UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D. C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Qualitative Assessment of the Impact of Changes in the Use of Methyl Bromide on Non Quarantine Commodities in Support of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED)

FROM: Jonathan Becker, Senior Science Advisor William Chism, Senior Agronomist Colwell Cook, Biologist Monisha Kaul, Biologist Biological Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503P)

David Donaldson, Economist Elisa Rim, Economist T J Wyatt, Agricultural Economist Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503P)

THRU: Arnet Jones, Chief, Biological Analysis Branch Istanbul Yusuf, Acting Chief, Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503P)

TO: John Leahy, Senior Policy Analyst Eric Olson, Team Leader Steven Weiss, Chemical Review Manager Special Review and Registration Division ( 7508P)

PRODUCT REVIEW PANEL DATE: July 26, 2006 2 SUMMARY As part of the reregistration of methyl bromide, the Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( BEAD) assessed the potential impacts of risk mitigation and enforcement/ compliance options. These options were outlined in the EPA Federal Register Notice of March 29, 2006. This document addresses the potential impacts to fumigations of non quarantine commodities, except for dry cured pork. Other assessments address the impacts on quarantine uses, dry cured pork and structural and food processing facilities uses.

BEAD does not expect substantial impacts to result from lowering the air concentration limit of occupation exposure from five ( 5) ppm as a ceiling limit to one ( 1) ppm as a 8 hour TWA, provided facilities have the option to utilize air purifying respirators to protect employees when air concentrations are between these points. BEAD also does not expect substantial impacts if EPA were to require FMPs and other actions that focus on compliance and/ or enforcement.

It appears that by using active aeration most commodity chambers would be able to accommodate aeration buffers. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the 99 percentile whole field buffer is used for the regulatory decision making. Further, if these facilities are located in rural areas and do not have employees working other processes during fumigation, treatment buffers are likely to be feasible as well, except for large enclosures or high rates.

There are some facilities that will need to modify their current practices to meet these proposed buffer requirements. There are several ways to meet these requirements; for example, site specific modeling can be used by the facilities to select methods to implement that would result in the reduction of buffers. In most cases, facilities could potentially achieve the greatest buffer reduction by using a combination of methods. Treatment buffers may be reduced by methods such as improved gas retention, lower rates or treating smaller volumes of commodities. Aeration buffers may be reduced by methods such as improved ventilation systems ( greater air exchanges per minute, taller stacks), lower rates, treating smaller volumes, or installing a capture and destruction system. BEAD anticipates that using a combination of these mitigation options most facilities will be able to meet the buffer requirements. However, these changes will entail some costs.

However, if commodity facilities cannot meet the buffer requirements, even with the adoption of additional equipment, they would not be able to use methyl bromide. Since 2005, use of methyl bromide is only permitted under the Montreal Protocol for certain uses, including those that have been designated as a critical need. EPA and USDA have evaluated exemption requests and found that there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives to the use of methyl bromide in this sector ( USA, 2006a, 2006b). Therefore, if buffers are infeasible, some facilities may have to cease operation. This may impact producers and consumers, as well as the local economy. BEAD does not have adequate data about the specific site characteristics of these facilities to quantify the distribution and magnitude of these impacts. However, BEAD anticipates that by using a combination of mitigation options most facilities will be able to meet the buffer requirements. . 3 BACKGROUND Methyl bromide is an odorless, colorless gas that is widely used as a soil and structural fumigant to control a range of insect, fungal and weed pests. Under the Food Quality Protection Act, the Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP) is presently making a determination of methyl bromide's eligibility for reregistration. In this process, OPP is assessing the risks and benefits of methyl bromide use to control pests in various commodities. This document addresses non quarantine commodity treatments.

The Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances Methyl Bromide has been identified as an ozone depleting substance under the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances to which the United States is a party. The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty developed to protect the earth from the detrimental effects of ozone stratospheric depletion. Initially signed in 1987 by the United States and 26 other countries, there are now 189 signatories to the treaty. The Parties to the Montreal Protocol have agreed to specific reduction steps that lead to the phaseout of production and use of ozonedepleting substances, including methyl bromide. The Protocol required an incremental reduction in methyl bromide, leading to a complete phase out, in industrialized nations, by January 1, 2005. Developing countries are to phase out use by January 1, 2015.

However, there are some cases where there are no available alternatives that are technically and economically feasible and acceptable from a public health standpoint. The treaty allows for exemptions to the phase out for critical uses, quarantine and preshipment uses, and emergency uses. Critical uses are those situations where there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives and market disruptions would occur if methyl bromide were not available. They are reviewed in EPA's Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption ( CUE) process. Quarantine and preshipment uses of methyl bromide are often required by national and international law to prevent the introduction of exotic pests into new areas. Unanticipated emergency use of methyl bromide, for example to address public health problems, is authorized by the Montreal Protocol, if there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives and the quantity used does not exceed 20 metric tons.

The uses addressed in this document have received critical use exemptions under the Montreal Protocol for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007. A critical use exemption for 2008 is currently being evaluated by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. These represent situations of severe or unique pest problems for which the available alternatives are not feasible and will result in severe market disruptions if methyl bromide is not available.

