a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/.../www/nepa/33361_FSPLT2_055708.pdf · Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I Keddie Ridge Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project 2 Table of

Appendix I

Human Health Risk Assessment

Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I Keddie Ridge Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project

2

Table of Contents Appendix I ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Human Health Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................ 1

Human Health Risk Assessment ....................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Project Proposal ........................................................................................................ 5 Hazard Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 5

Aminopyralid (Source: SERA 2007a) ........................................................................................ 6 Glyphosate (Source: SERA 2003) ............................................................................................ 7 Borax (Source: SERA 2006) ..................................................................................................... 9

Exposure Assessment ................................................................................................................. 11 Workers ................................................................................................................................... 11 General Public ......................................................................................................................... 14

Dose Response Assessment ...................................................................................................... 19 Aminopyralid (Source: SERA 2007a) ...................................................................................... 20 Glyphosate (Source: SERA 2003) .......................................................................................... 20 Borax (Source: SERA 2006) ................................................................................................... 21

Risk Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 21 Workers ................................................................................................................................... 22 General Public ......................................................................................................................... 23 Risk Assessment Summary .................................................................................................... 26

Cumulative Effects....................................................................................................................... 27 Inert Ingredients ........................................................................................................................... 29 Additives ...................................................................................................................................... 30

Competitor® (or an Equivalent Formulation) .......................................................................... 31 Hi-light® Blue (or an Equivalent Formulation). ....................................................................... 31 Synergistic Effects ................................................................................................................... 32

Sensitive Individuals .................................................................................................................... 32 Worksheets .................................................................................................................................. 33 References .................................................................................................................................. 33

List of Tables Table 1. Comparison of the Chemicals and Application Rates Proposed Under the Keddie Ridge Project

with those Analyzed Under the SERA Risk Assessments (SERA 2003, 2006, 2007a). .......... 4 Table 2. Summary of Worker Exposure Scenarios for Aminopyralid Applied at the Maximum Application

Rate of 0.11 a.e. lbs/Acre........................................................................................................ 13 Table 3. Summary of Worker Exposure Scenarios for Glyphosate Applied at the Maximum Application

Rate of 3 a.e. lbs/Acre............................................................................................................. 13 Table 4. Summary of Worker Exposure Scenarios for Borax Applied at the Maximum Application Rate of

a.e. lbs/Acre. ........................................................................................................................... 14 Table 5. Summary of General Public Scenarios for Aminopyralid Applied at the Maximum Application

Rate of 0.11 a.e. lbs/Acre........................................................................................................ 18 Table 6. Summary of General Public Scenarios for Glyphosate Applied at the Maximum Application Rate

of 3 a.e. lbs/Acre ..................................................................................................................... 19 Table 7. Summary of General Public Scenarios for Borax Applied at the Maximum Application Rate of

a.e. lbs/Acre. ........................................................................................................................... 19 Table 8. Summary of the Reference Doses (RfD) Established for the two Proposed Herbicides and the

one Proposed Fungicide. (SERA 2003, 2006, 2007a). ........................................................... 20 Table 9. Hazard Quotients for Backpack Applicators from General (Non-Accidental) Exposures to

Aminopyralid and Glyphosate. ................................................................................................ 22 Table 10. Hazard Quotient for Herbicides (Backpack Applicators) and Fungicide (Granular Application) for

Accidental/Incidental Exposures to Lower and Upper Application Rates. .............................. 22 Table 11. Hazard Quotient for the General Public - Direct Spray Scenario. ....................................... 23


3

Table 12. Hazard Quotient for the Public – Contact with Vegetation Sprayed with Herbicides. ......... 23 Table 13. Hazard Quotient for the Public - Drinking Water Contaminated by Herbicides and Fungicide.

................................................................................................................................................ 24 Table 14. Hazard Quotient for the Public – Consumption of Fish Caught from Water Contaminated by

Aminopyralid and Glyphosate. Upper Limits are Presented to Represent the Worst-Case Scenario. ................................................................................................................................. 24

Table 15. Hazard Quotient for the Public – Ingesting Fruit and Vegetation Contaminated by Herbicides ................................................................................................................................................ 25

Table 16. Hazard Quotient for the Public – Acute-Oral Ingestion of Borax by a Child. ....................... 25 Table 17. Total Herbicide Applications (in Pounds) within Plumas County between 2004 and 2008. Data

are not Currently Available for 2009 or 2010. ......................................................................... 28 Table 18. Total Pounds of Aminopyralid, Glyphosate, and Borax Applied within Plumas County between

2004 and 2008. Data are not Currently Available for 2009 or 2010. ...................................... 28 Table 19. Approximate Number of Acres Treated with Aminopyralid, Glyphosate, and Borax Within

Plumas County between 2004 and 2008. Data are not Currently Available for 2009 or 2010.28 Table 20. TMRC Values for U.S. Population as a Whole. ................................................................... 29


4

Human Health Risk Assessment

Introduction The treatments proposed under the Keddie Ridge Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project (Keddie Ridge Project) present some risks to human health and safety. The risks associated with hand thinning, mechanical thinning, and prescribed fire have been analyzed in detail under the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (USDA 2003) and are hereby incorporated by reference. The purpose of this appendix is to present a summary of the potential risks to human health from the proposed herbicide and fungicide treatments.

The hazards associated with using aminopyralid, glyphosate, and borax have been determined through comprehensive reviews of available toxicological studies; these reviews, which are compiled in a group of risk assessments completed by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA) under contract with the Forest Service, are also incorporated by reference into this risk assessment. Copies of these risk assessments are included in the project record.

The proposed application rates for aminopyralid, glyphosate, and borax fall within the range analyzed in the most recent SERA risk assessments (SERA 2003, 2006, 2007a); therefore a separate human health risk assessment for the Keddie Ridge Project is not required. Consequently, this appendix includes those portions of the human health risk assessment that pertain to the proposed use of aminopyralid, glyphosate, and borax formulations within the Keddie Ridge Project area. It also presents project-specific results from an analysis conducted for the Keddie Ridge Project to further characterize risk of herbicide exposure to workers and members of the general public. The tables included in this appendix are a summary of calculations contained in worksheets in the project file and are based on the most recent and relevant SERA risk assessments (SERA 2003, 2006, 2007a).

Table 1. Comparison of the Chemicals and Application Rates Proposed Under the Keddie Ridge Project with those Analyzed Under the SERA Risk Assessments (SERA 2003, 2006, 2007a).

Chemical Keddie Ridge Project SERA Risk Assessment

Lower Application

Rate1

Upper

Application Rate1

Lower Application

Rate1

Upper Application

Rate1

Aminopyralid 0.05 a.e. lbs/acre 0.11 a.e. lbs/acre 0.03 a.e. lbs/acre 0.11 a.e. lbs/acre

Glyphosate 1 a.e. lbs/acre 3 a.e. lbs/acre 0.5 a.e. lbs/acre 7 a.e. lbs/acre

Borax 0.1 a.e. lbs/acre 2.7 a.e. lbs/acre 0.1 a.e. lbs/acre 5 a.e. lbs/acre 1 application rate units: acid equivalent pounds per acre (a.e. lbs/acre)

The application of aminopyralid, glyphosate, and borax, as proposed by the Keddie Ridge Project, is expected to present a low risk to human health and safety. Based on the available information, the addition of the proposed surfactant and dye, would also pose a low risk to human health and safety. The incorporation of Best Management Practices (included in Appendix H) would also reduce the level of exposure and associated risk to the health and safety of workers and members of the general public. This is based on the analysis included in the SERA risk assessments (SERA 2003, 2006, 2007a) as well as the


5

project-level risk characterization described in this appendix, which was conducted using the specific chemicals, application rates, and volumes proposed for control of noxious weeds and Heterobasidion root disease within the Keddie Ridge Project.

Summary of Project Proposal Two herbicides (aminopyralid and glyphosate) and one fungicide (borax) are proposed under alternatives A and D for control of noxious weeds and Heterobasidion root disease within the Keddie Ridge Project area. Aminopyralid and glyphosate are proposed for treatment of hoary cress, yellow starthistle, and Canada thistle. Aminopyralid (e.g. Milestone® or an equivalent formulation) would be applied over a maximum of 61 acres; glyphosate (e.g. Accord® or an equivalent formulation) would be applied over a maximum of one acre. A non-ionic modified vegetable oil surfactant (such as Competitor® or an equivalent formulation) and a marker dye (such as Hi-Lite Blue® or an equivalent formulation) would also be used to increase the efficacy of the herbicide treatments. Herbicide treatments would occur over a period of two to five years, as needed.

Alternatives A and D also propose the use of the fungicide borax (e.g., Sporax® or an equivalent formulation) for control of Heterobasidion root disease within the Keddie Ridge Project area. Under these alternatives, borax would be applied in granular form to all harvested conifer stumps 14 inches and greater in diameter within treatment units 45, 46, 49, and 50. Application rates within thinning units would range from 0.1 pounds per acre (lbs/acre) to 1.1 lbs/acre; rates within group selection units would be higher with as much as 2.7 lbs/acre applied.

The proposed applications would comply with all applicable state and federal regulations for the safe use of pesticides (including the label requirements). For example, applicators would be adequately trained, medical aid would be available, wash water and eye wash water would be on-site or nearby, and personal protective equipment would be used (e.g. eye protection, gloves, long-sleeved shirt, and long pants). Best Management Practices for pesticide application, including a spill contingency plan, would be implemented.

The proposed application rates for all of the proposed chemicals are included in Table 1 above. Chapter 2 also provides a more detailed summary of the herbicide and fungicide treatment design elements that are proposed under alternatives A and D.

Hazard Analysis A considerable body of information describing the hazards associated with using each of the proposed herbicides and the proposed fungicide is contained in the risk assessments completed by SERA (SERA 2003, 2006, 2007a) under contract to the Forest Service and in the HFQLG final supplemental EIS (USDA 2003). All of these documents are incorporated by reference into this risk assessment. The following section includes relevant portions of the hazard analysis provided in the most recent SERA risk assessments (SERA 2003, 2006, 2007a).

