DOCSLIB.ORG

57518 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

57518 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION implement certain pollution prevention, (BPT), §§ 455.43 and 455.63 (BCT), and AGENCY recycle and reuse practices. Facilities §§ 455.44 and 455.64 (BAT) are choosing and implementing the established in the National Pollutant 40 CFR Part 455 pollution prevention alternative will Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) receive a discharge allowance. permits. [FRL±5630±9] The final rule will benefit the ADDRESSES: For additional technical RIN 2040±AC21 environment by removing toxic information write to Ms. Shari H. pollutants (pesticide active ingredients Zuskin, Engineering & Analysis Division Pesticide Chemicals Category, and priority pollutants) from water (4303), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW, Formulating, Packaging and discharges that have adverse effects on Washington, D.C. 20460 or send e-mail Repackaging Effluent Limitations human health and aquatic life. EPA has to: [email protected] or call Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, estimated the compliance costs and at (202) 260±7130. For additional and New Source Performance economic impacts expected to result economic information contact Dr. Lynne Standards from the Zero Discharge/Pollution Tudor at the address above or by calling Prevention Alternative (i.e., Zero/P2 AGENCY: Environmental Protection (202) 260±5834. Agency. Alternative). The Agency has determined that the Zero/P2 Alternative The complete record (excluding ACTION: Final rule. will result in a similar removal of toxic confidential business information) for this rulemaking is available for review SUMMARY: This final regulation limits pound equivalents per year at EPA's Water Docket; 401 M Street, the discharge of pollutants into (approximately 7.6 million toxic pound SW, Washington, DC 20460. For access navigable waters of the United States equivalents) as the zero discharge to Docket materials, call (202) 260±3027 and into publicly owned treatment option alone. At the same time, the between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. for an works (POTWs) by existing and new Zero/P2 Alternative is expected to result appointment. The EPA public facilities that formulate, package and in a reduced annualized cost ($29.9 information regulation (40 CFR part 2) repackage pesticide products. This million in 1995), no facility closures provides that a reasonable fee may be regulation covers two subcategories of and 150 moderate impacts. EPA has charged for copying. the Pesticide Chemicals Point Source determined that both Zero Discharge CategoryÐSubcategory C: Pesticide and the Zero/P2 Alternative are The Technical Development Formulating, Packaging and economically achievable. However, Document [EPA±821±R±96±019], Repackaging (PFPR) which includes EPA's addition of the pollution Economic Analysis [EPA±821±R±96± PFPR facilities that also manufacture prevention alternative to achieving zero 017] and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis pesticide active ingredients (PFPR/ discharge provides benefits to the [EPA±821±R±96±018] supporting Manufacturers) and Subcategory E: environment by minimizing the today's final rule may be obtained by Agricultural Refilling Establishments. potential cross-media impacts that writing to the EPA Office of Water EPA estimates that there are would otherwise occur from hauling Resource Center (RC±4100), 401 M approximately 2,600 facilities in the and incinerating the non-reusable Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, or industry. This regulation establishes portion of PFPR wastewaters. The calling (202) 260±7786. effluent limitations guidelines and provision of an alternative compliance FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For standards under the Clean Water Act method also provides flexibility to additional technical information write including ``best conventional pollutant industry in meeting the effluent or call Ms. Zuskin at (202) 260±7130. control technology (BCT), and ``best limitations guidelines and standards. For additional information on the available technology economically DATES: This regulation shall become economic impact analyses contact Dr. achievable (BAT)'' for existing direct effective January 6, 1997. The Lynne G. Tudor at the above address or dischargers, ``new source performance information collection requirements by calling (202) 260±5834. standards (NSPS)'' for new direct contained in this rule are included in EPA is preparing a PFPR Pollution dischargers and ``pretreatment standards two separate Information Collection Prevention Alternative Guidance for existing and new indirect Request (ICR) documents. The NPDES/ Manual and a series of regional dischargers (PSES and PSNS)''. This Compliance Assessment/Certification workshops to aid industry, permit regulation also amends and clarifies the ICR (No. 1427.05) and the