United States         Prevention, Pesticides
Environmental Protection   and Toxic Substances   May 2009
Agency            (7508P)
Amended Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (RED) for Chloropicrin

-------
         Amended Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Chloropicrin
                                 List [A]

                               Case No. 0040
Approved by:
                 Richard Keigwin, Jr.
                 Director
                 Special Review and Reregistration Division
Date:

-------
Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations
ai               Active Ingredient
ANLA          American Nursery and Landscape Association
APHIS          Animal and Plant Heath Inspection Service
APR            air-purifying respirator
ARS            Agricultural Research Service
ATV            all-terrain vehicle
BEAD          Biological and Economic Analysis Division
BrO            bromine monoxide
CDPR          California Department of Pesticide Regulation
CFC            chlorofluorocarbons
CFR            Code of Federal Regulations
CIO            chlorine monoxide
CMTF          Chloropicrin Manufacturers' Task Force
CSF            Confidential Statement of Formulation
CUE            Critical Use Exemption
CUN            Critical Use Nominations
DCI            Data Call-In
DNT            Developmental Neurotoxicity
EDSP           Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program
ED STAC        Endocrine Disrupter Screening and Testing Advisory Committee
EEC            Estimated Environmental Concentration
EPA            Environmental Protection Agency
EUP            End-Use Product
FDMS          Federal Docket Management System
FIFRA          Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FFDCA         Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
FMP            Fumigant  Management Plan
FQPA          Food Quality Protection Act
ft               feet
GAP            Good Agricultural Practices
GENEEC        GENeric Estimated Exposure Concentration model
GLN            Guideline Number
GPS            Global Positioning System
ha              hectare
HCFC          hydrochlorofluorocarbons
HOPE          High-density Polyethylene
HED            Health Effects Division
ISCST3         Industrial  Source Complex  Short Term model
KTS            Potassium Thiosulfate
Ib               pound
LCso            Median Lethal Concentration.  A statistically derived concentration of a
                substance  that can be expected to cause death in 50% of test animals. It is

-------
LD5
'50
LOG
LOAEL
MBAO
MB IP
MBTOC
MCFA
mg/kg/day
mg/L
MITC
MOE
MRID

MSHA
MUP
NAM
NIOSH
NOAEL
NPDES
OAR
OOP
OPP
OPPTS
ORE
OSHA
PC
PDCI
PERFUM
PLHCP
PPE
ppm
PrG
PRZM/EXAMS

PSA
psi
PVC
QPS
RED
REI
RQ
usually expressed as the weight of a substance per weight or volume of
water, air, or feed, e.g., mg/1, mg/kg, or ppm.
Median Lethal Dose. A statistically derived single dose that can be
expected to cause death in 50% of the test animals when administered by
the route indicated (oral, dermal, inhalation). It is expressed as a weight
of substance per unit weight of animal, e.g., mg/kg.
Level of Concern
Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach
Methyl Bromide Industry Panel
Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee
Minor Crop Farmer Alliance
Milligram Per Kilogram Per Day
Milligram Per Liter
methyl isothiocyanate
Margin of Exposure
Master Record Identification Number. EPA's system for recording and
tracking studies submitted.
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Manufacturing-Use Product
National Association of Manufacturers
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
No Observed Adverse Effect Level
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Office of Air and Radiation
ozone depletion potential
EPA Office of Pesticide Programs
EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
Occupational  and Residential Exposure
Occupational  Safety and Health Administration
Pesticide Chemical
Product-specific Data Call-in
Probabilistic Exposure and Risk model for Fumigants
 Physician or Other Licensed Health Care Professional
Personal Protective Equipment
Parts Per Million
Pressurized gas
Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System.  A Tier
II Surface Water Computer Model.
public service announcement
pounds per square inch
Polyvinyl Chloride
Quarantine and Preshipment
Reregi strati on Eligibility Decision
Restricted Entry Interval
Risk Quotient