Parties to the Montreal Protocol approve an amount of methyl bromide for post harvest and soil use; that amount is the maximum amount that can be newly produced methyl bromide or used from critical use stockpiles. Entities that are users of " critical use" methyl bromide do not have access to the general use methyl bromide stockpiles ( i. e., those methyl bromide stocks generated before January 1, 2005. This, therefore, sets an upper limit on the amount of methyl bromide that is allocated to the post harvest sector and can be used for non quarantine commodities, and consequently, on the total volume that can be fumigated in any one year period. 4 Risks of Concern As part of OPP's determination of methyl bromide's eligibility for reregistration, OPP conducted risk assessments for methyl bromide use in enclosures, chambers, and food processing/ storage facilities. There are no aggregate dietary and water risks of concern. However, there are risks of concern associated with the use of methyl bromide for occupational exposure during both treatment and aeration and for bystanders during aeration ( EPA 2006). Occupational exposure may occur to fumigant applicators during and immediately after treatment and to certain employees at the treated sites, especially those handling treated commodities. Bystanders refer to site employees and people unaffiliated with the treated site who are present in the general vicinity. EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has also assessed the potential impacts on the incidents of skin cancer due to stratospheric ozone depletion caused by the use of methyl bromide for non soil fumigations.

OPP is evaluating various means of managing the risks of concern from occupational and bystander exposure. In determining an appropriate risk management strategy, OPP considers a number of factors including efficacy of the measures, enforceability, the impact on users of methyl bromide and the qualitative extent to which these measures can also contribute to reduction in ozone depletion. This document presents OPP's evaluation of various riskreduction strategies according to these factors. However, because of the great diversity in sites being treated with methyl bromide, OPP has limited ability to make quantitative evaluations.

RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Bystander and Occupational Exposure During Treatment and Aeration Broadly speaking, there are three risk management strategies for addressing bystander risk to be considered. Within these broad strategies some or all of the 17 different options ( EPA 2006) suggested by EPA for public comment may be included. The broad strategies are adoption of a performance standard, command and control, and a hybrid approach that sets certain minimum requirements but permits flexibility to accommodate site specific characteristics. EPA believes the third option best addresses all the factors to be considered.

Performance Standard: EPA sets maximum air concentrations at reference points; sets criteria for determining reference point; sets criteria for monitoring; establishes penalties for exceedences.

Under this approach, EPA would establish performance standards to limit exposure to methyl bromide during treatment and during post treatment aeration. Essentially, this would entail defining how appropriate reference points ( potential bystanders) would be chosen, setting a maximum air concentration at those reference points, and establishing criteria for monitoring at the reference points. Fumigators would be responsible, via whatever means available, including those suggested by EPA ( EPA 2006), to insure that air concentrations of methyl bromide do not exceed limits. EPA would also establish methods to ensure compliance. 5 The main advantage of this strategy is that it provides maximum flexibility to methyl bromide users to meet the safety standard and, therefore, minimizes the impacts on the regulated community. That, in turn, means that it would have the least impact of the three options on the total amount of methyl bromide used and released into the atmosphere.

The primary disadvantage of this strategy is the basic question of whether it can be implemented effectively. Unless the number and location of bystanders is limited and well defined, extensive monitoring both horizontally and vertically, around the treated facility, would be necessary to insure that the statutory requirement of reasonable certainty of no harm is met. Further, because compliance would depend on post treatment penalties for exceedances, the reporting and oversight requirements on the fumigator and state and local regulators would be burdensome.

EPA does not believe a pure performance standard can be reliably implemented in a costeffective manner.

Single Approach: Buffer Zones: The second strategy represents the opposite end of the spectrum, where EPA would establish a command and control strategy to encompass all sites. The most likely option for addressing bystander risk would be to require treatment and aeration buffer zones that would be dependent on the amount of methyl bromide used in a 24 hour period that would result in a reasonable certainty of no harm for all possible fumigation scenarios. To account for all situations, the buffer zone would have to be substantial.

This strategy would be relatively easy to enforce because it would depend on so few factors. With minimal effort by EPA and State and local regulators, EPA could also be assured that all use of methyl bromide would meet the statutory safety requirement   in fact, most uses would substantially surpass what would be necessary to meet the requirements. This strategy would also result in the greatest decrease in the total amount of methyl bromide used and released into the atmosphere of the three strategies because many facilities would be unable to comply with a large buffer zone and would have to use alternative pest control methods or cease operation.

However, the inability of many facilities to comply with this strategy would lead to large impacts on methyl bromide users. As explained in this document and the U. S. nomination of critical use exemptions to the Montreal Protocol, use of methyl bromide remains necessary in many situations. Without methyl bromide, there would be serious disruptions in global and interstate trade and many items would be unable to meet federal health requirements for safe and unadulterated food products. Consumers could face substantially higher costs for goods and some goods would probably not be available year around.

EPA does not believe such a simplistic strategy would be a cost effective means of insuring the safe use of methyl bromide.

Flexible Approach: Buffer Zones as a Function of Other Mitigation Actions: The third strategy combines the flexibility of the performance standard with the relative simplicity of clear, minimum standards. Some of the options suggested by EPA ( EPA 2006) could be used in concert to achieve the statutory human health requirement. The basic requirement would be for a buffer zone, but the size of the buffer would depend on the use of other risk management 6 options. EPA's concept is for two buffers: a treatment buffer during fumigation and an aeration buffer following treatment as the gas is vented. The size of each buffer would be positively related to the amount or rate of methyl bromide used and the size of the facility/ enclosure fumigated. Reductions in any would permit a smaller required buffer. The size of the treatment buffer would be negatively related to the retention of gas in the fumigated enclosure. The tighter the enclosure, the less gas would escape and the smaller the treatment buffer. The size of the aeration buffer would be negatively related to the relative height of the point methyl bromide is vented ( a stack) and the speed of aeration ( i. e., as defined by air exchange rate), which improves mixing and reduces air concentrations. Increases in either of these factors would permit a smaller buffer for bystanders. The air exchange rate can also be manipulated instead.

