DOCSLIB.ORG

Agricultural Commodity Protection by Phosphine Fumigation Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Agricultural Commodity Protection by Phosphine Fumigation Programmatic Environmental Assessment AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY PROTECTION BY PHOSPHINE FUMIGATION PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2013 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared under USAID’s Global Environmental Management Support (GEMS) project. Cover photos: Phosphine fumigation monitoring equipment (top left), DIMEGSA Pest Control staff in Guatemala (top right), USAID food commodities stored in a warehouse (bottom). COMMODITY PROTECTION BY PHOSPHINE FUMIGATION IN USAID FOOD AID PROGRAMS PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2013 Contract No.: AID-OAA-M-11-00021 Prepared for: Office of Food for Peace Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance United States Agency for International Development Prepared under: The Global Environmental Management Support Project (GEMS), Award Number AID-OAA-M-11-00021. The Cadmus Group, Inc., prime contractor (www.cadmusgroup.com). Sun Mountain International, principal partner (www.smtn.org). DISCLAIMER Until and unless this document is approved by USAID as a 22 CFR 216 Programmatic Environmental Assessment, the contents may not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................................... I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... III SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................... IV Purpose of the Programmatic Environmental Assessment ................................................................ iv Approach of the PEA................................................................................................................................... v Findings of the PEA ..................................................................................................................................... vi Procedures and Use of the PEA ............................................................................................................. vii 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Purpose of the PEA ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Goals of the PEA .............................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Overview of Fumigants in Food Aid ............................................................................................ 2 1.4 Overview of Reporting Requirements per USAID Environmental Regulations ................ 3 1.5 Application of the PEA for Partner Programs ........................................................................... 4 1.6 Methodology of the PEA ................................................................................................................ 4 2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................................... 14 2.1. USAID FFP Title II Food Aid Program ..................................................................................... 14 2.2 USAID Title II Food Aid Value Chain ....................................................................................... 16 2.3 Introduction to Phosphine Fumigation and Phosphine Chemistry .................................... 18 3. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................... 21 3.1. Description of the Proposed Action: Fumigation of food aid commodity using aluminum/magnesium phosphide ........................................................................................................... 21 3.2 Description of Alternatives to Phosphine Fumigation .......................................................... 24 3.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Analysis and Rationale for Eliminating Them .................... 32 3.4 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Alternatives ....................................................... 36 4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................. 38 4.1 Geographic Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 38 4.2 Social Characteristics ................................................................................................................... 39 4.3 Environmental Characteristics: Physical and Biological Resources .................................... 42 4.4 Policy, Legal, and Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................... 43 5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................................... 46 5.1 Environmental Consequences of Phosphine Fumigation ...................................................... 46 5.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .................................................. 65 5.3 Means to Mitigate Adverse Health and Environmental Impacts ......................................... 66 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 72 6.1 Major Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 73 6.2 Data Gaps ....................................................................................................................................... 