Ocal 2611-1 Prohibited Pesticides for Ocal Residue Testing, April 6, 2020 23, 2021 Ocal 2611-1 Page 2 of 3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Ocal 2611-1 Prohibited Pesticides for Ocal Residue Testing, April 6, 2020 23, 2021 Ocal 2611-1 Page 2 of 3

OCal 2611-1 Page 1 of 3 Prohibited Pesticides for OCal Residue Testing 1-Naphthol Cypermethrin 3-Hydroxycarbofuran Cyprodinil 5-Hydroxythiabendazole Cyromazine Acephate DCPA Acetamiprid DDD o,p' Acetochlor DDD p,p' Aldicarb DDE o,p' Aldicarb sulfone DDE p,p' Aldicarb sulfoxide DDT o,p' Allethrin DDT p,p' Atrazine DEF (Tribufos) Azinphos methyl Deltamethrin (includes parent Azoxystrobin Tralomethrin) Bendiocarb Diazinon BHC alpha Diazinon oxygen analog Bifenazate Dichlorvos (DDVP) Bifenthrin Dicloran Bitertanol Dicofol o,p' Boscalid Dicofol p,p' Bromacil Dieldrin Buprofezin Difenoconazole Captan Diflubenzuron Carbaryl Dimethoate Carbendazim (MBC) Dimethomorph Carbofuran Dinotefuran Chlorantraniprole Diphenamid Chlordane cis Diphenylamine (DPA) Chlordane trans Disulfoton Chlorfenapyr Disulfoton sulfone Chlorothalonil Diuron Chlorpropham Endosulfan I Chlorpyrifos Endosulfan II Chlorpyrifos methyl Endosulfan sulfate Clofentezine Endrin Clopyralid Esfenvalerate+Fenvalerate Total Clothianidin Ethephon Coumaphos Ethion Cyazofamid Ethoprop Cycloate Ethoxyquin Cyfluthrin Etoxazole Cyhalothrin, Total (Cyhalothrin-L + Famoxadone R157836 epimer) Fenamidone OCal 2611-1 Prohibited Pesticides for OCal Residue Testing, April 6, 2020 23, 2021 OCal 2611-1 Page 2 of 3 Fenamiphos Myclobutanil Fenamiphos sulfone Naled Fenamiphos sulfoxide Napropamide Fenarimol Nonachlor cis Fenbuconazole Nonachlor trans Fenhexamid Norflurazon Fenpropathrin Norflurazon desmethyl Fenpyroximate Omethoate Fenthion O-Phenylphenol Fipronil Oxadixyl Flonicamid Oxamyl Fludioxonil Oxamyl oxime Fluoxastrobin Oxydemeton methyl sulfone Fluridone Parathion methyl Flutolanil Pendimethalin Fluvalinate Pentachloroaniline (PCA) Folpet Pentachlorobenzene (PCB) Fonofos Pentachlorophenyl methyl sulfide Formetanate hydrochloride Permethrin Total Heptachlor epoxide Phenmedipham Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) Phorate sulfone Hexaconazole Phorate sulfoxide Hexythiazox Phosalone Hydroprene Phosmet Imazalil Piperonyl butoxide Imidacloprid Pirimicarb Indoxacarb Pirimiphos methyl Iprodione Prallethrin Iprodione metabolite isomer Prochloraz Lindane (BHC gamma) Procymidone Linuron Prometryn Malathion Pronamide Malathion oxygen analog Propargite Metalaxyl Propiconazole Methamidophos Pymetrozine Methidathion Pyraclostrobin Methiocarb Pyridaben Methomyl Pyrimethanil Methoxychlor Total Pyriproxyfen Methoxyfenozide Quinoxyfen Metolachlor Quintozene (PCNB) Metribuzin Resmethrin Mevinphos Total Simazine MGK-264 Spinetoram OCal 2611-1 Prohibited Pesticides for OCal Residue Testing, April 6, 2020 23, 2021 OCal 2611-1 Page 3 of 3 Spiromesifen Total (parent + enol Thiamethoxam metabolite) Thiobencarb Sulfentrazone Thiodicarb Tebuconazole Triadimefon Tebufenozide Triadimenol Tetrachlorvinphos Trifloxystrobin Tetradifon Triflumizole Tetrahydrophthalimide (THPI) Trifluralin Thiabendazole Vinclozolin Thiacloprid References OCal Program Handbook OCal 2610. Sampling Procedures for OCal Cannabis. OCal 2611. Laboratory Selection Criteria for Pesticide Residue Testing. OCal 2611-1 Prohibited Pesticides for OCal Residue Testing, April 6, 2020 23, 2021 .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

US 2014/0116112 A1 HUMPHREY Et Al
