UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

April 18, 2007

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Review of Fumigants Group Incident Reports

		DP Barcode D314383, D306860, D337561, D337561, D337778, D337567,
Chemical #053201, 053203, 029001, 029004, 039003, 039002, 035602, 035607

FROM:	Monica Hawkins, M.P.H., Environmental Health Scientist

		Chemistry and Exposure Branch

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

		Hans Allender, Ph.D., Statistician

		Chemistry and Exposure Branch

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

THRU:	David J. Miller, Chief

		Chemistry and Exposure Branch

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:		Steven Weiss

		Andrea Carone

		Cathryn O’Connell

		Veronique LaCapra

		Nathan Mottl

		Chemical Review Manages

		Special Review and Re-registration Division (7508 P)

BACKGROUND

The scope of this report encompasses a group of six Fumigants. Their
names and PC Codes are:

A)	Methyl Bromide; PC Codes 053201 and 053203

B)  1,3-Dichloropropene (Telone); PC Codes 029001 and 029004

Metam-Sodium; PC Code 039003

Metam-Potassium; PC Code 039002

Dazomet; PC Codes 035602 and 035607

Chloropicrin; PC Codes 081501 and 081502.

The reader will find a lettered section of this report dedicated to each
compound. For each chemical, the following databases have been consulted
to find the poisoning incident data on each active ingredient.

1)  Poison Control Centers - as the result of a data purchase by EPA,
OPP received Poison Control Center data covering the years 1993 through
2005 for all pesticides.  Most of the national Poison Control Centers
(PCCs) participate in a national data collection system, the Toxic
Exposure Surveillance System (TESS) which obtains data from about 65-70
centers at hospital and universities.  PCCs provide telephone
consultation for individuals and health care providers on suspected
poisonings, involving drugs, household products, pesticides, etc.

2)  OPP Incident Data System (IDS) - reports of incidents from various
sources, including registrants, other federal and state health and
environmental agencies and individual consumers, submitted to OPP since
1992.  Reports submitted to the Incident Data System represent anecdotal
reports or allegations only, unless otherwise stated.  Typically, no
conclusions can be drawn implicating the pesticide as a cause of any of
the reported health effects.  Nevertheless, sometimes with enough cases
and/or documentation risk mitigation measures may be suggested

3)  California Department of Pesticide Regulation - California has
collected uniform data on suspected pesticide poisonings since 1982.
Physicians are required, by statute, to report to their local health
officer all occurrences of illness suspected of being related to
exposure to pesticides.  The majority of the incidents involve workers.
Information on exposure (worker activity), type of illness (systemic,
eye, skin, eye/skin and respiratory), likelihood of a causal
relationship, and number of days off work and in the hospital are
provided.

4) National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health’s Sentinel
Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (NIOSH SENSOR) performs
standardized surveillance in nine states from 1998 through 2003.  States
included in this reporting system are Arizona, California, Florida,
Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington.  Reporting
is very uneven from state to state because of the varying cooperation
from different sources of reporting (e.g., workers compensation, Poison
Control Centers, emergency departments and hospitals, enforcement
investigations, private physicians, etc.).  Therefore, these reports
should not be characterized as estimating the total magnitude of
poisoning.  The focus is on occupationally-related cases not residential
or other non-occupational exposures.   However, the information
collected on each case is standardized and categorized according to the
certainty of the information collected and the severity of the case.

This review offers a collection of incidents for each fumigant; for each
particular fumigant the report is divided in 4 sections:

1- Cases reported in the Poison Control Center Database from 1993 to
2005.

2 - Cases reported in the Incident Data System (Attachment 1) from 2001
to the present;

3 - Cases reported in the California Department of Pesticide Regulation
from 1982 to 2004 or by specified period.

4 - Cases reported in the NIOSH system from 1998 to 2003.

A) Methyl Bromide PC Codes 053201 and 053203

1.A	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Poison Control Center Data - 1993 through 2005
for Methyl Bromide, PC Code 053201 and 053203

This section discusses results from the Poison Control Center’s Toxic
Exposure Surveillance System (TESS) from the years 1993 through 2005 and
reflects data collected for occupational, non-occupational, and children
class. The children class is five years of age or less (this definition
includes children about to become six years old, or up to 72 month old).
Cases involving exposures to multiple products and cases with unrelated
medical outcome are excluded.  Also excluded are intentional exposures.
The tables included in this section transmit acute pesticide poisoning
incidence resulting from exposure to Methyl Bromide.

The following tables evaluate the frequency of poisoning incidents for
Methyl Bromide with the composite of all pesticides for which the PCC
received a non-excluded incident report.  The frequency of events is
reported by health effect severity category (all symptoms, moderate, and
major) and by level of health care received.  A comparative ratio
provides a simple measure of the relative frequency of reported health
effects by severity category.  Knowledge of the ratios of symptoms for a
single chemical (or a group of chemicals) provides a relative measure of
the public health impact of the acute pesticide events.  In addition, a
Likelihood Ratio test shows whether the compound under study is
significantly different from the average of all other pesticides.  An
(s) indicates the proportions are significantly different.

For a detailed explanation of the tables, see Attachment 2.

Table 1-A. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Occupational Cases

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

provided

Denominator numbers	60	77	54

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	56	21	1	54	5	2

Methyl Bromide percents	93.33%	35.00%	1.67%	70.13%	9.26%	3.70%

All Pesticides percents	86.25%	20.89%	0.81%	42.94%	7.00%	2.83%

Ratio of  Methyl Bromide/All pesticides	1.08

P =0.11	1.68 (S)

P = 0.00	2.06

P = 0.45	1.63 (S)

P = 0.0 	1.32

P = 0.51	1.31

P =0.70

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed;	3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 2-A. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Non-Occupational Cases

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

provided

Denominator numbers	47	77	21

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	34	4	0	21	3	0

Methyl Bromide percents	72.34%	8.51%	0.00%	27.27%	14.28%	0.00%

All Pesticides percents	64.72%	10.61%	0.45%	15.45%	7.94%	3.02%

Ratio of  Methyl Bromide/All pesticides	1.12

P =0.27	0.80

P = 0.64	0.00

P = 0.53	1.77 (S)

P = 0.00	1.80

P = 0.28	0.00

P =0.42

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed; 3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 3-A. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Children Cases

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

provided

Denominator numbers	10	14	4

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	4	1	0	4	0	0

Methyl Bromide percents	40.00%	10.00%	0.00%	28.57%	0.00%	0.00%

All Pesticides percents	23.16%	1.48%	0.13%	14.80%	4.48%	1.41%

Ratio of Methyl Bromide /All pesticides	1.73

P =0.20	6.76 (S)

P = 0.03	0.00

P = 0.90	1.93

P = 0.14	0.00

P = 0.65	0.00

P =0.81

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed;	3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 4-A. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Combination of All Cases Regardless Class

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

provided

Denominator numbers	117	168	79

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	94	26	1	79	8	2

Methyl Bromide percents	80.34%	22.22%	0.85%	47.02%	10.13%	2.53%

All Pesticides percents	42.69%	6.02%	0.29%	16.01%	6.05%	2.16%

Ratio of  Methyl Bromide/All pesticides	1.88 (S)

P =0.00	3.69 (S)

P = 0.00	2.95

P = 0.26	2.94 (S)

P = 0.00	1.67

P = 0.13	1.17

P =0.82

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed;	3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 5-A provides a summary by year, and Figure 1-A shows a graphic
summary for yearly exposures cases, symptomatic cases, and cases seen in
a health care facility.

Table 5-A Methyl Bromide Summary of Cases by Year

Year	Symptom	Moderate	Major	Cases	Total	HCF	Hospital	ICU

 	Cases	Cases	Cases	Followed	Exposure	Cases	Cases	Cases

1993	15	4	0	16	22	11	2	0

1994	6	1	0	7	10	5	1	0

1995	16	5	0	18	20	12	1	0

1996	16	1	0	21	28	6	0	0

1997	4	2	0	11	15	8	0	0

1998	7	5	0	11	20	5	0	0

1999	3	0	0	3	8	5	0	0

2000	5	1	0	5	6	4	1	0

2001	3	1	0	4	11	2	0	0

2002	3	1	0	4	4	4	1	1

2003	1	1	0	2	5	2	1	0

2004	11	1	0	11	13	10	0	0

2005	4	3	1	4	6	5	1	1

Total	94	26	1	117	168	79	8	2

Figure 1-A Total exposure, symptomatic cases, and cases sent to HCF by
year.

Analysis of Results

For the occupational class, all percentages of Methyl Bromide are higher
than the percentages for the composite. Methyl Bromide produces a
significant higher number of moderate cases and sends a significant
higher number of cases to a Health Care Facility (HCF). These results
may indicate the need to stress measurements for worker protection or
more training of workers on how to handle Methyl Bromide safely. For the
non-occupational class, Methyl Bromide sends a significant higher number
of cases to the HCF. For the children class there is not much exposure,
only 14 cases in 13 years of data collected. Effects of Methyl Bromide
on the entire population are well above the composite average in all
measurements and significantly higher in: symptoms produced moderated
symptoms, and cases seen in a HCF.

