[Federal Register: June 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 115)]
[Notices]
[Page 34615-34616]
[DOCID:fr15jn06-33]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0344; FRL-8060-1]

Pollution Prevention Information Network Grants; Request for
Applications

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990,
EPA anticipates that approximately $700,000 will be available to
support grants to States in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 for programs to
promote the use of successful pollution prevention techniques by
businesses and technical assistance providers. This grant program seeks
to increase access to pollution prevention information and ensure this
information is available to all facilities, businesses, or technical
assistance providers. Federal funds must be matched dollar for dollar
in this grant program. The maximum cost of an application is $240,000
with $120,000 from Federal funding.

DATES: Applications must be received on or before July 31, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Anderson, Pollution Prevention
Division (7409M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to States, State entities (colleges and
universities), Tribes, and Intertribal Consortia. This notice may,
however, be of interest to local governments, private universities,
private nonprofit entities, private businesses, and individuals who are
not eligible for this grant program. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0344; FRL-8060-1.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OPPT Docket in the

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Rm. B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Overview

    The following listing provides certain key information concerning
the application opportunity.
     Federal agency name: Environmental Protection Agency.
     Funding opportunity title: Pollution Prevention
Information Network Grants.
     Funding opportunity number: EPA-OPPT-06-15.
     Announcement type: Request for applications.
     Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number:
66.708.
     Dates: Applications must be received on or before July 31,
2006.
    The full text of the grant announcement, along with detailed
information, is available on the Agency's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/p2home/grants/index.htm.
 The full text of the

grant announcement includes specific information regarding purpose and
scope, activities to be funded, eligibility requirements, application
and submission information, and application review information.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Grant programs-environmental protection,
Pollution prevention.

    Dated: June 7, 2006.
Susan B. Hazen,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances.
[FR Doc. E6-9361 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


MEMORANDUM

DATE: 	February 15, 2013

SUBJECT:	Estimated Emissions from Wood Heaters

FROM:	Jill Mozier, EC/R Inc.
      Beth Friedman, EC/R Inc.

TO:		Gil Wood, EPA/OAQPS
		David Cole, EPA/OAQPS

	The purpose of this memorandum is to present an estimate of the fine particulate matter (PM2.5), volatile organic compound (VOC) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from wood heater appliances based on projected sales of new units and based on emissions under the proposed NSPS, as well as under an alternative regulatory option being considered for comment.

   I. PM Methodology

      A. 	Estimating Average Emissions per Appliance
	We used the EPA Residential Wood Combustion (RWC) emission estimation tool, which is an Access(TM) database that compiles nationwide RWC emissions using county level, process specific data and calculations.  We summed the nationwide number of appliances and total tons of wood burned for each of the relevant emission inventory categories (Table 1) in the inventory.

               Table 1.  RWC Emission Inventory Categories Used

Woodstove: fireplace inserts; EPA certified; non-catalytic
Woodstove: fireplace inserts; EPA certified; catalytic
Woodstove: freestanding, EPA certified, non-catalytic
Woodstove: freestanding, EPA certified, catalytic
Woodstove: pellet-fired, general
Woodstove: freestanding, non-EPA certified
Hydronic heater: outdoor
Furnaces:  indoor, cordwood

	We then made some adjustments/assumptions to the baseline RWC inventory.  First, we deleted data in the RWC for non-certified stoves and inserts, as these cannot be sold.  With the exception of wood stoves, we applied the PM2.5 emission factors for each class to the total tons of wood burned and calculated an average emission rate/appliance/category.  In the case of wood stoves, the RWC used an average of all PM10 AP-42 emission factors for wood stoves. The RWC assumes that PM10 and PM2.5 factors are identical.  At a minimum, we believe that all new wood stoves meet the AP-42 PM10 emission factors for "Phase II" stoves (the current NSPS promulgated in 1988).  As described below, we went a step further and assumed that all new shipments will meet the current Washington State limits, which are approximately 40 percent less than the 1988 NSPS.

	Second, we assumed that outdoor hydronic heaters and indoor hydronic heaters have the same emission profile.

	Single burn rate stoves are not included in the RWC as separate identifiable units.  We assumed that they would have the same baseline emission factor as freestanding non-certified woodstoves, i.e., 30.6 lb/ton of wood burned.  We used the average tons burned per appliance factor as representative of these stoves as well.

	Masonry heaters are not included in the RWC database.  Therefore, we were not able to estimate emissions from these appliances for the purpose of this analysis.

	We used this subset of the RWC database to calculate a baseline average emission rate/appliance (or "emission inventory category"), including an adjustment of the RWC emission factor to the current Washington State limits where warranted.  We multiplied the total tons of wood burned for the appliance by the RWC emission factor (adjusted as appropriate) to calculate the total tons of PM2.5 emissions.  We divided this value by the number of appliances in the category to calculate the baseline average PM2.5 emissions per individual appliance (Table 2).

            Table 2.  PM2.5 Tons per Appliance Estimate (Baseline)

                          Emission Inventory Category
                                   Pollutant
                       Baseline Emission factor (lb/ton)
                               Emissions (tons)
                             Tons per appliance/yr
Woodstove: fireplace inserts; EPA certified; non-catalytic
Primary PM2.5
                                     8.76
                                     5,371
                                    0.0041
Woodstove: fireplace inserts; EPA certified; catalytic
Primary PM2.5
                                     9.72
                                     2,023
                                    0.0047
Woodstove: freestanding, EPA certified, non-catalytic
Primary PM2.5
                                     8.76
                                     6,745
                                    0.0077
Woodstove: freestanding, EPA certified, catalytic
Primary PM2.5
                                     9.72
                                     3,769
                                    0.0101
Woodstove: pellet-fired, general
Primary PM2.5
                                     3.06
                                     1,798
                                    0.0021
Woodstove: freestanding, non-EPA certified*
Primary PM2.5
                                     30.6
                                    71,424
                                    0.0324
Hydronic heater: outdoor/indoor
Primary PM2.5
                                     27.6
                                    50,427
                                    0.1383
Furnace: indoor, cordwood
Primary PM2.5
                                     27.6
                                     2,471
                                    0.0582
*Non-EPA certified wood stove emission factor and tons/appliance were used to represent single burn rate stoves.

      The next step was to develop emission factors representing the proposed NSPS, as well as an alternative approach considered.  The NSPS options examined in this analysis ("proposal" and "alternative") are based on phased-in compliance dates, or "steps", for subcategories of appliances.  Proposed Subpart AAA will regulate "room heaters" and includes adjustable burn rate stoves, single burn rate stoves, and pellet stoves.  Proposed Subpart QQQQ will regulate "central heaters" and includes outdoor and indoor hydronic heaters and forced air furnaces. Proposed Subpart RRRR will regulate masonry heaters.  Following is a summary of the current NSPS implementation assumptions for appliances within the subcategories under both the proposal and the alternative.  The proposal is a 2-step standard with compliance dates of 2014 and 2019.  The alternative is a 3-step standard with compliance dates of 2014, 2017, and 2022.

Subpart AAA ("room heaters"):

      * Adjustable burn rate, single burn rate, and pellet stoves:  Proposal: Step 1 limit of 4.5 g/hr upon promulgation in 2014; and Step 2 limit of 1.3 g/hr five years after promulgation in 2019.  Alternative: Step 1 limit of 4.5 g/hr upon promulgation in 2014; Step 2 limit of 2.5 g/hr three years after promulgation in 2017; and Step 3 limit of 1.3 g/hr eight years after promulgation in 2022.  Note: The Step 1 limit is the 1995 Washington State standard for non-catalytic stoves; the Alternative Step 2 limit is the 1995 Washington State standard for catalytic stoves; and the proposed Step 2 (Alternative Step 3) limit is already met by the top performing catalytic, non-catalytic and pellet stove models, according to industry data. Although previously unregulated and a less developed technology than adjustable burn rate stoves, single burn rate stove designs have been undergoing R&D in anticipation of the proposed NSPS and cleaner designs are nearly market-ready.
Subpart QQQQ ("central heaters"):

      * Hydronic heaters (both outdoor and indoor):  Proposal: Step 1 limit of 0.32 lb/mm BTU heat output upon promulgation in 2014; and Step 2 limit of 0.06 lb/mm BTU heat output five years after promulgation in 2019.  Alternative: Step 1 limit of 0.32 lb/mm BTU heat output upon promulgation in 2014; Step 2 limit of 0.15 lb/mm BTU heat output three years after promulgation in 2017; and Step 3 limit of 0.06 lb/mm BTU heat output eight years after promulgation in 2022.  Note: The Step 1 limit is the EPA "Phase 2 " voluntary program limit already met by 36 hydronic heater models (27 cord wood and 9 pellet models) built by 17 U.S. manufacturers; the Alternative Step 2 limit is already met by 11 hydronic heater models (6 cord wood and 5 pellet models) built by 6 U.S. manufacturers; and the proposed Step 2 (Alternative Step 3) limit is already met by 4 hydronic heater models (2 cord wood and 2 pellet models) built by 2 U.S. manufacturers, as well as over 100 European manufacturers per test method EN 303-05.