As with the first possible strategy, this approach can reduce the cost of complying with the regulation by providing different facilities the ability to reduce bystander exposure according to the specific characteristics of the site. The clear, minimum requirements make it relatively easy to enforce and insure that the safety standards will be achieved. Some reductions in the total amount of methyl bromide will likely occur, contributing to reductions in ozone depletions.

The strategy will entail, however, some costs to the regulated community and to consumers of treated commodities. Some facilities may have to alter their fumigation practices or invest in mitigation measures. Despite its relative flexibility, some facilities may not be able to meet the requirements with the use of methyl bromide. They will be obligated to use other pest control measures or will be unable to operate. Some of these impacts will be passed on to consumers. This document describes in more detail the extent of EPA's information regarding these impacts.

Occupational Exposure Fumigators and employees who handle treated commodities soon after treatment may also be exposed to levels of methyl bromide exceeding EPA's level of concern. Current practice is that levels of methyl bromide are monitored and if concentrations are greater than five ( 5) ppm, respirators must be worn. Immediately after treatment, enclosures are often actively aerated to lower concentrations. Treatment buffers may also be enforced.

EPA's current plan is to lower the permissible concentration limit to one ( 1) ppm ( 8 hr TWA). Levels above this limit will require the use of respirators. Use of respirators may be burdensome for employees, especially in hot conditions, but should not otherwise significantly affect applicators or the operation of the facilities since it is common practice. Facilities would have the option of increasing aeration time to avoid the use of respirators, but where that would impinge on the movement of commodities, respirators can be used.

Enforcement/ Compliance Mechanisms The Agency is also considering several mechanisms to aid in enforcement and compliance. Chief among these would be a requirement to prepare and follow a Fumigation Management Plan. The FMP would detail how a specific fumigation would comply with the label restrictions, including the establishment of buffer zones and the factors that determined the appropriate size. EPA envisions a certification scheme to ensure that the FMP conforms to the label requirements. 7 Currently, most fumigations already follow some kind of plan, although all plans would now have to brought into compliance with the new requirements of use. Once prepared for a fixed facility, the plan may need few modifications for repeated fumigations. Therefore, BEAD anticipates few impacts on applicators or facilities in preparing the FMP. The certification of the FMP may entail added cost to the fumigation, but BEAD cannot predict that cost.

Other compliance mechanisms include record keeping requirements and posting notices of fumigation, both on treated commodities and to the general public prior to the treatment of facilities or commodities. Record keeping requirements may not entail substantial added costs, since most fumigations are already closely monitored. Notices that a commodity has been treated should also not impose substantial costs.

INDUSTRY OVERVIEW Since 2002, EPA has reviewed and nominated various commodities for methyl bromide critical use exemption. The following information is based on industry applications for a critical use exemptions and EPA proprietary data.

The critical use exemption commodities include walnuts, dried fruit ( prunes, raisins, and figs), dates, dried beans ( garbanzo and black eyed peas), and pistachios produced and fumigated in California. These industries combined generate over $ 855 million in annual sales revenue. The commodities treated with methyl bromide may constitute up to 99% of market share in the U. S. and up to 70% of world market share. Post harvest food storage is an integral part of operations because in many cases the growing season is separated from the peak demand season. Therefore it is imperative for these industries to fumigate in order to maintain the commodity's integrity and quality.

Dried Fruit: California's dried fruit industry generates annual revenues of approximately $ 350 million and produces 99% of the domestic supply of prunes ( dried plums), raisins and figs. They export up to 46% of production and ship to over 50 global markets, mainly Europe and Japan. California produces 70% of the global supply of prunes, 40% of the global supply of raisins, and 20% of the global supply of figs. The California Dried Plum Board represents approximately 1,400 growers and 21 packers. The average business generates about $ 11 million in annual sales revenue with a gross margin of about 28% and a net profit margin of about 5%. Gross margin is defined as gross sales revenue less cost of goods sold ( cost of raw materials) divided by gross sales revenue. The net profit margin is defined as gross sales revenue less total expenditures ( cost of goods sold plus other costs) divided by gross sales revenue.

Walnuts: California's walnut industry generates annual sales revenues of approximately $ 280 million and produces almost 100% of the domestic supply of walnuts. Nearly 25% of the inshell walnut market is exported to Europe for the Christmas season. The representative facility generates about $ 238 million in annual sales revenue with a gross margin of about 28% and a net profit margin of about 5%. 8 Dates: California's date industry generates annual revenues of approximately $ 38 million and produces 95% of the domestic supply of dates.

Dried Beans: California's dried bean industry generates annual sales revenues of approximately $ 7 million and produces 72% of the domestic supply of black eyed peas and 12% of the domestic supply of garbanzo beans.

Pistachios: California's pistachio industry generates annual sales revenues of approximately $ 180 million and produces 99% of the domestic supply and 30% of the global supply of pistachios. The pistachio industry is a very concentrated market with few processors where processors both grow and process the commodity. The representative user ( in this case the largest producer of pistachios) generates about $ 150 million in annual sales revenue with a gross margin of about 43% and a net profit margin of less than 2%.

