Western Growers and California Farm Bureau sound off on EPA regulation of soil fumigants

More concerns from the industry about the EPA's soil fumigant proposal. From California Farm Bureau and Western Growers, posted Oct. 30 on the federal docket:


Comments on USEPA’s July 16, 2008 Federal Register Soil Fumigant Proposal for Chloropicrin, Metam Sodium/Potassium, and Methyl Bromide Reregistrtaion Eligibility Decisions.

Summary points

The proposed regulations will jeopardize the safety and quantity of fresh grown fruits and vegetables in the western United States. Fumigation is essential to control pests and pathogens in order to produce an abundant, safe and affordable food supply.
Growers and pest control advisors are in the best position to determine and perform pest management treatment options. These decisions are based on weather conditions, soil conditions, the presence of soil-borne diseases, plant pathogens, pest pressures and other factors. The proposed RED would significantly alter and drastically impact this ongoing successful pest management strategy and fumigation treatments would be made based on regulatory compliance and buffer zones requirements instead of treatment efficacy.
The ultimate effect of these changes cannot be predicted, but will surely include lost production acreage, lower yields, lower quality produce, and the use of more pesticides to counteract the effect of suboptimal fumigation treatments at the start of the crop cycles.
Overall, we are concerned that the proposal will add significant costs and complexities to the production community with no benefit. We believe that this mitigation proposal is trying to fix a problem generally caused by illegal applications. Industry and the grower community have worked closely to effectively deter such actions through various initiatives, stewardship activities, legislation and improvements in county and state processes and oversight. The tremendous economic losses that producers will face are compounded by the compliance and enforcement activities that will over-commit many state and county agencies. As noted these agencies and jurisdictions are currently experiencing budget shortfalls that leave them underfunded and understaffed. We believe USEPA/OPP must address this potential unfunded federal mandate.
We wholeheartedly reiterate our concerns that the USEPA has not taken into account the benefit/cost calculations for buffer zone distance, first responder education, notice to state agencies, and cost to farmers, fumigant applicators, and eventually to consumers. We strongly encourage the Agency to adhere to the same tenets of using the best available science as they mandate from registrants and the agricultural community.
Summary of key considerations:

Several concepts included in this document were not part of any previous public hearing or informational meeting that we attended. We question their origin and validity to be included in the mitigation proposal. Why are items such as Dräger tubes being introduced at the end of this process without previous discussion?

We request that EPA provide more reasonable buffer zones through the use of appropriate models for each fumigant, rather than using the PERFUM model for all them.

Eliminate the proposal for a 48-hour time duration for each buffer zone per application.

Allow overlapping buffer zones.

Delete the proposed requirement for using Dräger tubes as monitoring devices.

Eliminate the proposal for Fumigant Management Plans.

Eliminate posting for buffer zones.

Delete the First Responder Training requirements as a registrant responsibility and instead work with state Office of Emergency Services to build a better training opportunity and process.

Community outreach/town hall meetings requirements should be removed from the mitigation proposal.