37 3 SPray
^
remainin S 20 Percent
activities of these sprayers 0n * supervisor directs
the
the spray area, îmila/assu^ ” e ers d °wnwind from

S 9
the small and°mid-sized
Visitor use is assumed as in

*
P
“ de ^ £
^
the other open-range
projects.
2. 3.4 Right-of-way Projects: Affected
Population
As discussed in Section
S P rayed with a
214
thio
combination of’boom sprayer
application method would require one hand 6ld nozzle *
^
pro j ects are
Sucb an
trunk H *
j
opcvafoc. Approximately i
„ 0 rk day wouU b
o„ thU
1 l of
J«isi, . “o ^:
1 pro ect arc
i e " Ce " lth f°“r

^
inhabitants is assumed located
on either end oi th?
meters (200 feet) downwind 7 n<! ,E,pr “' i “‘ te1
60
from the spray cone tahlhi? .°
!'
csented for smu a ishts

r"id:»r tr
» »
17
°ivr
to
be meter
1
* -‘si?) tzzz
downwind of the spray ZO ne 7 s
addition - * “-*«
* Spr3y activit
y a *d
duri™ Jh
residents ate also assumed
to val^rL^f T“°
are !.. burned to hare a

consumes a steer which
has grlted on
6 £a Uy aU ° and
A fisherman is assumed drHt c^nt minated"a grass *
downstream of the spray
to catch t PnR-or°
UDCe flSh fr ° m the lar
er 8 stream,
zone.
18
2.4 EXPOSURE LEVELS FOR AFFECTED
POPULATIONS
u
An important distinction
should be made between n of
“ exposure to pesticides
subsequent dosage. Exposure roforc and
C ° D aCt
the chemical compound and .° r P ot ential contact between
the chemical into
,
substance that is taken into
™ Td T" "
the surface of th
«l“ ' 1 Pt 0r t0 -corporation of
refers t0 the P ortion of the
he 0rganiSm as a result of
distinction i« Ha exposure. This
application is often ^funcr
”
1 r a8 ns
? ? :
^Po^re to herbicides during
S1C31 variables such as s
wind speed, height of application Pray equipment,
V “
and
Thus, the detca! exposure b Meid *» « d -
back P ack sprayer will !
U
whether he is spraying 2 4 -D dicamba § be similar
long as an other ViabUs
êM ion^r
t
’ "“ 7 ° th,,r herbi ' ide 38
The dose or amount absorbed

on pxnnuiro a ,
characteristics of the herbicide °° Ch '” i ‘ aI

^r eraLL the d fl
on rate of absorp^
«cSiSd si sir9i’ P iS™rs c iS‘ci^ ,i, dic “ b *- and

l ,
Region A small 2 oS 2 2 ?U 2 .
1 .
4 ** 'Tf
2 «£i, 2 V°
'
,
1 "°Xi ° US ” eedS “
control. This f°r noxious weed
analysis provides^xposure L/h "T* I
as well as the herbicides amitrole ***•* f ° r

used in other National Forest
atrazine and^* S® 8 ® herbicides
2 . 4.1 introduction to Worker Exposure and n» OQ
JE22 CtS" SSSS'SJTSStiT 1

"! in applying herbicidas » f
dichlorprop, and picloram (Lavy
et al 1982 and”?™”
1
^"8 2,4 ' D>
a^
These studies analysed the urine * ,82) ‘
of vorllll £ °? pSjiSS.'L*-'
'
an indication of worker dose ° f Lnterest 33

These studies also provided
from all routes (d e ™Il \ f •
la °?! 3nd oral) -
data on the amount o^hf
workers during the study period which n ii a
h" ^
f herbicide applied by
these
"per kilogram applied da£a °° *
(o/mixed)” bSii
complete information are cited
below
?2£r*nX2*2°?
W 38 neceasa
n
f
studies that do not provide su
of worker dose. ry to extend our understanding
Tables 2.2 and 2.3 summarize

the results nf .v .
study. For each worker category 8tudles and th* Nash
in TablesV? and To^.3, two dose levels
SFF -
provided. The first is the a a are
233! -SiS °° - =£T.S£r^

each work category rather^ha/thr^rre^dSâverage
d ° SeS “
^lue^^
19
TabU 2 2 2,4 ' D d° Se d3ta fr °" NaSh
'
(1982)^
°f
« *1. <1982) and la, at al.
7
Nash ( 1982)
Lavy (1982)
Averagp High Average High
Truck/ tractor driver -3 -3
1.03 X 10 7.6 X 10
Mixer/ loader 0.402 X 10~ 3 -3
1.04 X 10
Mixer/ loader/ driver 0.85 X 10~
3 3
3.5 X 10~
Pilot -3
0.22 X 10 -3
0.625 X 10
Mechanic -3
0.059 X 10 -3
0.147 X 10
Mixer/ loader -3
0.213 X 10 -3
0.403 X 10
Supervisor -3
0.024 X 10 -3
0.075 X 10
Observer
Per ulo,™ (”.l!5

1
orSrbL^d:ti«d\nd/
S ”b
:^ted’:
il08ram ° f ^
r
Table 2.3 -Sunnnary of worker

dose data from Lavy et al. (1984)*
Studie3 > Draper and Street (1982)

urinal vs is^he worker dose during measured via
hI/k applications of a mixture of 2 4-D and
t!-
appUcatiof rate
tUd a
Ho I°e
dicamba the study indicates
e
^^ hOW dicamba d ° Se re * ates t0
S P
"^ ^^ V-
^
and Nash et al. studies can
thardic^mba°dose t o wirkers
dose under similar work conditions.
Thus data on 2 In
be extiapîd dicamba
" 0at exceed 2.4-.
£ 6t 21 ^^^
% ‘
20
Several other herbicides
of interest in 0 . •
,
studies by Lavy et al. and '’” alySls ate
noc included in
by Hash at al
findings , several factors 0 £™» their
should be re“Lad "J?!*' lrst
studies by Lavy et al. » various aspects of the
(1982 and iqra aT,j .
worker dose values a« extreme aU <1982) «>« their

weed control program. All
e.u!!t.fnf ^, 6 d th ' "° ' i °“ S
on workers applying
measurements cited"^^^.^
bes 2,2 °iV?
? and 2 *3 were taken
:
herbicides with Ht-n a. .
in these studies was 6 C thi "g * Worker apparel

often limited to shor/sleeve^ }°
Pants, tennis shoes or beeveless shirts, cotton
nonrubberized boots * ami h aseball l f
backpack sprayers in the Law caps. Workers with
studio*
high and worker clothing
was often satullted^th
115 ^
b * ush fields 5 to 7
.
feet
and herbicide by the 1 & Combinatlon d
feet or less in height
end of the dav con/ ast? mos t noxious weedsew, sweat,
Bv C0Tlt:
and spravinv’tW are 3
blow-back onto workers. Y S 6 weeds^ W1?
U
likely result in less
The dose levels measured

in these studio* a-r* h a
multi-person crews. Thus dose to a Z l * ba3ed ° n workers in large,
from his own activities as 1D St dieS includes
effects
well as drift fI 0 lb***W ° rkerS
J" ' "
pîr^^n ^
the case of backpack activities - In
sprayers the tncre^t i
sprayers is probably a ve^y
sâll
a t X a t f
a L
i984) Ld by Sash et al!
w by LaVy 6t al * (1982
completely the mechanisms " 0re
involved In workerlose
account for all of a worker's
dose-
êe*”^
^posure pathways
impacting skin, inhalation herbicide drift
of herbicide misând
orafdosesf
al. (1982 and raSpirat ° r filter3 Lavy et

lJsorWe^Li^nstMtertLt^h^dM r0m halation
i
»
negligible (less than 1 percent

on Table 2.3 also supports
applied simultaneously in a
to nine times higher
h
this Conclusion
mixture the
5
^r ° UteS *
**** pi Clorain and 2 .4-D
1 ,
is
Data P resen ted
^
are
d ° 3e ° f 2 4 " D is
ê
than th^clo-m ’
application amount. This

difference's not
b °- h *** n
lf we consider the data
for °^êd
on the dermal absorption
of 2 4-D and Did or
dermal absorption 3
picloram’to blJeL han”! p^W** “
<1«4) have shown
ll “
rate fot 2 - 4 -° is
«p»™S=ti.;TS,2rj
iis2 h ins r 1 2L-s»-
picloram, the W ° rk ® r dose values for
difllnc^betwIeltheCilhesr 2, 4-D and
great. Again this W °! ker doses i» not as
phenomenon can Se old!
mechanisms. At the higher ex P osu ê
dose levels recorded
°raed, it is likely that
exposure is plavine a mr.ro c oral
wiping mouths with contaminated r0l Dnhygenic practices such
f* as
Lavy (1984) reports that
some workers would°clear°t
^ in ° ral doses -
by sucking or blowing temporaril y Pegged hatchets
on the feed line andCdrd
concentrate. This highlv unrero 3p ttin S out the herbicide
? ^
^^
backpack sprayers; however WOUld " 0t be P ° SSibIe ^th
It êl
Provided on Table’ 2 .3 006 °'
f^Ct^rCp^LÛ^t^s:
characteristics o^th^herbicidland^^h W ° U d be independent of the chemical
^
.
6 J
doses from different 1 * tend t0 aIize
herbicides l™ d ° SeS WhiCh
basis for this extrapolation f0nn the
tend to be less variable
varlabll across pesticides.
21
r^n.^rr^Lrr
»,
b» predicted
\
hu nV"'*
£
Unfortunately dental
, o
ILm , ,
“
»
» ith pldl °™».
" ldl be leSS than *•*-»
‘
r.tes.
=» “
z:.
amitrole, atraaine, dicamba, f ° r the herbicides

glyphosate ^nd
However, data from animal not available,
studies of the d»
defines the outer limits 0 ” ° f theSe herbicides
of dermal absorpti^Vhumln^
S'rdis:.^ i:i::v? 7 w «“
1985). In these cases the fiends
absorption in man based on an
s P
extensive"^”
absorption including a review of int^x-c
e
:n™”ts ™d ic:t:°s:r
o^the'
•
f th w
rt
lj
al
° C after 12 hours
(Ballentine
f d<f aI
-terature on dernal
ti °i
™
2
^
perce,it
variety of compounds lle7inet ith 3

ll ° a a eviewed îcate ”
absorption rates in rats are T that dernal
typically se
^m “
J
absorption rates in man. Dermic ‘h
approximate those of man but once

abs^ti^rat^for *0 Cl ° 3ely
again 0ve
overestimated
restimate rates
species differences arp i;v e i n , f S
•
. man. These
UQC 100 ° f SklD thlckness
follicles, and other factors. number of hair
i
Based on a comparison of
the dermal absorption rates * ,
glyphosate, the worker doses for 2 A n amltrole and ’
measured for 2 4-D
° 3 b USeda as conservative
>
estimates of the worker doses f nr ™ * appll

?
“
tl0ns of glyphosate and
amitrole. Although worker doses
froâtra 1 ”' «"*,*
comparable to or less tZ 2,4 ~? dth^Td be »
to estimate atrazine dose
‘
levels will be doubled
because n f th nncertatnty
absorption rate for humans. in the atraaine dermal
Quantitative dermal absorption rates fnr l-_. •

az no e are not available
animal species. However an for any
estimate of A ^ ^ SOrptlon
can be made by comparing the rate of hexazinone
acute dermal
"
these herbicides, "since on!y

a fract^n oflh ! 5?* icity data for
dermally exposed is absorbed^nto wblch the ani °al is
the body dermal' toxiclt
7 ’ dennal
oral toxicity. y should be less than
A review of mammalian test data for-

USDA Handbook 633 (USDA 1984)
, ,
“
32in ° ne as cont ained in
indicates that°hexa
with dermal exposures as high as lethal ef f ects
6,000 mg/kg in rabbits •
comparison of dermal absorption of discussed above, a

various h e ™ icals! b several
species (rats, monkeys rabbits v,,; i •
y mammalian
absorption taWST (.« Zik hish t dd al “ ”
with hexazinone indicate that it
et al
is virtuall
response in mammals through dermal
exposure/
*•
^
**^1 exposure test results
t0 induce 3 lethal
21
"?? %h i /°
S a relativel y low » although lethal doses are
possibleÂn oral^D
mg/kg is indicated as 5°
mg/Kg is'
( 1 d ° Se t0 50
Percent of anina
a conservative value fliqni iqq/i
^
treated) of S60u “
„Becaus ,
exposures as high as 6,000 mg/kg « der“ a

little hexazinone is absorbed
are no tie tlT
t t
*
h that relatlvel y
.
comparable to glyphosate or
through skin , fL
h
2, 4-D 2 vl^y iiktw
nicely applicable for hexazinone.
22
non;in £::
s
:„:
p
:“£
conservatively the worker dose
for
tTrîn\TJv
hexHih-e!
d0UMed
or b
eSti " ata
— •»
,1 h r e t °tS
applications.' These dose thi8 anal T sls for herbicide
“"a as the milligrams
factors arr jessed
absorbed per kilogram
Therefore, in order "o
of worker bod
daily must be calculated.

Canute Î e^the
o 6 *
1108 ”” ° f
of herbicide
tbe quanclc T of herbicide

applied
"
lated *
aPPlic a tion amount
is
applies twice the hertUidfiu £<>r aia'"'' la that if a worker
study, then the
Hav
as a 5° rS
.
.
n Lav y s worker exposure
applicator's dose is twiee^h /
the ba8eline 4°**-
relationship is open to Question
often saturated with herbicide
less active ingredient
mix although^hese
in a dav than
S
Ume
,
8
^
’
e e worker9 generally
e e*
,
This
backpack 8 Prayers were
Ic is possible that
sprayed
received a maximum dose and • ^ 5 they
that sDra addltl0nal aCtive in Sredient
work day would not effect
similar whether a 50-gallon
dose As a r!L
tr 1 e ®xample tb e dose would be
in a
barrel of a h f ?
.
herbicide were spilled over ° ~

r * 100 gallon bar
a worker because ^hl* .
“l of a
actually contacts the skin * ° f herbicide that
would be constant in eeii?h
absence of experimental ther case. However, in
data indicating at „w the
typical application situations
a direct linear relation
it is Lna
with application
ak point worker dose
7 aSSUmed
amou^!
^
levels off in
d03e f ° ll0W3
Mixer loader
1.04 X 10~ 3
(aerial & ground) 2.08 X 10~ 3
Backpack sprayer
0.234
0.468
Pilot
0.625 X 10' -3
1.25 X 10
Mechanic (aircraft) -3
0.147 X 10
0.29 X 10~ 3
Supervisor -3
0.075 X 10 -3
0.150 X 10
Observer
0.013 X 10 .-3
. ka«r"
s
A
weight per kilogram of
f h rbicida ab3
s
herbicide
»« °^
mixed and/or applied
23
"p ' a -
herbicides.
sis vicinity of spray areas can
be exposed to r ta •»
3 68 a1 '. 1578 . «ayl>ank et al

drift^f Herbie ides' from *S . 1977) have stndied
. a V<! i aS fr °" ai '“*
hia coworkers 'have^tudied'moet £ ‘- Tates and .
* !,, ;
6 drif
distances (up to 1 000 meters) fro P » °ver relatively long
gr0UnI ” r * s applications
^ -
coworkers provide more comnleto A ? . Maybank and his

a C L 8 eP ° Siti ° n ° n target and the
deposition and drift of herbicide
within sh^ r H^ dlStances off target. Both
types of data are useful in - ^
application scenarios outlined in
Section
2.1?’“** ° f SPrayi ” 8 "” der the
f gtOUnd aP HCati °"' tha

SiJTSSU Hill of rrouL r" e e
rates of
Haybank and his coworkers are
C
dr if t f ro^typ ic al 'ground
Much as 100 fiie loêr
"iddU on
as2“ occufat an
^
have 8ho "° *«« as
TY-S"
îLsT'^” ^
x-lToîmate
drift from tractor- or iruck4™^d ’
spray booms and spraying ove'r
3 fee^ Hill
Y
rates “ se d here were based on
high -pressure
•
1°^
nd - Alth °“S h drift from
low-pressure backLck
extrapolated from vehicle-mounted
6 8
I°" 0
equipment^'in'chi b' e’T
the rates ^
sprayers, the drift rates from
vehicle! are’ap^
1^11^1^.^
onti^Linrûr^Ltr invm 97s, tha dap » siti °£ " -
it .r
experimental results. Data from 100 meter VI Ulda spray suaths are based on
Tates from the lO-meêr results
from the spray site.

n!t!
application rate that could ie kpecEed
to
For examolp at inn mP ° rS
8Pray areaS are «l«l«ed by
° £ an
bH™! Yd
P Slte d at a specified distance
*-
^ .
strip ownwind from a 10-meter-wide

P sprayed at 1 3 ke/ha the drift a
10-* x
?/*/£xl S/Iolooo m^ i 1 OoTSo' 156 02 *
oZ,lT
are used to estimate drift''deposit SY’” 3
io^nYpeo^Y theîft™ nY'
^
e t dr d 3P
r
£SSS«p«Sr
^" a'a f ?ataS at al ”
wheat pi!„n to 5 “L f st:«nof d
- (1978) £ cereal
y U ™
date iainS tha drift at » Sivcn
distance from a spray
site"is°decidiir^
Section 2
greater th„
TY a
d ° nflSUratlon ° £ thc sctual
tS net SP y ” spray area. As discussed in
”
° £ten s ' a ”cred over an area
10 times or
SPray ‘ a “»tat-case assumption, it is assumed that
uue i»pray
the sprav area is continuous
Iont t its nparp^
with
-
.
residences outlined in Section dlstanca to

21 e 8a ” PM ° eterS r l
bet “ een »Pcn-ranS e
projects and residences)!
Drift data provided by
Maybank et al (1977) k .
ote u" is associat ^

r* :r
Table 2.5 Highest drift deposition

levels collected .
r
t C at
fr0m 8r ° Und application
SatefeJ aj! m 8).
3Pray prolects
Distance Drift deposition from a

(meters) Drift deposition from a
10-meter-wide spray swath*
60 -5
24 X 10 -4
100 -5 9.5 X 10
12 X 10 -4
200 -5 6.4 X 10
4.8 X 10 -4
300 -5 3.6 10
2.4 X 10 -4
400 -5 2.4 10
1.7 X 10 -4
500 -5 1.7 10
1.2 X 10 -4
600 -5 1.2 10
0.9 X 10 -4
700 -5 1.0 10
0.8 X 10 -4
800 -5 0.8 10
0.7 X 10' -4
900 -5 0.7 10
0.6 X 10' -4
1,000 -5 0.6 10
0.5 X 10'
-4
1,100 0.5 10
1,200 0.4 -4(2)
10
1,300 -4
0.4 10
1,400 -4
0.3 10
1,500 -4
0.3 10
-4
1,600 0.2 10
-4
0.2 10
portLn^ran'apptLatiorLte
etc.).
PP 1Catl ° n rate
8
^ 6
^
GXpraSSed as
in ma ss/area (e.g.,
fractional
kg/ha, lbs/ac, mg/m2
.
Values for 1,100 meters

and beyond are extrapolated.
25
Tabu 2.6-Drift ^poaitioôn
vegetation at specified distances
(fro.
Distance Drift deposition from a

(meters) Drift deposition from a
60
0.1
100 0.52
0.052
200 0.40
0.024
300 0.21
0.017
400 0.15
0.012
500 0.12
0.010
600 0.10
0.008
700 0.08
0.007
800 0.07
0.006
900 0.06
0.006
1,000 0.06
0.005
1,100 0.05,
1,200 _ 0.05^
1,300 _ 0.04
1,400 0.04
1,500 0.04
1.600 0.03
0.0 3
Values for 1,100 meters and beyond

are extrapolated.
sn.uE u sts^“‘:. fo s^^sag:isde- co " ta” iMted

se^nd:r; d”sag:iri
then be estimated based on assumptions'
u de iatake :° d
"regardurbeeffcons^piu^^t”"
16
-™ *
led
05 p:~di?d: y r°f
can be estimated as follows
k
“:ê<ri’rLT
400*1*1
rlrectly
uni
&
Assuming 4
er c ” g 35 kii ° 8 — »«
3pra y ed Wlth herbicide
^
l 8
lands only •v™
on
* •r'<Mon^ni;)“L^
1
2n:s:fi r:hari!î“dr
ss
forage, a 1.1 kilogram/hectare (1 pound/acre) treatment
(normalized
tiT!
- Ve
lb/
STflb/L
” Se
,
'
^
a^tic«“n“a“)°i„°
Val le8 - inCl,,< in8 neasurements
'
f
^ ^ °” “" Se
ir^taL^rg^.^Sted
S ” S3
be 19.4 mg/kg (250 mg/kg * 35

kg/steer * steer/450 kg) * vould
26
mg worst-case estimates of herbicide body

burdens in cattle.
in liver.
izxi™ rsnrr,
residues in muscle were less than
At all concentrations
0 06 n
ih
(300
§
OOo’
n
2*000^^?
>,
PP
?
°£
in ^ eed
f3t
nr
’
»
f"*
""
-
2,4-D
0,11 m§/k§
l II
™i:.j
l
(SSiS j;
i
4 t
iJi.
#
iSi.^
/kgi and
"
hat co = t ;rrs:r
£^;s.;»t. s 2 r^^/rL:r£ra:nT; :^ H et *>• <i98w
0
Canada 1974; Fisher »“> ?°H .

« “"f
1 EeSea
iVf
h C °“"cil “ f "
in feed for 4.5 to 8 weeks 1,6 ?° “s/kg ° f P icl °- S =
showed 0 05 to 0 5 mg/k
!l/v. in muscle
2.0 mg/kg in liver and 2 0 to and fat, 0.12 to
mo v f
1969)! Kidneys eL!ained Uss
than S i
the diet 3 days before slaughter.
AÔO
ln
!
' K “ ts chinski and Riley
T £r °°
pp^ fendll™”
^“SrrLuSlnS^l^ê^ *« average 0 mg/kg
e
b^:rît°c ^:Snd ”°ih:o :hSrs^
£o
h exc tion " »*«*«, ’“t-
7 gastrointestinal
membranes. Radiolabeled
ilôsLe £d r “T" ”
excreted in feces (greater Shan
to 11 percent) within 5 davs
80 perce«) agio's a Jessf
bbits .'' as
i esser degree urine (7
f
m
W=1
A email * <Us
as CO, or remained in the
colon (nsy!f ^
han 1 was expired *«««)
reported in Ghassemi data
to have a bioaccumulation Chick ns were found
factor as low as 1(T* foAi ’ u
glyph ?
tissues (Sacher 1978 as cited te in various
in USDA T 9 84) *n m l °f * adi ° Ubeled
=
glyphosate was found in muscle or
li '-‘l
fat of bobwhite
and kidney tiSSUeS <U - S
“ia rîLTt^ .v£t* 2=H 3S?>2»i-

6 i
-
°f
department ^Âgriculture
\7m
f
MO^g/rd^’F^ 89
was found in the urine and feces
^^ 0
SU«M
,
ib concentrations of
1f“hv;«,f radioactivity
r'“* administered
'
within 24 hours l
F ces
variable amount of activity ?
c °°tained a small but ’
Tissues a t,o n h a
bout, but the compound was * aali ,° ic 1
bouts tn tissue. A half-life
excreted rapidly ^thThalf
on this orde! is indiîve
f' u!!^
of
27
pr»Tiu.u i" s.£ -g Ub

r 500 *'•->
48 hours, levels in hlood
Uvols rn liver vere reduced
„„ e reduced
* '• i
?™
.Lost 90 percent vitwHs tours
°V ;01 « «“•
’ Sv^S"*.?
’ 0r kldney at any dose tested
Khan and Foster (1976) have

‘° ” ”* * «“
(Schneider and Kaplan 1983).
^ io
- £LS« to
C C
fat containeJ 38?8
shown no accumulation of atrazine
S/kg°atraaine!
a2ine ? dayS * “ ^
in , h
êver.^minal
bioaccumulatioôf^th^herbicideôînterest 'occurs^ ***

inâ*" 'v*
(though not in muscle tissue) * accumulation in fat

Thic riot analys
, cells
concentration of 0.1 mg/kg in'cattle *;
s assu mes a maximum herbicide
feed
ss^-srs
arôosldered noxious because c.ttu and WldlS’g^^TOri.
i
Because spraying for noxious

weeds occurs in snrin& a ”d
aT1 a early
,
game hunting season would not summer, the big
begin until1 a minimUm
minimum of 2 months to as nuch
months after the spravinv Th 0 « as 7
being sprayed, the wide-raneinz habits^f centage of National Forest System land
between spraying and the hunting ^
animals and the time intervals
^
*
season v
-y have grazed^ herbL^de-êat d gra^f negligible wUd that
doses from beef. ?
LzTiîhl by comparison to the
Because this
contaminated with herbicide is the 7
Lie source'of mea^ffr^he re d “ts, ^
resTT^
substitution of another meat source any
will lessen the dose
— ?3 Affected Population Doses fr o m

Small. Open-Range Promts
Ii^.3.1 Worker Doses. Small Projects
•“ Se tion Z- 1 - 1 . b »° »°rkers with backpack

the small project ?ru approximately sprayers will spray
one-quarter day. Onderverv ideal
traveând ' set^p' tine
C ° Ver 35 35“» «"•
sites per day with al.ovances for
C ati ° S the 3CtUal 3m0 “” t of l> erb

i'i‘ie applied, the 4 percent
fo™nf r-10n r h3 f 3el
! f error, and 5 percent suath overlap
in™uded vere
Tahle 2 3S u “ <i 3 PP lic “ion rates (includin? the
increase' fr !
projects
•
" l3Ilng e "0rS)?
f° r the "erbicides used on small,
open-ran 5 e
28
Table 2.7— Application rates including mixing errors
and swath overlap for
open-range projects.
Herbicide applied
Herbicide applied
including minor mixing errors
2.4- -assuming a major mixing error
K?/ha Lb/ ac
Lb/ ac
D 2.6 2.4 3.2 2.9
2.4-
Picloram 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.43
Dicamba 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.43
D 1.3 1.2 1.6
Picloram 0.36 1.43
0.3 0.43 0.4
2,4-D 1.6 1.44 2.0
Dicamba 0.8 1.8
0.7 1.0 0.9
Glyphosate 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.43
Amitrole 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.43
Atrazine 1.3 1.2 1.6
i
1.43
Hexazinone 1.3 K2 1.6 1.43
nomina^rate
by the Mre „d
“T? " •?
P0Und
error,, the
«“ -Itipli
^ percent (e.g., 1.1 kg/ha x 1.04).
result was then multiDlipd Km, The
Wha r
^^t ioUe/h""' "T 08 IOr
Pl d by assumed double swath
" M4
percent (1.25 kg/ha x 1 05) rate of
’ for final1 assumed
a f
(1.2 lb/ac). application rate of 1.3 kg/hj
6112 11 m±* ing ° n a

was assumed PP lica tion rates, it
tLt^S^fuonô^heibic^d ^
batches of 3.5 gallonf
eld
per acre (which is equivalent
is
n
to 25 percent of the
in ei
w ° atches are double-mixed
^
*2? bo batches being
double-mixed) To !
take a weighed a PP liad . it was
S average^ 25^ necessary to
doub l a length
Cincluding also formuUtion
batches with minor mixing
error InS Swatb VS* overlap) and 75 atpercent
of the
error Si in S a PP location rate
1.1 kg/ha rate is 1.6 from a nomin
kg/ha (0 25 ((1 ‘ l^v/h
kg/ha x 1.04 x 1.1 ^ 1.05)). kg/ha X 1M
x 2 x + 0.75 (1.1
Table 2.7 also provides

application rates for amitrole •
hexazinone based on a nominal atr 2ine and

These herbicides have not
rate of 1 /? *
ram/hectare
1 ?
(1 Pound/ acre),
>
been used in Resrion ?

although they have been used in CO tro1 of noxiou3 weeds
other Reeions ?
the general public are based
on têse TslZl'
require adjustment in the event
of different appUcat
J f ° r W ° rkerS and
W ° Ul<1
ionites'!
29
Table 2.8 presents worker
dose for 1 dau n f
three projects are 1118 th ® aSSUmP tion that
sprayed by two workers
spraying with minor in Tdl rlie worker
T
mixing errors was calculated h* l .
exposure from
application rate per net m
hectare (from T^ble 2 7) b ;J tipl y in S the assumed
P * r *° rker P« <^y (0.6 hectares s P^yed
hectares or 1 5 acresMLd *
the backpack sprayer
dose factor of n y-w
mult iplying this result
/l by2
°* kg /,k g for 2,4-D,
glyphosaL, or , ptcloraw,
(see Table 2.4).
° X °* 468 ”« /k /k
8 ^g *>* atrazine or hexazinone
Table 2.8 Worst-case worker dose levels

projects for 1 day (three 3 "® 11 ’ 0pe,,- ra »S e
projects per daj).
2.4-
Dose in mg/kg/day assuming

minor mixing errors
-major mix ing error on 1 3 ,. ^
2.4- D 0.37
0.42
Picloram
0.18
0.21
Dicamba
0.18
0.21
D/
0.18
Picloram 0.21
0.05
0.06
2,4-D/
0.22
Dicamba 0.26
0.11
0.13
Glyphosate 0.18
0.21
Amitrole
0.18
0.21
Atrazine 0.37
0.42
Hexazinone 0.37
0.42
twelve batches needed tâp^y

^6 ^ctaês^lT” ‘V” aB8u^"ed™that
'
two of
"“ ed
double strength by one worker!
in dn^S-
i“i da “ l is assumed
? this worker
be exposed to applications
on n 1 Wh ’ 1
to
0.5 hectare sprayed
wuHinor ££ -
sprayed for 1 day including nainr
((0.! ha x 1.1 kg/ ha xl S
r 1.04 x 1.1 x 1.05 x
TH
Tls'l
0.234 a,g/kg/kg>).
• •
*Worker dose from picloram
to bd
o'HT "8/ks/ks) + (0 ' 5 h * 1 °‘1.1
21
kg/ha
^
2 . 4 . 3.
. General Population. Dire c t Dose frn„
include direct doses from r n e P rojects ». these

drift consumDtinn ° ^ ^ pathways
t-contaminated vegetables,
^ - ««..i
consumption of beef fed on herbic
ide-trpar e d 5raSSlandS
contact with spray-treated
^
vegetation and rh C ° n3Umptl0n
herbicide-contaminated wild foods
’
demal at) sorption from
of
’
30
3 8ma11 -eject,
Sa°1h« SVwIall'a'af r°” ' It was assumed
0 * COnt * nuous area of dimension
meters by 40 meters The orientation
th e wind travels along the
T* ^ a8SU,” e,i t0 be s “ ch that
100
100-meter leL th^/the sn . .

is 200 meters directly downwind. Slda °“
Prom Table 2.5 the drift°factor
for r
^
00 meter distance from a
100-meter-wide strip is 3.6 x 10 - ^ Drift
a 8 h b r 0 “ ld be '°- 047 tlJ
4/hI“7ooMoo ^/hg r L/!i!„Jo i Tl.6 r;o 5.”
? S8
assumpt ion° that °all ^residents

T “‘S' "- "^ " 1 4 °0
sprav episode. Adult^kin UrfLI
feet ) of which 0.37m2 (4 feet*)
is
S 1
directly erposed (face
“Wl tl
assumed
whicro°l5 ; 2
directly
d
a
a
6°f 68
tly in the dr'fr
uT^\lT f^^kS*#
2
°J ?
S a8SU “ ed t0 ha,,e °- 45 m
e*posed -
^ oll^Ca
S*,*
(4 - 8 f«et^) of skin, of
A11 skposed skin is assumed
In"' and contacted by
drift pathway to be
neck
1
of
)" **
drift (an ertreme assumption).