US 201401 16112A1 (19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2014/0116112 A1 HUMPHREY et al. (43) Pub. Date: May 1, 2014 (54) METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE Publication Classification PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF CONTAMINANTS IN A SAMPLE (51) Int. Cl. GOIN30/72 (2006.01) (71) Applicant: K & D LABORATORIES, INC., Lake (52) U.S. Cl. Oswego, OR (US) CPC .................................. G0IN30/7206 (2013.01) USPC ......................................................... T3/23.37 (72) Inventors: David Kent HUMPHREY, Reno, NV (US); Nicholas Joseph GEISE, Portland, OR (US) (57) ABSTRACT (73) Assignee: K & D LABORATORIES, INC., Lake Oswego, OR (US) Methods are provided for rapidly determining the presence or absence of large numbers of contaminants in a test sample, (21) Appl. No.: 13/830,388 Such as a raw material intended for use in the preparation of a nutraceutical. The disclosed methods employ gas chromatog (22) Filed: Mar 14, 2013 raphy-mass spectrometry techniques together with the spe cific use of software in combination with a database to ana Related U.S. Application Data lyze data collected after ionization of the sample and (60) Provisional application No. 61/718,607, filed on Oct. determine the presence or absence of the contaminants in the 25, 2012. sample. US 2014/01161 12 A1 May 1, 2014 METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE 0007. In one embodiment, methods for detecting the pres PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ence or absence of a plurality of contaminants in a sample are CONTAMINANTS IN A SAMPLE provided, such methods comprising: (a) extracting the sample with a water-miscible solvent in the presence of a high con REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS centration of salts to provide a sample extract; (b) shaking and centrifuging the sample extract to provide a Supernatant; (c) 0001.
[Show full text]
Michigan Hop Management Guide 2018
2018 Michigan Hop Management Guide This material is based upon work supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No. 2015-09785. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2 Table of Contents Growth Stages………………………………………………………………………………………3 Weed Management………………………………………………………………………….4-5 Herbicides………………..……………………………………………………………………….6-7 Fungicides……………………………..………………………………………………………….8-9 Insecticides…………………………..………………………………………………………10-11 Miticides…………………………………………………………………………………………….12 Pesticide Toxicity to Beneficial Insects…………………………………………..13-14 Nutrient Management Considerations…………………………………………15-19 Scouting Calendar………………………………………………………………………………20 Information presented here does not supersede the label directions. To protect yourself, others, and the environment, always read the label before applying any pesticide. Although efforts have been made to check the accuracy of information presented, it is the responsibility of the person using this information to verify that it is correct by reading the corresponding pesticide label in its entirety before using the product. The information presented here is intended as a guide for Michigan hop growers in selecting pesticides and is for educational purposes only. Labels can and do change. For current label and MSDS information, visit one of the following free online databases: greenbook.net, cdms.com, and agrian.com The efficacies of products listed have not been evaluated on hop in Michigan. Reference to commercial products or trade names does not imply endorsement by Michigan State University Extension or bias against those not mentioned. This information was compiled by Erin Lizotte and Dr. Robert Sirrine with assistance from Dr.