-------
RUP            Restricted Use Pesticide
SAB            Science Advisory Board
SCBA          self-contained breathing apparatus
SLA            State Lead Agency
SRRD          Special Review and Reregi strati on Division
TEAP          Technical and Economic Assessment Panel
TRED          Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decision
TWA           time weighted average
UNEP          United Nations Environment Programme
USC            United States Code
USDA          United States Department of Agriculture
UF             Uncertainty Factor
UV             Ultraviolet
VIF             Virtually Impermeable Film
WPS            Worker Protection Standard

-------
                                     Table of Contents
Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations	3
Nitrapyrin Reregistration Eligibility Decision Team	9
Nitrapyrin Reregistration Eligibility Decision Team	10
I.   Introduction	14
II.     Chemical Overview	18
  A.   Regulatory History	18
  C.     Use Profile	18
IV. Risk Management, Reregistration, and Tolerance Reassessment Decision	32
  A. Determination of Reregistration Eligibility	32
  B. Public Comments and Responses	137
  B.     End-Use Products	144
    1.   Additional Product-Specific Data Requirements	144
Abstract	11
I.   Introduction	14
II.     Chemical Overview	18
  A.   Chemical Identity	18
  B.   Use and Usage Profile:	18
  C. Regulatory History	20
III.  Summary of Risk and Benefit Assessments and Links to Agency Documents	20
  A. General Overview of Soil Fumigants	20
  B. Human Health Risk from Chloropicrin	20
  C. Environmental Fate and Ecological Risks	24
  D. Benefits	27
  E. Impacts	28
IV.  Risk Management and Reregistration Decision	32
  A. Determination of Reregistration Eligibility	32
  B.   Public Comments and Responses	33
  C.   Regulatory Position	35
    1.   Regulatory Rationale	35
       a.   Chloropicrin Pre-Plant Soil Uses	35
         i.   Human Health Risk Management	35
           1.   Bystander Risk Mitigation	36
             a.   Buffer Zones	37
               i.  General Buffer Zone Requirements	37
               ii.   Buffer Zone Reduction Credits	68
             b. Restrictions for Difficult to Evacuate Sites	74
             c. Posting	76
             d. Use Prohibitions	78
           2.   Occupational Mitigation	79
             a.   Handler Definition	79
             b.   Handler Requirements	79
             c.   Respiratory Protection	80
               i.  Respiratory Requirements	83
             d.    Tarp Perforation and Removal	89

-------
             e.    Entry Restricted Period	93
         ii.   Other Mitigation	98
           1.   Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs)	98
           2.   Fumigant Management Plans (FMPs)	107
           3.   Site Specific Management and Response	114
             a.    First Responder Education	115
             b.    Emergency Preparedness and Response	115
           4.   Notice to State Lead Agencies	121
           5.   Soil Fumigation Training for Applicators and Other Handlers	122
             a.    Training for Applicators Supervising Fumigations	124
             b.    Training Materials for Handlers	126
           6.   Community Outreach and Education Programs	127
         iii.    Environmental Risk Mitigation	132
       b.   Residential Structure Warning Agent Use Mitigation	134
         i.   Occupational Risk Mitigation	134
           1.   Respiratory Requirements	134
       c.   Chloropicrin Antimicrobial Use Mitigation	135
         i.   Bystander Risk Mitigation	135
         ii.   Occupational Risk Mitigation	135
           1.   Air Concentration	135
           2.   Respiratory Requirements	135
    2.   Endocrine Disrupter Effects	137
    3.   Endangered Species Considerations	137
  D.   Conclusions	137
V. What Registrants Need to Do	137
  A. Manufacturing Use Products	139
    1. Additional Generic Data Requirements	139
       a. Data Requirements for Chloropicrin Soil Uses	139
         i.  Human Health	139
           1.  Toxicity	139
           2.  Residue Chemistry	139
           3.  Occupational and Residential Exposure	139
         ii.  Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects	140
           1.  Environmental Fate	140
           2.  Ecological Effects	140
         iii. Other	142
       b. Chloropicrin Warning Agent Uses	144
       c. Antimicrobial Uses	144
    2. Labeling for Manufacturing-Use Products	144
  B.  End-Use Products	144
    1.  Additional Product-Specific Data Requirements	144
    2.  Labeling for End-Use Products	145
Appendix A	146
Appendix B	150
Appendix C	151
Appendix D	154