      * Forced Air Furnaces:  Proposal: Step 1 limit of 0.93 lb/mm BTU heat output upon promulgation in 2014; and Step 2 limit of 0.06 lb/mm BTU heat output five years after promulgation in 2019.  Alternative: Step 1 limit of 0.93 lb/mm BTU heat output upon promulgation in 2014; Step 2 limit of 0.15 lb/mm BTU heat output three years after promulgation in 2017; and Step 3 limit of 0.06 lb/mm BTU heat output eight years after promulgation in 2022.  Note: The Step 1 limit is based on test data from development of Canadian standard B415.1-10 and conversation with industry regarding cleaner forced air furnace models currently being tested in R&D.  Forced air furnace designs able to meet the Alternative Step 2 and proposed Step 2 (Alternative Step 3) limits may be based on technology transferred from hydronic heater designs.
Subpart RRRR including masonry heaters:

      * Masonry Heaters:  Proposal / Alternative (same): Step 1 limit of 0.32 lb/mm BTU heat output upon promulgation in 2014 for large manufacturers (defined as manufacturers constructing >= 15 masonry heaters per year), with a 5-year (2019) small volume manufacturer compliance extension (for companies constructing < 15 units/year).  No other phased-in limits are being proposed.  Note: Based on data submitted by the Masonry Heater Association, over 10 models already meet this limit.
	We developed adjusted emission factors to reflect the proposed and alternative limits discussed above, which were then used to calculate new average tons of emissions per appliance for each RWC appliance type in Tables 1 and 2.  Adjustments were assumed for NSPS emission factors (as noted below) in order to not over state emission reductions under the proposal and alternative; actual emission reductions may be greater than reductions resulting from our emission factor adjustments for the purpose of this analysis.  Following is a description of how the RWC factors were adjusted for each appliance type:

      * Woodstove: all EPA certified.  As noted above, we determined the ratio of emissions between the existing 1988 NSPS limits compared to the Washington state standards.   For both catalytic and non-catalytic devices, the Washington standard is 60% of the 1988 NSPS.  We assumed this same ratio would apply to the emission factors and multiplied the RWC emission factor by 60%.  We used these adjusted RWC emission factors (shown in Table 2) as both baseline and Step 1 emission factors for catalytic and non-catalytic stoves.  We made the assumption (in terms of estimating potential emission reductions) that the Step 1  emission factor was the same as the baseline emission factor, because nearly all current wood stove models already meet the Step 1  limit according to industry data. We also assumed that the Alternative Step 2 emission factor for catalytic stoves was the same as the baseline and Step 1 emission factor because approximately 90% of the current catalytic models already meet the Alternative Step 2 limit, according to industry data.[10] For the Alternative Step 2 emission factor for non-catalytic models, we scaled the Step 1 emission factor by the ratio of the Alternative Step 2 standard to the Step 1 standard (or 2.5/4.5 = 0.55).  Likewise, for the proposed Step 2 (Alternative Step 3) emission factor for both catalytic and non-catalytic models, we scaled the Alternative Step 2 emission factor by the ratio of the proposed Step 2 (Alternative Step 3) standard to the Alternative Step 2 standard (or 1.3/2.5 = 0.52).  For consistency with our shipment data (described in section B) and because the RWC database provides four separate emission factors for catalytic and non-catalytic, freestanding models and fireplace inserts, we used the weighted average value for all four wood stove types to represent the total population of adjustable burn rate woodstoves.  Finally, we multiplied the resulting emission factors by the total tons burned for the appliance type (provided by the RWC database) and then divided that by the appliance population (also provided by the RWC database) to derive the tons/appliance of PM2.5 emissions. The emission factors and tons/appliance are shown in the green rows in Table 3.
      * Woodstove:  pellet fired, general. We used the RWC emission factor shown in Table 2 as both the baseline and Step 1 emission factor for pellet stoves because nearly all current pellet stove models already meet the Step 1 standard according to industry data. Furthermore, the RWC emission factor for pellet stoves is quite low compared to other appliances, which leaves little room to adjust the factor.  For the Alternative Step 2 emission factor, we reduced the Baseline/Step 1 emission factor by only 10%, based on industry data[11] that most pellet models (80%) already meet the Alternative Step 2 level.  For the proposed Step 2 (Alternative Step 3) emission factor, we scaled the Alternative Step 2 emission factor by the ratio of the proposed Step 2 (Alternative Step 3) standard to the Alternative Step 2 standard (or 1.3/2.5 = 0.52).  We multiplied the resulting emission factors by the total tons burned for pellet stoves and then divided that by the pellet stove appliance population to derive the tons/appliance of PM2.5 emissions.  The emission factors and tons/appliance are shown in the orange row in Table 3.
      * Woodstove: freestanding, non-EPA certified (single burn rate stoves). As described above, we assumed that the freestanding non-EPA certified woodstove emission inventory category includes the population of single burn rate stoves.  We therefore used the RWC emission factor for freestanding non-EPA certified woodstoves (30.6 lb/ton) as the baseline emission factor for single burn rate stoves.  For the Step 1 emission factor, we used the same emission factor as a certified non-catalytic stove meeting the Washington state standards (i.e., 8.76 lb/ton) because the same standard is being proposed for single burn rate stoves as for adjustable burn rate stoves. Likewise, we used the same emission factors used for non-catalytic stoves for the Alternative Step 2 and proposed Step 2 (Alternative Step 3) emission factors.  We multiplied the resulting emission factors by the total tons burned for this appliance category and then divided that by the appliance population to derive the tons/appliance of PM2.5 emissions.  The emission factors and tons/appliance are shown in the grey row in Table 3.
      * Hydronic heater:  outdoor/indoor.  As noted above, we assumed that indoor hydronic heaters (a minority of the hydronic heater population) have the same emission profile as the outdoor hydronic heater appliance category provided in the RWC.  According to the EPA voluntary hydronic heater program, the "Phase 2" heaters that are presumed to represent the Step 1 limit are 90% cleaner than older unqualified units. We assume that the majority of the existing inventory is represented by these unqualified units, and applied a 90% reduction to the RWC baseline emission factor shown in Table 2 (27.6 lb/ton) in order to derive the Step 1 emission factor (of 2.76 lb/ton).  For the Alternative Step 2 emission factor, we assumed a 50% reduction in the Step 1 emission factor since the Alternative Step 2 limit is approximately 50% of the Step 1 limit.  Likewise, for the proposed Step 2 (Alternative Step 3) emission factor, we scaled the Alternative Step 2 emission factor by the ratio of the proposed Step 2 (Alternative Step 3) standard to the Alternative Step 2 standard (or 0.06/0.15 = 0.40).  We multiplied the resulting emission factors by the total tons burned for the hydronic heater RWC appliance category and then divided that by the hydronic heater appliance population to derive the tons/appliance of PM2.5 emissions.  The emission factors and tons/appliance are shown in the blue row in Table 3.
      * Furnace: indoor, cordwood.  We used the RWC emission factor shown in Table 2 (27.6 lb/ton) as the baseline emission factor.  For Step 1, we scaled the baseline emission factor by 75% (to 6.9 lb/ton) because background material provided in the Canadian standards review process stated that that the emission limit associated with this method would results in an approximately 75% reduction in emissions compared to a non-qualifying furnace. The Alternative Step 2 and proposed Step 2 (Alternative Step 3) limits of 0.15 lb/mmBTU and 0.06 lb/mmBTU, respectively, are the same as the hydronic heater limits.  The baseline emission factors for each appliance category are also the same.  Therefore we used the same Alternative Step 2 and proposed Step 2 (Alternative Step 3) emission factors used for hydronic heaters (1.38 lb/ton and 0.55 lb/ton, respectively).  We multiplied the emission factors by the total tons burned for the cordwood furnace RWC appliance category and then divided that by the furnace appliance population to derive the tons/appliance of PM2.5 emissions.  The emission factors and tons/appliance are shown in the lavender row in Table 3.
      Table 3 shows the baseline, Step 1, Alternative Step 2, and proposed Step 2 (Alternative Step 3) emission factors for each appliance type resulting from our assumptions and adjustments described above.  We used the appropriate tons/appliance with annual shipment data (Section B) to estimate annual PM2.5 emissions (Section C), based on the proposed and alternative phased-in compliance dates.