An irregular downward trend in total exposure, symptomatic cases, and
cases seen in a HCF is apparent for the 13 year-span of data collected
on Methyl Bromide. Calculations generate an average of 13 exposures per
year, 7 symptomatic cases per year, and 7 cases per year seen in a heath
care facility. The cluster of years 93, 95, 96, 97, and 98 has exposures
rates well above the average and then after 1998 the graphic shows lower
percentage of exposures.

2. A Methyl Bromide Incidents OPP Incident Data System (IDS)  (2001-
present)

A total of 25 cases were reported from 2001 to present dayon Methyl
Bromide. For a detailed description of each case see Attachment 1. A

3. A Methyl Bromide California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program
Data 2000-2004

Detailed descriptions of 72 cases submitted to the California Pesticide
Illness Surveillance Program (2002-2004) were reviewed.  In 8 of these
cases, methyl bromide was used alone or was judged to be responsible for
the health effects.  Only cases with a definite, probable or possible
relationship were reviewed.

In the first case, an import company employee unloaded a container of
straw handbags that was fumigated with the product in the Philippines
prior to shipment.  The employee reported dizziness, headache, chest
pain and tightness, skin irritation, blurred vision, and itchy eyes and
was treated by a physician.  The employee was off for 2 days from work
due to these symptoms. Another container was tested and its
contamination levels were high.

In the second case, an applicator reported itchy feet and painful
blisters on the top of both of his feet on the second day that tree
holes were treated with product.  The man was exposed to the product
while tamping down the soil around the probe hole.  He was off from work
for 2 days due to his symptoms.

In the third case, a worker fumigated a sea van.  Later, he pulled on
the rubber hose to remove the attached metal tubing from the sea van.
The metal tube snapped backward and broke his safety glasses left lens.
The man reported an irritated left eye and blurred vision.

In the fourth case, a field worker went to the edge of the winery
property and noticed an odor.  He tested the grapes and later reported
dizziness, lightheadedness, headache, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, burning
eyes, blurred vision, and lung irritation.

In the fifth case, an applicator reported red skin on his left foot on
the first day after performing tree-hole fumigations.  Eight days later,
the man reported itchy skin and on the tenth day a red, burning, and
swollen left foot.  His symptoms continued to get worse until he was
treated by a physician ten days later.

In the sixth case, an applicator failed to confirm that the valve was
closed while replacing an empty cylinder on a fumigation chamber.  As he
loosened the cap, gas escaped from the valve that touched his arms and
went under his face shield and into his face.  The man reported a
headache and nausea and was treated by a physician.  The physician noted
a light chemical injury on the arm and face during the examination.  The
man was off for 2 days from work.

In the seventh case, a shipping lines employee opened a methyl bromide
placarded container.  He entered the container to replace 2 boxes that
had fallen.  The man smelled an odor and felt faint.

In the eighth case, an applicator performed tree-hole fumigations with
poorly maintained equipment.  The hose broke twice in 2 days and the
product got into his face and eyes.  The man reported skin and eye
irritation, nausea, vomiting, severe abdominal cramps, severe dizziness,
headache, body aches, and loss of balance that were still present 3
months after he was exposed.  He was hospitalized for 11 days.

4. A Methyl Bromide NIOSH SENSOR

Out of 5,899 reported cases from 1998 to 2003, there are thirty-three
cases reported in the SENSOR database involving Methyl Bromide.
Individuals exposed included thirty males and three females. Twenty-five
cases were reported in California, two in Florida, four in Texas and 2
in Washington State. The cases reported produced a variety of symptoms
that are classified as

Respiratory symptoms, eighteen cases including, cyanosis,
hyperventilation/ tachypnea, pleuritic chest pain, wheezing, etc.

Dermal symptoms, sixteen cases reported including bullae (blisters),
burns, edema, swelling, erythema flushing, rash, skin irritation and
pain

Gastro intestinal, fifteen cases reported, with symptoms described as
abdominal pain, cramping and vomiting.

Ocular symptoms, twelve cases, including pain eye irritation,
inflammation, and conjunctivitis

Cardio vascular symptoms, ten cases counting cardiac arrest,
tachycardia, hypotension, and hypertension.

Renal symptoms, two cases of polyuria (frequent passing of urine) and
proteinuria (protein in the urine)

Nervous-sensory symptoms, two cases including comma, confusion, seizure,
fasciculation (localized contraction of muscles), and

Miscellaneous symptoms, seven cases accounting for acidosis, alkalosis,
hyperthermia/fever.

Symptoms are not mutually exclusive; a patient may have many symptoms.

B) 1, 3-Dichloropropene (Telone) PC Codes 029001 and 029004

1.B  	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Poison Control Center Data - 1993 through
2005 for 1,3-Dichloropropene (Telone); PC Codes 029001 and 029004

This section discusses results from the Poison Control Center’s Toxic
Exposure Surveillance System (TESS) from the years 1993 through 2005 and
reflects data collected for occupational, non-occupational, and children
class. The tables included in this section transmit acute pesticide
poisoning incidence resulting from exposure to 1, 3-Dichloropropene.

The following tables evaluate the frequency of poisoning incidents for
1, 3-Dichloropropene with the composite of all pesticides for which the
PCC received a non-excluded incident report.

For a detailed explanation of the tables, see Attachment 2.

Table 1-B. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Occupational Cases

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

Provided

Denominator numbers	14	24	16

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	11	3	0	16	1	0

1, 3-Dichloropropene percents	78.57%	21.43%	0.00%	66.67%	6.25%	0.00%

All Pesticides percents	86.25%	20.89%	0.81%	42.94%	7.00%	2.83%

Ratio of  1, 3-Dichloro-propene /All pesticides	0.91

P =0.45	1.03

P = 0.96	0.00

P = 0.73	1.55 (S)

P = 0.02 	0.89

P = 0.90	0.00

P =0.49

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed;	3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 2-B. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Non-Occupational Cases

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

provided

Denominator numbers	24	40	16

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	23	11	1	16	0	0

1, 3-Dichloropropene percents	95.83%	45.83%	4.17%	40.00%	0.00%	0.00%

All Pesticides percents	64.72%	10.61%	0.45%	15.45%	7.94%	3.02%

Ratio of  1, 3-Dichloro-propene /All pesticides	1.48 (S)

P =0.00	4.32 (S)

P = 0.00	9.26 (S)

P = 0.00	2.59 (S)

P = 0.00	0.00

P = 0.23	0.00

P =0.48

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed;	3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 3-B. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Children Cases

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

provided

Denominator numbers	2	2	1

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	2	1	0	1	0	0

1, 3-Dichloropropene percents	100.00%	50.00%	0.00%	50.00%	0.00%	0.00%

All Pesticides percents	23.16%	1.48%	0.13%	14.80%	4.48%	1.41%

Ratio of 1, 3-Dichloro-propene /All pesticides	4.32* (S)

P =0.01	33.78* (S)

P = 0.00	0.00*

P = 0.95	3.38*

P = 0.16	0.00*

P = 0.74	0.00*

P =0.86

* Population too small for a reliable statistical test

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed;	3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 4-B. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Combination of All Cases Regardless Class

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

provided

Denominator numbers	40	66	33

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	36	15	1	33	1	0

1, 3-Dichloropropene percents	90.00%	37.50%	2.50%	50.00%	3.03%	0.00%

All Pesticides percents	42.69%	6.02%	0.29%	16.01%	6.05%	2.16%

Ratio of 1, 3-Dichloro-propene /All pesticides	2.11 (S)

P =0.00	6.23 (S)

P = 0.00	8.62 (S)

P = 0.01	3.12 (S)

P = 0.00	0.50

P = 0.47	0.00

P =0.39

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed;	3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 5-B provides a summary by year, and Figure1-B shows a graphic
summary for yearly exposures cases, symptomatic cases, and cases seen in
a health care facility.

Table 5-B 1, 3-Dichloropropene Summary of Cases by Year

Year	Symptom	Moderate	Major	Cases	Total	HCF	Hospital	ICU

 	Cases	Cases	Cases	Followed	Exposure	Cases	Cases	Cases

1993	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	0

1994	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	0

1995	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

1996	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0

1997	4	2	0	4	7	5	0	0

1998	6	4	0	6	13	5	0	0

1999	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0

2000	4	2	0	5	7	4	0	0

2001	3	1	0	4	5	3	0	0

2002	10	2	0	12	16	5	0	0

2003	5	3	0	5	6	5	1	0

2004	1	1	1	1	5	3	0	0

2005	1	0	0	1	3	0	0	0

Total	36	15	1	40	66	33	1	0

Figure 1-B Total exposure, symptomatic cases, and cases sent to HCF by
year

Analysis of Results

For the occupational class, percentages of 1, 3-Dichloropropene are
roughly the same as the composite average; the exception is on total
exposed cases where for 1, 3-Dichloropropene the exposure is
significantly higher than the percentages for the composite. For the
non-occupational class 1, 3-Dichloropropene produces a significantly
higher number of symptomatic, moderate, major, and total exposure cases;
however the clinical side of the non-occupational table shows that
exposures to 1, 3-Dichloropropene do not produce health effects
requiring hospitalization or ICU admission. For children, there is not
much exposure, only 2 cases in 13 years of data collected.  For the
combination of all classes, this is the entire population, all
measurements of symptoms and exposure are significantly higher than the
composite average while the clinical portion is well below the composite
average. This likely reflect lower usage of the chemical.