-------
Appendix E	157

-------
                  Chloropicrin Reregistration Eligibility Decision Team

Office of Pesticide Programs:

Biological and Economic Analysis Assessment
T J Wyatt, Ph.D., Senior Agricultural Economist
Jonathan Becker, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor
Bill Chism, Ph.D., Senior Agronomist
David Donaldson, Agricultural Economist, Team Leader
Colwell Cook, Ph.D., Entomologist
Nicole Zinn, Biologist
Stephen Smearman, Economist
Leonard Yourman, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
John Faulkner, Ph.D., Economist
William Phillips, II, Ph.D., Agronomist
Tara Chandgoyal, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Jin Kim, Ph.D., Economist
Andrew Lee, Ph.D., Economist
Angel Chiri, Ph.D., Entomologist, Team Leader
Elisa Rim, Economist
Nikhil Mallampalli, Ph.D., Entomologist
Sunil Ratnayake, Ph.D., Botanist

Environmental Fate and Effects Risk Assessment
Mah Shamim, Ph. D. Branch Chief
Faruque Khan, Ph.D. Senior Fate Scientist
James Felkel, M.S. Wildlife Biologist
Gabriel Rothman, M.S. Environmental Scientist

Health Effects Risk Assessment
Elissa Reaves, Ph.D., Toxicologist/Risk Assessor
Charles Smith, Environmental Scientist/Risk Assessor
Yvonne Barnes, Chemist
Ruth Allen, MPH, Epidemiologist
Monica Hawkins, MPH, Environmental Health Scientist

Antimicrobial Risk Assessment Team
Heather Garvie, Chemical Review Manager
Diane Isbell, Reregistration Team Leader
Timothy Leighton, Environmental Scientist
Cassi Walls, Ph.D., Chemist
Timothy Dole, Industrial Hygienist

-------
              Chloropicrin Reregistration Eligibility Decision Team, cont.

Registration Support
Mary Waller, Product Manager
Tamue Gibson, Product Manager
Kathy Monk, Senior Advisor

Risk Management
Andrea Carone, Chemical Review Manager
Steven Weiss, Industrial Hygienist, Chemical Review Manager
Susan Bartow, Chemical Review Manager
Dirk Helder, Chemical Review Manager
Karen Santora, Chemical Review Manager
Dana Friedman, Chemical Review Manager
Cathryn O'Connell, Team Leader
Eric Olson, Team Leader
John Leahy, Senior Advisor

Office of General Council:
Andrea Medici

Office of Enforcement and Compliance:
David Stangel
                                                                                 10

-------
Abstract

       This document presents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (hereafter EPA or
the Agency) amended decision regarding the reregi strati on eligibility of the registered uses of the
active ingredient chloropicrin (trichloronitromethane). This follows the 105-day public comment
period on the Reregi strati on Eligibility Decision provided for stakeholders to have the
opportunity to review and provide comments on issues related to the implementation of the risk
mitigation measures.  The Agency's risk conclusions for chloropicrin have not changed.  In
addition, all measures established in the July 2008 RED to reduce risks to bystanders and
workers will still be required. However, the Agency has determined that certain modifications  in
how and when some measures will be implemented  are appropriate.  Products containing
chloropicrin are eligible for reregi strati on provided that: (1) current data gaps are addressed; (2)
the risk mitigation measures identified in this document are adopted; and (3) labels are amended
to implement these measures.

       Concurrent to EPA's  review of the soil fumigant uses of chloropicrin, EPA assessed the
risks and developed risk management decisions for four other soil fumigants: dazomet, methyl
bromide, metam sodium/potassium, and a new active ingredient, iodomethane.  Risks of a fifth
soil fumigant, 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), were also analyzed along with the other soil
fumigants for comparative purposes. The Reregi strati on Eligibility Document (RED) for 1,3-D
was completed in 1998. The Agency evaluated these soil fumigants concurrently to ensure that
human health risk assessment approaches are consistent, and that risk tradeoffs and economic
outcomes were considered appropriately in reaching risk management decisions. This review is
part of EPA's program to ensure that all pesticides meet current health and safety standards.