Dermal absorption rate is assumed
percent for glyphosate, dicamba
to be 1 nercent fr>T- n;,i„
and 2 k-V
picl<
IT™and amitrole; 10™ ,
^
hexarinone. On this bis is, th^d'e
application of picloram would be 2
tl a i 0 kg
5 x 10~° m
?
f a £*
I 3
^»L
l uTZ
g/ha 1TX°*
m / adult x adult/70 kg x 0.01) * (fn n 47
°*° / 7
mgU
/
X ^
°‘ 37
^• 3 - 3—General Population. Oral Dnspg
^sst: c a 1 (:u 1 at ed™^ s^follows

“JE
° “ b bicida êated»
the point at which herbicide holy
win II Tt it maXlmUm 1
“
be sl 8htp d
f « «
Section 2.4.2, with the possible *
As demonstrated in
exceptioJ of a Jr* .
™ aximum bod y burden
would not exceed 0.1 mg/kg and is
verv likplv V lGSS f ° r the herbicid es of
interest. Assuming the steer had
a dL<i A W
2 °° U1 ° Sra” S (44 °
pounds) , that the LrtLin"o^r«I™1. S ?
Jf T<!r * 8e
(1.0 mg/kg for atrarine), that each
adult consumelVrkM °; 1 m* /k S
5 ;
of beef per day, each adolescent (1 pounds)
consumes 0 3 kii™°* *J
per day, and each infant consumes P unda > of beef
that the herbicide in beef does
0.1 kilogis (3
^ sT)^;
f h 6f J day * and
oral dose of herbicide for a 70
not degrade with ^ ily
kg/adult x adult/70 kg x 0 1 mg/k?l
about 140 days at these
kg adult would be ^l X
-n.o et
consu^tion'ratesj
-
^^
TlT*
*/l
®s/kg (0.5
?*
family ° f four
Oral doses from eating

drift-contaminated vegetables arere calculated
calcula^rf from
f
measurements by Yates et al fl 07 JO n f i .
discussed in Section 2 4 2 * Bpra eposition on wheat seedlings as

,
surface to maswllo thln'eaÎ W °“ ld typicall b -e a much

y higher
r.r °n ’ 6 deposition ôuld be 0.27 mg/kg

kg/ha X 0.21 ^-ha/kg ! )? (1.3
Adults were assumed to consump n i

* /o oun es \) of vegetables from
garden daily. Adolescents were
vegetables per day.
assured ^ <-
COnSUme 0,13 kilogram (5 ounces)

the
of
y. ntants are assumed
Infants assn A to consume 0.05 kilogram
*-
(2 ounces)
31
of vegetables daily. Assuming, as a worst case, that no herbic i£e
washing or cooking, the dose to a 70 kg adult was lost in
would be 8.9 x 10 mg/kg (0.27
mg/kg x 0.23 kg/adult x adult/70 kg).
It is assumed that herbicide

concentrations do not diminish over a 2-week
period during which residents continue to consume
vegetables. In fact a
combination of washing vegetables, irrigation and/or
rain, photochemical
degradation, and new growth will greatly reduce intake
of herbicides below
initial levels.
2-sA’ 3 —general Population. Reentry and Oral Doses
Several studies of herbicide residue in spray

areas indicate that the herbicide
exposure to persons reentering a spray area,
after spraying has been completed,
wiH be very small. Lavy et al. (1980) reported that individuals
through an acre sprayed 2 hours earlier with
who walked
2,4,5-T had no detectable
dislodgable residue levels on patches which represented
dermal exposure to skin
and clothing. Also, Thompson et al. (1983) found that only
5 percent of 2 4-D
applied to grasses could be removed by mechanical
wiping immediately after*
spraying 1 to 2 lb a. i/acre. These residues
dropped to less than 1 percent by
5 days after application. These data indicate that the exposure to herbicides
from contacting treated foliage would be extremely
small.
As a worst-case estimate of dose to a
visitor to a spray site, the highest dose
levels measured in a spray project supervisor
who had spent a day on-site
during spray application will be used. As shown
on Table 2.4, the worst-case
supervisor dos factor for 2, 4-D, amitrole, dicamba,
? picloram, and glyphosate
is 0.0/5 x 10 mg/kg per kilogram of herbicide applied and for atrazine
and
hexazinone is 0.150 x 1() mg/kg per kilogram of herbicide applied. Picloram
dose would be 3.9 x 10 (1.3 kg/ha x 0.4 ha x 0.075 x 10 3 mg/kg/kg).
The dose to a forest visitor who collects and

eats 0.23 kilogram (0.5 pound) of
wil fruit from the spray site shortly after
spraying is also provided. Based
on reviews by Norris (1981) and Hoerger and
Kenaga (1972) the upper
concentration limit on fruit would be about 7 mg/kg for
each pound of herbicide
applied per acre, or about 6.5 mg/kg for each
kilogram of herbicide applied per
ectare. The dose to a 70 kilogram person eating
wild fruit from a site
sprayed at 1.3 kg/ha would be 0.028 mg/kg 2
(1.3 kg/ha x 6.5 mg-ha/kg x 0.23
kg/person x person/70 kg).
pie chances of picking and consuming one-half pound

of wild foods exclusively
from noxious weed sites that have been directly
sprayed with herbicides are
extremely small. Even smaller is the probability of a person
picking and
consuming wild foods from an area that has been mistakenly
sprayed with a
double-strength batch of herbicide mixture. The odor and taste
of the sprayed
vegetation alone would alert the person to contamination. For
example at
concentrations above 5 mg/kg on food, both picloram and
2, 4-D impart a bitter
taste to food, thus limiting exposure.
Tables 2.9 through 2.15 provide general population dose levels

from the
spraying of each herbicide or mixture of herbicides of interest
on small
projects.
32
Table 2.9 — Worst-cas edose levels to visitors and

residents in the vicinity of
a small. open-range project
sprayed with 2,4-D.
Dose including Dose including

minor mixing major mixing
error error
(mz/ke/dav) fmv/Vo-/
Adult dermal dose 5.0 X 10~

5
6.2 X 10~ 5
Adolescent
dermal dose 6.4 X 10' 5 -5
7.8 X 10
Infant dermal
dose 1.2 X 10~
4 4
1.5 X 10~
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (beef) -4 -4
7.1 X 10 7.1 X 10
Infant oral
dose (beef) 8.3 X 10"
4 4
8.3 X 10~
Adult/adolescent
oral dose (veg) 1.8 X 10~
3 3
2.3 X 10~
Infant oral
dose (veg) -3 3
2.2 X 10 2.7 X 10~
Visitor re-
entry to
spray site 7.8 X 10~ 5 9.6 X 10' 5
Oral dose/
sprayed wild
food 2 -2
5.6 X 10' 6.8 X 10
33
Table 2 10 -Worst-case dose levels
to visitors and residents in the vicinity of
a small, open-range project
sprayed with picloram or amitrole.

error
(mz/kz/ dav) (mz/kz/dav)
Adult dermal dose -6 6
2.5 X io 3.2 X 10'
Adolescent
dermal dose 6 6
3.2 X IQ' 3.9 X 10~
Infant dermal
dose 6 -6
5.9 X io' 7.4 X 10
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (beef) -4 4
7.1 X 10 7.1 X 10~
Infant oral
dose (beef) 4
8.3 X 10~ 8.3 X 10~
4
Adult /adolescent
i -3
oral dose (veg) 8.9 X o
•l*
t—
1.1 X io
Infant oral
dose (veg) -3 -3
1.1 X IO 1.4 X 10
Visitor re-
entry to
spray site 3.9 X 10~
5 -5
4.8 X 10
Oral dose/
sprayed wild
food 1 CM -2
2.8 X HO 3.4 X 10
34
2.11— Worst-case dose levels to visitors and residents in

a small, open-range project sprayed with hexazinone

errors errors
(mg/kg/dav) (ms/ke/dav)
Adult dermal
dose 5
5.0 X 10~ 6.3 X 10'
5
Adolescent
dermal dose 5
6.4 X 10~ 7.8 X 10~ 5
Infant dermal
dose -4 4
1.2 X 10 1.5 X 10“
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (beef) 4 i
7.1 X 10“ • H X rH
o
•a-
Infant oral
dose (beef) -4 -4
8.3 X 10 8.3 X 10
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (veg) 4 -3
8.9 X 10" 1.1 X io
Infant oral
dose (veg) 3
1.1 X 10~ 1.4 X 10'
3
Visitor re-
entry to spray
site 5
7.8 X 10~ 9.6 X 10~
5
Oral dose/
sprayed wild
food -2 -2
2.8 X 10 3.4 X 10
35
Table 2.12-Worst-case dose levels
to visitors and residents in
the vicinity of
a small, open-range project sprayed
with glyphosate or dicamba.

errors errors
— (mg/kg/dav) (mg/kg/dav)
Adult dermal
dose 5
2.5 X 10" 3.2 X 10' 5
Adolescent
dermal dose 5 -5
3.2 X 10“ 3.9 X 10
Infant dermal
dose 5 -5
5.9 X 10" 7.5 X 10
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (beef) 4 -4
7.1 X 10~ 7.1 X 10
Infant oral
dose (beef) 4 4
8.3 X 10~ 8.3 X 10"
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (veg) 4
8.9 X 10~ 1.1 X io'
3.4
3
Infant oral
dose (veg) -3 3
1.1 X io 1.4 X 10'
Visitor re-
entry to spray
site -5 5
3.9 X 10 4.8 X 10~
Oral dose/
sprayed wild
food -2 2
2.8 X 10 X 10~
36
Table 2.13 — Worst-case dose levels to visitors and residents
in the
the vicinity of a small open-range
» project sprayed with a
2,4-D/picloram mixture.

error error
(mg/kg/ day) (mg/kg/dav)
Adult dermal 2.5 X 10~?
-/ 3.2 X 10'?
7.5
dose 6.2 X 10 8.0 X 10
Adolescent 3.2 X 10”?

_/ 3.9 X 10";?
dermal dose 8.0 X 10 1.0 X 10*°
Infant dermal 8.3 '5

5.9 X 1 0 X 10-5
dose b
1.5 X 10~ 1.9 X 10~
b
Adult/ adolescent 10~ 4

1.1 X
7.1
4 7.1 X 10~f
oral dose (beef) 7.1 X 10~
2.7 4
7.1 X 10"
Infant oral 4
8.3 X 10“
3.9 8.3 X 10“
4
dose (beef) 4 4.8
1.0 X 10~ 8.3 X 10"
1.2 4
Adult/ adolescent 4
8.9 X 10"
2.8 1.1 X 10'?
oral dose (veg) 4
2.2 X 10~
7.0 2.7 X 10~
4
Infant oral X 10~? 1.4 X 10'?

dose (veg) X 10~ 4 3.5 X 10~
4
Visitor re-
entry to spray X 10';? X 10'?
site X 10~ 5 -5
X 10
Oral dose/
sprayed wild X I0~l 3.4 X 10
food X 10~ J 8.5 X 10~
\
J
37
Table 2.14-Wcrat-case doss
levels to visitors and residents
a small, open-range project
in the vicinity of
sprayed with a 2 ,4-D/dicamba minturl.

error error
(mg/kg/dav) - (mg/kg/dav)
Adult dermal 3.0 X 10~* -5

3.8 X 10
dose 1.5 X 10~
5 -5
1.9 X 10
Adolescent 3.9 X 10"J 7.1 -5

-5 4.9 X 10
dermal dose 7.1 -5
1.9 X 10 2.4 X 10
~ 8.3
Infant dermal 5 -5
7.5 X 10 9.4 X 10
dose -5 -5
3.8 X lO 4.7 X 10
Adult /adolescent 7.1 X 10"f -4
-4 X 10
oral dose (beef) -4
7.0 X 10
7.1 X 10
Infant oral 8.3 X 10 -4
4.8 Ii X 10
dose (beef) 4 -4
8.3 X 10
2.4 8.3 X 10
Adult/ adolescent -3 -3
1.1 X 10 1.3 X 10
oral dose (veg) 3.4 4 4.2 -4
5.3 X 10‘ 2.1 X 10
6.3
Infant oral -3
1.4 X 10"^ 1.8 X 10
dose (veg) -4 -4
X 10 8.8 X 10
Visitor re-
entry to spray X -5
10 6.0 X 10
site X 10 5 -5
3.0 X 10
Oral dose/
- -2
sprayed wild X 10 J X 10
food _Z -2
1.7 X 10 X 10
38
Table 15— Worst-case dose levels to visitors and residents in
the vicinity of
a small, open-range project sprayed
with atrazine.

error error
(mg/kg/dav) (mg/kg/dav)
Adult dermal
dose 5
5.0 x 10" 6.3 X 10'
5
Adolescent
dermal dose 6.4 x 10"
5 -5
7.8 X 10
Infant dermal
dose 4 -4
1.2 x 10 1.5 X IO
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (beef) 7.1 x 10" 3 7.1 X 10‘
3
Infant oral
dose (beef) 8.3 x 10"
3 -3
8.3 X 10
Adult/ adolescent
8.9 x io' 1.1 X 10
Infant oral
dose (veg) -3 -3
1.1 x 10 1.4 x 10
Visitor re-
entry to spray
site 5
7.8 x 10" 9.6 X 10"
5
Oral dose/
sprayed wild
food 2 -2
2.8 x 10‘ 3.4 X io
— 4 Affected Population Doses fro
m Mid-Sized Open-Rano*
39
2.4.4. 1 Worker Doses. Mid-sized Projects
The dose to workers and the

general population from mid-sized
open-range
projects
1S CalCUlated USing the 8ame
bas «
methods as discussed for swll
S 3 ‘ 2 “ a SUmed that tw0 a PPlicators
a~SS siariaHSSS,
with backpack
8prayerrspLd^ davrLch \^ !
2 iSS $.5, sfc=.-a? “ aj0r mixing error scenario assumes

worker soravs
P 0 i w!! e (0 * 25 acr ) wlth two
batches of double-strength
that one
mixture For ’i
aj0r miX
.
?
g err ° r involving Pidoram sprayed at a nominal
of 1 Tke/ha ^ v r
d0Se uld be °- 43
rate
2 x 1 05x n’m '"till ,Y° g ((0.1 ha x 1.1 kg/ha x 1 .04 x
»S /k S /k S> * (1.2 ha a 1.1 kg/ha a 1.04 a 1.1 a
^g/kg/kg)) 1 05 a 0.234
Table 2 .16 Daily worker dose levels from spraying

mid-sized * open-range
projects.

minor mix ing errors a major mi xing error
2,4-D 0.80
0.85
Picloram 0.40
0.43
Dicamba 0.40
0.43
2,4-D/ 0.40
Picloram 0.43
0.10
0.11
2,4-D/ 0.49
Dicamba 0.52
0.24 0.26
Glyphosate 0.40 0.43
Amitrole 0.40 0.43
Atrazine 0.80 0.85
Hexazinone 0.80
0.85
—•^•^•2 —General Population. Direct Dose from Drift
Spraying will be treated as though it occurrs

on a continuous 2.7-hectare site
(6.6 acres) with dimensions of 200 meters by
135 meters. The spray zone is
40
assumed to be oriented such that the wind
blows directlv alon* th* onn
r
£rt°v he
heproject is 200
ray zom - Dri£t is caic " iated
^„ meters from the residence and » ^“LtsThafLfAr
half is 300 meters from the
bouse (using factors from Table 2.5). Drift
depositiou at 200 meters £om a
a 3 Pyj*ying at 1.3 kg/ha (1.2 lb/ac)
§ would be 0.078 mglm ((1.3 kg/ha x 1
x ^ n
10 mg/kg x hectare/10,000 meters) x ((3.6 + 8
2.4) x 10"S).
Dermal absorption rates and assumptions

regarding area of exposed skin are
identical to those used for small projects.
Tables 2.17 through 2.23 present
dose data for these residents on a
daily basis.
Table 2 . 17 — Worst-case dose levels to visitors and residents

in the vicinity of
a mid-sized , open-range project sprayed with
2,4-D.

minor
1.1 mixing major mixing
error error
(mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/ day)
Adult dermal
dose -5 4
8.2 X 10 1.0 X 10~
Adolescent
dermal dose X 10" 4 1.3 X 10
-4
Infant dermal
dose 4
2.0 X 10~ 2.5 X 10~
4
Adult/ adolescent
7.1 X 10~ 7.1 X 10
Infant oral
dose (beef) -4 4
8.3 X 10 8.3 X 10"
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (veg) 3
3.1 X 10~ 3.9 X 10"
3
Infant oral
dose (veg) 3 3
3.8 X 10 4.7 X 10~
Visitor re-
entry to spray
site 4 -4
5.1 X 10" 6.3 X 10
Oral dose/
sprayed wild
food 5.6 X 10 6.8 X 10
41
Table 18 — Worst-case dose levels to visitors and residents
in the vicinity of
a mid-sized, open-range project sprayed
with pic loram or amitrole.

error error
(mg/kg/dav) i /ko /
Adult dermal
dose 6
4.1 X 10~ 5.3 X 10~
6
Adolescent
dermal dose 6 -6
5.3 X 10~ 6.5 X 10
Infant dermal
dose -6 -5
9.8 X 10 1.2 X 10
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (beef) 4
7.1 X 10~ 7.1 X 10~
4
Infant oral
dose (beef) -4 -4
8.3 X 10 8.3 X 10
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (veg) -3 -3
1.5 X 10 1.9 X 10
Infant oral r
dose (veg) -3
1.9 X 10 2.4 X 10~ 3
Visitor re-
entry to spray
site 2.6 X 10" 4 3.2 X 10"
4
Oral dose/
sprayed wild
food -2 -2
2.8 X 10 3.4 X 10
42
Table M9— Worst-case dose levels to visitors and residents
in the vicinity of
a mid-sized, open-range project sprayed
with hexazinone.

8.3error
error
(mg/kg/dav) (mg/kg/ day)
1.1
Adult dermal
dose X 10~ 5 4
1.0 X 10'
Adolescent
dermal dose -4 4
X 10 1.3 X 10"
Infant dermal 8.3
dose 4
2.0 X 10" 2.5 X 10"
4
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (beef) 4
7.1 X 10“ 7.1 X 10"
4
Infant oral
dose (beef) -4 -4
X 10 8.3 X 10
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (veg) 3
1.5 X 10" 1.9 X 10~
3
Infant oral
dose (veg) -3
1.9 X 10 2.4 X 10~
3
Visitor re-
entry to spray
site -4 4
5.1 X 10 6.3 X 10'
Oral dose/
sprayed wild
food -2
2.8 X 10 3.4 X 10~
2
43
Table 2.20 —Worst-case dose levels to visitors and residents in
the vicinity
of a mid-sized open-range project sprayed
with glyphosate or
dicamba

error error
(me/ka/ dav) (me/kp/dawl
Adult dermal
dose 5 -5
4.1 X 10~ 5.3 X 10
Adolescent
dermal dose 5
5.3 X 10" 6.4 X 10"
5
Infant dermal
1 ui
dose 9.8 X 4
o 1.2 X 10"
Adult/ adolescent
7.1 X 10 7.1 X 10
Infant oral
dose (beef) 4 4
8.3 X 10" 8.3 X 10~
Adult/ adolescent
1m
oral dose (veg) 1.5 X 3
1.9 X 10~
fH
o
Infant oral dose

(veg) 1.9 X 10~
3 -3
2.4 X 10
Visitor re-
entry to spray
site 2.6 X 10'
4 -4
3.2 X 10
Oral dose/
sprayed wild
food 2.8 X 10"
2 -2
3.4 X 10
44
Table 21— Worst-case dose levels to visitors and residents in
the vicinity of
a mid-sized, open- range project sprayed with a
2 ,4-D/picloram
mixture.

error error
_(mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/dav)
1 Ui -5
Adult dermal 4.1 X o 1 Tn 5.3 X 10
dose 1.0 X 10 -6
1.3 X 10
Adolescent 5.3 X l0 -5
-l
&
6.4 X 10
dermal dose 1.3 X 10 -6
1.6 X 10
Infant dermal 9.8 X 10 -4

-6 1.2 X 10
dose 2.4 X 10 -6
3.0 X 10
Adult/ adolescent 7.1 X 10 -4

-4 7.1 X 10
7.1 X 10 7.1 X 10

-4 8.3 X 10
dose (beef) 4 -4
8.3 X 10 8.3 X 10
Adult/ adolescent -3
1.5 X ioir 1.9 X 10
oral dose (veg) 4.0 X -4
rH
o 5.0 X 10
Infant oral , -3 -3
1.9 X 10 2.4 X 10
dose (veg) -4
4 -4
5.0 X 10 6.0 X 10
Visitor re-
entry to spray 2.6 X 10 -4
-5D 3.2 X 10
site 6.5 X 10 -5
8.0 X 10
Oral dose/
sprayed wild . -2 -2
2.8 X 10 3.4 X 10
food -3i -3
7.0 X 10 8.5 X 10
45
Table 2.22 Worst-case dose levels to visitors and
residents in the vicinity
of a mid-sized, open-range project
sprayed with a 2 ,4-D/dicamba'
mixture.

error error
mg/kg/dav) (mg/kg/dav)
Adult dermal 5.0 X 10 -5
-53 5.8 X 10
dose 2.5 X 10 -5
2.9 X 10
Adolescent 6.5 X 10 -5
-5
5
8.1 X 10
dermal dose 3.2 X 10 -5
4.0 X 10
Infant dermal 1.2 X 10 -4

-5D 1.6 X 10
dose 6.0 X 10 -5
8.0 X 10
Adult/ adolescent 7.1 X 10 -4

-4 7.1 X 10
7.1 X 10 7.1 X 10

-4 8.3 X 10
dose (beef) 4 -4
8.3 X 10 8.3 X 10
Adult/ adolescent ,
-3 -3
1.9 X 10 2.2 X 10
oral dose (veg) -4
4 -3
9.5 X 10 1.1 X 10
Infant oral ,
-3 -3
2.4 X 10 3.1 X 10
dose (veg) _3J -3
1.2 X 10 1.5 X 10
Visitor re-
entry to spray 3.2 X 10 -4
-4 4.0 X 10
site 4 -4
1.6 X 10 2.0 X 10
Oral dose/
sprayed wild , -2 -2
3.4 X 10 4.2 X 10
food -2 -2
1.7 X 10 2.1 X 10
46
Table 2.23 — Worst-case dose levels to visitors and
of a mid-sized. open-range
project sprayed with atrazine.
Do3e including Dose including

8.3error
error
(mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/dav)
1.1
Adult dermal
dose -5
X 10 4
1.0 X 10~
Adolescent
dermal dose 4 -4
X 10~ 1.3 X 10
Infant dermal 8.3
dose 2.0 X 10~
4
2.5 X 10" 4
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (beef) -3
7.1 X 10 3
7.1 X 10“
Infant oral
dose (beef) X 10~ 3 3
8.3 X 10~
6.3
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (veg) -3
1.5 X 10 3
1.9 X 10~
3.4
Infant oral
dose (veg) 1.9 X 10"
3
2.4 X 10' 3
Visitor re-
entry to spray
site -4
5.2 X 10 X 10~ 4
Oral dose/
sprayed wild
food -2 -2
2.8 X 10 X 10
47
General Population. Oral Doses
s: ca
I
e
ri: t j c.r s
he
-t
i
-
ide ‘ trea
r
d sraas ™
thistle Up^^d or otherwise)

, ES/S?^-*
C0 ”bi ° ed ” he ° Calculatl
vegetation ? "8 drift concentration on
“rTft"eooI
wS M
/P 2
!*,V/
lb 3 1
deposition
t on vegetation downwind from a site
w ° uld be 0.47 mg/kg of vegetation ((0.21 sprayed
mg-ha/kg^ + 0
at 1 1
a ha
i,
kg ?) * ( ^,kg/ha)) 15
^ r?n
£ (a
}:
8
3 Dail
y dose to a 70 kg adult consuming 0^3 kg' (8
!
l0SS 0f "ttbicide in washing orôoking)
?r^° T would
be 1.5
1 5 x 10 3 mg/kg
/u (0.47 mg/kg x 0.23 kg/adult x adult/70
kg) .
^ 4?4 - 4— gene ral Population. Reentry and Oral Dorps
Visitor doses are calculated as for

small projects A visitor is assumed to
reenter a daily spray site shortly
after spraying.’
As discussed in Section 2.4.3.
4, the visitor doses calculated in this analysis
Dound^f
6 ® Stlmates
^rr :
^
chances of picking and consuming
one-hal/
Y^Jd foods exclusively from noxious weed sites that have been directly
scravpd
sprayed with herbicides are extremely
small. Even smaller is the probability
eTSOn Picking and consuming wild foods from an area that hasêen ?
! ®
conta
l
mistakenly
aS f
sprayed with a double-strength batch
contamination. nV
of herbicide mixture
vegetation alone would alert tê person
For example, at concentrations to
Th P ^
picloram and 2,4-D impart a bitter taate
above 5 mg/kg on food Wb
to food, thus UÛing
2.4.5 Affected Population Doses f rom Large. Open-RangP Pm^r»c

2. 4. 5.1 Worker Doses. Large Projects
sor!v’p 1P
sprayers.
0
nT
r
y *
e P r °j ects
AreaS
wil1 most often be sprayed with vehicle-mounted
accessible to vehicles may be sprayed with
backpack
fr ° m large 0 P en -range projects, it is assumed

20
»
that
acres) of the large, open-range project is
. , , sprayed with
SPr 8 W ° rkerS (six spra y ers and one supervisor) for
dayf
ay iMheach. Thii application
This .iji . 5 work
rate is equivalent to 1.3 net hectares
per sprayer per day. The remainder (3.3 acres)
of the project is sprayed with a
1 6 ounta spray rig in 5 days by one
and ? ? driver who also does his own mixing
ng ° f herbicide . As discussed in Section 2.2, double-strength
annl ! j!10118
3re assumed t0 occur on 1 percent
harin'^ of the acreage sprayed with
ackpack sprayers. Double-strength mixing is not considered a
possibility with
48
vehicle application because of the vast
and obvious increase in nestiri^
consumption which would result. As
escess in herbicide concentrstion
appl icat ions?

