1
EPA
Pesticides
in
Ground
Water
Database,
A
Compilation
Of
Monitoring
Studies:
1971­
7991
National
Summary;
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division;
Environmental
Fate
and
Ground
Water
Branch,
Jacoby
H.;
Pesticide
Monitoring
Program
Section,
Hoheisel
C,
Karrie
J,
Lees
S,
Davies­
Hilliard
L,
Hannon
P,
Bringham
R;
Ground
Water
Technology
Section,
Behl
E,
Wells
D,
Waldman
E.

2
J.
D.
Blomquist,
J.
M.
Davis,
J.
L.
Cowles,
J.
A.
Hetrick,
R.
D.
Jones,
and
N.
B.
Birchfield.
2001.
Pesticides
in
Selected
Water­
Supply
Reservoirs
and
Finished
Drinking
Water,

1
Final
Water
Assessment
PronamideTIER2.wpd
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES,
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
PC
Code:
101701
DP
Barcodes:
D281443,
D281445
MEMORANDUM
June
5,
2002
SUBJECT:
Tier
II
Drinking
Water
Assessment
to
Support
TRED
for
Pronamide
(Propyzamide)

FROM:
Lucy
Shanaman,
Chemist
Environmental
Risk
Branch
IV
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
THROUGH:
RDavid
Jones,
Senior
Scientist
Environmental
Risk
Branch
IV
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
Betsy
Behl,
Chief
Environmental
Risk
Branch
IV
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
TO:
Robert
McNally,
PM
60
Cecelia
Watson,
PM
team
reviewer
Special
Review
Branch
Special
Review
Reregistration
Division
This
memo
presents
the
Tier
II
Drinking
Water
Assessment
for
pronamide
(propyzamine)
in
surface
water,
calculated
using
PRZM/
EXAMS,
and
a
Tier
I
Drinking
Water
Assessment
in
groundwater
using
SCIGROW,
for
use
in
the
human
health
risk
assessment.
Pronamide
detections
have
been
found
in
monitoring
data
from
both
the
USGS,
NAWQA
database,
the
EPA
Pesticides
in
Ground
Water
Database
1
,
and
the
pilot
reservoir
monitoring
program
2
.
Tier
1
and
Tier
2
modeling
1999­
2000:
Summary
of
Results
from
a
Pilot
Monitoring
Program.
Open­
file
Report
01­
456.
Baltimore,
MD.

2
Final
Water
Assessment
PronamideTIER2.wpd
results
of
the
most
current
drinking
water
exposures
for
use
of
pronamide
on
registered
crops
follows:

1.
SURFACE
WATER
(output
tables
in
Appendix
I)

EFED's
PRZM/
EXAMS
model
results
(input
parameters
in
table
1)
for
use
of
pronamide
on
registered
crops
(application
rates
of
between
1.5
­
4.0
lb/
acre;
Table
2)
for
drinking
water
derived
from
surface
sources:

10.3
ug/
L
(ppb)*
for
acute
exposure
from
application
to
pears
in
Oregon
(one
in
ten
year
peak
value)
4.45
ug/
L
(ppb)*
for
non­
cancer
chronic
exposure
from
application
to
alfalfa
in
California
(one
in
ten
year
annual
mean
value)
4.30
ug/
L
(ppb)*
for
cancer
exposure
from
application
to
alfalfa
in
California
(overall
mean
annual
value
from
36
years)

*
Reported
values
adjusted
for
percent
crop
area
by
multiplying
by
a
factor
of
0.86,
as
dictated
by
EFED
policy.