There is not a clear trend in total exposure, symptomatic cases, or
cases seen in a HCF for the 13 year-span of data collected on 1,
3-Dichloropropene; however, in the last three years the number of cases
is diminishing. The graph shows little exposure on the years 93, 94, 95,
and 96; and after a peak in 2002 a decline in exposures is noticeable.
Calculations generate a somewhat steady average of about 5 exposures per
year, 2.7 symptomatic cases per year, and 2.5 cases per year seen in a
heath care facility.

2. B 1,3-Dichloropropene (Telone) OPP Incident Data System (IDS) (2001-
present)

A total of 12 cases were reported from 2001 to present days for 1,3-D.
For a detailed description of each case see Attachment 1. B

3. B 1,3-Dichloropropene (Telone) California Pesticide Illness
Surveillance Program Data 2000-2004

No activity was reported in the California Illness Surveillance Program
for Telone.

4. B 1,3-Dichloropropene (Telone) NIOSH SENSOR

Out of 5,899 reported cases from 1998 to 2003, there are only three
cases reported in the SENSOR database involving 1,3-dichloropropene. The
database shows exposure to males, one case in California, one in
Louisiana, and one in Michigan. The cases reported did not produce
symptoms.

C) Metam-sodium PC Code 039003

1.C    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Poison Control Center Data - 1993 through
2005 for Metam-sodium; PC Code 039003.

This section discusses results from the Poison Control Center’s Toxic
Exposure Surveillance System (TESS) from the years 1993 through 2005 and
reflects data collected for occupational, non-occupational, and children
class. The children class is five years of age or less (this definition
includes children about to become six years old, or up to 72 month old).
Cases involving exposures to multiple products and cases with unrelated
medical outcome are excluded.  Also excluded are intentional exposures.
The tables included in this section transmit acute pesticide poisoning
incidence resulting from exposure to Metam-sodium.  Pesticide poisoning
incidents reflected in these tables are likely the result of exposure to
MITC, the environmental break-down product of metam sodium.

The following tables evaluate the frequency of poisoning incidents for
Metam-sodium with the composite of all pesticides for which the PCC
received a non-excluded incident report.

For a detailed explanation of the tables, see Attachment 2.

Table 1-C. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Occupational Cases

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

provided

Denominator numbers	90	167	76

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	78	29	2	76	2	1

Metam-sodium percents	86.67%	32.22%	2.22%	45.51%	2.63%	1.32%

All Pesticides percents	86.25%	20.89%	0.81%	42.94%	7.00%	2.83%

Ratio of  Metam-sodium /All pesticides	1.00

P =0.90	1.54 (S)

P = 0.00	2.74

P = 0.14	1.06

P = 0.50	0.38

P = 0.13	0.46

P =0.42

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed;	3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 2-C. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Non-Occupational Cases

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

provided

Denominator numbers	151	234	106

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	87	15	0	106	0	0

Metam-sodium percents	57.62%	9.93%	0.00%	45.30%	0.00%	0.00%

All Pesticides percents	64.72%	10.61%	0.45%	15.45%	7.94%	3.02%

Ratio of  Metam-sodium /All pesticides	0.89

P =0.07	0.94

P = 0.78	0.00

P = 0.41	2.93 (S)

P = 0.00	0.00 (S)

P = 0.00	0.00

P =0.07

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed;	3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 3-C. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Children Cases

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

provided

Denominator numbers	16	27	6

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	6	0	0	6	0	0

Metam-sodium percents	37.50%	0.00%	0.00%	22.22%	0.00%	0.00%

All Pesticides percents	23.16%	1.48%	0.13%	14.80%	4.48%	1.41%

Ratio of Metam-sodium /All pesticides	1.62

P =0.13	0.00

P = 0.62	0.00

P = 0.88	1.50

P = 0.27	0.00

P = 0.47	0.00

P =0.77

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed;	3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 4-C. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Combination of All Cases Regardless Class

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

provided

Denominator numbers	257	428	188

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	171	44	2	188	2	1

Metam-sodium percents	66.54%	17.12%	0.78%	43.93%	1.06%	0.53%

All Pesticides percents	42.69%	6.02%	0.29%	16.01%	6.05%	2.16%

Ratio of Metam-sodium /All pesticides	1.56 (S)

P =0.00	2.84 (S)

P = 0.00	2.68

P = 0.15	2.74 (S)

P = 0.00	0.18 (S)

P = 0.00	0.25

P =0.12

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed;	3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 5-C provides a summary by year, and Figure 1-C shows a graphic
summary for yearly exposures cases, symptomatic cases, and cases seen in
a health care facility.

Table 5-C Metam-sodium Summary of Cases by Year

Year	Symptom	Moderate	Major	Cases	Total	HCF	Hospital	ICU

 	Cases	Cases	Cases	Followed	Exposure	Cases	Cases	Cases

1993	18	5	2	23	40	14	0	0

1994	15	5	0	19	37	16	1	0

1995	9	2	0	12	24	5	0	0

1996	18	4	0	52	93	42	1	1

1997	10	5	0	15	26	13	0	0

1998	12	6	0	16	21	3	0	0

1999	19	2	0	43	51	35	0	0

2000	11	4	0	12	22	12	0	0

2001	33	2	0	34	50	13	0	0

2002	8	3	0	10	16	10	0	0

2003	11	3	0	11	21	13	0	0

2004	2	1	0	5	14	6	0	0

2005	5	2	0	5	13	6	0	0

Total	171	44	2	257	428	188	2	1

Figure 1-C Total exposure, symptomatic cases, and cases sent to HCF by
year

Analysis of Results

For the occupational class, percentages of Metam-sodium are mixed for
different measurements; it produces average as compared to the composite
measure of symptomatic cases, significantly higher cases with moderate
symptoms and a higher proportion of cases with major symptoms. Exposure
is about average and cases where health care was provided are less than
the average. For the non-occupational class, Metam-sodium produces a
significant higher number of exposures than the composite average; but,
all other measurements are under the composite average. For the children
class there is not much exposure, only 27 suspected cases in 13 years of
data collected. The entire population table shows higher proportions in
symptoms, moderate symptoms, major symptoms, and total exposed;
nevertheless, cases that went to a Hospital or ICU are under the
composite measure.

An irregular diminishing trend in total exposure, symptomatic cases, and
cases seen in a HCF is perceptible for the 13 year-span of data
collected on Metam-sodium. Calculations generate an average of about 33
exposures per year, 13 symptomatic cases per year, and 14.5 cases per
year seen in a heath care facility. Although irregular, the yearly trend
indicates a reduction on the three measurements (HCF, symptomatic, and
total exposure) with 2005 results (6, 5, and 13) well below the yearly
average.

2. C  Metam Sodium OPP Incident Data System (IDS)  (2001- present)

A total of 9 cases were reported from 2001 to present days on Metam
Sodium. For a detailed description of each case, see Attachment 1. C

3. C Metam-sodium California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program Data
2000-2004

Detailed descriptions of 408 cases submitted to the California Pesticide
Illness Surveillance Program (2002-2004) were reviewed.  In all 408 of
these cases, Metam sodium was used alone or was judged to be responsible
for the health effects.  Only cases with a definite, probable or
possible relationship were reviewed.  Table 1 presents the types of
illnesses reported by year.  Table 2 gives the total number of workers
that took time off work as a result of their illness and how many were
hospitalized and for how long.

Table 6-C.   Cases Due to Metam Sodium in California Reported by Type of
Illness and Year, 2002-2004.

Year

Illness Type

Systemic a

Eye

Skin

Respiratory b

Combination c

Total

2002

104

231

2

1

46

384

2003

15

1

1

2

-

19

2004

1

-

4

-

-

5

Total

120

232

7

3

46

408

a Category includes cases where skin, eye, or respiratory effects were
also reported.

b Category not used until 1990.  Prior respiratory cases classified as
systemic.

c Category includes combined irritating effects to eye, skin, and
respiratory system.

The majority of the cases resulted in field workers who reported eye
irritation such burning and teary eyes.

Table 7-C.  Number of Persons Disabled (taking time off work) or
Hospitalized by Indicated Number of Days after Metam Sodium Exposure in
California, 2002-2004.

Time period

Number of Persons Disabled

Number of Persons Hospitalized

One day	-	-

Two days	3	-

3-5 days	1	-

6-10 days	-	1

more than 10 days	-	-

Unknown	195	-

Indefinite	-	-

A variety of worker activities were associated with exposure to Metam
sodium as illustrated in Table 3 below.

Table 8-C.  Illnesses by Activity Categories for Metam Sodium Exposure
in California, 2002-2004

Activity Category

Illness Category

Systemic a

Eye

Skin

Respiratory b

Combination C

Total

Applicator	5	-	2	-	-	7

Field Worker	28	91	-	-	6	125

Manufacture/Formulation	-	-	2	-	-	2

Mechanical Work on Contaminated Equipment

	-	-	1	-	-	1

Other Occupational Activity

	-	-	1	-	-	1

Other Non-Occupational Activity	-	1	-	-	-	1

Pack/Process

	-	71	-	-	1	72

Routine Indoor Activity

	25	57	-	-	21	103

Routine Outdoor

Activity	62	12	-	3	18	95

Transport/Storage/

Disposal

	-	-	1	-	-	1

Total	120	232	7	3	46	408

a Category includes cases where skin, eye, or respiratory effects were
also reported.

b Category not used until 1990.  Prior respiratory cases classified as
systemic.

c Category includes combined irritating effects to eye, skin, and
respiratory system.