[Show full text]
Factors Influencing Pesticide Resistance in Psylla Pyricola Foerster and Susceptibility Inits Mirid
AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF: Hugo E. van de Baan for the degree ofDoctor of Philosopbv in Entomology presented on September 29, 181. Title: Factors Influencing Pesticide Resistance in Psylla pyricola Foerster and Susceptibility inits Mirid Predator, Deraeocoris brevis Knight. Redacted for Privacy Abstract approved: Factors influencing pesticide susceptibility and resistance were studied in Psylla pyricola Foerster, and its mirid predator, Deraeocoris brevis Knight in the Rogue River Valley, Oregon. Factors studied were at the biochemical, life history, and population ecology levels. Studies on detoxification enzymes showed that glutathione S-transferase and cytochrome P-450 monooxygenase activities were ca. 1.6-fold higherin susceptible R. brevis than in susceptible pear psylla, however, esterase activity was ca. 5-fold lower. Esterase activity was ca. 18-fold higher in resistant pear psylla than in susceptible D. brevis, however, glutathione S-transferase and cytochrome P-450 monooxygenase activities were similar. Esterases seem to be a major factor conferring insecticideresistance in P. Pvricola. Although the detoxification capacities of P. rivricola and D. brevis were quite similar, pear psylla has developed resistance to many insecticides in the Rogue River Valley, whereas D. brevis has remained susceptible. Biochemical factors may be important in determining the potential of resistance development, however, they are less important in determining the rate at which resistance develops. Computer simulation studies showed that life history and ecological factors are probably of greater importancein determining the rate at which resistance develops in P. pvricola and D. brevis. High fecundity and low immigration of susceptible individuals into selected populations appear to be major factors contributing to rapid resistance development in pear psylla compared with D.
[Show full text]
Identifying the Cause of Sediment Toxicity in Agricultural Sediments: the Role of Pyrethroids and Nine Seldom-Measured Hydrophobic Pesticides ⇑ Donald P
Chemosphere 90 (2013) 958–964 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Chemosphere journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chemosphere Identifying the cause of sediment toxicity in agricultural sediments: The role of pyrethroids and nine seldom-measured hydrophobic pesticides ⇑ Donald P. Weston a, , Yuping Ding b, Minghua Zhang c, Michael J. Lydy b a Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, 1005 Valley Life Sciences Bldg., Berkeley, CA 94720-3140, USA b Fisheries and Illinois Aquaculture Center and Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University, 171 Life Sciences II, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA c Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA highlights " Monitoring fails to test for many agricultural pesticides used in any given area. " Nine seldom-analyzed pesticides (e.g., abamectin) were tested for in sediments. " One-quarter of the sediment samples were toxic to the amphipod, Hyalella azteca. " The seldom-analyzed pesticides may have contributed to toxicity in a few samples. " Pyrethroid insecticides were responsible for the vast majority of toxicity. article info abstract Article history: Few currently used agricultural pesticides are routinely monitored for in the environment. Even if Received 10 January 2012 concentrations are known, sediment LC50 values are often lacking for common sediment toxicity testing Received in revised form 16 May 2012 species. To help ﬁll this data gap, sediments in California’s Central Valley were tested for nine hydropho- Accepted 27 June 2012 bic pesticides seldom analyzed: abamectin, diazinon, dicofol, fenpropathrin, indoxacarb, methyl para- Available online 23 July 2012 thion, oxyﬂuorfen, propargite, and pyraclostrobin. Most were detected, but rarely at concentrations acutely toxic to Hyalella azteca or Chironomus dilutus.