2.
GROUND
WATER
(output
in
Appendix
II)

EFED's
SCI­
GROW
model
screening
level
results
for
pronamide
groundwater
screening
concentration
for
an
application
to
all
crops
at
a
rate
of
4.0
lbs.
of
active
ingredient
per
acre:

1.1
ug/
L
(ppb)
(for
both
acute
and
chronic
exposures)

Monitoring
Data
Pronamide
detections
have
been
found
in
monitoring
data
from
the
USGS,
NAWQA
database,
EPA
Pesticides
in
Ground
Water
Database,
and
the
Pilot
Reservoir
Monitoring
Program.
The
USGS,
NAWQA
national
database
indicates
that,
out
of
almost
14
thousand
samples,
pronamide
is
detected
in
surface
water
in
<
3%
of
the
samples.
The
maximum
recorded
value
is
0.365
ppb.
Between
1984
and
1990,
a
total
of
432
wells
were
sampled
for
the
EPA
Pesticides
in
Ground
Water
Database.
No
detections
of
pronamide
were
recorded
for
tested
locations
in
California,
Mississippi,
or
Oregon.
A
total
of
12
sites
were
chosen
for
the
Pilot
Reservoir
Monitoring
Program
to
represent
locations
that
are
particularly
vulnerable
to
pesticide
contamination.
Only
one
reservoir
out
of
the
twelve,
located
in
Oklahoma,
recorded
positive
3
http://
ca.
water.
usgs.
gov/
pnsp/
use92/
pronmid.
html
3
Final
Water
Assessment
PronamideTIER2.wpd
detections
for
pronamide
of
up
to
0.044
ppb
in
83%
(34
of
41)
of
the
raw
water
samples,
and
up
to
0.012
ppb
in
42
%
(8
of
19)
of
the
finished
water
samples.
It
is
worth
noting
that
only
a
cursory
review
of
the
monitoring
data
has
been
presented
here.
It
can
not
be
determined
if
this
monitoring
data
is
representative
of
pronamide
use
nation
wide,
based
on
this
level
of
analysis.
In
none
of
these
studies,
were
sites
selected
based
on
pronamide
use
patterns.
A
more
extensive
evaluation
of
the
monitoring
data
could
reveal
what
percentage
of
the
samples
reported
were
collected
within
a
vulnerable
time
frame,
and
from
locations
where
pronamide
was
actually
being
used.

The
pesticide
use
map
below,
taken
from
the
USGS,
NAWQA
program
web
site
3
,
shows
historical
regional
scale
patterns
in
use
intensity
within
the
United
States.
The
map
is
based
on
state­
level
estimates
of
pesticide
use
rates
compiled
by
the
National
Center
for
Food
and
Agricultural
Policy
(NCFAP)
for
1991,
1992,
1993
and
1995,
and
on
county­
based
crop
acreage
data
obtained
from
the
1992
Census
of
Agriculture,
and
indicates
that
the
major
current
agricultural
uses
are
for
lettuce,
alfalfa,
grass
and
pears.
The
map
depicts
that
the
heaviest
historical
agricultural
uses
are
in
California,
the
Pacific
Northwest,
and
in
smaller
scattered
pockets
use
sites.
It
is
interesting
to
note
that
the
only
site
within
the
Pilot
Reservoir
Monitoring
Program
reporting
proanamide
detections
was
in
Oklahoma,
where
the
above
map
indicates
that
proanamide
does
not
have
extensive
agricultural
use.

USGS,
NAWQA
Pesticide
National
Synthesis
Project
4
soils
and
scenario
data
for
the
standard
scenarios
is
located
at:
F:\
USER\
SHARE\
Models\
Aquatic
Exposure\
PRZMEXAMS\
Scenarios\
STD_
SCEN\
Standard
Scenario
Documentation
4
Final
Water
Assessment
PronamideTIER2.wpd
Models
Used
The
Tier
2
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
(EEC's)
for
the
major
registered
crop
uses
were
calculated
using
two
models:
PRZM
version
3.12
(Carsel
et
al.,
1997),
dated
May
7,
1998
to
simulate
the
transport
of
the
pesticide
off
the
field,
and
EXAMS
2.97.5
(Burns,
1997),
dated
June
13,
1997,
to
simulate
the
fate
of
the
chemicals
in
the
water
body.
Both
models
were
launched
from
a
shell
(pe3)
recently
developed
within
EFED,
and
adopted
for
use
on
February
27,
2002.