SITE DESCRIPTION Purpose of Fumigation Commodities are fumigated to control insect pests that attack foods in storage. Some of the key pests are presented in Table 1. Insects cause the direct loss of products and cosmetic damage, making stored food unsightly and reducing its value. The insect pests also contaminate food with their excrement, body parts, and exuviae, which violates US Food and Drug Administration regulations ( FDA regulations can be found at: http:// www. cfsan. fda. gov/~ dms/ dalbook. html and http:// www. fda. gov/ opacom/ laws/ fdcact/ fdcact4. htm). In addition several insect pests pose health hazards either because they can cause choking in small children or because they can cause allergic reactions.

TABLE 1: SOME KEY PESTS FOR METHYL BROMIDE IN COMMODITIES Genus and Species of Major Pests Common Name Cydia pomonella Codling Moth Amyelois transitella Navel Orangeworm Plodia interpunctella Indianmeal Moth Tribolium castaneum Red Flour Beetle Cadra figulilella Raisin Moth Carpophilus sp. Dried Fruit Beetle Ectomyelois ceratoniae Carob Pod Moth Carpophilus spp., Haptoncus spp. Nitidulid Beetles Callosobruchus maculates Cowpea Weevil Source: United States of America, 2006a.

Use and Usage of Methyl Bromide Typically methyl bromide is being used to treat these commodities during the peak production season when time is critical. Shortly after harvest or prior to processing, the commodity is treated to prevent pests from infesting and degrading it in storage or during shipping. The available time for treatment can be compressed when harvest occurs close to key market 9 windows, such as holiday markets for certain types of dried fruits, nuts, and beans. Methyl bromide is the only suitable fumigant, when time is critical, because it is effective within a short period of time, unlike other control measures that may take three to four times as long. ( United States of America, 2006a, 2006b)

Commodities in the United States may be fumigated in chambers, containers, bins, or under tarps. Some commodities are fumigated at the farm locations; however, some growers ship their produce to a processing plant that will fumigate the product before it enters their facility. Each grower or processor will have chambers or bins built to his own specifications. Farmers with small acreage will invest in smaller containers or have companies fumigate their produce under tarps. Some of the major processors will invest in larger chambers in order to process multiple shipments in a short amount of time. In addition, walnuts in shells are typically fumigated in vacuum chambers in order to decrease time spent in fumigation during harvest. Consequently, there is no standard size for fumigation enclosures. Table 2 presents the range of sizes, in cubic feet of fumigated commodities.

TABLE 2. COMMODITY FUMIGATION FACILITY SIZE Facility Size ( cubic feet)

< 5,000 5,001 to 10,000 10,001 to 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,001 to 500,000 500,000 to 1 million 1 million to 5 million over 5 million Site Small Medium Large Median Treated Volume ( cubic feet)

Dried Fruit 23% 5% 9% 5% 49% 8% 1% 0% 200,000 Walnuts 28% 7% 25% 9% 23% 9% 0% 0% 130,000 Dried Beans 16% 3% 34% 25% 22% 0% 0% 0% 70,000 Source: Cal DPR, 2002 2004. Cubic feet information was not available on dates.

Average rates of methyl bromide for commodity fumigations range from 1.25 pounds of methyl bromide per 1000 cubic feet to 3 pounds per 1000 cubic feet ( Table 3). Walnuts, in shells, use higher rates because gas must penetrate the walnut shell in order to control codling moth larvae within. Dried beans also use slightly higher rates to control insect pests that will penetrate the bean to feed internally. Other commodities tend to have insect pests that feed primarily on the surface or do not penetrate very deep into the commodity. Fumigations typically last about 24 hours but if the fumigations are under a vacuum, they can be accomplished in 3 4 hours of exposure plus 4 hours of aeration, with the same amount of methyl bromide ( United States of America, 2006a, 2006b).

TABLE 3: COMMODITIES FUMIGATION USE INFORMATION Commodity Average Rate ( lb/ 1000 cubic ft) Treatment Time ( hours) Aeration Time ( hours) Dried Fruit 1.4 12 24 12 24 10 Walnuts 3.0 24 ( conventional) 3 4 ( vacuum) 4 Dates 1.5 12 24 12 24 Dried Beans 2.75 12 4 Cocoa Beans 1.25 12 24 12 24 Source: United States of America, 2006a, 2006b.

Location Most of the commodities considered here are fumigated on farm, at processing facilities and/ or at points of shipment in California. Locations include relatively rural areas and urbanized or industrialized zones. In addition to fumigation, processing and shipping facilities will have many other activities occurring in the general area. The variety of locations makes it difficult to determine the maximum buffer zone that would be feasible. Rural or on farm locations would be able to implement larger buffer zones than urban or processing facilities.

IMPACTS OF BUFFER ZONES IN COMMODITIES BEAD examined a range of potential chamber sizes and use rates to explore the potential impacts of treatment and aeration buffer zone requirements. Specifically, we examine chambers of 5,000 cubic feet, 50,000 cubic feet, 100,000 cubic feet and 250,000 cubic feet with treatments of 1 to 3 or 4 lb methyl bromide per 1,000 cubic feet. The 4 lb rate is somewhat high, but treatment buffers have not yet been estimated for the 3 lb rate.

Little site specific information is available for the location of fumigation chambers, consequently it is very difficult to determine feasible buffer distances. This assessment is, by necessity, very qualitative. There may also be differing capacity to enforce a buffer zone during fumigation ( treatment buffer) and during venting ( aeration).