A note specific to impurities and metabolites - virtually no chemical synthesis yields a totally pure product. Technical grade herbicides and fungicides, as with other technical grade products, undoubtedly


6

contain some impurities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines the term impurity as “…any substance…in a pesticide product other than an active ingredient or an inert ingredient, including un-reacted starting materials, side reaction products, contaminants, and degradation products” (40 CFR 158.153(d)). To some extent, concern for impurities in technical grade herbicides and fungicides is reduced by the fact that the existing toxicity studies on these herbicides and fungicides were conducted with the technical grade product. Thus, if toxic impurities are present in the technical grade product, they are likely to be encompassed by the available toxicity studies on the technical grade product. An exception to this general rule involves carcinogens, most of which are presumed to act by non-threshold mechanisms. Because of the non-threshold assumption, any amount of a carcinogen in an otherwise non-carcinogenic mixture is assumed to pose some carcinogenic risk.

As with contaminants, the potential effect of metabolites on a risk assessment is often encompassed by the available in vivo toxicity studies under the assumption that the toxicological consequences of metabolism in the species on which toxicity studies are available will be similar to those in the species of concern (human in this case). Uncertainties in this assumption are encompassed by using an uncertainty factor in deriving the reference dose (RfD) and may sometimes influence the selection of the study used to derive the RfD.

Unless otherwise specifically referenced, all of the information in the following sections was taken directly from the executive summary of the most recent SERA risk assessment (SERA 2003, 2006, 2007a).

Aminopyralid (Source: SERA 2007a) Because aminopyralid is a new herbicide, no information is available in the published literature on the toxicity of aminopyralid to humans or other mammalian species. The only information on aminopyralid that is available for assessing potential hazards in humans is a series of toxicity studies that have been submitted to and evaluated by the U.S. EPA’s Office of Pesticides in support of the registration for aminopyralid.

Although the mechanism of action of aminopyralid and other pyridine carboxylic acid herbicides is fairly well characterized in plants, the mechanism of action of aminopyralid in mammals is not well characterized. The weight-of-evidence suggests that aminopyralid may not have any remarkable systemic toxic effects. The effects that are most commonly seen involve effects on the gastrointestinal tract after oral exposure and these may be viewed as portal of entry effects rather than systemic toxic effects. The location of these effects within the gastrointestinal tract appears to vary among species with the ceca being the most common site of action in rats and the stomach being the most common site of action in dogs and rabbits. Mice do not seem to display any remarkable gastrointestinal effects after oral doses of aminopyralid. The reason for these differences among species is not clear but may simply reflect differences in methods of exposure (gavage versus dietary) and/or differences in anatomy.

In one acute oral toxicity study in rats using the aminopyralid TIPA formulation, lacrimation and cloudy eyes were noted in all test animals on the first day of the study but not on subsequent days.


7

Clouding of the eyes is an unusual effect that has not been noted in other studies on aminopyralid, either the acid or the TIPA salt. The significance of this observation, if any, is unclear.

Aminopyralid is rapidly absorbed and excreted and is not substantially metabolized in mammals. As a consequence of rapid absorption and excretion, gavage and dietary exposures probably lead to very different patterns in the time-course of distribution in mammals. The oral LD50 of aminopyralid has not been determined because aminopyralid does not cause any mortality at the dose limits set by the U.S. EPA for acute oral toxicity studies – i.e. up to 5,000 mg/kg bw. Similarly, subchronic and chronic toxicity studies have failed to demonstrate any clear signs of systemic toxic effects. Developmental studies involving gavage administration, however, have noted signs of incoordination in adult female rabbits. The incoordination was rapidly reversible and did not persist past the day of dosing. Two chronic oral bioassays have been conducted, one in mice and the other in rats, and a 1-year feeding study is available in dogs. Based on the results of the chronic bioassays as well as the lack of mutagenic activity in several mutagenicity screening assays, there is no basis for asserting that aminopyralid is a carcinogen. Similarly, based on the chronic bioassays and several additional subchronic bioassays in mice, rats, dogs, and rabbits, there is no basis for asserting that aminopyralid will cause adverse effects on the immune system or endocrine function. The potential for effects on the nervous system is less clear. Aminopyralid has also been subject to several bioassays for developmental toxicity and one multi-generation study for reproductive performance. No adverse effects on offspring have been noted in these studies other than decreased body weight in offspring that is associated with decreased food consumption and decreased body weight in adult females.

Glyphosate (Source: SERA 2003) The herbicidal activity of glyphosate is due primarily to the inhibition of the shikimate pathway which is involved in the synthesis of aromatic amino acids in plants and microorganisms. This metabolic pathway does not occur in humans or other animals and thus this mechanism of action is not directly relevant to the human health risk assessment. Two specific biochemical mechanisms of action have been identified or proposed for glyphosate: uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation and inhibition of hepatic mixed function oxidases. Both glyphosate and the polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) surfactant used in Roundup will damage mucosal tissue, although the mechanism of this damage is likely to differ for these two agents. Many of the effects of acute oral exposure to high doses of glyphosate or Roundup are consistent with corrosive effects on the mucosa.

The available experimental studies indicate that glyphosate is not completely absorbed after oral administration and is poorly absorbed after dermal applications. Two dermal absorption studies have been published on glyphosate and both of these studies indicate that glyphosate is very poorly absorbed across the skin.

Like all chemicals, glyphosate as well as commercial formulations of glyphosate may be toxic at sufficiently high exposure levels. In rats and mice, acute oral LD50 values of glyphosate range from approximately 2,000 to 6,000 mg/kg. Formulations of glyphosate with a POEA surfactant have been used in many suicides and attempted suicides. Gastrointestinal effects (vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea),


8

irritation, congestion, or other forms of damage to the respiratory tract, pulmonary edema, decreased urinary output sometimes accompanied by acute renal tubular necrosis, hypotension, metabolic acidosis, and electrolyte imbalances, probably secondary to the gastrointestinal and renal effects, are seen in human cases of glyphosate/surfactant exposure.

One of the more consistent signs of subchronic or chronic exposure to glyphosate is loss of body weight. This effect has been noted in mice, rats, dogs, and rabbits. This observation is consistent with experimental data indicating that glyphosate may be an uncoupler of oxidative phosphorylation. Other signs of toxicity seem general and non-specific. A few studies report changes in liver weight, blood chemistry that would suggest mild liver toxicity, or liver pathology. Changes in pituitary weight have also been observed. Signs of kidney toxicity, which might be expected based on the acute toxicity of glyphosate, have not been reported consistently and are not severe. Various hematological changes have been observed that may be secondary to mild dehydration.

Glyphosate has been specifically tested for neurotoxicity in rats after both acute and subchronic exposures and has been tested for delayed neurotoxicity in hens. In both the animal data as well as the clinical literature involving suicide attempts, there is no clear pattern suggestive of a specific neurotoxic action for glyphosate or its commercial formulations. The weight of evidence suggests that any neurologic symptoms associated with glyphosate exposures are secondary to other toxic effects. No studies are reported that indicate morphologic abnormalities in lymphoid tissues which could be suggestive of an effect on the immune system. As discussed in the ecological risk assessment, one study has asserted that glyphosate causes immune suppression in a species of fish. This study, however, is deficient in several respects and does not provide a basis for impacting the hazard identification for effects on the immune system.

Only three specific tests on the potential effects of glyphosate on the endocrine system have been conducted and all of these tests reported no effects. All of these assays are in vitro – i.e., not conducted in whole animals. Thus, such studies are used qualitatively in the hazard identification to assess whether there is a plausible biologic mechanism for asserting that endocrine disruption is plausible. Because they are in vitro assays, measures of dose and quantitative use of the information in dose/response assessment is not appropriate. For glyphosate, these studies do not indicate a basis for suggesting that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor. Nonetheless, glyphosate has not undergone an extensive evaluation for its potential to interact or interfere with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid hormone systems. Thus, the assessment of the potential endocrine effects of glyphosate cannot be overly interpreted.

Glyphosate has been subject to multi-generation reproduction studies which measure overall effects on reproductive capacity as well as teratology studies which assay for a compounds ability to cause birth defects. Signs of teratogenic activity have not been observed in standard assays in both rats and rabbits. In a multi-generation reproduction study in rats, effects on the kidney were observed in male offspring. This effect is consistent with the acute systemic toxicity of glyphosate, rather than a specific reproductive effect. Several other subchronic and chronic studies of glyphosate have been conducted with no mention of treatment-related effects on endocrine glands or reproductive organs. A single study has reported substantial decreases in libido, ejaculate volume, sperm concentrations, semen initial fructose and semen


9

osmolality as well as increases in abnormal and dead sperm in rabbits after acute oral exposures to glyphosate. This study is inconsistent with other studies reported on glyphosate and is poorly documented –i.e., specific doses administered to the animals are not specified. In addition, the use of gelatin capsules, as in this study results, in a high spike in body burden that is not typical or particularly relevant to potential human exposures – other than attempted suicides. Numerous epidemiological studies have examined relationships between pesticide exposures or assumed pesticide exposures in agricultural workers and reproductive outcomes. Of those studies that have specifically addressed potential risks from glyphosate exposures, adverse reproductive effects have not been noted.

Based on standard animal bioassays for carcinogenic activity in vivo, there is no basis for asserting that glyphosate is likely to pose a substantial risk. The Re-registration Eligibility Decision (RED) document on glyphosate prepared by the U.S. EPA indicates that glyphosate is classified as Group E: Evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans. This classification is also indicated in U.S. EPA's most recent publication of tolerances for glyphosate and is consistent with an assessment by the World Health Organization. This assessment has been challenged based on some studies that indicate marginal carcinogenic activity. As with any compound that has been studied for a long period of time and tested in a large number of different systems, some equivocal evidence of carcinogenic potential is apparent and may remain a cause of concern, at least in terms of risk perception. While these concerns are understandable, there is no compelling basis for challenging the position taken by the U.S. EPA and no quantitative risk assessment for cancer is conducted as part of the current analysis.

Glyphosate formulations used by the Forest Service are classified as either non-irritating or only slightly irritating to the skin and eyes in standard assays required for product registration. Based on a total of 1513 calls to a poison control center reporting ocular effects associated with the use of Roundup, 21 percent were associated with no injury, 70 percent with transient minor injury, 2 percent with some temporary injury. The most frequently noted symptoms included blurred vision, a stinging or burning sensation, lacrimation. No cases of permanent damage were reported.

Various glyphosate formulations contain a POEA surfactant at a level of up to about 20 percent. Other formulations of glyphosate recommend the use of a surfactant to improve the efficacy of glyphosate. While surfactants are typically classified as “inert” ingredients in herbicides, these compounds are not toxicologically inert and some surfactants may be more toxic than the herbicides with which they are used. Although surfactants may play a substantial role in the interpretation of a large number of suicides and attempted suicides involving the ingestion of glyphosate formulations, primarily Roundup, the acute mammalian toxicity of different glyphosate formulations do not appear to differ substantially. This is in contrast to the available data on the toxicity of various formulations to aquatic species, as detailed in the ecological risk assessment.