SCIGROW
(version
2.1;
May
1,
2001)
provides
a
Tier
1,
groundwater
screening
exposure
value
to
be
used
in
determining
the
potential
risk
to
human
health
from
drinking
water
contaminated
with
the
pesticide.
While
use
of
this
version
is
provisional,
it
is
expected
to
produce
more
accurate
estimated
values
for
compounds
with
longer
half
lives.
In
most
cases,
a
large
majority
of
the
use
area
will
have
groundwater
that
is
less
vulnerable
to
contamination
than
the
areas
used
to
drive
the
SCIGROW
estimate.

Scenarios
Several
standard
scenarios
were
chosen
to
model
estimated
environmental
concentrations
in
surface
water
resulting
from
the
proposed
crop
uses
of
pronamide,
based
on
particularly
vulnerable
crop
sites
for
registered
uses.
Meteorological
data
files
were
adjusted
to
reflect
irrigation
amounts
required
for
wetting­
in
of
pronamide,
as
per
label
recommendation,
by
including
the
required
additional
water
in
with
the
recorded
precipitation
for
each
application
date.
Four
standard,
index
reservoir
scenarios
were
chosen
as
surrogates
for
estimating
environmental
concentrations
in
sites
more
vulnerable
to
the
offsite
movement
of
pesticide
than
most
sites
planted
with
their
respective
crops.

The
standard
Oregon
apples
scenario
was
used
to
represent
application
of
pronamide
to
northwestern
pear
orchards.
The
apple
scenario
is
an
orchard
in
Marion
County,
Oregon,
MLRA
A2.
The
soil
at
the
site
is
Cornelius
silt
loam,
a
fine­
silty,
mixed,
superactive,
mesic
Mollic
Fragixeralfs.
Data
for
the
Cornelius
silt
loan
was
taken
from
the
USDA
National
Cooperative
Soil
Survey,
Official
Series
Description
4
.
Weather
data
was
taken
from
wether
station
W24232,
at
Salem,
Oregon.
The
weather
data
file
is
part
of
the
PIRANHA
shell,
and
is
used
to
represent
the
weather
for
MLRA
A2.

The
standard
California
alfalfa
scenario
was
used
to
represent
application
of
pronamide
to
alfalfa
crops,
in
general.
The
alfalfa
scenario
is
a
field
in
the
central
valley
of
California,
MLRA
17.
The
soil
at
the
site
is
Sacramento
clay,
very­
fine,
smectitic,
thermic
Cumulic
Vertic
Endoaquolls.
Data
for
the
Sacramento
clay
was
taken
from
the
USDA
National
Cooperative
Soil
Survey,
Official
5
soils
and
scenario
data
for
the
standard
scenarios
is
located
at:
F:\
USER\
SHARE\
Models\
Aquatic
Exposure\
PRZMEXAMS\
Scenarios\
STD_
SCEN\
Standard
Scenario
Documentation
6
soils
and
scenario
data
for
the
standard
scenarios
is
located
at:
F:\
USER\
SHARE\
Models\
Aquatic
Exposure\
PRZMEXAMS\
Scenarios\
STD_
SCEN\
Standard
Scenario
Documentation
7
soils
and
scenario
data
for
the
standard
scenarios
is
located
at:
F:\
USER\
SHARE\
Models\
Aquatic
Exposure\
PRZMEXAMS\
Scenarios\
STD_
SCEN\
Standard
Scenario
Documentation
5
Final
Water
Assessment
PronamideTIER2.wpd
Series
Description
5
.
Weather
data
was
taken
from
weather
station
W23155,
at
Bakersfield,
California.
The
weather
data
file
is
part
of
the
PIRANHA
shell,
and
is
used
to
represent
the
weather
for
MLRA
17.

The
standard
Oregon
seed
grass
scenario
was
chosen
to
represent
application
of
pronamide
to
both
field
and
seed
grass
sites.
The
seed
grass
scenario
is
a
field
in
Portland,
Oregon
in
MLRA
2.
The
soil
at
the
site
is
Dayton
silt
loam,
a
fine,
smectitic,
mesic
Vertic
Albaqualfs.
Data
for
the
Dayton
silt
loam
was
taken
from
the
USDA
National
Cooperative
Soil
Survey,
Official
Series
Description
6
.
Weather
data
was
taken
from
wether
station
W24232,
at
Salem,
Oregon.
The
weather
data
file
is
part
of
the
PIRANHA
shell,
and
is
used
to
represent
the
weather
for
MLRA
2.