National writers and control authorities in limitations based on ``best practicable Pretreatment Program (40 CFR part 403) implementing the final rule. A public control technology (BPT)'' for direct ICR (No. 0002.08). OMB has not yet announcement will be published in discharging facilities. approved these ICRs; therefore, the Federal Register regarding availability Under the final rule refilling information collection requirements of the guidance manual and the dates establishments (Subcategory E) will be contained in this rule are not effective and locations of the regional workshops. required to achieve zero discharge of until OMB has approved them. Once wastewater pollutants. The final OMB has approved the ICRs, EPA will SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: regulation provides Subcategory C publish another notice in the Federal Regulated Entities facilities (herein referred to as ``PFPR Register to announce OMB's approval facilities'') a choice between zero and to amend 40 CFR Part 9 to indicate Entities potentially regulated by this discharge and the ``Pollution Prevention the OMB approval number. The action are: (1) Those which generate Alternative.'' This compliance compliance date for §§ 455.46 and process wastewater from the alternative was developed in response 455.66 (PSES) is as soon as possible, but formulation, packaging and/or to comments on the proposed rule from no later than November 6, 1999. The repackaging of pesticide products the industry and has received a large compliance dates for §§ 455.45 and (excluding those pesticide active amount of industry support in 455.65 (NSPS) and §§ 455.47 and 455.67 ingredients not covered by the rule); or comments on the supplemental notice. (PSNS) are the dates the new sources (2) those which are agricultural refilling This structure provides a compliance commence discharging. Deadlines or establishments. Regulated categories option to facilities who agree to compliance with §§ 455.42 and 455.62 and entities include: Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57519 Category Examples of regulated entities 2. Refilling Establishments (Subcategory E) 2. Removal Credits C. Best Available Technology D. Analytical Methods Industry ........ • Pesticide formulating, pack- Economically Achievable (BAT) Appendix AÐList of Abbreviations, aging and repackaging 1. Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and Acronyms and Other Terms Used In This (PFPR) facilities; Repackaging (Subcategory C) Document • 2. Refilling Establishments (Subcategory E) PFPR facilities that also I. Legal Authority manufacture pesticide ac- D. New Source Performance Standards tive ingredients; (NSPS) This final regulation establishes • Agricultural refilling estab- 1. Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and effluent guidelines and standards of lishments. Repackaging (Subcategory C) performance for the Pesticide 2. Refilling Establishments (Subcategory E) E. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources Formulating, Packaging and This table is not intended to be (PSNS) Repackaging Subcategories of the exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 1. Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and Pesticide Chemicals Point Source for readers regarding entities likely to be Repackaging (Subcategory C) Category under the authorities of regulated by this action. This table lists 2. Refilling Establishments (Subcategory E) sections 301, 304, 306, 307, and 501 of the types of entities that EPA is now F. Best Conventional Pollutant Control the Clean Water Act (``the Act''), 33 aware could potentially be regulated by Technology (BCT) U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, and this action. Other types of entities not 1. Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and 1361. listed in the table could also be Repackaging (Subcategory C) 2. Refilling Establishments (Subcategory E) In accordance with 40 CFR part 23, regulated. To determine whether your V. Economic Considerations this regulation shall be considered facility is regulated by this action, you A. Introduction promulgated for purposes of judicial should carefully examine the B. Review of the Proposed Regulation review at 1 p.m. Eastern time on applicability criteria in § 455.40 and 1. Subcategory C: PFPR and PFPR/ November 20, 1996. Under section § 455.60 of the rule. If you have Manufacturers 509(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of questions regarding the applicability of 2. Subcategory E: Refilling Establishments this regulation can be had only by filing this action to a particular entity, consult C. Changes to the EIA Since Proposal: a petition for review in the United Issuance of the June 1995 Supplemental the person listed in the preceding FOR Notice States Court of Appeals within 120 days FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Recommended publications
  • 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid

    2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid

    2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid IUPAC (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid name 2,4-D Other hedonal names trinoxol Identifiers CAS [94-75-7] number SMILES OC(COC1=CC=C(Cl)C=C1Cl)=O ChemSpider 1441 ID Properties Molecular C H Cl O formula 8 6 2 3 Molar mass 221.04 g mol−1 Appearance white to yellow powder Melting point 140.5 °C (413.5 K) Boiling 160 °C (0.4 mm Hg) point Solubility in 900 mg/L (25 °C) water Related compounds Related 2,4,5-T, Dichlorprop compounds Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is a common systemic herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the third most commonly used in North America.[1] 2,4-D is also an important synthetic auxin, often used in laboratories for plant research and as a supplement in plant cell culture media such as MS medium. History 2,4-D was developed during World War II by a British team at Rothamsted Experimental Station, under the leadership of Judah Hirsch Quastel, aiming to increase crop yields for a nation at war.[citation needed] When it was commercially released in 1946, it became the first successful selective herbicide and allowed for greatly enhanced weed control in wheat, maize (corn), rice, and similar cereal grass crop, because it only kills dicots, leaving behind monocots. Mechanism of herbicide action 2,4-D is a synthetic auxin, which is a class of plant growth regulators.
  • Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the WSSA

    Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the WSSA

    Weed Science 2010 58:511–518 Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America Below is the complete list of all common and chemical of herbicides as approved by the International Organization names of herbicides approved by the Weed Science Society of for Standardization (ISO). A sponsor may submit a proposal America (WSSA) and updated as of September 1, 2010. for a common name directly to the WSSA Terminology Beginning in 1996, it has been published yearly in the last Committee. issue of Weed Science with Directions for Contributors to A herbicide common name is not synonymous with Weed Science. This list is published in lieu of the selections a commercial formulation of the same herbicide, and in printed previously on the back cover of Weed Science. Only many instances, is not synonymous with the active ingredient common and chemical names included in this complete of a commercial formulation as identified on the product list should be used in WSSA publications. In the absence of label. If the herbicide is a salt or simple ester of a parent a WSSA-approved common name, the industry code number compound, the WSSA common name applies to the parent as compiled by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) with compound only. CAS systematic chemical name or the systematic chemical The chemical name used in this list is that preferred by the name alone may be used. The current approved list is also Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) according to their system of available at our web site (www.wssa.net).
  • Response of Multiple Herbicide Resistant Strain of Diazotrophic Cyanobacterium, Anabaena Variabilis , Exposed to Atrazine and DCMU

    Response of Multiple Herbicide Resistant Strain of Diazotrophic Cyanobacterium, Anabaena Variabilis , Exposed to Atrazine and DCMU

    Indian Journal of Experimental Biology Vol. 49, April 2011, pp.298-303 Response of multiple herbicide resistant strain of diazotrophic cyanobacterium, Anabaena variabilis , exposed to atrazine and DCMU Surendra Singh, Pallavi Datta * & Archna Tirkey Algal Biotechnology Laboratory, Department of Biological Sciences, Rani Durgavati University, Jabalpur 482 001, India Received 1 June 2010; revised 24 January 2011 Effect of two photosynthetic inhibitor herbicides, atrazine (both purified and formulated) and [3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)- 1,1-dimethyl urea] (DCMU), on the growth, macromolecular contents, heterocyst frequency, photosynthetic O 2 evolution and dark O 2 uptake of wild type and multiple herbicide resistant (MHR) strain of diazotrophic cyanobacterium A. variabilis was studied. Cyanobacterial strains showed gradual inhibition in growth with increasing dosage of herbicides. Both wild type and MHR strain tolerated < 6.0 mg L -1 of atrazine (purified), < 2.0 mg L -1 of atrazine (formulated) and < 0.4 mg L -1 of DCMU indicating similar level of herbicide tolerance. Atrazine (pure) (8.0 mg L -1) and 4.0 mg L -1 of atrazine (formulated) were growth inhibitory concentrations (lethal) for both wild type and MHR strain indicating formulated atrazine was more toxic than the purified form. Comparatively lower concentrations of DCMU were found to be lethal for wild type and MHR strain, respectively. Thus, between the two herbicides tested DCMU was more growth toxic than atrazine. At sublethal dosages of herbicides, photosynthetic O 2 evolution showed highest inhibition followed by chlorophyll a, phycobhiliproteins and heterocyst differentiation as compared to carotenoid, protein and respiratory O 2 uptake. Keyword s: Atrazine, Cyanobacteria, DCMU, Herbicides, Mutants, Photosynthesis In modern agriculture weed control by herbicides is a tolerate or resist toxic actions of various rice field common practice to increase in crop productivity 1.
  • COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances

    COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances

    COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances revised 2/4/2021 IARC list 1 are Carcinogenic to humans list compiled by Hector Acuna, UCSB IARC list Group 2A Probably carcinogenic to humans IARC list Group 2B Possibly carcinogenic to humans If any of the chemicals listed below are used in your research then complete a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the product as described in the Chemical Hygiene Plan. Prop 65 known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity Material(s) not on the list does not preclude one from completing an SOP. Other extremely toxic chemicals KNOWN Carcinogens from National Toxicology Program (NTP) or other high hazards will require the development of an SOP. Red= added in 2020 or status change Reasonably Anticipated NTP EPA Haz list COMBINED LIST of Particularly Hazardous Substances CAS Source from where the material is listed. 6,9-Methano-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin, 6,7,8,9,10,10- hexachloro-1,5,5a,6,9,9a-hexahydro-, 3-oxide Acutely Toxic Methanimidamide, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[2-methyl-4-[[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]- Acutely Toxic 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosourea (Methyl-CCNU) Prop 65 KNOWN Carcinogens NTP 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU) IARC list Group 2A Reasonably Anticipated NTP 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU) (Lomustine) Prop 65 1-(o-Chlorophenyl)thiourea Acutely Toxic 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane IARC list Group 2B 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Prop 65 IARC list Group 2B 1,1-Dichloro-2,2-bis(p -chloropheny)ethylene (DDE) Prop 65 1,1-Dichloroethane
  • Herbicide Mode of Action Table High Resistance Risk

    Herbicide Mode of Action Table High Resistance Risk

    Herbicide Mode of Action Table High resistance risk Chemical family Active constituent (first registered trade name) GROUP 1 Inhibition of acetyl co-enzyme A carboxylase (ACC’ase inhibitors) clodinafop (Topik®), cyhalofop (Agixa®*, Barnstorm®), diclofop (Cheetah® Gold* Decision®*, Hoegrass®), Aryloxyphenoxy- fenoxaprop (Cheetah®, Gold*, Wildcat®), fluazifop propionates (FOPs) (Fusilade®), haloxyfop (Verdict®), propaquizafop (Shogun®), quizalofop (Targa®) Cyclohexanediones (DIMs) butroxydim (Factor®*), clethodim (Select®), profoxydim (Aura®), sethoxydim (Cheetah® Gold*, Decision®*), tralkoxydim (Achieve®) Phenylpyrazoles (DENs) pinoxaden (Axial®) GROUP 2 Inhibition of acetolactate synthase (ALS inhibitors), acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS) Imidazolinones (IMIs) imazamox (Intervix®*, Raptor®), imazapic (Bobcat I-Maxx®*, Flame®, Midas®*, OnDuty®*), imazapyr (Arsenal Xpress®*, Intervix®*, Lightning®*, Midas®* OnDuty®*), imazethapyr (Lightning®*, Spinnaker®) Pyrimidinyl–thio- bispyribac (Nominee®), pyrithiobac (Staple®) benzoates Sulfonylureas (SUs) azimsulfuron (Gulliver®), bensulfuron (Londax®), chlorsulfuron (Glean®), ethoxysulfuron (Hero®), foramsulfuron (Tribute®), halosulfuron (Sempra®), iodosulfuron (Hussar®), mesosulfuron (Atlantis®), metsulfuron (Ally®, Harmony®* M, Stinger®*, Trounce®*, Ultimate Brushweed®* Herbicide), prosulfuron (Casper®*), rimsulfuron (Titus®), sulfometuron (Oust®, Eucmix Pre Plant®*, Trimac Plus®*), sulfosulfuron (Monza®), thifensulfuron (Harmony®* M), triasulfuron (Logran®, Logran® B-Power®*), tribenuron (Express®),
  • Acifluorfen Sorption, Degradation, and Mobility in a Mississippi Delta Soil