According to the above activity categories, field worker was associated
with more exposures than any other category.  These illnesses included
symptoms of burning and tearing eyes, irritated nasal passages,
difficulty breathing, nausea, vomiting, leg weakness, headache, and
scratchy throat.

4. C Metam-sodium NIOSH SENSOR

Out of 5,899 reported cases from 1998 to 2003, there are sixty-two cases
reported in the SENSOR database involving Metam Sodium. Individuals
exposed were forty-two males and twenty females. Twenty-seven cases were
in California, ten in Washington State, six in Oregon, and nineteen in
Arizona. The cases reported produced a variety of symptoms that are
classified as

Respiratory symptoms, thirty-four cases, including upper respiratory
pain/irritation, hyperventilation/ dyspnea, wheezing, etc.

Dermal symptoms, seventeen cases, with cases of bullae (blisters),
burns, edema, swelling, rash, skin irritation and pain

Ocular symptoms, thirty-three cases, mainly with diagnosis of
conjunctivitis

Cardio vascular symptoms, eleven cases counting tachycardia,
hypotension, and hypertension.

Symptoms are not mutually exclusive; a patient may have many symptoms.

D) Metam-Potassium PC Code 039002

1.D    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Poison Control Center Data - 1993 through
2005 for Metam-Potassium; PC Code 039003.

No activity was reported in TESS for Metam-potassium from 1993 to 2005.

2. D Metam-Potassium OPP Incident Data System (IDS) (2001- present)

Four cases were reported in the Incident Data System from 2001 to
present days on Metam-Potassium. For a detailed description of the case
see Attachment 1. D

3. D Metam-Potassium California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program
Data 2000-2004

Detailed descriptions of 18 cases submitted to the California Pesticide
Illness Surveillance Program (2003-2005) were reviewed.  In 18 of these
cases, Metam-potassium was used alone or was judged to be responsible
for the health effects.  Only cases with a definite, probable or
possible relationship were reviewed.  Table 1 presents the types of
illnesses reported by year.  Table 2 gives the total number of workers
that took time off work as a result of their illness and how many were
hospitalized and for how long.

Table 1-D.   Cases Due to Metam-Potassium in California Reported by Type
of Illness and Year, 2002-2004.

Year

Illness Type

Systemic a

Eye

Skin

Respiratory b

Combination c

Total

2003	3	4	-	-	11	18

2004	-	-	-	-	-	-

2005	-	-	-	-	-	-

Total	3	4	-	-	11	18

a Category includes cases where skin, eye, or respiratory effects were
also reported.

b Category not used until 1990.  Prior respiratory cases classified as
systemic.

c Category includes combined irritative effects to eye, skin, and
respiratory system.

Table 2-D.  Number of Persons Disabled (taking time off work) or
Hospitalized for Indicated Number of Days after Metam-Potassium Exposure
in California, 2003-2005.

Time period

Number of Persons Disabled

Number of Persons Hospitalized

One day	-	-

Two days	-	-

3-5 days	-	-

6-10 days	-	-

more than 10 days	-	-

Unknown	18	-

Indefinite	-	-

A variety of worker activities were associated with exposure to
Metam-potassium as illustrated in Table 3 below.

Table 3-D.  Illnesses by Activity Categories for Metam Potassium;
exposure in California, 2003-2005

Activity Category

Illness Category

Systemic a

Eye

Skin

Respiratory b

Combination c

Total

Emergency Response	-	1	-	-	-	1

Other Non-Occupational

Activity	-	-	-	-	1	1

Routine Indoor

Activity	-	-	-	-	8	8

Routine Outdoor

Activity	3	2	-	-	2	7

Unknown

Non-Occupational Activity	-	1	-	-	-	1

Total	3	4	-	-	11	18

According to the above activity categories, routine indoor activity was
associated with more exposures than any other category.  These illnesses
included symptoms of irritated eyes, nose, throat, and difficulty
breathing.

4. D Metam-Potassium NIOSH SENSOR

Out of 5,899 reported cases from 1998 to 2003, there are no cases
reported in the SENSOR database involving Metam-Potassium.

E) Dazomet PC Codes 035602 and 035607

1.E  	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Poison Control Center Data - 1993 through
2005 for Dazomet; PC Code 035602 and 035607.

This section discusses results from the Poison Control Center’s Toxic
Exposure Surveillance System (TESS) from the years 1993 through 2005 and
reflects data collected for occupational, non-occupational, and children
class.

For a detailed explanation of the tables, see Attachment 2.

Table 1-E. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Occupational Cases

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

provided

Denominator numbers	8	13	4

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	8	1	0	4	0	0

Dazomet percents	100.00%	12.50%	0.00%	30.77%	0.00%	0.00%

All Pesticides percents	86.25%	20.89%	0.81%	42.94%	7.00%	2.83%

Ratio of  Dazomet /All pesticides	1.16

P =0.25	0.60

P = 0.56	0.00

P = 0.79	0.72

P = 0.37	0.00

P = 0.57	0.00

P =0.73

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed;	3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 2-E. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Non-Occupational Cases

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

provided

Denominator numbers	3	5	1

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	2	1	0	1	0	0

Dazomet percents	66.67%	33.33%	0.00%	20.00%	0.00%	0.00%

All Pesticides percents	64.72%	10.61%	0.45%	15.45%	7.94%	3.02%

Ratio of  Dazomet /All pesticides	1.03

P =0.94	3.14

P = 0.20	0.00

P = 0.90	1.29

P = 0.77	0.00

P = 0.51	0.00

P =0.70

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed;	3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 3-E. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Children Cases

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

provided

Denominator numbers	3	3	0

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	0	0	0	0	0	0

Dazomet percents	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

All Pesticides percents	23.16%	1.48%	0.13%	14.80%	4.48%	1.41%

Ratio of Dazomet /All pesticides	0.00

P =0.34	0.00

P = 0.83	0.00

P = 0.94	0.00

P = 0.47	0.00

P = -- *	0.00

P = -- *

* Population too small for a reliable statistical test

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed;	3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 4-E. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Combination of All Cases Regardless Class

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

provided

Denominator numbers	14	21	5

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	10	2	0	5	0	0

Dazomet percents	71.43%	14.29%	0.00%	23.81%	0.00%	0.00%

All Pesticides percents	42.69%	6.02%	0.29%	16.01%	6.05%	2.16%

Ratio of Dazomet /All pesticides	1.67 (S)

P =0.03	2.37

P = 0.19	0.00

P = 0.84	1.49

P = 0.33	0.00

P = 0.57	0.00

P =0.74

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed;	3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 5-E provides a summary by year, and Figure 1-E shows a graphic
summary for yearly exposures cases, symptomatic cases, and cases seen in
a health care facility.

Table 5-E Dazomet Summary of Cases by Year

Year	Symptom	Moderate	Major	Cases	Total	HCF	Hospital	ICU

 	Cases	Cases	Cases	Followed	Exposure	Cases	Cases	Cases

1993	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0

1994	1	0	0	1	3	1	0	0

1995	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

1996	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	0

1997	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

1998	1	0	0	1	2	1	0	0

1999	0	0	0	3	3	0	0	0

2000	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	0

2001	2	0	0	3	4	1	0	0

2002	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	0

2003	2	1	0	2	2	0	0	0

2004	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0

2005	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0

Total	10	2	0	14	21	5	0	0

Figure 1-E Total exposure, symptomatic cases, and cases sent to HCF by
year

Analysis of Results

Dazomet is characterized by a low rate of exposure across the different
classes. On the occupational class, percentages of Dazomet are below the
average, except for symptoms which are not significant. For the
non-occupational class, Dazomet does not produce any significant result.
For the children class there is not much exposure, only 3 suspected
cases in 13 years of data collected. The entire population table shows
higher proportions in symptoms, moderate symptoms, and total exposed
with “symptoms” as the only measurement that is significant;
nevertheless, there are no cases that went to a Hospital or ICU.

There is not an appreciable trend in total exposure, symptomatic cases,
and cases seen in a HCF for the 13 year-span of data collected on
Dazomet. Calculations generate an average of about 1.6 exposures per
year, 0.76 symptomatic cases per year, and 0.38 cases per year seen in a
health care facility.

2. E Dazomet OPP Incident Data System (IDS) (2003- present)

Only one case was reported from 2001 to present days on Dazomet. For a
detailed description of the case see Attachment 1. E

3. E Dazomet California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program Data
2000-2004

No activity was reported in the California Illness Surveillance Program

4. E Dazomet NIOSH SENSOR

Out of 5,899 reported cases from 1998 to 2003, there is only one cases
reported in the SENSOR database involving Dazonet. As a result from
exposure to Dazomet, a female in California contracted dermatitis.

F) Chloropicrin  PC Code 081501 and 081502

1.F	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Poison Control Center Data - 1993 through 2005
for Chloropicrin; PC Code 081501 and 081502.