[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]
Impact of Pesticide Use on Health in Developing Countries
Impact of pesticide use on health in developing countries Proceedings of a symposium held in Ottawa, Canada, 1 7-20 September 1990 IDRC CRDI International Development Research Centre Centre de recherches pour le devetoppement international 1 March 1993 Dear Reader/Librarian, IDRC is a public corporation created by the Canadian parliament in 1970 to help developing countries find viable solutions to their problems through research. At the 1992 Earth Summit, IDRC's mandate was broadened to emphasize sustainable development issues. As part of IDRC's strengthened commitment to global action and harüony, we are pleased to send you a complimentary copy of our most recent publication: The impact of pesticide use on health in developing countries (March 1993, 352 pages, 0-88936-560-1, $17.95). The first part of this book presents a brief survey of the global situation and the results of twelve epidemiological studies carried out by researchers from Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. These focus on poisonings resulting from organophosphates, herbicides, and pyrethroids. The second part illustrates the role of the process of development, production, spraying techniques and legislation in protecting the health of workers. A discussion of the benefits and modalities of access to pertinent information for the prevention of pesticide poisonings is provided in the third section. Finally, in the fourth section, consideration is given to the advantages and disadvantages of certain alternatives to the use of synthetic pesticides in agriculture and public health, such as botanical pesticides and integrated pest management strategies. We hope this book is a valuable addition to your collection.
[Show full text]
INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES
US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES Note: Pesticide tolerance information is updated in the Code of Federal Regulations on a weekly basis. EPA plans to update these indexes biannually. These indexes are current as of the date indicated in the pdf file. For the latest information on pesticide tolerances, please check the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/40cfrv23_07.html 1 40 CFR Type Family Common name CAS Number PC code 180.163 Acaricide bridged diphenyl Dicofol (1,1-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol) 115-32-2 10501 180.198 Acaricide phosphonate Trichlorfon 52-68-6 57901 180.259 Acaricide sulfite ester Propargite 2312-35-8 97601 180.446 Acaricide tetrazine Clofentezine 74115-24-5 125501 180.448 Acaricide thiazolidine Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 128849 180.517 Acaricide phenylpyrazole Fipronil 120068-37-3 129121 180.566 Acaricide pyrazole Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6 129131 180.572 Acaricide carbazate Bifenazate 149877-41-8 586 180.593 Acaricide unclassified Etoxazole 153233-91-1 107091 180.599 Acaricide unclassified Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 6329 180.341 Acaricide, fungicide dinitrophenol Dinocap (2, 4-Dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6-dinitro-4- 39300-45-3 36001 octylphenyl crotonate} 180.111 Acaricide, insecticide organophosphorus Malathion 121-75-5 57701 180.182 Acaricide, insecticide cyclodiene Endosulfan 115-29-7 79401
[Show full text]
EPA Method 538: Determination of Selected Organic Contaminants in Drinking Water with Direct Aqueous Injection LC/MS/MS
EPA Method 538: Determination of Selected Organic Contaminants in Drinking Water with Direct Aqueous Injection LC/MS/MS E. Michael Thurman and Imma Ferrer Center for Environmental Mass Spectrometry University of Colorado Boulder, CO, USA Confidentiality Label 1 March 20, 2012 Abstract EPA Method 538 is a new method from EPA for organophosphate pesticides in drinking water. It uses direct aqueous injection; thus, no sample preparation is needed. We use both UHPLC (Agilent 1290) and MS/MS (Agilent 6460) analysis for rapid analysis and sensitive detection with ng/L limits of detection. A second MRM is added for more reliable identification. Confidentiality Label 2 March 20, 2012 Hypothesis Direct injection of organophosphate pesticides (EPA Method 538) will work by UHPLC (Agilent Model 1290) and LC/MS/MS with Jetstream (Agilent Model 6460) with trace level detection at ng/L concentrations. Confidentiality Label 3 March 20, 2012 1. Introduction-Summary 1.1 EPA Method 538 (published in November 2009 by Shoemaker) deals with Organophosphate pesticides in drinking water (1) and one other contaminant, quinoline. 1.2 The method consists of 10 compounds: acephate, aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, dicrotophos, diisopropylmethylphosphonate (DIMP), fenamiphos sulfone, fenamiphos sulfoxide, methamidophos, oxydemeton methyl, quinoline, and thiofanox with 5 labeled internal standards. 1.3 Direct aqueous injection is used with a large volume sample of 100 microliters; thus, no sample preparation is needed. 1.4 Because solid phase extraction (i.e. concentration of the sample is not carried out) suppression is mimimized in the analysis. 1.5 Part-per-Trillion Detection Limits. Confidentiality Label 4 March 20, 2012 Introduction 1.1: EPA Method 538: Determination of Selected Organic Contaminants in Drinking Water by Direct Aqueous Injection by Jody Shoemaker, EPA Cincinnati, OH [email protected] 513-569-7298 Confidentiality Label 5 March 20, 2012 Introduction: 1.2.