The California regulatory system requires a 10 foot treatment buffer for pressurized or vacuum chambers. For other enclosures, the facility may conduct a retention test or assume a loss rate of 3% of the application rate per hour. Therefore, an untested enclosure is assumed to lose about 36% of the application rate over a 12 hour period. Treatment buffers are then determined from a table ( Cal DPR, 1994). At a rate of 1 lb/ 1,000 cu ft ( about 0.4 lb/ 1,000 cu ft lost), the treatment buffer may be as much as 250 feet for a 250,000 cu ft enclosure. At a rate of 4 lb/ 1,000 ( about 1.6 lb/ 1,000 cu ft lost), the treatment buffer would be 740 feet for a 250,000 cu ft enclosure.

The California aeration buffer depends on the concentration of methyl bromide retained, which in the absence of testing is assumed to be 90%. At a rate of 1 lb/ 1,000 cu ft ( retaining 0.9 lb/ 1,000 cu ft), the aeration buffer for a 250,000 cu ft enclosure would be almost 1,000 feet. At a 3 lb rate ( retaining about 2.8 lb/ 1,000 cu ft), the buffer would be about 1,700 feet for a 250,000 cu ft enclosure. These buffers assume passive aeration without a stack. With active aeration and a minimal exhaust stack ( 15 feet), the buffers could be reduced to about 600 feet and 1,400 feet, respectively. However, with sufficiently high air exchange, even with a minimal stack, the aeration buffer can be reduced to only 10 feet. 11 Given the existing California requirements, BEAD assumes that most facilities could impose a buffer for both treatment and aeration of around 250 feet ( roughly half a city block) and facilities in more rural areas would find larger buffers feasible.

Calculated Buffers The Agency used the PERFUM air model to estimate buffer distances ( EPA, 2006). Two buffers were calculated   a treatment buffer ( which accounts for the amount of methyl bromide leaking from the chamber during fumigation) and an aeration buffer ( which accounts for the amount of methyl bromide vented at the completion of the treatment).

The estimation of these buffers depend on a number of input parameters to the model such as atmospheric conditions, application rate, chamber/ enclosure conditions ( e. g., gas tightness), fumigated volume, the use of stacks, building effects, and the rate and type of aeration. The tables of buffer distances identify the various combinations of these input factors.

The PERFUM model generates distributions of buffers. Two distributions of buffers were developed from the model   a " maximum buffer" distance and the " whole field buffer" distance. Three values are presented in this document   the 95th percentile of the maximum buffer distribution ( abbreviated herein as " 95 max"), the 99th percentile of the whole field buffer distribution (" 99 whole") and the 99.9th percentile of the whole field buffer distribution (" 99.9 whole"). For more detail on the models and the results, please refer to EPA's risk assessment ( EPA, 2006).

Treatment Buffers Table 4 presents the treatment zones estimated for different percentile of exposures. BEAD believes the estimated treatment zones reflect an assumption that most of the escaping gas is lost within the first hour. 12 TABLE 4. ESTIMATED METHYL BROMIDE FUMIGATION TREATMENT BUFFERS ( FEET) Treatment Buffer ( ft) Volume Treated ( cu ft) Rate ( lbs/ 1000 cu ft) Loss During Treatment (%) 95 max 99 whole 99.9 whole 1% 0 0 0 5% 0 0 0 10% 0 0 0 1 25% 0 0 0 5% 0 0 0 10% 80 0 80 5,000 4 25% 100 0 100 1% 0 0 0 5% 0 0 0 10% 130 0 120 1 25% 480 170 190 5% 380 140 370 10% 680 250 640 50,000 4 25% 1,270 460 1,190 1% 0 0 0 5% 180 30 170 10% 410 150 380 100,000 1 25% 830 300 760 1% 0 0 0 5% 430 150 400 10% 780 300 710 250,000 1 25% 1,450 530 1,350 Source: EPA 2006. Note: BEAD anticipates that some minimum buffer zone would be established for situations listed as zero. California currently has a 10 foot minimum.

Table 4 examines a range of loss rates: 1, 5, 10 and 25% of the gas lost over 24 hours. Low loss rates, 1 to 5% per 24 hour period, represent well sealed or vacuum chambers while higher loss rates, 10 to 25% per 24 hours, are more representative of tarped enclosures. Due to data limitations, we currently are limited to estimating treatment buffers for rates of 1 and 4 lb methyl bromide/ 1,000 cubic feet.

Treatment buffers under the 99 percentile, whole field regulatory standard ( 99 whole) would be unlikely to impose impacts on small facilities or enclosures of 5,000 to 10,000 cubic feet, even at higher rates and/ or loss during treatment ( Table 4). Moderate size enclosures would also likely find treatment buffers feasible for low rates and minimum loss of gas. However, moderate sized enclosures are likely to find treatment buffers burdensome for fumigations requiring higher rates. Treatment buffers for facilities treating 250,000 cubic feet or more would likely be infeasible unless they could use vacuum chambers ( i. e. very gas tight).

Other mitigation options that would permit smaller treatment zones are limited. Essentially, facilities could to reduce application rates, fumigate in smaller amounts, and/ or increase the gastightness of their chambers. Since these commodities are typically fumigated at harvest and there are large volumes product that needs to move rapidly, downsizing the size of the chambers 13 may not be practical. In addition, the rates target the insect pests that need to be controlled. Therefore, reducing application rates and fumigating in small amounts are also likely to have substantial impacts on commodity fumigations.

