8:30 A.M.

Vicki L. Ogelvie, C.S.R.

License No. 7871




Dr. John Froines, Chairman

Dr. Craig Byus

Dr. Paul Blanc

Dr. Stanton Glantz

Dr. Gary Friedman

Dr. Hanspeter Witschi

Dr. Peter Kennedy

Dr. Roger Atkinson

Others Present:

Bill Lockett, Liason

Peter Mathews, ARB

Lynn Baker, ARB

Jim Behrmann, ARB

Kevin Mongar, ARB

Randy Segawa, DPR

John Sanders, DPR

Dr. Keith Pfeifer, DPR

Dr. Jay Schreider, DPR

Dr. Robert Spear, UC, Berkeley

Dr. Michael Majewski, US Geological Survey






Proceedings 1

Call to Order 1

Opening remarks by Chairman Froines 1


Item 6 - SRP Workshop: Pesticides in the Air 2

Scientific issues in the design of an air

pollution sampling strategy,

presentation by Dr. Spear 82

Sampling of multiple pesticides,

presentation by Dr. Majewski 96

Afternoon Session 118

Prioritization 124

Adjournment 150

Certificate of Reporter 151




1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 --o0o--

3 CHAIRMAN FROINES: We will call the meeting to

4 order.

5 We are still missing two Members of the Panel, but

6 we have a quorum, so we will be ahead because we have a long

7 Agenda for today.

8 We are going to change the Agenda slightly. We are

9 going to start with current monitoring requests and

10 protocols, given by DPR staff and ARB staff, and then we are

11 going to go to update on 1999 projects, by Lynn Baker and his

12 staff, and then to changes to the current practice being

13 considered, DPR and ARB.

14 So, it is a very slight modification. So, why

15 don't we get started.

16 Just by way of background, for those that are not

17 familiar with why we are having this semi-workshop,

18 basically, as most of you know, when we find a chemical as a

19 toxic air contaminant within the context of the Air Resources

20 Board, that determination is made primarily on the basis of

21 health effects information, also with some knowledge of

22 exposure, whereas with DPR, the criteria for determining a

23 compound as a toxic air contaminant is based upon both health

24 effects information, risk assessment, as well as on the

25 results of air borne monitoring, which enables them to



1 calculate MOE.

2 Since the issue of exposure and monitoring is so or

3 such a crucial element in the determination of a compound as

4 a toxic air contaminant with the Department of Pesticide

5 Regulation, we thought it would be important to look at how

6 effective we are approaching the issue of monitoring of

7 pesticides, with specific reference to the development of

8 protocols for monitoring and how to maximize our

9 opportunities, and it is particularly important, because, for

10 example, yesterday, it was apparent with methyl parathion,

11 that both -- there has been dramatic changes in the use of

12 methyl parathion in a number of counties and that the nature

13 of the pesticide use on the crops has changed.

14 So, we exist in a situation where the circumstances

15 change. How frequently, is not clear, but it is a changing

16 problem, and how we can best determine what the exposures may

17 be to the public is an issue of major consequence.

18 So, that is the underlying basis of this workshop.

19 So, why don't we go ahead and get started.

20 I don't know who will be lead for DPR.

21 MR. BAKER: Good morning, Dr. Froines, Members of

22 the Panel.

23 I'm Lynn Baker, with Air Resources Board. On my

24 left is Randy Segawa, from the Department of Pesticide

25 Regulation.



1 We are going to give you a joint presentation this

2 morning on ARB's current approach to air monitoring of

3 pesticides. I also would like to introduce Kevin Mongar, who

4 will help us out with the overheads.

5 Kevin is with our Monitoring Lab Division, and

6 coordinates our field monitoring of pesticides and so if

7 analytical questions come up later in the presentation,

8 either he or Bob Okamoto, one of our chemists, can probably

9 answer analytical questions for us.

10 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I just want to make one point so

11 that everybody keeps in mind, one particular element of all

12 this, as we go through the morning, that is when we say,

13 talking about cotton, cotton doesn't have one pesticide

14 applied.

15 Cotton is one of the examples where you have

16 multiple pesticides, and so we have a tendency to take up

17 chemical by chemical, but that is not the way that the real

18 world exists.

19 Crops have multiple pesticide exposure. Therefore,

20 there is a potential for public exposure to multiple

21 pesticides from various crops. So, one of the issues that we

22 really have to address on the ongoing basis in the future and

23 beginning of this point, how can we address issues of

24 monitoring with respect to multiple pesticide exposure and

25 how can we incorporate to the risk assessment process, so



1 that we are actually dealing with situations that are real

2 world situations rather than sort of abstract, regulatory

3 issues, where you take one thing at a time, which isn't the

4 reality.

5 Go ahead.

6 MR. BAKER: Thank you, for the additional

7 introduction.

8 We are going to first touch on the current

9 approach, and then Randy is going to go through suggested

10 modifications we have to that approach to address your point

11 about the exposure to multiple pesticides.

12 As most of you are aware, the Health and Safety

13 Code and the Agricultural Code requires the Air Resources

14 Board to conduct air monitoring of pesticides, at the request

15 of the Department of Pesticide Regulation, in support of

16 their toxic air contaminant program, and since 1986, we have

17 been doing air monitoring of pesticides in support of DPR.

18 I'm going to give a very brief overview of our

19 monitoring approach, and then Randy is going to describe the

20 monitoring recommendations that DPR gives us and the

21 pesticide use reporting system which is critical to those

22 monitoring recommendations.

23 Then we will describe our current study design,

24 give status of the monitoring to date and then we will finish

25 up with the update on this year's monitoring.



1 Next slide.

2 We heard a little yesterday about DPR's

3 prioritization process. I guess we are going to hear a

4 little bit more later this morning.

5 Out of that prioritization process comes requests

6 to the ARB from DPR for monitoring of specific pesticides

7 and, as Dr. Froines mentioned, to date we have always

8 approached this on a pesticide by pesticide basis.

9 The DPR then provides ARB with a detailed

10 monitoring recommendation from which we, points us in the

11 direction of where and when to go, and then we develop a

12 sampling analysis methods, conduct the monitoring and provide

13 DPR with a report of the results.

14 Randy is going to describe our, the DPR monitoring

15 recommendation process.

16 MR. SEGAWA: Next slide.

17 Can you hear me okay?

18 How's that?

19 DPR requests monitoring from Air Resources Board

20 for five to six chemicals per year currently, plus any

21 breakdown products which we need or find necessary as well.

22 A couple of weeks ago, we sent the Panel Members an

23 example of both the monitoring recommendation and a protocol

24 that Air Resources Board creates for bifenthrin.

25 This is one of the chemicals that we are currently



1 monitoring. DPR monitoring recommendation contains some

2 background information on the physical and chemical

3 characteristics of the chemical, vapor pressure, water

4 solubility, soil absorption constant and dissipation rates.

5 In addition, we describe how the specific chemical

6 is used, the amount applied, both statewide as well as by

7 individual county, the principal crops for which that

8 pesticide is used, the target pests, areas or counties of

9 high use, periods or seasons of high use, the different types

10 of formulations, whether it is a malathion concentrate or

11 ground or material, then methods of application, whether its

12 primarily a soil applied chemical, aerial applied chemical or

13 some other.

14 Then our recommendation also contains specific

15 suggestions for how to conduct the monitoring in terms of the

16 area or county that should be targeted, the months or season

17 that should be targeted for monitoring, the crop that should

18 be located in that particular area, any breakdown products

19 that should be monitored, as well as target quantification

20 limit, which is developed by our toxicology staff, and we

21 also make recommendations on number of sampling sites, number

22 of samples and duration of the individual samples and then

23 some suggestions about quality assurance as well.

24 For the application specific monitoring, we also

25 make additional recommendations on the application rate that



1 should be monitored, the crop that should be monitored, the

2 size of the fields, we normally make a recommendation, for

3 example, how a ten-acre field should be monitored and then

4 the sampling schedule, the time period that the application

5 monitoring during application should occur, as well as the

6 following periods.

7 While we may make suggestions for specific

8 applications, a lot of times, for a variety of reasons, ARB

9 is not able to locate to an ideal application, so we may have

10 to monitor, for instance, a lower application rate than the

11 maximum we desire.

12 DPR also makes recommendations regarding safety for

13 the monitoring personnel.

14 CHAIRMAN FROINES: That little sentence is the key

15 issue, because you may not be able to monitor ideal

16 applications from the standpoint of the risk assessor.

17 That is the fundamental question as to how maximize

18 our monitoring, quote, ideal application. That is really the

19 center of why we are doing this whole workshop.

20 That is not something to pass over.

21 MR. SEGAWA: Now, I would like to talk about sort

22 of a side issue for a couple of minutes here, because it is

23 important to monitoring recommendation that is DPR's

24 pesticide use report program.

25 DPR at that time was Department of Food and



1 Agriculture. We had a statewide reporting program since

2 1970, but only since 1990, we have what we call a full use

3 reporting system, and that is virtually all agricultural

4 applications are now reported to the county agricultural

5 commissioner, who then turns that information over to DPR,

6 and we compile it on an annual basis.

7 While there is a full use reporting system, there

8 are some applications that are not reported. In particular

9 home and garden use is not reported. Most industrial and

10 institutional applications are also not reported.

11 So, applications to schools or factories, things

12 like that, those types of applications are not reported to

13 DPR.

14 There are two primary types of reports that come to

15 us. One is what we call the production agricultural report

16 and then the second type is the summary report.

17 The production agricultural report is a report used

18 by all growers, most pest control operators and other

19 professional businesses in producing agricultural

20 commodities.

21 The information that is reported to us includes the

22 county in which the work was performed, the geographic

23 location which is given by base, meridian, township, range

24 and section.

25 This is the public land survey coordinate system



1 that is used by the state, so we can identify the geographic

2 location of the application to within one square mile.

3 Then there is always a field location

4 identification that is normally assigned by the individual

5 county. The upper identification of permit number is

6 reported as well as the name, address, of both the operator

7 or grower of the fields, as well as applicator making the

8 pesticide application.

9 Then each site or field within the state is

10 assigned an ID number. Although it does vary by county, that

11 is the system for assigning the ID number, it varies from

12 county to county.

13 The commodity or crop that is treated is reported,

14 the number of acres planted, as well as the number of acres

15 treated is reported, date and time of application, the method

16 of application, at least whether it's an aerial, ground or

17 other type of application.

18 DR. GLANTZ: What would other be?

19 MR. SEGAWA: Other might be cow dip, for example.

20 For DPR, we have a very broad term for agricultural

21 use, so it includes things like livestock dips. It includes

22 applications to poultry and fish.

23 It includes rights of ways applications,

24 applications to timber, so it is a very broad definition of

25 agricultural in this case.



1 Then the registration number of the specific

2 pesticide product is reported, and then the name of the

3 manufacturer of the pesticides as well.

4 The total amount of product applied for any

5 specific application is reported and the person who prepared

6 the report as well.

7 Then there are some types of applications for which

8 we only get summary information. We don't get as much

9 detailed information as we do for the production agricultural

10 applications, and these include applications for structural

11 pest control, landscape maintenance, rights of way, public

12 health, such as a mosquito abatement, vertebrate pest

13 control, commodity fumigation and regulatory pest control,

14 Med Fly ratification program, for these types of application,

15 we get information regarding the county in which the work was

16 performed, the operator identification name and address, the

17 particular pesticide product that was applied and its

18 registration number, the commodity or site that was treated,

19 and the total amount applied.

20 If you make a comparison to the previous slide, you

21 notice you don't get information about the specific location,

22 number of applications, the acreage treated, there was a

23 number of important information that we do not get for these

24 types of applications.

25 MR. BAKER: To summarize, again, the DPR gives us a



1 request, and then that request is followed up a few months

2 later by the detailed monitoring recommendation that Randy

3 just summarized describing the following information.

4 Two key points on that slide I would like to

5 highlight, in item C, the request may include breakdown

6 products.

7 For instance, next year's monitoring request from

8 DPR asks the ARB to do monitoring for six different

9 pesticides.

10 In addition, they have asked for five breakdown

11 products of those pesticides. In terms of sampling and

12 analytical preparation standpoint, that's almost twice the

13 workload, as if there weren't, compared to no breakdown

14 products.

15 DR. BLANC: Why is that, the workload?

16 MR. BAKER: Because the different sampling and

17 analytical methods have to be developed for this break down

18 products and they have to be developed in advance of the

19 field sampling.

20 DR. BLANC: Well, how frequently is, in fact, the

21 sampling methodology different?

22 MR. BAKER: The sampling methodology is usually not

23 different. There has been one case that I can remember where

24 it was different but it is usually the analysis method that

25 is different.



1 DR. BLANC: So, it shouldn't be twice the work

2 then?

3 MR. BAKER: It's not quite twice the work.

4 DR. BLANC: I mean, it is more work for the

5 analytical chemical side of your operation, but I would say

6 that, I would assume that 90 percent, or 95 percent of all

7 the labor involved in these kinds of sampling is, in fact,

8 the sampling and that the analysis, which could then be

9 batched and done is actually, I'm not trying to belittle the

10 analytic side, but I would imagine in terms of person hours

11 of labor, the vast majority of the work must be in the

12 sampling.

13 MR. BAKER: I actually think it is in the analysis.

14 Some of these have taken, and Kevin, you might want

15 to respond to this, but some of these have taken a couple of

16 months of staff's time for method development followed by

17 several weeks of actual analysis of the individual samples,

18 where it is a month to six weeks of one staff time in the

19 field to collect the samples.

20 Does that respond to your question?

21 DR. BLANC: Yeah.

22 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Lynn, as you get into this, I

23 wanted to, Randy's final two sentences were about what is

24 missing, and this review of what is obtained in terms of the

25 pesticide use reports, the striking thing about them is what



1 is missing as well as what is here.

2 So, in terms of developing a defined protocol for

3 monitoring purposes, hopefully you two can talk about what is

4 missing in the pesticide use reports in terms of maximizing

5 the monitoring as well as how you use the pesticide use

6 report.

7 MR. BAKER: We will.

8 The last point on this slide that I wanted to make

9 was that DPR's monitoring recommendations, the final point

10 there on the slide, requests that ARB provide results within

11 18 months of receipt of the recommendation.

12 We strive to meet that. Occasionally, if there are

13 unforeseen weather patterns that lead to unusual use of a

14 pesticide either early or late or very little, creates some

15 problems in preparing our analytical methods ahead of time,

16 and we may have to postpone the monitoring, so it may take us

17 two and a half years to find results rather than the one and

18 a half years.

19 Just a minor point.

20 DR. BYUS: I have just a brief question.

21 So, when you go out to monitor, DPR just doesn't

22 decide to spray a field with a certain amount at certain

23 time?

24 You go and find some farmer applying something that

25 you are interested in?



1 MR. BAKER: Yes.

2 I will go into that.

3 DR. BYUS: Sorry.

4 MR. BAKER: That is all right.

5 As Randy mentioned in going through the monitoring

6 recommendation, there are two types of monitoring that we do,

7 ambient monitoring, for general population exposure, and

8 application site monitoring, that is associated with a

9 specific field application, and that is for acute, short term

10 concentrations.

11 Before we can do either one, the sampling analysis

12 methods have to be developed. So, they are developed prior

13 to the field sampling. They include the lab studies of

14 efficiency and sample stability to make sure the methods will

15 accomplish what we want them to accomplish.

16 The field studies include lab blanks and spikes,

17 trip blanks and spikes and field spikes.

18 DR. GLANTZ: For us who aren't -- can you explain

19 what that means in English?

20 MR. BAKER: I will.

21 The lab blanks and spikes are fairly

22 self-explanatory. You analyze a blank, whether it's a XAD

23 resin or a charcoal to be analyzed, a blank, to see if there

24 is any trace of the target pesticide on the blank.

25 The spike, you put known amounts of the pesticide



1 on a charcoal tube, desorb it, and hopefully, you will get

2 close to the amount off of the charcoal that you spiked onto

3 it.

4 The trip blanks and spikes are samples that

5 actually go out into the field, with the field samples, so

6 there would be, for the charcoal tube, for instance, it would

7 be blank charcoal tubes, and then spiked charcoal tubes that

8 would be put into the ice chest with the dry ice, when the

9 field staff goes out into the field, they would accompany the

10 batch of samples back to the lab, and then they would show up

11 as either contamination on the blanks or degradation of the

12 samples that were spiked.

13 DR. GLANTZ: Do you spike them, do you spike them

14 before you go out or while you are in the field?

15 MR. BAKER: Before we go out.

16 Then field spikes are much like the trapping

17 deficiency studies, only their samples that are taken, spiked

18 samples that are taken out into the field, air is drawn

19 through them for 24 hours, if that is the ambient sample, the

20 sample is put on dry ice, brought back to the lab and

21 analyzed to check for any losses.

22 It is similar to the trapping efficiency studies,

23 only that these are done in the actual field conditions

24 rather than ahead of time here in Sacramento.

25 The sampling media have included XAD resin or



1 charcoal absorbents, or three types of filters, glass, fiber,

2 quartz or teflon, depending on the target pesticide you are

3 interested in.

4 Sampling flows are varied from 2 to 30 liters a

5 minute, depending on whether we are doing ambient or

6 application site monitoring, and also depending on the group

7 that has done our work.

8 Some of our work has been done by our Monitoring

9 Lab Division, and some of it over the years has been

10 contracted out to universities, and then various analysis

11 methods are used from gas chromatography or high performance

12 liquid chromatography methods.

13 Then a study protocol, and I believe Randy

14 mentioned an example study protocol, bifenthrin, had been

15 sent to the Panel Members, sent as an example.

16 The study protocol is prepared, that summarizes the

17 analysis methods, and all of our studies follow ARB's quality

18 assurance plan for pesticide monitoring, that spells out how

19 we go about all of this.

20 The ambient monitoring for general population

21 exposure is conducted during a period of high use in a county

22 of high use. This is done following DPR's monitoring

23 recommendation.

24 Historically DPR would direct us to do monitoring,

25 in particular a county, say Fresno County, we would contact



1 the Agricultural Commissioner. They would give us some hints

2 in terms, well, the grapes are grown in this particular area

3 of the county.

4 The fungicide you are looking for is probably used

5 in these areas, and we would go out and look for sampling

6 sites in that area.

7 We have greatly improved that somewhat flawed

8 system by the DPR now giving us maps that show historical use

9 of the target pesticide in the target county, and I will show

10 some examples of those later in my presentation.

11 Those we feel are really helping us get a lot

12 closer to the actual use of the target pesticide. To date,

13 you might be interested in knowing we have done monitoring in

14 18 different counties throughout the state, all the way from

15 the Tule Lake region, up near the Oregon border, all the way

16 down to Imperial County, within a stone's throw of the

17 California-Mexico border.

18 Next slide.

19 When our Monitoring and Lab Division is preparing

20 to go out in the field to do the monitoring, they do contact

21 the Agricultural Commissioner.

22 DPR usually gives them a heads-up that we are going

23 to be coming out and doing monitoring. Our field staff

24 contacts them to discuss the expected time and area of use of

25 the target pesticide, find out if any quirks occurred this



1 particular year regarding weather conditions or the need for

2 the pesticide that particular year are going to affect our

3 monitoring.

4 I am not sure if that is the first question they

5 always ask, Kevin, or if your first question is where do you

6 recommend going for lunch.

7 Next. Some of these areas are in some pretty

8 remote parts of our state but very interesting areas.

9 The primary monitoring sites and urban background

10 sites are selected as follows. We pick three to five primary

11 monitoring sites that meet the ambient siting criteria for

12 ambient air sampling.

13 We pick the sites typically at schools or fire

14 stations in the area of expected use of the target pesticide.

15 The monitoring sites are often put on the roofs of

16 schools, one-story roofs of schools, those meet siting

17 criteria in one of our other key criteria, that the sites

18 have to have power, because most of our sampling pumps

19 require electricity.

20 Application site monitoring surrounding a field is

21 typically done with either batteries or generators, but for

22 our ambient monitoring, we need electricity.

23 DR. GLANTZ: What are your ambient siting criteria?

24 MR. BAKER: Actually, Kevin has a slide that he

25 can put up.



1 When we first started this measuring in 1986, we

2 adopted EPA's ambient air quality monitoring siting criteria,

3 which specified that representing air quality measurements

4 would be made anywhere from 2 to 15 meters above ground with

5 vertical and horizontal spacing away from structures of a

6 minimum of one meter.