Borax (Source: SERA 2006) The toxicity of borate compounds has been extensively studied in both humans and laboratory animals, with most studies conducted using boric acid and borax. Boric acid and borax have similar toxicological properties across different species. In order to facilitate any comparisons between borax and boric acid,


10

data are expressed in terms of the dose or concentration of borate compound (borax or boric acid) and in terms of boron equivalents (B).

At physiologic pH, borate salts convert almost entirely to unionized boric acid; thus, boric acid and borate salts have similar toxicologic properties. Inorganic borates are well absorbed following oral administration, with an oral absorption of greater than 90 percent of the administered dose. Borate is not readily absorbed through intact skin but is more quickly absorbed across abraded skin. Percutaneous absorption of borax from intact human skin was shown to be very low, with a dermal permeability coefficient of 1.8×10-7 cm/hr. Boron is also absorbed following inhalation exposure to borate dust, but absorption does not appear to be complete. Borates are distributed in body soft tissues and eliminated in the urine, primarily in the form of boric acid, with a half-life of approximately 12 hours. Due to the excessive energy required to break the boron-oxygen bond, borates are not metabolized by humans or animals.

Based on the results of acute exposure studies, borax is classified as moderately toxic, with an LD50 in male rats of 4.5 g borax/kg. Clinical signs of toxicity observed following acute exposures include depression, ataxia and convulsions. In dogs, acute exposure to borax produced a strong dose-dependent emetic response. As expected of a compound with low percutaneous absorption, the LD50 of borax following single dermal application is > 5 g borax/kg in rats and >2 g borax/kg in rabbits. Results of a single inhalation exposure study yield a 4-hour LC50 > 2.0 mg borax/kg.

Results of developmental, subchronic and chronic toxicity studies show that the primary targets for borate toxicity are the developing fetus and the male reproductive system. Regarding developmental effects, gestational exposure of rats, mice, and rabbits to boric acid resulted in increased fetal deaths, decreased in fetal weight, and increased fetal malformations. The types of fetal malformations observed include anomalies of the eyes, central nervous system, cardiovascular system, and axial skeleton in rats, short rib XIII and other skeletal anomalies pertaining to ribs in mice, and cardiovascular malformations in rabbits. The most sensitive effect observed following gestational exposure to boric acid is decreased body weight. No mechanism has been identified for the developmental effects of borates. Results of subchronic and chronic toxicity studies show that the testis is the primary target organ for borate compounds in adult animals. Testicular toxicity is characterized by atrophy of the testes, degeneration of the seminiferous epithelium, and sterility. Results of reproductive studies show a dose-dependent decrease in fertility in male rats and dogs, with dogs being slightly more sensitive than rats. At lower exposure levels, testicular effects and infertility may be reversed, but adverse effects can persist for at least 8 months at higher exposure levels. Results of one study in rats indicate that borax exposure may also reduce ovulation in female rats. Although no mechanism has been identified for borax-induced toxicity to the male reproductive system, data are consistent with the Sertoli cell as the primary target. Borax and borate compounds do not appear to act as direct neurotoxins or cause effects on immune system function. Studies assessing carcinogenic and mutagenic potential show no carcinogenic or mutagenic activity for borax and other borate compounds. Borax is not irritating to skin (Toxicity Category 4). Borax can cause severe irritation to eyes (Toxicity Category 1). In standard mammalian studies to assay ocular irritation, the damage persisted for the duration of the study – i.e., 14 days.


11

Exposure Assessment This exposure assessment examines the potential health effects to two groups of people that are most likely to be exposed to aminopyralid, glyphosate, or borax: workers and members of the public. Workers include applicators, supervisors, and other personnel directly involved in the application of herbicides. The public includes other Forest Service personnel, visitors, or nearby residents who could be exposed through herbicide drift, contact with sprayed vegetation, by drinking water that contains herbicide residue, or by eating contaminated vegetation (such as berries or foliage), game, or fish.

In these analyses, data are displayed for three different exposure scenarios: typical, lower, and upper. The upper level represents a conservative estimate of a worst-case scenario resulting from the highest application rate, lowest dilution rate, and largest number of acres treated per day. This approach is used to encompass as broadly as possible the range of potential exposures.

Workers Pesticide applicators are the individuals who are most likely to be exposed to a pesticide during the application process. For purpose of this analysis, two different types of worker exposure assessments were considered: general and accidental/incidental. General exposure scenarios were used to analyze exposure resulting from normal use (i.e. handling and application) of the chemicals (SERA 2007b). Accidental and incidental exposure scenarios were used to analyze specific types of exposures associated with mischance or mishandling of a chemical (SERA 2007b).

The USDA Forest Service has generally used an absorption-based model for worker exposure modeling, in which the amount of chemical absorbed is estimated from the amount of chemical handled. Absorption based models have been used by the USDA Forest Service because of two common observations from field studies. First, most studies that attempt to differentiate occupational exposure by route of exposure indicate that dermal exposure is the dominant route of exposure for pesticide workers. Second, most studies of pesticide exposure that monitored both dermal deposition and chemical absorption or some other method of bio-monitoring noted a very poor correlation between the two values (e.g., Cowell et al. 1991, Franklin et al. 1981, Lavy et al. 1982, referenced in SERA 2007b). In this exposure assessment for workers, the primary goal is to estimate the absorbed dose so that the absorbed dose estimate can be compared with available information on the dose-response relationships for the chemical of concern.

Although pesticide application involves many different job activities, exposure rates can be defined for three broad categories: directed application such as those involving the use of backpacks or similar devices; broadcast hydraulic spray applications; and broadcast aerial applications. All of the methods proposed for control of noxious weeds and Heterobasidion root disease in the Keddie Ridge Project (i.e. backpack spraying, wick, and spot application) fall under the category of direct application; therefore only the risks associated with this job activity will be presented in this risk analysis.

Exposure rates for workers are calculated using a number of factors that include: proposed application rates, dilution rates, estimated hours worked per day, number of acres treated per hour and human dermal absorption rates. As described in SERA (2007b), worker exposure rates are expressed in units of


12

milligrams (mg) of absorbed dose per kilogram (kg) of body weight per pound of chemical handled (mg/kg/lb applied). A summary of the exposure scenarios calculated for workers is provided in the tables at the end of this section.

General Exposure Table 2 and Table 3 display the exposure rates calculated for a scenario involving general exposure to aminopyralid and glyphosate. This scenario represents the type of exposure that might be expected to occur over the course of each work day during a prolonged application program. Borax is not included in this scenario because of the method in which it is applied (i.e. granular form to the surfaces of cut tree stumps). Although there are several reports detailing local irritant effects resulting from occupational exposures to borate dust, these exposures are not considered in this assessment due to the implausibility of inhalation exposures in the field reaching the high concentrations of boron that are reported in confined industrial facilities (SERA 2006). Therefore, the only exposure scenario that is considered plausible for workers is accidental dermal exposure to the hands and lower legs of granular borax during application, which is discussed in the next section.

Accidental and Incidental Exposures Typical occupational exposures may involve multiple routes of exposure (i.e., oral, dermal, and inhalation); nonetheless, dermal exposure is generally the predominant route for herbicide applicators. Typical multi-route exposures are encompassed by the methods used in general exposures. Accidental exposures, on the other hand, are most likely to involve splashing a solution of herbicide or fungicide into the eyes or to involve various dermal exposure scenarios.

The available literature does not include quantitative methods for characterizing exposure or responses associated with splashing a solution of a chemical into the eyes; furthermore, there appear to be no reasonable approaches to modeling this type of exposure scenario quantitatively. Consequently, accidental exposure scenarios of this type are considered qualitatively in the risk characterization.

There are various methods for estimating absorbed doses associated with accidental dermal exposure. Two general types of exposure are modeled: those involving direct contact with a solution of the herbicide and those associated with accidental spills of the herbicide or fungicide onto the surface of the skin. Any number of specific exposure scenarios could be developed for direct contact or accidental spills by varying the amount or concentration of the chemical on or in contact with the surface of the skin and by varying the surface area of the skin that is contaminated.

Exposure scenarios involving direct contact with solutions of the chemical are characterized by immersion of the hands for one minute or wearing contaminated gloves for one hour. Generally, it is not reasonable to assume or postulate that the hands or any other part of a worker will be immersed in a solution of an herbicide for any period of time. On the other hand, contamination of gloves or other clothing is quite plausible. For these exposure scenarios, the key element is the assumption that wearing gloves grossly contaminated with a chemical solution is equivalent to immersing the hands in a solution.


13

In either case, the concentration of the chemical in solution that is in contact with the surface of the skin and the resulting dermal absorption rate are essentially constant.

Exposure scenarios involving chemical spills on to the skin are characterized by a spill on to the lower legs as well as a spill on to the hands. In these scenarios, it is assumed that a solution of the chemical is spilled onto a given surface area of skin and that a certain amount of the chemical adheres to the skin. The absorbed dose is then calculated as the product of the amount of the chemical on the surface of the skin (i.e., the amount of liquid per unit surface area multiplied by the surface area of the skin over which the spill occurs and the concentration of the chemical in the liquid) the first-order absorption rate, and the duration of exposure. For both scenarios, it is assumed that the contaminated skin is effectively cleaned after one hour. As with the exposure assessments based on Fick's first law, this product (mg of absorbed dose) is divided by bodyweight (kg) to yield an estimated dose in units of mg chemical/kg body weight. The specific equation used in these exposure assessments is taken from SERA (2007b).

Summary of Worker Exposures The following tables provide a summary of the general and accidental exposure scenarios calculated

for workers.