[Show full text]
EPA Method 538: Determination of Selected Organic Contaminants in Drinking Water by Aqueous Direct Injection and LC/MS/MS Summar
EPA Method 538: Determination of Selected Organic Contaminants in Drinking Water by Aqueous Direct Injection and LC/MS/MS UCT Part Numbers: SLAQ100ID21-3UM - Selectra® Aqueous C18, 100 x 2.1mm, 3µm SLAQGDC20-3UM - Selectra® Aqueous C18, Guard column, 10 x 2.0mm, 3µm SLGRDHLDR - Guard Cartridge Holder June 2015 Summary: This application outlines a direct aqueous injection-liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (DAI-LC/MS/MS) method for the determination of 11 selected organic contaminants in drinking water, including methamidophos, acephate, aldicarb sulfoxide, oxydemeton methyl, dicrotophos, aldicarb, diisopropyl methylphosphonate (DIMP), fenamiphos sulfone, fenamiphos sulfoxide, thiofanox, and quinoline [1]. Dicrotophos, oxydemeton methyl, methamidophos, and acephate are UCMR4 compounds. An Aqueous C18 HPLC column was utilized for analyte retention and separation. Calibration curves were constructed using calibration standards prepared in reagent water with preservative reagents for analyte quantitation. The responses were linear over the entire analytical ranges (R2 ≥ 0.9970). Excellent accuracy (90 - 111%) and precision (RSD% < 20%, n=7) were achieved for fortified reagent water and tap water samples. Procedure: 1. Preserve drinking water sample with 64 mg/L of sodium omadine (antimicrobial) and 1.5 g/L of ammonium acetate (binding free chlorine). 2. Mix 0.99 mL of the preserved water sample with 10 μL of 0.4-12.5 ng/μL internal standard mixture, and vortex for 30 sec. 3. Inject 50 μL onto LC/MS/MS equipped with an aqueous
[Show full text]
Western Flower Thrips Management on Greenhouse-Grown Crops
Western Flower Thrips Management on Greenhouse-Grown Crops Greenhouse producers worldwide are familiar with the Eggs hatch in two to four days. Nymphs feed on both western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande), leaves and flowers. The first nymphal stage lasts one to one of the most destructive insect pests of greenhouse- two days; the second nymphal stage, two to four days. grown crops. Western flower thrips, the primary thrips Second instar nymphs are typically more active and tend species encountered by greenhouse producers, is extremely to feed more than first instar nymphs. The second instar polyphagous, feeding on a wide-variety of horticultural nymph eventually migrates to the plant base and enters crops grown in both commercial and research greenhouses. the growing medium to pupate. Western flower thrips also This insect pest has been included in greenhouse pest pupate in leaf debris, on the plant, and in the open flowers control brochures since 1949. It was not considered a of certain types of plants including chrysanthemum. There major insect pest of greenhouse-grown crops until the are actually two “pupal” stages: a prepupa (or propupa) and 1980s. This publication addresses biology and damage; pupa. Both stages commonly occur in growing medium or scouting; and cultural, physical, insecticidal, and biological soil underneath benches. management. The issues discussed should provide insight Growing medium or soil type and pH and pupation depth on the importance of dealing with western flower thrips may influence pupal survival. Pupation depth depends on holistically instead of solely relying on insecticides. growing medium or soil type. Pupae stages do not feed Biology and Feeding Damage and are tolerant or immune to most insecticides commonly Knowledge of biology and damage is important in applied to manage western flower thrips nymphs and understanding the challenges associated with developing adults.