7 The sampler should be at least 20 meters from

8 trees. The distance from any obstacle that sticks above the

9 sampler, such as a tree or a nearby building must be at least

10 twice the distance that the obstacle protrudes above the

11 sampler intake.

12 The sampler must have 270 degree unrestricted air

13 flow around the sampler, and there are criteria regarding

14 co-locating some of the samplers for quality assurance

15 purposes for duplicates, and those should be two to four

16 meters apart, except for very low flow samplers, one of the

17 low flow samplers where it is not so critical that they be

18 two to four meters apart.

19 DR. GLANTZ: What about, if you are sampling for

20 some pesticide which is being used, let's say outside of

21 Fresno, you obviously wouldn't do your ambient sampling on

22 the roof here.

23 What is the criteria, if you are doing application

24 sampling?

25 Or do you do it adjacent to the field?



1 But for the ambient sampling, what are the rules or

2 criteria in terms of where you are sampling relevant to the

3 application sites?

4 MR. BAKER: We use the use maps which I will show

5 at the end of my presentation.

6 We look for towns in the areas of the expected or

7 historical use, and then we look for monitoring sites that

8 are on the edges of towns, near the target crop.

9 So, if we are looking for cotton, we find a

10 pesticide that is applied on cotton.

11 We look for small towns in the cotton growing

12 regions in the San Joaquin Valley. Then we look for schools

13 typically in those small towns that are near the cotton

14 growing region, and then we have to, of course, seek

15 permission from those sites to request permission to actually

16 use one of those sites for our monitoring.

17 DR. GLANTZ: Okay. Thank you.

18 MR. BAKER: Sure.

19 DR. MAJEWSKI: Do you take any meteorological

20 information or measurements?

21 MR. BAKER: We do for our application site

22 monitoring.

23 We don't for the ambient monitoring, since it is

24 for six weeks, for twenty-four hour samples. We haven't seen

25 a need to collect the meteorological data.



1 DR. ATKINSON: You could get it?

2 MR. BAKER: Oh, we could always get it from local

3 stations or air quality monitoring stations if we wanted it,

4 but we haven't seen any use for it.

5 CHAIRMAN FROINES: If I could just comment, Bob,

6 feel free to ask questions as the two of you find questions

7 that you think are appropriate.

8 MR. BAKER: Actually, I would like to go away from

9 this overhead for a minute and show a couple of slides, and I

10 don't have the slide changer.

11 I want to just show you five slides just to give

12 you an idea of some of these monitoring sites.

13 This is the town of Pond, in Kern County. This is

14 an ideal site.

15 We don't always come up with sites that are this

16 ideal.

17 Let me find the pointer.

18 DR. GLANTZ: The thing in the middle is the town?

19 That is a pretty little town.

20 MR. BAKER: This is actually -- well, it is a very

21 small town.

22 This is the Pond Elementary School.

23 These are almond orchards in this area. The target

24 pesticide in this case was as azinphos-methyl, which was to

25 be applied to almond orchards.



1 So, we have been directed to look for almond

2 orchards. We were able to find this school, obviously

3 surrounding a couple of sides by almonds orchards.

4 Our flaw, of course, is always that we don't know

5 for sure that the pesticide is going to be applied to the

6 target crop in this, the almond orchards, when we set up our

7 ambient monitoring sites, but DPR can find that out after the

8 fact by checking the information.

9 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Can we just focus on that point?

10 Because it seems to me you have said this on at

11 least three other occasions when you made presentations, and

12 it seems to me that this is like the fundamental question.

13 If I had a kid in that school, I would probably

14 move them to another school. But let's assume that we have

15 children in the school.

16 I would really want to know whether my child was

17 being heavily exposed to azinphos-methyl, and I wouldn't be

18 very happy if I was told that we did monitoring, but maybe

19 and maybe not the pesticide was in use at the time that they

20 were monitoring.

21 It seems to me like it was such a fundamental

22 issue. How can I do the monitoring without some sense that

23 the chemical is being used?

24 MR. BAKER: It's obviously a very fundamental

25 question, and we have been unable to grapple with that to



1 date.

2 I don't know. Randy, is there any way that the

3 agricultural commissioner could assist us in talking with the

4 growers or owners of these target crops prior to monitoring?

5 This is an unusual case that we were surrounded

6 this close.

7 More typically --

8 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Wait a second. It's your

9 example. You chose the picture.

10 The point is if you have a child in that school,

11 you have to sample when the material is being applied to get

12 some estimate whether children are at risk from that

13 pesticide, otherwise it makes no sense.

14 MR. BAKER: In this example, we were not put in

15 touch with the grower or owner of the property so, we had no

16 way of knowing when we set up the sampling whether, and I'm

17 not even sure when we set up the sampling whether the grower

18 knew whether he was going to need to apply azinphos-methyl to

19 this almond orchard.

20 DR. ATKINSON: What?

21 That is silly. It is obvious that you need to know

22 whether the grower is going to use a pesticide and when, and

23 it may change the application.

24 DR. GLANTZ: Earlier in the presentation, DPR gave

25 us all the information that is reported to them.



1 Is that done after the fact?

2 DR. SPEAR: I would suggest, John, that they

3 actually do know this, because the monitoring of the

4 application itself is what's relevant to the school if it is

5 this close and had a lot of data on it, so they know, so,

6 they just don't get it from this ambient --

7 MR. BAKER: So, when we do application site

8 monitoring, this is about as close as we are to the actual

9 application sites when we do monitoring.

10 We would know the application rate and time of the

11 application.

12 What I was going to say is, looking at this school,

13 more typically, the closest field would be out in this

14 region. So, there would be a half a mile, a mile away and

15 there would be multiple different growers and owners, and it

16 would be the agricultural commissioner would have to assist

17 us in contacting all these different growers and owners of

18 the property, because we would have no way of knowing who

19 they all were, and being able to contact them all to try and

20 find out if they had an idea whether or not they were going

21 to be applying that target pesticide over the next six weeks

22 that we were doing the ambient monitoring.

23 The acute or worst case close near field exposure

24 issue is addressed by the application site monitoring.

25 DR. GLANTZ: Yeah, but that -- I don't understand.



1 If when you are doing the application site

2 monitoring, you obviously have to know that they are applying

3 the pesticide in order to monitor it. So, there is some way

4 that you can find out if a pesticide is being applied before

5 the fact.

6 MR. BAKER: In that case, we are put in touch with

7 a single grower or applicator, so we aren't having to try and

8 find out this information from numerous fields and numerous

9 owners and applicators.

10 We are only working with a single individual.

11 DR. GLANTZ: If your ambient, I don't want to just

12 repeat what other people have said too much, but a little

13 bit.

14 It has never stopped me before.

15 DR. BYUS: Any of us.

16 DR. GLANTZ: That is true, but it just makes no

17 sense to go out and collect ambient data on pesticide levels

18 unless you know they are being used at the time that you are

19 collecting the data, because these pesticides are only used,

20 many of them, for brief periods during the year.

21 You've got to figure out some way to find out. The

22 historical data that you alluded to earlier should be of some

23 help, because these things tend to be used in more or less

24 the same places year after year, but as we talked about

25 yesterday, there are also times that these uses can change



1 very radically.

2 I think a big hole in what you are doing is this

3 problem. I realize it is not easy, but I think you guys need

4 to put in place procedures working with DPR and the county ag

5 commissioners to make sure that you know what is being used.

6 Two things, one is to find out when these things

7 are going to be applied so you can do your ambient monitoring

8 when you can reasonably expect them to be applied, and after

9 the fact, find out exactly what was being done during your

10 monitoring period so you kind of know what the denominator

11 is.

12 DR. BLANC: May I ask a regulatory question?

13 The ratio of toxicity to actual exposures, which

14 has some initials, John mentioned earlier --


16 DR. BLANC: MOE. Does that always have to be based

17 on the ambient, or is it based on the edge of the field

18 application air borne values, or is there a regulatory reason

19 why you have to do the ambient level?

20 MR. BAKER: The DEF report, as example, the ambient

21 data was used to compare with the DPR seasonally adjusted

22 daily dose, the overall, but the general seasonal

23 concentration, and this general population exposure ambient

24 air data was what was used to compare with that seasonally

25 adjusted exposure level where the application site data, the



1 acute data is compared with the daily dose, so that the acute

2 exposure level, I believe DPR uses two types of data for two

3 different reasons.

4 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Yesterday, we moved forward on

5 methyl parathion as being a toxic air contaminant, and the

6 MOEs that were calculated were in part based on the

7 application data.

8 In fact, that's what gave you the numbers that got

9 you to meet your criteria for it being listed as a TAC, so,

10 in fact, methyl parathion is a compound in which the

11 application data was used as a defining criteria for

12 designation.

13 DR. BLANC: The reason that I am asking the

14 question is, I wonder if there is any rationale at all for

15 the ambient sampling, and maybe all the effort should be put

16 in doing more sites for application monitoring since that is

17 the one time when you seem to be able to know in advance that

18 it is actually going to be used, and since it is a worst case

19 scenario, if that were negative, that would be eliminated,

20 and if it were positive, then you could use it for rationale

21 in public health policy.

22 DR. SPEAR: I am going to make a suggestion along

23 those lines when we get to my part of the discussion.

24 MR. BAKER: One of the things that we are going to

25 discuss is some of the modifications to the current



1 approaches to do more than one application site study.

2 DR. BYUS: I agree, but would that minimize your

3 chance of getting multiple pesticides?

4 I think that the ambient, whatever it is, may

5 increase the chances of seeing multiple pesticides if you

6 concentrate only on application site, you would reduce that

7 probability.

8 MR. BAKER: You're right.

9 The ambient is the best approach for looking at

10 exposure to multiple pesticides, but in terms of a worst case

11 situation, the application site is far better.

12 DR. BYUS: Just briefly, say that you put your site

13 there, you want me to leave it there for six weeks; is that

14 correct?

15 MR. BAKER: Correct.

16 DR. BYUS: Why couldn't you in a case like this,

17 this is such a great site, you should leave it there for six

18 years for the ambient thing like for air monitoring all over.

19 DR. GLANTZ: That would certainly solve the problem

20 not knowing when the applications were done, because if you

21 sample for a long time, then you could go back and use the

22 post op reports that DPR gets to figure out when the

23 applications were being done and then look at the appropriate

24 samples.

25 MR. BAKER: We would still have no guarantee though



1 this orchard has --

2 DR. BLANC: If you were trying to address the

3 question of integrating within a square mile what multiple

4 pesticides were used, and is there any ambient amount that

5 could be measured at this particular potentially high risk

6 place, and it would be asking a different question.

7 MR. BAKER: We have picked six weeks as kind of a

8 compromise between the typical window that the pesticide is

9 used, which is typically a month or two of the year versus

10 our resources.

11 DR. BLANC: You have high volume sampling going on

12 for six weeks.

13 Is this sampling apparatus checked on a daily

14 basis?

15 MR. BAKER: It is checked four times a week.

16 Four 24-hour samples are collected each week for

17 six weeks.

18 DR. BLANC: Oh. It is only a 24-hour sample.

19 It is not continuous monitoring?

20 It is intermittent?

21 MR. BAKER: It is one integrated 24-hour sample.

22 DR. BLANC: Four times a week?

23 So, four out of seven days?

24 MR. BAKER: Yes.

25 DR. ATKINSON: Previously you said in a condition



1 like this you wouldn't have wind direction or anything else,

2 and this particular example looks as though that would be one

3 you would need.

4 MR. BAKER: It would -- there are enough stations,

5 air quality stations around, if we were interested, it would

6 not be that hard to get the information.

7 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I want to go back to a question

8 that Stan asked, too, because I think that this discussion is

9 illustrative, and I think Bob will probably speak to it, but

10 your, the siting criteria that you gave is entirely

11 mechanistic in a sense, doesn't have anything to do with

12 health problems, and it seems to be that one should define

13 what we want to have happen out of this is to define criteria

14 that has to do with whether or not there is a potential

15 health problem and how to look at that.

16 So, the ambient monitoring gives you some long term

17 average, whereas the application monitoring gives you a worst

18 case scenario, if you allow me to use that.

19 It is those kinds of criteria, it seems to me, you

20 need to establish. In other words, the monitoring should be

21 reflective of the problem that you are trying to identify,

22 and this is an example of the problems that we have in all

23 air pollution around the use of monitoring to identify

24 exposure, and so the question is, how does one identify

25 exposure, and what is the relationship between monitoring and



1 exposure, and what criteria does one want to use within that

2 context?

3 MR. BAKER: I agree.

4 I think we probably should try to develop some

5 additional siting criteria. Maybe we can work out a system

6 with DPR with the ag commissioners for us to target some

7 specific crops or some specific fields and to make some

8 initial contacts with those actual growers to have some sense

9 whether or not they plan to use the pesticide.

10 The only potential problem with that would be that,

11 warned in advance that we may be doing monitoring for that

12 targeted pesticide, that grower may choose to use an

13 alternate for pesticide.

14 DR. BYUS: Being a laboratory scientist, can't you

15 just take a field and know how much pesticide is applied with

16 the appropriate doses, apply it yourself and monitor after

17 you apply by whatever criteria and application rate and

18 distance from the fields, and that way you control

19 everything?

20 MR. BAKER: The application site monitoring pretty

21 much accomplishes that.

22 We surround the field. We know the application

23 rate.

24 DR. BYUS: Couldn't you just set it up somewhere

25 like a field in Davis, a big pesticide application monitoring



1 facility and apply and monitor constantly?

2 I apologize if I am naive to this, but since the

3 exposure of pesticides is a lot different than a lot of other

4 air pollutants, so this way would work, I believe.

5 DR. SPEAR: The problem is exposure of who or whom,

6 which it is.

7 If the question, originally, what were the kids in

8 the school exposed to, they would be able to deploy strategy

9 to nail that right to the mat. No problem with that.

10 But that is not the question here.

11 The question is what kind of exposure is sustained

12 by the population in agricultural areas around where

13 pesticides are used, and therefore, as I will try to make

14 clear, that the actual exposure to people is extraordinarily

15 variable.

16 You could go out there and take some random

17 samples, and generally speaking, the more sampling costs, the

18 more people believe it is true, and as a consequence, you

19 take a small numbers of samples that cost a lot of money, and

20 you understand the situation, where it is quite easy now to

21 go out and probably even pick another school kid in this same

22 school and monitor their personal exposure, find out if it

23 deviates from that which you estimated from the fixed

24 position monitoring.

25 So, I would summit that the problem that they are



1 confronted with in a way is that as far as I can tell it

2 really hasn't been nailed about whose exposure we are really

3 talking about.

4 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I want to speak to that.

5 That is a really fundamental issue, because it is

6 interesting that one of the -- in the 80's, when there was

7 significant tension, which is the euphemism I will use,

8 between this Panel and the Department and Food and

9 Agriculture over 1807, was the notion that, in fact, they

10 would argue at that point that 1807 was not relevant to

11 pesticides, because we are really talking about these large

12 areas, like the South Coast Air Quality Basin with, you know,

13 formaldehyde or benzene, or what is in the air, and it was

14 the ambient exposure, ambient exposure that one was concerned

15 with.

16 Well, in fact, that is not true. 1807 doesn't

17 necessarily say it's only the South Coast Air Quality Basin

18 and diesel exhaust. It is interested in the issue of air

19 toxics and public exposure to it.

20 Therefore, yesterday, we spent the whole afternoon

21 talking about air toxics in the context of hot spots, which

22 is a very narrowly defined exposure, which is, in fact, the

23 school.

24 So that within the context of both AB 2588 and

25 1807, the issue is not limited to the broad base ambient



1 exposure. It includes as well the public exposure associated

2 with, let's call that a hot spot, for lack of a better term.

3 The concern of the Panel then is more broad based.

4 DR. SPEAR: That is perfectly consistent with what

5 I said.

6 I would argue that the ambient monitoring, the kind

7 we have done in the past is really conditioned by thinking

8 about large scale sort of situations in the Los Angeles air

9 basin or whatever, and this inherently is a hot spot issue,

10 and it requires a different approach.

11 CHAIRMAN FROINES: We have been literally, this

12 Panel has been literally asked to address hot spot issues as

13 well as the South Coast basin, so we are within our frame

14 work, so that is why you get the sense, Bob, from the Panel

15 of focusing on not simply allowing itself to be seeing the

16 issue as limited to the South Coast basin.

17 MR. BAKER: Should I move on?

18 I'm glad I selected this slide.

19 DR. GLANTZ: Very stimulating slide.

20 I think we have seen it before actually.

21 MR. BAKER: You may have a year ago. I thought it

22 was worth showing again.

23 CHAIRMAN FROINES: It was at the end of the day,

24 where we were dull.

25 DR. GLANTZ: I remember this one too, actually.



1 MR. BAKER: You have a good memory.

2 I didn't remember showing this one. Four slides of

3 actual monitoring equipment, just to give you a quick view of

4 that.

5 We talked about methyl parathion yesterday. This

6 was a collocated methyl parathion site situated obviously

7 close to a flooded rice field at the time the methyl

8 parathion being applied to flooded rice.

9 This is was the sampling cup, their XAD resin in

10 both of these sampling cups. Again, we were able to be close

11 to a potential application, the crop or the pesticide might

12 potentially be applied, but we again didn't know for sure

13 that it would be applied here.

14 Similar situation, this is in Fresno County. I

15 believe this was in the lovely town of Tranquility.

16 This was DEF and paraquat sampling near cotton,

17 again close to cotton fields.

18 Here, this was a site in the back of a fire

19 station. So, we didn't feel that we needed the security of a

20 roof, feeling that the back of the fire station should be

21 fairly secure, so we were going to put this on the ground.

22 This is a filter for paraquat and a XAD resin for

23 the DEF. This is a collocated methyl bromide and

24 chloropicrin sampler in Monterey County, again, close to the

25 target crop of the strawberries in the back.



1 This site is on the roof of a school, sampling here

2 with charcoal tube and XAD resin, and I have a close-up

3 actually of this, without the -- we typically shield these

4 with foil or some device to prevent sunlight from interfering

5 with the sampling media.

6 This shows the foil removed, so you can see XAD

7 resin that was used to trap the chloropicrin and charcoal

8 tubes to trap methyl bromide.

9 This also illustrates the value of the trapping

10 efficiency studies prior to the field work. This trapping

11 efficiency study showed that we needed three charcoal tubes

12 in series to avoid having breakthrough, because the methyl

13 bromide didn't stick real well to the charcoal.

14 That is all of the slides.

15 DR. GLANTZ: For the tubes that you drew the air

16 through, so those are hooked up to the pump?

17 MR. BAKER: Right.

18 Those are hooked up to a pump, correct. So, those

19 are some examples of primary monitoring sites.

20 We also typically have an urban background site.

21 So, if we are doing monitoring in rural Fresno County, we

22 would typically use ARB air quality monitoring site for

23 downtown Fresno as an urban background site.

24 One co-located sample is collected at each of these

25 sites per week for quality assurance purposes.



1 DR. GLANTZ: What is a co-located sample?

2 MR. BAKER: Duplicate sample, and we discussed DPR

3 can check with the counties and find out the amount of use

4 near the monitoring sites.

5 Next overhead.

6 We have already discussed this. We do five to six

7 weeks of ambient monitoring with 24-hour samples collected

8 each day, four days a week on the weekdays.

9 Next overhead.

10 DR. GLANTZ: Which days do you use?

11 MR. BAKER: Monday through Friday.

12 The staff goes down Monday morning, start sampling,

13 and then 24-hour sample is collected Monday to Tuesday,

14 Tuesday to Wednesday, Wednesday to Thursday, Thursday to

15 Friday.

16 They then return to Sacramento. Then the

17 application site monitoring --

18 DR. GLANTZ: Just one other thing, is there any

19 issue that you might be missing by not getting the weekends?

20 Is that a probable?

21 MR. BAKER: We don't have any reason to believe

22 that.

23 The application site monitoring will -- is

24 irrespective of weekends or weekdays. Once it starts, it's

25 for 72 hours or for three days following an application. So,



1 we don't stop Friday at 5:00.

2 The ambient monitoring, we don't have any reason to

3 think that there would be more or less application on

4 weekdays versus weekends.

5 DR. GLANTZ: Is that consistent?

6 The DPR, they have to report when they do the

7 applications right?

8 So, people tend to run seven day a week operations

9 or five day a week operations?

10 MR. SEGAWA: Probably a seven day a week operation.

11 DR. GLANTZ: Then it is pretty uniform across days

12 of the week?