11701
The effect of a double-strength

'
discussed in Section 2 2 a ?0
in the field
5 ^ ° Verlaf> —^
mirtureaiierceotexc'ss
U d »H »ehicle
application by backpack sprayer exposure

be most apparent to the sprayer would
himself. Even here the eiiecc
effect 18 s^n as
is small ,*
shown on Table
snown Tahl*. 2.24.
9 rr
The effect ..
on exposure levels for supervisor,
residents
Saw? ra 8 *!“ 8pra 2 ed da T (1 ' 3 — —

WMc^” w
acles ; y the herbicide application hectares or 3.3 net
rate per acre (see Table 9 7 ^ ar>A h e-u
^l
backpack dose factor of 0.234 or 0.468
»g/kg/kg (see £e LbU tlT
itat by ”“ uipipiD8
2.4)
» »« j.“,v
8 ~™
the truck
e
a
d^L&^
2 - 4 >- Si-
1
the supervisor would be aff^ted'both

ScSrjfT 8
t: it: v, r by
pplication and backpack spray, his dose by vehicle

was calculated on a 100-acre basis
As sh° w n on Table 2.25, the
supervisor dose is much smaller than
either tile*
P r r k d ° Se * °D thiS basis ifc Can be safel
tS
tnat the e ffect of thrb
effect the backpacker spray drift on the
truck driver
y ••««*
reverse) would be negligible in (or the
comparison to the dose from his own spraying.
2.4-
’
•
; : i .
' -
Table
range'projects^y
d ° S<! leVelS f ° r ba ' kpaCk Spra
T" 8 “ l«ge. °Pcn-
2.4-
minor mixing err ors mator mixing error on 1 ac re
D 0.80 0.85
Picloram 0.40 0.43
Dicamba 0.40 0.43
D/ 0.40
picloram 0.43
0.10 0.11
2,4-D/ 0.49
dicamba 0.52
0.24 0.26
Amitrole 0.40
0.43
Atrazine 0.80
0.85
Hexazinone 0.80
0.85
49
Tabu
for
'*•* o»
2.4-
_Truck driver dose in
D 8.0 X 10"
0.66
Picloram -3
2.4- 4.0 X 10
0.33
Dicamba -3
4.0 X 10
0.33
D/ -3
4.0 X 10
picloram -3 0.33
1.0 x 10
0.08
2,4-D/ -3
4.9 x 10
dicamba 0.40
2.4 x 10
0.20
Glyphosate -3
4.0 x 10
0.33
Amitrole -3
4.0 x 10
0.33
Atrazine -3
8.0 x 10
0.66
Hexazinone
0.66
— ,5,2 —ggn eral Population. Direct Dose from Dri f
r
he
iis;.2 rss: ;v
IS assumed at 200 meters from the 1
nearest edge of each ^ri ’ residence
srss- Jsra
sr£S
r “ lc” uted
uuo‘ llT, ll%°A
««. f ™.*
2^£:.*sv (57m
,
& T/ZVo'Zlt
ioo
290 mete
t -d
) is
#£ »“»• P»J«t sprayedât K3 i

lllVli 1 T'
factors for 2M tSroogh°l
6 .boSâri ?
(TaMe"^)’’^^
yaras Viable ““ ?•” °' the drift
2.5; by the application rate of 1.3
kg/ha.
i
Based on these calculations, total
o! o
”
the rîLnts
ITsvzi *;0 ft1
ge
aLlt^Se
0
ie
;^ :™?!.^!
daily drift deposition on surfaces at 100
r yed at *- 3
r r*
01 10 ”
^ “
^““
that
the adults have
w““
»*»*
™ "«
and
_ “‘ttuoi dusui p lxuu race ror Dicloram anH
lor am ana
amitrole is assumed to be L1 perr^nf F
P ercen t, for glyphosate,
„ f ..
c
percent, and for , .
dicamba, and 2 4— D 10
atrazine and hexazinone, 20 percent. * ’
50
Table 26— Worst-case dose levels to visitors and residents in the
vicinty
of a large, open-range project sprayed '
with a 2,4-D, picloram
or amitrole. ’
2,4-D dose Picloram or Amitrole

aose ling/
Adult dermal
dose 10~ 4 -5
1.1 X io
Adolescent
dermal dose 4
3.0 X 10~
10 1.5 X 10~
5
Infant dermal
1
dose o -5
2.7 X 10
Adult/ adolescent
10 7.1 X 10
Infant oral
dose (beef) -4 4
10 8.3 X 10~
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (veg) 10~ 3 3
4.8 X 10~
Infant oral
dose (veg) 10~ 2 3
6.2 X 10'
Visitor re-
entry to spray
site -3
IO 3
4.0 X 10"
Oral dose/
1 cs "2
sprayed wild food rH
o 2.8 X io
51
Table 5.27-Worst-case dose levels to visitors and

residents in the vicinitv of
large, open-range project sprayed
with a 2,4-D/picloram mixture.
2,4-D dose Picloram dose

Adult dermal
dose -4 -6
1.1 X 10 3.0 X 10
Adolescent
dermal dose -4 -6
1.5 X 10 4.0 X 10
Infant dermal
dose -4 -6
2.7 X 10 7.0 X 10
Adult/ adolescent
7.1 X 10 7.1 X 10
Infant oral
dose (beef) -4 -4
8.3 X 10 8.3 X 10
Adult/ adolescent
4.8 X 10 1.2 X 10
Infant oral
dose (veg) -3 -3
6.2 X 10 1.6 X 10
Visitor re-
entry to spray
site -4 -4
4.0 X 10 1.1 X 10
Oral dose/
sprayed wild
food -2 -3
2.8 X 10 7.0 X 10
52
Table >.28— Worst-case dose levels to visitors
and residents in the vicing r
a large, opea-range project
sprayed with a 2.4-0/dicaoba
mirture.
2,4-D dose Dicamba dose

(mg/kg/dav) (mg/kg/dav)
Adult dermal
dose 4
1.4 X 10~ 7.0 X 10~ 5
Adolescent
dermal dose -4
1.8 X 10 9.0 X 10~
5
Infant dermal
dose -4
3.3 X 10 4
1.7 X 10~
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (beef) -4
7.1 X 10 7.1 X 10" 4
Infant oral
dose (beef) 8.3 X 10'
4 -4
8.3 X 10
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (veg) -3
6.2 X 10 3.1 X 10'
3
Infant oral
dose (veg) 7.6 X 10~ 3
r
3.8 X 10" 3
Visitor re—
entry to spray
site 4.9 X 10~
3 3
2.4 X 10~
Oral dose/
sprayed wild
food -2
3.4 X 10 2
1.7 X 10'
53
Table 2 .29 Worst-case doae levels to visitors end
Of a large, open-range project sprayed
with dicamba, 8glyphosate'
te
hexazinone, or atrazine. ,
Dicamba or
Glyphosate dose Hexazinone dose Atrazine dose
(mg/kg/dav) (mg/kg/dav) (mg/kg/dav)
Adult dermal
dose 4
1.1 X 10' 2.2 X 10"
4 4
2.2 X 10"
Adolescent
dermal dose 4
1.5 X 10" 3.0 X 10~
4 4
3.0 X 10"
Infant dermal
dose 2.7 X 10"
4 -4 -4
5.4 X 10 5.4 X 10
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (beef) -4 4
7.1 X 10 7.1 X 10~ 3
7.1 X 10~
Infant oral
dose (beef) 4
8.3 X 10~
4.0 8.3 X 10~
4 -3
8.3 X 10
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (veg) 3
4.8 X 10" 4.8 X 10'
3 -3
4.8 X 10
Infant oral
dose (veg) 6.2 X 10~ 3 6.2 X 10~
3 3
6.2 X 10~
Visitor re-
entry to spray
site -3 3
X 10 8.0 X 10“ 3
8.0 X 10"
Oral dose/
sprayed wild
food -2 2
2.8 X 10 2.8 X 10“ 2
2.8 X 10~
54
2. 4. 5. —General Population. Oral Doses
These dose values are also provided

on Tables 2.26 through 2.29.
irjs’ass.-.ssr J
vegetables is calculated by combining d ?P° 8ltlon on

factors for ion ll
z::i
— - ,5 ‘
:
contaminated vegetables.
4
~ i
5
Gener al Population. Reentry and Oral

°r
es,: * nd
~X?>AT ®
ns “d
«
Doses
Tables 2 26 through 2.29 also provide worst-case
dose levels for visitor
“ for'small S^SsS
Se
e
odoranftast“
* r ~ hU
f
leb « ries •
—r
Sc.).
to
2^ 4.6 Affected Population Exposure and D

o se from Rivht-of-Wav Prnj . ft .
2. 4. 6,1 Worker Doses
As discussed in Section 2 1 4
right-of-way spray project is assumed
require one truck driver
nozzle or backpack sprayer.
m a day.
,
Each project is assumed to 8

to
Project
J
^
ZT ^
involve a bêter
d a1
‘S
truck ist assumed
”
kil0 t ' r ' °f ™adside (5 miles
of ros7wth “ides *• Tne
î*
8’
to cover 8 hectArpQ «„__ _\ , ,
additions! 1.3 l»ct„el (jTj «“”! ’ “ 8POt Spra ? er “

Ta »lo 2.30.
UvUs'^sLirfjoêtcent^LI^tror^^^'l These dose
7
percent doable swath. As with the
open-range”,” 7"^' a ° d 3 5
calculated by multiplying the presumed
daily aSuH
ITable 2.31) by L ”(^1^*3^
the area sprayed and by the dose
sprayer from Table 2 4
sxir "
v!
tactor
— ”5 Sw-vit.'Sw'"
factor for a truck
trnrt driver
j
;
or a backpack
•
s'*
lb/ac) . These herbrcides are not now used

~
on Region
-‘susrsr-rr*.
1 right-of-wa^ projects!
„
55
Table 2.30 Worst-case worker dose levels from spraying
of right-of-way
projects for 1 day.
Truck driver dose in mg/kg/day Spot spra yer dose

2,4-D 0.16 0.80
Picloram 0.08 0.40
Dicamba 0.08 0.40
2,4-D 0.08
picloram 0.40
0.02 0.10
2,4-D 0.10
dicamba 0.49
0.05 0.24
Amitrole 0.08 0.40
Atrazine 0.16 0.80
Hexazinone 0.16 0.80
i
Table 2.31- -Application rates including mixing

errors and swath overlap
right-of-way projects.
Application rate Cke/ha) Application rate (pound/ac)

2,4-D 2.6 2.4
Picloram 1.3 1.2
*
Dicamba 1.3 1.2
2,4-D 1.3 1 2
picloram 0.36 0.3
2,4-D 1.6 1.4
dicamba 0.8 0.7
Glyphosate 1.3 1.2
Amitrole 1.3 1.2
Atrazine 1.3 1-2
Hexazinone 1.3 1.2

56
2.4. 6. _General Population. Direct Dose from
Drift
S: Sr”
^ ,!
lg L of the 8pra
y equipment and to approach and stand
“ «£“*
immediate!
immediately adjacent to the road right-of-way during
spraying.
Dermal dose values for residents who
are 60 meters from a spray area are
calculated as were dermal doses from
drift from open-range projects Drift
deposition factors for 60 meters are
available on Table 2.s!
The drift deposition factor from
Table 2.5 is adjusted for the fact
that the
deposition at 60 meters from a 1

'
o it/ \ ... *
is
* io 5 * 12
* 0.1 x person/70 kg * 0.037 mg/m 2 "8/l' S ( °' 37 " 'P" 800

).
There are several ways to estimate the

dose to an adolescent in the imrnedi.r.
Bir:^
A second method of estimating dose
to a bystander «ili . ,
estimate. This method is haled on

tances off-target and estimates
e.tLS^lpr^dûLl ^^rt
of the dermal absorption rate
of herbicides.
Maybank et al. (1977) have made numerous
tests to measure donee • •
as well as deposition within

5 meters off-ta^ d^ri-
rigs. In the 30 trials with wind Ravine ‘‘l**
speeds up to 33 km/hr (20 LI? ll 5-°!!
concentration drift cloud measured with 8 9'
site was equivalent to 25.2 mg/m 2
.
air samplers a^ meter from't^
This ‘drift cloud resulted f™
h Spray ^
application of 0.56 kg/ha (0.5 Ih/ac) on
a 13 eêrîda s1atM45 feat).
Maybank
=?:
s findings must be adjusted for the
it ssamS
fact that the ri.tif-
S £“
srrr.fwr,
10.1 x 15
*£*•
mg/40 kg). This estimate
is about 5 times the dose based
on
"« Jilts
can be considered extremely
measurements of sup^Lor spending
entire day in the immediate vicinity nJiL'an
an
era
C
•
&
8
of a spray site.
57
— 4,6,3—General Population. Oral Dose. Beef and Vegetation
at le d0 0t
Se^Lp ^ K -J / 0Utinely 8ra2e ° n
t0 C3ttle WiU
m0St ri Shts-of-way sprayed by the
be 8reatly reduced *
Forest
Wo ^ k by Maybank et
al (llh) III Sh0W ° t
h3t WlthLD 5 meterS 0f a
swIthT-^ ! spray ^-meter-wide, ground-rig
ri de P° 31t on horizontal surfaces would be less than
the n^ f f 1 percent of
r lr
Ucatio ° ate
dosee to humans is assumed ; to be
calculated for open-range projects.
target - Thus - d ° se
1 percent of the doses
r
= Dd
q
« ««i.
Oral dose from eating spray-contaminated

vegetables is calculated using the
same consumption rates as in the
open-range project scenarios. Vegetable
gardens are assumed to be located 60 5
meters from the spray project Spray
S n f C r f r vegetation Predicated
on a 10-meter-wide spray swath are
Dro° J i° r ^? 2 * &t * %
Spr3y factors for 6 ° meters' distance
muU-nV are! therefore ’
rieht l)
right-of-way
7 t0 aC
project. n°
UDt f ° r the difference width in a double-swath
Oral dose for a 70 kg adult consuming
«
0.23 kg (0 5 lbs)
6
occur! in
occurs
3lly
\
n washing or cooking.
" \
3lCUlated 0D the assumption that no loss
oAerbicide
Worst-case adult daily dose based on an
applicntion rate gf 1.3 kg/ha (1.2 lb/ac), is
3.1 x i 0 mg/kg (l? 2 x 1.3
4
kg/ha x 0.1 mg/kg -ha x 0.23 kg/person x
person/70 kg).
apprOX mation of he dos e to a person who
™ walks through the

fc
°f Way shortl y j spraying the right-of-way, the dose factors

, from
2
£i f r
.:
r
f^ r9-L^c::i 2-^) aa
t
righrir
r
9pray roject wiu be
2 ^
ith
I*?**-
kg/ha x 0.075 x 10
«;•* •»/*
mg/kg
ibs/:=5“
<
;
rL s
.2
2 8 ra 7>v,J
) .
The general population doses from drift

and reentry and oral doses from
sources are provided on Tables 2.32 through various
2.34.
58
Table 2 -^-Worst-case daily dose levels to visitors and residents in
vicinity of right-of-way projects sprayed the
with 2,4-D, ^picloram
loram >
ami t role, or dicamba.
Picloram or
2,4-D dose Amitrole dose Dicamba dose
(mg/kg/ dav) (mg/kg/dav) (mg/kg/dav)
Adult dermal
dose -5 -6
4.0 x 10 2.0 x 10 -5
2.0 x 10
Adolescent
dermal dose -2 -3
3.8 x 10 1.9 x 10 -2
1.9 x 10
Infant dermal
dose -5 -6
9.6 x 10 4.8 x 10 -5
4.8 x 10
Adult/ adolescent
7.1 x 10 7.1 x 10 -6
7.1 x 10
Infant oral
dose (beef) -6 -6
8.3 x 10 8.3 x 10 -6
8.3 x 10
Adult /adolescent
1.0 x 10 5.1 x 10 -4
5.1 x 10
Infant oral
dose (veg) -3 -4
1.3 x 10 6.5 x 10 -4
6.5 x 10
Visitor re-
entry or walk
along ROW -3 -4
1.76 x 10 8.8 x 10 -4
8.8 x 10
Adult oral dose
(water) 3 -3
5.8 x 10~ 2.9 x 10 -3
2.9 x 10
Adolescent oral
dose (water) 3 -3
7.6 x 10" 3.8 x 10 -3
3.8 x 10
Infant oral
dose (water) 8.3 x 10“
3 3 -3
4.2 x 10' 4.2 x 10
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (fish) 4
1.0 x 10' 4.8 x 10~ 5 -5
4.8 x 10
Infant oral
dose (fish) 4 -5
1.1 x 10~ 5.6 x 10 -5
5.6 x 10
59
Table >. 33 ~Wor st -case daily

dose to residents in the vicinity
P jects sprayed with mixtures 7 of right-of-way
of 2 ,4-D/picloram, or 2 ,4—
D/dicamba
2 , 4-D/p ic loram dose

1
2 , 4-D/Dicamba dose
(mg/kg/ dav )
_Cmg/kg / dav)
Adult dermal
dose 2.0x10' 5 /5.0x10" 7
2.5x10" /1 .2x10 -5
5
Adolescent
dermal dose _2 4
1.9x10 /5.0x10~ _2 -2
2.4x10 /1 .2x10
Infant dermal
dose 5
4.8x10~ /1.2x10" 6 5
6.0x10" /3.0x10' 5
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (beef) 7 .1x10 ^/ 7 . 1x10 ^ _6 -6
7 . 1x 19 /7 lxlO
.
Infant oral
dose (beef) 6
8.3xl0~ /8.3xl0~ 6 6
8.3x10" /8.3x10' 6
Adult/ adolescent
5.1x10~ /1.3x10 -4
oral dose (veg) 4
4 -4
6 . 2xl0~ /3 . lxlO
Infant oral i
dose (veg) 6.5x10~ 4 /1.5x10 -4 4 4

8 .0xl0~ /4 .OxlO~
Visitor re-
entry or walk
along ROW 4
8.8x10~ /2.3x10“ 4 -3 -4
1 . lxlO /5 .OxlO
Adult oral
dose (water) 2.9x10~ /7.2x10~ 4
3
3
3.6x10 3
/l . 8xl0~
Adolescent oral
dose (water) -3 3
3 . 8x10 /1 ,0x10~ 3 3
4.7xl0~ / 2.3xl0~
Infant oral
dose (water) 3 -3
4.2x 10~ /1 . lxlO 3
5 . 1x 10~ /2 .5xl0~ 3
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (fish) 4.8x10~ 5 /1.7x10~ 5 5
6.2x10" /3.1x20* 5
Infant oral
dose (fish) 5.6x10~ 5 /1.9x10 -5 6.9x10
_5 5
/3.5x10"
60
Table 2 .34— Worst-case daily dose
to visitors and resident 3
right-of-way projects sprayed in the vicinity i
with glyphosate, hexazinone,

atrazine or
Glyphosate dose Hexazinone dose

(mg/kg/dav) Atrazine dose
Adult dermal
dose 5
2.0 x 10~ 4.0 x 10" 5 -5
4.0 x 10
Adolescent
dermal dose 2
1.9 x 10' 3.8 x 10" 2 2
3.8 x 10~
Infant dermal
dose
4.8 x 10~ 5 9.6 x 10
-5 -5
9.6 x 10
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (beef) 10‘ 6
7.1 x 7.1 x 10~
6
7.1 x 10~ 5
Infant oral
dose (beef) 6
8.3 x 10~ 8.3 x 10
-6
-5
8.3 x 10
Adult/ adolescent
5.1 x 10 5.1 x 10 4
5.1 x 10“
Infant oral
dose (veg)
6.5 x 10~ 4 6.5 x 10" 4 4
6.5 x 10
Visitor re-
entry or walk
along ROW 1 sf
CO
•
CO
X Ho 1.76 x 10~ 3 1 CO
vO
H • X •-H o
Adult oral
dose (water) -3
2.9 x 10 2.9 x 10'
3
3
2.9 x 10~
Adolescent oral
dose (water) 10~ 3
3.8 x 3.8 x 10' 3 3.8 x 10' 3
Infant oral
dose (water)
4.2 x 10~ 3 4.2 x 10'
3
4.2 x 10' 3
Adult/ adolescent
oral dose (fish) 10~ 5
4.8 x 2.4 x 10"
4
2.4 x 10" 4
Infant dose
(fish) -5
5.6 x 10 2.8 x 10~ 4 2.8 x 10~ 4
61
into the stream during &?? 1Catl ° n and throu h runoff

subsequent rainstorms S
11
by Maybank et al. ( i^y^ÂrdisLssirSove ^ y bank has^sh^^th^
f
^ dingS
«•**« Assuming 1 «r^ »*• »
1 cubic foot per * inche s deep, and flowing at
second (CFS) the drift dpnn«> :
adjacent to the spray projec^.^d >* *trea.
total 10 400 °! ??'! I
X 8,000 meters X ha/10,000 X 1 1 meter
meters* X 1,000
1 000 000 mg/kg).
7k i
m
would be diluted into ibe .«»! Ih.r The drift deposition
(21.600 seconds, during which lpîng 1 ”- th<! ‘ h0UrS
!!! r^d' '^S"^
srain/j nsLS.°-°
17
*
n dle h e m ® aS “ red herbicide run-off

adjacent°to smrararIas The revi^ concentrations
Norris 1981) LmlrLTlvaUabU
UtM r Ure ° n 3 T* °V this table (such
berb ^ c ^ de an d thus incorporate
«
data from numerous studies
*
1 '
concentrations inâiSi^rtirSJ "YT
run-off concentrations are 86 a P pl lc “ 10n areas, maximum
mg/ liter (with adjustments
less than I'm!/!,!' “
llll o!aJpS a on e T'u °' 1
significant rainfall liter I d “ ri ”S “>e first

p i a n^^ : n :r ations are
that might occur adjacent
V in a draina the maximum
*
to the nroWr f
culvert. Concentrations in
of dilution with the base
in stream water would be
1^1
stream ^’
WOUld
0.1 mg/lite! o/lH*.

if
10
?
fc
T*!US th ' maximum co " c

’
S e ditcb °r
100 times less because
a»tration
c
62
Table 2,35 -Summary of references
for herbicide concentrations in
runoff.
Pesticide References
2,4-D Review by Norris 1981

Picloram Davis and Ingebo 1973
Baur et al. 1972
Bovey et al. 1974 and 1975
Mayeux et al. 1984
Norris et al. 1982
Neary et al. 1985.
Dicamba Trichell et al. 1968

Schwab et al. 1973
Glyphosate Edwards et al . 1980

Newton et al. 1984
Hexazinone Bouchard et al. 1985

Neary et al. 1983
Amitrole Marston et al. 1968

Norris 1968
Atrazine Review in USDA 1984
As a check on the reasonableness

of this concentration estimate it 4.
possi le to calculate in-stream
concentrations based on the total quantity
of
the .ost'mobUôf^h^h
10 rUn0
^ M /-' StUdleS “ ith piclora " d hexatinone,“
percent and ». 0 percent of ^he
1973 Horriêt li°"l 9SP ^p. 'YT*

^t^ ^“LT^bUdfiriosf ilTvTtf
<See Mayeu ’1 et al - 1984 1 “avis and
^
IngeY
•
th e h er 4^;:^ t d
ft cfr:t::L :i"^ tôlîi g
kg/hs x 9 - 6 ha *
d
»« *
^" s i
-/*
” rats
*
-
A 70 kg adult who drank in a

day 2 liters of water with a herbicide
Û^rl^nsmt) P
W ° U d eCeiV 3
li d : J°r
° f °-°° 29
and infants fuming
"Ûters X 0.1
SLmption of iter 'anfo 5 Til£ ”
tear - M9peetlvel
0.0038 mg/kg and 0 -OOî/S. *. W0Uld be
™-5SSSCe?J
An assumption of 2 percent loss in
24 hours will also be n« e H u , ,
.
maximum oral doses from application

rates other than 1^3 H/L
63
soma of
" biC deS in “ ‘« <=>” shsorb and retain
h ‘ a
“so'meTst' 'S
higher .evels in aq „aiic
organisms (sucY^ ’.“X
ELTSÎV' T"
:sich°r^- th !j
o
:^ri“rte
f * ctor8 of 6
v o ° to *.•«•“»* s e“
i
„ DI
Sh “» ld
he at least hO^'t" l"
Agriculture Handbook 633 (USDA iQ»A\

toxicological literature
This review indicates that
herbicides of interest here
bioaccumulation of 1 0
h !
1 ,V
analysis,
,
are indicat e d for all

and* atrazine which might
factors as high as 5 0 AssZVZ .
have »
c f 3 fishery stream we«

diluted 15 times ffrom" the
th "ro
On ' entra,:ion in the
roadside
^
^
stream concentration
(1 cfs/15 cfs), and that the fish ! ^ bS ° rb herb ‘ c ide “> ‘heir
maximum bioaccumulative capacity
very auickY"! Yat .
concentration in fish voulS be

S/lTS” ^^15).
concent rat ions^°
nS ^ ° th " herti ' id - would be less than one-fifth
these
Bho catches aad

^
10 *
js-sfe-
°™
mg/kg (0.033 mg/kg x
d
0 5 ke X n
hexazrnone wou l d be 2.4 X
itîc^ Z
T ta 1- ei-e
jhe-bâcfLu^h tl%l: '-rs^r^^x

l
64
2.5 REVIEW OF GENERAL TOXICITY DATA FOR
HERBICIDES
The significance of the dose
levels developed in Sections 2 o / 18 1
•
eteraxned in part by comparison to dose

levels that produce general toxic
1 " lCr08rMs) *«ini.t.r«I per mass unit of

organism Cu.LlVuWlS™™)?
F-
LD
50
a :
sensitive to a
,
Handbook 633 data P™*** »7 Agriculture"
«*« 7
the no observed effect ievel

(IS 0 " “
^.‘.T^^’t!!
“r lr«h~ y to 90 - jay dosi " 8 studies
th°- S h
which a HO El is based fo” a particular
resulting value.
l0 "Se
plrt icular animal species,
>-
T
the doslng Juration upon
the more significant the
°° "? ricult " ral e°»»odities for

consumpt ionôr on'fied^/ani".! human
Environmental Protection Agency 0 ” SU '“P ti “ n - the
herbicide t1ip<i 0 § Y OP« e«abnsjTrtolerances
A; establishes f
for residues of
n i™
ar bas the toxicity jata
So£-:t; t" ^rbicidT^d :- t- h man con '““P tio " Petterns.
Generally, EPA uses the NOEL tr0m
from the chronic
Jh” j
Usmf dose studies with the snen'oa
c< mP ound * In the absence of chronic exposure
test results with^he*
results with larger safetj
?
TaTtllTln^The^requ r ® me
EPA ^ L**
Subchronic tes ‘
additional
testing. chronic
Table 2.36 provides the NOEL's
for herbicide residues
ZZ"VoZuhl, J
*^ t0lera " CeS
^-year^feeding^tudies^witlêith^^d^^
limit determination for picloram",
^ Pr0Ved ° n Table
^ t°1 a "“
2 * 36 are based on
»
with a NOEL of 50 mg/ke/dav
SI V.JV’', baSed on a "l? /“V*
90_da Y d °g-feeding study
In tb
th •
iat rim » D ow Chemical has been

additional tests A rerenM 7 f conducting
6 "?°? th d °S-feeding study
of 7 mg/kg/day (Dow undated) showed a 80EL
[to^Chr*
rat-feeding s7y Is «“«ei b
data are available from these
tests
tests.
y J m ,
lS
’
At 6 months, some liver anomalies

fi
a
month and 12-month interim
were
65
“ "«
S rft f
H
r ver - these effects
,7 c
S2&* -z; in,Vu noted
’-
j°i
eith » «•
7 W °“ “ conse "' at i»« i-teriu NOEL
value for
this rai-f^diig study!'
Table 2.36-Suuaaaty of acute aud

chronic toxicity thresholds based
results with the most sensitive on
species.
Acute oral 1 Chronic toxicity

Herbicide ld Reference
in mg/kg NOEL in mg/kg/day
50 for NOEL data
Amitrole 1,100 2
0.025 USEPA, 1985c
Atrazine 1,400 3.750 Fed. Register
12/30/81,
p. 63085
2,4-D 100 1.0 USEPA, 1985a
Dicamba 566 1.250 Fed. Register
3/16/83
p. 11119
Glyphosate 3,800 10.000 Fed. Register
10/30/85
p. 45121
Hexazinone 860 10.000 Fed. Register
8/17/83
p. 37214
Picloram 2,000 50.000 Fed. Register
9/22/82
p. 41770
20.000 Roby 1984
7.000 Robv 1984
Based on a review of Agriculture

Handbook 633 (USDA 1984).
Amitrole use is not permitted on agricultural

commodities, This NOEL is
based on a review by USEPA (1985c).
—
66
Becaiise the dog-feeding study
provided a lower NOEL value tb* ^
ia the
-•*
^ prenatai effacts fr -
lTl *' »^n
is ° U‘s
fetotoxicity. Fetotoxicitv refers
lowered birJb weight?
overcome upon removal of the
toxicant.
t-
W^s^n oLnic^™ eL^S' 3 #

111656 \
,
* d be dlstin uished
,'“ f ”" S
effects can
’ *
S from the term,
' ^“
be
F e f fe C ft
N 0^^1: n lL^d d0S than terat0 n ^ -
be d
herbicides of intent
fetotoxicity or
£f.^ StJ?”
LVboth r effects and
atoxic and teratogenic effects
for the
d
NOEL for amitrole U ( ” SDA ^
984) ' the f'otomicity
the overall NOEL is

100 pTi^dletle’'""'^
food-to-body weight facl^f
0 .05 O^S
0.05 mz/ke whirh ; n
concern than amitrole's
a-
!
imS *7'*
indicated
V ^“ ‘
V
Table 2.36,
fetotoxicity is less of a
m
“
genial toxic effected
similar pattern is noted with
cost of the bertuJdli^TjJt"^;. *
(USm“i 98I)1
mg/kg.
5
^cLJraltêlom for aêffec^from'at f-'
7
y eriect from atrazme dosing
^ 1 "' 1 ”
is 3.75
r P ° rted inDSDA Handbook 633 (USDA

dicambîs ^mg/kg^Bv
§/ 8 By co^
?
Comparison 1984) for
‘
the overall NOEL for any
mg/kg. effect is 1.25
he b
Â H ^ PMt
^rt o f
P ^jata'^n-^forr ^‘o^rSJÎo^ data * A RuSSian
“* 35
fetotoxicity-teratogenicity studv^n 2
fetotoxic effects at doses as
validity of this study have
dll
been raised hJL,?
impurities in the tes? compounds,
l
low as o!5 mg/kj ^(USDA^sI)
U
:
984) * o°
Q
^
ues tions on the
.
“
^
3Vailable ° D
Because of this uncertainty
Solvent * of ra ts used, etcetera.
new testing ha« k’
a rat-feeding study on
theê^ge'ic
Dow Chemical and a seDarare .vj.,, ef^ts^f
,
of Tl lT ReCently
2,4 D has been conducted bv
fetotoxicity NOEL of 25 mg/kg C
°?pleted by EPA. A
effects were not induced^
was indicatedV^^
^
th6S6 8tUdi6S and
Spencer l^)?^ teratogenic
reproduct iv^parameter sêreô

these reproductive effects
ted ,
PU
Glyp ho sat
^
^ e< tS °“ f6rtil
"
a e 1S somewhat
y
i
unusual because
#
^
i
;
basad
^ ^«
occur at ^ 03
effects. Ho general systemic toxic
effects
' '
” s°
8eneral systemic toxic
tested (31 mg/kg/ day) in
. ? ,
’
7 “
the hêst dose
g s£tudy ,(DSEPA 1985d).
teratology studies no teratogenic
f“ I„
1,000 og/kg/day and in rabbits
at doses IpTj* ^/k™ “ d ° 3eS “
P t0
67
Hexazinone and picloram have very low teratogenic potential.