       Chloropicrin acts as a nonselective soil fumigant with fungicidal,  herbicidal, insecticidal,
and nematicidal properties. The supported uses of chloropicrin include:  (1) pre-plant soil
fumigations (e.g., agricultural and commercial greenhouse); (2)  empty grain bins and empty
potato storage house/cellar fumigations; (3) residential uses (warning agent for sulfuryl fluoride);
and (4) other specialized fumigations (e.g., spot tree replant sites and remedial wood treatments).
Of the supported uses, chloropicrin is mainly used as an agricultural pre-plant soil fumigant.  The
Agency did not develop mitigation for the empty grain bin and empty potato storage/house cellar
fumigations because the Agency received requests to voluntarily cancel these uses.  A Federal
Register notice was published on August 20, 2008 announcing the Agency's receipt of these
voluntary requests. EPA did not receive any comments on this notice and these uses must be
deleted from the labels when revised labels are submitted to the  Agency in 2009.

       Due to chloropicrin's volatility there is no reasonable expectation that finite residues will
be incurred in/on any raw agricultural commodity when these products are applied according to
label directions.  Therefore, this fumigant does not require food  tolerances and there is no
expectation of risk from dietary exposure.

       The Agency has identified potential human health risks associated with the above
supported  uses of chloropicrin. Due to chloropicrin's potential to move off-site, EPA is
concerned with inhalation exposure to handlers, bystanders, and workers. To reduce inhalation
                                                                                      11

-------
exposures and to address associated risks of concern for pre-plant soil fumigations, EPA is
requiring a number of mitigation measures such as:
    •   buffer zones,
    •   buffer zone posting,
    •   respiratory protections,
    •   restrictions on the timing of tarp perforation and removal operations,
    •   entry restrictions,
    •   mandatory good agricultural practices (GAPs),
    •   fumigant management plans (FMPs),
    •   emergency preparedness and response,
    •   notice to state-lead agencies,
    •   training, and
    •   community outreach and  education programs.

       To address bystander and occupational risks for remedial wood treatments, the Agency is
requiring a number of label statements and respiratory protection.

       The Agency also has concerns regarding ecological and environmental risk when
chloropicrin is used as a pre-plant soil fumigant.  The Agency believes that many of the
mitigation measures required above to address human health risk (e.g., buffer zones, timing of
tarp perforation and removal, GAPs), will indirectly  address ecological risk. The Agency is also
requiring label statements to mitigate chloropicrin's potential to leach into ground and/or surface
water.

       Some chloropicrin end-use products are packaged as 100% chloropicrin, while other
products contain mixtures of chloropicrin with methyl bromide, 1,3-D, and iodomethane. In
these combination products the percent active ingredient for chloropicrin ranges from 20-67%
when combined with methyl bromide, 15-60% when combined with 1,3-D, and 2-75% when
combined with iodomethane.  In  addition, chloropicrin is used solely as a warning agent to
indicate possible hazardous concentrations of methyl bromide1  (chloropicrin is formulated at 2%
or less by weight for pre-plant soil fumigations) and  sulfuryl fluoride (chloropicrin is introduced
into residential structures prior to the sulfuryl fluoride fumigation).

       Separate RED documents have been completed for methyl bromide (July 2008, and an
amendment will be published concurrently with chloropicrin), sulfuryl fluoride (1993), and 1,3-
D (1998).  Iodomethane was granted a one year time-limited registration in October 2007 while
chloropicrin, methyl bromide, metam sodium/potassium, and dazomet were going through
reregi strati on.  In April 2009, EPA extended the registration of iodomethane maintaining
appropriate provisions governing its use  and maintaining the conditional registration with the
same conditions but removing the time limitation on the registration.  The  conditions of
registration were to ensure that the iodomethane registrant makes all changes to the iodomethane
labels that are appropriate to ensure that  all the  fumigants are regulated in a consistent manner.
1  Current labels reflect use of chloropicrin as a warning agent for methyl bromide during structural fumigations.
The use of methyl bromide for structural fumigations is not eligible for reregistration. As a result, the warning agent
use for chloropicrin formulations with methyl bromide for structural fumigations was not evaluated.