Table 3.  NSPS Adjusted Emission Factors for PM2.5  -  Baseline, Step 1, Alternative Step 2, and Step 2 (Alternative Step 3)

Emission Inventory Category
                        Baseline Emission factor lb/ton
                              Baseline Tons/appl
                         Step 1 Emission Factor lb/ton
                               Step 1 Tons/appl
                      Alt. Step 2 Emission Factor lb/ton
                             Alt. Step 2 Tons/appl
                                    Step 2
                     (Alt. Step 3) Emission Factor lb/ton
                                    Step 2
                            (Alt. Step 3) Tons/appl
Woodstove: fireplace inserts; EPA certified; non-catalytic
                                     8.76
                                    0.0041
                                     8.76
                                    0.0041
                                     4.82
                                    0.0023
                                     2.51
                                    0.0012
Woodstove: fireplace inserts; EPA certified; catalytic
                                     9.72
                                    0.0047
                                     9.72
                                    0.0047
                                     9.72
                                    0.0047
                                     5.05
                                    0.0025
Woodstove: freestanding, EPA certified, non-catalytic
                                     8.76
                                    0.0077
                                     8.76
                                    0.0077
                                     4.82
                                    0.0042
                                     2.51
                                    0.0022
Woodstove: freestanding, EPA certified, catalytic
                                     9.72
                                    0.0101
                                     9.72
                                    0.0101
                                     9.72
                                    0.0101
                                     5.05
                                    0.0052
Woodstove: pellet-fired, general
                                     3.06
                                    0.0021
                                     3.06
                                    0.0021
                                     2.75
                                    0.0019
                                     1.43
                                    0.0010
Single Burn Rate Stoves (freestanding, non-EPA certified)
                                     30.6
                                    0.0324
                                     8.76
                                    0.0093
                                     4.82
                                    0.0051
                                     2.51
                                    0.0027
Hydronic heater: outdoor
                                     27.6
                                    0.1383
                                     2.76
                                    0.0138
                                     1.38
                                    0.0069
                                     0.55
                                    0.0028
Furnace: indoor, cordwood
                                     27.6
                                    0.1032
                                      6.9
                                    0.0258
                                     1.38
                                    0.0052
                                     0.55
                                    0.0021

                                                                         0.0060
Baseline woodstove weighted average (Tons/appl)
                                                                         0.0060
Step 1 woodstove weighted average (Tons/appl)
                                                                         0.0042
Alternative Step 2 woodstove weighted average (Tons/appl)
                                                                         0.0022
Step 2 (Alternative Step 3) woodstove weighted average (Tons/appl)

      B.
      C. 	Shipment Data
	We used data in the Frost & Sullivan Market (F&S) report on 2008 shipments by product category, and F&S revenue forecasts which incorporated the weak economy in years 2009 and 2010, to calculate the reduced number of shipments in years 2009 and 2010. Forced air furnaces were outside the scope of the F&S report.  Instead, we used manufacturer estimates of total industry sales in 2008 and applied the F&S market factors to estimate shipments through 2010. The F&S wood stove numbers included both certified and non-certified stoves, so we estimated numbers of non-certified stove shipments out of the total reported wood stove category (i.e., 40,000 single burn rate stoves shipped in 2008).[15] These shipments were deleted from the total wood stove category shipments.  We expanded the 2008 single burn rate estimate using the F&S factors.

      For years 2011 through 2038 (for the proposed NSPS) and 2011 through 2041 (for the alternative approach) estimated shipments are based on a forecasted revenue growth rate of 2.0%, in keeping with the average annual growth in real GDP predicted by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis.  There is not a perfect correlation between shipments and revenue (for example, because of their higher unit cost, pellet stoves generate more absolute revenue than wood stoves), but we think the overall trend in the projection is reasonable in the absence of specific shipment projections.

	Table 4 on the next page shows a truncated summary of the shipment data through year 2023. Our cost effectiveness analysis (CE) assumes a 20-year model design lifespan as well as a 20-year use/emitting appliance lifespan.  These assumptions were made to best characterize the actual model design and use lifespans given that many models developed for the 1988 NSPS are still being sold (after 25 years), many "new" models still have the same internal working parts with merely exterior cosmetic changes, and most stoves in consumer homes emit for at least 20 years and often much longer.  Therefore our CE analysis tracks shipments through year 2038 for the proposed NSPS and through year 2041 for the alternative approach (i.e., assuming a 20 year design life for a model meeting the Step 2 limit in year 2019 under the proposed NSPS, and for a model meeting the Alternative Step 3 limit in year 2022 under the alternative approach).  Thus Table 4 is a truncated summary of our actual shipment data which extended through years 2038 for the proposed NSPS and 2041 for the alternative approach. See the CE analysis spreadsheets[17] for the complete shipment data.

      D. 	Estimated PM2.5 Emissions from Shipments of New Appliances
	As described above, we calculated the average emissions per appliance type using the emission factor for each category multiplied by the inventory value of total tons of wood burned divided by the number of appliances in the inventory population.  This tons/appliance value was then multiplied by the number of shipments to calculate total emissions from each appliance category per year under baseline conditions, i.e., in the absence of an NSPS.

	Table 5 on the next page shows a truncated summary of the estimated PM2.5 emissions (in tons) under baseline conditions through year 2023.  We then estimated emissions under the proposed NSPS (Table 6) and under the alternative approach (Table 7) based on the respective assumptions and phase-in timelines for each. Under the proposed NSPS, the Step 1 limit becomes effective in 2014 and the Step 2 limit in 2019; while under the alternative approach, the Step 1 limit becomes effective in 2014, the Step 2 limit in 2017, and the Step 3 limit in 2022. (Note that the proposed Step 2 limit is the same as the alternative Step 3 limit, although the compliance dates differ.)  The emission estimates assume that the total number of shipped units meet the standard in the year the standard is implemented.

      Tables 5, 6, and 7 show emission estimates out to year 2023 for comparison.  Like Table 4, these are truncated summaries.  Our CE analysis tracks emission reductions out through 2057 for the proposed NSPS and through 2060 for the alternative approach, assuming a 20 year design life for a model meeting each phased-in limit, and assuming that stoves shipped in the 20[th] year of design life will be emitting in homes for another 20 years.  See the CE analysis spreadsheets[17] for all years of emission data, both baseline and under each NSPS scenario.

      Cumulative PM2.5 emissions are shown through year 2057 for the proposed NSPS, and through year 2060 for the alternative approach in Tables 8 through 15.  These tables show cumulative emissions under both NSPS scenarios as well as cumulative emission reductions from baseline for both.  Table 8 shows cumulative emissions and emission reductions for appliances regulated under Subpart AAA (a.k.a. "Room Heaters")  -  that is, for wood stoves, pellet stoves, and single burn rate stoves combined.  Tables 9, 10 and 11 show emissions and reductions for the individual appliances regulated under Subpart AAA.  Table 12 shows cumulative emissions and emission reductions for appliances under Subpart QQQQ (a.k.a. "Central Heaters")  -  that is, for forced air furnaces and hydronic heaters.  Tables 13 and 14 show emissions and reductions for the individual appliances regulated under Subpart QQQQ.  Finally, Table 15 shows cumulative emissions and emission reductions for Subparts AAA and QQQQ combined.

      Note: No emission tables are provided for Subpart RRRR regulating masonry heaters because emission estimates are not available for these appliances as explained in Section A.

                   Table 4.  Estimated Annual Shipped Units

            Table 5. Estimated PM2.5 Emissions (Tons)  -  Baseline

Table 6. Estimated PM2.5 Emissions (Tons)  -  Proposed NSPS (Step 1 in 2014 and Step 2 in 2019)

Table 7. Estimated PM2.5 Emissions (Tons)  -  Alternative Approach (Step 1 in 2014, Step 2 in 2017, and Step 3 in 2022)

   Table 8. Estimated Cumulative PM2.5 Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                                for Subpart AAA

   Table 9. Estimated Cumulative PM2.5 Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                                for Wood Stoves

  Table 10. Estimated Cumulative PM2.5 Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                               for Pellet Stoves

  Table 11. Estimated Cumulative PM2.5 Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                          for Single Burn Rate Stoves

  Table 12. Estimated Cumulative PM2.5 Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                               for Subpart QQQQ

  Table 13. Estimated Cumulative PM2.5 Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                            for Forced Air Furnaces

  Table 14. Estimated Cumulative PM2.5 Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                             for Hydronic Heaters

  Table 15. Estimated Cumulative PM2.5 Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                          for Subparts AAA & QQQQ

   II. VOC Methodology
      We used the same methodology described in Section I to develop emission estimates for VOC emissions. Using the RWC database, we developed an estimate of VOC emissions per appliance using baseline emission factors.  Then, using the same NSPS phase-in assumptions and anticipated emission reductions (i.e., that VOC reductions are comparable to PM2.5 reductions), we developed emission factors to be used in analyzing the proposed NSPS and the alternative approach. See Table 16.