75 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 77 WEBLINKS ...................................................................................................................................................... 91 LIST OF ACRONYMS ACDI/VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International and Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance AchE Acetyl cholinesterase AE Aerosol AI Active Ingredient APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA) ARS Agricultural Research Service BEO Bureau Environmental Officer (USAID) BEST Bellmon Estimation Studies for Title II project (USAID) BP Best Practices BFS Bureau for Food Security (USAID) CA Certified Applicator CATAMA Committee on Aviation Toxicology, Aero Medical Association CCC Commodity Credit Corporation CFR Code of Federal Regulations (US) CCOHS Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety CO2 Carbon dioxide CRG Commodity Reference Guide CRS Catholic Relief Services CSB Corn soy blend DCHA Bureau for Democracy, Conflict & Humanitarian Assistance (USAID) DHHS Department of Health and Human Services (US) EC Emulsifiable Concentrate EWG Environmental Working Group (USAID) ESR Environmental Status Report FACG Food Aid Consultative Group FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations FAS Foreign Agricultural Service FDA Food and Drug Administration (DHHS) FFP Food for Peace (USAID) FGIS Federal Grain Inspection Service (US) FGPFS Food Grain Protection and Fumigation Specialist FHI Food for the Hungry International or Feed the Hungry International FMP Fumigation Management Plan FSA Farm Service Agency (USDA) FSP Fumigation service provider FtF Feed the Future (USAID) FY Fiscal Year GAO Government Accountability Office (US) GEMS Global Environmental Management Support GMO Genetically modified organism GUP General Use Pesticide HDPE High density polyethylene HHRE Human Health Risk Evaluation IEE Initial Environmental Examination IFADC International Food Aid and Development Conference IGR Insect Growth Regulator IO International organization IPM Integrated Pest Management i IRIS Integrated Risk Information System ITSH Internal Transport, Shipping and Handling KCCO Kansas City Commodity Office LOE Level of Effort MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (Uganda) MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration (US) MOE Margin of Exposure MT Metric Ton N2 Nitrogen NGO Non-Governmental Organization NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (US) NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level O2 Oxygen OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration (US) PBO piperonyl butoxide PEA Programmatic Environmental Assessment PEL Permissible Exposure Limit PERSUAP Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safe Use Action Plan P.L. 480 Public Law 480 (US) Ppb Parts per billion PPE Personal protective equipment Ppm Parts per million PSA Participatory Stakeholder Analyst PVC Poly vinyl chloride PVO Private Voluntary Organization RED Reregistration Eligibility Decision (published by USEPA) RUP Restricted Use Pesticide SC Soluble Concentrate SIA Social Impact Assessment SOP Standard Operating Procedure SOW Scope of Work UN United Nations UNESCO United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization USAID United States Agency for International Development USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USDHHS United States Department of Health and Human Services WBSCM Web Based Supply Chain Management WFP World Food Programme (of the UN) WP Wettable
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Restricted Use Product Summary Report
    Page 1 of 17 Restricted Use Product Summary Report (January 19, 2016) Percent Active Registration # Name Company # Company Name Active Ingredient(s) Ingredient 4‐152 BONIDE ORCHARD MOUSE BAIT 4 BONIDE PRODUCTS, INC. 2 Zinc phosphide (Zn3P2) 70‐223 RIGO EXOTHERM TERMIL 70 VALUE GARDENS SUPPLY, LLC 20 Chlorothalonil 100‐497 AATREX 4L HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 42.6 Atrazine 100‐585 AATREX NINE‐O HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 88.2 Atrazine 100‐669 CURACRON 8E INSECTICIDE‐MITICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 73 Profenofos 100‐817 BICEP II MAGNUM HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 33; 26.1 Atrazine; S‐Metolachlor 100‐827 BICEP LITE II MAGNUM HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 28.1; 35.8 Atrazine; S‐Metolachlor 100‐886 BICEP MAGNUM 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 33.7; 26.1 Atrazine; S‐Metolachlor 100‐898 AGRI‐MEK 0.15 EC MITICIDE/INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 2 Abamectin 100‐903 DENIM INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 2.15 Emamectin benzoate 100‐904 PROCLAIM INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 5 Emamectin benzoate 100‐998 KARATE 1EC 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 13.1 lambda‐Cyhalothrin 100‐1075 FORCE 3G INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 3 Tefluthrin Acetochlor; Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl‐ 100‐1083 DOUBLEPLAY SELECTIVE HERBICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 16.9; 67.8 , S‐ethyl ester 100‐1086 KARATE EC‐W INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC 13.1 lambda‐Cyhalothrin 100‐1088 SCIMITAR GC INSECTICIDE 100 SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION,