                                                                                       12

-------
In accordance with Agency policy, if the required risk mitigation measures differ for two active
ingredients in a product, the more stringent mitigation measure is required on product labels.
                                                                                        13

-------
I.
Introduction
         This amends and supersedes the document, "Reregi strati on Eligibility Decision for
Chloropicrin," published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on July 16, 2008.  That
day EPA opened a 60-day public comment period on the implementation aspects of the risk
mitigation measures that were required as conditions of reregi strati on eligibility under FIFRA.
EPA received requests to extend the comment period from the Methyl Bromide Industry Panel
(MBIP), California Specialty Crops Council, the Chloropicrin Manufacturers' Task Force
(CMTF), the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Nursery and
Landscape Association (ANLA), the California Strawberry Nurserymen's Association, the
Agricultural Retailers Association, the American Forest and Paper Association, and McDermott,
Will, and Emery LLP, on behalf of the Minor Crop Farmer Alliance (MCFA). In response to
these requests, on August 29, 2008, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register extending the
comment period for an additional  45 days. The comment period closed on October 30, 2008.
EPA has completed its review of public comments as well as new scientific data and other
information provided and determined that all measures established in the July 2008 RED to
reduce risks to bystanders and workers will still be required.  The Agency has determined that
certain modifications in how and when some measures will be implemented are appropriate.  The
public comments and EPA's responses,  as well as other supporting documents, may be found in
the public docket for Chloropicrin at www.regulations.gov, docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350.
EPA has determined that the modifications described herein will achieve the  same protection
goals for persons potentially exposed to chloropicrin but with a greater likelihood of compliance,
fewer impacts on the benefits of chloropicrin use, and with less uncertainty regarding the
protectiveness of the required measures.  Please see Table 1 for a summary of the modifications.

Table 1. Modifications from 2008 to 2009 Amended Chloropicrin RED
Mitigation
Buffer Zones
Buffer Credits
Rights of Way
Buffer Overlap
Structures within
Buffer Zones
Restrictions around
difficult to evacuate
2008 REDs
Buffer zones based on available data
Credits allowed based on available
data; capped at 50%
Permission from local authorities
must be granted if buffers extend
onto rights of way
Buffers may not overlap
Monitoring with devices before
reentry
% mile restriction around hard to
evacuate areas including daycare
2009 Amended REDs
New chloropicrin data support smaller
buffers and increased confidence in safety
New data support additional credits and an
increase in the cap to 80%
Permission from local authorities is only
required when a sidewalk or permanent
walkway is present
Buffers may overlap; separate applications
by 12 hours and increase emergency
preparedness and response measures
Monitor for sensory irritation before
reentry
Maintain % mile restriction but allow a
reduced restricted area of Vs mile for
                                                                                     14