No teratogenic
effects in rats were seen with hexazinone doses up
to 5,000 ppm in food (250
mg/kg by body weight). For rabbits a fetotoxicity NOEL
of 125 mg/kg is
reported for hexazinone (lowest value reported in USDA 1984 or USEPA
1983b).
Teratogenic and fetotoxic effects are not seen with picloram doses
up to 500
mg/kg in animal tests (USDA 1984).
Table 2.37 provides a summary of fetotoxicity NOEL values

for the herbicides of
interest. This table also provides a list of lifetime
Acceptable Daily Intake
(ADI) values as determined by EPA in setting
tolerance limits for herbicides on
agricultural commodities. The ADI values assume that a person
can be dosed
daily at this level for a lifetime with no ill effects.
The time-honored approach for establishing an ADI or safe

level of pesticide
dose is to divide the threshold dose or NOEL established
from chronic animal
studies by a "safety factor" (Doull et al. 1980 and NAS-NRC
1977). The safety
factors are needed to account for differences in duration
of exposure,
absorption, metabolism, and excretion between humans and test
animals! For
example, on a body-weight basis, man is generally more
vulnerable to drugs than
are experimental animals by a factor of 6-12 (NAS-NRC
1977). If the dose is
scaled on a surface area basis, this increased vulnerability
disappears.
In addition to accounting for differences between
animal species and humans
(interspecies differences), the safety factor should also account
for
differences among humans (intraspecies differences). For example, for the
herbicides atrazine, dicamba, 2,4-D, and glyphosate, the NOEL
from chronic
feeding studies with the most sensitive species was divided
by 100 to arrive at
the ADI. This safety factor of 100 can be considered to include
a tenfold
safety factor to account for the difference between animal
species and humans
and an additional tenfold safety factor to account for
sensitive humans.
The determination of ADI's is somewhat more complicated for
hexazinone and
picloram. In the case of hexazinone, the EPA is awaiting the
completion of a
chronic dog-feeding study. Although a NOEL of 10 mg/kg can
be derived from a
chronic rat study, the possibility exists that a chronic dog-feeding
study
could provide a lower maximum NOEL. In the absence of this dog study, the EPA
has based the ADI on the NOEL from a 90-day dog-feeding study
and a margin of
safety of 2,000.
Similarly, for picloram the lifetime ADI was calculated by dividing

the 90-day
dog-feeding study NOEL of 50 mg/kg by a safety factor of 2,000. The
more
recent NOEL data reported in this analysis will eventually work its
way through
the regulatory framework and may result in a higher ADI since
less extreme
safety factors would be required.
It could be argued that, considering the transient nature

of most worst-case
doses, an ADI for these doses might be calculated by dividing a subchronic
90— day) NOEL by a safety factor of 100, Even the spray applicators are
typically involved in spraying for 30 days or less. However, the more
conservative lifetime ADI values are provided on Table 2.37.
EPA has not approved the use of amitrole on crops or forage, and
thus has not
set tolerance limits or ADI's for this compound. The "ADI" provided on Table
#
68
2.37 was calculated by dividing
the NOEL value of 0.025 by a
100 . safety factor of
in iCatC the si nific

Sections 2.1 through 2.4.
, ?
8 ««
»f doses levels determined in
Section 2.6 will provide a detailed
the dose values and the ADI's comparison of
and NOEL's.
Table 2.37— Maximum fetotoxicity NOEL

for most sensitive species and
Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) values.
F etotoxic ity NOEL ADI values in

Herbicide in mg/kg/dav
mg/kg/dav
Amitrole 5 0.00025 USEPA, 1985c 1
Atrazine 15 0.0375 Fed. Register
12/30/81
p. 63085
2,4-D 25 0.01 USEPA, 1985a 1
Dicamba 3 0.0125 Fed. Register
3/16/83
p. 11119
Glyphosate 10 0.1 Fed. Register
10/30/85
p. 45121
Hexazinone 125 0.0125 Fed. Register
8/17/83
p. 37214
Picloram 500 0.0250 Fed. Register
9/22/82
=E
that there is a dose thrPshhMH h i
®e "
10n » this analysis will not
tnreshhold below which cancer will not ncmr assume
issues are presented in detail
in Section 2.7.
' ^
6Se
The remainder of Section

2.5 discusses the general toxicity of v k-
formulated including manufacturing 7 ° f herbicides as
byproducts!
69
— • ^ —Toxicity of Pesticide Formulations
As formulated for field use,

pesticide active ingredients are mixed with
variety of compounds typically listed as a
"inert ingredients" on the label
These ingredients are often comprised
of various surfactants, adjuvants and
emulsifiers as needed to increase the
usefulness of the pesticide. The’
chemical identities of these compounds
are closely guarded trade secrets.
Environmental Protection Agency requires some
toxicity testing of the
PaSt * Cld6 ® t0 Lndicate possible human health
and environmental
impact sôf
impacts of the formulations. Five mammalian tests are required for
SlS t
°^ al LD SQ’ dermal sensitization, eye irritation, dermal
I1
LD
5
and flr f
of ?hese tests
inhalatl0n ^
DA Handbook 633 (OSDA 1984) provides
*
a review
Tabie 2 .38 compares the acute oral

toxicity of the pesticide active ingredient
'-^ ° f f ° rmulations of the Pesticide. As indicated by
1
this Jabtr'forauLted
table, formulated mixtures have comparable or lower acute oral toxicities
...
than the unformulated pesticide active
ingredients. Concern has also been
effeCt .° f Surfactants in herbicide
the'abso^ption
he absorption of herbicide formulations on
h active ingredients through human skin and
u sequent toxic effects of the the
.
herbicides. As indicated on Table 2.39 acute
ermal toxicities of the active ingredient
and formulated products are similar.
t iC ty ™
riables differences are noted between
!v p
^
than the Rodeo formulation (LC
U P 8reate th
>
formulations. For
P formulation of glyphosate has much higher
for trout of 11 parts per million
1,000 PPm f ° r R0de0) ‘
toxicity to fish
(ppm) for
of t£e dm
B
1”
-
r 711656 differences are functions
t0X1Clty 0f the surfactants used in the
lL r r
US6d ln R0UUdUP haS n ° 6ffeCt ° n the
formulation.
oTg^îrSr" âccumulation
—^ ^
^ —Toxici ty of Herbicide Product Impurities
2. 5. 2.1 Dioxins and Phenolics in 2.4-D
The issue of contaminants in herbicides

has received much publicity. The most
noted case is the incidence of "dioxins",
237
^
particularly 8-tetrachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin (2 3,7,8-TCDD) in Agent Orange.
concern has been raised —
Beclusi related coôLs
the possibie
Some confusion over possible health effects

arises from mistaken terminology
particularly m
the use of the terms "dioxin" and "TCDD." A brief digression
m chemical nomenclature is warranted prior to discussing
the toxicity
compounds. y of these
c e
The term "dioxin" is most often used to refer

to a class of compounds more
properly referred to as dibenzo-p-dioxins . From
a toxicological standpoint,
the dibenzo-p-dioxms of most interest are
those which have chlorine attached
to one or more of eight positions on the
molecule. These compounds can be
referred to as chlorodibenzo-p-dioxins . The actual
number and location of
chlorine molecules will greatly affect the toxicity
of the compound. The most
infamous and toxic of the chlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
is the 2 ,3 ,7 8-tetrachloro-
,
70
dibenzo-p-dioxin (2 3 7 R-Tmro
positions 2,3,7, and 8 on
assumed to be similar or
the iolecul^^fo^
identical to
11
^
Chl ° rine at0ms located
7 *11 dl ° xins are often
approximately 75 chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin2 3 7 8 TCDD eVen thoUgh each of the
at
chemical and biological

™
COmP ound s varies significantly
in its
properties.
C
-kcullfof 2:U!t^ pî C
reaction, each 2,4,5-TCP
0
t
^ C °°diti nS fr ° m
molecule losesVeM ° rine

?
1
^ ^ the
° ran8e ?*
of two
In the
of the four-chlorine at0m resulting in formation
compound 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Formulation
Amitrole
Amitrole-T
5,000
Atrazine
AAtrex
1,750
Atrazine, 80W
5,100
2,4-D (acid)
100 2,4-D (butyl ester)
380
2,4-D (sodium salt)
360
Dicamba
566 Banvel Technical
1,707
Banvel DMA
1,028
Glyphosate 3,800 Roundup
5,400
Rodeo
5,000
Hexazinone 860 Hexazinone
4,495
(66% wettable powder)
Hexazinone
7,500
(10% Gridball)
Hexazinone
5,000
(20% Gridball)
P ic loram
2,000 Tordon 22K
10,300
(potassium salt)
Pic loram
2,830
_(isooctyl ester’)
71
Table 2 .39 Comparison o£ the acute dermal toxicity

of pesticide active
ingredients and pesticide formulations.
Dermal
Pesticide active Dermal
LD r
LD.
rormuiation (mg/kg)
Amitrole >2,500 Amizol 10,000
Atrazine - AAtrex 9,300
Atrazine, 80W 5,100

2,4-D (acid) 1,400 2,4-D (butyl ester) No adverse
and 2,4-D (dimethyl- reaction to
amine salt) 3.13% solution
applied 5 times
weekly for 3
weeks
Dicamba >2,500 Banvel Technical >2,000
Banvel DMA >2,000

1
Glyphosate >7,940 Roundup >7,940

Hexazinone (90%) >5,278 Hexazinone >7,500
(25% liquid)
Hexazinone (66% >2,000

dry flowable)
P icloram >4,000 Tordon 22K >2,000

(potassium salt)
(2
2
i
4-DCP to r/T
’
^
C1
’
UmStances
311 interme<^ iate product is 2,4 dichlorophenol
Possible to join two molecules of
two-chlorine compound
(2 7 DCnm
Yt
three ‘V,r
1
L 2 ,7-dichlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
3 compound which differs only slightly in
but ° ver a milll0nf °ld in toxicity.
’
of 30 samples of D. S. -produced 2,4-D

structure from
2,7-DCDD has been found in
along with traces of other
relatively nontoxic chlorodioxins with three
billior^Cppb)
9 ^ ^ and four chlorines
threC P ° Sitive sam P les ranged from 25 to
The
60 parts per
If one were to conservatively assume
For examote'
ror
111
^^^
6 maXiinUin
example if the maximum expected worker
,
^
that all 2,4-D contained 100 ppb 2 7-DCDD
° f 2 * 7 - DCDD t0 various exposed
individuals.’
dose of 2,4-D is 0.3 mg/ke the
maximum dose of 2,7-DCDD to the exposed human
would be 0.00000003 mg/kg.
* i
72
9 reported. Khera , nd Ruddi,.*

co u’ b£
y 2'™™
h h r 2 - 7 - DCDB
^sen e “^: n rLf:^:; d ft - l
heart in a few of
le ^t b
the animals a
^rr
3:me ^ Uld accumulation
: :: d : s t
around the
«
,
affected at 2 mg/kg. nu “ b ° f -i.als

BotTeêcts TrTln tl™**' we«
toxicity. No teratogenic °f general fetal
effect was found
million times greater is about 30
thsn the uorst _ case
The National Cancer Institute (lQ 7 cn T „ ^
as 0.5 and^l Carried ° ut b feeding
percent of the total Y 2,7-DCDD
uggested diet
carcinogenic effect in
fo^T ye rS 1116 data indica ted a
male micp f \
2£sr
^rsignifiL'narrespond
sho ” s Iess
3
'T'Ti ^"^-nd^t* 711^°
zjzxrr-
?f 2 ' 4 - diclor “P'-nol
which
wnich 2,4-DCP
dpp 1S
*) •
ncir products for 2 4— DPP tvv*- ,,
.
predominant, comprise about n ° tali chl °rphenols of

’
most contaminated
2-chlorophenol and
sample. Other
A-SwiroJSSi
? L
°’ 3\ „
percent of the product
-
2 6 DCP aad
in the
,
a ôf
’
producta contained no
detectable chloropLnou!
1
m
"* °° r c ° ntrib "tors. Many
h sh
than degradation of of
o f chl
por pressures and
h ôphenols occurs r «-
2,4-D and thus U
. more quicklv
impossible (Verschueren a tl0n in the environment
1983) Chloronh is
compounds. For example,
Amblyomma americannm
i
2,6-icp i s I Pheromone nWo180

“V
occurring
of the lone star tick,
The toxicity of 2 *
4-DCP
mic ? h 0rUC months) treatment of
®: f b °; 1 Percent (1,000 ppmôt “;
n slight liver enlargement total ,; dUCed no effec ts other

order of 10 times (Kobayaski et al
greater tLn
o 7 vf°
tKt of1,4-i. ^ than
lsthal «ose is on the
M£tr Qôemine_Format
ipn from
The reaction of second*™
various nitrosoamines
as 70 to 80 percent
fonnation of
has
of rr
•
re^ ^
33 gl yPhosate with
1Ved mUCh att ention.
nitrite ions to fn
Testing h s 1 ™
1977). However, NNG levels
io
6 11 d ° CUmented
< Kb an and Young
27
in ^mulLed^
Part per million
(Saunders 1985
agricultural products
(USEPA 1978 )
, 382I
tl
!;
?
6 products are
been detectad in raw
less than 0 1
An additional concern v,« e

throughout the reaction »* ™<= -side
of “tr’teTi^?™”^ the human body
73
nitrosamme formation are discussed

extensively in an article by Mirvish
^™
, , i
iûr£ ss».!s s t ;i.:
£
1 5
l
£?is
,
2
G based on high - d ° se feedi "
s
2.6 DOSE/ TOXICITY LEVEL
COMPARISONS
is compared to
ttaXoa'and'ADI JalX^fo^th^h > " a *i”™-«P°sed individual
1
maximum-exposed resident near * ' ln

The
irect dose from open-rangf prelect 1S
drifting herbicides as UP n a8SUmed to receive a
consumption of contaminated 1 d ° se £r0 " the
m the right-of-way
vegetables and bJ fr ““tT*
scenario is assumed ^l
The maximum-exposed
residents
oral doses from drinking ' eCa ve a direct d
2 Hters of cl \ °*o from drift and
ble a d fi h <° r
rhfl f, :
the overall ;
dose (see
beaf )- Consumptionlf
Tables 2.32, 2™?' and
hiring T”
l ” Stead ° f
8 contaminated
u00ld lo ” er
2.34K
Joy on site and°tolat 0 ^ 601 *’ aSS ™” ed

t0 Spcnd <*•
lontaminated^wildôod^
psi^rteitr”
dosed through consumption
even with the considerable
these residential dose
of drif t-contami nar
overestimation of f tS
h
nat ° aiy ba
” ear 3 Spray site and be
/
Vegetables or b ^f.
exposure and dose levels
—
However,
-
pathwavs in
would be negligible.
S S
r8)
/i°/!
For' »X
ie
WOrker 0n 3 “id-sized
“
b “-seT^,
proiect usinff
0" 3
(in< ludin S major
fn would \ be raised
voXer
mixing
0.85 mg/kg/day to 0.854 mg/kg/dav g 4_D
from
vegetables as a resident if tiL
near such projects!
„ ?’
,
alS ° ^ contaminated b eef and
Tables 2.40 throueh 2 72 ‘j

and maximum-exposed
values for each herbicide.
ri.idS^'S^" “ h t ZT'*™ d °- t. workers
® N ° EL values and
which a dose would
The entrv in f
* “ atrix element is
the ADI
ADI.
was calculated by
have to be multiplied
For example, the
the vicinity of a
NOEL comparison
small, open-range
dividing the Noli ?
J
prowf
•
f°
* s P ra y ed with
^^
fafofoffn r a ° adult res ident
f
the number by
N ° EL ° r the
2,4-D (see Table 2 41)

in
’
turn Of tb,
adul/reside^se. able
a »l. 2.36, t
7.1 x 10 + 1.8 x 10 -3) J
2 ' 9 ((1 -° mg/kg/day)/ _:>
„g/ tg/day )"_ (( 5 x 10 *
maximum Kpf^rrtXrX'gene th 8h 2-72 ar6 f ° r the da

from drift will only Juy'X^
occur on the day of
f°“ Sln« 7s ° f
'he direct dose
subsequent days involving Sons
f exposure f he comparison
onlv nra i l >
factors for
slightly. I„ those cases
first day and carryover
doses on
L , “IT 1 ba hi8h ”. ûgh
; ed Contrast
often n
between dose on the
dose comparison tables
wanders very close to
dose for a short
are made. ForTamplffh
the sprav sitf f?
T
Pl * bhe hypothetical
Separate
r * ceive a relatively
ent ries on the
adolescent who
period of tij on thed high direct
on subsequent days yln Mailin,U " indiredt
an entry that
would be much
represents the safety
JL Xus Xm ?-s,
thcC>ush 2 ' 72
d ose.
adolescent on the first flct^

° Xr
f ° r dedennal, andI °ral doses
dav and If to this
Separate entries are f ° r d 8e8 ° n sub
also Lde o^ IZl* tlhll
f?f ° r vl31tors
. ? -<l-nt dfs.
sprayed areas and for
foods that have been
visitors who hof f 8 Spra y ed area and
who merely enter
sprayed. consume wild
75
Table 2.40— NOEL/dose comparisons for workers on small open-range projects 1
Worker - minor Worker - major

mixing error
2,4-D
2.7 2.4
Picloram
39 33
2 ,4-D/Picloram 5.5/140 4.8/117
2 ,4-D/Dicamba 4.5/11 3.8/10
Dicamba 7
6
Glyphosate 56 48
Amitrole Above
2
Above^
Atrazine
10 8.7
Hexazinone 27 23
All worst-case worker doses are
above ADI values.
Worker dose above NOEL level.
Table 2 .41 NOEL/dose and ADI/dose comparisons

for maximum-exposed residents
of a small open-range project
,
sprayed with 2,4-D.
NOEL ADI NOEL ADI

Adult resident 390 3.9 325 3.2
Adolescent resident 388 3.9 323 3.2
Infant resident 317 3.2 271 2.7
Visitor re-entry 12,820 128 10,417 104
Visitor re-entry with
consumption of sprayed
wild food
18 Above* 14 Above
Dose is above the ADI.

76
Table 2.42— NOEL/ dose and ADI/dose
comparisons for maximum-
and visitors in the exposed residents
vicinitv of a « mal1
open ~ ran S e Project
sprayed with picloram. ’
Minor mixing error

Major mixing pi
NOEL ADI NOET. apt

Adult resident
4,368 16
3,860 14
Adolescent resident
4,366 16
3,858 14
Infant resident
3,615 13
3,130 11
Visitor re-entry
179,490 641 145,830 520
wild food x
249 Above 203 Above^
Iable 2 - 43
~r^r i^r:L-sr‘rr
sprayed with dicamba. 7 s
fo
[r
maU ’
axi"“"-— d
open ~ ran ge project
NOEL ADI NOEL ADI

Adult resident
769 7.7 679 6.8
Adolescent resident
765 7.6 675 6.7
Infant resident
628 6.3 542 5.4
Visitor re-entry
32,050 320 26,040 260
wild food ^
45 Above 37 Above'

77
Table 2.44— NOEL/dose and ADI/dose comparisons
for maximum- exposed residents
of a small, open-range project
sprayed with glyphosate.
NOEL ADI NOEL ADI

Adult resident
6,154 62 5,428 54
Adolescent resident
6,120 61 5,400 54
Infant resident
5,024 50 4,388 43
Visitor re-entry
256,410 2,564 208,330 2,080
wild food
357 4 294 3
Table 2.45— NOEL/doseand ADI/dose comparisons for

of a small open-range project
,
sprayed with 2 ,4-D/picloram.
Minor mixing error Major mixing error

NOEL ADI NOEL ADI
Adult resident 615/7,138 6.2/25 542/7,135 5.4/25
Adolescent
resident 612/7,134 6.1/25 540/7,134 5.4/25
Infant resident 502/6,354 5.0/22 443/5,923 4.3/21
Visitor re-entry 25,640/700,000 256/2,500 20,830/583,000 208/2,080
Visitor re-entry
with consumption
of sprayed wild
food 428/1,000 Above^/4 29/820 Above/3

78
Table 2.46 NOEL/dose and ADI/dose comparisons
for maximum- exposed
and visitors in the resident s
vicinity of a small open-range
sprayed with 2 ,4-D/dicamba. i project
u a ior mixme error

NOEL ADI NOEL An t
Adult resident
543/996 5.4/10 488/920 4. 8/9.
Adolescent resident
540/993 5.4/10 485/917 4. 8/9.
Infant resident
434/800 4. 5/8.0 367/711 3. 7/7.1
Visitor re-entry
20,800/52,000 208/520 16,660/41,660 166/417
Visitor re-entry
with consumption of
sprayed wild food
29/73 Above 24/60 Above
Table 2.47— NOEL/dose and ADI/dose

compariso for maximum- exposed
and visitors in the residents
vicinity of small, open-range project
sprayed with amitrole.
NOEL ADI NOEL ADI

Adult resident
16 Above 14 '
Above
Adolescent resident
16 Above 14 Above
Infant resident
13 Above 12 Above
Visitor re-entry
641 6 520 5
wild food
Equal^ Abo.ve Above Above
Dose is approximately
equal to the NOEL.
79
Table 2 .48— NOEL/dose and ADI/dose
comparisonsfor maximum- exposed resident
and visitors in the vie s
mity of a small, open-range project
sprayed with hexazinone
Adult resident
6,060 7.6 5,339 6.7
Adolescent resident
6,010 7.5 5,296 6.6
Infant resident
4,878 6.1 4,200 5.3
Visitor re-entry
128,200 1,282 104,167 130
wild food
357 Above 294 Above
Table 2.49-NOEL/dose and ADI/doae

and visitors in the vicinity residents
of a small, open-range proiect
project
sprayed with atrazine. S
NOEL ADI NOEL ADI

Adult resident
466 4.7 454 4.5
Adolescent resident
464 4.6 452 4.5
Infant resident
394 3.9 381 3.8
Visitor re-entry
48,077 481 39,062 390
wild food
134 1.3 110 1.1
80
Table 2 ,50—NOEL/dose comparisons for
workers on mid-sized,
projects open-range
2.4-
NOEL
.4- NOEL
.4- D 1.2
1.2
Picloram 17
17
Dicamba
3
3
2 D/Piclo ram 2.5/64
2.3/58
2 D/Dicamba 2.0/5
1.9/5
Glyphosate 25
24
Amitrole Above^
Above^
Atrazine 4.7
4.4
Hexazinonp 12
1?
1
All worker doses are above
the ADI's.
Dose is above the NOEL.
TabU
'•"-S'Sl-
sprayed with 2,4-D. S— T"-"
mi Slze »
p0!ed r “u;«*
°pen-range project
NOEL ADI NOEL ADI

Adult resident
257 2.6 212 2.1
Adolescent resident
255 2.5 210 2.1
Infant resident
207 2.1 173 1.7
Visitor re-entry
1,960 20 1,587 16
wild food ^
17 Above 15 Above
Dose is above the ADI

81
Table 2.52— NOEL/ dose and ADI/dose
comparisons fnr m xu"um ex Posed residents
and visitors in the ?
vicinitv of a ml ~ Slzed
sprayed with picloram. » °Pen-range project
NOEL ADI NOEL ADI

Adult resident
3,161 11 2,677 9.6
Adolescent resident
3,159 11 2,676 9.6
Infant resident
2,555 9.1 2,159 7.7
Visitor re-entry
26,920 269 21,875 78
wild food
250 Above^ 206 Above
Table
sprayed with dicamba.

7 ss Sl2ed
m » °Pen-range project
NOEL ADI NOEL ADI

Adult resident
555 5.6 469 4.7
Adolescent resident
552 5.5 467 4.7
Infant resident
442 4.4 373 3.7
Visitor re-entry
4,808 48 3,906 39
wild food
45 Above 3.7 Above
82
7 f mld_Sl zed » open-range

Project sprayed with -
glyphosate.
Minor mixing error

Mai or mixing error
NOEL ADI NOEL ADI

Adult resident
4,442 44 3,759 38
Adolescent resident
4,419 44 3,740 37
Infant resident
3.536 35 3,000 30
Visitor re-entry
38,460 385 31,250 312
357 3.6
wild food 294 2.9
Table
Project sprayed with rr ' 0I,en - ra " 5e

-
2 ,J-D/picTo^
-
Minor mixing error
Major mixing error
;
NOEL ADI NOEL All 1

Adult resident
444/6 ,300 4.4/22 376/5,779 3.8/21
Adolescent resident
441/6,297 4.4/22 374/5,775 3.7/21
Infant resident
353/5,250 3.6/19 300/4,870 3.0/17
Visitor re-entry
3,846/107,690 38/385 3,125/87,500 31/312
consumption of
sprayed wild fond
428/1.000 4. 3/3. 353/824 3. 5/2.
83
Table 2.56- -NOEL/dose and
ADI/dose comDari son*
and visitors in the maximum- exposed residents
vicinitv of a mid-sized,
sprayed with 2 ,4-D/dicamba^ open-range project
iiajur mi:King erro
NOEL ADI NOEL A TIT

Adult resident
376/742 3. 8/7. 337/679 3. 4/6.
Adolescent resident
374/739 3. 7/7. 334/675 3. 3/6.
Infant resident
298/598 3. 0/6.0 244/520 2. 4/5.
Visitor re-entry
3,125/7,812 31/78 2,500/6,250 25/62
Visitor re-entry
with consumption of
sprayed wild food
29/74 Above^ 24/60 Above
Doses are above the ADI.
Table 2 - 57 -»0a/do.e and ADI

dose comparisons for
sprayedîth
™ T
* °P —"Se »“!•«
NOEL ADI NOEL ADI

Adult resident
11 Above 9.6 Above
Adolescent resident
11 Above 9.6 Above
Infant resident
9.1 Above 8.2 Above
Visitor re-entry
96 1 78 Above
wild food Equal Above^ Above Above
Dose is approximately equal

to the NOEL,

84
Table 2 NOEL/dose and ADI/dose
vicinity of a mid-sized,
sprayed with hexazinone. open-range project
NOEL ADI NOEL ADI

Adult resident
4,361 5.4 3,690 4.6
Adolescent resident
4,320 5.4 3,650 4.6
Infant resident
3,410 4.2 2,873 3.6
Visitor re-entry
19,600 24 15,870 20
wild food
357 Above^ 294 Above
Table 2 .59— NOEL/doseand

r maX ilnUm " eXPOSed
and visitors in re3ident£
the vLini?y orrmir
sprayed with atrazine. * “id-sized,
s d open-range project
Mi no j
— miAing error
;
NOEL ADI NOEL AT&T

Adult resident
432 4.3 412 4.1
Adolescent resident
430 4.3 410 4.1
Infant resident
360 3.6 342 3.4
Visitor re-entry
7,211 72 5,952 60
wild food
134 1.3 110 1.1
85
Table 2 .60— NOEL/dose and ADT/a^c
large, open-range pro
e cts^
riS ° nS ^ backpack payers on
2.4-
mixing errors Mai or mixiny
.4-
D
.4- 1.2
1.2
Picloram
18
18
Dicamba
3.1
2.9
2 D/Picloram
2.5/70
2.3/63
2 D/Dicamba 2. 0/5.
1.9/4.
Glyphosate
25
23
4- Amitrole
Above^
/
Atrazine
4.7
4.4
12
12
All worker doses are
above the ADI
.4- 2
2.4-
'civiaor Truck driver

NOEL ADI NOEL AT*T
D
125 1.2 1.5 Above
Picloram
1,750 6 21 Above
Dicamba
312 1.2 1.5 Above
2 D/picloram 250/6,363 2.5/23 3.0/88 Above
2 . D / dicamba
204/521 2. 0/5. 2. 5/6. Above
Glyphosate
2,500 25 30 Above
Amitrole
6 Above Above Above
Atrazine
463 5 5.7 Above
Hexazinone
1.235 1.6 4 Above
Doses are above the ADI.
86
Table 2.62 NOEL/ dose and ADI/do se
and visitors in the resident s
vicinity of a larg e,
sprayed with 2,4-D or open-range project
picloram.
(JOEL ADI NOEL ADI

Adult resident
95 Above* 1,224 4.4
Adolescent resident
94 Above 1,223 4.4
Infant resident
75 Above 992 3.5
Visitor re-entry
125 1.2 7,750 6.2
wild food
18 Above
1
250 Above
Table 2.63 NOEL/ dose and ADI/dose

comparisons for maximum-
and visitors in the exposed residents
vicinity of a larg
sprayed with glyphosate open-range project
,
or dicamba.
Glyphosat-P
Dicamba
NOEL ADI NOEL ADI
Adult resident
1,780 18 222 2.2
Adolescent resident
1,766 18 220 2.2
Infant resident
1,370 14 171 1.7
Visitor re-entry
2,500 25 312 3.1
wild food
357 3.6 45 Above
87
L
and visitor”
d
if
m " ” m-«P° 3ed
i residents
sprayed with
U
NOEL ADI NOEL ADI

Adult resident
178/3,659 1.8/13 142/322 1.4/3.
Adolescent resident 177/3,657 00 rH CO
• 141/320 1.4/3.
Infant resident
137/2,872 1.4/10 114/260 1.1/2.
Visitor re-entry 250/6,363 2.5/23 204/521 2. 0/5.
Visitor re-entry
with consumption
Above/
of sprayed wild food
36/1 ,000 3.6 29/74 Above
Table 2.65-NOEL/dose and ADI/dose

and visitors mthe vicinity of a large,
residents
open-range Project
prefect
sprayed with amitrole or atrarine.
iuie Atra zine
NOEL ADI NOEL ADI

Adult resident 4.5 Above 309 3.0
Adolescent resident 4.5 Above 307 3.0
Infant resident 3.5 Above 249 2.5
Visitor re-entry 6.2 Above 469 4.7
wild food Above Above 134 1.3
88
^ ^ COm P a nsons for maximum-exposed
residents andd visitors in the
vicinity of a large onen-
range project sprayed with P
hexazinone.
NOEL ADI
Adult resident
1,745 2.2
Adolescent resident
1,721 2.2
Infant resident
1,321 1.7
Visitor re-entry
1,250 1.6
wild food
357 Above*
Table 2.67 Dose comparisons for

workers on right-of-way projects.
Truck driver Spot sprayer
NOEL ADI NOEL ADI

2,4-D
6.2 Above* 1.2 Above
Picloram 88 Above 18 Above
Dicamba 16 Above 3.1 Above
2 ,4-D/picloram 12/350 Above/1.2 2.5/70 Above
2 , 4-D/ dicamba 10/25 Above 2. 0/5. Above
Glyphosate 125 1.2 25 Above
Ami t role Above^ Above Above Above
Atrazine 23 Above 4.7 Above
Hexazinone 62 Above 12 Above
Worker dose is above the ADI.