    Acifluorfen Sorption, Degradation, and Mobility in a Mississippi Delta Soil

    Acifluorfen Sorption, Degradation, and Mobility in a Mississippi Delta Soil L. A. Gaston* and M. A. Locke ABSTRACT repulsion effects, acifluorfen is sorbed by soil or soil Potential surface water and groundwater contaminants include her- constituents (Pusino et al., 1991; Ruggiero et al., 1992; bicides that are applied postemergence. Although applied to the plant Pusino et al., 1993; Gennari et al., 1994b; NeÁgre et al., canopy, a portion of any application reaches the soil either directly 1995; Locke et al., 1997). Although the extent of sorp- or via subsequent foliar washoff. This study examined sorption, degra- tion in soil is generally proportional to OC content dation, and mobility of the postemergence herbicide acifluorfen (5-[2- (Gennari et al., 1994b; NeÁgre et al., 1995; Locke et al., chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acid) in Dundee 1997), sorption likely involves processes other than par- silty clay loam (fine-silty, mixed, thermic, Aeric Ochraqualf) taken titioning between aqueous and organic matter phases. from conventional till (CT) and no-till (NT) field plots. Homogeneous In particular, acifluorfen forms complexes with divalent surface and subsurface samples were used in the sorption and degrada- tion studies; intact soil columns (30 cm long and 10 cm diam.) were and trivalent cations (Pusino et al., 1991; Pusino et al., used in the mobility study. Batch sorption isotherms were nonlinear 1993) that may be sorbed or precipitated. Complex for- (Freundlich model) and sorption paralleled organic C (OC) content. mation and subsequent sorption may partially account All tillage by depth combinations of soil exhibited a time-dependent for increased acifluorfen sorption with decreasing soil approach to sorption equilibrium that was well described by a two- pH or increasing cation exchange capacity (Pusino et site equilibrium±kinetic model.
  • 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–18 Edition) § 455.61

    40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–18 Edition) § 455.61

    § 455.61 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–18 Edition) from: the operation of employee show- § 455.64 Effluent limitations guidelines ers and laundry facilities; the testing representing the degree of effluent of fire protection equipment; the test- reduction attainable by the applica- ing and emergency operation of safety tion of the best available tech- showers and eye washes; or storm nology economically achievable water. (BAT). (d) The provisions of this subpart do Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 not apply to wastewater discharges through 125.32, any existing point from the repackaging of microorga- source subject to this subpart must nisms or Group 1 Mixtures, as defined achieve effluent limitations rep- under § 455.10, or non-agricultural pes- resenting the degree of effluent reduc- ticide products. tion attainable by the application of the best available technology economi- § 455.61 Special definitions. cally achievable: There shall be no dis- Process wastewater, for this subpart, charge of process wastewater pollut- means all wastewater except for sani- ants. tary water and those wastewaters ex- § 455.65 New source performance cluded from the applicability of the standards (NSPS). rule in § 455.60. Any new source subject to this sub- § 455.62 Effluent limitations guidelines part which discharges process waste- representing the degree of effluent water pollutants must meet the fol- reduction attainable by the applica- lowing standards: There shall be no dis- tion of the best practicable pollut- charge of process wastewater pollut- ant control technology (BPT). ants. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point § 455.66 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
  • Ecological Risk Assessment for Saflufenacil