[Show full text]
OSPAR Background Document on Methoxychlor ______
Hazardous Substances Series --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Methoxychlor1 OSPAR Commission 2002 (2004 Update) 1 Secretariat’s note: A review statement on methoxychlor (Publication 352d/2008) was adopted in 2008, highlighting new developments since the adoption of the Background Document. OSPAR Commission, 2002: OSPAR Background Document on Methoxychlor _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (the “OSPAR Convention”) was opened for signature at the Ministerial Meeting of the former Oslo and Paris Commissions in Paris on 22 September 1992. The Convention entered into force on 25 March 1998. It has been ratified by Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom and approved by the European Community and Spain. La Convention pour la protection du milieu marin de l'Atlantique du Nord-Est, dite Convention OSPAR, a été ouverte à la signature à la réunion ministérielle des anciennes Commissions d'Oslo et de Paris, à Paris le 22 septembre 1992. La Convention est entrée en vigueur le 25 mars 1998. La Convention a été ratifiée par l'Allemagne, la Belgique, le Danemark, la Finlande, la France, l’Irlande, l’Islande, le Luxembourg, la Norvège, les Pays-Bas, le Portugal, le Royaume-Uni de Grande Bretagne et d’Irlande du Nord, la Suède et la Suisse et approuvée par la Communauté européenne et l’Espagne. © OSPAR Commission, 2002. Permission may be granted by the publishers for the report to be wholly or partly reproduced in publications provided that the source of the extract is clearly indicated. © Commission OSPAR, 2002.
[Show full text]
(A) Sources, Including As Appropriate (Provide Summary Information
UNEP/POPS/POPRC.1/4 Format for submitting pursuant to Article 8 of the Stockholm Convention the information specified in Annex E of the Convention Introductory information Name of the submitting Party/observer NGO Observer: Pesticide Action Network on behalf of the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) Contact details Clare Butler Ellis PhD, M.Inst.P, C.Env. Pesticide Action Network UK [email protected] Joseph DiGangi, PhD Environmental Health Fund +001-312-566-0985 [email protected] Chemical name Chlordecone Chemical name: 1,1a,3,3a,4,5,5,5a,5b,6-decachloro-octahydro-1,3,4-metheno-2H- cyclobuta[cd]pentalen-2-one CAS=143-50-0 Common trade names: GC 1189, Kepone, Merex Synonyms: Chlordecone, Chlordecone Kepone, Decachloroketone, Decachlorooctahydro-1,3,4-metheno-2H-cyclobuta(cd)pentalen-2-one, Decachloropentacyclo(5.3.0.0.0.0 2,6,4,10,5,9)decane-3-one, Decachlorotetracyclodecanone decachlorooctahydro- , Date of submission 27 January 2006 (a) Sources, including as appropriate (provide summary information and relevant references) (i) Production data: Quantity 1 “Chlordecone is no longer produced commercially in the United States. Between 1951 and 1975, approximately 3.6 million pounds (1.6 million kg) of chlordecone were produced in the United States (Epstein 1978). During this period, Allied Chemical Annex E information on chlordecone 1 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.1/4 Company produced approximately 1.8 million pounds (816,500 kg) of chlordecone at plants in Claymont, Delaware; Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania and Hopewell, Virginia. In 1974, because of increasing demand for chlordecone and a need to use their facility in Hopewell, Virginia, for other purposes, Allied Chemical transferred its chlordecone manufacturing to Life Sciences Products Company (EPA 1978b).
[Show full text]