89
Table 2 68 NOEL/dose and ADI/dose
comparisons for maximum exposed
vicinity of right-
S of-way projects sprayed
with 2,4-D or picloram.
~2
,4-D Picloram
NOEL ADI NOEL ADT
Adult resident
144 1.4 2,023 7.2
Adolescent resident
(dermal and oral dose)
21 Above 1,119 4.0
Adolescent resident
(oral doses only)
114 1.1 1,606 5.7
Infant resident
101 1.0 1,425 5.1
Visitor re-entry
568 5.7 7.954
1
28
ôse is above the ADI.
TaMe 2 - 69 E
iSO " f r “*-«*»•••<
”u thf“ 7 rlght
„t°-° f -“^ ? resident:
spnajed with dicamba
or glyphosste!
Dicamba G1 vt>hosate
NOEL ADI NOEL ADI

Adult resident
359 3.6 2,875 29
Adolescent resident
55 Above 445 4
Adolescent resident
(oral doses only)
361 3.6 2,891 29
Infant resident
249 2.5 1,104 11
Visitor re-entry 1.A20 14 11.363 114
90
Table 2.70 NOEL/dose and ADI/ dose comparisons
(or maximum- exposed residents
of right- of-way projects
with 2 ,4-D/picloram sprayed
mixtures.
NOEL ADI
Adult resident
287/8,088 2.8/29
Adolescent resident
42/4,250 Above/ 15
Adolescent resident
(oral doses only)
229/6,100 2.3/22
Infant resident
200/5,982 2/21
Visitor re-entry
1.136/30,485
Ll/109
Tab le 2-71-NOEL/dose
and ADI/dose comparisons
for maximum-.xposed
residents and visitors
projects sprayed with 2
m the vicim'tv nf r
7
,4-D/dicamba mixtures!
2 i 4— D/ d icamba
NOEL ADI
Adult resident
232/580 2. 3/5.
Adolescent resident
35/88 Ab o v e
Adolescent resident
(oral dose only)
234/583 2. 3/5.
Infant resident
166/421 1.7/4.
Visitor re-entry
909/2.500 9/25
91
Table 2 NOHVdose and ADI/dose comparisons
for maximum- exposed residents
and visitors in the vicinity of right-of-way projects
with amitrole, atrazine, or P J sprayed
hexazinone.
Amitrole At_razine Hexazinone

NOEL ADI NOEL ADI NOF.T. Ant
Adult resident
7.2 Above 1,016 Above 2,710 3.4
Adolescent resident
(dermal and oral doses) 4.0 Above 80 Above 235 Above
Adolescent resident
(oral doses) 5.7 Above 824 8.2 2,200 2.7
Infant resident
5.1 Above 718 7.1 1,914 2.4
Visitor re-entrv 28 Above - 2,131 21 5.682 7.1
2,6 .1 Discussion of ADI and NOEL Comparisons
In reviewing the dose/NOEL

fo r the General Pppu! ation
comparison on Tables 2 40 throueh ? 7 ?

w
“?™ noteworthy with but few exceptions disc„»efb
,
H to o d ne" b
.
s o£ the generai
l«' he
values,
;; from
r j “mX-:r r
the standpoint of general toxic
effects
-
r .r. , u
^n^rLisîiX: •srH aafa
i
f ^ »•
necessarily harmful. The ADI
presumes a dail”dl s rivlllday
and higher short-term doses
can often be tolerated safety.
^^"lifet
e e
“Ir:; p;^^^î:“^ses p
ex”::d t^^li^ aS
l ^ adve hunan impacts -
“ r U” U
“
disrupt thyroid function
be needed for any proposed use
JSSU;
I«t ani“ls cl«fn
of this herbicide.
SitUati °" 8 *« » hi ' h
°I- f
*•"
'-e-’
TieMmllndeld
8
““this’
" Mch
W ° Uld
Î- IId1hÎ for
wipprrs.::-!/:;
°f S P ray ® d unwashed vegetation.
.
« For numerous reasons there is very
low Droh v a
£
£“?•{
t 1Stle ' “?•' iS Mt edib1 '. bushM and othel iri« 3ild
?
P e y d ° " 0t °“ UP the habUatS '*« “•
»«ds . Ln,°
? mally, ”ii
the appearance,
. J
odor,
ibfesled
and taste of the snravnH
“Uh lious
•
92
theâlculated U" Ui’* fact0 ”.
miat
atrazme, 2,4-D, dicamba, and hexazinone.

-- <3 feet,
maximum estimate is about 5 times

A. discussed in Let Section 2.4.4,
I'/ u- %
extrapolations from actual measurements
higher than a ^“
" tl te based °°
this
of orotacr ! " perv t sors d

of these more reasonable dose 0883 a °d “ one
estimates exceed^he Eve ° the maxinum dose .
estimates provide NOEL margins
of safetv of ?n
dicamba NOEL is over 50 times P r ei3,“ i,le - tha
greater tLn the do.*
over 230 times greater th^Le^se!
?
2 0"6 is ^
long-term exposure, adverse impacts from
because th tLLo^LnSLlir
?
0EL and ADI P resume
As discussed in Section n '' tlIie dose are
_,
very unlikely,
10n z2 '-55 tha
the h
hexazinone •
\ii!
ADI is based on a noft *
on a
90-day r !•
feeding
»
study divided by a safety

235 for the one-time dose
of hexaHnnnaLnH
factor off 2,000
•
? nnn
fr °® 3
V
A safety factor of
'
tests with dicamba reveal a

indicated a NOEL of 25 mg/kg
similar pattern
(500 DDm in
TL^k^L 6
13 ~ week feeding study
.
Short " tera
with rats
1 25 mg/kg . A one-timeTicUa do^f 0 J-jT"to cause
18 very unlikely
El ° f “
adverse health impacts since
d ° 3e 13 a >"’t°ximately
the 13-week N0EU 1,300 times less than
Large, open-range projects

sprayed with 2,4-D in excess of
acre could result in a combination n f j ’ 21 pounds (a.i.)
t ,
per
scenario is realistic.
pr0:|ects wlU indicate whether this
e C 1C at ^
thiS anal y sis exceed EPA's
values . AllLorkers involved ^ th 6
formulation couldLeceivLworstLas
^ applic ation of li qui d
ADI
do ®es in excess of ADI values.
reaching conclusions on thlrlf In
evance o these findings, it is
consider several factors. appropriate to
£.”! C i:lZl?Z7s
5
amount applied
e
Thus if
1 S S rVe t0 in eaSe eatimateS 0f
TslZll th att ddo e 18 a direct linear
hr ?
L
function of the
api,Ucator appl 88 twice the amount
day as the app ic«o i
in thi oT j
in a
is assumed t" the
relationship is open ?»
appUca^
.“.Hon
often saturated with herbicide
S"
s^
mix ,ir>,
in ,
8t " dy (Lavy
5”°* the ba li
et *»• >984), then it
3 study ba ckpack
d ° 8a -
sprayers were
« “ ^
additional îveli^L^ T“^1ay
specific parameters raad attainable data or
that tend to overestimate
co^sâhve ( worst - c ase) assumptions
dose tL!
’
were made
^ptions win
of
93
— ?r:,^rv 7T- p
iTyTt
vy et ai
fl.
6 hi do e '°"pari
-(mi)
^1984) ^
without: extrapolations based on
application amount. As discussed in Wt-i™ 9 l differences
«•
the-hi gh est l::: ; .1: :
p
tre rences in da*i.

daily
1;
7 ™i
applied herbicides under conditions
The hieh dnso nrnK ,Ki
th^
cnac are
ere Ukili
llkelT to maximize worker dose.
i
Stud ?
TJ
™ ^
^
^^^SSSBSSnSS^
The average-dose comparisons
doses measured in Lavy et al.
on Table 2.73 correspond to the
(1984).
average worker
’
The margins of safety for average

workers as indicated by the NOEL/dose
mparisons are greater than 10 for
all herbicides extent- amitmi. tv.
rZll
gL wv '™ “ uin generaj toxic effects such as kidney
-
or liver dvsfui
r
workL's tvpLa
S3 PlaCed ^
3 better Ught considlrLg'the^
7 1
17 llmlted extent of exposure (usually
1
year). less than 30 days per
Slmilar pattern wou l d

probably be evidenced in dogf which
" s ' k5 ~ a« relativS' ^.
C
" rker d
<’
Tl Hsh
s f tl>» or voIIt-l I
H'lhô . UvlL uled
| Eva 2ar.ssrJ= u
arcer ou to 90 days of continuous
exposure.
A second area of concern with
higher dicamba doses is the possibilitv
C 0r er of
8 niC effeCtS AS diSCUSSed in Section^!?, tê
NOEL °:\3 mg/kg f° '
/i ! v
tor dicamba fetotoxic
and the teratogenic NOEL is 10
mg/kg At the
C3Se ”° et dOSe levels calc “ lated in
Phi, analysis! Tt if not pElbl,
to'of f aSSU an eS that the terat °g enic
effects of dicamba exposure can be
a n °H H\
avoided a ^
by reducing the length of time of
herbicide exposure. It has been
t rat0gens
°P erat e during relatively short time frames or
critical periods ?in pregnancy.
critical* These periods generally occur in the
8t3ges of pregnancy, often before pregnancy early
is confirmed. Thus, it is not the
llToi
critical period. “Z'T™ ^
bUt itS timing relative to the
Therefore, because of the low teratogenicity
safety for workers spraying dicamba,
’
margins of
restrictions on the use of women as
herbicide applicators are advisable.
94
2,4— D doses are

effects were not seen at Teratogenic
the highest doses'tested
Tabu 2.73 NOEL/ dose comparisons

for backpack sor,
4- estimates , high-dose
estimates, and
LLgXTelt^r
2.4-
.4- Worst-case worker High-dose worker
_dose comparisons Average-dose worker
_dose comparison
_dose comparison
D
1.2
4.2
11
Picloram
16
29
75
Dicamba
2.9
5.1
13
2 D/picloram 2.3/63
4.2/29
11/75
2 . D / dicamba
1.9/4.
4. 2/5.1
11/13
Glyphosate
23
41
107
Amitrole 1
Above
Above Above
Atrazine
4.4
15
40
Hexazinone
12
107
margins^ safety arrhighei^^t Sl " iUr t0 dicamba

Ihe^^'t'd 4° although
animal tests, the liver
^
is tie site of tox c Ca " si '* in

effects are seen in animal C S &t toxicity/ teratogenic
specific projects will
tests at levels as low fl ’l
determine the level and
°/
5 mg/kg
*
J
Use Patterns or
*
At the application -c-

lgIUfiaance
rates assumed here for some of worker doses,
safety as low as 20 are
.
possible for fetotoxic effeV f W ° rkers mar S ins of *
atrazine is not proposed for Pr£Sent *****

use on Region 1
national lores' ts^
Amitrole applications provide
the vrpat-oo»-
to workers. 1 1 for Averse
Careful site specific analvsis^
nse. At the present “J ? e '?',Ued £ ° health impacts
time amitrole u“ is not o r “7 Prosed
has been used in other
Regions.
Proposed; m
Region 1 although it
X at
of safety^
o
hî:inê :nfgi y °L::n
about 50 to over 500.
Site-specif iânaly sis îl
ty
feCot “
fft:t“ir"-
eiposed
1 ' “'!>< of
0 ^° ram indiCate
îndicate 1
%
safety for workers
£~
higher margins
ose
range from
95
reduce worker dosl 01 ^ 1 ^ 68 ““ ^ reCOmmended t0

aS^MiibleêaTth^ffi^s!
First, all workers must be advised ovn K n ;n
and instructed in the careful
c. , ^
°^. the hazards of these chemicals
herhir’d
dose levels below „„rst-cas“
, t ned ‘i'”
10 ” »
bo reduce
that work practices here Several studies have shown
*
p es greatly
ereatlv effect f
eff^cr worker exposure and dose.
^
amount 'of°herbic ide^pplied "dail “ V” diCa " ba ' on the
days should be limited to^da^l^

™ - - - ™; r a
br e ap licat0 «
are advisable
herbicides ^For°example^ b ecause
ITtl *?X °W Jte ^togenicity margins offorsafety
some
for workers spr y
age as herbicide'ap? 1
^
L^’may
t U ^*1 ? îld-bearing
made on a site— sdpci fir hac.'e a
^necâry ^“ ese restrictions should be
a -
and the °" “-her dose

96
2.7 probabilities op irreversible
impacts
tumoînitiation^^heritableûtat ions^NOELô^th 8
used. Thresholds are not assumed
T
tOXiC effects such as
thresholds doses are not
few molecules of an active
chemical may
that could form neoplastically
f
transformed r!n!
mutagenic effects (birth defects). 11 f
6
^se^/ainT^ ^
°“ ly ° ne 0r a
types ° f chan S es i” D »A
(cancer) or heritable
varioiYmodels »YY“«ific
carcinogen. Since euantUat “" Yd
,.l
13 '
10 ” ^“ b ' <“ a «i»ed using
uurdence to suggest a chemical
is a
a multi-step process a allable for mutagenicity,
of evaluating a pest icide's°°h Y
e "ability to cause
to interact vith germinal mutations and
cells (cells In „i
assess the qualitative "Reduction) is used to
potential of a?enicrisk to humans (see, for
OSEPA 1984a). The first step example,
invol
pesticide's ability to cauJe mutlt *" ?SiS ° f the «“•"« °f a
Plants, mammalian ceUs”n
S ”
bactaria > "icroorganisms
insects,
cunure !nd ,
the second step involves 1 *' vhile

an analysis
mammalian gonads. Greater
germinal cells and tissues
2
weight is ninroH
(within the body) rather than
in o!
YiYabiliYtYn
°V ^^
y to produce these events in
Sh °W chan S e3 in
Performed 1° vivo
T”*
in vitro (outside/t/Vl//
species rather than in submammal mammalian
ilêcies
provided by Dr. David Brusick with T (USEPa/qraM
1984b).
*
Table 2.74,
! • .
of various tests and their 0netlca * nc '» presents a

value in Dr Jr ^ >
listing
carcinogenic and heritable ChemiCal ' s ma <™*lian
mutagenic potential/
31 086 "^ ^
^^Lf
potential are long-te^êding heritable “utagenic
Ttîes * Sing/ 8eneratl0n
determine the carcinogenic feeding studies can
potential while
can define the potential
for
variety of cellular systems
Yp“dYY dU "
tUdieS
However, because a wider
can be tested in In
8 J shi °°-
“YiinTs^r
St be for the herbicides •*
d°" 318
individual mutagenesis test
false positives and false
is perfectly nrediY
predlctl '' a
7“
S1 8“ l£i ' a “' since no
aad every test can give
negatives
V W
are provided in Agriculture handbook C de ’ ° f lDtere9t
HS'SsSI'lm) “hl^ h
2,7.1 Amitr ole Mutagenesis Tests
Amitrole tested negative (no

mutation) in 49 tests îth
«itB vanous strains
Salmonella typhimurium in Ames
tests with the Chinese hamster
mutagenic potential). Amitrole
mutagenicitv
ova/ (CHO test
was nonmutL
3t is
/
—
indicatlve of heritable
.
of
was n egative in
with human lymphocytes and êS “ Us, in tests

various mouse cenula/syf teY
97
Table 2.74— A summary of the
possible roles for selected
in chemical hazard assessment. short-term tests
Identifies
carcinogenic Identifies heritable
General assav tj££e^
potential
potential
Microbial Assays
Ames Reverse Mutation Test -

\
++
Reverse Mutation in E. coli +
WPj and Related Strains
+
Bacterial DNA Repair Tests +
4 .
Yeast Mutation Tests NA

Yeast Mitotic Recombination ++
+
NA
In Vitro Mammalian Cell Assay*
Mouse Lymphoma Assay (TK)

4
CHO or V79 Mutation Assays (HGPRT) ++
4
Unscheduled DNA Synthesis (UDS) ++
44 NA
Chromosome Aberrations
Sister Chromatid Exchange (SCE) ++
44 NA
Cell Transformation
++ NA
In Vivo Mammalian Assays
SCE
4 NA
Dominant Lethal Assay
NA ++
Cytogenetic Analysis (aberrations)
4 ++
Micronucleus Assay
Spermhead Abnormality Assay +
NA (+)
Heritable Translocation Assay in Mir
e NA +
Specific Locus Assay in Mice
NA ++
DNA Adduct Formation
UDS Assays ( +)
+ +)
(
In Vivo Submammalian Assays
Drosophila Assays
Plant Cvtoeenetics ++
NA ( +)
+ = Applicable
++ = Greater applicability for this
role
NA = Not applicable
(+) - Possible application under limited
conditions.
(Source: Dr. David J. Brusick, Litton
Bionetics, Inc.)
98
Amitrole tested positive when treated with equimolar
amounts of nitrite
indicating that amitrole can be nitrosated to a mutagenic
compound. Similar
tests with a metabolically activated amitrole also
gave positive results for
mutagenesis. Amitrole also appears to damage DNA as
evidenced by positive
responses for unscheduled DNA synthesis observed in
HeLa cells and EUE cells
Test evidence does not indicate that amitrole can
cause heritable mutations/
However, as discussed later in this section, it
will be assumed that amitrole
is a carcinogen.
2.7.2 Atrazine Mutagenesis Tests
A summary and review of mutagenesis tests with

atrazine reveal equivocal
resuits. Although a large number of tests were
negative, many of the tests
with metabolically activated atrazine proved positive
in tests indicative of
carcinogenic potential. As discussed further below
in this section, interim
whole animal test results provided to EPA indicate
that atrazine is a possible
animal carcinogen.
In tests indicative of heritable mutagenic

potential, atrazine tested negative
(nonmutagenic) both with and without metabolic
activation. Likewise a
t ree-generation rat reproduction study showed no effects
at the highest doses
tested (100 ppm m food) (U. S. EPA 1981).
2.7.3 2.4-D Mutagenesis Tests
As reviewed in Agriculture Handbook 633 (USDA

1984), 2,4-D is generally
nonmutagenic in most of the microbial systems
investigated. Equivocal results
were obtained in tests with human lymphocytes
with both positive and negative
results being reported. Assays for detecting
unscheduled DNA synthesis with
human embryonic lung cells both in the presence
and absence of metabolic
activation systems were negative . However, as is
discussed below, 2 4-D will
e assumed to be a carcinogen based
on ambiguous evidence from whole’animal
tests.
Tests of potential for initiation of heritable

mutations including tests with
P iogophila and tests for mouse dominant
lethal mutations are all reported to
give nonmutagenic results (USDA 1984). A
three-generation rat feeding showed
no reproductive impairment at doses up to
1,500 ppm in food (DSEPA 1982b).
2.7.4 Dicamba Mutagenesis Tests
Dicamba has not shown mutagenic potential in

mutagenesis tests ranging from S
_yp imurium to human fibroblasts. A 3-year rat reproduction study also showed
o effects at dicamba levels as
high as 500 ppm in food (USEPA 1983a). Based
on these results, dicamba is not considered
mutagenic.
2.7.5 Glyphosate Mutagenesis Tests
As reported in Agriculture Handbook

633 (USDA 1984), microbial mutagenesis
tests with eight strains of bacteria and
yeasts all showed no mutagenic effect:
for glyphosate. No evidence of mutagenicity was
observed in the dominant
lethal mutation assays with mice.
99
2.7.6 Hexazinone Mutagenesis
Tests
results for • >-arinooe gave negative

potential. In test systems with Chinese
results were reported in a subset
ham teÎy (WOên^T"^
"UtaSenic
of in vitro cytogelL a"sly“
rat rcprod -u°° «

2.7.7 Pjcloram Mutagenesis Tests
mutagenic activity (USDA 1984). 3y

a
S
•*
stems dld Picloram show
-^1
d e a
ani:at;i jiôr::
effects. ^
c
™i ier::în iri:ê: :rE:
P to
£
rjr r row ,s
2,000 mg/kg without adverser r
1S S b
«u«es fom 0
t£e basIs
analysis.
“âlsunin^tharpniora.
g Picloram ^
is a carcinogen m this risk
— 8 Carcinogen ic Potential of Herbicides
In keeping with the worst-case basis of this

risk analvii? a k- -a •
sEr-ias ^=i-:ir iai i£

"-ê^rîlltes
EPA is currently reviewing
toxicity test data for ? A_n u
^
S h
1^°™*
study 'will ê com?ieted |n
studies of the calcinoge^c
HZ^ln the
pot^tUl ol
™^^“'’““-feeding tU °
:=«=E i.s ..
Hansen et al. (1971) exposed

Osborne-Mendel rats to 0 5 25 125 625 „
r rdLr-
l “°”
2LrS uT3.TI.ii ta
ih'ietn“i
a a
irihr?:”d' ni rzrvit ^ r°
between dose and tumor incidence, ' it
rs d!d Lt ““
is possible tl cSlcuuH
limits on the carcinogenic potency It”lllunfipper
of 2,4-D from the studies described
hese upper limits on the carcinogenic abo« ’
potency of 2,4-D will be calculated
using a one-hit model of cancer.
This model is the most conselvlllle
e. U
100
{Jredictss the highest risks) of any of the cancer models which
have gained some
acceptance. The one-hit model assumes no threshold
or, in other words that
8 8l ecule of 2 4 " D “ight cause cancer.
. This model was used for a
TiZ h iH v ®°J
time by the EPA to estimate cancer risks before
.
being replaced by a less

conservative multistage model of cancer.
The one-hit model was fit separately to the

male and female rat data on total
W tUm fr0m n et al * (1971) U8ing the COm uter program
£oXlM
GL0BAL82 rS °r,Crump Xi;?
(Howe and 1982).
P
The data on females gave the largest 95
percent statistical upper limit on the
carcinogenic potency of 2,4-D (i.e.
largest 95 percent upper limit on the linear
term in the one-hit, model of'’
an upper limit was 3 >01 x 10 4 per ppm or 5<03 x -3
5 /w^
(mg/kg/day).
_
The utility of this factor is explained

1()
below.
The data on the carcinogenic potential
of picloram are also ambiguous. The
ational Cancer Institute (1978) conducted
a bioassay of picloram and
f indingS 33 "suggestive of ability
•
of the compound to induce
benign tumors in 1livers of female Osborne-Mendel
rats." The benign lesion that
suggested this effect was foci of cellular
alteration in liver! Se one^hit
model can be applied to data on this lesion
in the manner described for 2 4-D
The 95 percent upper limit calculated ’
in this fashion for the carcinogenic
potency of picloram is 3.4 x 10 5 per
ppm or 5.68 x 1(T S per (mg/kg/dayK
This value is approximately one-tenth
of the 2,4-D value.
The data on the carcinogenic potential

of amitrole is much less ambiguous and
indicates carginogemc effects in mammals
exposed to amitrole. EPA has
tr ° le a Pr ° bable human carcinogen." Amitrole cancer
‘r::
was r ,T r
estimated using data from three studies: potency7
1. A 2-year rat-feeding study conducted by

Hazleton Laboratories, Inc.
2. A study by Tsuda et al. (1976) in
which rats were given 2,500 ppm in
their drinking water.
3. A study by Food and Drug Research

(1981, as cited in EPA, 1985c) in
which rats alternately were fed food
with and without amitrole.
a e 3mit
8timated from the Hazleton Labs rat study data
le
S i5 Der°(mv/L/r ^ /
he d3ta ° f TSUda et al * (1976)
S ave a Potency of
0 On'lJ ( for all invasive thyroid lesions and 9.8 x 10'^
?’°/J /j a
per
g ad 0ma * The Food and D
/ted (n Â 1985c) indicated a cancer potency for ™g Research 1981 study (as
cifid m f thyroid tumors of 0 61
6 i nteraitt « n tly dosed groups). In
L
the greatest of these factors is used to
this risk assessment,
estimate human cancer risk. The 95
C 0Uf xd enCe For the Potency based on the Food and
R^s^chTT
Research data is 1.4 . .
L per (mg/kg/day). Drug
S
EPA I 8 currently reviewing glyphosate

carcinogenicity studies submitted by
Monsanto (IBT replacement studies). Feeding
studies (2-year) with both «ts
WeU “"ducted rat studies shoved no oncogenic
act ivitv * r” S6X * ‘f'
h6r A mous e study is currently being
brief
brief, this 2-year mouse oncogenicity reviewed by EPA. In
(cancer) study was conducted with
!£
of 5i
at
30 000 It
anl/aU
leV 3
of each'
‘
PartS
1 V '’T ' ^ food; 1.0o“
Ea,:h teed l "' 1 ““
ppm in
101
The number of male mice
with tumors (renal tubular a
ppm group, one in the 1 ad ® nomas)\ was 0 at ê
5,000 ppm group an d th 1,000
•
liV “^
females had tumors at a^y the 3 °’° 00 PPm 8roo No
dose level P‘
there was one or 0 tumorl C
°^ rovers y °ver whether
in the^li cot
ordered Monsanto to recut and , untr eated) animals. ^
EPA has
re-exsmino •
the controversy. As noted th * 8C anilaals t0 resolve
study have rarely beee

in the 2 4-D atudiea
(untreated) mice are not unusual*?^
found in untreated
studies* tumors in the
l5!>e
control .
in ,hls
t^
'i«
^
glyphosate. The highest dofe Utlve, ?y " toxicity of
levels of 30 •'oOOnn
0 °° PP " mea " S that 3
mouse daily food intake was «*
glyphosate.
Second, the weight of
evidence as indicated b„ hen,
Studres indicates at west
weak oncogenic effect from
1 8 th<! lnfori" at1011 on glyphosate

concluded:* oncogencity, EPA (1985b) has
Sa.. :
1
bpth <* -
2^.™ m, \l 'Z'Vr*™ " laSd “ treatment^with
presence of tutors iH^ fouVtât™ Inltll ^^

The factors listed in
the paragraph above indicate
l( ' a te that
for oncogencitv thnucrh •
tnat th*
the oevidence
’a
category among the categoH^th
ôncU,ion
liulis
the
h
tz
t t
of oncigenic?t
Jtnsr
T^?isrr
tte study as comparec^to
ulel t
a"°“ nt
Z“£oZl
°' ’ uan
/ t Hr-
icit
“ tati '' e
*“* 2
w
evidence supporting
“;^
“
the information currpnfiu
significant risk
likely to he exposed?
Î f™ ^
i,
aval ' ab e
i -
.,
tha *S,
neretore, based on
a "cy does not expect
° f 8lj,ph ° Sata to which
any
humans are
^t^ “.^"SSy'^lSS"^
10
5
per (mg/kg/day).
?'
calculated from the kidney
k
2
tumor data is 3.4 x
1206 '"- "" ” *"«“
<‘ iCambai “ tsviewed in DSDA

results from a 2-year feeling
.SS^lX i^r^s^f“ '“ l
102
necessary in the evens t h.r ...’of atLfi^K'p J^/^tMa"™^

Sposilrelo^^Lr ^ *°°f 6
plcUr^T-t ’
° Ver * li£eti
° r gl PP ho9ate can be
-- r...lt nf
the following 'equation: ’
determined using
Pc = q* x D X De/L
where
PC = »orst-case estimate
of she probabilUy of cancer as a resnlr nf the
'
Wkg/dlyJlor
1.4 per i/kg/da
for glyphosate.
>
^"i" 0
forâmitrole; aS 'd ’
^ 0 Potency slope (5. °3 x lO’ 3
fxl1U ^
per
per (mg/kg/day)
D = daily dose in mg/kg/day
De = number of days during

which the daily dose occurs
L = days in a lifetime
—
(25,550).
^ê^Lrr^r^y'^n^r^^tlr^r?^^;^^ - • »«•*!- loom
Por example, th! p„JaM^

cancer after spraying 2 4-D
nil 'orkîtbh JVIS back P ack sprayer developing
for 1 A av ( -,. K
open-range projects is 8.3 x 10'^
mg/kg/day x 1 day x lifetime/25 550 A
a l or
\^ error) on small,
P6r ^ mg ^ k s/ da y) x 0.42
8
lO' means that the worker
has
1 a
t ^ ^
ohahil ^V of 8.3 x
developing cancer as a result 8 ** Ch Ces in °? e hundre< million
as a result of 30 days
of thi^H ^ ^
1176 worker 9 Probability f
of
of cancer
2.5 x 10
4 spraying assn
(30 x 8.3 x 10 4 ^k'
8
*
3 WOrSt ’ Case dose eac * da

7 is
) or abou^ 12 !/? th"
over the 30 days the worker vets hances in one million. If
an j
mea3Ured b y La vy
(1984), his cancer probability
probability or about six chances
would
in 10 million?
b^T ^
W ° rSt ^ CaSe
al.
Calculation of the cancer probab-i l i ^ i oo r~

population requires an estimate
which the dose will occur Tbn
1
T™
9 ® embers of the general
of the dfnly d ° Se and the number
• of days over
^
eXP ° Sed Cesidm in the ’' icinit °
-
small, open-ranln r °-e«
p is^,ZdT' P f 9
consume drift-contaminated
vegSlta
beef for 140 days. The herbiLrf*
1 f
*
fo^T d ° 8e f ° r 1
42 days and herbicide-contaminated
C°
remain constant^ vegetation is assumed to

e
weeks, and by another one-hllf
a IT initial ValU6S for tbe nexb 2
fn
decrease in concentration win n 2 WeekS * niB Step functioa
69 COnCentratiaaa for relatively
persistent pesticidef such as
biological degradation removarb
n^'
10 ””’ C0 binatl0n of Physical
and
*5/ ?
*'* "* gr °Vth WlU
reduce concentrations «
a faste/rat^than assumeThere?’
.
103
P W
mid-sized and Urge, iD the vicinit
open-rangf°J r o “cêweD!! 7 of
Projects, residents
near right-of-wav 5
;»*«. and
* P ° SUre for
fd ay Xmt
S e°;: a
ee
residents near open-range
rL
d° sc
TV
The cancer ...
(exclusive of worker
considerat
probabilit
calculated
Drift:
E
’’
tlblfs) Irt
• •
-10
provid^ô/e^h”
°” Table8
» — 2 * ?6 through 2.97
aad i
;£r ara
probability -1.3 , lo'
t.i X 10 "g/kg/daVx
10
g/Kg/day x 3 days
dl
_3
. 5 . 03 * 10 '.'
Per Wkg/da
P6r
x lifetime/25
/ n C
(mg/kg/day)
c
' x ^ 1
»
,550 days.
Oral dose ’ = 2.0 x 10~ 8 = <; n-» _ 1rt -3
beef 7.1 X iO-ûVl 140 d^s l {LtW^So'days
Oral dose
vegetable: (9.6 x
2 .4 x
%
10
J
6
It,-.
/
mg/kg ,!
/
10
'8
w J x ,0-5 per
.- ^5.03
/da y x 14 days + kg/day)
4>8 x 10 -- x 14 davs
14 days) x lifetime/25,550 Y
W
days
Visitor probability = 1.6 x l(f 9 a
5 0 3 * in' 3 per ,
re-entry: R.n v in 3 m ° °.
/, ,
(mg /k g/ d ay)
g/Kg/aay
g/kg/dav x 1 h,
day x lifetime/25
, r 1
,550 days
Oral dose b b
y '
wild food: 5 * 03 0 3 per (mg/ k
5!6 x 10^ mg /ig/ d a /° g/ d ay) x
g/Kg/day x l day x ,-/
1 da lifetime/25 ,550 days.
TIig cuinu 1 3 ivg
imoacr nn t*v«/v •
the exposure pathways frM1 doses f to„ e a ch

is of
pathways. For the £ ™“ the individual
2,4-D (see Table 2 91) ““f 3 large °Pen-range >
s*
resident were exposed
to five project
8
!S
s»«Tr.^ ''
If this
ul *
•animus, dose (in

itself a,very! , ,
uVa/t-'’' ‘ e ch ti " e teceived
? the
cancer would he 3.3 x 7 7 i Pr ° bl‘ bmty ° f
1<T or ahout^hree’chanc^L tTîlio n.
S
highest caLe^^bIbUUy 8 1”” cluJin S amitrole) the “
open-range project sprayed occurs“ith an°iil•*?
't' r sident
°ear a large,
Ptobability is 8.1 X lo 2 ®
with 2 4
4-D !
S
n
or aho^ e”gbt"ha“fnn
„ne";^S
C 1 a
r h
probabilities Table 2?98
one- m- a-mi 1 1 ion chance
provides a l is tôê^ht
of delth *lr>
th ealit ’ of such —ll
WhlCh result in a
L IV y
has about a
of living m
one-in-a-million chance of
beingîlleîn’f
ed ’
3Verage •
^ ^ân
about 2.8 x 10
the U.S. Rig probability
(I x 10 ^/i 3 days
?? *
f3t
J
flre for every 13 days
llty for 1 7 ea r would be
x 365 d/l/ f
in 100,000. A worker in the V y ar ^». 0r about three chances
transport anH ^ ?
(e.g., a truck driver)
has a one-in!I- m ?n ^
Utllities action of industry
job. A person who smokes two
cancer by one chance in cigarettes h™* 1DCreased
a million.
^
^ 3I1Ce ° f death every day on the
h i 3 probability of
104
Table 2.75— Cancer probabilities for workers spraying small,
projects for open-range
1 day.
Lifetime cancer probability Lifetime cancer probability

from 1 day's spraying from 1 day's spraying
2.4-
assuming minor mixing
assuming major mixing errors
error
D -8
7.3 x 10 8
8.3 x 10~
2.4- -9
Picloram 4.0 x 10 -9
4.7 x 10
Glyphosate -10
2.4 x 10 10
2.8 x 10~
D -8
10 J/
3.5 x
Picloram 4.1 x lO /
1.1 x 10 y
1.3 x 10
2,4-D -8
4.3 x 10 8
Dicamba 5.1 x 10~
Amitrole -6
9.9 x 10 -5
1.2 x 10
105
able
a^Mllôpen-range^ro ject^prayedîth^^-Dt “ VlCi,lity ° f
Lifetime cancer
Lifetime cancer
probability assuming probability assuming
_minor mixing errors
.major mixing errors
Adult dermal dose -12
9.8 x 10 -11
1.3 x 10
Adolescent dermal dose -11
1.3 x 10 -11
1.5 x 10
Infant dermal dose -11
2.4 x 10 -11
3.0 x 10
Adult/adolescent oral -8
2.0 x 10 -8
dose (beef) 2.0 x 10
Infant oral dose (beef) 10" 8