Table 2. Summary of Worker Exposure Scenarios for Aminopyralid Applied at the Maximum Application Rate of 0.11 a.e. lbs/Acre

Scenario

Typical Dose (mg/kg/day)

Lower Range (mg/kg/day)

Upper Range (mg/kg/day)

General Exposure (dose in mg/kg/day)

Backpack application 0.001 5 × 10-5 0.009

Accidental/Incidental Exposures (dose in mg/kg/day)

Immersion of hands, 1 minute 1 × 10-7 1 × 10-8 5 × 10-6

Contaminated Gloves, 1 hour 6 × 10-6 9 × 10-7 0.0003

Spill on hands,1 hour 2 × 10-5 3 × 10-6 0.002

Spill on lower legs,1 hour 6 × 10-5 7 × 10-6 0.004

Table 3. Summary of Worker Exposure Scenarios for Glyphosate Applied at the Maximum Application Rate of 3 a.e. lbs/Acre

Scenario




General Exposure (dose in mg/kg/day)

Backpack application 0.04 0.003 0.2


Immersion of hands, 1 minute 4 × 10-6 7 × 10-7 0.0002

Contaminated Gloves, 1 hour 0.0003 4 × 10-5 0.01

Spill on hands,1 hour 0.0006 0.0001 0.02


14

Spill on lower legs,1 hour 0.001 0.0003 0.04

Table 4. Summary of Worker Exposure Scenarios for Borax Applied at the Maximum Application Rate of a.e. lbs/Acre.

Scenario1





Immersion of hands, 1 minute 4 × 10-5 2 × 10-5 9 × 10-5

Contaminated Gloves, 1 hour 3 × 10-4 1 × 10-4 7 × 10-4 1Note that many of the scenarios included for aminopyralid and glyphosate (above) are not applicable to borax because of the granular stump application method

General Public Under normal conditions, members of the general public should not be exposed to substantial levels of aminopyralid, glyphosate, or borax. Nonetheless, exposure scenarios can be constructed for the general public, depending on various assumptions regarding application rates, dispersion, canopy interception, and human activity. Several highly conservative scenarios are utilized to characterize this risk.

The two types of exposure scenarios developed for the general public include acute exposure and longer-term or chronic exposure. All of the acute exposure scenarios are primarily accidental. They assume that an individual is exposed to the compound either during or shortly after its application. Specific scenarios are developed for direct spray, dermal contact with contaminated vegetation, and consumption of contaminated fruit, vegetation, water, and fish. Most of these scenarios should be regarded as extreme, some to the point of limited plausibility (SERA 2007b). The longer-term or chronic exposure scenarios parallel the acute exposure scenarios for the consumption of contaminated fruit, vegetation, water, and fish but are based on estimated levels of exposure for longer periods after application. A summary of the exposure scenarios calculated for workers is provided in the three tables at the end of this section.

As discussed in the exposure assessment for workers (SERA 2006), the atypical application method for borax limits the number of exposure scenarios for the general public that can be reasonably expected to occur; therefore, typical exposures involving spray of a chemical to vegetation, such as dermal contact with contaminated vegetation and the consumption of contaminated fruit, are not applicable to the assessment of borax. Exposure scenarios based on oral exposures from consumption of contaminated fish are also not considered since borate compounds do no bio-accumulate in fish (SERA 2006).

The two types of exposure scenarios that are considered most likely for borax include ingestion of borax from a tree stump by a child and ingestion of contaminated water. For ingestion of borax from a tree stump, only acute exposure is considered. Exposure scenarios developed for the general public for contaminated water include acute exposure and longer-term or chronic exposure. The scenarios developed for this risk assessment should tend to over-estimate exposures in general.


15

Direct Spray Direct sprays involving ground applications are modeled in a manner similar to accidental spills for workers. In other words, it is assumed that the individual is sprayed with a solution containing the compound and that an amount of the compound remains on the skin and is absorbed by first-order kinetics. As with the worker exposure scenarios, the first-order absorption kinetics are estimated from the empirical relationship of first-order absorption rate coefficients to molecular weight and octanol-water partition coefficients (SERA 2007b).

For direct spray scenarios, it is assumed that during a ground application, a naked child is sprayed directly with the herbicide. The scenario also assumes that the child is completely covered (that is, 100 percent of the surface area of the body is exposed), which makes this an extremely conservative exposure scenario that is likely to represent the upper limits of plausible exposure. An additional set of scenarios are included involving a young woman who is accidentally sprayed over the feet and legs. For each of these scenarios, some standard assumptions are made regarding the surface area of the skin and body weight.

Dermal Exposure from Contaminated Vegetation In this exposure scenario, it is assumed that the herbicide is sprayed at a given application rate and that an individual comes in contact with sprayed vegetation or other contaminated surfaces at some period after the spray operation. For these exposure scenarios, some estimates of dislodgeable residue and the rate of transfer from the contaminated vegetation to the surface of the skin must be available. When no such data are directly available for these herbicides the estimation methods of Durkin et al. (SERA 2007b) are used. Other estimates used in this exposure scenario involve estimates of body weight, skin surface area, and first-order dermal absorption rates.

Contaminated Water Water can be contaminated from runoff, as a result of leaching from contaminated soil, from a direct spill, or from unintentional contamination from applications. For this risk assessment, the two types of estimates made for the concentration of these herbicides in ambient water are acute/accidental exposure from an accidental spill and longer-term exposure to the herbicides in ambient water that could be associated with the typical application of these compounds to a 100-acre treatment area.

The acute exposure scenario assumes that a young child (2- to 3-years old) consumes one liter (L) of contaminated water (a range of 0.6 to 1.5 L) shortly after an accidental spill of 200 gallons of a field solution into a pond that has an average depth of 1 meter and a surface area of 1000 square meters or about one-quarter acre. Because this scenario is based on the assumption that exposure occurs shortly after the spill, no dissipation or degradation of the herbicide is considered. This is an extremely conservative scenario dominated by arbitrary variability. The actual concentrations in the water would depend heavily on the amount of compound spilled, the size of the water body into which it is spilled, the time at which water consumption occurs relative to the time of the spill, and the amount of contaminated


16

water that is consumed. It is also unlikely that ponds would be the water body receiving any herbicides in this project. Flowing streams are the more likely recipients, so dilution would occur.

The scenario for chronic exposure to these herbicides from contaminated water assumes that an adult (70 kg male) consumes contaminated ambient water for a lifetime. There are some monitoring studies available on these herbicides (i.e. glyphosate) that allow for an estimation of expected concentrations in ambient water associated with ground applications of the compound over a wide area. However, for others (i.e. aminopyralid), such monitoring data does not exist. For those herbicides without monitoring data, for this component of the exposure assessment, estimates of levels in ambient water were made based on the Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems (GLEAMS) model.

GLEAMS is a root zone model that can be used to examine the fate of chemicals in various types of soils under different meteorological and hydro-geological conditions (SERA 2007b). SERA (2004) illustrated the general application of the GLEAMS model to estimating concentrations in ambient water. The results of the GLEAMS modeling runs are displayed in the respective SERA risk assessments. It is important to note that water monitoring conducted in the Pacific Southwest Region since 1991 involving glyphosate (USDA 2001) has shown that the assumptions in this risk assessment (in terms of water contamination) provide for a conservative (i.e. protective) assessment of risk.

The borax application method considered in this risk assessment (i.e. application to tree stumps) has a limited potential to contaminate water. Nonetheless, after application of tree stumps, rainfall and consequent runoff could lead to contamination of standing water or streams. In addition, accidental spills of the borax formulation into a small body of water are possible. Exposure assessments for both of these scenarios are presented.

Oral Exposure from Contaminated Fish Many chemicals may be concentrated or partitioned from water into the tissues of animals or plants in the water. This process is referred to as bio-concentration. Generally, bio-concentration is measured as the ratio of the concentration in the organism to the concentration in the water. For example, if the concentration in the organism is 5 mg/kg and the concentration in the water is 1 mg/L, the bio-concentration factor (BCF) is 5 L/kg. As with most absorption processes, bio-concentration depends initially on the duration of exposure but eventually reaches steady state. Details regarding the relationship of bio-concentration factor to standard pharmacokinetic principles are provided in Calabrese and Baldwin (1993, referenced in SERA 2007b).

Both of the herbicides in this risk assessment have BCF values for fish of one or less. These values are generally determined from a standardized test that is required as part of the registration process. Borate compounds do not bio-concentrate in fish (Ohlendorf et al.1986; Klasing and Pilch 1988 referenced in SERA 2006)

For both the acute and longer-term exposure scenarios involving the consumption of contaminated fish, the water concentrations of the herbicides used are identical to the concentrations used in the contaminated water scenarios. The acute exposure scenario is based on the assumption that an adult angler consumes fish taken from contaminated water shortly after an accidental spill of 200 gallons of a


17

field solution into a pond that has an average depth of one meter and a surface area of 1,000 square meters or about one-quarter acre. No dissipation or degradation is considered. Because of the available and well-documented information and substantial differences in the amount of caught fish consumed by the general public and Native American subsistence populations (U.S. EPA 1996, referenced in SERA 2007b), separate exposure estimates are made for these two groups. The chronic exposure scenario is constructed in a similar way.

Oral Exposure from Contaminated Vegetation Under normal circumstances and in most types of applications, it is extremely unlikely that humans will consume, or otherwise place in their mouths, vegetation contaminated with the proposed herbicides. Nonetheless, any number of scenarios could be developed involving either accidental spraying of edible wild vegetation, like berries, or the spraying of plants collected by Native Americans for basket weaving or medicinal use. Again, in most instances and particularly for longer-term scenarios, treated vegetation would probably show signs of damage from herbicide exposure, thereby reducing the likelihood of consumption that would lead to significant levels of human exposure. Notwithstanding that assertion, it is conceivable that individuals could consume contaminated vegetation.

One of the more plausible scenarios involves the consumption of contaminated berries after treatment along a road or some other area in which wild berries grow. The two accidental exposure scenarios developed for this exposure assessment include one scenario for acute exposure and one scenario for longer-term exposure. In both scenarios, the concentration of herbicide on contaminated vegetation is estimated using the empirical relationships between application rate and concentration on vegetation developed by (Hoerger and Kenaga 1972, referenced in SERA 2007b). For the acute exposure scenario, the estimated residue level is taken as the product of the application rate and the residue rate. For the longer-term exposure scenario, a duration of 90 days is used and the dissipation on the vegetation is estimated based on the estimated or established foliar half-times.