	Next, using the same assumptions as we used for PM2.5, we calculated VOC emissions at baseline and under the proposed NSPS and alternative approach for each stepped limit.  See Tables 17  -  19.

	Finally, cumulative VOC emissions and emission reductions under both the proposed NSPS and alternative approach were calculated based on a 20-year model design lifespan for shipments, as well as a 20-year appliance use lifespan for emissions, as explained in Sections I-B and I-C.  See Tables 20  -  27.

   Note: No emission tables are provided for Subpart RRRR regulating masonry heaters because emission estimates are not available for these appliances as explained in Section A.

   III. CO Methodology
	We used the same methodology described in Section I to develop emission estimates for CO emissions. Using the RWC database, we developed an estimate of CO emissions per appliance using baseline emission factors.  Then, using the same NSPS stepped limit assumptions and anticipated emission reductions (i.e., that CO reductions are comparable to PM2.5 reductions), we developed emission factors to be used in analyzing the proposed NSPS and the alternative approach.  See Table 28.

      Next, using the same assumptions as we used for PM2.5, we calculated CO emissions at baseline and under the proposed NSPS and alternative approach for each stepped limit.  See Tables 29  -  31.

      Finally, cumulative CO emissions and emission reductions under both the proposed NSPS and alternative approach were calculated based on a 20-year model design lifespan for shipments, as well as a 20-year appliance use lifespan for emissions, as explained in Sections I-B and I-C. See Tables 32  -  39.

      Note: No emission tables are provided for Subpart RRRR regulating masonry heaters because emission estimates are not available for these appliances as explained in Section A.
Table 16.  NSPS Adjusted Emission Factors for VOC  -  Baseline, Step 1, Alternative Step 2, and Step 2 (Alternative Step 3)

Emission Inventory Category
Baseline Emission factor lb/ton
Baseline Tons/appl
Step 1 Emission Factor lb/ton
Step 1 Tons/appl
 Alt.
Step 2 Emission Factor lb/ton
Alt.
Step 2 Tons/appl
Step 2
(Alt. Step 3) Emission Factor lb/ton
Step 2 (Alt.    Step 3) Tons/appl
Woodstove: fireplace inserts; EPA certified; non-catalytic
                                      12
                                    0.0056
                                      12
                                    0.0056
                                      6.6
                                    0.0031
                                     3.432
                                    0.0016
Woodstove: fireplace inserts; EPA certified; catalytic
                                      15
                                    0.0073
                                      15
                                    0.0073
                                      15
                                    0.0073
                                     7.800
                                    0.0038
Woodstove: freestanding, EPA certified, non-catalytic
                                      12
                                    0.0106
                                      12
                                    0.0106
                                      6.6
                                    0.0058
                                     3.432
                                    0.0030
Woodstove: freestanding, EPA certified, catalytic
                                      15
                                    0.0155
                                      15
                                    0.0155
                                      15
                                    0.0155
                                     7.800
                                    0.0081
Woodstove: pellet-fired, general
                                     0.041
                                    0.00003
                                     0.041
                                    0.00003
                                     0.037
                                    0.00003
                                     0.019
                                    0.00001
Single Burn Rate Stoves (freestanding, non-EPA certified)
                                      53
                                    0.0561
                                      12
                                    0.0127
                                      6.6
                                    0.0070
                                     3.432
                                    0.0036
Hydronic heater: outdoor
                                     11.7
                                    0.0586
                                     1.17
                                    0.0059
                                     0.59
                                    0.0029
                                     0.234
                                    0.0012
Furnace: indoor, cordwood
                                     11.7
                                    0.0437
                                     2.925
                                    0.0109
                                     0.59
                                    0.0022
                                     0.234
                                    0.0009
0.0086
Baseline woodstove weighted average (Tons/appl)
0.0086
Step 1 woodstove weighted average (Tons/appl)
0.0061
Alternative Step 2 woodstove weighted average (Tons/appl)
0.0032
Step 2 (Alternative Step 3) woodstove weighted average (Tons/appl)

             Table 17. Estimated VOC Emissions (Tons)  -  Baseline

Table 18. Estimated VOC Emissions (Tons)  -  Proposed NSPS (Step 1 in 2014 and Step 2 in 2019)

Table 19. Estimated VOC Emissions (Tons)  -  Alternative Approach (Step 1 in 2014, Step 2 in 2017, and Step 3 in 2022)

   Table 20. Estimated Cumulative VOC Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                                for Subpart AAA

   Table 21. Estimated Cumulative VOC Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                                for Wood Stoves

   Table 22. Estimated Cumulative VOC Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                               for Pellet Stoves

   Table 23. Estimated Cumulative VOC Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                          for Single Burn Rate Stoves

   Table 24. Estimated Cumulative VOC Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                               for Subpart QQQQ

   Table 25. Estimated Cumulative VOC Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                            for Forced Air Furnaces

   Table 26. Estimated Cumulative VOC Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                             for Hydronic Heaters

   Table 27. Estimated Cumulative VOC Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                          for Subparts AAA & QQQQ

Table 28.  NSPS Adjusted Emission Factors for CO  -  Baseline, Step 1, Alternative Step 2, and Step 2 (Alternative Step 3)

Emission Inventory Category
Baseline Emission factor lb/ton
Baseline Tons/appl
Step 1 Emission Factor lb/ton
Step 1 Tons/appl
 Alt.
Step 2 Emission Factor lb/ton
Alt.
Step 2 Tons/appl
Step 2
(Alt. Step 3) Emission Factor lb/ton
Step 2 (Alt.    Step 3) Tons/appl
Woodstove: fireplace inserts; EPA certified; non-catalytic
                                     140.8
                                    0.0662
                                     140.8
                                    0.0662
                                     77.4
                                    0.0364
                                    40.269
                                    0.0189
Woodstove: fireplace inserts; EPA certified; catalytic
                                     104.4
                                    0.0509
                                     104.4
                                    0.0509
                                     104.4
                                    0.0509
                                    54.288
                                    0.0264
Woodstove: freestanding, EPA certified, non-catalytic
                                     140.8
                                    0.1241
                                     140.8
                                    0.1241
                                     77.4
                                    0.0683
                                    40.269
                                    0.0355
Woodstove: freestanding, EPA certified, catalytic
                                     104.4
                                    0.1082
                                     104.4
                                    0.1082
                                     104.4
                                    0.1082
                                    54.288
                                    0.0563
Woodstove: pellet-fired, general
                                     15.9
                                    0.0110
                                     15.9
                                    0.0110
                                     14.31
                                    0.0099
                                     7.441
                                    0.0052
Single Burn Rate Stoves (freestanding, non-EPA certified)
                                     230.8
                                    0.2442
                                     140.8
                                    0.1489
                                     77.4
                                    0.0819
                                    40.269
                                    0.0426
Hydronic heater: outdoor
                                      184
                                    0.9222
                                     18.4
                                    0.0922
                                      9.2
                                    0.0461
                                     3.680
                                    0.0184
Furnace: indoor, cordwood
                                      184
                                    0.6878
                                      46
                                    0.1719
                                      9.2
                                    0.0344
                                     3.680
                                    0.0138

0.0863
Baseline woodstove weighted average (Tons/appl)
0.0863
Step 1 woodstove weighted average (Tons/appl)
0.0569
Alternative Step 2 woodstove weighted average (Tons/appl)
0.0296
Step 2 (Alternative Step 3) woodstove weighted average (Tons/appl)

             Table 29. Estimated CO Emissions (Tons)  -  Baseline

Table 30. Estimated CO Emissions (Tons)  -  Proposed NSPS (Step 1 in 2014 and Step 2 in 2019)

Table 31. Estimated CO Emissions (Tons)  -  Alternative Approach (Step 1 in 2014, Step 2 in 2017, and Step 3 in 2022)

    Table 32. Estimated Cumulative CO Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                                for Subpart AAA

    Table 33. Estimated Cumulative CO Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                                for Wood Stoves

    Table 34. Estimated Cumulative CO Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                               for Pellet Stoves

    Table 35. Estimated Cumulative CO Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                          for Single Burn Rate Stoves

    Table 36. Estimated Cumulative CO Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                               for Subpart QQQQ

    Table 37. Estimated Cumulative CO Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                            for Forced Air Furnaces

    Table 38. Estimated Cumulative CO Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                             for Hydronic Heaters

    Table 39. Estimated Cumulative CO Emissions through Appliance Lifespan
                          for Subparts AAA & QQQQ


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 236 (Thursday, December 8, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 88636-88637]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29442]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0598; FRL-9956-30-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT16