    [Show full text]
  • Cypermethrin
    International Environmental Health Criteria 82 Cypermethrin Published under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION GENEVA 1989 Other titles available in the ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CRITERIA series include: 1. Mercury 2. Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Terphenyls 3. Lead 4. Oxides of Nitrogen 5. Nitrates, Nitrites, and N-Nitroso Compounds 6. Principles and Methods for Evaluating the Toxicity of Chemicals, Part 1 7. Photochemical Oxidants 8. Sulfur Oxides and Suspended Particulate Matter 9. DDT and its Derivatives 10. Carbon Disulfide 11. Mycotoxins 12. Noise 13. Carbon Monoxide 14. Ultraviolet Radiation 15. Tin and Organotin Compounds 16. Radiofrequency and Microwaves 17. Manganese 18. Arsenic 19. Hydrogen Sulfide 20. Selected Petroleum Products 21. Chlorine and Hydrogen Chloride 22. Ultrasound 23. Lasers and Optical Radiation 24. Titanium 25. Selected Radionuclides 26. Styrene 27. Guidelines on Studies in Environmental Epidemiology 28. Acrylonitrile 29. 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) 30. Principles for Evaluating Health Risks to Progeny Associated with Exposure to Chemicals during Pregnancy 31. Tetrachloroethylene 32. Methylene Chloride 33. Epichlorohydrin 34. Chlordane 35. Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Fields 36. Fluorine and Fluorides 37. Aquatic (Marine and Freshwater) Biotoxins 38. Heptachlor 39. Paraquat and Diquat 40. Endosulfan 41. Quintozene 42. Tecnazene 43. Chlordecone 44. Mirex continued on p. 156
    [Show full text]
  • Chem7988.Pdf
    This article was originally published in a journal published by Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the author’s benefit and for the benefit of the author’s institution, for non-commercial research and educational use including without limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific colleagues that you know, and providing a copy to your institution’s administrator. All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access, or posting on open internet sites, your personal or institution’s website or repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission may be sought for such use through Elsevier’s permissions site at: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial Chemosphere 67 (2007) 2184–2191 www.elsevier.com/locate/chemosphere Assessment of pesticide contamination in three Mississippi Delta oxbow lakes using Hyalella azteca M.T. Moore *, R.E. Lizotte Jr., S.S. Knight, S. Smith Jr., C.M. Cooper USDA-ARS National Sedimentation Laboratory, P.O. Box 1157, Oxford, MS 38655, United States Received 8 September 2006; received in revised form 27 November 2006; accepted 8 December 2006 Available online 26 January 2007 Abstract Three oxbow lakes in northwestern Mississippi, USA, an area of intensive agriculture, were assessed for biological impairment from historic and current-use pesticide contamination using the amphipod, Hyalella azteca. Surface water and sediment samples from three sites in each lake were collected from Deep Hollow, Beasley, and Thighman Lakes from September 2000 to February 2001. Samples were analyzed for 17 historic and current-use pesticides and selected metabolites.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries
    Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries. Peter Jentsch Extension Associate Department of Entomology Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab 3357 Rt. 9W; PO box 727 Highland, NY 12528 email: [email protected] Phone 845-691-7151 Mobile: 845-417-7465 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/faculty/jentsch/ 2 Historical Perspectives on Fruit Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Chemistries. by Peter Jentsch I. Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 Synthetic Pesticide Development and Use II. Influences Changing the Pest Management Profile in Apple Production Chemical Residues in Early Insect Management Historical Chemical Regulation Recent Regulation Developments Changing Pest Management Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 The Science Behind The Methodology Pesticide Revisions – Requirements For New Registrations III. Resistance of Insect Pests to Insecticides Resistance Pest Management Strategies IV. Reduced Risk Chemistries: New Modes of Action and the Insecticide Treadmill Fermentation Microbial Products Bt’s, Abamectins, Spinosads Juvenile Hormone Analogs Formamidines, Juvenile Hormone Analogs And Mimics Insect Growth Regulators Azadirachtin, Thiadiazine Neonicotinyls Major Reduced Risk Materials: Carboxamides, Carboxylic Acid Esters, Granulosis Viruses, Diphenyloxazolines, Insecticidal Soaps, Benzoyl Urea Growth Regulators, Tetronic Acids, Oxadiazenes , Particle Films, Phenoxypyrazoles, Pyridazinones, Spinosads, Tetrazines , Organotins, Quinolines. 3 I Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 The apple has a rather ominous origin. Its inception is framed in the biblical text regarding the genesis of mankind. The backdrop appears to be the turbulent setting of what many scholars believe to be present day Iraq.