13 MR. SEGAWA: Yes.

14 It all depends on pesticide and weather at the

15 time.

16 DR. ATKINSON: You don't lose any information by

17 not doing it night and day?

18 I know it is cooler at nights.

19 MR. BAKER: We have done some 12-hour samples where

20 we get the night and day difference.

21 DR. ATKINSON: See any difference?

22 MR. BAKER: This actually is associated with

23 application site monitoring, and yes, we do.

24 We usually see higher concentrations at night when

25 the air is stable. But for the general population exposure,



1 the data that is used by the DPR toxicologist, they are

2 interested in on more long-term average, so that the 24-hour

3 data is sufficient.

4 For the acute application site monitoring, we do

5 want that shorter term maximum concentration data, and that

6 is what we have summarized here.

7 We do the application site monitoring by closely

8 coordinating with the agricultural commissioner, product

9 representatives, pest control advisors, applicators, growers,

10 and the key point is we have to obtain permission from the

11 land owner or grower prior to doing our field sampling.

12 The monitoring is done adjacent to an application

13 at or near the highest use of the pesticide per acre, and

14 that is a point that Dr. Froines picked up on earlier about

15 the application site data.

16 Sometimes not all being at the highest label rate

17 per acre, we strive to do that, DPR directs us to do that,

18 but sometimes our field staff works with the ag commissioner

19 office to try and find the application of the type that would

20 produce the highest rate per acre, and sometimes we just are

21 not able to identify any.

22 So, in some cases, we end up doing the monitoring

23 for what we can find, which is documented, but is not always

24 the absolute worst case application rate.

25 This crop may also differ from the crop that is



1 used for the ambient monitoring.

2 For instance, the almonds around Pond, that was the

3 most heaviest use statewide for azinphos-methyl, but there

4 might be some other minor crop that has a higher use rate per

5 acre, and that would be the crop that we would target for

6 this application site monitor.

7 There we do short term samples, one to two hours,

8 up to 24 hours. They are collected before the application

9 for background purposes, during and for a total of three days

10 following the application.

11 The shorter samples are during -- their sample is

12 collected during the application, and then a few hour samples

13 are collected following the application, and then the second

14 and third day, either 12 or 24 hour samples are collected.

15 Samples are collected on four sides of the field at

16 a distance of 15 to 20 meters from the field edge, and we do

17 collect on-site meteorological data with this application of

18 site monitoring.

19 A collocated sample is also collected at the site

20 that is predominant down wind direction, so we also get some

21 sampling quality assurance information.

22 I have two overheads next, right, Kevin?

23 DR. FRIEDMAN: Do you have problems getting

24 permission from the land owner to do that?

25 MR. BAKER: Sometimes we do.



1 Sometimes they are very cooperative, and sometimes

2 they say, thank you very much. Why don't you ask someone

3 else.

4 DR. FRIEDMAN: Do you think there is any

5 correlation of permission with degree of exposure or

6 intensity of spraying or anything?

7 MR. BAKER: Almost in every case in our application

8 site monitoring, we have detected the target pesticide.

9 There have been maybe two cases where we didn't,

10 and they were for pesticides that were so non volatile, and

11 there was no wind at the time of the application, that we

12 decided that it just didn't move off the target.

13 DR. GLANTZ: I think Gary is asking a different

14 question.

15 That is, do you think that naughty people are more

16 likely to say no than the nice people in terms of seeking to

17 minimize dosage?

18 MR. BAKER: I don't know that we are able to really

19 say.

20 The ag commissioners usually will give us contacts

21 with people that they think will be cooperative.

22 DR. GLANTZ: Again --

23 DR. FRIEDMAN: The question is, are the cooperative

24 people being more careful spraying less of the material?

25 MR. MONGAR: I'm sorry.



1 We really have no way of knowing.

2 It is very difficult to answer your question,

3 because we are not there to see what the uncooperative people

4 are up to.

5 DR. GLANTZ: Well, can you, at one level people are

6 going to be bad, they are going to be bad, but have you gone

7 back and looked at the post HAC reports to see if there is at

8 least at that level any systematic differences between the

9 people who will cooperate with you and the people who don't

10 in terms of what they are using or how much they are

11 applying?

12 MR. BAKER: Well, we don't have a control to

13 compare to.

14 So, we don't know if they are being extra careful

15 in their application method, because we are doing the

16 monitoring.

17 I can remember cases where our field staff would

18 tell us about witnessing over spray of the fields. So, I

19 think we have seen cases where they weren't extremely

20 careful.

21 DR. GLANTZ: The question that Gary is asking is,

22 is sort of epidemiological in terms of a response by his

23 question, and I think it would be nice to at least be able to

24 say that the places that you are monitoring are, if at least

25 if you look at the reports they have to file with DPR that



1 the use of application and amounts of pesticides they are

2 applying and all that in the places you are monitoring, or at

3 least similar to what people are claiming they are doing in

4 the other sites or places that people will not consent to the

5 monitoring, because there is real serious potential for bias

6 here.

7 I don't know what else you can do.

8 MR. MONGAR: We assume that they follow the label

9 guidelines when making the applications, and if they don't

10 follow the guidelines listed on the product label, then

11 that's a problem for the agricultural commissioner's office.

12 That's an enforcement issue.

13 DR. BYUS: That was my question.

14 Do you actually watch them put the chemical and mix

15 it up and go in the airplane and you know what actually is

16 going on at the rate that they are saying it is going?

17 MR. BAKER: No.

18 And that issue has come up.

19 DR. BYUS: If you had our own facility all of this

20 for hot spots, this would be all trivial sorts of

21 information.

22 You spray the maximum amount, more than the maximum

23 amount, less than the maximum amount, you could control for

24 everything.

25 MR. BAKER: Maybe DPR can purchase some land.



1 DR. BYUS: I don't think it would be that expensive

2 to do this.

3 DR. GLANTZ: The only problem with what you are

4 suggesting, which is an interesting idea, but maybe it leaves

5 aside sort of local meteorological conditions and local,

6 maybe what the ground is made of makes a difference in terms

7 of absorption and what the crop is and what they are spraying

8 it on, so I think that is one thing that would, I mean it

9 sort of defeats the purpose.

10 The good thing about what they are doing is, except

11 for all the problems that we are identifying, it's the real

12 world, sort of.

13 DR. BYUS: You don't know it's the real world.

14 DR. FRIEDMAN: The problem is we don't know if the

15 people who are using extra concentrated solutions are the

16 one's who are denying you permission to monitor there, and

17 that is a serious possible cause of bias where you may be

18 underestimating what is going on in the real world.

19 DR. SPEAR: Let me make two comments.

20 One easy way around this that people in the past

21 have done, you make arrangements with the grower not to

22 monitor what they do, but to actually use their field at the

23 time where they would normally make the application and the

24 application is made by DPR personnel, and that sort of solves

25 the problem because you are actually doing it.



1 DR. FRIEDMAN: Then you are missing what is

2 happening in the real world.

3 DR. SPEAR: The other thing to keep in mind is that

4 these pesticides are quite expensive, and people are not

5 going to really do a lot of extra application for the most

6 part and doses that depart very much from label

7 recommendations, just because it is a cost issue.

8 So, they are very sensitive, at least in my

9 experience, the agricultural, with what the label

10 recommendation is and not doing much more if they can avoid

11 it.

12 You are quite right. You can't -- again, this

13 whole issue of variations of application raises another

14 variable in this whole moulage that does go to the issue.

15 DR. GLANTZ: That is actually a very good idea.

16 That is something that you guys could do, feasible,

17 say we will apply it for you. That way you are sort of doing

18 what Craig is saying in a real world situation.

19 DR. BYUS: We will pay to spray.

20 DR. SPEAR: We will pay the commercial applicator,

21 someone who is licensed, to spray the chemical for them for

22 free.

23 DR. BYUS: They are going to get a lot more

24 compliance.

25 It is going to be a real world thing. Now,



1 granted, this doesn't get to the real world.

2 DR. GLANTZ: Naughty.

3 DR. BYUS: But it makes the data a lot more solid.

4 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Let's keep the --

5 DR. FRIEDMAN: You also brought up the cost issue

6 which may be created by us in the opposite direction, and

7 maybe people are using less of it and maybe pay at the

8 standard application will overestimate what is getting into

9 the air.

10 CHAIRMAN FROINES: We need to -- I think these

11 kinds of suggestions have merit.

12 There are probably, if you are dealing with

13 hundreds of pesticides on a continuing basis, there are

14 obvious cost issues.

15 DR. BLANC: They are only doing five a year.

16 CHAIRMAN FROINES: No, but I'm talking about the

17 overall problem.

18 DPR is a regulatory agency. I doubt very seriously

19 if they want to get into the business of being pesticide

20 applicators.

21 Well, anyway, let's keep it as an option, but it

22 still seems to be that our goal is in part to define

23 protocol that maximize our information, and that is one

24 option, but I think perhaps there are other options with

25 different looks of practicality.



1 MR. SEGAWA: In response to Dr. Byus' question, I

2 think it is definitely possible.

3 My concern, of course, would be the cost. Some of

4 these pesticides are rather expensive, and my guess is there

5 would be several thousand dollars for each application.

6 DR. BYUS: What is the big picture here?

7 DR. BLANC: It has got to be trivial compared to

8 the staff time.

9 I am sure it must cost $100,000 each time you

10 analyze one of these. Maybe its more, maybe 2 or $300,000.

11 MR. SEGAWA: Yes, except that DPR has budgeted its

12 staff to work on 1807, have not budgeted it from pesticide

13 applications.

14 DR. BYUS: You could.

15 MR. BAKER: I know in the case of metam-sodium, the

16 sprinkler application that monitoring was done around by DPR

17 you actually paid for the application but that was over and

18 above 1807.

19 DR. GLANTZ: I don't want to belabor this because

20 we do need to get on, but I think this a reasonable thing

21 that you guys ought to seriously look into, because I think

22 the point that Paul made is almost certainly true that the

23 data collection costs plus the costs associated with all of

24 the work that follows from the data that drags on for years,

25 if the cost of applying this to a field is few thousand



1 dollars, that is a small amount of money, and it may be that

2 you ought to be going in to develop your budgets and planning

3 to do this as part of your sampling cost.

4 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Everyone is making this so it is

5 an easy thing and maybe an easy thing to do in terms of doing

6 it, but this is not something you do without legislation and

7 regulation.

8 You cannot tell farmers we are going to use your

9 field when we choose to, to apply pesticides. My point is

10 that this is potentially a litigated complicated regulatory

11 issue.

12 It is not something -- it is simply not a voluntary

13 question that DPR says we have the money we are going sample

14 pesticides in a field that we.

15 DR. GLANTZ: No, no, no.

16 That is not what anybody is suggesting. I think

17 what people are suggesting, but that is another approach I

18 suppose you can take, but I think at least my understanding

19 of what is on the table is the idea that you would go to a

20 farmer who, the local ag commissioner says, well, this guy is

21 probably going to use pesticide X, and you would go to him

22 and say, okay, we will go do it for you, you are planning to

23 use pesticide X, we will do it for you, we will pay for it,

24 if you let us do this sampling at the time that we are

25 spraying it.



1 It isn't where you are compelling them to do it. I

2 think then that gives you much better control over what is

3 going on. It gives you much more reliable data.

4 It is not where you would go in and say, we picked

5 your field, and we are going to do this whether you like it

6 or not.

7 It would be a thing where you would offer to them

8 and say, look we will do the spraying, and we will pay for

9 the pesticide to collect the data and bet you would get a

10 much broader cooperation then because they are getting

11 something out of it other than worrying that they are going

12 to get fingered by some regulatory agency for letting you

13 come in and make the measurements.

14 So, we are not talking about anything where people

15 are compelled to do anything. It would be an offer.

16 CHAIRMAN FROINES: This discussion is an academic

17 approach.

18 This is the researcher that wants to study the

19 problem. This is not regulatory policy for a state agency,

20 and let me just finish, Stan.

21 I think the point that we have to be careful about

22 here, we are trying to define a broad based approach to

23 monitoring for public health protection from pesticides. The

24 way that you describe it is much too ad hoc.

25 It is sort of like going around and saying let's do



1 it this way. That's fine. I think we should do things like

2 that.

3 But I still think that we need to define the broad

4 approach which ARB develops a protocol for sampling

5 irrespective getting volunteer information.

6 DR. GLANTZ: I agree with that except for that the

7 current approaches are voluntary.

8 There are two issues here that I see. One of them

9 is that the issue that we talked about before the ambient

10 monitoring, and I think that is a real serious problem if you

11 are out taking ambient data and you don't know whether the

12 stuff is actually being applied or not, and then the second

13 thing, when you are doing the hot spot monitoring, I think

14 that the kind of things that we are talking about here are

15 things that could be realistically done.

16 The only difference which they are doing now, what

17 we are talking about is that they would actually do the

18 application for the grower so they would know precisely what

19 is going on.

20 We are going through this whole process in

21 developing these reports and coming up with recommendations

22 in terms of public health stuff where the basic exposure data

23 may be wrong. That is pretty discouraging.

24 I think that the broad public health issues are

25 related to the problem with the ambient monitoring which are



1 serious, but in terms of hot spot monitoring, this might be a

2 way to improve the data quality.

3 So, I don't think it is just an academic issue. It

4 is just a minor adjustment to what they are doing.

5 Do you see what I am saying?

6 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I see it as an academic way of

7 looking at things.

8 DR. GLANTZ: Well, but I'm a professor.

9 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Keep in mind, as far as I know

10 there is no regulatory agency, whether occupational health,

11 environmental protection, clean drinking water, where the

12 regulatory agency goes to the regulated party and says, we

13 are going to do the sampling in your factory, or your field,

14 or your waterway or whatever for you, and then based on that

15 data that we collect, we are going to regulate you.

16 There are obviously some limitations to how one can

17 do that, but that is what we are saying. The industry will

18 be impacted by the regulating agency collecting data in the

19 regulated field, and so the effected party is bound to be

20 somewhat concerned about whether or not they are going to ask

21 the reverse question, is he not going to worry about money

22 and use a much higher concentration to get a much greater

23 worst case situation, and therefore, he comes back and DPR

24 regulates the devil out of this particular pesticide based on

25 DPR's monitoring.



1 You've got a conflict of interest issue.

2 DR. ATKINSON: Do you only do the application

3 monitoring site once?

4 MR. BAKER: We are going to propose more than once.

5 DR. ATKINSON: I guess you could end up with a fair

6 amount of variation depending upon meteorological conditions.

7 MR. BAKER: Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Let's move on.

9 MR. BAKER: Okay.

10 Next overhead, Kevin.

11 DR. GLANTZ: Just for the record, I was the warm

12 fuzzy guy yesterday, and John was mean, but today he is being

13 warm and fuzzy, and I am being mean.

14 I was instructed to be mean, because he wants to be

15 warm and fuzzy.

16 MR. BAKER: I have two overheads.

17 DR. GLANTZ: For the record, that was a joke.

18 MR. BAKER: I have two overheads to show examples

19 of our application site monitoring.

20 This was a 40-acre field, a 40-acre peach orchard

21 actually, where we did monitoring for diazinon, applied as a

22 dormant spray in January with no leaves on the trees.

23 These X's are the locations of the monitoring sites

24 showing again that they are in the roughly 20 yards from the

25 edge of field. This is co-located site in the predominant



1 down wind direction, the northwesterly winds.

2 This also shows what we show not only and this is a

3 diagram out of one of our reports to DPR. This also shows

4 what was on the adjacent fields. This is the grassy area,

5 alfalfa, two foot high trees, new orchard, and just the dirt

6 to the bare field to the south here.

7 Next slide, please.

8 That was fairly ideal condition. This next

9 overhead is less ideal, and I wanted to contrast the two.

10 Often we will have, this was an application of

11 chlorphyrifos to an orange grove. Often there will be plots

12 or blocks as referred to here of land.

13 Here it was a 40-acre block, and then a 20-acre

14 block to the north, both received applications of

15 chlorpyrifos on two consecutive days, so that complicates our

16 sampling, because we are set up here to the southeast and

17 north of the 60-acre plot.

18 A couple of complicating factors. One, the fact

19 that the application occurred on two consecutive days. So,

20 what we were measuring in our off-site locations were, it

21 cannot be totally assigned to one day's application because

22 there is a carryover.

23 Another complicating factor is that these sites

24 here to the north and to the east are between orange groves.

25 So, the microscale meteorological impacts of air passing over



1 the canopy from one orange grove into the next complicates

2 the air flow.

3 The ideal is to have an orchard with just bare soil

4 or all the way around put our samplers on the four sides and

5 not have any complicating factors, but it is tough to find an

6 orchard like that without something around it.

7 The other interesting note is that we had samplers

8 on three sides. We started out with a sampler here on the

9 west side, because we always ring the fields with four

10 samplers, but midway through the study, someone else decided

11 that they needed our sampler more then we did, and we only

12 got data from three of the samplers, but that has been very

13 rare.

14 We have been very fortunate in not having samplers

15 stolen.

16 Next overhead.

17 Finally, then we wrap all this information up to

18 report to DPR.

19 That summarizes the sampling analysis methods, the

20 results of both types of monitoring and also the quality

21 assurance results from the lab and the field.

22 Next overhead.

23 I quickly I will run through the status of our

24 monitoring to date. To date DPR has requested monitoring for

25 48 pesticides. They have given us monitoring recommendations



1 for 42.

2 The difference there of six. Just about two months

3 ago, they gave us the request for six more pesticides for

4 next year, and so those monitoring recommendations will be

5 following.

6 To date, ARB has finalized reports for 35 different

7 pesticides. We have actually done monitoring for more than

8 that, so several of these pesticides we have done monitoring

9 multiple times, but we have done reports on 35 different

10 pesticides.

11 There are six reports in preparation. Monitoring

12 is just being completed for our last pesticide of 1999

13 cycloate, down in Imperial County, and we have monitoring for

14 nine pesticides scheduled for 2000-2001.

15 Next overhead.

16 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Can I ask you a question?

17 You said that you sometimes have multiple samples.

18 Case in point, I said this yesterday, but I want to say it

19 again, in 1991, 1,108 pounds of Telone was used in

20 California.

21 In the first six months of 1995, 409,820 pounds

22 were used. I suspected that there is a lot more being used

23 even now.

24 So, my question is, since we knew there was a

25 problem in 1990 that actually led to suspension of Telone



1 used, do we know that that problem exists today?

2 In other words, have you been asked to do

3 monitoring over time to characterize what is in this case an

4 obvious problem, and have you done application site

5 monitoring to characterize whether or not they are hot spots?

6 MR. BAKER: We have done the monitoring most

7 recently in, I believe, July of 1996, for Telone in Kern

8 County, but we recently did discuss with DPR that we believe

9 that DPR may consider requesting us to go back and do

10 additional monitoring for Telone, because of the increase

11 used.

12 We have not done application site monitoring for

13 Telone other than the joint studies between ARB and Dow back

14 in the early 90's that were part of Dow Elanco's efforts to

15 bring Telone back under the California market.

16 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I would argue that with Telone

17 that application site monitoring should be a priority.

18 MR. BAKER: I would think if we were asked to do

19 additional ambient monitoring, we would do application site

20 monitoring as well.

21 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Especially given the change in

22 methyl bromide.

23 This whole permethrin issue is actually quite

24 complicated. It is almost that we are thinking about how do

25 we look at the permethrin issue, because it is changing so



1 fast.

2 MR. BAKER: It really is with the dramatic increase

3 and use of metam-sodium in 1990, since Telone was suspended

4 and the phase out over the next few years of methyl bromide.

5 DR. GLANTZ: What is DPR planning to do in response

6 to the issues that are just being discussed?

7 MR. SEGAWA: Specifically, about Telone?

8 DR. GLANTZ: Well, in methyl bromide and

9 metam-sodium, I mean are you planning to alter your

10 monitoring plan?

11 In the past it has been like usually you go out and

12 look at something once. I mean are you planning on tracking

13 these things and going at and taking additional data to see

14 how the exposures are changing over time?

15 MR. SEGAWA: For the chemical, it is definitely

16 under serious consideration.

17 Lynn had pointed out that we have actually

18 requested 48 chemicals but have only sent over 42

19 recommendations, and normally we would have sent over the

20 recommendations for year the 2000 monitoring.

21 One of the reasons for the delays, we are now

22 considering changing the chemicals that we want monitored,

23 including some of the fumigants.