Although the duration of exposure of 90 days may appear to be somewhat arbitrarily chosen, it is intended to represent the consumption of contaminated vegetation that might be available over one season. Longer durations could be used for certain kinds of vegetation but would lower the estimated dose (i.e., would result in a less conservative exposure assessment). The central estimate of dose for the longer-term exposure period is taken as the time-weighted average of the initial concentration and concentration after 90 days. For the acute exposure scenario, it is assumed that a woman consumes one pound (0.4536 kg) of contaminated fruit. Based on statistics summarized in EPA (1996, referenced in SERA 2007b), this consumption rate is approximately the mid-range between the mean and upper 95 percent confidence interval for the total vegetable intake for a 64 kilogram woman. The longer-term exposure scenario is constructed in a similar way, except that the estimated exposures include the range of vegetable consumption (U.S. EPA 1996, referenced in SERA 2007b) as well as the range of concentrations on vegetation and the range of application rates for the herbicides.


18

Oral Exposure of Borax Applied to Tree Stumps

For borax, the acute exposure scenario is used in which a child ingests borax applied to tree stumps. There is no information in the available literature to estimate the amount of borax that a child could be predicted to consume in one day. The estimated amount of borax that a child may consume in one day is based on the amount of soil that an average child may ingest per day. According to the EPA Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA 1996, referenced in SERA 2006), the mean amount of soil that a child consumes per day is estimated to be 100 mg soil/day, with an upper bound estimate of 400 mg soil/day. For this risk assessment, the amount of borax consumed from tree stumps in a single day is taken as the range of 50 (an estimated lower bound) to 400 mg borax /day. A central estimate for borax consumption is taken as 100 mg borax /day. It should be emphasized that this exposure estimate is highly uncertain and not based on empirical data for consumption of any borate compound; thus exposures via this scenario may be under- or overestimated.

Summary of General Public Exposures The following tables provide a summary of the exposure scenarios calculated for members of the

general public.

Table 5. Summary of General Public Scenarios for Aminopyralid Applied at the Maximum Application Rate of 0.11 a.e. lbs/Acre

Scenario




Acute/Accidental Exposures (dose in mg/kg/day)

Direct Spray, entire body, child 0.0009 0.0001 0.06

Direct Spray, lower legs, woman 9 × 10-5 1 × 10-5 0.006

Dermal Exposure, contaminated vegetation

0.0001 2 × 10-5 0.0005

Contaminated Fruit 0.001 0.0006 0.02

Contaminated Vegetation 0.02 0.001 0.2

Contaminated Water, spill, child 0.02 0.001 0.6

Consumption of Fish, general public 0.0005 6 × 10-5 0.01

Consumption of Fish, subsistence populations

0.002 0.0003 0.06

Chronic/Longer Term Exposures (dose in mg/kg/day)



Consumption of Water 0.0001 2 × 10-6 0.001

Consumption of Fish, general public 6 × 10-7 2 × 10-8 4 × 10-6

Consumption of Fish, subsistence population

5 × 10-6 1 × 10-7 3 × 10-5


19

Table 6. Summary of General Public Scenarios for Glyphosate Applied at the Maximum Application Rate of 3 a.e. lbs/Acre

Scenario





Direct Spray, entire body, child 0.02 0.004 0.7

Direct Spray, lower legs, woman 0.002 0.0004 0.07

Dermal Exposure, contaminated vegetation

0.003 0.001 0.008




Consumption of Fish, general public 0.005 0.0006 0.2

Consumption of Fish, subsistence populations

0.02 0.003 0.6

Chronic/Longer Term Exposures (dose in mg/kg/day)



Consumption of Water 9 × 10-5 6 × 10-6 0.0008

Consumption of Fish, general public 2 × 10-7 2 × 10-8 1 × 10-6

Consumption of Fish, subsistence population

1 × 10-6 1 × 10-7 1 × 10-5

Table 7. Summary of General Public Scenarios for Borax Applied at the Maximum Application Rate of a.e. lbs/Acre.

Scenario





Direct consumption from tree stump, child 0.9 0.4 3.2


Contaminated Water, ambient, child 0.01 0.001 0.03 Chronic/Longer Term Exposures (dose in mg/kg/day)

Consumption of Water 0.001 0.0001 0.007

Dose Response Assessment The purpose of this section is to describe the degree or severity of risk as a function of dose (SERA 2007b). In general, dose-response assessments use reference doses (RfD), or dose levels associated with a negligible or defined level of risk, as indices of “acceptable exposure” (SERA 2007b). Table 8 provides a summary of the established reference doses (RfD) for aminopyralid, glyphosate, and borax. In this table,


20

RfD values are derived for both acute exposures (i.e. those occurring within a short time frame) as well as chronic exposures (i.e. long-term exposures).

Table 8. Summary of the Reference Doses (RfD) Established for the two Proposed Herbicides and the one Proposed Fungicide. (SERA 2003, 2006, 2007a).

Chemical

Reference Dose (RfD)

Acute (mg/kg bw)a

Chronic (mg/kg bw/day)

Aminopyralid 1 0.5

Glyphosate 2 2

Borax 0.2 0.2 a mg/kg/day = milligrams of agent per kilogram of body weight per day.

The following sections contain relevant excerpts from the dose response assessment contained within the SERA risk assessments for aminopyralid, glyphosate, and borax (SERA 2003, 2006, 2007a). Unless otherwise specifically referenced, all of the information in the following sections was taken directly from the executive summary of the most recent SERA risk assessments (SERA 2003, 2006, 2007a).

Aminopyralid (Source: SERA 2007a) The Office of Pesticide Programs of the U.S. EPA has derived a chronic RfD of 0.5 mg/kg/day for

aminopyralid. This RfD is based on a chronic rat NOAEL [No Observed Adverse Effect Level] of 50 mg/kg/day and an uncertainty factor of 100. The Office of Pesticide Programs has also derived an acute RfD of 1 mg/kg bw/day based on a NOAEL from a reproduction study of about 100 mg/kg/day. In deriving both of these RfD values, the U.S. EPA used an uncertainty factor of 100, a factor of 10 for extrapolating from animals to humans and a factor of 10 for extrapolating to sensitive individuals within the human population. Both of these RfD values are based on NOAELs for the most sensitive endpoint in the most sensitive species and studies in which LOAEL values were identified. In addition, both of the NOAEL values are supported by other studies. Thus, the RfD values recommended by the U.S. EPA are adopted directly in the current risk assessment.

Glyphosate (Source: SERA 2003) Generally, the dose-response assessments used in Forest Service risk assessments adopt RfDs proposed by the U.S. EPA as indices of 'acceptable' exposure. An RfD is basically defined as a level of exposure that will not result in any adverse effects in any individual. The U.S. EPA RfDs are used because they generally provide a level of analysis, review, and resources that far exceed those that are or can be conducted in the support of most Forest Service risk assessments. In addition, it is desirable for different agencies and organizations within the federal government to use concordant risk assessment values.

The most recent RfD on glyphosate is that proposed by the U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs. This RfD of 2 mg/kg/day was proposed originally in the RED for glyphosate and was also used in the recent glyphosate pesticide tolerances. This RfD is based on teratogenicity study in rabbits (Rodwell et al. 1980b in 2003) in which no effects observed in offspring at any dose levels and maternal toxicity was


21

observed at 350 mg/kg/day with a NOAEL of 175 mg/kg/day . Using an uncertainty factor of 100 – 10 for sensitive individuals and 10 for species-to-species extrapolation – U.S. EPA/OPP derived the RfD of 2 mg/kg/day, rounding the value of 1.75 mg/kg/day to one significant digit.

For the current risk assessment, the RfD 2 mg/kg/day derived by U.S. EPA/OPP is used as the basis for characterizing risk from longer-term exposures in this risk assessment. For short-term exposures, the value of 2 mg/kg/day recommended by U.S. EPA’s Office of Drinking Water is used. Since this is identical to the chronic RfD, this approach is equivalent to applying the same RfD to be short-term and long-term exposures. Given the lack of a significant dose-duration relationship for glyphosate, this approach seems appropriate.

Borax (Source: SERA 2006) The U.S. EPA (2004, as referenced in 2006) has recently derived a chronic RfD of 0.2 mg/kg/day for boron (from boric acid and borates), using the combined data of two developmental toxicity studies in rats using decreased fetal weight as the most sensitive endpoint. The RfD is based benchmark dose analyses identifying a 5 percent decrease in mean fetal body weight compared to control as the benchmark response (BMR) level. The 95 percent lower bound on the dose corresponding to the BMR, i.e., the BMDL05, of 10.3 mg B/kg/day is used as the critical dose value to calculate the RfD. The uncertainty factor of 66, which considers both the toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic aspects associated with interspecies and interindividual variability, was applied to the critical dose to derive the chronic RfD of 0.2 mg B/kg/day. The U.S. EPA has not derived an acute RfD for boron. Therefore, the chronic RfD of 0.2 mg B/kg/day will also be used to characterize risks associated with incidents or accidents that involve an exposure period of 1 day.

Risk Assessment The following section presents a quantitative summary of the risk to workers and members of the

general public associated with exposure to aminopyralid, glyphosate, and borax. This assessment utilizes the specific chemicals, application rates, and volumes proposed for control of noxious weeds and Heterobasidion root disease within the Keddie Ridge Project.

Risk characterization is a process that compares doses that people may get from applying pesticides (i.e. workers) or from being near an application site (i.e. members of the general public) with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s established Reference Doses (RfD), a level of exposure considered protective of lifetime or chronic exposures. Risk characterization is expressed as a hazard quotient; a hazard quotient of one or less indicates that the likelihood of adverse effects are low (SERA 2006).

The only reservation attached to this assessment is that associated with any risk assessment: absolute safety cannot be proven and the absence of risk can never be demonstrated. No chemical has been studied for all possible effects and the use of data from laboratory animals to estimate hazard or the lack of hazard to humans is a process that contains uncertainty. Prudence dictates that normal and reasonable care should be taken in the handling of these chemicals.


22

Workers Table 9 and Table 10 illustrate that none of the exposure scenarios for workers approach a level of concern (i.e. are greater than one). The highest hazard quotient is 0.1, which is below the level of concern (1.0) by a factor of 10. Based on these values, the risk characterization for workers is considered negligible. This implies that even under the maximum proposed application rates, workers can apply aminopyralid, glyphosate, and borax over the long-term without any expected toxic effects. It also implies that even under the most conservative set of accidental exposures (which should be infrequent events) workers will not face an unacceptable level of risk. All of these chemicals can cause irritation and damage to the skin and eyes (see below); however these effects can be minimized or avoided by safe handling practices and the use of personal protective equipment such as eye protection.

As noted in the Exposure Assessment Section, borax is not included in either the general or the accidental spill scenario because of the method in which it is applied, which is in granular form to the surfaces of cut tree stumps. Therefore, the only exposure scenario that is considered plausible for workers is accidental dermal exposure to the hands and lower legs of granular borax during application, which is displayed in Table 10.