    [Show full text]
  • Follow-Up Studies After Withdrawal of Deltamethrin Spraying Against Anopheles Culicifacies and Malaria Incidence
    Journal of the American Mosquito contror Association, 2o(4):424-42g,2004 Copyright @ 2OO4 by the American Mosquito Control Association, Inc. FOLLOW-UP STUDIES AFTER WITHDRAWAL OF DELTAMETHRIN SPRAYING AGAINST ANOPHELES CULICIFACIES AND MALARIA INCIDENCE MUSHARRAF ALI ANSARI eNo RAMA KRISHNA RAZDAN Malaria Research Centre (ICMR), 2}-Madhuban, Delhi_ll0 092, India ABSTRACT. Follow-up studies were carried out from 1989 to 1998 after withdrawal of deltamethrin indoor spraying to evaluate the-recovery rate of a population of Anopheles culicifacies resistant to dichlorodiphenyltri- chloroethane (DDT) and hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) in selected villages in Uttar pradesh State, I;dia. The study revealed 82.4-96.5Ea reduction in adult density of An. culicifacies and 72.7-967o reduction in malaria incidence in the area sprayed with deltamethrin at 20 mg/m, as compared to a control area sprayed with HCH, for 5 successive years even after withdrawal of deltamethrin spray. The impact was very clear when the annual falciparum incidence was compared with that of the control area. The vector population gradually started re- covering after 5 years. However, the slide falciparum rate remained below 4 even after 10 years of withdrawal of spraying. The study revealed that indoor residual spraying of deltamethrin would be cost-effective, at least in areas where malaria is transmitted by An. culicifacies, which is primarily a zoophilic species and associated with malaria epidemics. In view of this, a review of the insecticide policy and strategy of vector control is urgently needed because of the possible risks associated with the presence of nonbiodegradable insecticide in the environment, as well as to minimize the costs of operation and to enhance the useful life of insecticides.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. EPA, Pesticides, Label, TEFLUTHRIN TECHNICAL, 7/19
    \09-lo\S- 0)-1'1-2, J}!) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES July 19,2010 Pat Dinnen Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. P.O. Box 18300 Greensboro, NC 27419 Subject: Label Notification(s) for Pesticide Registration Notice 2007-4 Amending the Storage and Disposal Language Dear Pat Dinnen: The Agency is in receipt of your Application(s) for Pesticide Notification under Pesticide Registration Notice PRN 2007-4 dated June 22,2010 for the following product(s): Fenoxycarb Technical EPA Reg. No.1 00-723 Cypermethrin Technical EPA Reg. No. 100-989 Tefluthrin Technical EPA Reg. No. 100-1015 Lambda-Cyhalothrin Manufacturing CS EPA Reg. No. 100-1107 Lufenuron Techincal EPA Reg. No. 100-1175 Lambda-Cyhalothrin 250 CS MUP EPA Reg. No. 100-1251 Cypermethrin 250EC MUP EPA Reg. No. 100-1301 The Registration Division (RD) has conducted a review of this request for applicability under PRN 2007-4 and finds that the label change(s) requested falls within the scope of PRN-98-10. The label has been date-stamped "Notification" and will be placed in our records. Please be reminded that 40 CFR Part 156. 140(a)(4) requires that a batch code, lot niImber, or other code identifying the batch of the pesticide distributed and sold be placed on nomefillable containers. The code may appear either on the label (and can be added by non-notificationlPR Notice 98-10) or durably marked on the container itself. If you have any questions, please contact Regina Foushee'-Smith at 703-605-0780.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide No. 1 – October 2020 2/12 the CONCEPT and IMPLEMENTATION of CPA GUIDANCE RESIDUE LEVELS
    Cooperation Centre for Scientific Research Relative to Tobacco CORESTA GUIDE N° 1 The Concept and Implementation of CPA Guidance Residue Levels October 2020 Agro-Chemical Advisory Committee CORESTA TECHNICAL GUIDE N° 1 Title: The Concept and Implementation of CPA Guidance Residue Levels Status: Valid Note: This document will be periodically reviewed by CORESTA Document history: Date of review Information July 2003 Version 1 GRL for Pyrethrins () and Terbufos corrected. December 2003 CPA terminology corrected. June 2008 Version 2 – GRLs revised and residue definitions added Provisional GRL of 2.00 ppm for Cyfluthrin to replace previous June 2010 GRL of 0.50 ppm July 2013 Version 3 – GRLs revised October 2013 Note for Maleic Hydrazide revised Version 4 – GRLs revised + clarification that scope of GRLs July 2016 applies predominantly to the production of traditional cigarette tobaccos and GAP associated with their cultivation. June 2018 Fluopyram GRL of 5 ppm added to GRL list Version 5 – Nine new CPAs with GRL added to list. November 2019 Revision of GRLs for Chlorantraniliprole and Indoxacarb. Updated web links. October 2020 Version 6 – Flupyradifurone GRL of 21 ppm added to GRL list. CORESTA Guide No. 1 – October 2020 2/12 THE CONCEPT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CPA GUIDANCE RESIDUE LEVELS Executive Summary • Guidance Residue Levels (GRLs) are in the remit of the Agro-Chemical Advisory Committee (ACAC) of CORESTA. Their development is a joint activity of all ACAC members, who represent the leaf production, processing and manufacturing sectors of the Tobacco Industry. The concept of GRLs and their implementation are described in this guide. • GRLs provide guidance to tobacco growers and assist with interpretation and evaluation of results from analyses of residues of Crop Protection Agents (CPAs*).