This section discusses results from the Poison Control Center’s Toxic
Exposure Surveillance System (TESS) from the years 1993 through 2005 and
reflects data collected for occupational, non-occupational, and children
class. The tables included in this section transmit acute pesticide
poisoning incidence resulting from exposure to Chloropicrin.

The following tables evaluate the frequency of poisoning incidents for
Chloropicrin with the composite of all pesticides for which the PCC
received a non-excluded incident report.

For a detailed explanation of the tables, see Attachment 2.

Table 1-F. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Occupational Cases

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

provided

Denominator numbers	4	4	4

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	4	0	0	4	1	0

Chloropicrin percents	100.00%	0.00%	0.00%	100.00%	25.00%	0.00%

All Pesticides percents	86.25%	20.89%	0.81%	42.94%	7.00%	2.83%

Ratio of  Chloropicrin /All pesticides	1.16

P =0.4 2	0.00

P = 0.30	0.00

P = 0.85	2.33 (S)

P = 0.02	3.57

P = 0.15	0.00

P =0.73

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed;	3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 2-F. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Non-Occupational Cases

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

provided

Denominator numbers	8	18	0

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	8	0	0	0	0	0

Chloropicrin percents	100.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

All Pesticides percents	64.72%	10.61%	0.45%	15.45%	7.94%	3.02%

Ratio of Chloropicrin /All pesticides	1.55 (S)

P =0.03	0.00

P = 0.33	0.00

P = 0.85	0.00

P = 0.07	0.00

P = -- *	0.00

P = -- *

* Population too small for a reliable statistical test

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed;	3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 3-F. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Children Cases

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

provided

Denominator numbers	0	0	0

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	0	0	0	0	0	0

Chloropicrin percents	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

All Pesticides percents	23.16%	1.48%	0.13%	14.80%	4.48%	1.41%

Ratio of Chloropicrin /All pesticides	0.00

P =-- *	0.00

P = -- *	0.00

P = -- *	0.00

P = -- *	0.00

P =-- * 	0.00

P =-- *

* Population too small for a reliable statistical test

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed;	3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 4-F. Relative Frequency of Acute Poisoning Incidents by Symptom
Severity: Combination of All Cases Regardless Class

	Severity of outcome

(outcome determined)	Total

exposed	Health care

provided

Denominator numbers	12	22	4

Measures	SYM1	MOD2	MAJ3	HCF4	HOSP5	ICU6

Numerator numbers	12	0	0	4	1	0

Chloropicrin percents	100.00%	0.00%	0.00%	18.18%	25.00%	0.00%

All Pesticides percents	42.69%	6.02%	0.29%	16.01%	6.05%	2.16%

Ratio of Chloropicrin /All pesticides	2.34 (S)

P =0.00	0.00

P = 0.38	0.00

P = 0.85	1.14

P = 0.78	4.13

P = 0.11	0.00

P =0.76

1) percent with ANY symptom in relation to the total of cases followed;
2) percent with moderate symptoms in relation to the total of cases
followed;	3) percent with major or fatal outcome in relation to the
total of cases followed; 4) percent of case seen in a Health Care
Facility (HCF) in relation to total exposures; 5) percent of cases seen
in a Hospital in relation to cases seen in a HCF; 6) percent of cases
taken to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in relation to cases seen in a
HCF.

Table 5-F provides a summary by year, and Figure 1-F shows a graphic
summary for yearly exposures cases, symptomatic cases, and cases seen in
a health care facility.

Table 5-F Chloropicrin Summary of Cases by Year

Year	Symptom	Moerate	Major	Cases	Total	HCF	Hospital	ICU

 	Cases	Cases	Cases	Followed	Exposure	Cases	Cases	Cases

1993	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

1994	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

1995	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

1996	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

1997	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

1998	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

1999	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

2000	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

2001	5	0	0	5	5	1	1	0

2002	7	0	0	7	8	3	0	0

2003	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0

2004	0	0	0	0	4	0	0	0

2005	0	0	0	0	4	0	0	0

Total	12	0	0	12	22	4	1	0

Figure 1-F Total exposure, symptomatic cases, and cases sent to HCF by
year

Analysis of Results

With 22 cases in 13 years, Chloropicrin presents a low rate of exposure
across the different classes. In the occupational class, only four cases
were reported and followed, and only one case was treated in the
hospital. For the non-occupational class, Chloropicrin produced symptoms
in all followed cases. For the children class no cases were reported in
13 years of data collected. The entire population table shows higher
significant proportions only in symptoms produced. It seems that once an
individual is exposed to Chloropicrin he or she will present symptoms
(100% of cases followed).

Despite that Chloropicrin has been used for more than 75 years, there
are no cases reported from 1993 to 2000. There is a cluster of cases in
2001-2002. No appreciable trend in total exposure, symptomatic cases,
and cases seen in a HCF occurred from 2001 to 2005. From 2001 to 2005,
there is an average of 4.4 exposures per year, 2.4 symptomatic cases per
year, and 0.80 cases per year seen in a health care facility.

2. F Chloropicrin OPP Incident Data System (IDS) (2003- present)

Only four cases were reported from 2001 to present days on Chloropicrin.
For a detailed description of the case see Attachment 1. F

3. F Chloropicrin California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program Data
2003-2004

Detailed descriptions of 193 cases submitted to the California Pesticide
Illness Surveillance Program (2003-2004) were reviewed.  In 180 of these
cases, chloropicrin was used alone or was judged to be responsible for
the health effects.  Only cases with a definite, probable or possible
relationship were reviewed.  Table 1 presents the types of illnesses
reported by year.

Table 6-F. Cases Due to Chloropicrin in California Reported by Type of
Illness and Year, 2003-2004.

Year

Illness Type

Systemic a

Eye

Skin

Respiratory b

Combination c

Total

2003	85	67	-	-	28	180

2004	-	-	-	-	-	-

Total	85	67	-	-	28	180

a Category includes cases where skin, eye, or respiratory effects were
also reported.

b Category not used until 1990.  Prior respiratory cases classified as
systemic.

c Category includes combined irritative effects to eye, skin, and
respiratory system.

A variety of worker activities were associated with exposure to
chloropicrin as illustrated in Table 7_F below.

Table 7-F.  Illnesses by Activity Categories for Chloropicrin Exposure
in California, 2003-2004

Activity Category

Illness Category

Systemic a

Eye

Skin

Respiratory b

Combination c

Total

Applicator	-	1	-	-	1	2

Emergency Response

	-	8	-	-	-	8

Field Worker	-	1	-	-	-	1

Other Occupational Activity	1	4	-	-	-	5

Routine Indoor Activity

	40	29	-	-	13	82

Routine Outdoor

Activity	44	14	-	-	14	72

Unknown Occupational Activity	-	10	-	-	-	10

Total	85	67	-	-	28	180

a Category includes cases where skin, eye, or respiratory effects were
also reported.

b Category not used until 1990.  Prior respiratory cases classified as
systemic.

c Category includes combined irritating effects to eye, skin, and
respiratory system.

According to the above activity categories, routine indoor activity was
associated with more exposures than any other category.  These illnesses
included symptoms of watery and burning eyes, headache, nausea,
difficulty breathing, scratchy throat, coughing, vomiting, stomach ache,
diarrhea, chest pain, and dizziness.

4. F Chloropicrin NIOSH SENSOR

Out of 5,899 reported cases from 1998 to 2003, there are only five cases
reported in the SENSOR database involving Chloropicrin. Four cases were
in California and one in Oregon, and all cases reported produced mild
respiratory symptoms including, upper respiratory pain/irritation and
shortness f breath.

Summary

The table 1-G compiles results from PCC data affecting the entire
population from all Fumigants in relation to total exposed, cases
symptomatic, and visits to a health care facility. It also provides the
percentages within each column.

Table 1-G Individual fumigants, by numbers / percentages of cases by
total exposure, symptomatic, and seen in a HCF

Fumigants

	Total Exposed / Percentages	Symptomatic Cases	Cases seen at Health Care
Facility

A) Methyl Bromide	168 / 23.8%	94 / 28.7%	79 / 25.6%

B) 1,3-Dichloropropen	66/9.4%	36 / 11.0%	33 / 10.7%

C) Metam Sodium	428 / 60.7% 	171 / 52.3%	188 / 60.8%

D) Dazomet	21 / 3.0%	14 / 4.3%	5 / 1.6%

F) Chloropicrin	22 / 3.1%	12 / 3.7%	4 / 1.3%

 Total Fumigants	705 / 100%	327 / 100%	309 / 100%

According to PCC data, table 1-G indicates that Metam Sodium is the most
problematic of the fumigants of this group. Metam Sodium produces more
than 60% of all exposures, more than half of the symptomatic cases and
more than 60% of the visits to a HCF. Metam sodium is also the most
frequently used of the agricultural fumigants.  Methyl Bromide is the
second most frequently cited for pesticide poisonings with about 25 % of
total exposures, symptomatic cases, and seen in a HCF.

Graph 1-G Cases by individual fumigants

Recommendations

Given that Metam Sodium presents the most exposure cases of the group,
there should be specific worker training to improve the way it is
handled.  The training should include language addressing buffer zone
and time to reentry after application.

