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.

SOS

From the federal docket this morning..continuing concern about soil fumigants from a grower's perspective...

SOIL FUMIGANT DOCKETS--REDS--- EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0123,EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350for the past 20 years my family(OBrien) has been growing approx. 200 acres of strawberries in Manatee county(florida) (75 acres of tomatoes) and have 20 full time employee's and 150 seasonal workers. WE NEED YOUR HELP-- For 20 years we have had a 100%safety record and regard the safety of our employee's and the community to be a #1 priority but if you pass these regs the way they are written you might as well sign our death notice or give us a one way ticket to Mexico. These fumigants have allowed us to stay competitive with our 3rd. world competition without it we will lose any edge we have had but we will continue to experiment with alternitives. My 150 acre farm has some houses around it and the school board has bought the property behind me why does the American farmer get punished (without proof) for the action of others. We have been very good for the land we grow on. We use IPM and cover crops to help maintain good ag practices as do most growers. Your decision will impact the American fresh fruit and veg community for years to come Please we are good stewards of our land and we need your help.

Perchlorate: regulatory determination

Go here for the just published docket from the EPA on perchlorate (rocket fuel byproduct in layman's terms) regulation. The comment period for pubic input ends Nov. 10. From the summary published Oct. 10:

This action presents EPA’s preliminary regulatory determination for perchlorate in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The Agency has determined that a national primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR) for perchlorate would not present ‘‘a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.’’ The SDWA requires EPA to make determinations every five years of whether to regulate at least five contaminants on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL). EPA included perchlorate on the first and second CCLs that were published in the Federal Register on March 2, 1998 and February 24, 2005. Most recently, EPA presented final regulatory determinations regarding 11 contaminants on the second CCL in a notice published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2008. In today’s action, EPA presents supporting rationale and
requests public comment on its preliminary regulatory determination for perchlorate. EPA will make a final regulatory determination for perchlorate after considering comments and
information provided in the 30-day comment period following this notice. EPA plans to publish a health advisory for perchlorate at the time the Agency publishes its final regulatory determination to provide State and local public health officials with technical information that they may use in addressing local contamination.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 10, 2008.


TK: While the gist of the summary was to support EPA's position that a national drinking water regulation is not needed, it is interesting to see that EPA will make a public health advisory for perchlorate after analyzing comments. Also check out the Perchlorate Environmental Contamination: Toxicological Review and Risk Characterization (on the federal docket) which is a 534 page pdf that refers to irrigation water and lettuce several times.

FB: EPA has no legal authority for ag dust

Air quality standards for agriculture are more and more a point of contention: From the Farm Bureau:

The American Farm Bureau Federation today told a circuit court of appeals that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the legal authority to regulate agricultural dust under the Clean Air Act. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral argument from AFBF and other parties both challenging and defending the EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter in American Farm Bureau Federation et. al v. EPA.

Today’s proceedings are the final stage of a two-year legal battle over whether EPA’s NAAQS violated the Clean Air Act. AFBF argued that EPA’s own studies did not show that agricultural dust caused the adverse health effects that trigger Clean Air Act regulation.

Further, said AFBF General Counsel Julie Anna Potts, “The Clean Air Act does not require agricultural dust to be regulated by the same standard as urban particulate matter. Congress requires EPA to support its NAAQS with science and thus far they have not met that burden for agricultural dust,” said Potts.

The American Farm Bureau, the National Pork Producers Council and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association had 15 minutes today at the proceedings to provide additional argument and answer the panel’s questions.

AFBF initiated the case in 2006 because regulation of agricultural dust would place a burden on producers and the importance of ensuring that stringent Clean Air Act requirements are lawfully enacted.

Other Web coverage

Earthjustice fights EPA compact in Calif.

Yuma Sun: ag dust needs to be controlled