    [Show full text]
  • RR Program's RCL Spreadsheet Update
    RR Program’s RCL Spreadsheet Update March 2017 RR Program RCL Spreadsheet Update DNR-RR-052e The Wisconsin DNR Remediation and Redevelopment Program (RR) has updated the numerical soil standards in the August 2015 DNR-RR- 052b RR spreadsheet of residual contaminant levels (RCLs). The RCLs were determined using the U.S. EPA RSL web- calculator by accepting EPA exposure defaults, with the exception of using Chicago, IL, for the climatic zone. This documentThe U.S. provides EPA updateda summary its Regionalof changes Screening to the direct-contact Level (RSL) RCLs website (DC-RCLs) in June that2015. are To now reflect in the that March 2017 spreadsheet.update, the The Wisconsin last page ofDNR this updated document the has numerical the EPA exposuresoil standards, parameter or residual values usedcontaminant in the RCL levels calculations. (RCLs), in the Remediation and Redevelopment program’s spreadsheet of RCLs. This document The providesU.S. EPA a RSL summary web-calculator of the updates has been incorporated recently updated in the Julyso that 2015 the spreadsheet.most up-to-date There toxicity were values no changes for chemi - cals madewere certainlyto the groundwater used in the RCLs,RCL calculations. but there are However, many changes it is important in the industrial to note that and the non-industrial web-calculator direct is only a subpartcontact of the (DC) full RCLsEPA RSL worksheets. webpage, Tables and that 1 andthe other 2 of thissubparts document that will summarize have important the DC-RCL explanatory changes text, generic tablesfrom and the references previous have spreadsheet yet to be (Januaryupdated.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Board of Pesticides Control 28 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333 Paul R
    STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY BOARD OF PESTICIDES CONTROL 28 STATE HOUSE STATION AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333 PAUL R. LEPAGE WALTER E. WHITCOMB GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER Memorandum To: Board of Pesticides Control From: Pam Bryer, Toxicologist Subject: Question from June 6, 2018 Board Meeting Date: May 18, 2018 At the June 6, 2018 board meeting the question of whether Bt is toxic to lobsters was asked. Here is a brief answer to that question. Not surprisingly, the answer is we don’t know. Question: Is Bt harmful to lobsters? Answer: Bt has not been tested on lobsters. Attached is a table based on available pesticide toxicity data for lobsters. Few compounds have been tested on any species of lobsters. Both lobsters and Bt are fairly unique entities so generalizations are not helpful in extrapolating to other pesticides exposure scenarios. Reasonable follow-up question: Since Bt targets insects and lobsters are closely related can we assume that lobsters would be just as sensitive? Answer: Typically, shared phylogeny could help predict toxicity, however, the marine environment places a different set of physical constraints on digestive physiology and since Bt is a stomach poison we should not speculate. Marine organisms typically have modified intestinal tracts to deal with maintaining the homeostatic balance of outside-saltwater to internal-body composition. PHONE: (207) 287-2731 32 BLOSSOM LANE, MARQUARDT BUILDING WWW.THINKFIRSTSPRAYLAST.ORG The above figure shows the uptake of Bt endospore into the larval gut demonstrating how Bt’s mechanism of action centers around cells lining the intestinal tract. Table 1. Preliminary literature search results on the toxicity of pesticides on lobsters (Homarus spp) Contaminant Concentration Duration Experimental Primary Effects Source (ug/L) Notes Organochlorines Endosulfan -decr survival & metamorphosis Bauer et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Malathion Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report