24 MR. BAKER: Next overhead.

25 This is an overhead just very quickly of the



1 pesticides that we have monitored to date. Metam-sodium is

2 listed up there just because it is the parent for MITC, but

3 we have not done air monitoring for metam-sodium, just for

4 MITC, and its breakdown product, methyl isocyanate.

5 So, there is 41 up there on the list, we have done

6 monitoring for to date.

7 DR. GLANTZ: So, DPR has reports on all these?

8 MR. BAKER: They have reports on 35.

9 There are six that are in preparation, actually it

10 will be seven.

11 One is just being completed.

12 CHAIRMAN FROINES: The key to this entire

13 discussion is focused on the fact that we have a very nice

14 list, but the question is when you look inside the list what

15 do we really know.

16 Do we have application monitoring and ambient

17 monitoring for all of these compounds, and we could raise a

18 series of questions that we have discussed and there is no

19 sense of going back over them, but the question is, to what

20 degree do we have sufficient information for decision making

21 purposes?

22 MR. BAKER: Seems to me that the key question is,

23 is the data adequately representative of public exposure?

24 Now, Randy is going to discuss a little bit more on

25 DPR's evaluation of our reports.



1 CHAIRMAN FROINES: This is for Randy, how long do

2 you think you are going to be?

3 MR. SEGAWA: I will only be talking about two

4 minutes, but it may generate a number of questions.

5 DR. BYUS: Brief question, Randy, about the use

6 data, that is analogous to this in the drug industry, in

7 terms of the amount of drugs that people use and listing the

8 amount of drugs that pharmacies prescribe and the amount of

9 drug that is actually manufactured, it doesn't always add up,

10 so my question to you is, now it is a question for the

11 pesticides, if you have all this use data but do you monitor

12 the amount, say, of the pesticides that are brought into the

13 State of California and sold, and does that actually add up

14 with the use data, is my question?

15 MR. SEGAWA: DPR does have information regarding

16 sales of pesticides in the state.

17 We are currently running an analysis comparing that

18 sales data to our pesticide use data and seeing how well they

19 match up.

20 One of the problems that we have most pesticides

21 have non agricultural applications, so we don't get pesticide

22 use reports for all chemicals, and so for many of the

23 chemicals, it is impossible to match up because the use is

24 not required to be reported.

25 DR. BYUS: Some of this is going to add up.



1 Granted, if people store the stuff and you make the

2 estimates, but if it's grossly out of kilter --

3 MR. SEGAWA: We are doing that analysis now.

4 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I just want to make one comment

5 before we break.

6 I hope that everybody appreciates why there is such

7 sensitivity to the issue of having a requirement that we use

8 monitoring data before we determine a particular chemical a

9 toxic air contaminant, that we are trapped at some level in

10 the quality of the exposure and monitoring data.

11 We can take a highly toxic chemical, and we could

12 not declare it a toxic air contaminant without adequate

13 monitoring data. It's so different than what we do with ARB.

14 I would still argue that we shouldn't, it still

15 raises a question of whether or not the designation of a

16 compound of a toxic air contaminant should be based solely on

17 this kind of requirement. So, let's leave it, but you see

18 why this is such a troubling issue.

19 So, let's take a break.

20 (Thereupon a brief recess was taken.)

21 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Okay. Go ahead.

22 MR. SEGAWA: As Lynn mentioned previously, ARB has

23 sent to DPR 35 monitoring reports, and the next couple of

24 overheads here will list the status of those 35 reports.

25 Similarly, chemicals are currently toxic air



1 contaminants, and you see the list of seven chemicals there.

2 One chemical has been cancelled by DPR. That is

3 monocrotophos. One is currently proposed as a toxic air

4 contaminant, DEF. Seven reports are in preparation for

5 review by DPR.

6 Next slide.

7 Then we have 18 chemicals sort of in line waiting

8 for our evaluation by DPR staff, and one chemical for which

9 we requested additional monitoring, that is benomyl.

10 DR. BLANC: I found this very confusing.

11 It was in your handout. Everything on this list,

12 is this list and the previous list completely a subset of the

13 pesticides monitored to date list?

14 MR. SEGAWA: Well, there are 41 pesticides

15 monitored to date, but ARB has sent us 35 reports.

16 So, these two slides show the status of those 35.

17 DR. BLANC: 18 and 35 would mean 53.

18 MR. SEGAWA: 19 on this slide and the previous

19 slide at 16.

20 DR. BLANC: Well, again, maybe I don't understand

21 the terminology, in the que --

22 DR. GLANTZ: What does it mean that it is in the

23 que?

24 MR. SEGAWA: That means the monitoring has been

25 completed, but we don't have staff assigned to all parts of



1 the health effects document.

2 DR. BLANC: But DPR, you have received the report

3 from the ARB for 35 reports?

4 MR. SEGAWA: Right.

5 We have the monitoring data but, for instance,

6 parts of the risk characterization or the exposure assessment

7 is not yet done.

8 DR. BLANC: Okay. So, none of this refers to

9 anything else that you are expecting from the ARB except for

10 the one thing that you have asked for additional monitoring

11 for?

12 MR. SEGAWA: Correct, and that the six reports that

13 they are currently working on.

14 DR. BLANC: Right, which are things that are not

15 even in the que yet?

16 MR. SEGAWA: That's correct.

17 DR. BLANC: But will be in the que?

18 MR. BAKER: Once we finalize them.

19 MR. SEGAWA: Correct.

20 DR. BLANC: So, could you go back to the previous

21 slide then?

22 There are seven toxic air contaminants that are

23 already put to bed. There is one that you canceled because

24 it is not made anymore, or something.

25 There is one that has been proposed to us to



1 finalize that really would move up into the top list now,

2 right?

3 MR. SEGAWA: Yes.

4 We have regulation currently as proposed to add it

5 to the toxic air contaminant list but it is not yet official.

6 DR. BLANC: Right, but it is basically, we have

7 done our part, and we just finished our part for methyl

8 parathion.

9 MR. SEGAWA: Correct.

10 DR. BLANC: So, therefore, of the seven reports

11 that are in preparation or review, that means they are not

12 done, but they are farther along than things that are in que;

13 is that the difference?

14 MR. SEGAWA: Correct.

15 All three sections of the health effects document

16 and then environmental fate section, exposure assessment and

17 the risk assessment section are all in active preparation

18 right now.

19 DR. BLANC: Well, some of them are more than in

20 active preparation, right?

21 MR. SEGAWA: Correct.

22 DR. BLANC: So, the one's that we have already

23 gotten drafts of here, it's molinate and MITC, have we gotten

24 a draft?

25 MR. SEGAWA: The leads have the MITC.



1 DR. BLANC: So, what else does the leads have or

2 not have yet?

3 MR. SEGAWA: That's it, MITC and molinate.

4 DR. BLANC: And methyl parathion.

5 MR. SEGAWA: Yes.

6 DR. BLANC: So, there are four things that the lead

7 people have been assigned but don't have the documents or

8 nobody has been assigned yet, John?

9 CHAIRMAN FROINES: What is what?

10 Azinphos methyl, chlorothalonil, endosulfan and

11 naled?

12 DR. BLANC: So, in fact, any discussion that we

13 would have, our next discussion after you is going to be on

14 how priorities are set, and that would be in terms of how

15 priorities are set for things for which the Air Resources

16 Board has already done the air monitoring for?

17 MR. SEGAWA: In part, yes.

18 DR. BLANC: Or would it be a discussion of how

19 priorities are set for things beyond the 18 chemical list?

20 MR. SEGAWA: Both.

21 DR. BLANC: Can you tell us, of the six things that

22 you sent requests, you said that there are six things that

23 have been, you have gotten requests for monitoring, that you

24 have planned out for the next two years, what are those six

25 things?



1 MR. BAKER: I don't have a table of that, but I

2 could list them for you. They are, carbaryl, dimethoate,

3 maneb, phosmet, tralomethirn and benomyl.

4 DR. BLANC: So, none of those are Telone?

5 MR. BAKER: No, but as Randy mentioned earlier, one

6 of the reasons they have not sent us monitoring

7 recommendations yet is that they are reconsidering those

8 requests.

9 DR. BLANC: Those six, you mean they may change

10 those?

11 MR. BAKER: Correct.

12 CHAIRMAN FROINES: What was the last?

13 MR. BAKER: Tralomethirn, T-r-a-l-o-m-e-t-h-r-i-n.

14 CHAIRMAN FROINES: T-r-a-l-o-m-e-t-h-r-i-n.

15 DR. BLANC: What about bifenthrin that we got the

16 handout on?

17 MR. BAKER: We have done the monitoring on it

18 already.

19 DR. BLANC: Okay. So, let's say I wanted to

20 potentially review a substance as an air contaminant,

21 pesticide, that wasn't yet one of the 18 chemicals in que,

22 for which there has already been monitoring done, and it

23 wasn't one of the six that you mentioned, does that mean that

24 earliest sampling could be three years from now, and

25 therefore, it would be five years from now before we would



1 have a document?

2 MR. BAKER: No, there are, let me reiterate, we

3 have done monitoring for 41, or I think it is 42.

4 We have finalized reports for 35. Of the remaining

5 seven, one is the monitoring is just ending, the other six

6 the reports are under preparation.

7 So, there will be, over the next several months,

8 there will be seven more reports going in from ARB to DPR.

9 Then for those other six pesticides or replacements for those

10 that DPR has requested monitoring for us, that will be done

11 either in 2000 or 2001, with either a report to follow

12 probably the following year.

13 DR. BLANC: That is how I came up with three years

14 of the stuff that is in the pipeline.

15 Therefore, if there was something that is not in

16 the pipeline yet, wouldn't it be more like five years before?

17 MR. BAKER: Well, you mean if they were to next

18 month substitute a request for Telone instead of the phosmet?

19 DR. BLANC: Then it would only be three years.

20 MR. BAKER: Possibly two, two to three.

21 DR. BLANC: Why would you consider things in que

22 for which -- there are other things that are sort of in the

23 second que for which ARB is preparing the reports for you, or

24 are those in the 18?

25 MR. BAKER: Those 18 are just compounds that we



1 have finalized reports.

2 DR. BLANC: So, what are the one's that the reports

3 are pending for?

4 MR. SEGAWA: Amitraz, atrazine, bifenthrin,

5 propargite, cycloate, diquat dibromide, and there is a

6 seventh, oh, simazine.

7 DR. BLANC: So, let's say I was to go back to the

8 1996 document.

9 MR. BAKER: The prioritization document.

10 DR. BLANC: Prioritization document where

11 propargite is number one.

12 So, propargite, which is number one on that list,

13 is actually not even appearing on the radar screen as being

14 in que?

15 MR. BAKER: It is actually somewhat unique.

16 We did monitoring for it in 1996, gave DPR a report

17 in 1998, but we and DPR agreed that the report was not

18 adequate. There was a problem with the analysis method and

19 sort of fluctuating limit of quantifications. So, we redid

20 that monitoring the past couple of months.

21 DR. BLANC: Okay. What was the next one on your

22 list?

23 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Can I ask a question, Paul?

24 Do you have an application site report

25 for propargite?



1 MR. BAKER: We do, and that was finalized and sent

2 to DPR last year.

3 DR. BLANC: So, actually is has been held up

4 because of some school or fire house or some place where you

5 had the levels?

6 MR. BAKER: Well, we again did the application site

7 monitoring -- hold on a second. I have a summary.

8 All the data -- no. I take that back.

9 We got measurable results from the application site

10 monitoring for propargite. So there is nothing wrong with

11 that data.

12 We did repeat it this year, but the problem was

13 with the ambient monitoring for propargite, but we chose to

14 repeat both studies.

15 DR. GLANTZ: When will those be available?

16 MR. BAKER: Probably spring or summer of next year.

17 Is that a fair guess, Kevin?

18 MR. MONGAR: Yes, that is correct.

19 DR. GLANTZ: So, if we were to say we would truly

20 like to see a report on that, it could conceivably be before

21 the Panel by the fall, like a year from now?

22 MR. BAKER: That would be at the early spring or

23 more likely summer, us giving DPR a final report on --

24 DR. GLANTZ: Right, but they could be doing the

25 health effects part while you are finishing your monitoring



1 study.

2 MR. BAKER: I don't know how long that takes DPR to

3 put all that together.

4 MR. SEGAWA: I'm not sure what the stats on risk

5 assessment for propargite is.

6 DR. BLANC: Okay. What about something like

7 simazine?

8 MR. BAKER: Simazine was actually withdrawn.

9 DR. BLANC: So, it fell off the map.

10 CHAIRMAN FROINES: What about chlorothalonil?

11 DR. BLANC: Chlorothalonil.

12 MR. SEGAWA: It is all done, and it is one of the

13 next few that will be coming up shortly.

14 DR. BLANC: That is in preparation.

15 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Oh. I'm sorry. You are right.

16 DR. BLANC: I am sorry to make you go over this

17 again, but the one's that you are preparing that you have

18 done the sampling for already and you are preparing the

19 reports but they haven't formally gone to DPR, could you list

20 those again, those seven?

21 MR. BAKER: Yes.

22 There are seven and they are, amitraz, bifenthrin,

23 diquat dibromide, cycloate, propargite, simazine and

24 atrazine.

25 DR. BLANC: So, we should remember those and ask



1 when we talk about the priority setting, we should get a

2 sense as to where those would fall, because they are not in

3 the que yet.

4 MR. SEGAWA: Yes, we will discuss those more when

5 we discuss the prioritization.

6 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Any other questions?

7 MR. BAKER: Next overhead.

8 We could have remembered all these on this next

9 overhead if I had been thinking of it.

10 This is an update of our monitoring this past year.

11 This lists the six pesticides that we did monitoring ambient

12 and application site application for, and then in addition of

13 these six, the seventh report that will soon be completed is

14 simazine, which was monitoring done late last year.

15 These, just quickly to run through these, amitraz

16 an insecticide used on cotton in Kings and Fresno County,

17 atrazine a herbicide used on sudangrass in Sacramento County,

18 bifenthrin an insecticide used on cotton in Kings and Fresno

19 County, cycloate that we are just completing monitoring for

20 an herbicide used for sugar beets, used on vegetation in

21 sugar beets in Imperial County, diquat dibromide a desiccant

22 used for alfalfa seed in Kings County, and propargite an

23 insecticide used on cotton and grapes in Kings and Fresno

24 County.

25 As we move on here, I would like to point out that



1 there are three that are listed for Kings and Fresno County,

2 amitraz, bifenthrin, and propargite, and this presented a

3 rare opportunity for us this year to actually do monitoring

4 for three pesticides simultaneously at some of the sites.

5 If I could have the next overhead. I will now go

6 through a few overheads of the pesticide use maps that have

7 been so helpful to us that DPR provides, and we won't get

8 into a lot of specifics on these, but they give us, they can

9 illustrate a couple of different things.

10 This is the use map that DPR provided for the use

11 of amitraz in Fresno and Kings County during 1994, during the

12 period of July through August of 1994.

13 You can see scattered use here in Fresno County and

14 then a little more concentrated used down in Kings County

15 around Hanford.

16 If we could look at the next slide, for the 1997

17 use, you see the pattern has changed a fair amount in a three

18 year period there is not nearly as much used in around

19 Hanford and it has spread up to the valley more.

20 So, this illustrates both the change in the use

21 pattern for this particular pesticide but also that the

22 complication that we would be under if we using outdated use

23 information to pick our monitoring sites.

24 If we had used 1994 data, we would have done all

25 the monitoring down here and would have missed locations up



1 here in the valley.

2 Kevin, why don't you put up that overlay. We have

3 another slide here that we will use for a couple of these

4 that overlays that shows our actual monitoring locations in

5 this area.

6 As I mentioned a minute ago, we did monitoring at

7 some of the sites for amitraz, bifenthrin and propargite.

8 So, Fresno again, was our urban background site for this

9 monitoring.

10 We had amitraz monitors at the locations here with

11 the A, Huron, five points, Lemoore and Stratford and you can

12 see in general these sites are in the areas of historical for

13 amitraz.

14 Why don't you pull that off, and we will move on to

15 bifenthrin.

16 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Is there another name for

17 bifenthrin?

18 MR. BAKER: Is there another name for bifenthrin?

19 MR. SEGAWA: There is but it doesn't come to me at

20 the moment.

21 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I don't find it on the priority

22 list for '96.

23 MR. SEGAWA: Oh, bifenthrin is a recently

24 registered active ingredient.




1 MR. BAKER: The bifenthrin and the propargite we

2 were actually able to monitor simultaneously the same

3 sampling media.

4 The amitraz used a different sampling media, but we

5 were able to use the same sites in some cases for all three.

6 This is the 1994 use pattern for bifenthrin. It is

7 pretty uniform throughout the western part of Fresno County

8 and down here in Kings County.

9 Now, the 1997 use, you will see a change in that

10 pattern. Instead of pretty uniformly distributed throughout

11 there, just a little bit of use in the western Fresno County

12 and scattered use down in Kings County.

13 Now, why don't you overlay again the monitoring

14 sites for bifenthrin. Some of these, again, are picked as

15 primarily bifenthrin sites. Some were primarily for

16 propargite sites.

17 For instance, the Kerman station here, there is no

18 historical use by bifenthrin there, but we were able to get

19 both the alunites off of the same sampling cartridge, so we

20 used that primarily for propargite.

21 We had these two sites in San Joaquin in the heart

22 of the historical bifenthrin use area, Stratford and Huron,

23 also in that same region, and then Kingsburg is another site

24 that is more of a propargite site.

25 DR. BLANC: Could I see the previous map just for a



1 second?

2 MR. BAKER: The '94, '94 for bifenthrin.

3 The kind of pink is the '94 bifenthrin use and the

4 tannish or whatever color that is, is the '97.

5 Anything else on that?

6 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I still don't understand why

7 bifenthrin is not in the '96 documents?

8 That is 1994.

9 MR. SEGAWA: I'm lost myself.

10 I don't know.

11 DR. BLANC: Seemed like it didn't work very well, I

12 mean it is not very popular.

13 It lost popularity.

14 MR. SEGAWA: Bifenthrin is a propylene type

15 chemical, and one of the problems with propylene chemicals is

16 that insects get resistance to that very rapidly.

17 DR. BLANC: So, just in terms of our upcoming

18 discussion here is a chemical which doesn't appear at all on

19 the list of priorities as, is a propylene which probably

20 wouldn't be my choice for high priority to study, because it

21 is not particularly that potent, had a brief popularity of

22 use which is now sort of collapsing, but took up 20 percent

23 of what the ARB could do in terms of sampling.

24 I mean, it was one of the five things you could

25 sample.



1 MR. BAKER: There are actually two on our

2 2000-2001 list, tralomethirn and methamidophos, which is a

3 carry over from last year that are also not listed in the '96

4 document.

5 So, I am assuming there has been new information

6 that DPR has come upon since that document was prepared that

7 has caused those to become priorities. I assume the case is

8 similar for bifethrin.

9 MR. SEGAWA: We will talk more about that in depth

10 when we get to prioritization discussion.

11 MR. BAKER: Okay. Let's just wrap up with the

12 propargite overheads and then we will move on.

13 Prior to amitraz and bifenthrin, we noted a fair

14 change in the use pattern from '94 to '97, and here that is

15 not the case, '94 received pretty uniform use throughout

16 Fresno and more eastern in Kings County.

17 Propargite used some on cotton but slightly more

18 heavily on grapes, and this is the grape growing region.

19 Now, '97, and you see the use pattern has not really changed

20 significantly. It's still that grape growing region.

21 If you recall, there were a couple of sites, Kevin,

22 do you want to put the overhead back again, that we used for

23 bifenthrin and propargite, that were not big.

24 In fact, there was no historical use for

25 bifenthrin. They were coming in Kingsburg, but you can see



1 that they are in the use area for propargite as well as for

2 others and to lesser extent by Helm and Stratford.

3 So, if there are no further questions, that

4 concludes what I was planning to present.

5 We could move on to Randy's presentation on the

6 modifications that are being considered.

7 MR. SEGAWA: Go ahead, next slide, Kevin.

8 DPR and ARB staff have had a couple of meetings now

9 to discuss possible options for revising the current

10 monitoring. This summarizes those discussions.

11 All of these options will give us more data for

12 each chemical, but then the sacrifices that we will be doing

13 fewer chemicals for or less frequent monitoring for each

14 chemical.