    Ecological Risk Assessment for Saflufenacil

    TEXT SEARCHABLE DCOUMENT 2011 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF CEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION PC Code: 118203 DP Barcode: 380638 and 381293 Thursday, April 07, 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Ecological Risk Assessment for Saflufenacil Section 3 New Chemical Uses as a harvest aid on dry edible beans, dry peas, soybean, oilseeds "sunflower subgroup 20B", oilseeds "cotton subgroup 20C", and oilseeds canola "subgroup 20A". TO: Kathryn Montague, M.S., Product Manager 23 Herbicide Branch Registration Division (RD) (7505P) FROM: ~ Mohammed Ruhman, Ph.D., Agronomist 2 :4- . ""=- ........ 04!tJt! (I neith Sappington, Senior Biologist/Science Adviso~.... Vd- Environmental Risk Branch V O'f/ .../ II Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) THROUGH: Mah Shamim, Ph.D., Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch VI Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) This ecological risk assessment for saflufenacil new uses is relying on the attached previous assessment (Attachment 1). As shown in the usage summary (Table 1), the single and seasonal rate, for all the crops range from 0.045 to 0.089 lbs a.i/A are within the range application rates used in exposure modeling for the 2009 Section 3 New Chemical Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment (DP Barcode 349855). Therefore, risk findings determined for the 2009 assessment may be used in the assessment for this submittal. Specifically, the 2009 assessment found no chronic risks to avian and mammalian species at an agricultural use rate 0 0.134 lb a.i.lA. Acute risks were not determined for birds and mammals since saflufenacil was not acutely toxic at the highest doses tested.
  • Reduction of Nitroaromatic Pesticides with Zero-Valent Iron

    Reduction of Nitroaromatic Pesticides with Zero-Valent Iron

    Chemosphere 54 (2004) 255–263 www.elsevier.com/locate/chemosphere Reduction of nitroaromatic pesticides with zero-valent iron Young-Soo Keum, Qing X. Li * Department of Molecular Biosciences and Bioengineering, University of Hawaii, 1955 East-West Road, Ag Sci 218, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA Received 5 February 2003; received in revised form 4 June 2003; accepted 4 August 2003 Abstract Reduction of eleven nitroaromatic pesticides was studied with zero-valent iron powder. Average half-lives ranged from 2.8 to 6.3 h and the parent compounds were completely reduced after 48–96 h. The di-nitro groups of the 2,6- dinitroaniline herbicides were rapidly reduced to the corresponding diamines, with a negligible amount of partially reduced monoamino or nitroso products. Low levels of de-alkylated products were observed after 10 days. The nitro group of the organophosphorus insecticides was reduced dominantly to the monoamines but in a slower rate than the 2,6-dinitroanilines. A trace amount of oxon products was found. Reduction of nitro to amino was also the predominant reaction for the diphenyl ether herbicides. Aromatic de-chlorination and de-alkylation were minor reactions. These amine products were more stable than the parent compounds and 60% or more of the amines were detected after two weeks. Humic acid decreased the reduction rates of pendimethalin, and dichlone (a known quinone redox mediator) counteracted the effect of humic acid on the reactivity. Storage of iron powder under air decreased the reactivity very rapidly due to iron oxidation. Repeated use of iron powder also showed similar results. The reduced activity of air- oxidized iron was recovered by purging with hydrogen, but not nitrogen.
  • Agricultural Biotechnology: Benefits of Transgenic Soybeans

    Agricultural Biotechnology: Benefits of Transgenic Soybeans

    AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY: BENEFITS OF TRANSGENIC SOYBEANS Leonard P. Gianessi Janet E. Carpenter April 2000 National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy 1616 P Street, NW, First Floor Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202-328-5048 Fax: 202-328-5133 [email protected] Preparation of this report was supported financially with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. U.S. Soybean Production 3. Soybean Products 4. Soybean Physiology 5. Soybeans – Agronomic Factors 6. Soybean Genetic Improvements A. Introduction B. Reproductive Process C. Artificial Cross Breeding D. Mutation Breeding E. Transgenic Plants 7. Weed Competition – Soybeans 8. Weed Control in Soybeans: 1940’s – 1950’s 9. Herbicides – An Overview 10. Herbicide Use in Soybeans: 1960’s – 1995 A. Introduction B. Historical Overview 1. The Early 1960’s 2. Soil Applied Herbicides 3. Postemergence Herbicides 4. Sulfonylurea/Imidazolinone Herbicides 5. Burndown Herbicides C. Summary of Usage: 1995 11. Transgenic Herbicide Tolerant Soybeans A. Glyphosate – An Overview B. Performance of Roundup Ready Soybeans C. Herbicide Ratings D. Adoption Impacts: 1995 – 1998 1. Herbicide Costs 2. Soybean Yields 3. Returns 4. Other Aggregate Studies 5. Herbicide Treatments 6. Herbicide Use Amounts 7. Other Impacts 12. Summary and Conclusions 13. References Appendix 1: Soybean Processing – A Description 1. Introduction Soybeans and other crops have been improved genetically for many decades through traditional crop breeding – a technique that requires that species be sexually compatible. With the development of biotechnology methods, scientists have the ability to transfer single genes from one living organism into another, regardless of species or sexual compatibility. Varieties that are developed through the transfer of genes between species that are not sexually compatible are referred to as “transgenic.” Transgenic soybean plants have been developed with a gene from a soil bacteria that allows the use of an herbicide that would normally kill soybeans.
  • PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SAMPLING PLAN for Contaminants with a Vermont Health Advisory – May 2020

    PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SAMPLING PLAN for Contaminants with a Vermont Health Advisory – May 2020

    PROPOSED PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SAMPLING PLAN For Contaminants with a Vermont Health Advisory – May 2020 Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division A Plan to Sample for Chemicals with a Vermont Health Advisory As required by Act 21 (2019), Section 10(b), the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources, on or before January 1, 2020, must publish for public review and comment a plan to collect data for contaminants in drinking water from public community water systems and all non-transient non-community water systems, for which a health advisory has been established, but no Maximum Contaminant Level has been adopted. These health advisories are referred to as Vermont Health Advisories (VHAs) in this document. 1 | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………..Page 3 II. Background ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 4 III. Determining the VHA contaminants for sampling at public water systems ………..Page 6 IV. Sampling Considerations …..…………………………………………………………………………….. Page 10 V. Proposed Sampling Plan ………………………………………………………………………….………..Page 12 Attachments Table 1 Complete List of Vermont Health Advisories (VHAs) …………………………………………..Page 13 Table 2 Proposed List of VHAs with Potential Concern ……………………………………………………Page 18 2 | P a g e I. Executive Summary The Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources was tasked with developing a sampling plan for public review, for certain drinking water contaminants that have an established health advisory, also known as the Vermont Health Advisory (VHA) but have no Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). This Sampling Plan (Plan) is targeted to public community and public non- transient non-community water systems. To provide context for public water system regulation, and standards that apply, a discussion of how VHAs and MCLs are determined is given.
  • Special Report 354 April 1972 Agricultural Experiment Station

    Special Report 354 April 1972 Agricultural Experiment Station

    ORTMAL DO ;10T REMOVE 7.9 m FILE Special Report 354 April 1972 Agricultural Experiment Station Oregon State University, Corvallis I FIELD APPLICATION OF HERBICIDES--AVOIDING DANGER TO FISH Erland T. Juntunen Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon and Logan A. Norris Pacific Northwest Forestry Sciences Laboratory and Range Experiment Station Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture Corvallis, Oregon April, 1972 Trade names are used in this publication solely to provide specific information. No endorsement of products is intended nor is criticism implieLl to products mentioned or omitted. Recommendations are not made concerning safe use of products nor is any guarantee or warranty of results or effects of the products intended or implied. ii Chemical weed and brush control with herbicides is an important land management practice in modern agriculture and forestry. In some cases, herbicides are applied directly to bodies of water for aquatic weed control. More commonly, herbicides are applied to lands adjacent to waterways for general weed and brush control. The responsible applicator will avoid damage to fishery resources by being fully aware of a particular herbicides potential hazard to fish. Herbicide applications should be considered hazardous to fish when there is the probability fish will be exposed to herbicide concen- trations which are harmful. This bulletin offers information that will aid in selecting the particular herbicides and formulations of least hazard to fish considering the toxicity of the herbicide and the poten- tial for its entry into streams, lakes, or ponds. Entry of Herbicides into the Aquatic Environment In aquatic weed control, the effective concentration of herbicide in the water depends on the rate of application, the rate of the spread of the chemical, the size and chemical composition of the body of water, the rate of degradation or adsorption of the chemical on sediments, and the rate of mixing of treated water with untreated water.