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter: Revision of
Federal Implementation Plan Requirements for Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending the
public comment period for the proposed rule titled ``Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter: Revision of Federal
Implementation Plan Requirements for Texas'' published in the Federal
Register on November 10, 2016.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 9, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0598
for this action. Follow the instructions for submitting comments
provided under ADDRESSES in the November 10, 2016 proposal (81 FR
78954).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
action, contact Robert L. Miller, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of
Atmospheric Programs (Mail Code 6204M), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the proposed rule titled ``Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter: Revision of Federal
Implementation Plan Requirements for Texas'' (81 FR 78954, November 10,
2016), the EPA established a public comment period ending on December
12, 2016. The EPA received multiple requests for an extension of this
period. In order to ensure that the public has sufficient time to
review and comment on the proposal, the EPA is extending the public
comment period to end on January 9, 2017.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Electric power plants, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: December 2, 2016.
Sarah Dunham,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-29442 Filed 12-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 55603]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25320]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL18-30-000]

South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Petition for
Partial Waiver

    Take notice that on November 16, 2017, pursuant to section 292.402
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules and
Regulations, 18 CFR 292.402 (2017) South Texas Electric Cooperative,
Inc. (South Texas), on behalf of itself and three of its member-
distribution cooperatives, Jackson Electric Cooperative, Inc., Magic
Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(collectively, Member Cooperatives), submitted a request for waivers of
certain obligations imposed on them by Section 210 of the Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and Commission's
regulations, all as more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 7, 2017.

    Dated: November 16, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-25320 Filed 11-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Assessment of the Benefits Soil Fumigants (Methyl Bromide,
Chloropicrin, Metam-Sodium, Dazomet) Used by Forest Tree Seedling
Nurseries

FROM:	John Faulkner, Economist

		Economic Analysis Branch

		Leonard Yourman, Plant Pathologist

		Biological Analysis Branch

		Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

THRU:	Timothy Kiely, Chief

		Economic Analysis Branch

		Arnet Jones, Chief

		Biological Analysis Branch

		Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

TO:		Special Review and Reregistration Division

PRODUCT REVIEW PANEL DATE:  April 11, 2007

Summary

This assessment focuses on the benefits of fumigants to forest seedling
nurseries.  Methyl bromide and chloropicrin are important to forest
seedling nurseries in order to satisfy demand for tree seedlings to
reforest land and provide forests for fiber, wildlife and conservation
purposes.  Without the use of methyl bromide and chloropicrin, yield
losses would likely be 5% or greater and production costs would be
higher.  In addition, seedling quality would be compromised resulting in
slower growing trees, greater yield loss if the poor quality seedlings
are rejected, and the spreading of pathogens, weeds, and other pests to
forests, if the seedlings are contaminated with such pests.  Maintaining
pest-free nursery soils is critical to producing healthy seedlings and
the foundation for establishing economically viable forest land.
Billions of tree seedlings are produced in tree nurseries throughout the
U.S. and provide benefits far beyond the nurseries themselves, but
transfer to the millions of acres of forests that depend on healthy
seedlings for the establishment of healthy forests.

Introduction—Production Practices of Forest Seedling Nurseries

Forest seedling nurseries in the U.S. supply conifer and hardwood
seedlings that are used for reforestation, forest establishment, fiber
production, and wildlife and conservation uses.  The impact of seedling
quality and size on the success of forest establishment cannot be
overstated. The quality of seedlings is highly correlated with the
success of the regeneration process and corresponding long-term economic
and use benefits, where seedling quality results in greater survival
rates and faster growth.  Maintaining pest-free nursery soils is
critical to producing healthy seedlings and the foundation for
establishing economically viable forests.

In a survey conducted in 2001-2002 by the Southern Forest Nursery
Management Cooperative, there were nearly 2 billion pine seedlings
produced by nurseries in the southern U.S. alone.  This accounted for
80% of U. S. pine seedling production.  Nurseries in the U.S. are
located in eight climate zones (USDA Zones 3 to 10) and have mostly
light or medium soils.  The majority of seedlings are species of
conifers, especially pine.  In addition, 30-60 species of hardwoods,
such as oaks, hickory, poplars, and ash, are produced.  Nurseries
produce seedlings adapted to their respective regional conditions, with
variables such as climate, elevation, and soil type.

Some forest tree nurseries include those owned and managed by commercial
forest companies, such as Weyerhaeuser and International Paper.  These
nurseries typically are 100-400 acres in size, with fumigation and new
plantings occurring on one-quarter to one-third of the acreage during a
growing season.  Other nurseries owned by federal, state, or private
concerns range in size from fewer than 25 acres to 100 acres.

Conifer seedlings are typically grown for one or two years in seedling
beds.  Managers typically fumigate a particular conifer seedling bed
with methyl bromide once every 3-4 years, i.e., one-quarter to one-third
of the total nursery land is fumigated each year to produce two or three
harvestable forest seedling crops per single bed fumigation.  Typically,
a one- or two-year fallow or cover crop period occurs, followed by
fumigation.  Effective fumigants, such as methyl bromide, permit less
frequent bed fumigation per harvestable seedling crop.  For hardwood
seedlings, beds are fumigated prior to each seedling crop, as hardwood
species are generally more prone to root rots and damping-off diseases
than conifers, although the production volume of hardwoods is smaller
than overall conifer production.

At the appropriate stage of maturity, forest seedlings are harvested in
the nursery, packaged, and transported to the planting site.  Seedlings
are usually culled or sized during the harvesting process, with culled
trees discarded.  Large nurseries grade their seedlings and may sell
lower grade (#2) seedlings at a reduced price, or discard all but the
highest grade (#1) seedlings.

In the southern U.S. approximately 50% of forest tree nurseries are
treated with methyl bromide (1620 acres out of 3250 acres of nurseries).
 Methyl bromide is particularly effective where high nutsedge
populations are endemic.  In southern nurseries, bareroot production
includes pine (91-96% of production) and hardwood species (4-9% of
production).

In northeast nurseries production includes conifers (10-15 spp.), grown
for 1 year (8% of production), for 2 years (4%) and 3 years (14% of
production).  Hardwoods grown include 30-50 species with one-year old
plants (55% of production) and 2-year old plants (9% of production).
Shrubs and forbs (>75 species) occupy 10% of production.

Target Pests for Fumigants

For many nurseries only #1 grade seedlings are sold or planted, #2 grade
and cull seedlings may be discarded and, therefore, overall production
can be reduced.  Fumigation is relied on to manage pests that interfere
with the growth of healthy seedlings.  Pests include fungal (e.g.,
Phytophthora, Pythium), nematodes (e.g., Criconemoides,
Helicotylenchus), and yellow and purple nutsedges (Cyperus spp.) (Cram
and Fraedrich, 1997).  Nutsedges are generally considered among the
major pests of forest seedling nurseries, and are a particular problem
in the southeastern U.S. and the pests most difficult to manage.  Table
1 indicates the key pests targeted by fumigants for forest seedling
nurseries in major production regions.

Table 1.  Target pests for fumigants in soils of forest seedling
nurseries.

Region	Key Pests

Southeast1	Weed: Nutsedge (Cyperus spp.); Pathogens: Fusarium, Pythium,
Rhizoctonia; Nematodes: Criconemoides, Helicotylenchus

Northeast2	Fungi: Phytophthora (damping-off, root rot), Fusarium
(damping-off, root rot), Cylindrocladium;

Weeds: Cyperus (yellow nutsedge) [40%], Cirsium (Canada thistle) [70%]

West3	Pathogens: Fusarium, Pythium, Phytophthora, Cylindrocarpon, Phoma;
Weeds: Cyperus (yellow nutsedge)

1 Includes: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia

2 Includes: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri,
New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wisconsin

3 Includes: Washington, Oregon

Pest-free Designation

Nurseries providing seedlings for reforestation and other purposes must
ensure the planting of high quality, disease-free stock.  Depending on
regional regulations government certification requirements may (e.g.,
CDFA, 2003; NCDA, undated) or may not apply.  Regardless, zero tolerance
for damaging diseases and plant-parasitic nematodes apply for internal
quality control and grading requirements are implemented in order to
minimize the prospect of spreading nematodes and diseases from state to
state.

Fumigants Used Forest Seedling Nurseries

The fumigants used by tree nurseries are methyl bromide (under a
critical use exemption) + chloropicrin, chloropicrin,
1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) + chloropicrin, 1,3-D + chloropicrin +
metam-sodium, 1,3-D + metam-sodium, and dazomet as a follow-up
application to 1,3-D + chloropicrin or chloropicrin.