15 Currently ARB collects about 120 ambient samples

16 for each chemical at 40 application site samples. Now we

17 currently monitor 5 to 6 chemicals per year.

18 Some of the options we are discussing is monitoring

19 an additional season, we currently do that of course for one

20 year. We could do that over two or three years.

21 We could also monitor additional areas. Right now

22 we target the highest or second highest county of use, and we

23 could spread that out more.

24 We could also monitor additional sites. We

25 normally monitor 3 to 5 sites of each chemical. We could



1 monitor for a longer period of time, as Lynn said.

2 We currently monitor for about six weeks, or we

3 could monitor additional applications. Currently we do one.

4 As you know, we have not yet monitored for TAC.

5 We would like to begin including those into our monitoring

6 scheme as well.

7 Another option would be and go back for those 18

8 chemicals in cue and gather additional monitoring data for

9 those.

10 Another idea we have been considering is

11 supplementing the monitoring data with some computer modeling

12 information. We are looking for suggestions and

13 recommendation from the Panel here.

14 One question we had, was if it is important to

15 distinguish between particulate phase and vapor phase for

16 these pesticides.

17 DR. BLANC: Why was that a question?

18 MR. SEGAWA: That question has came up in other

19 monitoring that we have been doing where people are

20 interested in the partitioning between the particulate phase

21 and vapor phase.

22 Unfortunately, at this point the sampling

23 analytical methodology is not well worked out, so we can't

24 get a good distinction between the two phases.

25 So up until now, we haven't tried to make that



1 distinction.

2 DR. ATKINSON: That would be important for

3 environmental fate because two phases could be quite

4 different.

5 MR. BAKER: Right.

6 We have had some discussions I know with DPR's

7 toxicologist, and they might care to comment, but it didn't

8 sound like that they would do much with the data if it was

9 particulate versus gaseous phase.

10 It's not like they would do the same. They would

11 treat the data the same way. So from a toxic end point

12 perspective, we want to be certain that there was a real need

13 for separating the two types of information.

14 CHAIRMAN FROINES: It depends also on your

15 sampling.

16 If you are not picking up particulate because you

17 are doing, let's say, charcoal tube sampling, or if you are

18 picking up both, then of course, that is an issue.

19 DR. MAJEWSKI: The chances are you are picking up

20 both you are just not getting a high efficiency for the

21 particulates.

22 CHAIRMAN FROINES: The question of how much of the

23 organic gets particle associated?

24 MR. BAKER: Even if we were able to measure with a

25 filter upstream of the absorbent resin and trap the



1 particulate from fraction and the gaseous fractions some of

2 the pesticide that would be absorbed to the particle that

3 would be trapped on a filter, then also the pesticide would

4 be stripped off of that particle from the filter during the

5 sampling, so we wouldn't necessarily be able to accurately

6 characterize what was occurring in the ambient air.

7 DR. ATKINSON: Yeah, it wouldn't necessarily be

8 particularly accurate, yet some knowledge.

9 CHAIRMAN FROINES: My suggestion on that list of

10 yours, is that it would be best to actually wait on any

11 discussion of it until after our guest speakers have

12 contributed and then go back to it following their

13 recommendations.

14 MR. SEGAWA: That is about all I had.

15 The other slide was just our current thoughts that

16 we had monitored, continued to monitor for 5 to 6 chemicals

17 each year but monitoring for two years rather than one, that

18 those chemicals would include 2 to 3 toxic air contaminants,

19 ARB would give us the data from the first season which we

20 would then look and help plan for the second season of

21 monitoring whether we want to monitor in a different area or

22 monitor a second application or increase the number of weeks

23 that we monitor.

24 CHAIRMAN FROINES: One of the questions obviously,

25 is why do you monitor what is the purpose in the long-term,



1 and going back to Craig and Stan's arguments about sampling

2 in the field and just putting pesticide on it and calculating

3 the data, if one of questions for this Panel is, is if one of

4 the issues is a chemical to be designated a toxic air

5 contaminant as opposed to having a broad based picture of the

6 pesticide exposure, those may have different, one may be done

7 more quickly than the other depending on what your ultimate

8 end point goal is.

9 DR. BLANC: To expand on that thought, it might be

10 in fact, I realize we are going to embark on a discussion

11 about priority setting for labeling, what should be

12 considered to be labeled a toxic air contaminant from

13 pesticides, but maybe the question is the reverse, which is

14 maybe what we need is just the minimum amount of information

15 so that we can designate many of these pesticides as toxic

16 air contaminants and let that drive, what we need to do in

17 terms of ambient monitoring.

18 Let's sample at the edge of fields and let's find

19 enough that we can decide that things are toxic air

20 contaminants in terms of the pesticides and then let that

21 drive your population based monitoring rather then everything

22 happening, it seems to me, in reverse a bit.

23 So, many of the things that we are talking about

24 would automatically be toxic air contaminants, if we can

25 demonstrate that there are any amount of either,



1 aerosolization or volatility at all or persistence.

2 I mean, to me, these things have to prove that

3 they are not toxic air contaminants. After all they are

4 all toxins, because, after all --

5 They are all toxins, that is how they got to be

6 pesticides, and the only question is do they get into the air

7 or not beyond some kind of trivial amount because of their

8 physical properties and use patterns, right?

9 CHAIRMAN FROINES: These two questions, what I

10 raise and this follow-up is exactly the issue it seems to me.

11 DR. BLANC: So, then I would say no I wouldn't

12 actually take any of this strategy what you are suggesting,

13 what I would is get us rapidly measurements of the edges of

14 the fields and do 20 chemicals a year and then once we

15 declare that they are toxic air contaminants then you can go

16 back and do your monitoring of multiple, to detect the

17 multiple one's so you can get some kind of public health risk

18 assessment on that level and intervention strategies, because

19 the process of declaring something a toxic air contaminant is

20 simply the first step in allowing the Air Resources Board

21 then to proceed with public health regulatory steps that

22 would obviously require the kind of data that we are talking

23 about the very detailed information, whereas ours is really

24 more a dichotomous decision.

25 CHAIRMAN FROINES: The broad based in-depth data on



1 ambient monitoring is information that one needs for risk

2 management purposes and literally has nothing to do with the

3 dichotomous decision of the Panel.

4 It's not even in the risk assessment phase.

5 MR. BAKER: I like your suggestion.

6 The only case that I can think of that it might not

7 work would be if there was a pesticide for which the chronic

8 exposure was what was driving the risk and the acute

9 exposure, the information that we get from the application

10 site data, and in that case the application site data might

11 not lead DPR to identify it as a toxic air contaminant and

12 then we would need the ambient longer term data for that

13 chronic risk assessment, or DPR that is, would need that

14 information.

15 DR. BLANC: I would be curious to hear what Bob and

16 our other guess have to say on this topic.

17 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Are we ready to move on and hear

18 from Bob?

19 DR. SPEAR: We are ready.

20 CHAIRMAN FROINES: For those of you that don't

21 know this is Dr. Robert Spear, who is the Director of the

22 Center for Occupational Environmental Health.

23 DR. SPEAR: By way of introduction, I will say two

24 things.

25 I think you can actually leave the lights pretty



1 well up to keep everyone awake.

2 By way of introduction, I will say two things. I

3 spent about a decade in the 70's dealing with pesticides and

4 I haven't done much since, so some of these might be a tad

5 dated, but unfortunately when I do revisit this it has

6 changed unremarkably little.

7 The other thing that will very shortly become

8 obvious to you is I am engineered by training and so when

9 faced with a short time to talk about a complicated subjected

10 I usually fall back on some kind of equations so I apologize

11 for that.

12 The first thing that I'm talking about here, air

13 born exposures to agricultural chemicals I don't have to tell

14 you that compounds air borne exposures are not the only

15 exposures one has to consider, but I understand the

16 partitioning of the regulatory world, and I would like to be

17 quite explicit about what I mean about exposure, and that is

18 that I am talking about inhalation exposure here where C is

19 the concentration of this stuff that we are worried about

20 actually in the breathing zone of the individual who we're

21 concerned about, and I want to underscore here that I am

22 talking about a person.

23 We picked a person and that person is exposed to

24 whatever it is we are concerned here about and concentration

25 C, which varies as a function of time as they move about



1 their activity whatever it is that they do, and we are

2 assuming that they are breathing, their ventilation rate is

3 some rate, B, which also is the two years of the person and

4 changes over time given their activity.

5 So, that inherently from an engineering experience

6 gives us a little notion, that is to say that this notion of

7 exposure moves with the person.

8 What we get out of this is we sum up or integrate

9 over some exposure time, T, which can be an hour, a day or

10 year, and this particular formulation here, this is the

11 inhalation exposure that you sustain over that period, and it

12 is in, let's say milligrams, then C is for milligrams per

13 cubic meter, then E would be in milligrams, the total amount

14 of this stuff that is inhaled over whatever the exposure

15 period may be.

16 In general, in the risk assessment practice there

17 are two approaches to estimating exposures, the first one

18 here says, well, we can actually in many cases put on some

19 kind of a device on people not unlike this little thing here

20 on the microphone, that will actually measure that interval,

21 C by T over, will measure C by T over the exposure of

22 interval and we then in that formulation we usually make some

23 assumptions about the ventilation rate depending upon the

24 activities that are going on, the age of the person, whatever

25 it may be.



1 Then we can then take the direct measurement of the

2 concentration over the exposure, multiply it by our estimates

3 of ventilation rates and get an individuals exposure. The

4 other way that it's commonly done is to use the sort of micro

5 environment approach in which we have, we sum up over a

6 number of micro environments, and micro environments can be

7 your car on the way to work, the actual workplace, your home

8 where you are sleeping at night, whatever in each one of

9 these places is characterized by what it is you are doing

10 there and also the amount of time you spend and this where

11 the time activity notion comes in.

12 In this case generally speaking, C, we associate

13 with the environment itself it is a constant number which we

14 associate with the environment, now it could be associated

15 with an individuals environment, as in this case, C, is the

16 function of the person in the environment or it may not be,

17 but any case says you can see in order to make it an exposure

18 estimate we need the same assumptions with respect to

19 inhalation rate but now we also need to have some idea about

20 the time spent in the environment since we are not measuring

21 it directly, and we need to have some estimate of the expose

22 in that environment.

23 Now when we move from individuals to groups, things

24 of course get slightly more complicated. With personal

25 measurements the thing that we don't have is the ventilation



1 rate, but we can account for the individuals moving through

2 the environment because the sampler moves with them and

3 therefore we don't to independently get measurements of the

4 environmental concentration because it is being measured as

5 the individual acts as their own sampler in a way and collect

6 that information.

7 Now, if we are talking about a group of people

8 instead of an individual, well we could put samplers on

9 various people and then we get some idea of the statistical

10 distribution of the exposure on this group of people by

11 direct measurement of concentration and some secondary source

12 of instances about ventilation rate.

13 The time activity approach requires estimates of

14 the time and each environment for each individual now, so now

15 it becomes a more of a statistical issue as well as the

16 ventilation rate and generally we assume in the micro

17 environment approach that this concentration to which people

18 are exposed to in the J micro environment is the same for all

19 people who were there.

20 That is to say that we generally assume that, C,

21 does not depend on the individual but that the micro

22 environmental concentration applies to everybody in that

23 micro environment.

24 As I indicate here, this assumption is the weak

25 point and U.S. EPA discovered this about 1982 or somewhere in



1 there and has put a lot of emphasis in recent years into

2 personal measurements of the, C bar, rather than area

3 measurements and inferences they are from.

4 Now, the story really or the guts of the issue as

5 Steven J. Gouhle likes to point out more than I in the

6 variance, that is to say this whole notion of the variability

7 in these numbers across the population, and what most of us,

8 what most people find difficult to get used to, is these are

9 really variable numbers, and I want to just take a particular

10 example that I know something about.

11 Take an occupational micro environment that is to

12 say just one of the micro environments which a person might

13 flux throughout the day and look very closely at that micro

14 environment and see what kind of variability we get in

15 exposure.

16 The example I use is here, suppose we go to an oil

17 refinery to a particular unit, for the cat cracker number

18 three and we select all day shift workers, day shift, who

19 have the job title of platform operator. Very specific group

20 of people and over a period of months we randomly select

21 people, we are going to take direct exposures now we are

22 going to hang a pump on them for eight hours and we are going

23 to find out what their exposure is say benzene, and generally

24 speaking what we find when we do this, is these 8 hour time

25 weighed average concentrations the C bar for that micro



1 environment are log normally distributed, that is to say

2 there is a lot of variations. There is a long tail, a lot of

3 measurements up towards the left end and then the geometric

4 deviations.

5 If you think in those terms is between 3 and 5, and

6 I made a little back of the envelope calculation which I

7 never quite remember, just to give you the flavor of what

8 that means, if we have a geometric, suppose we are going to

9 look at the 95 percent tile exposure measurement and the

10 fifth percent tile and ask what the ratio is so now we are

11 looking at this population of samples we have collected from

12 these workers it has got a log normal distribution and saying

13 what is the ratio of the 95 highest exposure to the fifth

14 percent tile highest exposure, and if the geometric standard

15 of deviation is 2 that ratio is a factor of 10. If the

16 geometric standard deviation is 2.5 it is a factor of 20, if

17 it's 3 it's a factor of 40, and if it's 4 it's a factor of

18 100.

19 Okay.

20 So, typically this is real data this is not

21 speculation. If you do exactly what I suggested here and

22 look at the distribution of all exposure over eight hours you

23 find between 5 low and high ends, there is factor of one

24 hundred in these.

25 More over, it is convincingly in the, it is



1 demonstrated in the occupational environment that the

2 variation between mean value of individuals, now we take

3 these individual workers, and we take multiple samples on

4 each, and we get a mean value for each worker.

5 Well, you find out that a very large proportion of

6 this total variability is also got to do with the variability

7 in the means between people, the people are not the same.

8 Okay. There is no -- there is in the occupational

9 world something called homogeneous exposure group which is

10 largely a fiction. They don't really exist.

11 Now, what does this all have got to do with

12 pesticide monitoring?

13 The implications for pesticide monitoring, well for

14 sure there is a lot of variability and exposure concentration

15 even within the indoor environment I just talked about,

16 although oil refineries certainly have outdoor compliments to

17 it.

18 The distinction in the occupational environment is

19 these exposures are relatively continuous. As to say if you

20 go into a oil refinery you are going to have benzene

21 exposures at some level pretty much all the time, it may be

22 small but it is likely to be there and this is unlike

23 pesticides in the regulatory setting that you just discussed

24 this morning.

25 Pesticides sources are episodically distributed in



1 time and space and the transport characteristics are also

2 going to vary a great deal day to day.

3 I can tell you also it varies by formulations. You

4 put a wettable pattern on versus some kind of emulsifiable

5 concentrate, it is probably going to change as well.

6 This whole thing leads me to conclude that fixed

7 position monitoring stations in the far field what is called

8 for ambient monitoring are very limited value for human

9 exposure assessment.

10 They are probably fine if you want to know can you

11 measure a pesticide, pesticide X down near Hanford, if you

12 put one out, yes you can, no you can't.

13 If you are trying to estimate human exposure, I

14 suggest it is a very different issue because of the enormous

15 variability, the mean values, because that is what you are

16 really trying to do.

17 You are saying that these ambient stations are

18 giving you some idea about these constant, C's, in the micro

19 environment, and the micro environment hasn't really defined

20 that we are talking about people being in, but because of

21 this variability issue, we are talking about people if you

22 are using a C, established from one of these ambient

23 monitoring stations, on average concentration of

24 azinphos-methyl, you could expect that people who are going

25 to be in that environment to actually put some kind of very



1 sensitive personal exposure monitors on them I would guess

2 that we would have variability in their exposures even

3 integrated over a 6 week period at least 100, but probably

4 closer to 1,000.

5 Now, so having painted this terrible picture, what

6 alternative do I have to offer?

7 I have a thought that echos what some of you have

8 said here this morning. I would suggest that focusing the

9 measurement resources on what I call here source

10 characterization and what you are calling the application

11 situation, to try and really understand how this stuff comes

12 off into the air, in what intensity and over what duration of

13 time.

14 My guess is for anything that is reasonably

15 volatile after about two weeks is probably not much there but

16 you have got data that will tell you that.

17 In any case to do a good job at the source around

18 the periphery of the field and then use conventional old

19 mathematical dispersion models, I think that Randy already

20 referred to this morning, they were thinking about some

21 modeling sorts of things, to predict downwind concentrations

22 under what I call various multi-source scenarios, and you

23 have got data about multiple sources you know how they are

24 distributed from some of those maps that we just saw a little

25 while ago, and then to invert the usual risk assessment



1 scenario and say, well if we predict downwind concentration

2 over time for various sources at something like this, what

3 kind of time activity patterns in human beings would be

4 necessary to build up any kind of exposure that you are going

5 to worry about, it gives you the ability, since you don't

6 know what time activity patterns are.

7 I mean one thing is not to discuss this point at

8 all, but where are the people. We talked about that school,

9 and you can do this with that school, because you could say

10 here's the source characteristic, the school is right here

11 what's the down way of concentration, how long does it

12 persist and how long a day are kids in that school versus how

13 long are they at home.

14 Perhaps next to another field that has been

15 sprayed, but unless you play out scenarios that try to get at

16 the relative circumstances under which this could be a

17 problem and then if you want to spend some time in ambient

18 monitoring one of the four would be to check and see if these

19 ideas about dispersion really work out, because you know

20 after the fact where these things were.

21 You have your map. You could say, well, we know

22 this is was sprayed on August the 15, and over there it was

23 September the 17, what under that circumstance would we

24 predict and see if you get it anywhere in the ballpark.

25 But in any case, this would be in my mind a way to



1 bring some specificity to it, and one of the things in the

2 valley we do have, reasonably good wind data we know a lot

3 about statistical distributions and when, intensity of

4 direction, we know about the circumstances to spraying as far

5 as direct and there is a lot of information to inform a

6 relatively simple dispersion calculation.

7 So, in any case with that quick run through, again

8 just to summarize, these exposures if they are measured in

9 the real world are extraordinarily variable.

10 They are very difficult even in an occupational

11 setting to predict individual exposures and the distribution

12 of individual exposures from fixed position monitoring data,

13 and in the occupational environment, we don't.

14 We can't avoid it generally anymore because of

15 that, and U.S. EPA found that the team studies to be the same

16 conclusion that they would draw with respect to human

17 exposure estimation based on fixed position monitoring in

18 sources to communities.

19 He could talk to you a whole morning about that and

20 his findings, and then I think then to really understand the

21 source input to some kind of a modeling exercise that would

22 identify particularly hazardous density issues in terms of

23 field application, and also it allows you to look at it and

24 investigate sub populations who might be highly at risk.

25 So, anyway with that quick run through, that is my



1 quick hit on the problem that you are facing.

2 I will be happy to answer any questions.

3 DR. GLANTZ: I think that is a very good idea.

4 In fact, it is something that we have used in

5 earlier 1807 documents.

6 Which I cannot remember which one's, but where they

7 were doing modeling test to estimate ambient levels, and I

8 think, that gets around a lot of the problems that we are

9 going to discuss this morning.

10 So, I really think that is a very good suggestion

11 and it is probably in the end cheaper.

12 MR. BAKER: As Randy noted, Dr. Spear, and you

13 mentioned as well, the modeling is one of the things that we

14 were looking at as a possibility for modifying our current

15 approach, because we had envisioned something exactly as Dr.

16 Spear laid out.

17 The value of taking more than one application

18 monitoring data for more than one application study, so that

19 we knew that we had a worst case and take that data, back

20 calculate emissions and we know the spread or the

21 distribution of the use, and do area wide modeling and we

22 still might want to do some monitoring for some validation.

23 DR. GLANTZ: Yes.

24 I think, you will want to do monitoring for

25 validation, but it is my understanding that you guys, these



1 models are very well developed and very well validated in

2 general terms, and I mean, you have used them before and the

3 Panel has accepted those results, and I think that is a

4 really good idea.

5 DR. ATKINSON: The variable will be, the question

6 is going to be in applications, going from one application to

7 another application.

8 MR. BAKER: I think they will vary tremendously

9 depending on the --

10 DR. ATKINSON: That impacts the modeling, unless

11 you know that variability.

12 DR. GLANTZ: Well, I do not know about that,

13 because if you have some sort of good monitoring from a few

14 individual sites, where you can talk about, if they put X

15 amount of pesticides somewhere, where does it end up and what

16 is the concentration of the boundaries?