The
standard
Florida
cabbage
scenario
was
chosen
to
represent
application
of
pronamide
to
east
coast
lettuce
crops.
The
Florida
cabbage
scenario
is
a
field
in
Tampa,
Florida
in
MLRA
156B.
The
soil
at
the
site
is
Riviera
sand,,
loamy,
siliceous,
active,
hyperthermic
Arenic
Glossaqualfs.
Data
for
the
Riviera
sand
was
taken
from
the
USDA
National
Cooperative
Soil
Survey,
Official
Series
Description
7
.
Weather
data
was
taken
from
weather
station
W12844,
at
West
Palm
Beach,
Florida.
The
weather
data
file
is
part
of
the
PIRANHA
shell,
and
is
used
to
represent
the
weather
for
MLRA
156B.

The
configuration
of
the
water
body
represented
by
these
standard
scenario
sites
are
a
172.8
hectare
watershed
draining
into
a
5.26
hectare
lake,
2.74
m
deep.
The
scenario
known
as
the
index
reservoir,
was
developed
to
represent
a
watershed
that
was
more
vulnerable
than
most
watersheds
to
pesticide
contamination.
It
represents
a
real
drinking
water
reservoir
in
Illinois,
Shipman
City
Lake.
The
geometry
of
the
index
reservoir
and
its
watersher
are
used
with
local
weather
and
soils
to
represent
vulnerable
watersheds
for
different
crops
in
different
regions
of
the
country.
A
detailed
description
of
the
index
reservoir
found
in
the
guidance
for
using
the
index
reservoir
(U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
2000).
8
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oppefed1/
models/
water/
index.
htm
6
Final
Water
Assessment
PronamideTIER2.wpd
Modeling
Inputs
and
Results
Table
1
and
Table
2
summarize
the
general
input
values
used
in
the
model
runs
for
PRZM/
EXAMS
and
SCIGROW,
respectively
for
pronamide,
applied
annually
by
ground
spray,
at
rates
between
1.5
and
4.0
pounds
per
acre
applied
to
registered
crops.
Surface
water
modeling
results
appear
in
Table
3.
PRZM/
EXAMS
and
SCIGROW
output
files
have
been
appended
to
this
document.

Table
1.
Input
Parameters
for
PRZM/
EXAMS
(pe3
shell
input)

Chemical
pronamide
Water
Solubility
(25
°C)
15
mg/
L
Hydrolysis
Half­
Life
(pH7;
MRID
00107980)
stable
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Half­
Life
(MRID
41568901)
1176
days
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
Half­
Life
2352
days
Photolysis
Half­
Life
(MRID
404203­
01,
40320601)
41
days
Organic
Carbon
Adsorption
Coefficient
(Koc;
MRID
40211103,
40211104)
656
L/
kg
Application
Method
ground
spray,
wetted­
in
Application
Rate
1.5
to
4.0
lb/
acre
(one
annual
application)