Attachment 1. A

Cases from the Incident Data System

Methyl Bromide Incidents – 6(a)(2) data, (2001- present)

Incident#11790-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2001, when methyl bromide was
broadcast injected near a home.  The responsible party changed the
application plan from the approved plan and the home ended up inside the
outer buffer zones.  Residents reported burning eyes, burning nose,
headache, and nausea.  At least six of the individuals were treated by a
physician.  No further information on the disposition of the case was
reported.

Incident#12486-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2001, when the product leaked from a
loose valve of a container.  Four individuals were exposed to the
product.  One of the individuals was the driver of the truck that was
transporting the container.  The individual was treated at a hospital
for respiratory distress and was later released.  The other three
individuals reported burning eyes, headache, dry mouth, and respiratory
distress.  No further information on the disposition of the case was
reported.

Incident#12672-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2002, when a licensed methyl bromide
fumigator and another individual were found ill at one of their homes.
Two empty methyl bromide containers were outside the house on the lawn.
Both men were taken to the hospital and one of them died.  The other man
was in a coma.  The County Sheriff Department was investigating the
incident with the possibility of foul play being involved.  No further
information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#12800-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2002, when a sixty-six year old man,
who was a chili pepper farmer and was licensed to use farm chemicals,
was killed when a pressurized cylinder exploded that he was filling with
methyl bromide.  The man’s son stated that this type of work was
routine for him.  A farmer who was also at the site and reported
chemical burns to his skin and lungs.  No further information on the
disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#13417-17

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2001, when an employee, who is a
forty-two year old man, hit a valve with a wrench that was
malfunctioning in an attempt to open it.  He missed the valve and hit
the tubing between the measuring tank and the valve which broke.  The
1.5 pounds of the product that was in the tank blew out of the hose and
a small amount got on his skin.  The man went into the shop where he
washed his face and arms.  He was taken to the hospital where he was
decontaminated and admitted for observation.  The man was hospitalized
for two days with a scratchy throat that lasted four days.  No further
information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#13364-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2001, when a total of 30.5 acres of a
field was treated with the product for seven days.  Eight residents that
live nearby reported headache, migraines, nausea, dry nose, sore throat,
chest pressure, joint pain, asthma, dizziness, sweating, coughing, and
runny noses.  No further information on the disposition of the case was
reported.

Incident#13364-4

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2002, when a total of 28 acres of a
field was treated with the product.  Five residents that live nearby
reported headache, chest pressure, asthma, fever, coughing,
disorientation, and malaise.  No further information on the disposition
of the case was reported.

Incident#13410-4

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2002, when the product was applied to
a grape vineyard.  The product drifted toward an adjacent uphill winery.
 Four individuals from the winery were treated at the hospital.  They
reported dizziness, headache, burning eyes, blurred vision, nausea,
vomiting, drowsiness, shortness of breath, mild wheezing, and heaviness
in lungs.  One person was administered medication for her nausea.  The
individuals were later released from the hospital.  A fifth individual
reported a headache but was not treated by a physician.  No further
information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#13429-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2002, when a man, who did not wear
safety glasses or goggles, was exposed to a methyl bromide and
chloropicrin product.  The man depressurized one side of the glass
assembly but failed to depressurize the other side before attempting to
disconnect it.  The product was still under pressure and the liquid form
of the material splashed in his face.  The man immediately flushed his
face and eyes with water.  He reported chemical burns on his face and
swollen eyes.  The man was treated by a physician and returned to work
three days later.  No further information on the disposition of the case
was reported.

Incident#13565-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2001, when a grower applied the
product to three sites.  Ten individuals reported burning eyes and nose,
headache, and nausea.  Three residents that live nearby evacuated their
home for eight days.  The County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office
investigated the incident and determined that the grower did not follow
the approved worksite plan.  Instead, the grower applied the product to
a larger area than what was allowed in the worksite plan that increased
the buffer zone distances and resulted in the buffer zones extending to
adjoining properties and residences.  The grower was issued a notice of
violation for the code violations.  No further information on the
disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#13590-10

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2001, when a total of 30.5 acres was
treated with the product on a strawberry field.  Eight out of nine
residents that live nearby reported headache, migraine, nausea, dry
nose, sore throat, chest pressure, joint pain, asthma, dizziness,
sweating, coughing and runny nose.  A public meeting was held with the
concerned residents and the County Agricultural Commissioner and County
Health Commission.  Nine additional individuals filed written
complaints.  Five out of the additional nine individuals reported that
their symptoms started at least one week after the last block was
treated.  The incident was investigated by the County Agricultural
Commissioner’s Office.  No violations were found during the
investigation.  No further information on the disposition of the case
was reported.

Incident#13913-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2003, when pest control company
employees, who perform port container fumigation on commodities imported
into the United States, were exposed to the product.  The workers do not
like wearing a self-contained breathing apparatus that is required when
methyl bromide concentrations exceed 5 ppm.  Exposure to high
concentrations occurred for a few seconds each time the edge of the tarp
was raised to place the exhaust fan inside the container when the
workers began aeration.  One of the workers was hospitalized for one
week and recuperated for three weeks before returning to work.  The
worker was treated by a physician and was diagnosed with methyl bromide
poisoning.  The worker reported slurred speech and a loss of balance.
About a week after being hospitalized the worker’s methyl bromide
blood level was 50 ppm and after three weeks of recovery 16 ppm.  No
further information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#14095-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2003, when an imported cargo of glass
was fumigated (98% methyl bromide, 2% chloropicrin) before leaving
China.  The cargo containers were opened in the United States and
several workers were overcome by the odor and transported to the
hospital.  The workers reported teary eyes and respiratory problems.  No
further information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#14264-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2003, when a certified methyl bromide
applicator, who works in a nursery, opened a 1.5 pound can of the
product (98% methyl bromide, 2% chloropicrin) and it splashed on his
shirt (shoulder area) and a small amount in his eyes.  He immediately
removed his shirt and flushed his eyes with water for approximately 15
minutes.  The applicator did not experience any symptoms.  No further
information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#14318-11

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2002, when household goods were
fumigated in Hong Kong and then shipped to the United States.  The goods
were sealed for one and ½ months.  While unloading and unpacking at
home the household goods still had a very strong odor.  One adult went
to the hospital and received a breathing treatment, another adult
reported chronic numbness, tingling hands, shaking, headache, memory
problems, and a sore throat.  Six children were treated by a physician
and reported shaking, severe headaches, dizziness, stomachache, and
nausea.  The residents feel better when they are not at home for an
extended period of time.  No further information on the disposition of
the case was reported.

Incident#14330-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2003, when a worker received a package
that was treated with the product.  When she opened the crate, the woman
reported throat discomfort.  No further information on the disposition
of the case was reported.

Incident#14575-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2003, when a container of several
small cardboard cartons that contained ornaments was treated with the
product in a trailor.  During the fumigation, aeration, and unloading
process three workers reported teary eyes, shortness of breath, hives,
and a rash after coming in contact with one of the fumigated cartons.
The three workers were treated by a physician.  No further information
on the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#14774-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2003, when a man reported teary eyes
and a scratchy throat after being exposed to the product (98% methyl
bromide, 2% chloropicrin).  He was using the product to eliminate pests
during a refinishing process in his workshop.  The cans were stored on a
shelf and one of them rusted through and leaked its contents so he moved
them inside his home.  He aired out his workshop with a fan and was
going to move the cans to a local hazardous waste repository.  No
further information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#15015-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2002, when a worker, who did not wear
personal protective equipment, was exposed to the product on two
separate occasions.  The worker reported central nervous system damage,
impairment of the spinal cord, permanent vertigo, diplopia, numbness and
paresthesia of lower extremities and hands, unsteady gait, loss of
periphal vision, and loss of cognition.  No further information on the
disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#15161-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2004, when several individuals removed
a tarp from cocoa beans that were treated with over 1000 pounds of the
product.  One of the individuals was admitted to the intensive care unit
and placed on a respirator.  The individual’s father reported vomiting
and burning throat and eyes.  No further information on the disposition
of the case was reported.

Incident#15369-24

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2004, when a worker applied the
product (98% methyl bromide, 2% chloropicrin) to tree holes as a
preplant fumigant for almond trees.  A broken application hose caused
the product to splash in his face and on his body.  The worker reported
severe dizziness, nausea, vomiting, and weakness.  The worker was
hospitalized for eight days.  No further information on the disposition
of the case was reported.