2.3 x -8
2.3 x 10
8.8 x 10 -8
dose (veg) 1.1 x 10
Infant oral dose (veg) -8

1.1 x 10 -8
1.3 x 10
Visitor re-entry to 11
1.5 x 10" -11
spray site 1 day 1.9 x 10
Oral dose/ sprayed wild -8

1.1 x 10 -8
food 1 da\ 1.3 x 10
106
TabU 2.77-Cancer probabilities for visitors and residents
in the vicinit,
mall, open-range project sprayed * 7 of
with picloram.
Lifetime
5.6 cancer 7.1 cancer
Lifetime
probability assuming probability assuming
errors _maior mix ing errors
x 10 -14
x 10
Adolescent dermal dose -14 2.2
7.1 x lO 14
2.6 8.9 x 10~
Infant dermal dose 13
1.3 x 10~ 13
1.6 x 10~
Adult/adolescent oral
dose (beef)
2.2 x 10~ 9 -9
x 10
Infant oral dose (beef) -9
x 10
2.6 x 10“ 9
Adult/adolescent oral _1 °
6.2
4.9 x io -10
dose (veg) 6.0 x 10
Infant oral dose (veg) 10

5.6 x 10" 10
7.0 x 10~
Visitor re-entry to
spray site 1 day 13
8.7 x 10" 12
1.1 x 10~
Oral dose/sprayed wild
food 1 day 10
x 10~
7.5 x 10" 10
107
Table 2.78-Cancer
probabilities for visitors and
a aman, op.n-range prcjeap
residents in ft,. "
• • .
l ° lty ° f
spray,,,.ith g^hosate
Cancer probability"
assuming major
mixing errors
Adult dermal dose
-14
4.3 x 10
Adolescent dermal dose 14
4.3 x 10" -14
5.2 x 10
7.8 x 10~ -13
1.0 x 10
-10
1.3 x 10

1.5 x 10 10
1.5 x 10"
2.9 x 10 11
dose (veg) 3.6 x 10'
Infant oral dose (veg)

3.6 x 10' 11
4.6 x 10' 11
Visitor re-entry to
5.2 x 10~ 14 14
spray site 1 day 6.3 x 10~
Oral dose/ sprayed wild

3.7 x 10" 11 -11
food 1 da\ 4.5 x 10
C
108
Table 2.79 — Cancer probabilities for visitors and residents
in the vie inity of
a small, open-range project sprayed with a
2 ,4-D/picloram mixture.
Cancer probability
Cancer probability
6.3 assuming minor assuming major
mixing error s
1.2 mixing errors
1.4
Adult dermal dose 4.9 x 10~ 12 / 1.4 x 10 _U 12
6.5 x 10~ /1.8 x 10" 14
x 10~ / 1 . 8 x 10 -14
2.3 7.6 x 10~ l2 /2 .2 x 10' 14
Infant dermal dose x 10~ /3 .3 x 10" 14
1
-11
x 10 -14
4.3 /4.2 x 10
Adult/adolescent oral 2.0 x 10~
8 9
/2 . 2 x 10~ 8
2.0 x 10~ /2.2 x 10
-9
dose (beef)
Infant oral dose x 10~

8
10~ 9 8
/2 . 6 x 2.3 x 10" /2.6 x 10' 9
(beef)
Adult/adolescent oral 5.5 9

x 10~ /1.2 x 10~ 10 9 -10
dose (veg) 5.6 x 10~ /l .5 x 10
Infant oral dose 5.1 x 10"

9 10
/1 . 5 x 10' 9
7.3 x 10~ /l .9 x 10
-10
(veg)
Visitor re-entry to 12 13
7.7 x 10 /2.2 x 10~ _12 -13
spray site 1 day 9.4 x 10 /2 .7 x 10
Oral dose/sprayed wild x 10~ /I .6 x 10 -10

9
_9 10
food 1 da-s 6.7 x 10 /1 .9 x 10~
109
Table 2.80-Cancer
probabilities for visitors and
a «.!, open-range
residents in n. • • •
project spra y ed
Cancer probability
Cancer probabi
assuming minor
assuming major
mixing errors
mixing errors
Adult dermal dose 12
5.9 x 10~ 12
7.5 x 10"
7.6 x 10“ -12
9.4 x 10
1.4 x 10 11
1.8 x 10'
dose (beef) 8
2.0 x 10~ 8
2.0 x 10~
Infant oral dose (beef)
2.3 x 10~ 8
2.3 x 10~ 8
dose (veg)
5.3 x 10~ 9
6.2 x 10~ 9
6.8 x 10" 9 9
8.7 x 10~
Visitor re-entry to
spray site 1 day 12
9.4 x 10~ 1.1 x 10"
11
Oral dose/ sprayed

no
Table 2.81-Can=er probabiUtiea
for visitors and residents in
m 11, open-range project sprayed the vicinity of
with amitrole.
Cancer probability Cancer probability

assuming minor assuming major
mixing errors mixing errors
Adult dermal dose -10 -10
1 .4 x 10 1.8 x 10
Adolescent dermal dose -10 -10
1.8 x 10 2.1 x 10
Infant dermal dose -10 -10
3.2 x 10 4.0 x 10
Adult/ adolescent oral
dose (beef) -6 -6
5.4 x 10 5.4 x 10
6.3 x 10 -6
6.3 x 10
dose (veg) -6 -6
1.2 x 10
1.5 x 10
1.5 x 10 -6
1.9 x 10
Visitor re-entry to
spray site 1 day -9 -9
2.1 x 10 2.6 x 10
Oral dose/ sprayed wild -6 -6
1.5 x 10
food 1 day 1.9 x 10
.4-
.4-
2.4-
TabU 2 - 82 --”^‘ -c.r ProbaMHtUs for vorhars fro* spraying

!r r
„id-si 2 ad.

.mixing errors
mixing errors
D -7
1.6 x 10 -7
1.7 x 10
Picloram -9
8.9 x 10 -9
9.3 x 10
Glyphosate -10
5.3 x 10
5.7 x 10~ 10
2 D/Picloram 8
7.9 x lo" / 8.5 x 10“?/
2.2 x 10 9
2.4 x 10~
2 D/Dicamba -8 -7
9.7 x 10
1.0 x 10
Amitrole -5
2.2 x 10 -5
2.4 x 10
Ill
l
Of a mid-sized ôpen-range ViCi ” it?
p to ject^p ray ed^with 2^4-5?
Cancer probability
Cancer probability
assuming minor
assuming major
mixing errors
_mixing errors
3.2 x 10
4.0 x 10 ^
4.3 x 10 10" 11
5.1 x
8.0 x 10 -10
1.0 x 10
2.0 x 10
dose (beef) 2.0 x 10~ 8

2.3 x 10 8
2.3 x 10"
1.5 x 10
dose (veg) 1.9 x 10~ 8

1.8 x 10
2.3 x 10~ 8
Visitor re-entry to
1.0 x 10~ 10 -10
Oral dose/ sprayed wild -8

1.1 x 10
food 1 da\ 1.3 x 10~ 8
c
112
Table 2.84 — Cancer probabilities fnr-
%
,
0£ a mid-sized, ope„- range

p
“?”
Cancer probability
Cancer probability
assuming minor
assuming major
mixing error
mixing errors
1.8 x 10
2.4 x 10f 13
Adolescent dermal dose
3.2 x 10~ 13 -13
2.5 4.1 x 10
5.7 x 10 -13
7.4 x 10
1.1
2.2 x 10" 9 -9
dose (beef) 1.0 2.2 x 10

x 10
2.5 x 10~ 9
8.2 x 10" 10 9
dose (veg) x 10~

x 10" -9
1.1 x 10
Visitor re-entry to
5.8 x 10~ 12 12
spray site 1 day 7.1 x 10'
Oral dose/sprayed wild -10

6.2 x 10 10
food 1 day 7.5 x 10'
113

mixing errors .mixing errors
1.1 x 10 -13
1.4 x 10
1.4 x 10 -13
1.7 x 10
2.6 x 10 -13
3.1 x 10
1.3 x 10 -10
Infant oral dose (beef) 10

1.5 x 10“ -10
1.5 x 10
Adult/adolescent oral -11 -11
4.9 x 10 6.2 x 10
dose (veg)
I^fsnt oral dose (veg) -11

6.2 x 10 7.8 x 10‘ U
Visitor re-entry to -13
3.5 x 10 -13

3.7 x 10 -11
food 1 da\ 4.5 x 10
c
114
Table Cancer probabilities for visitors
and residents in the vicinity
' ° Pe ”‘ ranee s P™yed with a
mixture 2 ,4-D/piclorL
Cancer probability 2.1

Cancer probability
assuming minor
assuming major
mixing errors
mixing errors
Adult dermal dose 1.6 x 10~
U /4.4 x 10~
U -11 14
x 10 /5.8 x 10~
Adolescent dermal -11 14
2.1 x 10 /5.8 x lCf -11 14
dose 2.5 x 10 /7.1 x 10~
2.3
Infant dermal dose -11 13
3.9 x 10 /1.1 x 10~ _11 13
7.2 4.7 x 10 /1.3 x 10"
9.2
Adult/ adolescent oral 2.0 x 10~ 8
10~ 9
8
/2 2 x
dose (beef)
.
2.0 x 10~ /2.2 x 10" 9
Infant oral dose 2.3 x 10~

8 -9
/2 . 5 x 10 8
x 10~ /2.5 x 10' 9
(beef)
Adult/ adolescent x 10
9 -10 -9
/2 . 1 x 10 10
oral dose (veg) x 1 / 2.7 x 10“
Infant oral dose (veg) _9 10

9.2 x 10 /2.7 x 10~ 8 10
i
1.2 x 10 / 3.3 x 10‘
Visitor re-entry to _11 12
5.1 x 10 /1.4 x 10~ _11 -12
spray site 1 day 6.3 x 10 /1 . 8 x 10
Oral dose/sprayed wild 5.5 x 10~ 9 /l _1 °

x 10 6.7 x 10" /1.9 x 10 -10
6 9
food 1 da>
115
le 2.87— Cancer probabilities
for visitors and
a mid-sized,
open-range proper Spra
86 Pr(>:ieCt «
residents m the vicinity of
mixture. y ed with a 2 ,4-D/dicamba
Cancer probability
Cancer probability
assuming minor
assuming major
mixing errors
Adult dermal dose
2.0 x 10' 11
2.3 x 10' 11
2.6 x 10' 11
3.2 x 10" 11
A. 7 x 10 -11
6.3 x 10
2.0 x 10~ 8
dose (beef) 2.0 x 10" 8

2.3 x 10 -8
2.3 x 10
dose (veg) 9.2 x 10~ 9 -8
1.1 x 10

1.2 x 10" 8 8
1.5 x 10~
Visitor re-entry to -11
spray site 1 day 6.3 x 10 -11
7.9 x 10
Oral dose/sprayed
wild 6.7 x 10" 9 -9
food 1 da^ 8.3 x 10
c
116
Table 2.88 dancer probabilities for visitors
a mid-sized open-range project sprayed vicinity of
,
with amitrole.

mix ing errors jnixing errors
4.5 x 10 5.8 x 10
5.8 x 10" 7.1 x 10
-10

1.1 x 10 1.3 x 10~
9
dose (beef) 6
5.4 x 10~ 5.4 x 10"
6
Infant oral dose (beef) 6 -6

6.4 x 10 6.4 x 10
dose (veg) 6
2.0 x 10~ 2.6 x 10
8

2.6 x IQ' 10' 6
3.2 x
Visitor re-entry to
spray site 1 day 1 00
1.4 x r-H
o 1.8 x 10~
8
Oral dose/sprayed wild 6 -6

1.5 x 10
food 1 day 1.9 x 10
117
Table
open-range^rojects^Ht^*
8 f " ba ' k » a ' k •»»*«• on Urge.
Cancer probability
2.4- Cancer probability
assuming minor
assuming maior
D
.4- 1.6 x 10
1.7 x 10"
Picloram -9
8.9 x 10 -9
9.3 x 10
Glyphosate 5.3 x 10~
10
-10
5.7 x 10
2 |4-D/Picloram 7.9 x 10"®/
8.5 x 10"®/
2.2 x 10"*
2.4 x 10“*
2 D dicamba -8
9.7 x 10 -7
1.0 x 10
Amitrole
4-
2.4-
Tab.e
trae k driver. and 8upe rvi 8 ors
2.4- on
D
1.6 x 10
1.3 x 10'
Picloram 8.9 x 10"
11 -9
7.3 x 10
Glyphosate 5.3 x 10~ 12 -10
4.4 x 10
D/picloram 7.9 x 10"}?/
6.5 x 10"®/
2.2 x 10" 11
1.8 x 10"*
2 D/ dicamba 10
.
9.7 x 10' 7.9 x 10
-8
Amitrole -7
2.2 x 10 -5
1.8 x 10
118
Table 2.91— Cancer probabilitiesfor visitors and residents
a large, in the vicinity of
with 2,4-D, picloram, or
glyphosate.
Cancer Cancer Cancer

probability probability
(2.4-D)
probability
D 1C 1 O T*?lTTt
(v r 1 dul ^
-*•
/
__ Vglyphosate)
1.3 x 10 13
7.3 x 10" 4.3 x 10~
13
Adolescent dermal dose 10 -12
1.8 x 10' 1.0 x 10 13
6.0 x 10'
Infant dermal dose 10 -12
3.3 x 10" 1.8 x 10 -12
1.1 x 10
Adult/adolescent oral 1 CO
CM
• o X rH
o 2.2 x 10" 9 10
dose (beef) 1.3 x 10"

2.3 x 10~ 2.6 x 10~ 9 10
1.5 x 10"
4.6 x 10 2.6 x 10“
9 -10
dose (veg) 1.6 x 10

5.8 x 10~ 8 3 .4 x 10
9 10
2.0 x 10~
Visitor re-entry to
1.6 x 10 9 8.9 x 10'
11 , _12
Oral dose/sprayed wild 8

1.1 x 10~ 6.2 x 10"
10 U
food 1 day 3.7 x 10~
119
* Ur8C ' °Pe ^ E ‘‘ nge
Probability from
Probability from
2.4-P dose
licloram dose
6.5 x 10' -13
2.0 x 10
8.9 x 10 -13
2.7 x 10
1.6 x 10 -13
4.7 x 10
2.0 x 10 -9

2.3 x 10 -9
2.6 x 10
2.3 x 10 -10
dose (veg) 6.5 x 10
Infant oral dose (vcg) -8

3.0 x 10 -10
8.7 x 10
Visitor re-entry to -11 -12
7.9 x 10 2.4 x 10
spray site 1 day

5.5 x 10 -10
foodlda-i 1.6 x 10
120
Table 2.93— Cancer probability for visitors and residents
a large, in the vicinity of
open-range project sprayed with
or amitrole. a 2 ,4-D/dicamba
mixture
Probability from
2 ,4-D/ dicamba
Probability from
mixture
amitrole dose
Adult dermal dose
8.2 x 10' 11 10" 9
1 . 8 x
Adolescent dermal
dose
1.1 X 10' 10
2.4 x 10' 9
2 .0 x 10-
4.4 x 10~ 9
Adul t/ adolescent 8
2 .0 x 10- 6
oral dose (beef) 5.4 x IQ'
Infant oral dose

2.3 x 10- 8 6
(beef) 6 .4 x IQ'
Adult/ adolescent
3.0 x 10- 8 6
oral dose (veg) 6.4 x 10-
Infant oral dose

3.7 x 10- 8 VO
(veg) 8 .3 x rH
o
Visitor re-entry 11
9.7 x 10"
to spray site 1 day 2.2 x 10- 7
Oral dose/sprayed
6.7 x 10" 9 6
wild food 1 dav 1.5 x 10-
1.1 x 10
5.3 x 10
_8 10
1.6 x 10 /4.4 x 10~ 7.9 x 10~ 8 / 2 .2 x 10 -9
8
2.0 x 10" -8
9.7 x 10
Amitrole -6
4.4 x 10 -5
2.2 x 10
121
€

7.9 x 10~ 4.4 x 10' 14 -14
2.7 x 10
7.5 x 10r 9 4.2 x 10
-11
11
2.5 x 10"
Infant dermal dose -li
1.9 x 10 1.1 x 10~
13
6.4 x 10" 14
Adult/adolescent oral 2.0 x 10~
10
dose (beef) 2.2 x 10" 11 1.3 x 10'
12
Infant oral dose (beef) 10~^ -11

2.3 x 2.6 x 10 -12
1 .5 x 10
Adult/adolescent oral -9 .-10
4.8 x 10 2.8 x 10 -11
dose (veg) 1.7 x 10
Infant oral dose (veg) -9 .-10

6.3 x 10 3.5 x 10 11
2.1 x 10"
Visitor re-entry or -10 -11
3.5 x 10 2.0 x 10 -12
walk along ROW 1.2 x 10
Adult oral dose (water) -9 -11

1.1 x 10 6.4 x 10 -12
3.9 x 10
Adolescent oral dose -9 -11
1.5 x 10 8.4 x 10 -12
(water) 5.1 x 10
Infant oral dose (water) -9 -11

1.6 x 10 9.3 x 10 5.6 x 10~ 12
2.0 x 10
dose (fish) 1.1 x 10 6.4 x 10“ 14
Infant oral dose (fish) -11 -12

2.2 x IQ 1.2 x 10 7.4 x 10~ 14
C
122
Table 2.96 -Cancer probabilities
for residents in the vicinity
ight of-way projects sprayed of riparian/
with a 2 ,4-D/picloram mixture.
Probability from Probability from

2,4-D dose picloram dose
3.9 x 10 1.1 x 10
3.7 x 10 -11
1.1 x 10
Infant dermal dose -12 -14
9.4 x 10 2.7 x 10
2.0 x 10
Infant oral dose (beef) -10 -11

2.3 x 10
2.6 x 10
2.5 x 10 -11
dose (veg) 7.1 x 10

-11
3.2 x 10 8.2 x 10
Visitor re-entry or -10 -12
1.7 x 10 5.1 x 10
walk along ROW
Adult oral dose (water) -10 -11

5.7 x 10 1.6 x 10
Adolesent oral dose (water) -10 -11
7.5 x 10 2.2 x 10
Infant oral dose (water) -10 -11
8.3 x 10
2.4 x 10
9.5 x 10 3.8 x 10
dose (fish)
Infant oral dose (fish) -11

1.1 x 10 -13
4.2 x 10
123
Table 2.97— Cancer probabilities for visitors and residents • •
in th* •
riparian/ right-of-way projects

sprayed
y 2 A-D/di/T
with a ^.4-D/dicamba
01 ^ °f
mixture or aaitrole.
Probability from
2 ,4-D / dicamba
Probability from
mixture
amitroie dost*
Adult dermal dose
4.9 x 10~ 12 10
1.1 x 10~
4.7 x 10 -7
1.0 x 10
1.2 x 10 10
2.6 x 10~
Adult/adolescent oral dose
2.0 x 10~ 10
(beef) 5.4 x 10~ 8

2.3 x 10"
6.4 x 10 8
Adult/adolescent oral dose
3.0 x 10~ 9 7
(veg) 6.8 x 10

3.9 x 10 7
8.7 x 10
Visitor re-entry or walk -10
2.2 x 10
along ROW 4.8 x 10" 8
Adult oral dose (water) 10

7.1 x 10" 7
1.6 x 10
Adolescent oral dose (water) -10
9.3 x 10 7
2.1 x 10"
Infant oral dose (water) 9
1.0 x 10~ 7
2.3 x 10~
Adult/adolescent oral dose -11 -9
1.2 x 10 2.6 x 10
(fish)
Infant oral dose (fish)

1.4 x 10~
U
3.1 x 10" 9
€
124
Table 2.98- -Lifetime
risk of death or cancer
resulting from everyday
(.from Crouch and
Wilson (1982)). activities
Time to accumulate
a one- in-a-mil lion
Activit'* Average annual
risk of deat-h
_risk per capita
Living in the United Stat
es
Motor vehicle accident
1.5 days -4
Falls 2 10
Drowning
6 days -5
6 10
10 days -5
Fires 4 10
13 days -5
Firearms 3 10
36 days -5
Electrocution 1 10
Tornados 2 months -6
5 10
20 months -7
Floods 6 10
20 months -7
Lightning 6 10
2 years -7
Animal bite or sting 5 10
4 years -7
2 10
Occupational Risks
General
manufacturing
4.5 days -5
trade 8 10
7 days -3
service & government 5 10
3.5 days -4
transport & public utilities 1 10
1 day -4
agriculture 4 10
15 hours -4
construction 6 10
14 hours -4
mining and quarrying 6 10
9 hours -3
Specific 1 10
coal mining (accidents)
14 hours -4
police duty 6 x 10
1.5 days -4
railroad employment 2 x 10
1.5 days -4
fire fighting 2 x 10
11 hours -4
8 x 10
One- In-A-Mil lion Risks
of Cancer
Source of risk
-Igge_gnd amount of exp03urg; pyarnn 1oo
Cosmic rays
p by air; iiy *•* —h.
day, compared to sea
level
»:;iort‘' c P1 ° S “ ,r
15 '°°° feet «« 6
Other
3 0 ^ 963 7eve7 aatural background radiation-
monthq *
2.5
V ° 0<i buUdi " S; 1/7 ° f »
x-ray 0,^0^,,“!^ ênt .
‘»«t
Eating & drinking 40 diet sodas (saccharin)
6 pounds of peanut butter
(aflatoxin)
180 pints of milk
(aflatoxin)
200 gallons of drinking
90 pound, of broiled
water fm™ w
sLaMt'anc™
Smoking 2 cigarettes
125
2.8 SYNERGISM/CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
This section examines the

interaction of ev-c. v C1<leS Wlth ° ther Chenicals
. .
in the environment and

the cumulative effect of thes
already in the environment from herbicide
other sources ‘ Svnervi*® m
people, is a special type of s which concerns many *
interaction h
specific herbicide .it^fc cneinica
°f 3
the environment (such as “
pollutants) would be greater th**
herbicide and cherni^f
UnX^^ ^^“‘th^!
nore chemicals cause opposite°ef ln which h" 0 01
decrease the intrinsic Luvitfof
chemical interactions lead"o
one of the common principles
f ect s on theâ”^'^'
one of Ihe
a a decrease
of antidotal t
Physiologic function or
d
°8 1C activity, and this is
f-
^
(U ‘ S A 19840
include the use of chelating
agents to if* ™ *«»Pl« '
P *
^^
ammonia as an antidote to thp ™P ex with metal ions and the use of
* .
chemical re “t “ichâd
less common and are less h addltl '' e eppear to be
veil documented.
i
t«“a"i^s te«I“ltVrSu 1S ’et 1
’:
V
P °" S
j
bilit * of chemical/herbicide
a
possible interact ions, ^ht^result* mPleX "“"h" ° f
is^not readily predictablet°
is to ‘ onduct •p*-**-**.!
.**!« °°
P
T '^' the interactive effects described
Z\l
^11
are measurably 7 °„d
y tests »4ht
sufficient t d
» it h most spray
u such effects nr f not be
effeCtS ° £ >oll “ ea "” examined

tnteractireffectVof the
found that inhalation of P S
”P
k,-" g '
cigarette smoke !nd asbestos
Selikoff «1. (1968) «
increase in lung cancer over nonslw! resulted in an eightfold
as these, however P °!- t0 <ml 5' asbes tos. Studies such
have limits?™, h
effects and the relevance to 1 '° <US<:0ver
low levet'S^sutls inic™.!!?""''
t le f
ini™/:: «*nsi: , Mtf n » t
e acc ° mpiished «*« .!»« ten,
pesticide catb^yl " e rSiS U •«•“* ° f th »

Dpsti r irloc Jinij
c h
i-uxicicy or L , 4— D in trout,
t t /C as well as the
these chemicals^was increased Pentachlorophenol . The acute toxicity
of
*
bf f
additions of 1 mg/liter of carbl ? ™-° f threefold t0 about eightfold for
Thl3 am0unt of ârbaryl is much
than would be present in water higher
accident scenarios
unde* ^“ .
y Clrcu “ s ^nce except worst-case
by °?w Chemical Company on

humans at unspecified doses (USDA
1 of 6
percent lord'™ (pic Jo“«) "aSd
39.6 percent 2,4-D salts, or 10
jTpeicen^VT STp'"
P1Cl ° rM 4 “
percent piclora; “iy/
cu^l Tl7S SffeCtS
effects^relati
reUtlve T"" 1 ” 8 lb * iss “ d ° f
the Forest Service noxious
•T-nd.tic and
weed spray programs?
126
!J
r
£ a diti ve
^
impact of Forest Service spraying on
top of general effects
2 “£S 2 Jf
dlSCUSSl0n in Sectl °" 2-6).
would ôtê âsuraMe!' Typically, the increase
The dose to maximum- exposed residents

r
£ r:: n^:' izjjruT^zî
»ost commonly used in Region 1
£
f
assumed that the greatest
atu££s -
have'not been
r »" -km.* oorti™ nf
h,!rl,1<:ideS
1 “ “•!*•* by the natural Resources

Be£ens°e CoinJl'tS ^ 16 ' 7 ° £ £t “ ltS a "d
any food ZpU (Sc’iSSi).''"
found no 2,4-B in
“)C found °'ber Pesticides in some foodstuffs,

th ' K
the interactive
be suspe ' ted t0 be »Mll for
1
the doL" maximum-exposed resident^ Since
eM ti0n ° £
«t, of ™ :r
th^resultôf^c hemic
‘ he " ical di
r T s b °'b 'be prob^b
reS ?° aSe3
"*"
ty a"d
«. ” “ «*•*-
„ •
61111 abreactions)'
ai reac tions; ll'
the dose of a specific herbicide* in
environment .
or in the individual is an important
factor in considering
1983) pointed out that there are many
chemicals in the 1food people eat naturally
ra ? which are teratogenic mutagenic
1U ° g
man ad pesticides
man-made ^
C and which a *e consumed
residents that result frn m t-h

.
ThorDfnrn «-u_
’
i
he low
at doses 10,000 times higher
s ôrt-lived doses to
.
ul 5‘ lBr cnan
a
than
maximum-exposed
»
*
...
the spra y in 8 of these herbicides
weeds ^r! to control noxious
iE:?Er^ For
6ub " is on
evidence of potentiation involving
.^•sirsThfr r C °°Slderab1 ' data »” d £°>*" d -
pesticHes!
iS r °U
^P« or^1h«s partic;Uri
an
ti
ySiS
: \
i8he!t d ° SeS * M « p «' pd ° f »<**
U1 I£ ° ne
SI* JV th
tnere.se. “a
involve workers spraying 2 4-D/dlrf£
1 S*
*
mL3 l
60 ei8ht
significant
‘f
tUreSy 0ne of the m0re
impacts might£ 7^’
t<mf ° ld
mixtures used in Region

° A g^n !
* Again the ma J or concern would be the potential
«
fetotoxic effect n !
%!" P 5 egnant female applicators. Depending on site-specific
*?
Plans and need, “ “

site-specific
Section 2.6.2.
»’
f
could require “T
y r6qui e additiona l consideration in the
^management constraints as discussed in
127
3. ACCIDENT SCENARIOS
3.1 Background
0£ occurrence , an, the

exposure of human populations
section. are discussed in this
sources provide theôtenti^for

worst ôssibl^
1112 ^ int0 P ° table water
accidents can result in direct 16 exposures t0 humans. Such
or indi T&C exposure to the
exposure results primarily .
herbicide*. Direct
from spra 7
^
'
immersion into the liquid. llqUld de P° slt ion on the skin or from
Indireer posure results from
contaminated water supplies or the consumption of
food.
P a r Pe 0 ”." any variabUs such ns the spill

ûri" (truck, airJraft or“back ”k?
sire, and density of huian
and animai 'pop^lat ioY'VYT' “ Y"' •
* tre “
scenarios, worst-case assumptions
were used on all crit^p"^^ ‘
result in indirect human

exposure through consumpt ion'of
contaminated driving
In order to bracket
the impact of a SDill
PlU of
nf Vic-v
the possible impact on two HJffo herbicide
*r.
into a water reservoir,
I
assumed a spilTinEo a
»ater for the to„n of Butt!,
:
assumed in a small reservoir which u

about 500 residents of
1
,
” aa Castigated. The first
L
35 ,000,
«
f drl
Y.“*
A second spill was
**
^ .
load over workers at an application

iTs iir^T^r im ui ° P er
° °* a ° •*«»?* •*»
was assumed to jettison its
b bicide.uld result
r t
site
uTlSS*^
TV
^
a er 1S ° e ° f V ri ° US OCher typea
^c ld!^s" L! "!! °f vehicle and personal
N 0ff !
heSe ° ther accident types would involve as
ab!"
hU “n e* P ° 8Ure and dosage as the
great a
worst-case scenarios outlined
3.2 Truck Spills
3 r ^ 3 Probability of Occurrence
re
“„r;:nu.^: £::* °n °f a “c»“
reports from Forest Service KegionYL! t^ Y
128
These records indicate that
there were no accidents
Service vehicles transporting involving Region 1 Forest
any type of pesticide
noxious weed control programs. including herbicides for
z I'tTuiitir
Transportation (DOT) accident statistic* f
commonly used in noxious weed
i hlch *
v
based on Department of
trUCks the yP e
^
jects » as^n^s^t
* fc
projects
P as °PPOsed to large
tandem trucks. tractor-trailer or
'
lcs esti " ate