    SERA TR-052-02-02c Malathion Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report Submitted to: Paul Mistretta, COR USDA/Forest Service, Southern Region 1720 Peachtree RD, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30309 USDA Forest Service Contract: AG-3187-C-06-0010 USDA Forest Order Number: AG-43ZP-D-06-0012 SERA Internal Task No. 52-02 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 5100 Highbridge St., 42C Fayetteville, New York 13066-0950 Fax: (315) 637-0445 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com May 12, 2008 Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ ii List of Figures................................................................................................................................. v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Attachments........................................................................................................................ vi ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS ............................................................... vii COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................................... x CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 213/Friday, November 4, 2005/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Notices 67167 UIC Section, EPA—Region 6, telephone define the need for improvements and registrant of a pesticide product may at (214) 665–7165. make recommendations to the full any time request that any of its pesticide NDWAC accordingly; (2) develop registrations be amended to delete one Larry Wright, language for communicating the risk of or more uses. FIFRA further provides Acting Director, Water Quality Protection lead in drinking water and a suggested that, before acting on the request, EPA Division (6WQ). response to the public; and (3) define must publish a notice of receipt of any [FR Doc. 05–22032 Filed 11–3–05; 8:45 am] the delivery means to the public. The request in the Federal Register. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P NDWAC established a target date of May DATES: The deletions are effective on 2006 to complete these tasks. The WGPE December 5, 2005, unless the Agency is comprised of 16 members from ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION receives a written withdrawal request drinking water industries, stakeholder AGENCY on or before December 5, 2005. The organizations, state and local officials, Agency will consider withdrawal [FRL–7993–9] public health officials, environmental requests postmarked no later than organizations, and risk communication December 5, 2005. National Drinking Water Advisory experts. Users of these products who desire Council’s Working Group on Public Public Comment: An opportunity for continued use on crops or sites being Education Requirements of the Lead public comment will be provided deleted should contact the applicable and Copper Rule Meeting during the WGPE meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Flat Bark Beetles (Coleoptera, Silvanidae, Cucujidae, Laemophloeidae) of Atlantic Canada
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeysTh e 2:fl 221-238at bark (2008)beetles (Coleoptera, Silvanidae, Cucujidae, Laemophloeidae) of Atlantic Canada 221 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.2.14 RESEARCH ARTICLE www.pensoftonline.net/zookeys Launched to accelerate biodiversity research The flat bark beetles (Coleoptera, Silvanidae, Cucujidae, Laemophloeidae) of Atlantic Canada Christopher G. Majka Nova Scotia Museum, 1747 Summer Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Corresponding author: Christopher G. Majka ([email protected]) Academic editor: Michael Th omas | Received 16 July 2008 | Accepted 5 August 2008 | Published 17 September 2008 Citation: Majka CG (2008) Th e Flat Bark Beetles (Coleoptera, Silvanidae, Cucujidae, Laemophloeidae) of Atlan- tic Canada. In: Majka CG, Klimaszewski J (Eds) Biodiversity, Biosystematics, and Ecology of Canadian Coleoptera. ZooKeys 2: 221-238. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.2.14 Abstract Eighteen species of flat bark beetles are now known in Atlantic Canada, 10 in New Brunswick, 17 in Nova Scotia, four on Prince Edward Island, six on insular Newfoundland, and one in Labrador. Twenty-three new provincial records are reported and nine species, Uleiota debilis (LeConte), Uleiota dubius (Fabricius), Nausibius clavicornis (Kugelann), Ahasverus advena (Waltl), Cryptolestes pusillus (Schönherr), Cryptolestes turcicus (Grouvelle), Charaphloeus convexulus (LeConte), Chara- phloeus species nr. adustus, and Placonotus zimmermanni (LeConte) are newly recorded in the re- gion, one of which C. sp. nr. adustus, is newly recorded in Canada. Eight are cosmopolitan species introduced to the region and North America, nine are native Nearctic species, and one, Pediacus fuscus Erichson, is Holarctic. All the introduced species except for one Silvanus bidentatus (Fab- ricius), a saproxylic species are found on various stored products, whereas all the native species are saproxylic.
    [Show full text]