Incident#16186-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2005, when thirteen workers were
exposed to methyl bromide before they started their work shift.  One of
the individuals, who is a fifty-three year old man, reported nausea,
vomiting, lethargy, lack of urine output, and convulsions and later
died.  The details of the incident were still under investigation.  No
further information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#16940-7

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2004, when an individual shoveled dirt
at the end of the rows to seal the plastic tarps being rolled out by the
application tractor to seal the product (57% methyl bromide and 42.6%
chloropicrin) in the field.  The man reported chest pains and shortness
of breath and was hospitalized for 3 days.  No further information on
the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#17715-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2006, when an eighteen year old man,
who has a history of acute sensitivity to chlorine, was exposed to the
product (98% methyl bromide 2% chloropicrin).  The poly tubing popped
off of the shank fitting during the application process and released the
product into the air.  The man reported chest pain, difficulty
breathing, heavy sweating, constricted pupils, and seemingly incoherent.
 No further information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#17715-2

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2006, when a forty-five year old man
was exposed to the product (98% methyl bromide 2%chloropicrin) while he
replaced a leak in the tubing.  He knelt in the product that he had just
finished applying on top of the ground.  The man reported blisters,
swollen skin, and burns to the skin and was treated by a physician.  No
further information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Attachment 1. B

Cases from the Incident Data System

1,3-Dichloropropen (Telone); PC Codes 029001 and 029004 – 6(a)(2)
data, (2001- present)

Incident#13846-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2003, when an individual, who did not
wear personal protective equipment, used the product (chloropicrin and
telone) with a tractor sprayer for five hours.  The individual also
changed a tank filter without personal protective equipment and the
product got on both of the hands.  The product was not washed off.  The
individual, who has a history of smoking and gastric esophageal reflux
disease, reported chest pain and in coordination and was treated by a
physician.  The individual was administered oxygen and was placed on a
proton pump inhibitor.  The individual was hospitalized for a few days
and lab results revealed cocaine use in the previous 5 days.  No further
information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#13856-10

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2003, when the product was applied to
a field by a shallow soil injection.  Twelve residents (including an
eight year old girl, a three year old boy, a six year old child, a ten
year old boy, an eleven year old child, a fourteen year old boy, a
sixteen year old child, a seventeen year old girl, a thirty-three year
old woman, and a thirty-five year old man, a thirty-nine year old woman,
a fifty-five year old man) in two adjacent homes noticed an odor and
reported burning or irritated eyes.  Six residents of one of the homes
also reported sore throats.  One of the children in the other house also
reported a sore throat and coughing.  The fire department was contacted
and they were unable to detect an odor.  No further information on the
disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#14959-9

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2003, when a farm manager, who did not
wear personal protective equipment, spilled the product on his leather
boots and pants while calibrating or transferring the product from the
pig to the tank on his bedder.  The manager changed his pants but
continued wearing his boots.  At the end of the day, he had a burn on
his foot that was quite painful and was swollen.  He also reported
irritated splotches on his skin.  The man was treated by a dermatologist
and did not work for four or five days.  He returned to work when his
foot felt better.  About a month later, the man, who did wear personal
protective equipment (except a respirator) used the product and again
(the product did not spill on him) his feet were swollen and he was did
not work for an unspecified amount of time.  No further information on
the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#15212-2

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2004, when a fifty-nine year old man,
who has a history of asthma, reported congestion and bronchospasm.  The
product was injected into the soil of a golf course near his home.
There was a 108 feet buffer zone from product placement to the adjacent
property.  The man used his inhaler and took Claritin D tablet and his
symptoms subsided about 8 hours later.  His wife reported congestion.
No further information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#15212-7

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2004, when a thirty year old man
reported diarrhea for the previous 8 days.  The product was applied to
the golf course where he works.  No further information on the
disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#15453-6

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2004, when a man reported nausea,
tremor, joint pain, and a change in blood sugar levels.  The product was
applied more than 900 yards ahead (3 or 4 holes) while he mowed the
grass on a golf course.  When the applicators reached hole 11, the man
was mowing the grass on hole 12.  He was told to stop mowing and return
to the shop.  The man was treated by a physician about 16 days later.
No further information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#15669-10

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2004, when the product was injected
into the soil on a farm.  Later in the evening, fifteen individuals
reported teary eyes and difficulty breathing.  The individuals were
treated by emergency medical technicians.  No further information on the
disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#16167-3

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2005, when an individual helped his
father apply the product that got on his skin.  He immediately washed
his skin and reported a rash, swollen hands and feet, and difficulty
breathing.  About a week later, the man was exposed to the product for a
second time and reported a rapid heart rate, difficulty breathing, and
swollen hands and feet.  The man was treated by a physician.  No further
information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#16167-7

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2005, when a California public
drinking water system was contaminated with the product.  Specific
symptoms were not mentioned.  No further information on the disposition
of the case was reported.

Incident#16709-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2003, when a field was treated with
the product.  The field was located about 100-150 feet away from an
office building.  The fire department responded to the incident.
Several workers in the office building reported burning eyes and about
200 workers were evacuated from the building.  All office staff returned
to work the following day.  No further information on the disposition of
the case was reported.

Incident#17300-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2006, when a thirty-three year old
tobacco farmer mixed the product and spilled some of it on his shoes,
pants, arms, and hands.  He washed off his arms and hands with soap and
water but did not take off his shoes until about 3 or 4 hours later.
The man reported red, irritated, and swollen feet and legs and edema.
He was treated by a physician.  No further information on the
disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#17298-26

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2005, when the product was applied by
chemigation.  A house was located about 108 feet from the application
site but the detached garage was 72 feet from the application site.  A
family, who was living in the garage, reported watery eyes, dizziness,
and sore throat.  No further information on the disposition of the case
was reported.

Attachment 1. C

Cases from the Incident Data System

Metam-sodium – 6(a)(2) data, (2001- present)

Incident#12418-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2001, when a man was exposed when a
hose leaked while he loaded operation at a bulk facility.  He reported
breathing problems and other health effects that were not mentioned.
The man was treated by a physician at an emergency department.  No
further information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#13158-7

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2002, when a field (per plant for
potatoes) that is located about 500 feet from houses was treated with
the product by a shank method.  Several residents reported teary eyes
and difficulty breathing.  Two individuals were examined by paramedics.
A seventy year old woman, who has emphysema, reported difficulty
breathing and was admitted to the hospital. The second individual, who
worked at a nearby carrot packing shed, did not seek medical care.  No
further information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#13175-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2002, when the product was applied
approximately 100 feet east of a vineyard.  The product was injected
into the irrigation set.  When the vineyard workers arrived at the
vineyard, the applicator had just started applying a water seal.  One
hundred and thirty-eight workers reported tearing and burning eyes.
Some of the workers reported a scratchy throat while they waited for
their supervisor to arrive in the field.  After the supervisor arrived,
he drove to the northeast end of the vineyard to give instructions to a
girdling crew when he reported burning eyes.  He quickly moved the
workers to the southern end of the field.  An additional 100 workers
reported burning eyes and they were moved about one mile to the west.
The worker’s symptoms then subsided.  Another worker reported nausea
and was treated by a physician.  No further information on the
disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#13309-6

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2002, when five workers reported
burning and tearing eyes, runny nose, nausea, vomiting, and tingling
skin.  Four of the workers were treated by a physician.  The product was
applied with a sprinkler to a 183 acre site at a ranch.  No further
information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#13792-13

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2003, when several fields were treated
with the product at a rate of 50 gallons per acre.  A woman (one of
several families that live across the street) reported that her
children, who have a history of asthma, developed difficulty breathing.
One of the fields was treated with the shank method.  Fourteen
individuals reported sore throats, headaches, stinging and watery eyes,
runny nose, flu-like symptoms, and sore neck muscles and joints.  Three
individuals were treated by a physician.  No further information on the
disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#14885-8

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2003, when a maintenance worker
observed a pumping station at a 66 acre field during the chemigation
process when a valve broke and the worker was exposed to the product.  A
pest control company performed the application to a preplant cantaloupe
field at a 15 gallon/acre rate.  The pest control company was in
violation of permit conditions for leaving the application site during
the application.  The worker went to the hospital and was treated for
skin irritation.  He returned later and was hospitalized for a day for
difficulty breathing.  No further information on the disposition of the
case was reported.

Incident#14885-41

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2003, when a twenty-seven year old man
drove a pick-up truck into a 4500 gallon bulk tank that contained 3100
gallons of the product.  The product spilled onto the side of the site
(approximately 300 feet long and 6 feet wide).  Some of the product
splashed into his eye so he was decontaminated at the site and was
transported to the hospital.  Fifty individuals were evacuated from a
one mile radius.  No further information on the disposition of the case
was reported.

Incident#16107-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2002, when a tobacco field was treated
with the product.  Residents who live nearby (about 100 feet away)
reported eye irritation.  A woman’s husband reported burning eyes,
wheezing, and coughing.  A woman reported a headache.  A pesticide
program inspection was conducted by the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection.  Fumigant warning signs were not posted within
the required time frame which is a violation.  No further information on
the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#16452-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2005, when about one thousand workers
were harvesting grapes in the vineyard north of a carrot field that was
treated with the product.  The product was applied through a sprinkler
system.  About two days later, one field worker that harvested grapes
approximately ¼ mile north of the treated site and reported burning and
tearing eyes, headache, and vomiting.  The worker was treated by a
physician.  All of the grape harvest crews were moved to the west side
of the block and continued harvesting grapes the rest of the day.  The
next day, the workers arrived to work and began harvesting grapes.
Several hours later several workers vomited.  Five field workers
reported headaches, burning and tearing eyes, sore throats, numbness of
the tongue, and vomiting.  The field workers were decontaminated and
they were transported to the hospital.    The grape harvesting was
stopped and the crews were moved out of the area.  One worker was
treated at a clinic and reported coughing, chest pain, and a sore
throat.  The woman returned home and still felt ill and returned to the
hospital.  She continued to report difficulty breathing and was admitted
to the hospital.  The woman was diagnosed with Adult Respiratory
Distress Syndrome.  The worker was in the hospital in critical
condition. No further information on the disposition of the case was
reported.