Table 9. Hazard Quotients for Backpack Applicators from General (Non-Accidental) Exposures to Aminopyralid and Glyphosate.

Chemical

Hazard Quotienta

Typical Application Rate

Lower Application Rate

Upper Application Rate

Aminopyralid 0.003 0.0001 0.02

Glyphosate 0.02 0.0007 0.1 a Hazard Quotient is the level of exposure divided by the RfD (reference dose), then rounded to one significant digit.

Table 10. Hazard Quotient for Herbicides (Backpack Applicators) and Fungicide (Granular Application) for Accidental/Incidental Exposures to Lower and Upper Application Rates.

Chemical

Hazard Quotienta

Immersion of Hands (1 minute)

Contaminated Gloves (1 hour)

Spill on Hands (1 hour)

Spill on Lower Legs (1 hour)

Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper

Aminopyralid 1 × 10-8 5 × 10-6 9 × 10-7 0.0003 3 × 10-6 0.002 7 × 10-6 0.004

Glyphosate 3 × 10-7 1 × 10-4 2 × 10-5 0.007 6 × 10-5 0.009 0.0001 0.02

Boraxb 8 × 10-5 4 × 10-4 0.0006 0.004 N/A N/A N/A N/A a Hazard Quotient is the level of exposure divided by the Reference Dose (RfD), then rounded to one significant digit. b Spill on Hands and Spill on Lower Legs scenarios are not applicable to granular formulations of borax.

Technical grade aminopyralid in powder form can cause severe eye irritation with corneal damage (SERA 2007a); however aminopyralid applications within the Keddie Ridge Project area propose solutions of aminopyralid-triisopropanolamine (TIPA) salt in water (such as that found in Milestone®), which is considered much less irritating to the eyes. The U.S. EPA has classified aminopyralid-TIPA as a


23

Category IV, the minimal classification for eye irritants (U.S. EPA/OPP-HED 2005, referenced in SERA 2007a).

Glyphosate is considered a skin and eye irritant. As discussed in SERA (2003), the irritation level of glyphosate with a POEA surfactant (which is not included in the proposed formulation under Keddie) has been shown to be equivalent to standard dishwashing detergents, all purpose cleaners, and baby shampoos.

Boric acid is rated as a Category III skin irritant (moderate irritant) and anhydrous borax is rated as a Category IV skin irritant (mild irritant) (U.S. EPA 1993a, referenced in SERA 2006). Borax is not irritating to the skin (Toxicity Category IV), but can cause severe irritation to the eyes (Toxicity Category I). Effects to the eyes and skin from aminopyralid, glyphosate, and borax can be minimized or avoided by safe handling practices.

General Public

Direct Spray As seen in Table 11, the hazard quotients for the two direct spray scenarios are below one; therefore, it can be determined that based on the available information and under the foreseeable conditions of application there is no route of exposure or scenario that suggests that the general public will be at any substantial risk from general exposure.

Table 11. Hazard Quotient for the General Public - Direct Spray Scenario.

Chemical

Hazard Quotienta

Child (whole body) Woman (feet and lower legs)







Aminopyralid 0.0009 0.0001 0.06 9 × 10-5 1 × 10-5 0.006

Glyphosate 0.01 0.002 0.3 0.001 0.0002 0.03 a Hazard Quotient is the level of exposure divided by the reference dose (RfD), then rounded to one significant digit.

Contaminated Vegetation Table 12 demonstrates that, for members of the general public that may contact vegetation sprayed with aminopyralid or glyphosate, there is a negligible level of exposure risk. Due to the method of application, this scenario is not applicable to borax.

Table 12. Hazard Quotient for the Public – Contact with Vegetation Sprayed with Herbicides.

Chemical

Hazard Quotienta




Aminopyralid 0.0001 2 × 10-5 0.0005

Glyphosate 0.002 0.0005 0.004 a. Hazard Quotient is the level of exposure divided by the Reference Dose (RfD), then rounded to one significant digit.


24

Contaminated Water For the accidental spill scenarios, the only exposure level that exceeds the level of concern (i.e. a

hazard quotient greater than one) is in the scenario involving a child that consumes water contaminated with glyphosate (Table 13). When interpreting this scenario, it is important to take into consideration that this is an arbitrary exposure scenario. In other words, scenarios that are more or less severe (all of which may be equally probable or improbable) could easily be constructed. All of the specific assumptions used to develop this scenario have a simple linear relationship to the resulting hazard quotient. Therefore, if the accidental spill were to involve 20 rather than 200 gallons of a field solution of glyphosate, all of the hazard quotients would be a factor of 10 less.

Table 13. Hazard Quotient for the Public - Drinking Water Contaminated by Herbicides and Fungicide.

Chemical

Hazard Quotienta

Acute-Spill Scenario (child)

Chronic-Spill Scenario (adult male)

Typical Lower Upper Typical Lower Upper

Aminopyralid 0.02 0.001 0.6 0.0003 4 × 10-6 0.002

Glyphosate 0.2 0.02 8 4 × 10-5 3 × 10-6 0.0004

Borax 0.2 0.07 0.7 0.006 0.0006 0.04 a Hazard Quotient is the level of exposure divided by the Reference Dose (RfD), then rounded to one significant digit.

Another conservative aspect to the water contamination scenario is that it represents standing water, with no dilution or decomposition of the herbicide. This is unlikely in a forested situation where flowing streams are more likely to be contaminated in a spill, rather than a standing pond of water. Nonetheless, this and other acute scenarios help to identify the types of scenarios that are of greatest concern and those that may warrant the greatest steps to mitigate. For glyphosate, such scenarios involve oral (contaminated water) rather than dermal (spills or accidental spray) exposure.

Oral Exposure from Contaminated Fish For members of the general public, there is no unacceptable level of risk associated with consumption of fish caught from water contaminated with either aminopyralid or glyphosate (see Table 14). The highest hazard quotient under these scenarios is 0.3, which was calculated using the upper application limits to represent the worst-case scenario; this value is below the level of concern (1.0) by a factor of 3.

Table 14. Hazard Quotient for the Public – Consumption of Fish Caught from Water Contaminated by Aminopyralid and Glyphosate. Upper Limits are Presented to Represent the Worst-Case Scenario.

Chemical

Hazard Quotienta

Fish Consumption (accidental spill)

Chronic Fish Consumption

Adult Male Subsistence Population Adult Male

Subsistence Population

Aminopyralid 0.01 0.05 8 × 10-6 7 × 10-5


25

Glyphosate 0.06 0.3 7 × 10-7 5 × 10-6 a Hazard Quotient is the level of exposure divided by the Reference Dose (RfD), then rounded to one significant digit.

Oral Exposure from Contaminated Vegetation Table 15 displays the hazard quotient values for scenarios involving a woman eating contaminated

fruit and vegetation shortly after spraying and for 90 days after they were sprayed. Under the lower and typical rates of application, the hazard quotients are well below one for both the chronic and acute scenarios. However, at the upper application rate, the hazard quotient is slightly above one in the case of acute and chronic exposure to glyphosate as a result of consuming contaminated vegetation.

Table 15. Hazard Quotient for the Public – Ingesting Fruit and Vegetation Contaminated by Herbicides

Chemical

Hazard Quotient a

Acute Exposure Chronic Exposure







Aminopyralid

Fruit 0.001 0.0006 0.02 0.0006 0.0002 0.01

Vegetation 0.02 0.001 0.1 0.008 0.0004 0.08

Glyphosate Fruit 0.02 0.008 0.3 0.01 0.004 0.2

Vegetation 0.2 0.02 2 0.1 0.009 1.1 a.Hazard Quotient is the level of exposure divided by the Reference Dose (RfD), then rounded to one significant digit.

These hazard quotients illustrate that there is some uncertainty regarding the potential effects of consuming contaminated vegetation; however considering that these hazard quotients are very close to one (the acceptable level of risk), it is unlikely that adverse health effects would result in either of these scenarios. It is also important to take into account the fact that these scenarios do not include the mitigative effects of washing contaminated vegetation. Also, after treatment, vegetation would show obvious signs of herbicide effects and would likely be undesirable for consumption.

Oral Exposure of Borax Applied to Tree Stumps

As seen in Table 16, the hazard quotients for consumption of borax from a tree stump by a child range from 2 to 16 for ingestion of 50 to 400 mg of borax. These estimated levels of exposure are below the levels of exposure associated with nonlethal effects such as diarrhea and vomiting by factors of about 4 to 32 (SERA 2006). They are also below the documented lethal doses, which range from 505 mg/kg/day and 765 mg/kg/day, by factors of about 11 to 135. Therefore, while this exposure scenario raises concern in that the RfD could be substantially exceeded in a child directly consuming borax from a treated stump, the most likely adverse effects would probably be vomiting and diarrhea (SERA 2006).

Table 16. Hazard Quotient for the Public – Acute-Oral Ingestion of Borax by a Child.

Chemical Hazard Quotienta


26




Borax 4 2 16 a.Hazard Quotient is the level of exposure divided by the Reference Dose (RfD), then rounded to one significant digit.

Risk Assessment Summary The risk characterization for workers is reasonably simple and unambiguous; based on a generally conservative and protective set of assumptions regarding both the toxicity of the proposed chemicals and the potential exposures, there is no basis for suggesting that adverse effects are likely in workers even at the maximum application rates proposed under the Keddie Ridge Project for aminopyralid, glyphosate, or borax (SERA 2003, 2006, 2007a). From a practical perspective, the most likely accidental exposure for workers (i.e. one that might require medical attention) may involve accidental contamination of the eyes. All of the proposed chemicals can cause irritation and damage to the skin and eyes; however these effects can be minimized or avoided by safe handling practices and the use of personal protective equipment such as eye protection.

For members of the general public, aminopyralid applications would result in a negligible risk under all of the scenarios. Even at the highest application rate of 0.11 lb a.e./acre, the hazard quotients are below the level of concern by factors of 2 to 122,000 for longer term exposures.

For borax, the only general public scenario that yielded a hazard quotient above the level of concern (above 1.0) was the scenario in which a child ingests borax straight from the tree stump. While this exposure scenario does raise concern that the reference dose (RfD) could be substantially exceeded if a child directly consumes borax from a treated stump, the most likely adverse effects would probably be vomiting and diarrhea (SERA 2006). This scenario is also extreme and highly unlikely as 1) treatment units are away from high visitor-use or recreation areas, and 2) borax would be applied during or immediately after active logging operations where unsupervised visitor-use is highly discouraged for safety reasons.

