Transcript PPT version - University of Arizona

E. Randall Norton, Ph.D.
The University of Arizona
Safford Agricultural Center
Norton, 2010
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
Norton, 2010
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
Norton, 2010
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
Norton, 2010
Public
Participation
process
begins
Public
Comment on
Risk
Assessments
Draft Risk
Assessments
Published for
Comment,
Public
Meeting
REDs Issued
Public
Comment on
Mitigation,
Public
Meetings
Held
2010 Label
Changes in
Effect
RED
Amendments
Issued
All Mitigation
Measures on
Labels
Norton, 2010
Soil Fumigant
Major Pests Controlled
Nematodes
Plant Pathogens
Weeds
Methyl Bromide



1,3-Dichloropropene

Metam Sodium



Metam Potassium



Dazomet



Chloropicrin

Norton, 2010
Norton, 2010
EPA proprietary data, average usage 2006-2008
Norton, 2010
EPA proprietary data, average usage 2006-2008
Norton, 2010
EPA proprietary data, average usage 2006-2008
Norton, 2010
EPA proprietary data, average usage 2006-2008
Norton, 2010
EPA proprietary data, average usage 2006-2008
Norton, 2010
Cotton, 3.0 Cucumbers, 2.2
Peanuts, 2.1
Watermelons, 3.4
Peppers,
5.0
Onions, 5.2
Potatoes, 46.4
Tobacco, 6.6
Carrots, 8.7
Tomatoes, 8.6
Strawberries, 8.8
EPA proprietary data, average usage 2006-2008
Norton, 2010
35
Chloropicrin
Million Pounds Applied
30
Metam Na/K
25
Methyl Br
20
1,3-D
15
10
5
0
EPA proprietary data, average usage 2006-2008
Norton, 2010
Norton, 2010
AZDA 1080 Database, average usage 2000-2009
Norton, 2010
Norton, 2010
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
Norton, 2010
Norton, 2010
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
Norton, 2010
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
Norton, 2010
2011 Implementation
Buffers and buffer posting
Emergency preparedness and response
Restrictions near difficult to evacuate sites
Registrant-provided training and community
outreach programs
Norton, 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
Norton, 2010
GAPs are chemical specific
Examples
Wind speed restrictions
Soil conditions
Soil temperature
Soil moisture
Norton, 2010
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”
Norton, 2010
Restricted Use Product (RUP)
All products containing methyl bromide, 1,3Dichloropropene, 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
Norton, 2010
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
Norton, 2010
Current labels allow reentry after 48 hours
Reentry times lengthened
Untarped applications
5 days
Tarped applications
Vary depending on tarp perforation or removal
intervals
Norton, 2010
Implemented in 2010
Capture current and 1st phase label
requirements
Expansion in 2011
Capture second phase requirements
Norton, 2010
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
Norton, 2010
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
Norton, 2010
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
Norton, 2010
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
Norton, 2010
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
Norton, 2010
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
Norton, 2010
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”
Norton, 2010
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
Norton, 2010
Defined:
Schools (pre-K through12)
State licensed daycare
Nursing homes
Assisted living facilities
Hospitals
In-patient clinics
Prisons
Norton, 2010
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
Norton, 2010
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
Norton, 2010