The
PRZM/
EXAMS
input
parameters
for
metabolism
half­
lives
were
selected
in
accordance
with
US
EPA
OPP
EFED
water
model
parameter
selection
guidelines,
Guidance
for
Selecting
Input
Parameters
in
Modeling
the
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
of
Pesticides,
Version
II,
February
28,
2002
8
.
Only
one
submitted
metabolism
half­
life
of
392
days
was
available
for
aerobic
soil
metabolism.
That
value
was
multiplied
by
three,
as
per
guidance
instructions.
The
resulting
value
of
1176
days
was
used
for
the
aerobic
metabolism
half­
life
for
modeling.
In
the
absence
of
anaerobic
metabolism
data,
that
value
was
multiplied
by
two,
as
outlined
in
the
guidelines,
to
generate
an
anaerobic
metabolism
half­
life
of
2352
days.
The
organic
carbon
adsorption
coefficient
(Koc)
value
of
656
was
calculated,
from
submitted
data,
as
the
slope
of
the
plot
of
the
adsorption
Kd
value
versus
percent
organic
carbon
of
the
specific
soils.
Submitted
data
included
several
test
soils
with
either
high
or
low
percent
organic
matter
values,
and
a
wide
variance
in
resulting
values.
While
this
is
not
the
method
recommended
in
the
input
guidance
for
calculating
the
absorption
coefficient,
this
overall
Koc
value
better
predicts
the
mobility
of
pronamide
in
the
environment.
Weather
data
was
adjusted
to
reflect
the
additional
water
needed
for
the
recommended
practice
of
"wetting­
in"
the
pesticide,
by
adjusting
the
recorded
precipitation
amount
on
the
annual
application
date
to
include
the
required
additional
water.
Application
methods
and
rates
for
specific
crops
were
obtained
from
submitted
labels.
9
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oppefed1/
models/
water/
index.
htm
7
Final
Water
Assessment
PronamideTIER2.wpd
Table
2.
Input
Parameters
for
SCIGROW
Chemical
pronamide
Organic
Carbon
Adsorption
Coefficient
(Koc)
701
L/
kg
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Half­
Life
392
days
Annual
Application
Rates
2
­
4
lbs.
a.
i./
acre
The
SCIGROW
input
parameters
were
selected
in
accordance
with
US
EPA
OPP
EFED
water
model
parameter
selection
guidelines,
Guidance
for
Selecting
Input
Parameters
in
Modeling
the
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
of
Pesticides,
Version
II,
February
28,
2002
9
.
Application
rates
were
obtained
from
submitted
labels.

Table
3.
Modeling
Results
for
Use
on
Representative
Crops
CROP
Annual
Application
Rate
(pounds
/
acre)
Application
Method
Application
Date
PRZM/
EXAMS
Values
(ppb)*

Acute
Exposure
(one
in
10
year
peak
value)
Non­
Cancer
Chronic
Exposure
(one
in
10
year
annual
mean
value)
36
Year
Average
(overall
mean
annual
value
for
36
years)

C
Lettuce
in
FL
1.5
ground
sprayer
/
wetted­
in
2"
October
20
3.69
0.53
0.54
C
Seed
Grass
in
OR
1.5
ground
sprayer
/
wetted­
in
1"
September
15
4.19
1.94
1.86
C
Pears
in
OR
4.0
ground
sprayer
/
wetted­
in
1"
November
21
10.3
4.
05
3.
92
C
Alfalfa
in
CA
2.0
ground
sprayer
/
wetted­
in
1"
January
7
7.
13
4.
45
4.
30
*
Reported
values
adjusted
for
percent
crop
area
by
multiplying
by
a
factor
of
0.86,
as
dictated
by
EFED
policy.
8
Final
Water
Assessment
PronamideTIER2.wpd
Associated
files
for
PRZM/
EXAMS
modeling
of
Proanamide
located
on
the
F­
drive
at
F:\
USER\
LSHANAMA\
101701PRONAMIDE\
:
Caalfalfa.
pzr
Caalfalfa.
out
Caalfalf.
zts
Fllettuce.
pzr
Fllettuce.
out
Fllettuc.
zts
Ororchard.
pzr
Ororchard.
out
Ororchar.
zts
Orseedgrass.
pzr
Orseedgrass.
out
Orseedgr.
zts
MET156c1.
MET
MET17alf.
MET
MET2ap1.
MET
MET2gs1.
MET
setstfloEXAM.
wpd
9
Final
Water
Assessment
PronamideTIER2.wpd
APPENDIX
I
OUTPUT
TABLES
OF
DRINKING
WATER
MODELING
RESULTS
PRZM/
EXAMS
Results
for
Pronamide
Use
on
Florida
Lettuce
WATER
COLUMN
DISSOLVED
CONCENTRATION
(PPB)

YEAR
PEAK
96
HOUR
21
DAY
60
DAY
90
DAY
YEARLY
­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­