-------
     Mitigation
            2008 REDs
          2009 Amended REDs
sites
centers, nursing homes, and schools;
was to be in effect for the duration of
the buffer zone period
applications with smaller buffers (300 feet
or less); is to be in effect during the
application and for 36 hours following the
application
Posting
Posting required at buffer zones
points of entry, where people are
likely to approach, and areas
between these locations
The posting requirement is retained but no
longer requires areas between the entry
areas to be posted
Information required on the signs has been
simplified to encourage reuse of signs
Handler Protection
Described tasks that may only be
performed by handlers and
situations where 2 handlers were
required to be present while in the
buffer zone
Tasks that may only be performed by
handlers have been updated and clarified
The situations have been clarified requiring
2 handlers to be present based on the
chemical properties of the different soil
fumigants, and  current label statements
Respiratory
Protection
Required monitoring devices to
trigger additional measures
Allow chloropicrin's sensory irritation
properties to trigger additional measures
Monitoring with devices is still required to
remove respirators
Tarp perforation
and removal
Perforating tarps restricted to
mechanical means only
Perforating tarps by hand is allowed for
areas less than 1 acre in size and for flood
prevention activities
Entry Prohibitions
Entry for non-handlers is prohibited
for the duration of the entry
restricted period, until tarps have
been removed, or if 14 days has
passed
No major changes
GAPs
Certain GAPs required for all
fumigant applications
Some clarifications and refinements have
been made based on stakeholder comments
FMPs
FMPs required to be completed
before fumigant application begins
and post-application summary
report required following the
application
No major changes. Based on comments an
example of an FMP has been included to
illustrate how the required information
may be presented effectively
Emergency
Response and
Preparedness
If neighbors are near buffers they
must be provided with information
or buffer zones must be monitored
every 1-2 hours over 48 hours with
monitoring devices
Same basic measures apply, however
monitoring required only during peak
emission times of the day; irritation
detection acceptable for chloropicrin in lieu
of devices
                                                                                         15

-------
     Mitigation
            2008 REDs
          2009 Amended REDs
Notice to SLAs
Applicators required to provide
notice to the appropriate state/tribal
lead agency before fumigating to
facilitate compliance assistance and
assurance
States may determine if they wish to
receive this information
All states required to include strategies for
compliance assistance and assurance for
soil fumigation in their cooperative
agreements
Applicator Training
Certified applicators required to
receive registrant soil-fumigant
training every year
Certified applicators required to receive
registrant soil-fumigant training every
three years
Community
Outreach and
Education
Registrants required to develop and
implement community outreach &
education programs along with
information for first responder in
high fumigant use	
Same basic requirement
The Agency is providing information on
where registrants are required to focus
these efforts
         With regard to implementation timing, EPA has determined that most measures can be
efficiently implemented via revised product labels by the 2010 use season. Other measures, in
particular those related to buffer zones, will present greater compliance challenges and will
require additional time for EPA to conduct the necessary outreach, and communication activities
with states, tribes, other regulatory partners, fumigant users, and other stakeholders to facilitate
transition. EPA has determined that these measures will be implemented via revised product
labels by the 2011 use season.  As a result, all measures described in this amended RED that are
necessary for reregi strati on eligibility will appear on product labels by 2011.  The table below
shows the measures that will be implemented in 2010 and the additional measures that will be
implemented in 2011.

Table 2. Implementation Schedule for Soil Fumigant Risk Mitigation Measures
Risk Mitigation Measure
Restricted Use
New Good Agricultural Practices
Rate reductions
Use site limitations
New handler protections
Tarp cutting and removal restrictions
Extended worker reentry restrictions
Training information for workers
Fumigant Management Plans
First responder and community outreach
Applicator training
Compliance assistance and assurance measures
Currently
•











2010
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
o
0
0
o
2011
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
                                                                                       16

-------
Risk Mitigation Measure
Restrictions on applications near sensitive areas
Buffer zones around all occupied sites
Buffer credits for best practices
Buffer posting
Buffer overlap prohibitions
Emergency preparedness measures
Currently






2010






2011
•
•
•
•
•
•
o = under development
• = adopt completely

       The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was amended in 1988
to accelerate the reregistration of products with active ingredients registered prior to November
1, 1984. The amended Act calls for the development and submission of data to support the
reregistration of an active ingredient, as well as a review of all submitted data by the EPA.
Reregistration involves a thorough review of the scientific database underlying a pesticide's
registration. The purpose of the Agency's review is to reassess the potential risks arising from
the currently registered uses of the pesticide, to determine the need for additional data on health
and environmental effects, and to  determine whether or not the pesticide meets the "no
unreasonable adverse effects" criteria of FIFRA.