Methyl bromide (used with chloropicrin in a formulation ranging from
67-98% methyl bromide) has been the standard fumigant for forest
seedling nurseries.  As the phase-out of methyl bromide continues,
research is ongoing to identify other effective fumigants.
Inconsistency in pest management performance by alternatives where pest
pressure is high has been the primary reason that methyl bromide is
currently used with a critical use exemption label.  A fumigant at one
location may be an acceptable alternative, while at another location it
may not be (James et al., 2001).  While direct yield losses, in terms of
seedlings/hectare, may not be large on average, intensive seedling
production relies on the ability of nursery managers to meet quality, as
well as yield, goals.  In addition, economic issues such as increased
application costs (e.g., costs associated with application of
metam-sodium and a separate chloropicrin application) may have an impact
on overall feasibility of these alternatives for the forest seedlings
sector.

The use rates and characteristics of fumigants used in forest tree
nurseries are listed below:

Methyl bromide (350 lb/acre) + chloropicrin (7 lb/acre)

In general, a 98:2 ratio of methyl bromide:chloropicrin is used in some
eastern (north and south) nurseries due to high populations of weeds
(most importantly, nutsedge).  Conifer beds are generally fumigated once
in 3-4 years, beds growing hardwoods may be fumigated every year.

Methyl bromide (236 lb/acre) + chloropicrin (116 lb/acre)

In general, a 67:33 ratio of methyl bromide:chloropicrin is used where
weed problems may be less severe, and where disease problems are more
damaging.  This may be the situation in many nurseries in the western
U.S.  Pest problems, however, can be highly variable throughout the U.S.
even between locations in close proximity.

Historically, methyl bromide + chloropicrin is broadcast and shanked-in
at 350 lbs/ac.  After application the land is tarped (Masters, 2007).  A
total of approximately 500 acres of bareroot nurseries require
fumigation, with 42% of those acres treated per year.  An average of 20
acres is treated per day.  The formulation is generally 67% methyl
bromide, 33% chloropicrin, but 50-50% formulation may be as effective.
Seventy percent (70%) of the soil fumigation is conducted in the late
summer on land that is in fallow.  Since the plantback is 5-6 months
later, the only urgency to remove the tarp is unexpected rainfall that
can make tarp removal difficult.  Thirty percent of all fumigation
occurs in the spring when soils are wet, and soil temperatures are cool,
preventing the use of methyl isothiocyanate (MITC) agents, such as
metam-sodium and dazomet.  Although this is not the optimal time of the
year to fumigate, high pathogen loads in some situations make it
necessary.  The only effective treatment at this time of the year is
methyl bromide + chloropicrin.  Based on these weather conditions and
limited plantback window, lower formulations of chloropicrin are used.

Chloropicrin (300 lb/acre)

Chloropicrin is an effective fungicide, but may not be effective against
high weed pressure (Carey, 2000; Carey, 1996; Enebak et al., 1990).
Chloropicrin is an essential component of methyl bromide fumigation and,
when used at 100% active ingredient, has been tested by nurseries as an
alternative to methyl bromide (Enebak, personal communication, 2007).
It is typically used with methyl bromide in formulations that contain
between 2% and 50% chloropicrin, with 2% and 33% being the most common.
The decision to use a higher component of chloropicrin with methyl
bromide is generally a decision based on pest pressure.  Beds with high
weed populations usually demand higher amounts of methyl bromide, while
high pathogen populations require higher amounts of chloropicrin.

Dazomet (356 lb/acre) or Metam-sodium (432 lb/acre)

These MITC producers may become alternatives to methyl bromide in some
nurseries, especially when used with chloropicrin.  They can be
effective against pathogens and weeds if soil conditions (soil texture
and moisture) are amenable.  If nematodes are present in high numbers,
these compounds would likely be used with the nematicide
1,3-dichloropropene.

Metam-sodium and dazomet have shown inconsistent results in managing
weeds, especially with moderate to high weed pressure.  They do not
consistently provide acceptable levels of nutsedge control, nor do they
effectively manage some important fungal pathogens (root rot and
damping-off pathogens).  This is a major reason that methyl bromide
continues to be a choice fumigant for this industry.

Metam-sodium is generally incorporated with other chemicals, which may
add expense and increased fumigation.  For use in nurseries, application
of metam-sodium will be followed by tarping to avoid killing seedlings
in adjacent beds.  Field trials show that seedling size (diameter and
height) and root volume were inconsistent, non-uniform, and reduced with
dazomet, leading to higher counts of Grade #2 seedlings and culls
compared to greater numbers of Grade #1 seedlings with methyl bromide.
Reduced efficacy requires production cycle compensation by increasing
the frequency of fumigation or lengthening the fallow period in order to
obtain better control of weeds and other pests.  These strategies result
in reduced seedling production.  Soil temperature requirements (above
4-6° C/ optimal 12-18° C) of dazomet or metam-sodium constrain their
use in some areas (north and west) Landis and Campbell, 1989; Fraedrich
and Dwinell, 2003; Carey, 1996; Carey, 1994; Enebak et al., 1990;
Darrow, personal communication, 2002).  A recent study found that
dazomet resulted in reduced seedling growth (Enebak et al., 2006).

Metam-sodium (432 lb/acre) + chloropicrin (102 lb/acre)

This treatment can be effective against weeds and fungi, especially with
low to moderate pressure and light soils (Carey, 2000; Carey, 1996;
Carey, 1994).  The application of metam sodium + chloropicrin involves a
three-step process, application of metam-sodium, then injecting
chloropicrin, and finally, application of the tarp (Enebak, personal
communication, 2005).  According to extension specialists in Alabama,
the incorporation of metam sodium using a rotovator is a slow process,
and the area to be treated within a given treatment window (determined
by weather: temperature, moisture, wind) is limited.  This window of
application is generally 4-6 weeks, and under the best application
methods, this treatment may take four times as long to apply as the
typical methyl bromide treatment.  Therefore, to treat the necessary
acres each year requires a four-fold increase in labor and additional
available equipment in order to apply metam-sodium, chloropicrin and
tarp.  According to the label, and depending on soil and weather
conditions, there would be a two to six week delay before planting after
application of metam-sodium, chloropicrin and tarp-covering.  This can
affect market production costs.

The equipment needed to treat the area in spring and fall may not be
available without the purchase of additional applicator units.  This may
increase the cost to growers, as would the “set-up” time for the
treatment with additional machinery.  In order for tarps to be placed on
the treated metam-sodium areas, workers must return into the treated
area to lay down tarps after chloropicrin has been injected into the
soil.  In this case, out-gassing occurs, and workers must wear personal
protection equipment that is not desirable given the temperatures that
normally occur at the time of application.

1,3-D (232 lb/acre) + chloropicrin (125 lb/acre)

This combination is effective against nematodes and plant pathogens and
against moderate weed infestation.  It is most effective in sandy-type
soils with optimal moisture content.  It may not be effective against
high nutsedge pressure (Carey, 1996; Carey, 1994).  Chloropicrin is a
key component since 1,3-D alone is not an effective fungicide or
herbicide.

Non-Chemical Production

Container-grown tree seedlings are produced in a limited capacity
throughout the forest nursery industry.  One Michigan grower produces
greenhouse-grown plug plants, which are grown for 1-2 years, then
planted in beds for an additional 1-3 years.  Containers can also be
used for special circumstances where species survival or a genetic value
of the planting stock makes them economically feasible.  Recent surveys
indicate that of the 1.2 billion seedlings grown in the southeastern U.
S. in 2002-2003 fewer than 5% were produced in containers (McNabb and
VandersSchaaf, 2003).  An estimate of less than 10% of the national
forest seedling production is containerized.  Container production is
used for specialty purposes, for example, to reforest mine-spoil sites
which are extremely harsh edaphic environments requiring a soil plug
system to obtain adequate seedling survival (Lowerts, personal
communication, 2003).

A large investment would be necessary to shift the national production
to containerization, as well as a shift for many nurseries in the
well-established production systems of growing seedlings.  According to
Darrow (personal communication, 2002) the transition from bed to
container production would require additional capital and operating
costs.  Investment would be necessary for the purchases of greenhouses,
container filling and sowing machines, containers, outdoor holding
areas, fertigation systems, and new seedling transport systems both in
the nursery and in the field.  Not all sectors of seedling production
would have this capital available to them.  It is likely that smaller
bareroot operations would close and many state-run nurseries would opt
to close rather than budget state funds for such a significant capital
outlay.  Seedling prices could increase by up to six times current
prices.  A typical one-year old bareroot seedling currently sells for
$0.04 each, while the typical container seedling of the same species
begins at $0.12 each.  In addition to an increase in seedling costs,
there are significant cost increases associated with transportation and
planting container stock.  Fewer container plants can be transported per
truck and fewer seedlings can be carried by individual tree planters.
More trucks and more fuel are needed to get seedlings to the planting
site and more labor and time are needed to plant a given area.  One
study found that daily production decreased from 9.7 ha per day with
bareroot seedlings to 7.3 ha per day with containerized seedlings, a
decrease of 25%, without increasing planting crew size (Lowerts,
personal communication, 2003).