1948
4.204
4.039
3.426
2.438
1.785
0.4442
1949
4.223
4.057
3.444
2.455
1.802
0.5995
1950
4.231
4.066
3.452
2.463
1.81
0.6101
1951
4.236
4.07
3.456
2.467
1.814
0.6154
1952
4.238
4.072
3.458
2.469
1.816
0.6166
1953
4.239
4.073
3.459
2.47
1.817
0.6196
1954
4.239
4.074
3.46
2.47
1.818
0.6203
1955
4.24
4.074
3.46
2.471
1.818
0.6207
1956
4.24
4.074
3.46
2.471
1.818
0.6193
1957
4.24
4.074
3.46
2.471
1.818
0.621
1958
4.24
4.074
3.46
2.471
1.818
0.6211
1959
4.24
4.074
3.46
2.471
1.818
0.6211
1960
4.24
4.074
3.46
2.471
1.818
0.6195
1961
4.24
4.074
3.46
2.471
1.818
0.6211
1962
4.24
4.074
3.461
2.471
1.818
0.6211
1963
4.24
4.074
3.461
2.471
1.818
0.6211
1964
4.24
4.074
3.46
2.471
1.818
0.6195
1965
4.24
4.074
3.46
2.471
1.818
0.6211
1966
4.24
4.074
3.461
2.471
1.818
0.6211
1967
4.24
4.074
3.461
2.471
1.818
0.6211
1968
4.24
4.074
3.46
2.471
1.818
0.6195
1969
4.24
4.074
3.46
2.471
1.818
0.6211
1970
4.24
4.074
3.461
2.471
1.818
0.6211
1971
4.24
4.074
3.461
2.471
1.818
0.6211
1972
4.24
4.074
3.46
2.471
1.818
0.6195
1973
4.24
4.074
3.46
2.471
1.818
0.6211
1974
4.24
4.074
3.461
2.471
1.818
0.6211
1975
4.24
4.074
3.461
2.471
1.818
0.6211
1976
4.24
4.074
3.46
2.471
1.818
0.6195
1977
4.24
4.074
3.46
2.471
1.818
0.6211
1978
4.24
4.074
3.461
2.471
1.818
0.6211
1979
4.24
4.074
3.461
2.471
1.818
0.6211
1980
4.24
4.074
3.46
2.471
1.818
0.6195
1981
4.24
4.074
3.46
2.471
1.818
0.6211
1982
4.24
4.074
3.461
2.471
1.818
0.6211
1983
4.24
4.074
3.461
2.471
1.818
0.6211
Upper
Tenth
4.240*
4.074
3.461
2.471
1.818
0.6211*
Percentile
MEAN
OF
ANNUAL
VALUES
=
0.615*
*Indicates
drinking
water
assessment
endpoints
BEFORE
correction
for
percent
cropped
area,
as
pre
EFED
policy.
10
Final
Water
Assessment
PronamideTIER2.wpd
PRZM/
EXAMS
Results
for
Pronamide
Use
on
Oregon
Pears
WATER
COLUMN
DISSOLVED
CONCENTRATION
(PPB)

YEAR
PEAK
96
HOUR
21
DAY
60
DAY
90
DAY
YEARLY
­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
1948
10.47
10.31
9.668
6.136
4.091
1.021
1949
11.4
11.23
10.54
7.012
5.887
3.905
1950
11.65
11.48
10.79
7.258
6.532
4.322
1951
11.78
11.61
10.91
7.389
6.752
4.493
1952
11.84
11.67
10.98
7.509
6.869
4.577
1953
11.89
11.72
11.02
7.573
6.932
4.638
1954
11.91
11.74
11.05
7.614
6.973
4.67
1955
11.93
11.76
11.06
7.637
6.995
4.687
1956
11.93
11.76
11.06
7.649
7.007
4.688
1957
11.94
11.77
11.07
7.653
7.011
4.701
1958
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.66
7.017
4.706
1959
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.663
7.02
4.708
1960
11.94
11.77
11.07
7.664
7.022
4.699
1961
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.661
7.0
19.707
1962
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.665
7.022
4.709
1963
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.665
7.023
4.71
1964
11.94
11.77
11.07
7.666
7.023
4.7
1965
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.662
7.03
4.708
1966
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.665
7.023
4.71
1967
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.666
7.023
4.71
1968
11.94
11.77
11.07
7.666
7.023
4.701
1969
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.662
7.02
4.708
1970
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.665
7.023
4.71
1971
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.666
7.023
4.71
1972
11.94
11.77
11.07
7.666
7.023
4.701
1973
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.662
7.02
4.708
1974
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.665
7.023
4.71
1975
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.666
7.023
4.71
1976
11.94
11.77
11.07
7.666
7.023
4.701
1977
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.662
7.02
4.708
1978
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.665
7.023
4.71
1979
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.666
7.023
4.71
1980
11.94
11.77
11.07
7.666
7.023
4.701
1981
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.662
7.02
4.708
1982
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.665
7.023
4.71
1983
11.94
11.77
11.08
7.666
7.023
4.71
Upper
Tenth
11.94*
11.77
11.08
7.666
7.023
4.71*
Percentile
MEAN
OF
ANNUAL
VALUES
=
4.558*