17 And then if you go back to those maps that we were

18 looking at earlier, a lot of that will kind of come out in

19 the wash, and in terms of your overall estimate of average,

20 and you can correct me if you think I am wrong, but I think,

21 your overall estimate of the average ambient level will

22 probably be better than you are getting from measuring a few

23 individual sites because all that will get averaged out.

24 DR. ATKINSON: You are going to need data from more

25 than one application, just for several applications.



1 DR. GLANTZ: Well, that's correct, but you see, and

2 that is right, but that actually, if you go back to the

3 earlier discussion, it seems to me that getting data at the

4 application sites is easier and more reliable, and they have

5 from the DPR reporting system the information that is in

6 those maps.

7 So, if they know, if they have some reasonable good

8 empiric idea, correct me if I'm wrong, but, if they have

9 reasonably empiric ideas about the relationship between the

10 application and what is going on at the edge of the

11 application site, and then they have the, where it was

12 applied and the meteorological data, getting some estimates

13 of the overall average ambient level will not be that hard.

14 CHAIRMAN FROINES: If I could cut you off at this

15 point, I would like to move on to Mike Majewski.

16 DR. GLANTZ: I'm sorry, I was being warm and fuzzy.

17 CHAIRMAN FROINES: No, I think, we can have a more

18 full discussion after Mike's explanation.

19 This is Dr. Mike Majewski, of the United States

20 Geological Survey.

21 DR. GLANTZ: Are they like, going to be talking

22 about killing insects with rocks or something?

23 DR. MAJEWSKI: Thank you.

24 Yes. I must admit my expertise is a little out in

25 left field for the survey.



1 Before I begin, I would like to say, pesticides

2 become airborne not only during the application process but

3 many pesticides are volatile.

4 Even those with low volatility or low vapor

5 pressures, and volatility is a continuous process that can

6 last for days, weeks, months, years, even decades.

7 An example is, many of the organic chlorine

8 insecticides that were used in the 60's and 70's are no

9 longer used and are still volatilizing from fields where they

10 have not been used for more than 30 years.

11 I would also like to acknowledge my co-worker, Bill

12 Foreman, who I do a lot of work with, and he is with the

13 methods development group in Denver.

14 Today, I'm going to present some information on

15 various, I guess, air sampling matrix that can be used to

16 collect multi residue pesticide samples in the air, and then

17 I will talk about some of the environmental problems that can

18 occur, and they need to be considered while taking air

19 samples and designing your study, and then show some multi

20 residue methods results for the trapping appliances that we

21 use and then finish up with some data from 2 studies that I

22 have done.

23 One is in the Sacramento area and the other one in

24 the Mississippi River.

25 So, once a pesticide becomes air borne, either by



1 volatilation, direct injection during application, wind blown

2 on absorbed on a particulate matter, then, you have a gas

3 phase and particle phase fraction and in the atmosphere you

4 can get partitioning from the gas phase to the particles and

5 vice versa.

6 Then you can get removal by dry fallout of the

7 particles, gas exchange for the gas, as well as scavenging by

8 rain and snow and fog for both the gas and particles.

9 Typical matrices that can be used for sampling

10 pesticides in air are polyurethane foam, and this is no other

11 than seat cushion. In fact, the source for polyurethane foam

12 I have used a local upholstery store, to buy a big chunk of

13 foam, cut, clean it and use it in your sampler.

14 In many other groups, research groups I have used

15 polyurethane foam. Their is a variety of resin that can be

16 used. XAD's are the most popular, XAD2 and XAD4 are an

17 example of polystyrene type polymers.

18 They are used for nonpolar pesticides and XAD comes

19 in a variety of different polarities that can be used to trap

20 different glasses of pesticides with different physical

21 chemical characters.

22 Then there is a variety of chromatographic phases

23 that were originally used in the old packed chromatography

24 columns so is chromasorb, boropak, and tenax.

25 These are good tracking efficiencies for many



1 pesticides. The problem is that there particle sizes are

2 very fine and pulling the high volume of air through them is

3 difficult and often times when doing ambient sampling you

4 need a high volume of air passed through your sampling matrix

5 so you collect enough material that can be analyzed reliably.

6 Then lastly there is glass fiber filter. Some

7 compounds, they are associated primarily with the particle

8 phase, and if you don't have a glass fiber filter, you may

9 miss a majority of this compound in the air, plus if you do

10 get partitioning between the gas phase and the particle phase

11 in the atmosphere, so you get an accurate assessment of what

12 is in the air using a glass fiber pre filter or some type of

13 refilter is often a good idea.

14 So, the factors that influence the distribution of

15 a pesticide between the gas phase and particle size include

16 the sampling period, how long you sample.

17 The longer you sample the greater volume of air can

18 pass through you have problems associated with that, and I

19 will talk about that in a few minutes.

20 You have to consider the concentrations in both the

21 gas phase as well as the particle phase. In the ambient

22 temperature and humidity also can play an affect on your item

23 tracking efficiency and the phase distribution.

24 Now when you design your study, you need to

25 consider whether or not you want the bulk air that is, like



1 we discussed earlier that the Air Resources Board takes bulk

2 air samples they differentiate between particle phase and gas

3 phase.

4 But they are not using a glass fiber pre filters as

5 I understand it so they could be missing a good portion of

6 what is in the atmosphere.

7 Conversely, if you want to look at phase

8 distribution you can analyze glass fiber pre filter

9 separately from the gas phase sulfate matrix or you can

10 analyze them all together to get your bulk air concentration.

11 DR. GLANTZ: Can I just ask, now you are saying the

12 way that the ARB is doing it they are missing the gas phase,

13 is that what you are saying?

14 DR. MAJEWSKI: Not, necessarily they are probably

15 collecting some particles, but they don't know what

16 percentage of the material is on the particle phase and then

17 their analysis, they are extracting the particles that they

18 do collect, but they don't know what tracking efficiency for

19 the particle distribution that is in the air.

20 It may be missing a fraction of what is actually in

21 the air.

22 DR. ATKINSON: I would guess that you probably

23 collect all the particles.

24 MR. BAKER: I am sure the absorbent would capture

25 all the particles.



1 DR. ATKINSON: You might have problems depending on

2 how you analyze the stuff you might have a different.

3 MR. BAKER: I think that is Mike's point.

4 DR. MAJEWSKI: Do you think the XAD 2 collects

5 particles efficiently, I would not.

6 MR. BAKER: I don't know why a particle wouldn't

7 be captured by a XAD resin.

8 DR. MAJEWSKI: Well, whatever, I think that is an

9 unknown we don't know what is actually happening. It may

10 very well be collecting the particle efficiently, but that is

11 a source of uncertainty.

12 Then, also, for sampling design do you want to

13 monitor for peak concentrations or do you want ambient levels

14 I guess this would come into play here whether or not they

15 are looking for toxic hot spots or ambient levels.

16 Do you sample daily, within a day you can sample

17 hourly if the concentrations are high enough or any sub

18 sample of the day, you could sample weekly, and continue the

19 sampling on the daily and weekly sampling throughout a season

20 or throughout the whole year, and I guess that brings into

21 play here the discrete sampling would be your hourly

22 sampling, to pull out high concentrations of what time during

23 the day those occur or not versus your composite sampling

24 which are a 24 hour averages which gives you nighttime

25 concentrations as well as daytime concentrations or even



1 weekly composite sampling which gives you a weekly average

2 air concentration.

3 So, getting back to some of the factors that

4 influence the distribution between the gas and particle phase

5 with long sampling periods you could have adsorption gains

6 which are gaseous material being adsorbed through the

7 particles that are being collected on the glass fiber pre

8 filter or blow-off losses which is material that's originally

9 adsorbed through particles trapped on the glass fiber filter

10 and because of the air passing over the particles it's

11 removed from the particles and adsorbed through the gas phase

12 matrix.

13 I do also have chromatographic effects and all this

14 traffic of the matrices is reversible. That is how you trap

15 your material and then extract it with solvents it also moves

16 down the trapping matrix.

17 It's a volume regulated effect. So, if you sample

18 too long your material can end up going out the back end of

19 your sampler.

20 This is all effected by the ambient temperature,

21 the higher the temperature the effective vapor pressure of

22 the material increases and the movement through the trapping

23 matrix as well as the trapping efficiency can be affected as

24 well as the ambient moisture, moisture can affect the

25 partitioning of what is on the particle phase as we did in



1 soil, a dry soil volatility is nearly pretty low but you

2 apply a very thin, a very low coat of water on the soil

3 volatility increases, because the water displays the

4 pesticide on the actual side of the soil and the same thing

5 can happen on the particle phase and then you can have

6 chemical reactions in the sampler itself, either by

7 photolysis with reaction to sunlight, in which you can reduce

8 by covering your sample with aluminium foil and also you can

9 have oxidation with oxidants in the air, hydroxyl radicals or

10 ozone.

11 Here is a type of sampler that we have used in the

12 past. It is a typical high volume sampler.

13 We have the glass fiber pre filter here, followed

14 by 2 polyurethane foam plugs, in this cartridge here and we

15 have used this sampler for continuous sampling of air and we

16 have also sampled five minutes a hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days

17 a week.

18 So, these can be timed to sampled just about any

19 frequency.

20 DR. GLANTZ: Now, what the pre filter there to get

21 rid of?

22 DR. MAJEWSKI: It does not get rid of anything. It

23 traps the particles.

24 DR. GLANTZ: I see, so, with this configuration the

25 glass fiber pre filter gets the particles and the



1 polyurethane foam gets the gases.

2 DR. MAJEWSKI: Right.

3 DR. GLANTZ: I see.

4 DR. MAJEWSKI: So, this next series of slides are

5 results of the method that we use. The mean spike trapping

6 and recovery study that we have done.

7 The method used as polyurethane foam, and I believe

8 it traps 48 different herbicides and insecticides.

9 I will start with the herbicides and with the

10 chloroacetanilides. Alachlor and acetochor,

11 2,6-Diethylaniline, which is a translation product of

12 alachlor, metolachlor and propachlor.

13 You can see either the exception of

14 2,6-Diethylaniline, that it is fairly volatile and that it

15 moves through the polyurethane foam fairly rapidly.

16 The trapping efficiencies are good, and we see

17 these compounds both in the gas phase as well as the particle

18 phase.

19 The Dinitrotoluene herbicide, Benfluralin,

20 Ethalfluralin, and Trifluralin are also relatively volatile

21 compounds and I think, the trapping efficiency is lower, but

22 still is pretty good and I should say that these compounds

23 and volatile especially when the temperatures get hot in

24 Sacramento where it gets 110, you are not going to have good

25 trapping efficiency.



1 Then moving to the Thiocarbamates herbicides,

2 Butylate, EPTC, Pebulate, Triallate and Thiobencarb again,

3 you find the trapping is good and we find that just about all

4 the compounds in both the gas phases, and both the particle

5 phase. Triazines, Atrazine, CEAT, CIAT are translation

6 products, that come from a number of Triazines, including

7 Atrazines, Cyanazines, propazines, Metribuzin, Prometon, and

8 Simazines.

9 We had a little problem with Prometon in that, it

10 is an extraction efficiency from the public belt. We some

11 problems getting it off or maybe it is not being trapped

12 sufficiently on the polyurethane foam.

13 Moving on to the miscellaneous compounds, such as,

14 Dacthal, Linuron, Molinate, Napropamide, Pendimethilan and

15 Pronamide. Again, trapping efficiencies is good, Molinate is

16 another volatile compound that is affected by temperature.

17 Then finally, for the herbicides, the Propanil, the

18 Tebuthiuron and Terbacil, both Tebuthiuron and Terbacil we

19 have problems with both analytically as well as the trapping

20 efficiency for Tebuthiuron is not good.

21 Moving on to the insecticides, starting with the

22 Organophosphates compounds, azinphos-methyl, chlorpyrifos,

23 diazinon, dimethoate, disulfoton, ethoprop, fonofos,

24 malathion, methyl parathion, parathion, phorate and terbufos

25 all have very good trapping efficiencies and recoveries on



1 the polyurethane foam.

2 DR. GLANTZ: N D means you cannot deduct.

3 DR. MAJEWSKI: Not deduct well.

4 Then N D means none detected in this phase

5 distribution from the studies that we have done. Yes.

6 The gas phase or the G and P represents, where we

7 have found these compounds in the past. So the N D, means we

8 have not detested that yet.

9 DR. BLANC: And this in the field studies?


11 DR. GLANTZ: Just to be clear, what you are saying,

12 is you can use this one system and detect all of these at the

13 same time.


15 Carbamates, Carbaryl, Carbofuran, here we can trap

16 these two compounds fairly good, but again, we have

17 analytical problems associated with these kinds of compounds.

18 Alpha-HCH, lindane, 4,4-DDE, dieldrin and

19 cis-permethrin all have good trapping efficiencies and then

20 fungicides, propargite 1 and 2 are fairly good.

21 I have to say that these or this method, that we

22 have kind of focused on the high use pesticides, in general,

23 these compounds are fairly easy to analyze for, many of them

24 are used in mass quantities throughout the United States, so,

25 their concentration in the air, although are fairly low,



1 which I will show you in a few minutes. They are not that

2 difficult to detect.

3 Some concerns that I have in the future were

4 compounds such as the sulfa diethylaniline and ethalfluralin

5 are also in there. These are compounds where their use is

6 wide spread but they are so potent and so toxic that their

7 application is also very low.

8 With several of the sulfa diethylaniline even vary

9 trace amounts can cause an effect to, or with plants anyway,

10 they can cause a herbicidal effect in plants.

11 Ethalfluralin is fairly low, and I am not sure on

12 what their transformation products are or their toxicological

13 effects are, but with sulfa diethylaniline these are very

14 difficult to analyze for one, trap enough material to analyze

15 it, and in the environment at extremely low concentrations,

16 so this is a classic compound that is coming up.

17 They are already being used, but I think the

18 chemical industry is may be moving towards this type of

19 compound and it is going to present a challenge quote

20 antilytically as well as physically trying to go out and

21 collect the material that is inlayed.

22 DR. ATKINSON: So, your analysis is by GCMSI take.

23 DR. MAJEWSKI: Yes. The next few slides are

24 results of a study I did a few years ago in the Sacramento

25 valley, where I took ambient air samples at 3 locations and I



1 sampled with respect to wind direction.

2 This whole sampling study came about because of

3 concerns that chemicals used in the agricultural environment

4 specifically the orchard, dormant orchard sprays were

5 drifting into the urban environment.

6 We used 2 samplers per site and I will just talk

7 about that a little bit later. We took weekly composite

8 samples, bulk air samples of EPTC, molinate, well this whole

9 slew here. We had a number of organophosphates,

10 insecticides, tralomethirn herbicides.

11 Now the sampling, there are 2 samplers, one sampler

12 would come on when the wind speed was above a meter per

13 second and the wind direction moved primarily from the North,

14 45 degrees on either side of north and then the other sampler

15 would come on when the wind speed was one meter per second or

16 more and primarily from the south, which is the predominant

17 wind speed direction in Sacramento.

18 DR. GLANTZ: Why did you do that which is that just

19 to see what was blowing in from where?

20 DR. MAJEWSKI: Yes, samplers were located at

21 Sacramento International Airport. T Street downtown

22 Sacramento that is the Air Resources Board group and then at

23 Franklin Air Field, near Galt down here on Bruceville Road.

24 Now, the compounds we found, this is for 1996, this

25 is starting January, for one year, this top graph here is



1 when the wind is from the south, Bruceville is up wind, T

2 street is downwind, and you can see during the months January

3 February March we have a pretty high number of hits almost

4 weekly concentrations on the order of 3 to 5 nanograms per

5 cubic meter.

6 The green bars represent Bruceville or the up wind

7 site as the blue bars represent downtown Sacramento, or the

8 down wind site.

9 When I first trifluralin concentrations downtown

10 Sacramento I thought all right this is pretty neat this is an

11 indicator of agricultural use coming into the urban and then

12 I went to the local HomeDepot and saw whole wall trifluralin

13 and was shocked and amazed and had to scratch that idea of

14 using trifluralin as an ag indicator.

15 But you will see the correlation between upwind air

16 concentrations and downwind concentrations occur quite

17 frequently during the winter months. During the summer

18 months, you do see some downwind concentrations and then it

19 picks up again towards the fall and winter, when winds from

20 the north we don't see as much.

21 One reason for that is that the wind was primarily

22 from the South, but we do see some fairly high concentrations

23 or one anyway in April, downtown, and I'm not sure why, or

24 what correlation this has to be here it maybe the air mass

25 slashing back and forth, but why we didn't see a high



1 concentration downwind from here, I don't know.

2 Diazinon shows a little better correlation during

3 the dormant spray season. We will see that the winds are

4 again from the south high upwind concentration followed by

5 lower downwind concentrations, but then in April, the upwind

6 concentration pretty much falls off, and we start getting

7 hits downtown with no upwind concentration and we attributed

8 this to urban use of diazinon.

9 Again, the concentrations are higher than

10 trifluralin but still on the order of between 5 and 10

11 nanograms per cubic meter.

12 Then for chlorpyrifos, you see upwind

13 concentrations for chlorpyrifos during the dormant spray

14 season and then pretty much none for the rest of the year,

15 and I'm attributing this to urban use for chlorpyrifos.

16 We do see some upwind, winds from the North

17 concentrations but again not much, primary saw trifluralin,

18 diazinon, and chlorpyrifos and the rice herbicide, molinate,

19 and thiobencarb are probably the only true ag indicator

20 compounds that I have been able to come up with as far as I

21 know no one grows rice in their backyard.

22 But here you will see molinate is also a compound

23 and trapping efficiency isn't that great when the temperature

24 is high. You see high concentrations upwind with winds from

25 the north and most of the rice in Sacramento valley is grown



1 north of Sacramento.

2 That was good, and we did see some corresponding

3 downwind concentrations in Sacramento around 15 nanograms per

4 cubic meter and most concentrations were a magnitude higher.

5 Lastly, I will show you a few of the results from a

6 study we did several years ago, where we looked at pesticides

7 in the air in area of the Mississippi River Valley.

8 I will just focus on some of the, I will show you

9 where ever I put the samples, the samples in Mississippi we

10 had compared urban and agricultural sites. Jackson,

11 Mississippi was our urban site, Rolling Fork that is near

12 Greenville, Mississippi, that was our ag site.

13 Iowa City was the urban site in Iowa. Cedar Rapids

14 was the agricultural site, and Minneapolis was the urban site

15 for Minnesota, and Princeton was the agricultural site, and

16 we had a background site in Eagle Harbor that was far removed

17 from major metropolitan areas and the agricultural activities

18 and I will show the phase distribution for atrazine and this

19 top graph here is atrazine.

20 We mainly saw atrazine at the agricultural site we

21 didn't see much in Jackson and you can see we saw most of it

22 occurring in the gas phase with some in the particle phase,

23 it seemed like the particle dominated early on and then the

24 percentage of the gas increased as the year went on, we saw

25 that same trend in Iowa, we saw higher concentrations in Iowa



1 City and Cedar Rapids than we did in the Mississippi sites.

2 Again, we saw concentrations mainly associated with

3 the particle phase at the beginning of the seasons and then

4 they are applying it to bare fields and then towards the end

5 of the season the concentration we saw in the air was mainly

6 associated with the gas phase and this we had driven it into

7 volatilization off the treated fields.

8 At Eagle Harbor, with the exception of this one

9 sample here we saw atrazine, CIAT and CEAT associated only

10 with the particles which indicates to me that long range

11 transport discount pilot is associated with the particle

12 phase not the gas phase.

13 Now with respect to the organophosphate

14 insecticides, Mississippi in general was by far the most

15 interesting.

16 If you can call it interesting it contained quite a

17 few organophosphates and insecticides we found diazinon,

18 methyl parathion, malathion, propargite in the samples, and

19 you can see we didn't find them one at a time we found all 4

20 of them at once in some cases, and chlorpyrifos again in the

21 yellow being associated with the gas phase, we saw throughout

22 the season and then later on in the season we starting seeing

23 diazinon hits, methyl parathion hits, and malathion hits.

24 As far as I know there is no legal urban use for

25 methyl parathion in Mississippi, I don't know if there is in



1 California either, but methyl parathion has recently been

2 indicated as being used for structure fumigations, and people

3 have been arrested for it in the South and mid west.