Attachment 1. D

Cases from the Incident Data System

 Metam Potassium – 6(a)(2) data, (2003- present)

Incident#5091-1

A pesticide incident occurred in 1997, when 2 workers were exposed to
the product while they walked through a field that was treated with it.
The two individuals reported nausea.  No further information on the
disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#9561-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 1999, when a young girl, between 10
and 12 years old who has a history of asthma, reported lung congestion
and eye irritation.  The girl was treated by a physician.  The product
was applied near several homes.  The closest house was about 50 feet
away.  Four firemen responded to a call that they received regarding a
severe odor and eye irritation among local residents.  Four firemen
sprayed water on the field and only one of them wore a respirator.  They
reported respiratory irritation.  No further information on the
disposition of the case was reported.

Incident14885-12

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2003, when nine residents reported eye
irritation and coughing after the product was applied near their homes.
No further information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#14885-48

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2003, when 3 Hazardous Materials
workers reported eye irritation and coughing after the product was
applied near homes.  No further information on the disposition of the
case was reported.

Attachment 1. E

Cases from the Incident Data System

 Dazomet – 6(a)(2) data, (2003- present)

Incident#13887-2

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2003, when a man, who wore shorts and
boots, applied the product.  The product got on his legs and when he
washed his legs some of it got into his boots.  He continued to wear the
boots for the rest of the day.  The next day, the man reported
irritation.  He continued to wear the boots for several more days and
his symptoms worsened and he was treated by a physician.  No further
information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Attachment 1. F

Cases from the Incident Data System

Chloropicrin OPP Incident Data System (IDS) (2003- present)

Incident#14651-1

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2003, when an applicator applied the
product to a 40 acre pre-plant onion field and the fumes from the field
drifted toward a housing area.  The housing area is located about a ¼
mile from the field.  One hundred and twenty-four individuals evacuated
their homes.  Several individuals reported eye irritation, breathing
problems, nausea, and vomiting.  Four individuals were treated by a
physician at a hospital.  Other individuals were treated by paramedics
who responded to the incident.  No further information on the
disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#16884-2

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2005, when a grower applied it through
a drip irrigation system.  Some of the product was inadvertently trapped
in lateral lines during the application.  The residual product then
entered the sprinkler system and was deposited with irrigation water
onto the field surface.  The product drifted toward neighborhood
residents who reported minor symptoms that were not mentioned.  No
further information on the disposition of the case was reported.

Incident#16940-40

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2005, when 200 office workers from a
medical equipment manufacturing facility were evacuated from their
building.  Several workers reported burning eyes after a nearby field
was treated with the product.  The field was located about 100-150 feet
from the office building.  No further information on the disposition of
the case was reported.

Incident#16940-42

	A pesticide incident occurred in 2005, when a grower began a
chemigation of the product through the drip system to tarped beds on a
12 acre and a 13 acre pre-plant strawberry block.  The grower failed to
close a valve in the irrigation system line connecting the booster pump
to the main line prior to the chemigation.  About 15 individuals called
911 and reported eye irritation, shortness of breath, and nausea.  Two
of the individuals were treated by a physician and paramedics treated
some of the other residents in their homes.  No further information on
the disposition of the case was reported.

Attachment 2.

Table Description

The following is a general brief description of the table components
that compares pesticide X with the composite average of all pesticides

Table 1 General Explanation of Comparison of Pesticide X with the
Composite

	Severity of Outcome

(Outcome determined)	Total

Exposed	Health Care

Provided

Denominator numbers	25,549	68,005	18,084

Measures	SYM	MOD	MAJ	HCF	HOSP	ICU

Numerator numbers	578	83	9	18,084	302	219

Pesticide “X” percents	2.26%	0.32%	0.03%	26.59%	1.67%	1.21%

All Pesticides percents	21.72%	1.42%	0.12%	15.68%	4.34%	1.75%

Ratio of  Pesticide “X”

/All pesticides	0.10(S)

P =0.00	0.23 (S)

P = 0.00	0.25 (S)

P = 0.01	1.69 (S)

P = 0.00	0.38 (S)

P = 0.00	0.69

P =0.51

The first row “Denominator numbers” presents all the numbers for
pesticide “X” that will serve as denominators in the calculation of
the percents, and they are:

In the center column, total amount of individuals exposed to pesticide
“X” (n = 68,005) or “Total Exposed”. These are cases collected
by the Poison Control Center regardless of outcome

In the left, amount of cases followed, (n = 25,546) these cases have an
outcome determined “Outcome determined” and these cases may have
symptoms or may be determined as no symptomatic.

At the right of the table, cases that visited a Health Care Facility (n
= 18084) “Health care Provided”

B) The row “Measures” describes the outcome of the cases: “SYM”
are those cases that were symptomatic; “MOD” cases are those that
were classified as moderate; “MAJ” cases were cases classified as
major or fatal; “HCF” are cases that went to a Health Care Facility;
“HOSP” are cases that went to a hospital; and “ICU” cases that
went to an Intensive Care Unit.

C) The row “Numerator numbers” is actually the number of cases for
pesticide “X” that presented the outcome describe in the
“Measures” row.

D) The row “Pesticide “X” percents” gives the percentages on
each measure. These percentages are calculated by dividing the numerator
number by the denominator number (from each major section of the Table
1) and multiplying by 100. For example 578, 83, and 9 are divided by
25,549 producing the respective percents 2.26, 0.32, and 0.03, for SYM,
MOD, and MAJ. In a similar fashion 18,084 is divided by 68,005 for the
percentage of cases seen in a HCF of 26.59; and for the last section of
the Table 1, 302 and 219 are divided by 18,084 to find the percentages
of cases that went to a hospital and ICU.

E) The row “All Pesticides Percents” are percentages that were
calculated using all cases available in the PCC database with the
exception of cases involving exposures to multiple products, cases with
unrelated medical outcome, and cases where the exposure was intentional.
These exclusions make the comparison meaningful. The percentages serve
as the baseline for the comparison with a single pesticide or a group.

F) The “Ratio of Pesticide “X”/All pesticides” row is obtained
by dividing the percentages of the “X” compound by the “all
pesticides” percentages, to obtain a dimensionless number or ratio.
This ratio provides an idea of the relative frequency of the compound
“X”. For example, a ratio of 1 (one) indicates that the percentages
are the same for the compound “X” and the composite of all
pesticides; a ratio, say of 2 (two) indicates that the chemical under
study produces twice the effect; and a ratio of 0.5 indicates that the
compound has half of the activity of the “composite.” These ratios
provide a quick overview of the relative toxicity of the chemical.

G) Also, the “p” value that results from a Likelihood ratio test is
entered in the ratio cell and when significant (p < 0.05) then an (S) is
entered next to the ratio to mark statistical significance. A cell
marked with (S) means that the percentages that produce the ratios are
“statistically” significant and not due to chance. The percentage of
pesticide “X” could be higher or lower than the percentage produce
by the composite as indicated by the ratio. However, when mark by an (S)
the difference is significant. For example, a ratio = 1.6 (S) means the
effect produced by the compound is higher that the effect produced by
the composite and statistically different; a ratio = 0.7 (S) signifies
that pesticide “X” has a lower effect than the composite and is
statistically different. On the other hand, a ratio = 1.2, with no (S),
means that the percentage, although higher, is not statistically
different from the composite.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE ᔠ഍ግ䅐䕇†ㄔക഍഍഍഍഍倓䝁⁅ᔠ

഍഍഍†††††††††††††††††††††
††††††††††††††††††††††††
††††††††††††††††††††††††
†††††††ല഍഍ግ䅐䕇†ക഍倓䝁⁅ᐠᔳ഍഍഍

഍

഍഍഍഍ഁ഍഍഍഍഍഍


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44067-44068]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15735]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-493-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on June 30, 2020, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company,
L.L.C. (Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas
77002, filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to
section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the
Commission's regulations requesting authorization to (1) install one
11,107 horsepower (HP) gas-turbine driven compressor unit at its
existing Compressor Station 321 in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania;
(2) install one 20,500 HP gas-turbine driven compressor unit at its
existing Compressor Station 325 in Sussex County, New Jersey; and (3)
construct the new 19,000 HP electric-driven Compressor Station 327 in
Passaic County, New Jersey (East 300 Upgrade Project). The East 300
Upgrade Project would create 115,000 dekatherms per day of firm
transportation service. Tennessee estimates the cost of the project to
be approximately $246.3 million, all as more fully described in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Ben
Carranza, Director, Regulatory, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.,
1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77002, by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by emailing<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9),
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule will serve to
notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of
all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit five copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be
notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental
review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve
copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party
commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek
court review of the Commission's final order.
    As of the February 27, 2018 date of the Commission's order in
Docket No. CP16-4-001, the Commission will apply its revised practice
concerning out-of-time motions to intervene in any new NGA section 3 or
section 7 proceeding.\1\ Persons desiring to become a party to a
certificate proceeding are to intervene in a timely manner. If seeking
to intervene out-of-time, the movant is required to show good cause why
the time limitation should be waived, and should provide justification
by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d)(1) of the Commission's
Rules and Regulations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 162 FERC 61,167 at
50 (2018).
    \2\ 18 CFR 385.214(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 5, 2020.

    Dated: July 15, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15735 Filed 7-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P