Aeration Buffers Table 5 presents estimated aeration buffers when active air exchange and ventilation stacks are employed. Many facilities in California probably employ some kind of active aeration for many commodities in order to move products more swiftly into storage or into the market. However, a venting stack some distance above ground may not be so common although it appears to be required for reasonable aeration buffers. For chambers larger than 250,000 cu ft, of which there may be a few, the model reaches its limit, implying that the buffer would have to be calculated by different means but would exceed 4,730 feet ( nearly one mile).

TABLE 5. METHYL BROMIDE FUMIGATION AERATION BUFFER DISTANCES Air Exchange Aeration Buffer ( ft) Site ( cu ft) Rate ( lbs/ 1000 cu ft) Stack type 1 Speed ( cu ft/ min) [ exchnge/ min] 95 max distance 99 whole field 99.9 whole field Passive 260 0 250 Minimal 2,000 [ 0.5] 100 0 80 1 Portable 2,000 [ 0.5] 0 0 0 Passive 610 200 580 Minimal 2,000 [ 0.5] 200 70 200 5,000 3 Portable 2,000 [ 0.5] 0 0 0 Passive 460 150 430 Minimal 5,000 [ 0.5] 130 0 130 1 Portable 5,000 [ 0.5] 0 0 0 Passive 940 310 890 Minimal 5,000 [ 0.5] 300 120 250 10,000 3 Portable 5,000 [ 0.5] 0 0 0 Passive 1,270 460 1,190 Minimal 25,000 [ 0.5] 210 100 210 1 Portable 25,000 [ 0.5] 0 0 0 Passive n/ a n/ a n/ a Minimal 25,000 [ 0.5] 590 300 540 50,000 3 Portable 25,000 [ 0.5] 0 0 0 Passive 1,950 680 1,870 Minimal 50,000 [ 0.5] 360 210 350 100,000 1 Portable 50,000 [ 0.5] 0 0 0 Passive 3,450 1,160 3,300 Minimal 125,000 [ 0.5] 840 280 740 250,000 1 Portable 125,000 [ 0.5] 0 0 0 Source: EPA 2006. 1 Minimum stack is 10 feet above the highest building within 200 feet. Portable stack is 50 feet high.

BEAD has identified four ways that a facility may reduce the required aeration buffer: ( 1) reduce the rate ( amount of methyl bromide / 1,000 cubic feet), ( 2) fumigate smaller volumes, ( 3) 14 install an active aeration system including stacks, and ( 4) install a capture and destruction system.

Rate Reductions: Rate reduction may not be practical in many situations because certain pests will not be destroyed at the lower rates. Moreover, this option may not obtain a feasible aeration buffer. A100,000 cubic foot chamber with a rate of 1 lb of methyl bromide/ 1,000 cubic feet still has a significant aeration buffer.

Fumigate Smaller Volumes: Fumigating in smaller units would only be feasible if EPA's regulatory scheme imposed buffers on the basis of individual treatments, and not on the total volume treated in a 24 hour period. Many of these commodities are fumigated during the peak harvest season and fumigating in smaller units would significantly increase the time to treat them and lead to substantial economic impacts.

Active Aeration Systems: Active aeration involves using fans to quickly disperse the gas, often through a stack. Table 5 presents estimated buffers for different facilities and rates. The most effective system is to use a portable stack that vents the gas 200 ft from the structure. It is not clear whether this system would work for larger structures such as warehouses. Large, permanent stacks can also help to achieve reductions in the aeration buffer. However, the air exchange rate is critical.

The cost to improve the active aeration of fumigated facilities is not known but some representative costs are available. Information submitted through the public comment process indicates that the cost of a 50 foot portable stack, including ducts and fittings, is approximately $ 1,000, and adding a permanent stack to a 100,000 cubic foot warehouse would cost approximately $ 30,000. The comments did not, however, indicate the height or airflow capacity of these stacks. Fan costs range from $ 500 to $ 850 and range in capacity from 10,000 to 40,000 cubic feet per minute, but often require special engineering and design that can multiply the cost ( EPA, 2006).

Multiple fans increase air exchange in an additive fashion, therefore larger facilities may achieve sufficient air flow through a large enough stack to reduce the aeration buffer to a feasible distance.

Capture and Destruction Technology: A capture and destruction system " scrubs" the exhaust stream to remove methyl bromide. Some of the early systems were not commercially viable; however newer systems are now available. These systems could reduce aeration buffers if the EPA regulatory scheme permits captured methyl bromide to be subtracted from total quantity used when calculating the buffer.

There are several companies that are marketing or have previously marketed methyl bromide capture and destruction systems. Currently, these systems are primarily marketed for small commodity and quarantine treatments. Based on available information, it is not clear to what extent they would be feasible for structures such as warehouses. 15 However, even if some proportion of the methyl bromide could be captured, the estimated aeration buffer could be reduced substantially. Further, these systems reduce the amount of methyl bromide released into the atmosphere and could have an impact on ozone depletion.

BEAD concludes that aeration zones are not likely to cause significant impacts on commodity fumigation chambers because active aeration, with a portable stack, appears feasible and capture and destruction technology has improved and could offer an additional means of reducing the amount of methyl bromide vented into the air.