The result of containerization would be a significant increase in
reforestation costs and a decrease in the rate of reforestation.
According to the U. S. Forest Service, 48% of all reforestation in the
U. S. is done on non-industrial private lands, an additional 42% is done
on industrial lands, and 10% on government lands (Moulton and Hernandez,
2000).  Non-industrial forest owners are sensitive to reforestation
costs, decreasing their investment in direct proportion to increasing
costs (Hardie and Parks, 1991; Royer, 1987).  A reduction in
reforestation efforts could have serious long-term negative impacts on
the sustainability of the forest economy.  Industrial owners will also
be negatively impacted by increased reforestation costs as raw material
costs increase (typically about 40-60% of the cost of final fiber
products), impacting the competitiveness of their industry.

The infrastructure investment necessary for containerization could force
many nurseries out of business.  Seedling production costs would
increase, resulting in seedling price increases of over 250%.  New
transportation and planting systems would have to be adopted.
Reforestation costs would go up significantly and probably result in
fewer non-industrial forest owners reforesting after harvest.  The
potential long-term effect of these changes on the forestry economy is
enormous.  Overall, containerization would result in a significant
increase in seedling production, transportation, and planting costs and
would most likely decrease reforestation rates.

Benefits of Fumigants for Forest Seedling Nurseries

Tables 2-4 summarize the benefits of methyl bromide + chloropicrin
compared to four feasible alternative fumigants for forest seedlings:
1,3-D + chloropicrin, metam-sodium + chloropicrin, metam sodium, and
dazomet.  Benefits of fumigants include:  (1) yield (quantity produced)
and revenue losses avoided (2) quality (not estimated), which affect the
price or value of seedlings and forest health, and (3) production costs
savings from the higher-cost of using an alternative, additional pest
control requirements, and shifts in other production or harvesting
practices.  However, the cost of purchasing additional equipment needed
to apply metam sodium was not estimated.  This cost would be a one-time
or transitional cost.

The following measures were used to quantify the impacts in Tables 2-4.
The yield and cost estimates in Tables 2-4 are base on the Methyl
Bromide CUN (critical use nomination for forest seedlings (EPA, 2006)

(1) Benefits per acre.  It is relatively easy to measure, but may be
difficult to interpret in isolation.

(2) Benefits as a percent of gross revenues.  This measure has the
advantage that gross revenues are usually easy to measure; however,
changes of even a small percentage of gross revenues could have
important impacts on the profitability of the activity.

(3) Benefits as a percent of net revenues.  We define net revenues as
gross revenues minus operating costs.  This is a very good indicator as
to the direct losses of income that may be suffered by the owners or
operators of an enterprise.  However, operating costs can often be
difficult to measure and verify.

Table 2.  Benefits of Methyl Bromide and Alternatives in the
Southeast--Conifers

 Southeast	Methyl Bromide	1,3-D + Chloropicrin	Metam Sodium +
Chloropicrin	Metam Sodium	Dazomet

Yield Lossa (%) 	0%	3%	3%	5%	5%

   Yield (seedling) per Acre 	300,000 	     291,000 	     291,000
285,000 	     285,000

* Price per Seedling	$0.042 	$0.042 	$0.042 	$0.042 	$0.042

= Gross Revenue per Acre 	$12,584 	$12,206 	$12,206 	$11,955 	$11,955

-  Operating Costs per Acre 	$6,370 	$7,423 	$7,873 	$7,512 	$7,399

= Net Revenue per Acre	$6,214 	$4,783 	$4,333 	$4,443 	$4,556

Impact Measures:

1. Per Acre	$0 	$1,431 	$1,881 	$1,771 	$1,659

2. Percentage of Gross Revenue 	0%	11%	15%	14%	13%

3. Percentage of Net Revenue 	0%	23%	30%	29%	27%

a Yield loss estimates from the Critical Use Nomination for Methyl
Bromide, Table C.1. “Alternatives Yield Loss Summary” (CUN Forest
Tree Seedling Nurseries, 2005 for the 2008 Use Season).  The yield loss
estimates do not address the greater effect of seedling quality for
forest plantings.  Forests planted with undersized seedlings will have
reduced survival and slowed growth if initial seedling health is
compromised.

Table 3.  Benefits  of Methyl Bromide and Alternatives in the
Northeast—Conifers and Deciduous

 Northeast	Methyl Bromide	1,3-D + Chloropicrin	Metam Sodium +
Chloropicrin	Metam Sodium	Dazomet

Yield Lossa (%) 	0%	3%	3%	5%	5%

   Gross Revenue per Acre *	$19,732 	$19,140 	$19,140 	$18,745 	$18,745

-  Operating Costs per Acre 	$13,241 	$15,376 	$16,051 	$15,241 	$15,681

= Net Revenue per Acre	$6,492 	$3,765 	$3,090 	$3,505 	$3,065

Impact Measures:

1. Per Acre	$0 	$2,727 	$3,402 	$2,987 	$3,427

2. Percentage of Gross Revenue 	0%	14%	17%	15%	17%

3. Percentage of Net Revenue 	0%	42%	52%	46%	53%

* From a variety of tree seedlings with different yields and prices per
acre.

a Yield loss estimates from the Critical Use Nomination for Methyl
Bromide, Table C.1. “Alternatives Yield Loss Summary” (CUN Forest
Tree Seedling Nurseries, 2005 for the 2008 Use Season).  The yield loss
estimates do not address the greater effect of seedling quality for
forest plantings.  Forests planted with undersized seedlings will have
reduced survival and slowed growth if initial seedling health is
compromised.

Table 4.  Benefits of Methyl Bromide and Alternatives in the
Northwest--Conifers

 Northwest	Methyl Bromide	1,3-D + Chloropicrin	Metam Sodium +
Chloropicrin	Metam Sodium	Dazomet

Yield Lossa (%) 	0%	3%	3%	5%	5%

   Yield (seedling) per Acre 	24,528 	       23,792 	       23,792
23,302	23,302

* Price per Seedling	$0.31 	$0.31 	$0.31 	$0.31 	$0.31

= Gross Revenue per Acre 	$7,591 	$7,364 	$7,364 	$7,212 	$7,212

-  Operating Costs per Acre 	$4,123 	$4,754 	$4,462 	$4,256 	$4,754

= Net Revenue per Acre	$3,469 	$2,609 	$2,901 	$2,956 	$2,457

Impact Measures:

1. Per Acre	$0 	$859 	$567 	$513 	$1,011

2. Percentage of Gross Revenue 	0%	11%	7%	7%	13%

3. Percentage of Net Revenue 	0%	25%	16%	15%	29%

a Yield loss estimates from the Critical Use Nomination for Methyl
Bromide, Table C.1. “Alternatives Yield Loss Summary” (CUN Forest
Tree Seedling Nurseries, 2005 for the 2008 Use Season).  The yield loss
estimates do not address the greater effect of seedling quality for
forest plantings.  Forests planted with undersized seedlings will have
reduced survival and slowed growth if initial seedling health is
compromised.

Quantifiable benefits originate from yield losses and cost increases
avoided.  Dazomet and metam sodium have slightly higher yield losses
than 1,3-D + chloropicrin, and metam-sodium + chloropicrin.  Additional
costs for all the alternatives include extra hand weeding and other
pesticide costs.  Indirect yield losses due to lengthening of the
production cycle, resulting in less land in production and more in
fallow or longer time for seedlings to reach appropriate size, were not
quantified.  Additional losses may also arise due to a shift from high
quality Grade #1 seedlings to lower quality Grade #2, which causes a
loss of about 30% of value, and more seedlings that must be culled.
Unfortunately, data were lacking to measure this shift.  Thus, total
losses are underestimated.

The measure of net revenue impact may not be completely accurate partly
because many nurseries are publicly owned and seedling prices or
production costs are subsidized.  Although attempts were made to
appropriately value the seedlings at a true market price, benefits as a
percentage of gross revenues and of net revenue should be viewed with
caution.  Direct yield effects are similar across the regions, mainly
because the same studies were used to predict impacts.  The range of
yields in the studies is rather large because both dazomet and
metam-sodium provide inconsistent pest control.  Indirect losses arising
from shifts in the production cycle were not quantified.  In the
Northern region this impact is expected to be more pronounced due to
cooler temperatures and longer time required for production of a
seedling crop.  Changes in production costs arise due to differences
between the costs of methyl bromide and the alternatives, shifts in the
production cycle (increasing the frequency of fumigation or lengthening
the fallow period) and additional expenses such as supplementary
irrigation.  These costs vary across regions, because of differences in
pests, production systems, and regional differences in costs of water
and labor.