4 Moving to the agricultural site the concentrations

5 in air we found were dominated by methyl parathion the lowest

6 the concentrations are in order of magnitude higher and again

7 methyl parathion is associated primarily with the gas phase

8 and towards the end of the season, and if we reduce the scale

9 to look at the other compounds, malathion, chlorpyrifos, and

10 diazinon again we will see chlorpyrifos associated primarily

11 with the gas phase, malathion we get some distribution and

12 there is some methyl parathion associated with the particles.

13 Trends like that continue in Iowa and Minnesota and

14 the background site.

15 With that, I will take any questions.

16 Thank you.

17 DR. FRIEDMAN: Please forgive my ignorance on this,

18 but how does measuring these pesticide levels fit in with the

19 emission of the geological survey of the environmental

20 protection agency, and why do you guys do this?

21 DR. MAJEWSKI: I imagine I do it because I am

22 trying to build a program.

23 I came in, I was hired into the survey the natural

24 quality water assessment program. It's a nationwide program

25 where we are looking at the quality of the nations water



1 resources service water and groundwater, pesticide is a focal

2 points of this study when I first came on.

3 I was hired to look at the pesticides in the

4 atmosphere because the atmosphere is an important part of

5 hydrologic cycle and how pesticides move in the environment

6 and I am trying to build a program to convince the survey

7 that they need to do more air sampling to look at the effects

8 of air quality on water quality so that is kind of a round

9 about way.

10 DR. FRIEDMAN: My experience with the he geological

11 survey is taking a hike somewhere and finding a little metal

12 plaque saying that the altitude of this rock is 7,000 feet,

13 I thought that was what the geological survey was primarily

14 interested in.

15 DR. GLANTZ: Now they will have also the background

16 levels of malathion somewhere.

17 MR. BAKER: Dr. Froines, I would just like to make

18 a point we talked about the definite uncertainty in the

19 ambient monitoring that we have done throughout California,

20 but I thought it might be interesting to the Panel members as

21 Mike, was going through his concentrations that they had

22 found with this method in these different areas, Iowa and

23 Mississippi, I looked at those same chemicals, chlorpyrifos,

24 methyl parathion, diazinon in our ambient monitoring and we

25 have seen as suspect and variable as we have seen some



1 substantially higher concentrations than any that you

2 measured in any of your studies, I thought that, that might

3 be of interest.

4 CHAIRMAN FROINES: What's different is that you are

5 doing them in a series of separate studies and he is actually

6 looking at the multiple, and one of the reasons that we

7 wanted Mike to talk was that in the future the notion of

8 collecting data on multiple substances seem highly relevant.

9 MR. BAKER: I didn't want to diminish what he said,

10 the multiple sampling and analysis approached that he

11 described is the Cadillac method, and I think we need to look

12 at that for assessing exposure to multiple pesticides, I

13 just wanted to point out just for the compound by compound

14 comparison.

15 DR. MAJEWSKI: But also, like I said these

16 compounds are easy and most of them are the parent compounds.

17 If you start looking at transmission products the

18 volatility changes. A different sampling stages for

19 different polarities of your matrix, again, your different

20 glass is a compound the analytical techniques for the

21 transmission products are often different although

22 liquidchromotography gaschromotography is becoming more

23 affordable and that seems to be where we are headed, all our

24 analytical techniques are being shifted toward LCMS because

25 it give us the opportunity to look at these 4 transmission



1 products as well as the other compounds.

2 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Do you have LCMS capability?

3 MR. BAKER: Kevin or Bob, do we have

4 liquidchromotography capability?

5 MR. MONGAR: We have no LCMS at this time.

6 CHAIRMAN FROINES: That is an important issue when

7 it comes to Roger and his folks.

8 DR. ATKINSON: We don't not use LCMS either.

9 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Why is that?

10 DR. ATKINSON: We use HBLC but not GCMS.

11 DR. MAJEWSKI: I think the LCMS will bring the

12 level of detection down. LCMS brings detection down to the

13 same order of magnitude as the GCMS where as the current LC

14 detection limits without the mess spec detector are fairly

15 high.

16 DR. FRIEDMAN: Some of us here in different

17 disciplines, I don't know what any of those initials that you

18 just quoted mean.

19 DR. MAJEWSKI: Liquidchromotography, it's like

20 gaschromotography only it uses liquid as the mobile phase.

21 DR. FRIEDMAN: What is the one began with D?

22 DR. MAJEWSKI: GCMS that is gaschromotography.

23 DR. BLANC: Mr. Chair, would you entertain a motion

24 to break for lunch?




1 I think that I would like to.

2 My concern at this point is that I don't know if

3 the Panel wants to discuss Dr. Spear's and Mike's in general

4 have any concluding discussion about this?

5 We will break for lunch, but we have -- I think we

6 are going to have to postpone your discussion of multiple

7 chemicals.

8 I think the problem we have, is we have the people

9 from yesterday on pesticide priorities who have been waiting

10 for a very long time and the Panel is going to start to

11 collapse at some point on Friday afternoon, at 2:00, after a

12 two-day session.

13 I think what would be best is that if we went to

14 lunch came back spent 15 minutes to a half an hour on this

15 issue if there was any further discussion and then go to the

16 prioritization and try finish that in an hour or so and then

17 call it quits.

18 We'll take 45 minutes, so let's break.

19 (Thereupon the lunch recess was taken.)









1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N

2 --o0o--

3 CHAIRMAN FROINES: We have to start, really

4 immediately because we have three Panel Members who are

5 leaving at two o'clock.

6 So, the meeting comes to an end in 55 minutes under

7 any circumstances. We don't even have a quorum at two

8 o'clock.

9 So, the question is, is there any follow-up

10 discussion to this morning's session before we take up the

11 prioritization?

12 We covered a lot of ground.

13 DR. MAJEWSKI: I would like to bring up the point

14 of modeling and the type of sampling they are doing in the

15 off field, sampling they are doing now.

16 If the ARB is restricting themselves to surface

17 sampling off field depending on the meteorology of the area

18 they could miss the plume completely or get certainly

19 something that doesn't represent something in the plume but

20 coming off the field if they are doing their ground base

21 sampling at one point.

22 There has been a lot of work done in the past that

23 monitored post application volatilization of pesticides, so

24 that is pretty well documented.

25 MR. BAKER: We recognize that we probably need to



1 redesign the way that we do the application site monitoring

2 if we want to use the information to back calculate

3 emissions.

4 So, good point, Mike.

5 DR. BLANC: John, if you had to summarize the

6 findings or the themes that were raised this morning, not

7 just by the last speakers but integrating the whole thing how

8 would you summarize it?

9 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Well, I think, I think that what

10 I would suggest is that for purposes of identifying compounds

11 as toxic air contaminants that we make use of the data

12 collected from application sampling, and that would enable a

13 lot more pesticides to be sampled for over a short period of

14 time and enable us to address larger number of compounds over

15 a more limited period of time, and then one could follow the

16 recommendation from Bob Spear in terms of longer term

17 sampling approaches for or to address some of the broader

18 issues, so that the recommendations that you and I were

19 talking about this morning and then, that Bob Spear talked

20 about seems to me the direction that we should be headed if

21 we want to improve the exposure characterization from the

22 stand point of establishing a toxic air contaminant.

23 DR. SPEAR: John, if I could comment I think also

24 you might think about the role, what is currently called the

25 ambient monitoring program.



1 If, for example, you put in place an ambient

2 monitoring program which could sample at one time for all of

3 that years chemicals of concern, you might have a way to in

4 some way validate the whatever model base prediction based on

5 source at one go.

6 At least you could collect the sampling procedures

7 if the procedures were sufficiently common, that you could it

8 really would have validating function, and it could serve

9 more than one compound at a time to do that.

10 MR. BAKER: That would work great if they were all

11 used in the same area over the same rough period of time.

12 DR. SPEAR: Well, they wouldn't be.

13 DR. BLANC: Then from your pointed of view, were

14 that suggestion to be promoted, is it technically feasible

15 that one could change directions in that way? It doesn't

16 seem to me it wouldn't be.

17 MR. BAKER: I think it is certainly technically

18 feasible.

19 DR. BLANC: Is that true from DPR's point of view?

20 MR. SEGAWA: I believe so, and they would like us

21 to make these changes as soon as possible for monitoring for

22 2000 they would like to see this implemented.

23 CHAIRMAN FROINES: We haven't really come to making

24 that decision, but once we have made the decision, then the

25 Panel would like it done as soon as possible.



1 DR. BLANC: I think, one way to do it would be, to

2 have John, you as Chair of the Panel, draft a letter to DPR,

3 summarizing that view, if there is a feeling of consensus on

4 the Panel, a few people have not spoken up, Dr. Kennedy, Dr.

5 Witschi, do you have any, would that be consistent?

6 CHAIRMAN FROINES: He's asking is it okay for the

7 suggestions that we are making, and I think Peter thought you

8 were asking for comments.

9 DR. BLANC: Hearing no decent, is there a consent

10 for taking that approach?

11 DR. KENNEDY: My position I'm seeing small pieces

12 of the science, but I am also it's quite clear that the issue

13 here is one of the issues in the prioritization, and the

14 technology and the approach that we have seen this morning

15 gets to the heart of those issues in a much more direct

16 fashion.

17 I think it's a -- I think we are in a position to

18 dictate that sort of movement, then I think it is a good

19 thing and support it.

20 DR. GLANTZ: What I would suggest since we are

21 meeting again in about three weeks, if you could draft

22 something up and circulate it before the meeting, I think it

23 is complicated enough that we want to discuss it at a meeting

24 but it would be very good to have a specific proposal in

25 front of the Panel to discuss where we could look at it



1 before the meeting.

2 So, if you would sort of just amend your

3 suggestion, if John could write something up, get it out to

4 us and get it on the agenda for the next meeting, and then we

5 could act formally on it as a Panel, I think that would also

6 be stronger then just having the Chair do it.

7 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Anything we write we should have

8 panel discussion under any circumstances.

9 DR. GLANTZ: But I think there is reasonable

10 consensus at the same time.

11 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Roger and Craig are nodding

12 their heads, we will take it up at the next meeting.

13 So, we will amend that to the Agenda and take up

14 the issue of air sampling exposure characterization at the

15 next meeting having a draft of proposed some changes, good.

16 MR. SEGAWA: Would you like DPR, ARB to present any

17 additional information for that discussion?

18 CHAIRMAN FROINES: The next meeting I think the

19 answer is no.

20 Although, we can, Bill and Jim want to get the

21 Agenda out because the meeting is coming up so soon, and I

22 really would like to spend the next meeting with this as

23 exception getting through and finishing these chronic REL's,

24 we spent all afternoon yesterday and we still have an

25 enormous number to go through and I would like to get through



1 those, and then maybe in November we can go back and take up

2 some of the other pesticide issues.

3 DR. GLANTZ: I think it would be good if you guys

4 were there so as we are discussing this so we will have the

5 benefit of any input you have to offer.

6 DR. WITSCHI: I have question about the exposed

7 characterization so far we are dealing with concentrations in

8 air, but do we have to go into such nice things like particle

9 size, retention,imposition, clearance all those kind of

10 things, because concentration in the air doesn't really mean

11 much to how much people are going to be really exposed?

12 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I think, that is another issue,

13 because there is also the issue of micro environmental

14 monitoring we are doing studies in Mexico right now where we

15 are looking at exposure in people from pesticides in the

16 soil, and the rugs, and so on and so forth, there are lots of

17 tangential issues like that, that we could take up, but let's

18 make the first cut on the policy level issue before we focus

19 on the details.

20 DR. GLANTZ: Okay. I don't.

21 We can go on to prioritization.

22 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Thank you, both of you.

23 This was one of the best sessions we have ever had,

24 I think this morning, with the contributions from the four

25 people, I think we have really come a long way.



1 MR. BAKER: Thank you for your questions.

2 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Good afternoon. Sorry to have

3 kept you waiting all this time.

4 MR. SANDERS: I am John Sanders, from DPR and I'm

5 here with Dr. Jay Schreider and Dr. Keith Pfeifer.

6 We are going to try and show a little bit more life

7 on the prioritization scheme that we have been using and

8 based upon, first of all we are going to go through the

9 historical process that we used and then talk a little bit

10 about what we want to do in the future.

11 First of all Jay Schreider, is going to talk about

12 the large scale prioritization as I call it and you should be

13 getting a package of material right now.

14 The first thing Jay, is going to go through is this

15 memo it's to the Pesticide Registration and Evaluation

16 Committee it's kind of what I call a large scale

17 prioritization of chemicals in the high medium and low

18 priority risk assessment.

19 So, Jay, why don't you go ahead.

20 MR. SCHREIDER: I will wait until everyone has the

21 handout.

22 Yesterday I spoke of the report that's made to the

23 Pesticide Registration and Evaluation Committee or PREC and

24 what you have is the latest report, report number 40 that

25 gives the prioritization, start out has a prioritization for



1 SB 950 of the chemicals for risk assessment.

2 As I said, Adverse Effects and Advisory Panel meets

3 periodically when there's sufficient number of chemicals to

4 cover, and then decides on the prioritization.

5 If I could have the first overhead. It is a

6 subjective rather qualitative but these are the criteria that

7 are considered as the nature of the adverse effect, by that I

8 mean the number of adverse effects, the number of species

9 that are affected, multiple studies, the no observed defect

10 level is that a low number a high number.

11 The potential human exposure, use or sales in use

12 numbers is widely used, for new active ingredients.

13 There may be less of that information, application

14 rates, how much is applied per acre, that becomes very

15 important in trying to judge what the exposure may be.

16 Pending U.S. EPA actions, if we know that US EPA is

17 completing an action or completing an assessment that may

18 lead to significant increases in use, that may lower the

19 priority level.

20 Special California issues what comes to mind would

21 be ratification programs, one going on under consideration of

22 EPA right now is the imported red fire ant, looking at

23 various materials that can be used to combat that pest.

24 So, what previously may have been a low use

25 pesticide could become potentially a high use so that would



1 go into the prioritization.

2 If you go into the handout, the handout wasn't real

3 amenable to an overhead. It was 30 pages.

4 The active ingredients are placed into high,

5 medium, or low priority and they are not prioritized within

6 that classification they are listed in alphabetical order.

7 The studies which indicated the possible adverse effects are

8 also listed, chemicals may move up there may be new

9 information may move up in priority.

10 Early in the 950 process, as we have partial

11 databases, there a frequent chemical would enter the process

12 where the couple of studies would complete our data gaps

13 filled and would move up in prioritization as more toxicity

14 data gap were filled.

15 Generally the -- well, almost entirely the

16 pesticide high priority really are under consideration for

17 risk assessment occasionally a pesticide a modern priority

18 has moved up usually that's because of use questions or use

19 in ratification questions.

20 Also, in that report, and this is a public report

21 that comes out probably quarterly, gives also some of the

22 risk assessments status, changes, it gives separately, if you

23 look on page 22 it gives us specific changes to the list so

24 it's not just hidden in the list and then after that we will

25 give some of the status of compounds that are currently



1 inactive risk assessment.

2 Some of the compounds in addition of being listed

3 because of 950 questions may also receive a high priority

4 because they have a low acute NOAEL, low NOAEL's would place

5 it in a high priority also although that may not be part of

6 the health effect studies that is an important consideration.

7 MR. SANDERS: I think we also need to realize that

8 originally the department started out in this process we

9 envisioned 2 separate processes one for 1807 and one for 950

10 in reality though considering resources and things like that

11 we decided to merge the two together in some fashion, and we

12 have been doing that over the last two years and so we are

13 still in kind of a transition period here.

14 If we go and look at the next document, which is

15 called status of high priority risk assessments and this is

16 what I call the micro level this is a list that is updated

17 monthly and is used as a status report, by the toxicologist

18 for where each of these compounds are and I will ask Keith to

19 describe them.

20 DR. PFEIFER: Keith Pfeifer, Medical Toxicologist,

21 just a couple of other notes having to do with the what we

22 call the PREC prioritization list the one that Jay just

23 mentioned dated March 19, a little historical background on

24 that because one of the aspects that you will obviously

25 compare to the 1807 one the 96 document that was discussed



1 yesterday is, and Jay alluded to this, this is more of a

2 qualitative evaluation and prioritization meeting.

3 When we started this back in 1986, we didn't assign

4 numbers or try to quantitate specific health effects for our

5 prioritization.

6 Early on we tried to fine tune it a little more

7 into group 1 and group two and three within each high

8 moderate or low priority, and we found that we were getting

9 bogged down too much in the prioritization process rather

10 than doing risk assessments per say.

11 I think it is also important to note when we

12 started this in 1986 we put the original 200 under SB 950 on

13 this list and some risk assessments when they were completed

14 were taken off the active ingredients were taken off the list

15 and new active ingredients were added to the list as they

16 came forward in the department for registration.

17 So, this report is a very dynamic document. You

18 can see that the last was March 19, so it is an updated

19 monthly like the document that John Sanders, just mentioned

20 it's updated as there is enough sufficient number of active

21 ingredients to go through with OEHHA and go through this

22 prioritization process and that is usually any where from 5

23 to 10 active ingredients.

24 So, the document that John Sanders just mentioned

25 that I update monthly for the department the active



1 ingredients that are listed are grouped in a dissenting order

2 of completeness.

3 So, the first one's are completed. If there was

4 any mitigation that was required, that was also finalized by

5 the department.

6 These active ingredients as you look at the foot

7 notes, reflect the risk assessments that the department has

8 proposed for completion either during the past fiscal year,

9 98-99 or this current one 1999-2000 to the state Legislature.

10 You will note on page 3, under initiation of risk

11 assessment active pending there are a few which come under

12 the 1807 process that we in some cases have already completed

13 documents under our SB 950 process one is ethoprop,

14 endosulfan is in the final stages of review in our branch

15 right now. Molinate which is scheduled to come before the

16 Panel next year some time, and also naled.

17 MR. SANDERS: Dr. Blanc, asked about the 6 that are

18 recommended for monitoring now, all of them are on this list

19 in some state of preparation except I believe bifenthrin is

20 not on this list is not actively under risk assessment at

21 this point I think you asked that from a previous --

22 DR. PFEIFER: I could add a little bit to the

23 bifenthrin.

24 That came into the department as a new active

25 ingredient and it was prioritized and we completed the risk



1 assessment.

2 Subsequently new uses came in and we were again

3 looking at the new use scenarios doing some additional risk

4 assessment calculations, so the fact that there seemed to be

5 an increase in use for bifenthrin, I think, thinking back led

6 to its recommendation for air monitoring, even though it does

7 not appear either on this SB 950 prioritization list nor in

8 the '96 1807 one.

9 DR. BLANC: You again said this list, this SB 950

10 prioritization list which was periodically updated so this

11 isn't the 1985 list, this is a list that is current.

12 DR. PFEIFER: Current, right. This is list number

13 40.

14 DR. BLANC: So, reflecting all of the revisions.

15 So, I think it probably would be aluminating for us

16 to hear a little bit in more detail how exactly it was that,

17 that particular pesticide jumped up other than the fact that

18 it was a new.

19 DR. PFEIFER: I'm trying to think back on it, there

20 were some health effects that we were fairly concerned with

21 low, no low effect levels, I can't remember exactly what the

22 concern was.

23 The process years ago was to when new active

24 ingredients came into the department that we would look at a

25 risk assessment prior to full registration, and that pulled



1 the trigger on that.

2 DR. BLANC: Are there other examples that you can

3 think of, of materials that have jumped up that don't appear

4 on any of these list as a priority.

5 DR. PFEIFER: Tralomethirn that was mentioned

6 earlier today I think in the monitoring.

7 We completed a risk assessment on that and that was

8 a new active ingredient, and we recently completed a risk

9 assessment for deltamethrin, which is the parent.

10 DR. BLANC: That risk assessment would

11 automatically include the Air Resources Board doing your

12 monitoring for you?


14 MR. SANDERS: No, only if it's available.

15 DR. PFEIFER: The one we completed for tralomethirn

16 was based on what the use was that involved occupational

17 exposure and it may have included some residential I am not

18 sure and it would also include dietary.

19 DR. BLANC: You can see our confusion, at least my

20 confusion on the Panel because I'm trying to figure out, here

21 an Air Resources Board can do 5 chemicals a year for you and

22 then you say, well we got this fairly elaborate process

23 qualitative for reviewing priorities and we revised the list

24 quarterly, yearly or half yearly and here is the list in

25 January or March and we have the other list that was done for



1 different purposes and one of the 5 chemicals that was tested

2 doesn't appear on any of the list.