Alternatives to Methyl Bromide in Post Harvest There are other fumigants that are available for use in the post harvest sector. Phosphine is often used when time is not critical, because it usually takes longer for a fumigation. In addition, phosphine is corrosive to certain metals and has temperature constraints. Sulfuryl fluoride was registered in January of 2004 in the U. S. and in California in May of 2005, for use in mills of cereal grains, dried fruits, and tree nuts. Use sites were extended in July of 2005 by the Federal government, but not by California. Research is ongoing to determine its capability to replace methyl bromide in all its critical uses. Sulfuryl fluoride is currently undergoing review by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to establish maximum residue levels ( MRL) from the use of quarantine fumigations and by the Committee for the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures to set standards for its use. If approved by Codex MRLs would be established for foods such as: dried fruits and tree nuts, bran, cereal grains, and flour ( e. g. maize, rye, and wheat). Propylene oxide is another alternative to methyl bromide that is being investigated for insect control in tree nuts ( Leesch, personal communication). Currently it is used to sanitize the surface of tree nuts to primarily manage mold, yeast, and bacteria ( Yourman & Donaldson, 2006).

Other options for controlling pests in the post harvest sector include ( but are not limited to): manipulations of temperature, such as heat or cold; controlled atmospheres, such as ozonation, carbon dioxide; irradiation, and increased sanitation, especially micro sanitation. Research is continuing in this field, however, to date, alternatives are not technically feasible or are prohibitively expensive. Methyl bromide remains the only suitable fumigant for periods when time is critical.

CONCLUSION BEAD does not expect substantial impacts to result from lowering the air concentration limit of occupation exposure from five ( 5) ppm as a ceiling limit to one ( 1) ppm as a 8 hour TWA, provided facilities have the option to utilize air purifying respirators to protect employees when air concentrations are between these points. BEAD also does not expect substantial impacts if EPA were to require FMPs and other actions that focus on compliance and/ or enforcement.

It appears that by using active aeration most commodity chambers would be able to accommodate aeration buffers. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the 99 percentile whole field buffer is used for the regulatory decision making. Further, if these facilities are 16 located in rural areas and do not have employees working other processes during fumigation, treatment buffers are likely to be feasible as well, except for large enclosures or high rates.

There are some facilities that will need to modify their current practices to meet these proposed buffer requirements. There are several ways to meet these requirements; for example, site specific modeling can be used by the facilities to select methods to implement that would result in the reduction of buffers. In most cases, facilities could potentially achieve the greatest buffer reduction by using a combination of methods. Treatment buffers may be reduced by methods such as improved gas retention, lower rates or treating smaller volumes of commodities. Aeration buffers may be reduced by methods such as improved ventilation systems ( greater air exchanges per minute, taller stacks), lower rates, treating smaller volumes, or installing a capture and destruction system. BEAD anticipates that using a combination of these mitigation options most facilities will be able to meet the buffer requirements. However, these changes will entail some costs.

However, if commodity facilities cannot meet the buffer requirements, even with the adoption of additional equipment, they would not be able to use methyl bromide. Since 2005, use of methyl bromide is only permitted under the Montreal Protocol for certain uses, including those that have been designated as a critical need. EPA and USDA have evaluated exemption requests and found that there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives to the use of methyl bromide in this sector ( USA, 2006a, 2006b). Therefore, if buffers are infeasible, some facilities may have to cease operation. This may impact producers and consumers, as well as the local economy. BEAD does not have adequate data about the specific site characteristics of these facilities to quantify the distribution and magnitude of these impacts. However, BEAD anticipates that by using a combination of mitigation options most facilities will be able to meet the buffer requirements.

REFERENCES CAL DPR. 2006. California Department of Pesticide Regulation Pesticide Use Reporting ( PUR) data base. Available at http:// www. cdpr. ca. gov/ docs/ pur/ purmain. htm CAL DPR. 1994. Suggested Permit Conditions, Methyl Bromide Commodity Fumigation, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, August 8.

EPA. 2006. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Docket on Methyl Bromide Risk Assessment for Fumigant Pesticide. Docket No. EPA HQ OPP 2005 0123. Available at http:// www. regulations. gov .

EPA Proprietary Data, 2003. Industrial Economics, Incorporated report entitled: " Financial Profiles and Alternative Costs Report 2002 Methyl Bromide CUE Application from Post Harvest/ Structure Users for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs ( 7503C)".

Leesch, James, USDA. 2006. Personal communication with Colwell Cook, July 26, 2006. 17 United States of America. 2006a. Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Post Harvest Use in Commodities ( Submitted in 2006 for 2008 Use Season). Located at: http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr/ 2008_ nomination. html .

United States of America. 2006b. Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Post Harvest Use for NPMA ( Submitted in 2006 for 2008 Use Season). Located at: http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr/ 2008_ nomination. html .

Yourman, Leonard and David Donaldson. 2006. BEAD Response to Phase 3 Public Comments Concerning the Reregistration of Propylene Oxide ( PPO) for Uses on Almonds, Pecans, and Walnuts.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58174-58175]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2012-0006]

Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health
(FACOSH)

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Announcement of FACOSH meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health
(FACOSH) will meet October 18, 2012, in Washington, DC.