For glyphosate, the only two general public scenarios that exceeded the level of concern (i.e. a hazard quotient above 1.0) were the scenario involving a child drinking from a spill-contaminated pond and the scenario involving short and long-term exposure from consumption of contaminated vegetation. For all of these scenarios, the hazard quotient only exceeded the level of concern in the upper range of the application rate; the typical and lower application ranges produced hazard quotients that were below the level of concern.

The exposure scenario that involved the consumption of contaminated water after an accidental spill of glyphosate into a small pond produced a hazard quotient of eight (Table 13). This sort of scenario is routinely used in Forest Service risk assessments as an index of the measures that should be taken to limit exposure in the event of a relatively large spill into a relatively small body of water. For glyphosate, as well as for most other chemicals, this exposure assessment indicates that such an event would require measures to ensure that members of the general public do not consume contaminated water. As detailed in Table 6, the upper range of the exposure scenario involves a dose of 15.4 mg/kg bw. While this is an unacceptable level of exposure, it is far below doses that would likely result in overt signs of toxicity. As


27

detailed in the SERA risk assessment (2003), a dose of 184 mg/kg as Roundup (i.e. glyphosate plus a surfactant) was not associated with any overt signs of toxicity in humans; mild signs of toxicity were apparent at doses of 427 mg/kg, which is over 27 times higher than the upper range of 15.4 mg/kg in the accidental spill scenario.

The only other general public scenario that produced a hazard quotient above one was one that involved the consumption of glyphosate-contaminated vegetation. Under normal circumstances, particularly in the case of noxious weed treatment applications, it is extremely unlikely that humans will consume, or otherwise place in their mouths, vegetation contaminated with the proposed herbicides. One exception to this could be plants collected by Native Americans for basket weaving or medicinal use. However, in most instances, particularly for longer-term scenarios, treated vegetation would probably show signs of damage from herbicide exposure, thereby reducing the likelihood of consumption that would lead to significant levels of human exposure.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects from the proposed herbicides or fungicide may result from (a) repeated exposure to one particular chemical or (b) simultaneous exposure to a particular chemical and other agents that may cause the same effect or effects by the same or similar modes of action.

In terms of repeated exposure to one particular chemical, the analysis of chronic exposure scenarios discussed in this risk analysis specifically addresses the potential long-term cumulative impacts associated with aminopyralid, glyphosate, and (to a limited extent) borax. This risk assessment determined that there is a low likelihood of cumulative adverse effects associated with long-term or repeated exposures to the proposed chemicals.

Since these herbicides persist in the environment for a relatively short time (generally less than one year), do not bio-accumulate, and are rapidly eliminated from the body, additive doses from re-treatments in subsequent years are not anticipated. According to work completed by Ando et al. (2003), some plant material can contain glyphosate residues up to 67 weeks after treatment, however, these levels were less than one part per million (Ando et al. 2003). Based on the re-treatment schedule proposed under alternatives A and D (2 to 5 years), it is possible that residues from the initial herbicide application could still be detectable during subsequent re-treatments the following year, but these plants would represent a low risk to humans as they would show obvious signs of herbicide effects and would be undesirable for collection.

It is conceivable that workers or members of the public could be exposed to herbicides as a result of treatments on surrounding public or private forestlands. Where individuals could be exposed by more than one route, the risk of such cases can be quantitatively characterized by simply adding the hazard quotients for each exposure scenario. Using glyphosate as an example, the typical levels of exposure for a woman being directly sprayed on the lower legs (HQ = 0.00009), staying in contact with contaminated vegetation (HQ = 0.002), eating contaminated fruit (HQ = 0.02), and consuming contaminated vegetation (HQ = 0.2) leads to a combined hazard quotient of 0.22. With the exception of a child ingesting borax from a treated stump (discussed in the section above), using the typical rates of application, the addition


28

of all possible exposure scenarios leads to hazard quotients that are substantially less than one for all of the proposed pesticides.

Additional sources of pesticide exposure include use of herbicides and fungicides on adjacent private timberlands or home use by a worker or member of the general public. Table 17 displays the total reported herbicide application (in pounds) within Plumas County. The Plumas NF has not been extensively involved in herbicide applications in the last five years; therefore much of this reported use is on private lands.

Table 17. Total Herbicide Applications (in Pounds) within Plumas County between 2004 and 2008. Data are not Currently Available for 2009 or 2010.

Report Year Total pounds of pesticide reported

2004 10,882

2005 6,815

2006 6,272

2007 18,505

2008 38,551

Average 16,205

Source - California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 2009 Annual Pesticide Use Report for Plumas County. This table includes all pesticides used between 2004 and 2008, not just the three proposed for use in Keddie Ridge Project.

Table 18 shows that between 2004 and 2008, the average amount of active ingredient applied annually within Plumas County was approximately 50 lbs of aminopyralid, 4,775 lbs of glyphosate, and 1,393 lbs of borax (California DPR 2009). Over this same time period the average number of acres treated annually was 88 acres of aminopyralid, 2,251 acres of glyphosate, and 2,030 acres of borax (California DPR 2009).

Table 18. Total Pounds of Aminopyralid, Glyphosate, and Borax Applied within Plumas County between 2004 and 2008. Data are not currently available for 2009 or 2010.

Chemical

Total pounds of pesticide reported (by year) Average per year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aminopyralid 50 50

Glyphosate 4,546 1,826 3,726 2,144 11,632 4,775

Borax 3,592 350 955 38 2,031 1,393

Source - California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 2009 Annual Pesticide Use Report for Plumas County.

Table 19. Approximate Number of Acres Treated with Aminopyralid, Glyphosate, and Borax Within Plumas County between 2004 and 2008. Data are not currently available for 2009 or 2010.

Estimated number of acres treated (by year) Average per year Chemical 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008


29

Aminopyralid 88 88

Glyphosate 2948 538 1204 870 5697 2,251

Borax 2093 1966 2,030 a Acres Treated are only for forestry and rangeland uses as these are the only categories that have acres reported in the CDPR database. Source - California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 2009 Annual Pesticide Use Report for Plumas County.

We assume that, with the exception of the use proposed under alternatives A and D, there would not be any significant changes in the use patterns displayed above in the near future. At this time there are no other pesticide-related projects listed on the Plumas National Forest Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) that occur within the proposed Keddie Ridge Project area.

Under alternatives A and D it is estimated that approximately 62 acres of noxious weeds (hoary cress, Canada thistle, and yellow starthistle) would be treated with aminopyralid or glyphosate for a period of two to five years. Alternatives C and E would not involve any herbicide use. The average number of acres treated annually with aminopyralid and glyphosate in Plumas County (calculated from Table 19) is approximately 2,339 acres. Therefore, alternatives A and D would result in at most a three percent increase in the number of acres treated with these two herbicides in Plumas County.

The U.S. EPA has developed the theoretical maximum residue contribution (TMRC), which can be used to consider the cumulative effects associated with use of these herbicides outside of the Keddie Ridge Project. The TMRC is an estimate of maximum daily exposure to chemical residues that a member of the general public could be exposed to from all published and pending uses of a pesticide on a food crop (Table 20). Adding the TMRC to this project’s chronic dose estimates can be used as an estimate of the cumulative effects of this project with theoretical background exposure levels of these herbicides. The result of doing this doesn’t change the risk conclusions based on the project-related HQ values.

Table 20. TMRC Values for U.S. Population as a Whole.

Pesticide TMRC (mg/kg/day) Percent of RfD

Aminopyralid 0.0002 0.1

Glyphosate 0.03 1.5 Sources: (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2000, 2004)

Cumulative effects can also be caused by the interaction of different chemicals with a common metabolite or a common toxic action; however, neither the herbicides nor fungicide in this analysis has been demonstrated to share a common metabolite.

Inert Ingredients The approach used in USDA (1989, as referenced in USDA 2008), the SERA Risk Assessments (SERA 2003, 2006, 2007a), and this analysis to assess the human health effects of inert ingredients and full formulations has been to: (1) compare acute toxicity data between the formulated products (including inert ingredients) and their active ingredients alone; (2) disclose whether or not the formulated products have undergone chronic toxicity testing; and (3) identify, with the help of EPA and the chemical


30

companies, ingredients of known toxicological concern in the formulated products and assess the risks of those ingredients.

Researchers have studied the relationships between acute and chronic toxicity and while the biological end-points are different, relationships do exist and acute toxicity data can be used to give an indication of overall toxicity (Zeise, et al. 1984, as referenced in USDA 2008). The court in NCAP v. Lyng, 844 F.2d 598 (9th Cir 1988) decided that this method of analysis provided sufficient information for a decision maker to make a reasoned decision. In SRCC v. Robertson, Civ.No. S-91-217 (E.D. Cal., June 12, 1992) and again in CATs v. Dombeck, Civ. S-00-2016 (E.D. Cal., Aug 31, 2001) the district court upheld the adequacy of the methodology used in USDA (1989, as referenced in USDA 2008) for disclosure of inert ingredients and additives.

Since most information about inert ingredients is classified as “Confidential Business Information” (CBI) the Forest Service asked EPA to review the thirteen herbicides for the preparation of USDA 1989 (includes glyphosate) and the commercial formulations and advise if they contained inert ingredients of toxicological concern (Inerts List 1 or 2) (USDA 1989, as referenced in USDA 2008). The EPA determined that there were no inerts on List 1 or 2. In addition, the CBI files were reviewed in the development of the most recent SERA risk assessments (SERA 2003, 2006, 2007a). Information has also been received from the companies who produce the herbicides and spray additives.

Comparison of acute toxicity (LD50 values) data between the formulated products (including inert ingredients) and their active ingredients alone shows that the formulated products are generally less toxic than their active ingredients (SERA 2003, 2006, 2007a, USDA 1989, as referenced in USDA 2008).

According to the SERA risk assessment (2006), Sporax contains 100 percent sodium tetraborate decahydrate (borax) and has no other active or inert ingredients. The sole inert ingredient listed for the formulations of aminopyralid and glyphosate most likely to be used in the Keddie Ridge project (i.e. Milestone® and Accord®) is water (SERA 2003, 2007a).