*Indicates
drinking
water
assessment
endpoints
BEFORE
correction
for
percent
cropped
area,
as
pre
EFED
policy.
11
Final
Water
Assessment
PronamideTIER2.wpd
PRZM/
EXAMS
Results
for
Pronamide
Use
on
Oregon
Seedgrass
WATER
COLUMN
DISSOLVED
CONCENTRATION
(PPB)

YEAR
PEAK
96
HOUR
21
DAY
60
DAY
90
DAY
YEARLY
­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
1948
3.971
3.92
3.715
3.302
3.028
0.8523
1949
4.51
4.454
4.229
3.774
3.473
1.779
1950
4.674
4.618
4.389
3.928
3.622
1.994
1951
4.758
4.701
4.472
4.008
3.7
2.093
1952
4.804
4.747
4.517
4.052
3.743
2.145
1953
4.835
4.778
4.548
4.081
3.772
2.181
1954
4.852
4.795
4.565
4.098
3.788
2.201
1955
4.862
4.806
4.575
4.108
3.798
2.213
1956
4.865
4.808
4.578
4.111
3.801
2.216
1957
4.871
4.814
4.584
4.116
3.806
2.223
1958
4.874
4.817
4.586
4.118
3.808
2.226
1959
4.875
4.818
4.587
4.12
3.81
2.228
1960
4.873
4.816
4.585
4.118
3.808
2.224
1961
4.876
4.819
4.588
4.12
3.81
2.228
1962
4.877
4.82
4.589
4.121
3.811
2.229
1963
4.877
4.82
4.589
4.121
3.811
2.229
1964
4.874
4.817
4.586
4.119
3.809
2.225
1965
4.876
4.82
4.589
4.121
3.811
2.229
1966
4.877
4.82
4.589
4.121
3.811
2.229
1967
4.877
4.82
4.589
4.122
3.811
2.23
1968
4.874
4.817
4.586
4.119
3.809
2.225
1969
4.877
4.82
4.589
4.121
3.811
2.229
1970
4.877
4.82
4.589
4.121
3.811
2.23
1971
4.877
4.82
4.589
4.122
3.811
2.23
1972
4.874
4.817
4.586
4.119
3.809
2.225
1973
4.877
4.82
4.589
4.121
3.811
2.229
1974
4.877
4.82
4.589
4.121
3.811
2.23
1975
4.877
4.82
4.589
4.122
3.811
2.23
1976
4.874
4.817
4.586
4.119
3.809
2.225
1977
4.877
4.82
4.589
4.121
3.811
2.229
1978
4.877
4.82
4.589
4.121
3.811
2.23
1979
4.877
4.82
4.589
4.122
3.811
2.23
1980
4.874
4.817
4.586
4.119
3.809
2.225
1981
4.877
4.82
4.589
4.121
3.811
2.229
1982
4.877
4.82
4.589
4.121
3.811
2.23
1983
4.877
4.82
4.589
4.122
3.811
2.23
Upper
Tenth
4.877*
4.82
4.589
4.122
3.811
2.23*
Percentile
MEAN
OF
ANNUAL
VALUES
=
2.162*

*Indicates
drinking
water
assessment
endpoints
BEFORE
correction
for
percent
cropped
area,
as
pre
EFED
policy.
12
Final
Water
Assessment
PronamideTIER2.wpd
PRZM/
EXAMS
Results
for
Pronamide
Use
on
California
Alfalfa
WATER
COLUMN
DISSOLVED
CONCENTRATION
(PPB)