Summary of Benefits

Table 5 summarizes the benefits of MB and chloropicrin compared to metam
sodium.  These estimates are conservatively low.  Since metam sodium
provides inconsistent control, these benefits would likely be higher
where control is poor and where pest pressure is high.

Table 5.  Benefits of MB + chloropicrin over metam sodium*

Region	SE	NE	NW

yield gain	5%	5%	5%

per acre	$1,771 	$2,987 	$513

% of gross revenue	14%	15%	7%

% of net revenue	29%	46%	15%

* the gain of using MB + chloropicrin over metam sodium alone

Yield.  The use of methyl bromide and chloropicrin avoid a yield loss of
at least 5% over metam sodium.  Where pathogen pressure is great the
yield losses would be larger.  If 1,3-D were the only fumigant
available, then the yield losses could be greater.  However, we have no
data to quantify these yield losses.  Yield data comparing all the
fumigants would be helpful, particularly yield with using metam sodium
or 1,3-D without chloropicrin.

Pest Control Costs.  Fumigants, particularly MB and chloropicrin, reduce
the need for hand weeding and other pesticides, thus saving operating
costs.

Quality.   MB and other fumigants result in a larger percent of higher
quality seedlings.  The lower quality seedlings are discarded or have a
lower value or price.  These benefits could not be quantified, however.

Forest Health.  Seedlings free of pathogens and other pests help
establish forests with less pest pressure, thus resulting in faster
growth and less use of pesticides.  These benefits were not quantified.

Limitations of Analysis

Yield data.  BEAD was only able to quantify yield losses of up to 5%.
However, metam sodium and dazomet can have erratic results often with
yield losses greater than 5%; however, we have no basis to estimate this
loss.  Also, we have no yield data for 1,3-D and metam sodium used alone
without other fumigants.  Such data would be useful to BEAD.

Delays in Production.  Impacts associated with delays in planting as a
result of using alternatives to MB were not estimated.

Prices and Costs.   The prices of seedlings, fumigation costs, and other
operating costs were based on the 2004 economic analysis that was used
for the current MB CUN (Critical Use Nomination).  Prices and costs may
have changed since then; however, we believe relative cost impacts have
not changed much.  The costs of additional equipment required to treat
with metam sodium (for those nurseries not currently using metam sodium)
was not estimated.

Quality Impacts.   We have no basis to estimate the impacts on the
quality of seedlings and the impacts of spreading pathogens and other
pests into the forests as a result of contaminated seedlings.

Partial Budgeting.  The impact estimates were made by comparing budgets
with MB and chloropicrin to budgets with alternative fumigants.  Such
analyses do not consider transitional costs from one production method
to another, nor adoption to new production methods over time, which may
mitigate the impacts.

Conclusions

Soil fumigation with methyl bromide and/or chloropicrin for management
of soil-borne pests provides substantial benefits to tree seedling
nurseries and to the public.  While relatively few acres are treated
each year, good nursery practices contribute to health of tree seedlings
and to the long-term health of forests.  The value of methyl bromide in
part depends on the availability of chloropicrin, since methyl bromide
is currently used in combination with chloropicrin.  The estimate of the
benefits of chloropicrin is in comparison to production with
metam-sodium, which is less effective on most soils because it does not
penetrate as well.  In addition, use of metam-sodium is more costly
because it cannot be applied simultaneously with 1,3-D for nematode
control.  Chloropicrin is also necessary as a component of a methyl
bromide alternative, 1,3-D + chloropicrin.  This combination has been
tested and in some nursery locations has been found to be an effective
alternative to methyl bromide.  However, without chloropicrin, 1,3-D is
generally not effective for managing soil-borne pathogens or weeds.

Soil fumigation with methyl bromide + chloropicrin, in general, makes
nursery tree production viable on nearly half the nursery acreage
currently cultivated.  If soil pests cannot be adequately controlled,
the costs of establishing a nursery would likely outweigh the value of
future revenue.  Thus, the direct benefits of soil fumigation to manage
nursery pests are increased yield  and reduced production costs.  These
benefits are estimated to be at least 15-46% of net revenue.  In
addition, the non-quantified benefits include increased tree quality and
forest health in the U.S.

References

CDFA (California Department of Food and Agriculture). 2003. Summary of
California Laws and Regulations Pertaining to Nursery Stock.
HYPERLINK "http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pe/nipm.htm"
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pe/nipm.htm

Carey, W. A. 2000. Fumigation with chloropicrin, metham sodium, and EPTC
as replacements for methyl bromide in southern pine nurseries.  Southern
Journal of Applied Forestry 24:135-139.

Carey, W. A. 1996. Testing alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation at
the Winona Nursery.  Southern Forest Nursery Management Cooperative
Research Report 96-2.

Carey, W. A. 1994. Chemical alternatives to methyl bromide. In: Landis,
T. D., Dumroese, R. K., tech. cords. National Proceedings, Forest and
Conservation Nursery Associations. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-257. Fort Collins,
CO.  U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. pp. 4-11.

Cram, M. M. and Fraedrich, S. W. 1997. Survey of southern forest
nurseries: fumigation practices and pest management concerns.
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/spdpublic/mbr/airc/1997/096cram.pdf"
www.epa.gov/spdpublic/mbr/airc/1997/096cram.pdf

Enebak, S., Starkey, T., and McCraw, D. 2006. Tree seedling quality and
weed control with Basimid, MBR and methyl iodide. Annual International
Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives.
http://www.mbao.org/2006/06Proceedings/040StarkeyTMBAOMIMBrBasamidTES.pd
f

Enebak, S. A., Palmer, M. A., and Blanchette, R. A. 1990. Managing
soilborne pathogens of white pine in a forest nursery.  Plant Disease
74:195-198.

EPA, 2006.  Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use
for Forest Seedling Nurseries in Open Fields or Protected Environments
(Submitted in 2007 for 2009 Use Season)

Fraedrich, S. W. and Dwinell, L. D. 2003. An evaluation of dazomet
incorporation methods on soilborne organisms and pine seedling
production in southern nurseries. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry
27:41-51.

Hardie I. W. and Parks, P. J. 1991. Individual choice and regional
acreage response to cost-sharing in the South, 1971-1981. Forest Science
37(1) 175-190.

James, R. L., Stone, J. K., Hildebrand, D. M., Frankel, S. K., and
Harris, J. L. 2001. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl
Bromide Alternatives, 2001.

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2001proc/078%20James%20RL%20Methyl%20Bromide%20Meet
ing%20Summary.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2001proc/078%20James%20RL%20Methyl%20Bromide%20Meeti
ng%20Summary.pdf

Landis, T. D. and Campbell, S. J. 1989.  Soil fumigation in bareroot
tree nurseries. In: Landis, T. D., (tech. coord.), Proc. Intermountain
Forest Nursery Association, Bismarck, ND. USDA, Forest Service, Ft.
Collins, CO.    HYPERLINK
"http://www.fcnanet.org/proceedings/1989/landis.pdf"
http://www.fcnanet.org/proceedings/1989/landis.pdf

Masters, C. 2007. Weyerhaeuser Corp., From Public Comment on
Reregistration of Chloropicrin. EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0661.

McNabb, K. and VanderSchaaf, C. 2003. A survey of forest tree seedling
production in the South for the 2003-2003 planting season. Southern
Forest Nursery Management Cooperative Technical Note 03-02.

Moulton, R. J. and Hernandez, G. 2000. Tree planting in the United
States, 1998. Tree Planters Notes V49(2). USDA Forest Service.  pp 1-36.

NCDA (North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services),
undated.  Nursery Regulations, Nursery Certification.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ncagr.com/plantind/Regs/48a1200.htm"
http://www.ncagr.com/plantind/Regs/48a1200.htm ,

  HYPERLINK
"http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2002%20-%20agriculture%20and%
20consumer%20services/chapter%2048%20-%20plant%20industry/subchapter%20a
/02%20ncac%2048a%20.1210.html"
http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2002%20-%20agriculture%20and%2
0consumer%20services/chapter%2048%20-%20plant%20industry/subchapter%20a/
02%20ncac%2048a%20.1210.html

Royer, J. P. 1987. Determinants of reforestation behavior among southern
landowners. Forest Science 33(3) 654-667.

 Tables 2-4 show that the net revenues are greater with metam sodium
than with metam sodium + chloropicrin.  However, chloropicrin is
considered very important and in many cases worth the extra cost, but is
not cost effective if the yield gain is only 2% over metam sodium alone.
 Therefore, we believe that the yield benefit of chloropicrin is greater
than 2% in many cases.  In addition, there are likely to be quality
benefits.

 PAGE

 PAGE   6