'ccuL”“ii;
mles traveled (353,978 million miles/162
Of a single-unit truck oo'i acc Hentsf ‘'"L
accident can be calculated?
5
^ ^
"
probablllt y
.
Pa ' aCCldent " °- 000000 457 ° r 4 6 '7

‘'kiwiS” per"i?r ' * 'O
Where V* - the mean probability

of a single-unit truck
^
accident per mile.
C
probability of°a Itn^-unitT"k
“C C ° r ° ad '*>'•
take road type into account. be ad '“ sted to

The following babulatlon
tabuTr
traveled, number of accidents gives total miles
accident) for single-unit truck
*nd III 1 a
'a
?
^^ re 1 uenc
y (miles traveled per
The probability ofL baaad "»»“ '« 8 ' d «f.
acciLnt oc uJrinr. 8 P6r mile 1S the averse of
accident frequency. the
Accident
frequency
Single-unit truck
(miles Probability
Total miles Number of
Road tvoe traveled of
(million) accidents oer accidonf-> accident/mi 1 o
Urban interstate
23,059 13,449 7
1,714,551 5.8 x 10~
Rural interstate
28,758 958 -8
30,018,789 3.3 x 10
Other urban roads
146,195 92,430 7
1.581,683 6.3 x 10~
Other rural roads
155,966 55,163 7
2,827,366 3.5 x 10
It is estimated that
si ngle-unit trucks used
all road types in these on noxious weed projects
proportions: traveled
Other urban roads - 10

percent.
Other rural roads - 90
percent.
By applying the accident
Drobabi 1 i t-; eo j ..
proportions traveled during Se ated t0 the

noxious „ ee d proêctsân^d •
”f
occurrence for single-unit °f
truck accident cin
beûl^r'sCl™^
129
p ?
- (0 * 10 + (0.90 x 3.5 x 10 7
a )
) = 0.000000378
j.o x
*J° per mile
Where =
^ ôccuring^per
el Se
X-laXXrtlclde'^Le” !^!.J r *> the
note, earlier!
reported to authorities T-eoî o r T
7“
tar ilhlt'h
include all accidents
res " ltins in herbicide " iea - “* *

P = P x A x P
a t t
Where P
a - ^^llity^f an accident occurring per mile
traveled
= Pr i0n ° f aCCidentS by accident

Afc
type (0.68, 0.21, and
o!lO)
Pt " by accident type thac

*>*«
f0r S “ ldentS
X«!X ’
:
tbat lnv ° lve Wirt -other vehicle, thie
* * (3.8 x 10 ) x (0.68) x (0.2) - 5.2 x 10 - ®
Improbability of pesticide release for all accident

type, is sramarixed
Accident type
Probability of release
Collision with vehicle 8
p = 5.2 x 10"
Collision with fixed object 8
P = 4.8 x 10~
Noncollision accident 8
P = 3.8 x 10~
TOTAL
p = 1.4 x 10
130
cypes
Assuming that a vehicle

carrying herbicide „
during the course of a
proiect for Pa Jt,
probability that a traffic âcc
i
^8 a
000 ,P ro ?
avera & e of 40 miles
jects in a year, the annual
»
7
would be 1.4. x IQ' accLLt
ident would
mile x 40 mile^r
“
herbicide is spilled
or 5.6 x 10~ 3 accidents/
year
1,000 years might be expected to
This on tZ *
result in a^pgj’oj
1,000 P ro i ec ts/year
^herbL'ides!
1 ' 611 ' 8
^
to 8 pounds active
ingredient) to^p^ b^kpack spjjay^
8 qUantitieS (4
1,140 liters or 300 gaU „

“*S Jill”™? " '!
1 * £° ^
rights-of-way. Assuming these y inv ° lved in graying road
tru^s
and for 30 of these miles
miles empty and returning to
they are loadedîth
reload! a
hp
6 8
th berbicide ?
(° r conversely 10 W°
mileS P6r pr °j ect
probability of an ,c.Z “."{S';

trucks would be 4.2 x 10~ 4 §
" )°° »«!•«• P«
Sp 11 of herbicide
the
from these larger
fin m ii / •
§
10^ accidents /mile)? This 10 ° ^cts/yeav x 1.4 x
years.
is q \
v lent t0 ab out one accident
every 2,400
3^._2.2 Worst-Case Truck Spill
the pr ° babiiit a major sP in G f

y
denied. It is, of
frequency of such an occurrence.
In
d 1^’e * act * ature
orderÂ
3 boundar
^
Pr ° babilit y cannot be
effect, or >
accidents involving pesticides,

was performed.
an analysis f
If the risk to human h ^ It WOrst_cas e
nAA
y on the impact of
^type of accident
then it is reasonable J for "“ h »"
expect^St til health
III effects from
incidents should be less. less catastrophic
S
caîSrnuruye^âi g Sâr^1e«-yT 1Ve ,ta "*"• °£ * **
kilograms (22 pounds) of
UtiTii^ 1117
: 1111:11
t
v ump
:
iarse *»«* °£ »«!««.
one in which a spill will reserv01r is assumed to be
number of people
result in th
The hivh^
thAA
h ghest
dose 0ver time to the greatest
^
ocj u r for ue ion8est -«*»< <•*
vomd nose :;r ««
A*, volumeSan
1 ,
d a long hydraulic
residence time (i.e. low flow th
however, tend to be mutually ervoi r ) • These characteristics,
necessarily have higher
thÂ^™
exclusive sinceT
will
wate^sources "for'c it ieân^town^^^tb'

Lands were reviewed.
1
* —
3 on 3U above -ground
.
the vicinit y of Region
drinking
1 National Forest
^^
T e
a Isum errL^L idr?p\n l3 ntêd a f
;arg e
f rther
"A 815 * 7116 ^st analysis
People. The second scenario °f
asLmeTa Fin into a smaller reservoir
serving
131
n,mbers o£
™m °" .
«•« «*...< t0
dilution. 8 “""id provide substantial
I„ the second in -
‘ l " PaCt ° f hi S ber d ° sa S a to smaller

populations was analyzed.
ba spill scenario it is assumed

. 5 chat 1 140 tirere Iron „ .. .
Montana (population 35 MO? I t,

drinkin S wat for the City of Butte,
1S tyPlCal of man mid-sized
«
towns in the West and all il r ~ **1* ? and larger
its drinking ' is
Butte is supplied by water
second smaller reservoir.
l£r ^ aV^rÎoS.T
from the Big Ho e Riv'; and
'
d to 1a J™,
°
that
C e 'k '
f
les8er degree by
*
a
Sweve'r! the ?r ble ” 8 devel °P‘

the contaminated reservoir.
^l^rieloi^lSL^hirthr cit^Tld^ ?
y would continue to pump from
S r a 8 hat herbicid ® is filled directly

reservoir and that the herh^ -!i into the
^
.
8 1 16 17 Sh ° rt Peri ° d
for uptake at the water supply
degradation, hydrolysis or cLwai
intake
-J
also
is al “° assumed that D0 biological
S ^ V®
‘b e trati °’ i6 r UCed ^ '^duStic^' 4
“ntr t
-
by the dif ferentia êquation

dl ^ Utl0 ° ^ ° laa ° influe,lt " atcr «" be simulated
1. dH = - (JH
dt V
where: H mass of herbicide in the reservoir

(milligrams)
Q = low summer flow to reservoir (liters/day)
V = volume of the reservoir
t = time (days)
The solution for the equation

(1) is:
2. H = A exp^pj
where A = H at initial conditions

(t = 0)
°n 1St0rical data Provided by Butte

JU Water Company officials and the IT
g
l t S "Oi ls ssumed to be a t a summer low volume
<?
10 lit ets (200'a 10 6 tr f / of 760 ;
Ua n 2 U a " bC Sh °“° that from a "

Initial concentration of 0.013
2/liter
j“* ;i° concentration
the ;
would fall to 0.005 mg/liter in 100 days
!?{«
dilution were the only method of removal a„_- ^ if
132
other sources 13 50 PerCent

( typical ly^ri^dilutedô with water from
th^^n
:r*rjikr£ rr v¥F°“ -- ~ that
^ \ "V”
acceptable daily intake
-se q nent days „ould

(ADI)"f“r all herbij d
/k8
^ dose is belo » the
is r«?
-
glyphosate, and amitrole on Picloram, 2,4-D,
dosage it was assumed
cancer rate a ô
, be calculated. L ^^te
,
that the concS
outlined above for 270 days L 1
T ° ca
WOu1< fal1 with dilution
as
at which i o k ?
h Spring time run
— • ,
^
t-
completely flush the reservoir ” °ff would

of the
effectively ending
reservoir would fall to
expoÎ!^ *
^ thus
concen tration in the
0.001 mg/ L by day 270 1
•* the water over the

mass of herbicide 3 eXposure event.
contained in the reservoir The
on
be summed by integrating
equation 2 between t = 0
and°t 1%^°^ d ^ s ca »
t = 270 = 270
t
TH = A exp
(T)
x 1
" (?)
t = o
-Q.
t = 0
"i:i
h
i0 « £:
l
z °“i
s
i
de —
mM
<™> d the
calculated as 0.0047 mg/I.
dose to the average
( 9 . 7 * lo^/l'o'
irerage individual
individual (70
50 percent dilution of
<"70
§
ke ind’ ?J 1ii*
»
6 X 10
iU L)
0
"
The ave
Tbe average
rage
/s (ass “«i”?
•
* T*
contaminated »,“r)”ouU 2 ?^ "?*
mg/L x 2L x 0.5 x 1/70 kg). briS^'ln
’ would be 6.7 x 10 mg/kg (0.0047
As discussed in Section
2 7 .
caU^f^^Lâ'cL'a”8 "
a resu
aault of this exposurecan
be * PerS!> " a
Pc = q* x D x D e /L
where: r C eStimate ° f the robab

of t^ dose
P îty of cancer as a result
° f th
carcin °Senic potency slope
(5 OsTlVîPe 5 ,
/
(mg/kg/day) for 2,4-D;
5 T iJ-4 (m /kg/day) for
^^ rL
ll oer
Pe f P^loram;
r /kg/da y
/
amitrole); and
3*4
** X 10 Per ^ mg/kg/day ) for
glyphosate)
D = avera Se daily
dose in mg/kg/day
De = number of days
during which the daily
dose occurs
L = days in a lifetime
(25,550).
133
w
°f CaDCer *“ 3 Ufetine fr ° m
drinkin^contaminatedâte^can'b^calculated^^
For picloram the probability
of cancer f nr -j
individual,
, •
accident scenario,’ 18 given the worst-case

4*u
is tf 0 x 1U I f°r
in a lifetime or four chancpq in in
K,-n- „
-
•u x 10 ) or about one chance
-4=ri.njs
m 100,000. sra
'" il,di id“ al
Iccidêcnarlfls'dl fiS 29 "l? Siven the worst-case
^
-
;
* ”
"period °£ add£t “
Of csn«; cn Hodl.T^
is ,z x
y 10 or about one chance in 10,000.
For glyphosate the probability
of cancer for an individual is
about three chances in 100 billion). 2 4 x lo'
U (or
For the entire tow, of Buite the
CaS * ° f cancer ls 8 - 4 11 >°" ?
chancel's . abo„; one «
5 ££ over
'
o!y
W
££,° is 3.6 x 10
y ar period
e
ir:
ufl'i
r
i
?
;
r
t“
SV"** ”* *f « additional
1
or about one chance in 25.
«*"» the worst-case
case
0 3 m3 ^? r s P-'-H into a smaller reservoir can also

Lvmai^r^^
rîdents
e
in
]?
thno
1
^
86 ^ 63
e
38 ^ S ° le S ° UrCe ° f drinkin
be analyzed
§ water for about 500
g 8OBe 3’ This rese ™>^
capacity of 10 x 10 u£rI ttTx°10
inflow of 3.8 x 10 8 liters (5.0 x
lJ
g
gallons)!
T* f^f has
3 ^ d3Lly
a
t m
irSe BLin Creek Reseôii example
concentration over time
t 0 ”-
1
^ 0ther assumP tion3 Presented above
1S P 03sible t0 calculate the change in
From an
for atrazine
k8 r
gr p h°
n
^ IhTlm
s^*Sw,w.taR.
d"
ld be insignificant in comparison.
The concentrations in rL .
S/LL on dav
d 1) kn total
Th r^ . dail
r-r°i
r day 40 ” ould be °- 00025 (from 0.5
y doses after day 40 could be expected to b P
WL
1 O
less than 0.1 percent of the total
,
daily doses ip to that day
exposure period is used in determining cancer 0-
rates from possible exposure to
Sf, „
picloram, 2,4-D, glyphosate, and amitrole.
,e B Sin example the total »s<s of herbicide over the

?!,iV! , from
calculated r
'
40 days
y ...
the integral:
134
40 40
TH = A exp -£t = A exp

V
t = 0 (l)
J -Q.
v
Th total mass of herbicide (TH)

f integrated over the 40 days would
be 5 ' 2 a
tly concentration would be
0.065 mg/L (5.7 a 10 7
'
^/40 lay!/ 20
- £
- ft
1
? s*
tL^îreôÛttrci^bfLL'nUte^'V'
=an er for an individual given
the^^-c^
“T “ “ *»< to
§
TjYS
1th ntl ^ O^plV ^tî ,
-»~- p^«i«
cancer over the lifetime of
(500 a 1.6 a
f
^^“bo°A £ lllltTll l^V"*
,n
^ ^ ™
7
of
Probability of an additional case of
^
of an add it ionalâseôf dancer'
one chance in 100 thousand.
following t^mls P is /.p x 10 , or about
l^-rasrl'iden: ISÎ Mo" 1 **.' «‘™ «“

casôf cancer resulting
*"
P 5,1 x 10
» îtional
in 100 million. or about five chances
For amitrole the probability

of cancer for an individual .-6
_u
the entire exposed population is 2 2 x 10 *
v
of northern Bozeman, the proDability
additional case of cancer - -* probabUitv of an
ancer is 2.2
2 2 x
-» in
10 v
or about two chances in
,
a thousand.
In comparing the two
hypothetical truck snill* ,* „ v
^
example! ‘^However^becaus^f ewer
“V‘"“Idt
example, the total
3.2.3 Probabil ity of a Worst-Case

popul^^f^r^r^l
Truck Spill
hê^ .
As might be expected, the

probability of a worst-case truck ,nln •
small, the intersection of several
rare events
* ®P *
a! a-iscu s e
1S
Y
ery U
trucks carrying large amounts of in „Section 3.2.
herbicide could h ^
an accident resulting in the
spin of herbicides o^^êry l^yelts]
act 3 W
supply res ervoirn. It S *T
!!„
sappIy system ca
systems an Keginn 1 would each

have
135
upstream of the reservoir. This isan overestimate since many of
C
these
r f 0 0t " r0aded or -i-S-lly loaded
"
nriM”the
^
lin
g 25-Ifl!
. .y r
le estlmate
e. t >
watersheds.
indicates a total of 3,200 miles of road
in the
Vl * inity ° f water 8U PP l ^sterns. There are 37,000 miles of Region 1
Forest^ 7
approximately 9,000 ailes of State and county
roLa on
n C U3e atiVelYt that 311 reservoirs and the roads

ilT™ l\ -° ,™v 6 above reservoirs
thus be inin^he
°- ^ land 7 perCent of National Forest
> of reservoirs. Assuming
the vicinity
’
roads would
that roads near reservoirs are
Region T* LT
1 since many reservoirs
a11 -ada (a conaervativ^ssuÛon in
are isolated and not accessible
a e
S
in the v iînitv of a
a eS) ^pr ° babilit y of a serious truck
bv heavilv
accident on a road
V t S Ply SyStem iS thu9 reduced t0 one accident
34 000 lllr*
34,000
0C e
furtL r mitIg ated.
land ’^7
years (one major accident/2,400
,
years x 0.07). In addition
t0 P6rS0nS SerVed by the water
-“PPly
if the
would
every7
be
3.3 Worst-Case Aircraft Spill
This section presents data on possible

impacts of spills from aircraft involved
tn aerial application of herbicides.
It should be noted that êFo\!st
8 er aer all >' herbicides to control norious weeds in
n/r
Reeion !1 and has no plans
Regron J
to do so in the future. Indeed, in the past less
a
£atLnai rorests
national
>
T ‘T
Forests in western ^n”
aariaU 5
Regions.
r
‘W* « <=°«rol "°aious weeds on all
No accidents have been reported

with the limited aerial spray programs to
control noxious weeds. In order to analyze the risks
from aerialApplication
3ta ° m 3 Re8
-° n 5 Pr0gram Solving extensive aerial application
of herbic-d f COmmerCial tlmber Site pre ar ation will
Phe %
Kr of occurrence and potential impacts
the probabiUty P be used to estimate
St-
conditions than the
?
r ° gram ° ften iDV ° lveS m ° re Severe
noxious weed programs, accident data
C ° DSerV3tively indicate tba
of accidents. Since this
terra in and operating
from this program
Probability and impact of
aircraft
Several additional facts will be helpful

to the reader in interpreting the
possible impa cts of aerial application
programs. The analysis presumes
hellC ° pt " rS (rather than fixed-wing aircraft)
Pmall' size^n because of the
6 5dcont rol Projects.
Tethot is that
method t TTi ?
'
t the helicopter can be trucked

An advantage to this application
to the application site with all
herbicide mixing and loading occurring on
site. Aerial transport is thus
minimized, as is the probability of spills
over non-target areas.
Reference will be made in the following section
to the possibility of a
helicopter jettisoning a load of herbicide.
The Federal Aviation
1 tr 1 r quires that helicopters rigged
for aerial applications have
thA rin aai“J °? ?
T ° jettison a full load of herbicide under emergency conditions.
rp, .
seconds^
300 tlme ^3 typically e q ui PPed fully loaded
helicopter is 3
136
— Probability of Occurrence
and release
spillage oT^gano™^
tree breaking a boom with
^
program indicates tha^six
totaîncidents
no loss o/pest Lide*^!^

£•*““?“
810
”
* he lcopt r fl in
i
incidents
?
“
y S into
1
^ ?
reparation
iêd'S.^^^” ™
jettison of material (250 involved the !V
subsequent crash, and t„o
gallons { and^î
incidents
6 8
bbase acres^wer âerially
^sprayed 0^51 '?' 35 »•"»« <*
Per aerial load, then
^Vin^LV^^^ (
^.‘req^^"
800 ac
VC\
taSSd
1
“kXS
(iTO)
h
t£"
,
d
T
S
l
8
"^ ^ can be
* -th.d “»«!** *
ti»e. If »L> is the number
driven, etc),, the upper
'accident ^for^D tr"”"
(t P8>
‘«
“T “
calculated as follows:
confidence leve wicn
vith a 1 confidence limit is IVceSv"
-x
/x » '),
2a
c8
“r:2Ertfhe;:;i:r„ butio ” f -" d *«
U;n( N?^^j
n .500
X
= 0.05 = 0.01
2 1.39 5.99 9.2
4 3.36
6
9.49 13.3
5.35 12.6
8 7.34 16.8
10
15.5 20.1
9.34 18.3
12 11.3 23.2
14
21.0 26.2
13.3
23.7 29.1
A, = 23 . 7/ (2 x 4 320
" , )
” 2.7 x 10 J
Mue^Xfil 2 ai "”“ of^

hhe mit ZY" 10ad3 -
12.6l and the accident frequency‘"Value
n
,
,
for
is calculated
^
A, = 12 . 6/(2 x 4 320
, )
= 1.5 x 10 J
137
Thus the upper limit on
accident rates indicates that
Of a thousand that any hoUcopCer
spray trip
i-w* •=
would !n,oWe a L^r
c i v
UnU
^
3_.3.2 Worst- Ca3e Aircraft Spill
intended coverage of 4.5 hectares SSUD ing

(11 acres) at 1 lkg/ha kg/h (1 ?b/ r^
lb/ac)
. . .
and formulation errors of > and mixin g

10 percent d L a * .
would be carrying 55 7 kilovrJ^ respectively, the helicopter

( ’ 5 P0 “” dS) ° !f herbi ° lde aCti ”
( 4.5 a 1.1 iX** i!o 4 x 1 . 17.
ingredient
t POS Ia d 5e “ iso ?- 'he helicopter is presumed to be

t^veUne"at° 4 » k-, ^ ^ l t r
workers involved S d
in' mLInJ/loaSing'^.nd “peÎsior« ?ht spraj site “^sedôn
C °° dS
Whr
splIl“I°prIs“d
feet) wide or
f
to co
^0^"
°" d *
ter"'”
^
,!n
eed ° £ 48
BetarS ^ °
<U ' 3
1 13 - 3) aad 6
»ter./s«ond> ,
<
the
2°
Approximateiy 23 73 grams of herbicide

would be deposited pe r square meter of
pill area. Each worker is assumed to have 0 18 tn fa
skin exposed directly to the snin spiU * 1116 worker?*. m , feet c
) ° f uncovered
2 ((, fa , V. is also assumed to have 0 56
WMe-J k w' °
,
f C °1 h1 " 8 “*>•«<• the ’Pin- « Twenty-five percent of the
0
Section 2 f
"derail ^h™ ^-” 8 iS SSSU " ed t0 ctmt a<=t the sUn - As discussed in
percent for’dic^
a S ° rptl0n rate
\ ?
0f 1 P er ««
f ° r Piclor« and amitrole; 10
’ 8 ly P h ° 8 *te, and 2 . 4 -“; and 20 percent for hexazinone and
atraaine
The worst-cjse dose of glyphosate

or 2,4-D would be 10,9 mg/kg " 2
(0.18 m x
1 * Un
b8> * (0 56 " 23 ' 750 * 0.25
1/70 l *?‘
'
6.1 z
2; t
are provided in Table°3 * ?
U
tber terb 4 c l de “ under these worst-case
conditions
^ * ?
dancer probabilities to a worker resulting from a
one ti
2 S-d I
citcuiations
T? / ^
6
°
0 8e dOSeS are 3180 pr0vided i» Table
3.1 for picloram
»«hodology outlined in Section 2.6 is used for
this,
P v ded
'° on Tab l' 5-1 above the H0EL values for chronic exposure
fa l 1?^
for f
all herbicides except picloram. However, because
rl0n and badaU8e tbe effects fr »" 8
this dose would
dose l«el decrease with 1
of £
!ec!.a£ -! e P 0 e P t8 fr °° SU<:b a °° e ~ time »°rst-case
would likll ? b e :n g h "rl“L^n dose
L-3.3 Probabi lity of Worst-Case Aerial Exposure
in eCti0 3 1 ' thG probabib ity of a major

Tb Probability
K ,- l spill is 1.5 x
that a major spill would directly expose
iorke« K 6 Cal? lated except to sa 7 that it is much
probabilir
P b 1 of
7 ° f a ac< ldent * ^ smaller than the
The greatest possibility of exposure
to people
m,^ CU l r
;; evacuate
typically ;
“ Cinit y ° f the loading zone during take
^
this area during helicopter take-off and
off.
All personnel
the helicopter
r
tlies from the area quickly,
138
Table 3.1 -Worst-case doses and
cancer probabilities from dermal
from an aerial spill. exposure
Dose
-LiSSZjiS 2 Cancpr m-nhnhi 1 i
Picloram 1.09 ^
2.4 x 10
2,4-D 10.9 6
2.1 x 10~
Glyphosate 10.9 ^
1.4 x 10
Dicamba 10.9
Amitrole 1.09 5
3.2 x 10"
Atrazine 21.7 ______
Hexazinone 21.7 —
° d PPi-icacion rate and
‘
7
of entire load directly jettison
J
onto bystander.
3.4 Other Acc ident Exposure Scenarios
In'all'cases^ ** diSGUSSed bel °w.

m ° re S6Vere than thos * discussed
TllT*
under the worst-c«e acc' id^nt'
scenario".
«i«: a
Worker exposure could result in
the event of the. ..in r . .
carrying 3 gallons of mixed herbicide baCkpa k a PPlication

Direct exoL^ °l ^ T
W ° Tk
the backpack would likewise be carr y in S
aerial spill.
no 8 n”
greater than that presumed
a m ?
the worst-case
The spill of 120 gallons

of mixed herbicide from an Into a3 drinking
water reservoir would result in in aircraft into a v •
“ c ° ncenttatl °" s than

that detailed it the
vorst-case tnict”! 11 th
of herbicide active ingredient. "°Uld be Carr ’,in* a *"“Her quantity
139
references
983 * DleCary carcinogens and

I256-I264! anticarcinogens . Science 221 :
,all 8 eC1:er a ” d conf idantial a

MoniiJ'^; 24! 1985^ »'loaures submitted to E.
erDicdes. Lb' T?-

Arch.
lmr BUra '' i ° lat >"4 volatility loss of
Environ. Contain. Toxicol. (2): 275-288.
Baur, J. R., R. w. Bovey,

and M. G. Merkle 1Q7?
m
runoff water. Weed Science.
20(4) 309-313
0 ° ° f PlCl ° ran
.
Bouchard, D.C., T. L. Lavy, and

E. R. Lawson 198S5 * “
Mr.K
of hexazinone in a forest b lty and Persistent
lcsl watersned.
watershed J *Fn
J.
^
Environ. Quality. 14:
^ 229-233.
Bovey, R. W. E.
Burnett, C. Richardson, M. G.
W. G. Knisel. 1974.
water in thee niacKiands
Blacklands of Texas. J.t ’it*
Merkle J ’ R * Baur anda
Occurrence of 2 4 V-T 3 ° d picloram
7
in surface runofi •
1 •
*
Environ. Quality 3: 61-64.

Bovey, R. W. E. Burnett, C. Richardson,
,
M. G Merkle » J
nerKie R *
W Q Knicoi ioic ^ 9 J . K. Baur,
ail anda
57 T 578
xn ttssnes of sheep and
cattle. J. Agricnl. F«d 23:
Cr0U h C i
Ca :bHdg;. i;s“2;ett s:
0tt - m2 ‘ RiSk/b ™efit Ballinger.
Crouch, E. A. C., R. Wilson,

Water Resources Res. 19:
and L Zeise
1359 - 1375 .
1988
1983 * ^
rv • ,
riSk ° f drinkin 8 water.
i . , .
Davis, E* A* and P # A. InjjGbo 1 Q7 ^ p • -

vatershed. * Cbaparral
Water Resources. 9
:'
13oUu“
D °“ l D Kba
i' f:’ -,
gy. 2nd Ed., i
- 0- Wor.
^ sen and M 1980. Casarett and Doull's
MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc.
Mew York. 778 p.
Dov "ndated. Toxicology profile of Tordon herbicides.
»o. 137 1640-1183. Publication
Agricul. Products Dept., Midland,
Michigan.
P R an d* Street*. 1982. Applicator exposure
n , \
n:i r amba ^
isomer. J. Environ. Science Health.
to 2 , 4 -D, Dicamba
B17(4): 321-339.
EdWa G B Tri P lett*Jr -. and R* M. Kramer. 1980. A watershed
s^H
tudy :
of glyphosate
»
transport in runoff. J. Environ.

Qual . 9 (41:661-665.
Fa" 8 •• C "• T - C - Y “-
: ft"*'- 1564. Metabolise, of 3-a„ino-l 2 4 -
r ;i
tnazole-5-c by rats. ,
J. Agric. Food Chem. 12: 219-223.
140
on tbe metabolism
J. Agric. Food Chem! lit
2M-2M?
U ^ PU “ " etab » lit i" tats.«
Feld a H i aCh: 1974 Pe "'‘ ta '"=°“s penetration
pesticides ”L ieJbio
pes;i;id; s and herbicides
d
-
, of some
in man. Toxicol, and Appl. Pharm. 28:
126-132.
FlSh L E J GU n
1965?* ?;U ;f Lnv;i
cow. J. Dairy Sci. 48:
^Îo; y nh
1711-1715!
To3 ’
’
^^ t'
.*“? °* J * Liak ‘
’
’
Trlfluoralin n the dairy J-
A Takata
pi-tt. £; ReSrSh!
iggP
l
0
’
v
'
,
Painter »
P ’ p ainter, S.
of -
or —-
Quinlivan, R. Scofield and
‘“HJr, ™ £--f-sr-s^.-^.-srs,.
Hoerger , F # and E. F. Kenasta
a§a 1Q7? p • •
* lytl. Pesticide
.
residues on Dlant-9-
rv * 1
k££Lv\^
Howe, R. B. and K. S. Crump.
1982 Global «?. a
C ° mputer
extrapolate quantal animal toxicitv P ro S”m to
arCin ° Sen Standard3p 0SRA
data ^ i
* D. S. Department ofTabo"! Contact

4lUSC252C 3 ^
l! FUbbknni’R'I'HaltÂ.'l.ênit^’ 0“«ni, L ' Patr

”1*969
^b^
B
’
es nd
r^^L!^r-«“ J :
C ff<!r ' 196 °' Anti ' th yroid effects of
Science *132^ 296-297! aminotriazole.
Khan, U. and J, C
S. Young 1Q77 u # • «_
herbicide glyphosate. 1. Agri^.

ES'S^ *££*“!“ S° U f "" ,h '
^ haI1
97 aa UeS atra2i " e <2 - chl °to-4-
et by lamino-6-isop ropy 1 ^)
amino- tria^ d°^
tisanea. J . Agric.'ôd 24 (4h 768-7n!
metab ° liteS in Chict "
Khanna and S. C, Fan?
S. iqa£ u 14
” ° £r
, i
J. Agric. Pood Chem. C - labeIed i- ret..