While these formulated products have not undergone chronic toxicity testing like their active ingredients, the acute toxicity comparisons, the EPA review, and our examination of toxicity information on the inert ingredients in each product leads us to conclude that the inert ingredients in these formulations do not significantly increase the risk to human health and safety over the risks identified for the active ingredients.

Additives Additives (also known as adjuvants) are mixed with an herbicide solution to improve the performance of the spray mixture by either enhancing the activity of the herbicide’s active ingredient or by offsetting problems associated with application, such as water or wind factors (Bakke 2007). The two additives proposed for use in the Keddie Ridge Project are: an esterified vegetable oil surfactant (e.g., Competitor® or an equivalent formulation) to facilitate and enhance the spreading and penetrating properties of the herbicides and a marker dye (e.g., Hi-light® Blue or an equivalent formulation) to allow for the identification of plants that have been treated. Borax would not be applied in combination with other products or additives.


31

Additives are not under the same registration guidelines as are pesticides; therefore much of the information that describes the active ingredients in additives is considered confidential business information (CBI). The EPA does not register or approve the labeling of spray additives, although the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) does require the registration of those that are considered to increase the action of the pesticide it is used with. All additives are generally field tested by the manufacturer in combination with several different herbicides and weed species, and under a number of different environmental conditions (Bakke 2007).

The most common risk factor associated with the use of the proposed additives is skin or eye exposure. This risk can be minimized through good industrial hygiene practices (i.e. personal protective eyewear and gloves) while utilizing these products. Overall, the additives proposed for use within the Keddie Ridge Project are not expected to pose an adverse risk to the health and safety of workers or members of the general public. This is based on information provided on the product labels as well as in the discussion contained in Bakke (2007) in which the two additives proposed for use under this project are discussed and some acute toxicity data presented. The following provides further discussion of the additives analyzed for the Keddie Ridge Project.

Competitor® (or an Equivalent Formulation) Product labels contain “signal words” (caution, warning, danger, and poison) which indicate the product’s relative toxicity to humans. The signal word is assigned using a combination of acute toxicity studies and the toxicity of each of the product’s components (Tu et al. 2001). Competitor® has been assigned a “caution” signal word and the label indicates that improper use may cause irritation to the skin and eyes.

The main ingredient in Competitor® is an esterified vegetable oil. It also contains two emulsifiers, sorbitan alkylpolyethoxylate ester and dialkyl polyethoxylene glycol. Vegetable oil surfactants are gaining in popularity due to their capability to increase herbicide absorption and spray retention (Bakke 2007). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers methyl and ethyl esters of fatty acids produced from edible fats and oils to be food grade additives (21 CFR 172.225). However, because of the lack of exact ingredient statements on these surfactants, it is not always clear whether the oils used meet the U.S. FDA standard.

Hi-light® Blue (or an Equivalent Formulation). Hi-Light® Blue dye is not required to be registered as a pesticide; therefore there is no signal word included on the label. However, according to Bakke (2007), this product would likely have a “caution” signal word if required to identify one. The label does indicate that this product is mildly irritating to the skin and eyes. Hi-Light® Blue is commonly used in toilet bowl cleaners and as a colorant for lakes and ponds (SERA 1997). This dye is water-soluble, contains no listed hazardous substances, and is considered virtually non-toxic to humans (SERA 1997, Bakke 2007) .The effect of use on non-target terrestrial and aquatic species is unknown; however the use of this dye use has not resulted in any known problems (Bakke 2007).


32

The use of Hi-Light® Blue in the proposed herbicide formulations would result in almost no increased risk to the health and safety of the workers or members of the general public. In fact, the use of dye in herbicide application can reduce likelihood and risk of exposure by facilitating avoidance of treated vegetation.

Synergistic Effects Synergistic effects are those effects resulting from exposure to a combination of two or more chemicals that are greater than the sum of the effects of each chemical alone (additive). Refer to USDA (1989, as referenced in USDA 2003) for a detailed discussion on synergistic effects.

It is not anticipated that synergistic effects would be seen with the additives proposed in the Keddie Ridge Project. Based on a review of several recent studies, there is no demonstrated synergistic relationship between herbicides and surfactants (Abdelghani et al 1997; Henry et al 1994; Lewis 1992; Oakes and Pollak 1999, 2000 as referenced in Bakke 2007).

Although the combination of surfactant and herbicide might indicate an increased rate of absorption through the skin, a review of recent studies indicates this is not often true (Ashton et al 1986; Boman et al 1989; Chowan and Pritchard 1978; Dalvi and Zatz 1981; Eagle et al 1992; Sarpotdar and Zatz 1986; Walters et al 1993, 1998; Whitworth and Carter 1969 as referenced in Bakke 2007). For a surfactant to increase the absorption of another compound, the surfactant must affect the upper layer of the skin. Without some physical effect to the skin, there will be no change in absorption as compared to the other compound alone. The studies indicate that in general non-ionic surfactants have less of an effect on the skin, and hence absorption, then anionic or cationic surfactants. Compound specific studies indicate that the alkylphenol ethoxylates generally have little or no effect on absorption of other compounds. In several studies, the addition of a surfactant actually decreased the absorption through the skin. It would appear that there is little support for the contention that the addition of surfactants to herbicide mixtures would increase the absorption through the skin of these herbicides.

Borax is not applied in combination with other products or additives. In addition, no data are available regarding the effects of boron compounds applied in conjunction with other chemicals. Thus, an assessment of toxicological effects of borax mixed with other chemicals cannot be made.

Sensitive Individuals The uncertainty factors used in the development of the reference dose (RfD) takes into account much of the variation in human response. The uncertainty factor of 10 for sensitive subgroups is sufficient to ensure that most people will experience no toxic effects. “Sensitive” individuals are those that might respond to a lower dose than average, which includes women and children. As stated in National Academy of Sciences (1993, as referenced in USDA 2003), the quantitative differences in toxicity between children and adults are usually less than a factor of approximately 10-fold. An uncertainty factor of 10 for sensitive subgroups may not cover all individuals that may be sensitive to herbicides because human susceptibility to toxic substances can vary by two to three orders of magnitude. Factors affecting individual susceptibility include diet, age, heredity, preexisting diseases, and life style. Individual


33

susceptibility to the herbicides proposed in this project cannot be specifically predicted. Unusually sensitive individuals may experience effects even when the HQ is equal to or less than 1. Further information concerning risks to sensitive individuals can be found in USDA (1989, as referenced in USDA 2003).

There is no information to suggest that specific groups or individuals may be especially sensitive to the systemic effects of aminopyralid or glyphosate (SERA 2003, 2007a). The primary targets for boron toxicity are the developing fetus and the testes. Thus, exposure of pregnant women to borate compounds places the developing fetus at risk. Since the oral (chronic) RfD for boron and borates is based on the effects in the developing fetus, risk to this subgroup is assessed throughout the risk assessment (SERA 2006). Regarding other sensitive subgroups, males with underlying testicular dysfunction could be at increased risk for boron-induced testicular toxicity; however, no data are available to quantify this risk.

Worksheets All worksheets related to the information noted in this document can be found in the Keddie Ridge

Project record and are hereby incorporated by reference.

References Ando, C., R. Segawa, C. Gana, L. Li, J. Walters, R. Sava, T. Barry, K. Goh, P. Lee, and D. Tran. 2003.

Dissipation and offsite movement of forestry herbicides in plants of importance to native Americans in California National Forests. Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology 71:354-361.

Bakke, D. 2007. Analysis of Issues Surrounding the Use of Spray Adjuvants with Herbicides.Written by Dave Bakke, Pacific Southwest Regional Pesticide Use Specialist. January 2007.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 2009. Pesticide Use Database. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA). 1997. Use and assessment of marker dyes used

with herbicides. Fayetteville, New York. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA). 2003. Glyphosate: Human Health and Ecological

Risk Assessment - FINAL REPORT. Fayetteville, New York. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA). 2004. Documentation for the Use of GLEAMS

(Version 3) and Auxiliary Programs in Forest Service Risk Assessments (Version 2.04). Fayetteville, NY.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA). 2006. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for Borax (Sporax®) FINAL REPORT.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA). 2007a. Aminopyralid: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - FINAL REPORT. Fayetteville, New York.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA). 2007b. Preparation of Environmental Documentation and Risk Assessments., Fayetteville, New York.

Tu, M., C. Hurd, and J. M. Randall. 2001. Weed Control Methods Handbook. The Nature Conservancy, http://tncinvasives.ucdavis.edu.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Glyphosate:Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food. Federal Register.


34

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Aminopyralid; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food. Federal Register.

USDA. 2001. A review and assessment of the results of water monitoring for herbicide residues for the years 1991 to 1999., Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Service, Vallejo, CA.

USDA. 2003. Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests, USDA Forest Service, Quincy, CA.

USDA. 2008. Noxious Weed Treatment Project Final Environmental Impact Statement; Modoc National Forest. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; Pacific Southwest Region.

Glossary Acid equivalent – when making herbicide rate recommendations for herbicides that are available as either salts or esters or both, it is common practice to make the recommendations on the basis of pounds of the acid equivalent of the active ingredients per acre (lb ae / A). The acid equivalent of a salt or ester form of a herbicide is that portion of the molecule that represents the parent acid (herbicidal portion) form of the molecule (Wood et al. 1996). Adjuvant – Additives that are mixed with an herbicide solution to improve the performance of the spray mixture by either enhancing the activity of the herbicide’s active ingredient or by offsetting problems associated with application, such as water or wind factors Hazard Quotient – the ratio of the estimated level of exposure to the reference dose or some other index of acceptable exposure. LC50 (lethal concentration) – a calculated concentration of a chemical in air to which exposure for a specific length of time is expected to cause death in 50 percent of a defined experimental animal population. LD50 (lethal dose) – the dose of a chemical calculated to cause death in 50 percent of a defined experimental animal population over an observation period, typically 14 days. No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) – the dose of a chemical at which no statistically or biologically significant increases in frequency of severity of adverse effects were observed between the exposed population and its appropriate control. Effects may be produced at this dose, but they are not considered to be adverse. RfD, reference dose – a daily dose which is not anticipated to cause any adverse effects in a human population over a lifetime of exposure. These values are derived by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Surfactant – a vegetable oil or silicon-based adjuvant (e.g., Competitor® or an equivalent formulation) added to herbicides in order to facilitate and enhance their spreading and penetrating properties.

Documents

a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/.../www/nepa/33361_FSPLT2_055708.pdf · Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I Keddie Ridge Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project 2 Table of