3 It's not exactly transparent how the decisions get

4 made especially with each thing that is not tested. It means

5 it is not going to be possible under the current structure

6 for us to review or comment on some other pesticide.

7 Also, then the interconnection between this status

8 sheet, the micro level status sheet that you mentioned and

9 the ranking for SB 950, then everything that's -- would it be

10 a reasonable assumption and that everything that would be on

11 the first page here should all be things that were high

12 priority things?

13 DR. PFEIFER: With, on the first page, yes, you are

14 talking about the status on data with the footnote 9/2/99,

15 everything on that first page would be either is or was a

16 high priority.

17 The top one cyanazine, molinate under SB 950 which

18 would have been the occupational dietary, chlorothalonil,

19 fenamiphos, Telone are not on the list anymore because they

20 were completed under that mandate, but they would be a

21 priority, for example, molinate under SB 950, I mean, excuse

22 me, under 1807.

23 MR. SANDERS: I think part of the problem here

24 historically that the department is not focused on 1807 but

25 has focused on 950 and particularly occupational exposure



1 that is where the data says that the real exposures are and

2 our concerns particularly about acute exposures, so there has

3 been a lot of emphasis in the department on worker safety

4 issues, and historically there wasn't much emphasis on 1807.

5 We are now trying to correct that pipe bringing in

6 the 1807, whatever exposure data we have from the Air

7 Resources Board or from other sources and take them and put

8 them together with some existing 950 risk assessments,

9 reformatting the documents adhere to how we would like to see

10 them and understand them so we are in that transition period

11 of trying to mate the two processes together, but it is still

12 a transition period, and I guess I would characterize our

13 prioritizations scheme focused on acute exposure and an acute

14 end points as well as flexibility for us in our workload and

15 resource allocation and needs the change periodically because

16 of either ratifications, new registrations or things like

17 that.

18 So, it is not a straight forward explanation to you

19 and we understand that.

20 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I think the problem that I have

21 maybe this is what Paul is saying, is I can't really tell and

22 sense how one comes to decide that a chemical is a priority

23 for 1807.

24 I am still mystified about that.

25 DR. PFEIFER: I think the main thing Dr. Froines



1 that determine which chemicals were started for 1807 was the

2 main thing was the toxicology.

3 I think the first one that we did years ago, methyl

4 parathion was a major concern, and then methyl parathion

5 following that, but also I think it was mentioned this

6 morning was the availability and quality of data that would

7 allows us to go forward to do a decent quantitative

8 assessment.

9 That later aspect is very important, and it's not

10 unique to just 1807. We have the prioritization process, but

11 then we also have an initiation process.

12 That's where the senior staff from workers safety

13 and medical toxicology look at this high priority list the SB

14 950 and say okay, which one's do we want to work on, which

15 one's do we have the most concern, which one's do we have

16 reasonable or decent exposure data that we can do a good

17 assessment.

18 That initiation process is the one where the

19 decision is made to go forth with the assessments. So,

20 initially it would involve worker safety and our branch and

21 then the decision to go through with 1807 has a lot to do

22 with what risk assessments since the 1807 is pretty far

23 behind on the completion curve, which one's were of major

24 toxicology consideration and have been completed under the

25 950, and then is there monitoring data sufficient quality to



1 go forth with 1807.

2 DR. GLANTZ: I mean I understand that has been the

3 historical discussion for as long as I can remember, but in a

4 way that's gone.

5 That's history.

6 When I sit and look at this list, everything with

7 one or two exceptions, if you just look on the first page,

8 this is the SB 950 AB 1807 list, okay. It's the one that has

9 SB 950 and AB 1807.

10 DR. PFEIFER: We put this together yesterday with

11 through the 28.

12 DR. GLANTZ: Right, when I look at that, except for

13 4A, of the first 18, 1807 compounds every single one of them

14 but that one gets high priority under SB 950, and all but

15 about 4 of them have air data on already and in many of them

16 you have already got the SB 950 risk assessment well under

17 way if not finished.

18 So, it would seem to me that you guys ought to be

19 able to move very quickly on the first 10 or 15 of these

20 compounds in terms of the 1807 process except for

21 dichlorobenzene and cyanazine and alachlor and dimethoate,

22 those are the only one's you don't have any exposure data on.

23 DR. PFEIFER: That is a reasonable question looking

24 at this, the one factor that I am faced with is the fact that

25 I have 7 toxicologist who are juggling four or five active



1 ingredients risk assessments at one time.

2 DR. GLANTZ: Right but this has been going on for

3 years.

4 DR. PFEIFER: I understand that. I'm not making

5 excuses for historical events.

6 DR. GLANTZ: This is something that I don't know

7 that we are going to resolve right now, but I think that the

8 different process we have been using for the RELs, for the

9 acute and chronic RELs, which is a little more abbreviated.

10 Maybe what we should start doing here in order to

11 move things, realizing that you don't have an informant

12 amount of resources.

13 The one thing that I have come away from this

14 workshop feeling is that there is a lot more information

15 available particularly the stuff we heard about from the EPA

16 yesterday and the air data that we heard about yesterday and

17 today.

18 So, it may not be necessary to go back and reinvent

19 the wheel on every single one of these compounds. So, I know

20 we spent a long time pounding on you guys to produce,

21 traditional 1807 like documents and there are sort of two

22 aspects.

23 One was the scientific quality and general approach

24 and the other was the thickness and formatting. It may be

25 that we should be looking to these more recent documents as



1 the model that we should be going toward where we are still

2 maintaining quality the same high scientific standard but

3 things that can be put together more expeditiously by staff

4 and handled by the Committee more expeditiously.

5 So instead of doing 2, 3, or 4 compounds a year we

6 might be able to do 50 in the end, so that is the

7 direction --

8 DR. PFEIFER: You are talking about the REL format.

9 DR. GLANTZ: Yes like we started talking about

10 yesterday.

11 I don't think you guys were at the meeting but

12 there was another document that I was to lead on which was

13 the acute exposure of RELs and we spent a long time working

14 with the staff to come up with this sort of general algorithm

15 which was used and I think Gary worked on this one and I

16 think that has proved to be a good model and an efficient

17 model and maybe that's the direction we should be taking this

18 so that we can move these chemicals a lot more quickly, while

19 still maintaining proper scientific oversight.

20 You have got a lot, there is a lot more data

21 available than I thought there was three days ago. So, I

22 don't know what other people think.

23 CHAIRMAN FROINES: One of the questions that we

24 asked in preparing for the prioritization discussion, I

25 think, Peter, everyone has this series of questions that we



1 raised?

2 Eleanor, did the series of questions go to everyone

3 on the Panel?

4 CHAIRMAN FROINES: They were e-mailed to the Panel.

5 They claim they haven't seen them.

6 DR. GLANTZ: Deleted their E-mail, stopped reading

7 them.

8 CHAIRMAN FROINES: The key questions that we raised

9 in preparing for this particular discussion was, could the

10 risk assessments of organophosphates pesticide coming out of

11 the FQPA that process is provided bases for expedited

12 assessments for the 5 OP's in the DPR's priority list, I

13 think that yesterday we didn't come to any final conclusion

14 but we thought that, that was an appropriate way that we

15 could pursue.

16 It would be helpful to hear what you views are on

17 that?

18 DR. SCHREIDER: The short answer is yes.

19 The sooner we can get, we would like to make use of

20 those documents, so we can get them and not reinvent the

21 wheel on not duplicating EPA's we would sure like that not

22 only was the 1807 type things but our other risk assessments

23 also if they look at the same exposure scenarios we would

24 sure like to use them.

25 CHAIRMAN FROINES: When I say, I say that



1 recognizing that yesterday we also took up the chronic RELs

2 and one of the things that was apparent when we went through

3 those is some of those EPA chronic RELs are not entirely

4 satisfactory is the euphemism I will use.

5 So, there is a quality issue I mean hexane they

6 literally used the quality study and so we would never want

7 to use that as a base of decision for hexane, there is the

8 issue of quality control quality assurance in the EPA

9 document but that doesn't mean we can't use them at least as

10 a starting point.

11 DR. SCHREIDER: We don't want to take the documents

12 blindly, but we have got the same studies on file.

13 So there is no reason if we could get an in depth

14 document not just their summary but their reasoning and what

15 went into that. There is no reason we can't do fairly quick

16 quality assurance on each document.

17 We already had to do a toxicology review of those

18 studies. Does their assessment agree with how we judged the

19 studies, I don't know that we need to go into detail that we

20 would do for a risk assessment.

21 You should keep one thing in mind the chronic REL

22 thing, yesterday points out that is that we are taking up a

23 lot of compounds under AB 1807 that were grandfathered in as

24 TACs because of Clean Air Act amendments.

25 So there was always some expectation that the Panel



1 would review the risk assessments on the HAPS, in other words

2 they would designated as HAPS but the question of the

3 quantitative risk assessment was still as incomplete since

4 the HAPS did not have risk assessments contained within the

5 digressional designation.

6 So, one of the other things that I don't want to

7 create more work for the Panel but things like Telone or

8 propoxor, or others that are designated TACs already because

9 of them being grandfathered, and that the Panel is also at

10 some level we have assumed some obligation for looking at

11 those risk assessments.

12 So, keep that in the back of your mind.

13 DR. PFEIFER: I would like to comment on EPA, RFC

14 or REL a lot of the IRIS information is probably in need of

15 revision or updating.

16 So, I think that is one of the problems. Again,

17 that is a compound specific issue. Also just to follow-up on

18 what Dr. Schreider just said, as part of the 1082 wrap

19 process we went through a pretty detailed exercise looking at

20 our risk assessments and comparing with EPA's both the

21 studies that we used and the end points and the no effect

22 levels.

23 We were pretty close, I mean we weren't that far

24 apart on some, most of the chemicals. A lot of times our no

25 effect level may have been a little different, or it may have



1 been a cholinesterase issue or something like that, but given

2 they addressed the exposure scenarios that we need, I think

3 we could certainly make use of their documents.

4 One other issue that I would just like to mention

5 also, I do not think this has been mentioned at all and there

6 is another mandate under which we operate and that is the

7 food safety act that was passed a few years ago, that

8 required the department to look at food use pesticides

9 specifically and to assess the tolerance for those

10 pesticides.

11 Although we are not in the tolerance setting

12 authority business, EPA does that, that was part of the 2161

13 mandate under the food safety act, and quite frankly that

14 specific act drove our prioritization and risk assessment

15 activities quite a bit when that first came out.

16 Subsequently, we have naled, the dietary assessment

17 which we were doing separately in with the occupational and

18 we do under what FQPA's commonly term aggregate risk or

19 aggregate exposure, that is what we were doing previously

20 with our and still do with our dietary or residential and

21 occupational.

22 One of the questions I think that came up yesterday

23 on this list here, on page 2, is azinphos-methyl is number

24 23, why did we do a risk assessment on that?

25 Well, the answer is that was a very high concern



1 from a dietary standpoint, because azinphos is used on

2 apples, peaches and pears and that is a big contribution to

3 children's diets either not as a single fruit but in mixtures

4 and fruit juices.

5 We had an internal prioritization under 2161 for

6 doing dietary risk assessment and that reflected exactly what

7 we came out under the SB 950.

8 A lot of our risk assessments were driven by

9 dietary and use on food commodities.

10 DR. BLANC: Let's see if I can get a sense of the

11 process, and then going forward.

12 If I take a couple examples from your high priority

13 list that are not already in the pipeline, let's say

14 fenbuconazole, number 33, which is cited as being a priority

15 because of chronic reproductive, so I can assume that is

16 something that is fairly suspect.

17 DR. PFEIFER: I would think so based on that list.

18 DR. BLANC: Right, so, now what happens?

19 How does that then go from there to --

20 DR. PFEIFER: That is what I was referred to.

21 Quite frankly, that has only been on there either

22 on report 39 or 38 it has been fairly recent. In other

23 words, that is one difficulty in just having a single report

24 and not having all the other one's because it doesn't

25 indicate when it went on.



1 DR. BLANC: Is there a time thing then is, what you

2 are saying --


4 I'm just saying this just kind of retrospectively.

5 That's when we get into the initiation phase and then the

6 workload aspect comes in.

7 The available information as far as in this case,

8 I'm not familiar with what commodity this is used on, quite

9 frankly, but if worker safety who has a responsibility to do

10 the occupational exposure whether they would have data that

11 would allows us to move forward in a timely manner to get

12 this done.

13 With the tox -- the toxicology is what puts us on

14 the list, so we are a little farther ahead on the curve, the

15 risk assessment curve but the toxicology, like Dr. Schreider

16 said, the mandatory health effects, but then the decision

17 comes well which one's can we get through the risk

18 assessment, quickly, that we are really concerned about.

19 DR. BLANC: That is what I'm asking and that is

20 what seems to be a complete black box.

21 Saying, well, okay we have identified 72 things

22 that we think are high priority, and then you say but we can

23 only monitor for 5 things a year, and I have got my dance

24 card filled for the next three years, and none of these are,

25 none of these 72 things are those things because those things



1 are already here, so I am just trying to get a sense of a

2 process.

3 I mean is it a random sample of the 75 things, is

4 there a separate list over and above this list in which you

5 then prioritize the priorities?

6 DR. PFEIFER: No, that is what I was trying to

7 indicate.

8 It becomes a judgment call between our branch and

9 worker safety branch as to the availability of their data,

10 and their ability to do an exposure assessment, which is

11 integral part of our risk characterization.

12 DR. BLANC: Is there a paper trail which still

13 indicates the process by which things get from the list of 72

14 to some next.

15 DR. PFEIFER: The initiation group?

16 DR. BLANC: Yes.

17 DR. PFEIFER: Only it would appear in this

18 document, that's the report number 40, as a, in the back we

19 have a brief synopsis of where certain chemicals are in the

20 process.

21 DR. BLANC: Yeah, but it doesn't say.

22 MR. SANDERS: There is nothing that says how it got

23 on there.

24 DR. PFEIFER: Actually when you talk about a paper

25 trail when we do initiate the risk assessment a notice goes



1 out to the registrant from our registration branch indicating

2 that we are starting on it and in that letter to them they

3 ask for any other available data that hasn't been submitted

4 to the department.

5 DR. BYUS: I think part of the problem is you have

6 this high priority list and things go on there but there is

7 no time line from this high priority list to the action list.

8 DR. PFEIFER: You're absolutely correct.

9 DR. BYUS: In my opinion what you need is a

10 separate list of this high priority list that you are going

11 to bring action on in a finite period of time, that you

12 define, it could six months, a month, a year --

13 DR. GLANTZ: Five years.

14 DR. BYUS: No.

15 Well, it shouldn't be. Finite time of six months

16 or a year and then this action list then becomes the one that

17 pushes your workload. The way that you have it now, I'm not

18 being critical but to me it seems that --

19 DR. PFEIFER: You can be critical.

20 DR. BYUS: You have to have a high priority and

21 assuming that none of these have been on there for a long

22 period of time, and I won't ask you how long that is.

23 DR. PFEIFER: Some of them have of been on there

24 from the beginning.

25 DR. BYUS: So, beyond what the word high priority



1 means and time line for this priority list can be so off.

2 DR. PFEIFER: Initially some of the chemicals on

3 here were of concern back when we started, 1986.

4 We have initiated risk assessments on them, and

5 some of them have not been completed for various reasons, but

6 the other aspect was back then there was more concern for

7 longer term effects, and as we started seeing some of the

8 studies that were coming in we became more concerned with

9 some of the acute affects like in the developmental and

10 reproductive and low NOAEL studies, and so some of these

11 became a higher priority.

12 Some of them may have been on the list before but

13 we were starting to see effects that could occur in a shorter

14 exposure period so we felt that we should, to be a little

15 more prudent to address those.

16 DR. BLANC: Also, if you wait long enough some get

17 delicensed and so that does solve the problem that way, I

18 suppose.

19 DR. SCHREIDER: Actually not in jest but that maybe

20 one of the outgrowths of FQPA, where the first couple of

21 years we may see a number of them disappear and that may

22 change a lot of prioritization list.

23 DR. BLANC: I hope I didn't get us offtrack, but if

24 the suggestion was really on the table that one option ought

25 to be a pseudo REL grouped approach I think I would argue



1 that if that approach were to be taken, that it be taken for

2 classification of materials for which there is a fair amount

3 of knowledge about mechanism and assumption like the

4 organophosphates, as an example.

5 I think that would be a good test case. I think

6 for some of these things are exotic enough and complicated

7 enough that it would be difficult in sort of the REL

8 dictionary approach for us to adequately review them, but I

9 think that for the organophosphates as a group it might be

10 worth the try on an experimental basis to see if we could

11 batch.

12 CHAIRMAN FROINES: We are about to run out of

13 time, but so I want to go back to the point that you made

14 though, and I don't mean to cut you off.

15 The word black box is important I think. I think a

16 public agency has a responsibility to have articulated

17 approach as to how one makes decisions.

18 I think it can't be left up to a black box. So,

19 the answer of how do things move forward here, how does that

20 particular compound, how does something happen to it, should

21 be part of the articulated process that is described.

22 I don't think the public whose health -- I think

23 the agency has obligation to describe some process by which

24 decisions are made in an articulate way.

25 So I don't think it can be left up to come back and



1 say, oh, we had this compound. It's high priority in 1986,

2 but we have just never gotten to it.

3 If one doesn't get to something, somebody should

4 explain why they are not getting to it, or where it's coming

5 into the process or some rational organization way of

6 reviewing high priority chemicals.

7 So, that is where the frustration is coming from.

8 It is hard to tell how things get where in this process.

9 MR. SANDERS: Well, that leads me to what we are

10 proposing is that we will update the '96 report this spring

11 but also bring to you the compounds that we are going to be

12 initiating risk assessment on, so that you can review those

13 and have your input on what we initiated.

14 DR. GLANTZ: Well, that is a step forward.

15 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Well, we would like to know --

16 DR. BLANC: How did you choose that?

17 How did that process come?

18 MR. SANDERS: We can fully explain that to you when

19 we bring it to you.

20 DR. BLANC: I would like a few examples of the

21 one's that you decided not to do to and why.

22 While I would like to move that we adjourn.

23 DR. GLANTZ: Before that, I think that one thing

24 that we have left a little bit hanging is this batching idea.

25 I mean I presented one approach and you presented



1 an alternative, and I think since the Chair has been asked to

2 put together some recommendations for us to discuss at the

3 next meeting on the monitoring and other aspects, I would

4 like to request that you also think about if we want to

5 recommend any specific actions in that area because it all

6 grows out of this workshop to discuss at the next meeting, if

7 we want to be changing the way we are asking them to come

8 forward with the compounds, and then I'll second the motion.

9 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Okay. That is fine.

10 We would be very happy also if members of the Panel

11 instead of sending everything to the Chair and going like

12 this, wrote sentence, because I have other things besides the

13 Panel.

14 DR. GLANTZ: Right, but you are so much smarter,

15 and now you are the real Chair not the acting Chair.

16 CHAIRMAN FROINES: How about you send a memo by

17 E-mail to me which suggests.

18 DR. GLANTZ: I think it's in the minute, I think it

19 is in the transcript.

20 CHAIRMAN FROINES: We will go through and see how

21 the two of you differ in your recommendations and how they

22 are similar and we will use that as a way to go forward and

23 we will call upon on you if we need further input, is that

24 fair?

25 DR. BLANC: Yes.



1 Secondly, want to call the question?

2 DR. GLANTZ: Before the permanent Chair talks any

3 more.

4 Peter is standing up. I don't think we have a

5 quorum for a vote.

6 DR. KENNEDY: If you vote quick.

7 I'm still here.

8 CHAIRMAN FROINES: All in favor, aye.

9 Thank you very much. I really thank you everybody.

10 A two-day intense meeting is very difficult, and I

11 think everybody who is out there should now how much we

12 appreciate your input.

13 I think it went really well. This was a very

14 successful two days.

15 Hopefully, something good will come of it in the

16 public interest.

17 (Thereupon the Scientific Review Panel meeting

18 was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.)

19 --o0o--











3 I, VICKI L. OGELVIE, a Certified Shorthand

4 Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify:

5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the

6 foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me, Vicki L.

7 Ogelvie, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of

8 California, and thereafter transcribed into typewriting.

9 I further certify that I am not of counsel or

10 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any

11 way interested in the outcome of said hearing.

12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand

13 this twenty-second day of September, 1999.





17 Certified Shorthand Reporter

License No. 7871