I4: 1oo: 5 03
Khe
";£» tl« in
^'^^-o-p-dioains: prenatal
S ®«i«*y
f a5 120:
Chemical
i
chlorodL^nsf-o^n annate T'n
Society, Washington, D.C.
** H J*
(ed,) ’ ’ 1
KOba
i972^ ciionic™-^
Food Chem. 17: 283-287.
STSô'T-
rophenol
*
T'."'*
'"'’*'
1
in mice.
«"> *• Kawaguchi.
J. of Agric. and
Kntschinski A E. and V Riley. 1969. Residues in various tissues of

3,5,6 " triChl ° rOPiCOliniC aCid * steers
283-L J* *°°d Chem. (2): U
lavy T
of ; PP ;ica;or;
l
SY; 198 ?- Exposure
“ id
— •»—
Forest . J. AgricC ££*£ 1
gESS?““*
) tha
UV7 l
j' *• Walsta,i > *• ». Flynn, and J. 0. (lattice.
fI';. 1982
^Plication
ServiCe Co “Pletion Report for Project

PNW-82-202 , dated September
1984.
Levin, A., H. I. Maibach, and
R. C Westpr Iqra n
B
“. D - W - Schultz, T. Shiaoyama, and L. V. Snyder.
1 es m water. Pesticides Monitoring J. 2: 123-128.
1968.
feUg -
ChemiCal “F'inosana: How dangerous are low doses!
SciLe M“‘ 3 7Î!'
a °d R ‘ shewch "k
^depi.YpaitlrnY’ ••
:
.15”. Spray drift and swath
r0In a S rlcu l tura l pesticide application: Report of the
1976 field t •
Saskatoon^ SaskatSaT
i
P ‘ 77 ‘ 1 ' -
Sa - k ‘ tCh a " Eaaaa » Council. ~
mf'Y'”’
0 ”’
Dls81 F atl °n
R - w - Bovcy ’ E - Bu "
ett - M - G - Markia .
of prclora. in storm runoff. J.
Qual.' 13 0) : ll-ti. Environ.
*9 9 ’ Toxicolo S7 of picloram and safety

'êialuation'of'Tordon’h^’h^d’
evaluation of Tordon herbicides. e
Down to Earth 25 (2): 5-10.
*
MlrV •’ 19?5 F ° raation of N-nitroso ‘

compounds: chemistry, kinetics
ind’in’ vivo occurrence.
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology/
31: 325-351.
Monsanto Company. R
1982. Roundup Herbicide Bulletin.
Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri. No. 3 * July
142
Monsanto Company 1984. Roundup
8
.
herbicide Information sheet-
n-mtrosoglyphosate. St. Louis, Missouri.
Pesticide Residues andLposure

182.
,
?
ei
^ Jîorophenoxyacetic
v
acid, in
Sy"P ° SlUm Serie8
nd s - *•
American Chem. Son., Washington,

b.C.^! ni-nz!
Batl A e SC CC " Council
W«er and SeaUh Vol l - 1977 • Drinking
°f he SaEe DrinUn S Water Committee,
Washington, D. c! 939 pi
Series Mo. 23, Rational Cancer

‘
s ;;v«j s -- carci ”°-
iSLILTfêîhêth:^,^^^'
iel r for possiMe
»«3SKSMBK^
National Research Council of Canada.
1974 Pi c i ftT- n „. rv £c
1 ”' 1 ' 1 ' E° r

Qualit;, Ottawa ,
Ont™"".^!
Natural Rasourcas D 6 fense Council.
Counrii ioq/. d * • .
1984. Pesticides in Food.
, .
San Francisco,
California.
Neary, D. G. ,
P. Bush, J. E. Douglass, and R.
B.
L. Todd
movement in an Appalachian hardwood
14: 585-592.
forest watershed
watersnea.
1985
j. In
p ; r1
Environ. Qual.•
^
Neary D. G., P. B. Bush, and
J. E. Douglass i qai rr
°“-
n •_
slte »»v 4 ment of
hexazinone and atom flow ind base
Science. 31: 543-551.
fl» fro!m ores ^ watersheds. Weed ^
R - DanhaU8 ' C - M
mr'-paV;/:;’’'?’ - •»>
l ” ““ 0regOn E ° rest
Agr. and Food chem. 32: 1144-1151. ^system. J.
R ° ba
phannacokinet ics^f piclora*m
9
’ R“ U> d J ’ Sa “" d « 8 19S4 -
Pharmacology. 76: 264-269.
^ 6 V ° ?"unteers *
-
Toxicology and Applied
herbicides
80:
foiest lands
R6 B
R e sf hprog
C
Report?
at
West
By
Soc
PB
Weed scif
e t6r ^ °n
Brush’control iithêrbicides^n
51
*
“d W ’- D * M ° Sher * 1982 •
Jour. Range Mgmt
3 hÛ^'
1 pasture site in southern Oregon.
. 35 (l) 75-30 :
143
Oehier D D and G. W. Ivie. 1980. Metabolic fate of the herbicide dicamba
in a lactatmg cow. J. Agric. Food Chem. 28: 685-689.
Peterson, R. V. 1983. Letter to Rene Mangin November

16, 1983.
Redemann C T. 1963. The metabolism of 4-amino-3
,5 ,6-trichloropicolinic
Seal llX Cîfornia

reP ° rt GS ' 609 ’ 1116 D °“ ChMi 1 “
ROb7 U
;i?h !!“:
21 • 1984 ‘ D °” Ch -“
i 1 - Pe ' s ° Ml connnuIl ication
19?8 8fet 0t EouI1<iu P R in the aquatic

^ÊHRS^th'e
EWRS 5th Symp. '
i - environment. Proc.
on Aquatic Weeds. 5: 315-322.
Sanborn, JR., B. M. Francis, and R. L. Metcalf.

Pe ide iD 80il: A "
1977. The degradation
S d of "
EPA 600/9-77-022.
9 7 r L %Environmental
-
Vie” ° f the PubU 8 r” he?m:
Protection Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Saunders, S. 1985. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Communication with E. Monnig. July 22. Personal
SChn KaplaD ‘ 1983 ‘ DuPont » Haskell Laboratory

Report Toxicological
Toxicol Information on Hexazinone. October
12, 1983.
Schwab, G. 0 E 0. McLean, A. C. Waldron, R. K. White, and D. W. Michener.
Soc.\ g ?:llZ 16:^1 104-1107?

ter tr ° m 3 b “
v3r te * tUred 8 ° ' Ir8 " 8 U
Selikoff, I. J E. C. Hammond, and J. Churg.
1986. Asbestos exposure
smoking, and neoplasia. J. Am. Med. Assoc.
204: 106-112.
Spencer, H. 1985. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Personal
Communication with Edward Monnig, May 3.
Statham, C. N and J. J. Lech.
Pharmacoll sIJ'S-S"
^ 1975a. Potentiation of the acute toxicity
herMcideS iD tr0Ut ^
c-baryl. Toxicol. Appl.
Statham C
and J. J. Lech.
N. 1975b. Synergism of the acute toxic effects
trou^bv
trout by carbaryl
ca h .
; ^
Toxicol. T
er d eldrin rotenone, and pentachlorophenol
Appl. Pharmacol. 33: 188.
>
in rainbow
° f ântif ication in energy risk

^Rowe
Rowe and Jmd’
management.
Goudmen (ed.) Academic Press, London.
Thompson, D. G. G. R. Stephenson, and M. K. Sears.

,
1983. Persistence
distribution and dislodgability of 2,4-D following
application to turf
PaPer PreSented at Nationa l Weed Society Meeting;
St. Louis,
Missouri
Trichell D, W. H. L. Morton, and M. G. Merkle.

, ,
1968. Loss of herbicides in
runoff water. Weed Sci. 16: 447-449.
144
TSU
ta^„Vrn ^
861-864.
1
triazole ’
U
,4 '
"• Tate," ats ”- >5'6.
and rat thyroid.
Tumorigenic affect of
J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 57:
"
U. S.
‘irisriE sav-sr*
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Register 46 (250)
1981
Decembe^ 3o! I98lt
•
^ tolerance -
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.

1982a P R oo
policy on tank mix compatibility 7
o, •
,
Chan S ed
January 12, 1982. Washington,
EPA Office'nf'p
f Pe8ticide Programs. ^
D^C.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1982 h Toi Q
T ° lerance and exemptions;
2,4-D. Federal Register
egibter 47 Klin. m ‘
w!
(227) x
November 24, 1982. p. 53060.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1983. Tn io
dicamba. Federal Register 48 (52) 10 "’'
. March 16, 19«“ p im"^
U. S. Environmental Protection Agencv 19R3h •
exemptions. Federal Register 1

48 (160). iugust'
““mA?”
^^“strl^” naaf^
42856-42905.
’ f 1 rUle * T/'
Federal
^ "*<“»-«.
Register 49 (207):
for
S r n I984b ' Pr °P‘’ sa <1 8“Welines

mnS«icitrrisk asse«° re<>“ est
for
(227): 46314-46321.
’ f° r e°™ents. Federal Register 49
”•
^
u.
ôf^theêsticide^productsôntaining^carb* r
S.
RPA Office of Pesticide
Environmental Protection Agencv

Margaret Schneider, Office
1983.
lrogr^,! SLMngto n!
-^
w
^
m ° 3 ° d enclosures from
of Federal USEPA to Cha rles Sherman,
Cannabis Investigation
°n, Drug
Dru Enforcement
S Enforce r & Administration. October 1985. 3,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agencv
Schatzow Director of the
,
Director of the Off?

1985b
L L
m* „
S
a
Office of p r- C1-a Pro rams
enc l°sures from Steven
to Allan Hirsh,
f
T
u evailable fro,
of
L tl^Tk^
,
'' S
M «~ « “ «“»>••
MeI"1ZT
USEPA.
t
Washington
ô
r eC
°rio
D C
“dV6 Ut?-
j'’
Th’
HE ° C°
18
T
L " R ° SS1
!
' Pegtstration Division.
*«-
Freedom of Infâh^ Vôe^”^ trough a
145
U. S. Environmental Protection Aeencv iqocj t, ,
6
glyphosate. Federal Register
50(210). Oôber 3^ ?98?^ ”p C 4?lf 1-45123
V 1 n
"1“n"o«r;„d Rfi ;h oH Co!r,,L
f
«*“« ch M ic a ls.
Yates, W. E. N. B. Akesson, and D. E.
,
Bayer. 1978 Drift of glyphosate
3PPlied WUh 3erial and gr ° und
597-604 equipment! Weed Science 26 (6):
A-l
APPENDIX A
vj i. yj oa<
Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI).

The maximum dose of a substance
anticipated to be without lifetime that is
risk to hunans when
d“l" S^n
Acetone A colorless, volatile liquid
that is useful as a solvent Tt
•
found in the blood and mine
when fata ate not property
^bohreS.
a " 0Unt °f “ ll« expressed in terns
^“'iluL^^rtwVft^
illness shortly after
1 '7 ”
POte ° tial ° f a substance to cause
injury or
exposure to a relatively large
dose.
Adenoma. An abnormal growth of glandular
tissue.
Adenocarcinomatous. Referring to a nalignant (cancerous)
adenoma.
Adsorption. Adhesion of substances
to the surfaces nf 0rt i -j ,
•
Technically, the attraction of

ions ot
Aoe t
^ “ u ”«
^f::r;ss^t^:„L g :^rp1te™tu!^ra^b::^c1? in l,boratory
-i-
form the building blocks of
proteins.
7 § P * ™ lass ° f COmP° u nds
e.g.. atropine in organophosphotuf
**“*. “ Sed '» evaluate a characteristic of a

chemical.
Bioassayt
BaCt
destroying “S'"'* (baCt " ial •*
S C0QVe ^ the bUe fr °” Ehe liver t0 the

bladder
to the'small intest ine. 8 al >
A-
Bioaccumulation. The process of a plant

or animal selectively taking in
storing a persistent substance. or
Over a period of time, a higher
concentration of the substance is found
in the organism than in the
organism's environment.
=he»ical effects in tests of living

“rhld organisms. Also a
ua “ tll:atl 1 y determining the
Tt^.f/ T 0 " ^ “‘-
l
! concentration of a substance bv
condUi^.
* SUltable 1 - « microorganism under cont'iul
Boom (herbicide spray). A tubular metal device that conducts

an herbicide
tS ° k '° * 8erieS ° f
Senlath TV
beneath a helicopter or a fixed-»ing
"°-les. It may be mounted
aircraft or behind a tractor.
Buffer Strip/Zone, A strip of vegetation
that is left or managed to reduce
the impact that a treatment or
action on one area would have on another
area
Carcinogenic. Capable of producing or inciting cancer.
Carcinoma. A malignant or cancerous tumor.
Certified Applicator. Commercial or

private person qualified to apply
restricted-use pesticides as defined by
the EPA. Certification
a ministered by each State
(Department of Agriculture).
Ch6l rtain or S an i c chemicals i.e.,

aL-d? ^?
acid) that combine
ethylenediaminetetracetic
with metal to form soluble chelates and
conversion to insoluble compounds. prevent
ChemlCal substance int0 simpler

components Slough ^hemicafêactions
,oraatic,n of abro “ s ti6sue withi ° the tue
Chromosome, Hicroscopic structures

vithiu the cell thet are composed of DNA
and the genes (hereditary determiners).
Chronic (effects or toxicity). Having poisonous or deleterious effects from

prolonged exposure or repeated administration
of a chemical.
Conifer. An order of the Gymnaspermae
comprising a wide range of trees,
,
mostly evergreens that bear cones and have
needle-shaped or scalelike
leaves; timber commercially identified as
softwood.
Crossing Over, The breaking and exchanging of parts
of chromosomes between
chromosome pairs during cell division.
A-
Cy t0 ge« t ic. Refers to the structure

or fuuction of chromosomes
.ithin cells.
D
Degradation. See chemical degradation.
t2*^?. D
U -«e! f
““ *«o
shaved belly ofTrabbit; n > u *“ ,ll 3' on the

or human when absorbed
uTp'rop"^^^Tpesticide
pesticide J“ poison
c°
.
an animal
through the skin.
such as foliage^y physical

'contacU
06 ^^^ rem0Ved fr0Q surfaces
molecular basis of
heiedit^n^nôrgLisms!^ ^ the
rodent) is exposed to
with two female animals
2 * est whereby a male animal
^
(usually a
StanCe and later sequentially
mated
status of the fetus" I;
The fp *" 8aCriflced ' a " d number and
r“ordS
Dose. The amount of chemical
administered •
j
d
.
by an organism,
generally at a given point in
time.
Drift. That portion of a sprayed
V y chemical
" n,,h is moved
al that • , .
site. by wind off a target
c
«^ti"in*25i.T«.;f ^:r^. rthi d e':^ b
^ 8r
ith thcir
C C S
liquid in 8
a^Mhert fM*J“û" oil in vater^^rcr^
*
”?^"
The chenucal 1S
3 °f
hydrophilic and partly Partly
lipophilic.
'““.ithin anoÛ^^V^t
emulsifier, a surface active agent which
S
1
*
whirl/ is partly
? •
^
lmportant component is the
“ -*“• WW
lipophilic. hydrophilic and partly
docu
Environment al^rotection^gency^tha^
impacts expected from co™‘d e S
r ,' t t0 be filed “ ith the
l
of"\a j"r FSeL r"ct"n! t0
”"ie ° tal
implementation
A-
E. coli or Escherichia coli. A

common species of bacteria used in areas
biological research, including of
mutagenicity testing.
ESte A mpound foraed b y the reaction of an
»ln p ^
generally
acid and an alcohol
accompanied by the elimination of water. *
Exposure Analysis. The estimation

of the amount of chemical that is in an
organism s environment and available
for uptake into the body.
V I 8
na n^^
parents'
re
i ePr ° dUCti0n StUdieS
:: o ^,.L
generation.
> the ^^tes the first
Fl term lndiCateS the first generation

'
the regeneration. of offspring from
Fate The course of an herbicide in

an ecosystem or biological system
h after
-d ;ho^d: c îsi?[ 0
ludin8 metaboiis
r microbiai- *«*•**&:
Fetotoxic. Capable of producing adverse effects
in a developing fetus.
Fibroblast. Any cell from which connective
tissue is developed.
Formulation. A chemical mixture
that includes a certain percentage of
ingredient (technical chemical) active
with an inert carrier!
Gavage. Feeding by way of a tube inserted
into the stomach.
^"n ^chromosome!*”
* ** ° CCUpie * * Pl«. doc.)
Genotoxic. Harmful to genetic material ( DNA)
“»«}:,
^ izat
U ” C 0nal Sex ceU
t. ion 4 •
for example,
that con>bine8 with the opposite cell for
, sperm, egg.
Global 82 A computer program by Howe and Crump

(1982) used to fit the
multistage or one-hit models to
experimental cancer data.
H
Half-life. The amount of time required for half
of a compound to degrade.
Hazard Analysis . The determination of
whether a particular chemical is or is
not causally linked to particular
harmful effects.
HDT. Highest dose tested.
A-
Hectare (ha). 10,000 square meters, or

approximately 2.47 acres.
cells taken fr °" CanCerous breast

f™Tvo^"„êd Helen”^^"™^
bl °° d “ 1U that *“«•- 1.
Hepatoma. A tumor of the liver.
* PUnt tha ' d ° eS ° 0t <Jevel

"“ground; °P persistent woody tissue above
the
severely interrupt kil ‘ PlS^";e • ° r t0

their'noraal'gr^t^proceises
Heritable. Capable of being passed on
from parents to offspring.
Histology. The study of the
microscopic structure of tissue.
Histopathologic. Referring to tissue changes
characteristic of disease.
Hydrolysis. Decomposition or alteration
altpraii™ of .
chemical substance by water.
a
Hyperplasia. An excessive proliferation

organ. of normal
ai ceils ™
cells in the
th *
tissue of an m
^ L
involve’ tumor foraat ion!
^ °f ° rg3n ° r Structure that does not
ypohatchet. A tool used to inject

herbicide into a tree trunk
or woody stem.
activity of ^he^ct
ivîngredienrÊ^
diatomaceous earth, or ^ d° C0Dtribute to the
^3^
in an artiHc"a"\n; i ronme«
t 1 C
^\ L r^«1„bro1 d t
p%t H dj^ ^ a °d
the organism?
1 *18 ^ 3 that 1S performed within
the living body of
peritoneum^ a me'mb^s ““
Intravenous. Within or into a vein.
A-
Kilogram (kg). One thousand grams; or

approximately 2.2 pounds.
L
Ube P ri m8teri * 1 °" ° r atta ‘>« d *° a
« q ntred b y °E:'.
container as
latency Period. The time between a stimulus

and it. response.
LC50 t C ti0n SC ” hich 50 Percent ° f '»*
wiU ie UUed° 'T- “ SUaUy “ Sed ln the teSti
“st animals
liiLu. ”K ° f « other agnatic
l
V il
in a
' be dosase of “aicant.
8 f a
expressed in milligrams of toxicant
8
L“t°p „p;;: !on?he“n1 i::; oTaUy^
kU1 5 °
per
° £ bba “
LDT. Lowest dose tested.
leaC y S the mOVe " ent ° f

aU 0 ^f“ trfr e ” ent hClbicides °« °f
through soil by water; may
into the air or “ems. or roots
so”r
i i l PPr ° aCh l° fit a "»Ubt

"“lor’otCr m:û5 :o-that"ê“™ ^ line
of the data points from
th “
V tiC81
ttauIT.m'J: ^"i™!
l °" e
l0” eSt d ° Se t6Sted th8t
in Y£l ZlUT'-
Line r a8
be st furf:;t vshses to dr “ a straight iine that
L°S b M de eqUation used t0 describe the relationship

"Ind i£ n i*K-t- between dose
assuming^thathhUMnsôânimals^havt^various ^susceptibilities 6
at very low doses none has nitres, but^that^
out that
a significant risk.
Ljmphocyte. A cell of the lymphatic system,

or a special type of white blood
Lymphoma. A general term for the growth of new

tissue in the lymphatic system.
refere ““ t0 a l««c«iog the presence of cancer and

^^ttending
ending to^ro”
to grow worse and spread within an organism.
—
A-
rati ° b
no-observed-effect level ChOBh,
Metabolism. The chemical

changes in living cells
bv whlrK
for vital processes and
new material is assimilated “ pr0vided
""teddand llZllll £ 2tZT a

\
** ^ ~ lls ^hat provide
components SUbstance int ° s ™Plcr

^“acKrlôr'oSer^cLorgenSs!
Microgram (ug). One millionth of a gram.
Milligram (mg). One thousandth of a gram.
Mitigation Measures Mppnc

the potential adverse
impacts
.
of
•
a^dôs^ction.
«
^ " redUCe
Mitotic. Pertaining to
the process nf ^,-1 a- • •
having the same number o^

chromo^L^L^Hgin^ “
HT*
SCribe “>? relationship
“anftL'prob^biUty’ofcontracting between dose
MPA, assumes that several
f
successive eve«s
IT^To^ToZTlZllt
genetic muttons (chLgef t/taedltary
Material)
!“' y " °f
Mutagenic. Capable of producing

genetic defects in an organism.
8r ° UP ° f C6US 35 3 result of injury,

or other patholodddate. disease,
Heoplastic. Pertaining to new abnormal

tisane formation (neoplasms,.
functional uniJs'of'nervourtissMs?^ 6 ' 11 ” 8 neurons ' the fundamental
M^Cno-obsrrved-effent ^’^hlgbest dose level at whlob no

toric
an
^TrXtme! e r
aid di£f?ît tn°c
„«"u
fied * lw “S bei "8 """--able,
phosphoric acid^suârsândît
rogen'bases?^ t "te ’^dm!
A-
ODT. Only dose tested.
Omphalocele. A congenital hernia of the

navel.
Oncogenic . Capable 0 f producing
or inducing tumors in animals,
(noncancerous) or malignant (cancerous). either benign
8
Oncology. The branch of medicine which

studies tumors.
0De
—
1, Uati0n used to Ascribe the relationship
"and SI*
y
p
v'
;:^“:.
f?
°f ««er. This evasion,
8reatest cancer pr ° babiiit
* »»
between dose
«
S
, oil tine
•* «n
0rSa t
anLat1 reSldues >h
reiidue a with
An CU
a "s
1
high ^
i<>n ° f
deCa:,ed and ”s y«hesi Z ed plant and
capacity for holding water and nutrients.
Ossification. The formation of bone.
Papillary. Resembling or composed of small

protuberances or elevations.
£££“ tnact!
UbSta ” Ce ^^ b ° dy thr0 " Sh r °“ ta ° th «
Particulates. Finely divided solid
or liquid particles in the air or in
emission; includes dust, smoke, an
fumes! mist, spray, and fog!
PatAology . The
7 ° f th * “
tUre and Caase of disease with respect
T*
functional and structural changes. to
6 res ^ stance of a Pesticide to

degradationA metabolism and environmental
PeSt A * defibed
j“''d '-
"
b
?
r IFRA, >»T substance or
mixture of substances
d d f prevcntlI'2, destroying repelling,
! ,
, or mitigating any pest and
° f subata "" 8 tended for use as a
.
regulator, defoliant, or desiccant. plant
Photochemically Reactive. A property

of substances or particles whose
ructures may be changed when solar
energy is absorbed.
Photolysis (photodecomposition). The breakdown of a substance, especially
a
l " t0 Si " PUr '“"P 0 "'"'’ b * thb
sucTas sunUgSu' ««i°» °f radiant energy
A-
Photosynthesis. Formation of carbohydrates in

^ t-h*
t îe tlssues ofr plants
,
to light. exposed
Phytotoxic. Injurious or lethal to plants.
PltU y 1
base o f the"brain and
in
'consistinôf^nânterioând^
01168 th3t iDflUenCe b dy
° gr0Wth
^ 3
-tabo^Sô^Shl-
^ t0 th&
h^Pop'hîsr *
P ° te
combiiing two^rmorftoxicants
1136 6nhanCed tox îty attained by
6 kll in8 P ° wer than
the individual toxicities. the su ® of
Used' primLilv in '
commonly used in insect toxicology. y P J armacology, synergism bein
meaSUrin the concentration

substance^ such^â pes t ic ? of a
idf”
water. For example where Ihl’
® Car
?
“
er edlUm such as food > or
1011 18
substance is 1 millionth the •* PPIn, the weight of the
weieht^f ^J
equal to 1 milli gram of
s^tl^cfpVA
weight, and it is effectivelv Pnlla f ?ff“
Wr^ oTf^^
f food or 0r“"V 1
g a msm body
^^
of water. ^ ,
milligram of substance per liter
Proliferation. The rapid end repented

reproduction of new cells.
Pulmonary. Concerning or involving the
lungs.
Pyrolysis. Chemical breakdown caused
in the process of combustion.
6' vls * tclr to an area tha t has

treated with aêsticide!* recently been
Ren I e The of the kidney where urine

1-n :phro ;,. is forced
Residue. The quantity of a herbicide

°r its metabolites remaining
soil. water, plants, in or on
animals, or surfaces
Resorption. Act of removal by absorption.
Risk Analysis, The description of the

nature and often the magnitude
to organisms including attendant uncertainty. of risk
,
Runoff. That part of precipitation

that appears in surface
,
perennial or intermittent, shortly streams either
after the precipitation
event.
A-10
Safety Factor. A factor

conventionally used to extrapolate s „ ,
for chemical agents from
no-obsarvld-eff sot SSTll
Salmonella. A genua of bacteria used in
mutagenicity testing.
Sediment. Organic matter or soil that
settles to the bottom of a liquid.
usually produces severllâs.rshoot ” lativcl f lo ” Srowth form;

from a tree by its lov stature
and nonarborescent'fo™!
l°SU
îopment. and
SiSt d
:ulturrto asTesnh;' 8enetlC *?*" ““
.L? 1 -Itb laboratory cell
da °age Causcd * ol>*".ioal or physical
influence! *>f
SOlU A" “ PreSBion ° f tha to which compounds dissolve

solill;». i.
S ° 1V
8801 !' a SUbstance forming a
true solution
(liquid ôuIutlrllL^ .
spot
liquid in which a pesticide
o^:ir;i-br^“:r^niaiir
icide e° a
that a ” °f
—— ***—*-
1
*
utaneous. Beneath the skin, or to be

introduced beneath the skin.
-a- :r:r:;.rxs:M—
0 6* A ° berbicide th ^t is moved
^
restricted ^ within the plant. In a more
n e t h6rbi deS that are applied t0 the
move
ve aownwara
downward through the li foliage and
living ^-
tissue to underground parts.
Systemic Toxicity. Effects produced as a result of
^ the distribution of a
SUbStaDCe fr0m the point «>* exposure
within the body!° to a distant site
A-ll
V *" — evaluate the
v fc
t
«« ^*»rrircJi , 4 ia i “» » hi - «»«.
;{2ir"" tt .
malformations in
Temtogeneai,. The irreversibie

development pf
^
81" 1 ' °f produc ln e or inciting
in an embryo! the development
of malformations
Teratology. The study of

malformations in organisms.
Thiourea. A colorless crystal lino
ox yg en - S ™ ° f Urea con taining
sulfur in place of
the traohea
Ldê^'X^ r^^th^^"^^ V
0
Pesticide te°«nes 8
t“st\Jd™di°ld an“l b r
° f the M 8 ni tu'le of
Parts per million 8 lcultur al commodity.

(pp m ). Expressed as
Tonicity. A characteristic
of a substance that mahes
it poisonous.
311 " 8 ” lth the Stud

effects of chraicals/' T of the adverse biological
^.ioîr^^t^: 18 !-
y the normal principles
of biological growth
-hX “ --el
mass and perform, no
' Pe ‘"ient of and
unrestrained
Tumorigenesis . The formation and/or
develpment of , tumor
f a t„ ,
(oncogenesis).
A- 12
,° Ia y he ’" aUt:' ° f eV,P ° taCi "

prIi5u ;e,! 8 *“«1» « formal temperatures and
volatilization. The vaporizing or evaporating

of a chemical substance.
“ ett
t"a t
U*uir:^th*t":ru:er f ajr
3"r
liquid mixture to more uniformly

<' i Ct C °" taCt bet »"“ *
r
“r betueen the tuo substances. «»«
.
Permits
-
unifoml cover a waxy surface
plant. such as a leaf of a
4 fi “‘ J
"““usp'end^n^r .
4 * ^rmulation that can be readily
f k
••
B-l
APPENDIX w
Scientific
0.0000023 * 2.3 x iq~ 6
0.000023 - 2.3 x IO -5
0.00023 * 2.3 x 10~^
0.0023 * 2.3 x 10" 3
°-023 = 2.3 x 10~ 2
0*23 * 2.3 x 10 _1
2 *3 = 2.3 x 10°
23 = 2.3 x 10 1
.
230 = 2.3 x 10 2
I
2,300 = 2.3 x 10 3
' 3 ,000 = 2.3 x 10^

Analysis of Human H 1986 Mon N

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Human H 1986 Mon N

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

-

Montana state library

0F HUMAN HEALTH RISKS OF

1- 2 0 *51603 A3S ° CUted » ith

1.9 Metric Usage, Scientific

TABLE of CONTFWTS, conr .

2.3.1 Small Open-Range/Forest

2.4.3. 2 General Population, Direct

2.4. 5. 3 General Population, Oral

2.8 2.7.7 Picloram Mutagenesis Tests

TABLE INDEX, cont .

Table 2.19 Worst-case dose levels to visitors

TABLE INDEX, cont.

Table 2.36 Summary of acute and chronic toxicity thresholds

Table 2.39 Comparison of the acute dermal toxicity of pesticide

Table 2.40 NOEL/ dose comparisons for workers on small, open-range

Table 2.44 NOEL/dose and ADI/dose comparisons for maximum- exposed

“L°e f 3 Small «°P—^

Table 2.83 Pr °5abil ie9 f° r visitors and residents

Table 2.84 Cancer probabilities for visitors

the probability and

and accWer,ts that «•

C C U d ^ Udatd0n P<,te " tiall

6. Comparison of dose IgvgIs f from c*. Qn />

cannot be assumed for the

Based on a review of noxious

are analyzed. I”'! '5* e “ tlre p ™8ram acreage for Eegion

^Gtcnninstion of rstc or Drohahi i i hw «

Two populations are considered

the application of herbicides P *5 son ° el directly involved in

th \ i ’ indirectly contact'the 'a

The exposure rate and the

‘««ted population are

—7 Carcinogeni c and Mutagenic

nut enic pote,,tui

A variety of data sources

inspected by contacting the

forests in Region 1 or at the

UaT tensl vely b F “tbe

falsified data provided by !” '’"“““"ed because of

in this risk analysis! No IBT data are used

Much of the general environmental

and indu«rj\“bât«ieârf LiapirUr^Ûtorrifftc^^'r 7 0 "'”' 8 ’

in the data used in this * 7 Lnaccurrac ies contained

L.9 Metric Jsage, Scientific Not a tion and Other

Appendix B explains the use of

2.1 description of the forest

Table 2.1~Pesticide application

Nominal application rate

2,4-D 2.2 (2)

Dicamba 1.1 (1)

Glyphosate 1.1 (1)

Picloram 1.1 (1)

2,4-D/ 1.3 (1.2)

In addition to the herbicides

The four worst-case model

defined such that the

risks involved^n any

Although these model promts

risk than a corrLponding

applicatLnrto^pprofimateiro!! hectare 0 herbicide

contain a residence with four Pray area is assumed to

conservative, siLe"!tion!l”!!!s11mi!!, ? loSt! tC a S ” aU P r °jcct is very .

zxzt zz zst •“» - sr-sEr- durins the