Soil Fumigation – New Risk Mitigation Measures

1. Soil Fumigation – New Risk Mitigation Measures E. Randall Norton, Ph.D. The University of Arizona Safford Agricultural Center

2. Outline • Soil fumigant review • Products available/affected • Use distribution (crops by locations) • Affected by new EPA rulings • History of EPA Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) • Timeline for implementation • New risk mitigation factors • 2010 • 2011

3. Reregistration Eligibility Decisions • Re-licensing decisions for chemicals used as soil fumigants including: • Methyl bromide • Chloropicrin • Metam Sodium/Potassium • Dazomet • First comprehensive re-evaluation since products were first registered • 1,3-Dichloropropene (Telone EC, Telone II) • Not included in this round of REDs

4. Overview – Key Points • Amended REDs issued in June 2009 • Include measures to mitigate risks from fumigant pesticides • Measures will be implemented through product labels • Revised labels with new measures will appear in the field 2010 and 2011

5. Regulatory Process Timeline 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Public Participation process begins Public Comment on Risk Assessments REDs Issued 2010 Label Changes in Effect Draft Risk Assessments Published for Comment, Public Meeting RED Amendments Issued All Mitigation Measures on Labels Public Comment on Mitigation, Public Meetings Held

6. Soil Fumigant Uses

7. Soil Fumigant Use Patterns - USA

8. Chloropicrin EPA proprietary data, average usage 2006-2008

9. Methyl Bromide EPA proprietary data, average usage 2006-2008

10. 1,3-Dichloropropene EPA proprietary data, average usage 2006-2008

11. Metam Potassium EPA proprietary data, average usage 2006-2008

12. Metam Sodium EPA proprietary data, average usage 2006-2008

13. Soil Fumigant by Crop EPA proprietary data, average usage 2006-2008

14. Soil Fumigant by Crop and AI EPA proprietary data, average usage 2006-2008

15. Soil Fumigant Use Patterns - Arizona

16. Soil Fumigant Use - Arizona AZDA 1080 Database, average usage 2000-2009

17. Soil Fumigant Use - Arizona

18. Impact of REDs in Arizona • Will not impact large acreages • Will have significant impact on some growers • Not a large number of producers • Our goal (UA/Industry/AZDA)… • Identify this target audience • Provide needed educational programming regarding changes • Prepare producers to deal with new regulations

19. Highlights of New Risk Mitigation Measures

20. Risk Mitigation Summary • Package of measures that work together to: • Reduce potential for direct exposure to toxic concentrations • Reduce likelihood of accidents and errors • Foster planning and compliance • Assure appropriate response to exposures that occur

21. Mitigation Measures • 2010 Implementation • Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) • RUP Classification • Handler respiratory protection • Tarp perforation and removal restrictions • Reentry restrictions • Fumigant Management Plans (FMPs) • Registrant-provided handler information

22. Mitigation Measures • 2011 Implementation • Buffers and buffer posting • Emergency preparedness and response • Restrictions near difficult to evacuate sites • Registrant-provided training and community outreach programs

23. Label Requirements - 2010 • Good Agricultural Practices • Developed by registrants – based on input from growers • Reviewed by EPA • Many of the GAPs are currently on label • Recommendations • GAPs will be mandatory • Compliance will be captured on FMPs

24. Good Agricultural Practices • GAPs are chemical specific • Examples • Wind speed restrictions • Soil conditions • Soil temperature • Soil moisture

25. Example – Soil Temperature GAP • Ground rig with soil incorporation: • “At beginning of application, maximum soil temperature at injection depth is 90oF” • Chemigation: • “At beginning of application, the maximum soil temperature is 90oF measured at 3 inches in depth”

26. New Label Requirements • Restricted Use Product (RUP) • All products containing methyl bromide, 1,3-Dichloropropene, and chloropicrin are currently RUP • Many soil fumigant products containing metam sodium/potassium and dazomet are not currently RUP • EPA has determined all soil fumigants undergoing reregistration meet the criteria for restricted use

27. Handler Protection Measures • Defined: • A person performing “handler activities” • Anybody involved in any activity relating to the application of a restricted soil fumigant • Handlers must stop work or use respirators if air concentrations exceed acceptable limits or if they experience sensory irritation • Fit-tested • Trained • Physically fit to wear a respirator

28. Entry Restriction Period • Current labels allow reentry after 48 hours • Reentry times lengthened • Untarped applications • 5 days • Tarped applications • Vary depending on tarp perforation or removal intervals

29. Fumigant Management Plans (FMPs) • Implemented in 2010 • Capture current and 1st phase label requirements • Expansion in 2011 • Capture second phase requirements

30. FMPs • Written, site-specific plan must be completed prior to fumigation • Designed to… • Ensure fumigators successfully plan all aspects of a safe and effective fumigation • Prevent accidents, ensure label compliance, and identify appropriate procedures in case of accidents • Demonstrate compliance with label requirements • Tool for verifying compliance

31. FMPs • Information required – 2010 • General site and applicator information • Application procedures • Measurements taken to verify compliance with GAPs • Handler protection information • Air monitoring and hazard communication procedures • Posting and record keeping procedures • Emergency plans and procedures • Handler training information provided • Post-application summary report

32. FMPs • Must be available… • For viewing on-site by handlers • To enforcement personnel upon request • To emergency response personnel in case of emergency • FMP for methyl bromide currently available on EPA website • Others to follow soon • Web-based system under development

33. 2011 Measures – Buffer Zones • Buffer zones • Area around the application block where bystanders must be excluded during the buffer zone period (except for people in transit) • Buffer zone period starts when the fumigant is first delivered and is in effect for 48 hours after the fumigant has stopped being delivered to the soil • Distance is determined by: • Treated block size • Rate • Method • Outlined on label

34. Buffer Zone Posting • Must be posted at usual points of entry and along likely routes of approach unless a physical barrier prevents access • Roads, sidwalks, walking paths, bike trails

35. Buffer Zone Sign • Must include: • “Do Not Walk” symbol • “Do Not Enter/No Entre” • Name of fumigant, name of product • Certified applicator contact information DO NOT ENTER/NO ENTRE Metam Sodium Fumigant Buffer Zone Contact: Jon Doe 888.555.1234

36. Additional 2011 Measures • Emergency Preparedness and Response • If occupied structures are in close proximity to buffer zone applicator must choose: • “Fumigant Site Monitoring” or • “Response Information for Neighbors”

37. Example – Emergency Response Measures • Buffer zone=125’, any occupied structures within 100’ of buffer zone • Residents must be provided with emergency response information or the area between buffer zone and house must be monitored • Occupied structure >100’ from buffer zone no action needed

38. “Difficult to Evacuate Sites” • Defined: • Schools (pre-K through12) • State licensed daycare • Nursing homes • Assisted living facilities • Hospitals • In-patient clinics • Prisons

39. New Requirements • If buffer zone >300 feet • Difficult to Evacuate Site must not be within 1/4 mile (1320 ft) of the treated area • If buffer zone is <300 feet • Difficult to Evacuate Site must not be within 1/8 mile (660 feet) of the treated area

40. Next Steps • UA Cooperative Extension along with industry and AZDA • Conduct trainings (6) across Arizona • Hands-on instruction • Yuma will be first later this fall • Remainder in mid-January • Need to target audience – identify those needing training