DATES:
    FACOSH meeting: FACOSH will meet from 1 to 4:30 p.m., e.t.,
Thursday, October 18, 2012.
    Submission of comments, requests to speak, speaker presentations,
and requests for special accommodations: You must submit (postmark,
send, transmit) comments, requests to speak at the FACOSH meeting,
speaker presentations, and requests for special accommodations to
attend the meeting by October 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES:
    FACOSH meeting: FACOSH will meet in Room N-4437 A-D, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
    Submission of comments, requests to speak, and speaker
presentations: You may submit comments, requests to speak at the FACOSH
meeting, and speaker presentations using one of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit materials, including attachments,
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the federal eRulemaking
Portal. Follow the online instructions for making submissions;
    Facsimile: If your submission, including attachments, does not
exceed 10 pages, you may fax it to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648; or
    Mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger or courier
service: You may submit materials to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No.
OSHA-2012-0006, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY (877)
889-5627). Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger/courier service)
are accepted during the Department's and the OSHA Docket Office's
normal business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Requests for special accommodations to attend the FACOSH meeting:
You may submit requests for special accommodations by telephone, email,
or hard copy to Ms. Veneta Chatmon, OSHA Office of Communications, Room
N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this Federal Register notice (Docket No. OSHA-2012-
0006). Because of security-related procedures, submissions by regular
mail may result in a significant delay in their receipt. Please contact
the OSHA Docket Office for information about security procedures for
making submissions by hand delivery, express delivery, and messenger or
courier service.
    For additional information on submitting comments, requests to
speak, and speaker presentations, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section below.
    OSHA will post comments, requests to speak, and speaker
presentations, including any personal information provided, without
change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions
interested parties about submitting certain personal information, such
as Social Security numbers and birthdates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3647, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information: Mr. Francis Yebesi, OSHA, Office of
Federal Agency Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3622, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2122; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

FACOSH Meeting

    FACOSH will meet October 18, 2012, in Washington, DC. FACOSH
meetings are open to the public.
    The tentative agenda for the FACOSH meeting includes:
     FACOSH subcommittee updates;
     Revitalization of field federal safety and health
councils;
     FACOSH nominations; and,
     Secretary of Labor's Report to the President on Federal
Department and Agency Occupational Safety and Health Program Activity.
    FACOSH is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 7902, section 19 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 668),
and Executive

Order 11612, as amended, to advise the Secretary of Labor on all
matters relating to the occupational safety and health of federal
employees. This includes providing advice on how to reduce and keep to
a minimum the number of injuries and illnesses in the federal workforce
and how to encourage each federal Executive Branch department and
agency to establish and maintain effective occupational safety and
health programs.
    OSHA transcribes and prepares detailed minutes of FACOSH meetings.
The Agency puts transcripts, minutes, subcommittee reports, and other
materials presented at the meeting in the public record of the FACOSH
meeting, which is posted at http://www.regulations.gov.

Public Participation, Submissions, and Access to Public Record

    FACOSH meetings: FACOSH meetings are open to the public.
Individuals attending meetings at the U.S. Department of Labor must
enter the building at the Visitors' Entrance, 3rd and C Streets NW.,
and pass through building security. Attendees must have valid
government-issued photo identification to enter the building. For
additional information about building security measures for attending
the FACOSH meeting, please contact Ms. Chatmon (see ADDRESSES section).
    Please submit your request for special accommodations to attend the
FACOSH meeting to Ms. Chatmon.
    Submission of requests to speak and speaker presentations. You may
submit a request to speak to FACOSH about the topics of the meeting and
speaker presentations by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. Your request must include:
     The amount of time you request to speak;
     The interest you represent (e.g., organization name), if
any; and,
     A brief outline of your presentation.
    PowerPoint speaker presentations and other electronic materials
must be compatible with PowerPoint 2010 and other Microsoft Office 2010
formats.
    The FACOSH Chair may grant requests to address FACOSH at his
discretion, and as time and circumstances permit.
    Submission of written comments. You also may submit written
comments, including data and other information, using any of the
methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. You may supplement electronic
submissions by uploading documents electronically. If you wish to
submit hard copies of supplementary documents instead, you must submit
them to the OSHA Docket Office using the instructions in the ADDRESSES
section. The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic
submission by name, date, and docket number.
    Because of security-related procedures, submitting comments,
requests to speak, and speaker presentations by regular mail may cause
a significant delay in their receipt. For information about security
procedures concerning submissions by hand, express delivery, and
messenger/courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office (see
ADDRESSES section). OSHA will provide copies of your submissions to
FACOSH members prior to the meeting.
    Access to submissions and public record. OSHA places comments,
requests to speak, and speaker presentations, including any personal
information you provide, in the FACOSH public docket without change and
those documents may be available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting certain
personal information, such as Social Security numbers and birthdates.
    OSHA also puts meeting transcripts, minutes, work group reports,
and documents presented at the FACOSH meeting in the public record of
the FACOSH meeting.
    To read or download documents in the public record, go to Docket
No. OSHA-2012-0006, at http://www.regulations.gov. Although all meeting
documents are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some
documents (e.g., copyrighted material) are not publicly available to
read or download through that Web page. All meeting documents,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
    Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov to make
submissions and to access the public record of the FACOSH meeting is
available at that Web page. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office for
information about materials not available through that Web page and for
assistance for making submissions and obtaining documents in the public
record.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice are available at
http://www.regulations.gov. This notice, as well as news releases and
other relevant information about FACOSH, is available at OSHA's Web
page at http://www.osha.gov.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice
under the authority granted by section 19 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 668), 5 U.S.C. 7902, the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2), 41 CFR part 102-3,
section 1-5 of Executive Order 12196 (45 CFR 12729 (7/27/1980)), and
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912 (1/25/2012)).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on September 14, 2012.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2012-23106 Filed 9-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P