YEAR
PEAK
96
HOUR
21
DAY
60
DAY
90
DAY
YEARLY
­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
1948
5.236
5.217
5.135
4.842
4.58
2.873
1949
6.66
6.638
6.549
6.205
5.892
3.843
1950
7.277
7.257
7.169
6.816
6.487
4.324
1951
7.632
7.611
7.527
7.171
6.835
4.616
1952
7.858
7.838
7.755
7.398
7.059
4.799
1953
7.999
7.98
7.899
7.541
7.2
4.925
1954
8.102
8.083
8.003
7.644
7.301
5.01
1955
8.168
8.149
8.07
7.71
7.366
5.066
1956
8.212
8.193
8.114
7.754
7.409
5.096
1957
8.234
8.215
8.136
7.777
7.432
5.122
1958
8.257
8.238
8.16
7.8
7.455
5.141
1959
8.271
8.252
8.174
7.814
7.468
5.152
1960
8.28
8.261
8.183
7.823
7.477
5.154
1961
8.279
8.26
8.182
7.823
7.477
5.16
1962
8.287
8.269
8.19
7.831
7.484
5.166
1963
8.291
8.272
8.194
7.834
7.488
5.169
1964
8.293
8.275
8.196
7.836
7.49
5.165
1965
8.288
8.269
8.191
7.831
7.485
5.168
1966
8.293
8.274
8.196
7.836
7.49
5.171
1967
8.295
8.276
8.198
7.838
7.492
5.172
1968
8.296
8.277
8.199
7.839
7.493
5.167
1969
8.289
8.271
8.193
7.833
7.487
5.169
1970
8.294
8.276
8.197
7.838
7.491
5.172
1971
8.296
8.277
8.199
7.839
7.492
5.173
1972
8.296
8.278
8.199
7.84
7.493
5.167
1973
8.29
8.271
8.193
7.833
7.487
5.169
1974
8.295
8.276
8.197
7.838
7.491
5.172
1975
8.296
8.277
8.199
7.839
7.493
5.173
1976
8.296
8.278
8.199
7.84
7.493
5.168
1977
8.29
8.271
8.193
7.833
7.487
5.169
1978
8.295
8.276
8.198
7.838
7.491
5.172
1979
8.296
8.277
8.199
7.839
7.493
5.173
1980
8.296
8.278
8.199
7.84
7.493
5.168
1981
8.29
8.271
8.193
7.834
7.487
5.169
1982
8.295
8.276
8.198
7.838
7.491
5.172
1983
8.296
8.277
8.199
7.839
7.493
5.173
Upper
Tenth
8.296*
8.2773
8.199
7.8393
7.493
5.173*
Percentile
MEAN
OF
ANNUAL
VALUES
=
5.001*

*Indicates
drinking
water
assessment
endpoints
BEFORE
correction
for
percent
cropped
area,
as
pre
EFED
policy.
13
Final
Water
Assessment
PronamideTIER2.wpd
APPENDIX
II
SCIGROW
Ground
Water
Results
for
Pronamide
SCIGROW
VERSION
2.1
MAY
1,
2001
RUN
No.
1
FOR
pronamide
**
INPUT
VALUES
**
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
APP
RATE
APPS/
TOTAL/
SOIL
AEROBIC
SOIL
METAB
(LBS/
AC)
YEAR
SEASON
KOC
HALFLIFE
(DAYS)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
4.000
1
4.000
701.0
392.00
GROUND­
WATER
SCREENING
CONCENTRATION
(IN
PPB)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
1.0966
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

SCIGROW
VERSION
2.1
MAY
1,
2001
RUN
No.
2
FOR
proanamide
**
INPUT
VALUES
**
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
APP
RATE
APPS/
TOTAL/
SOIL
AEROBIC
SOIL
METAB
(LBS/
AC)
YEAR
SEASON
KOC
HALFLIFE
(DAYS)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
2.000
1
2.000
701.0
392.00
GROUND­
WATER
SCREENING
CONCENTRATION
(IN
PPB)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
.5483
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