       This document presents the Agency's amended reregistration eligibility decision for the
supported soil (agricultural, greenhouse, and tree replant), warning agent, and antimicrobial
wood preservative uses of chloropicrin. The document consists of five sections. Section I
contains the regulatory framework for reregistration and a synopsis of modifications from the
July 2008 RED.  Section II provides chloropicrin's use and usage profile.  Section III provides a
general fumigant overview and also summarizes chloropicrin's human health and ecological risk
assessments, as well as benefit and impact assessments.  Section IV presents the Agency's
amended reregistration eligibility  and risk management decisions.  Section V summarizes label
changes necessary to implement the risk mitigation measures outlined in Section IV. The
revised risk assessment documents and related addenda are not included in this document, but
are available in the chloropicrin docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350 at
https://www.regulations.gov. Unless otherwise noted, all Agency documents are available for
review in the chloropicrin docket. Documents published during Phases 1-4 are available at
https://www.regulations.gov. docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0661.
                                                                                     17

-------
II.
Chemical Overview
   A.  Chemical Identity

Chemical Structure:
                          Cl
                     Cl-
Empirical Formula:

Common Name:

CAS Registry Number:

OPP Chemical Code:

Case Number:

Technical Registrants:
                   Cl     ฐ
                    CC13NO2

                    Chloropicrin

                    76-06-2

                    081501

                    0040

                    Niklor Chemical Company, Inc., Arysta Life Sciences North
                    America Corporation, ASHTA Chemicals, Inc., and Trinity
                    Manufacturing, Inc. All 4 companies are part of the Chloropicrin
                    Manufacturers' Task Force (CMTF).
   B.  Use and Usage Profile:
Pesticide Type:
Target Pests:
                    Chloropicrin is a broad spectrum fumigant with fungicidal,
                    herbicidal, insecticidal, and nematicidal properties. Chloropicrin
                    supported uses include: pre-plant soil fumigant use at agricultural
                    sites, tree replant sites, and greenhouses; a warning agent use in
                    residential structures before sulfuryl fluoride fumigations; and an
                    antimicrobial remedial wood treatment use. Chloropicrin is
                    currently labeled for use  in empty grain bins and empty potato
                    storage/house cellars, but these uses have been voluntarily
                    cancelled and must be removed from labels.

                    When used as a pre-plant soil fumigant in agricultural settings and
                    in greenhouses, chloropicrin is used to control weeds, nematodes,
                    insects, and various soil borne pathogens.

                    In existing orchards chloropicrin is used to treat small areas to
                    control weeds, nematodes,  insects, and various soil borne
                    pathogens.
                                                                                     18

-------
Formulations:
Methods of Application:
Chloropicrin is also used to control internal wood decay caused by
fungi and insects in wood poles, timbers, pilings, and glue-
laminated beams.

Chloropicrin can be formulated as a soluble concentrate/liquid,
pressurized gas, pressurized liquid, emulsifiable concentrate, and a
ready-to-use product. All chloropicrin products are classified as
restricted use pesticides (RUP). The "Restricted Use" classification
restricts a product, or its uses, to use by certified pesticide
applicators or those working under the direct supervision of a
certified applicator.

As a pre-plant soil fumigant chloropicrin is either injected (e.g., by
shank) into the soil or applied via drip irrigation. These
applications can either be tarped or untarped.

Chloropicrin is used in existing orchards for tree replant purposes.
Tree site applications take place in small treated areas (10' x 10')
where chloropicrin is injected at least 18 inches into the soil using
a replant wand.

When used as a warning agent prior to sulfuryl fluoride residential
structure fumigations, a tent must first be put up around the
structure. Chloropicrin is then placed in the center of the structure
in either a shallow pan or onto absorbent material. A fan is then
placed to direct the air stream over the pan or absorbent material to
accelerate the chloropicrin's evaporation. Chloropicrin should be
applied 5-10 minutes before sulfuryl fluoride is introduced into the
structure.

For remedial wood treatment, chloropicrin is either poured/injected
or applied with encapsulated vials into pre-drilled holes. For
utility pole treatment, holes are drilled at a 45 degree  angle and
chloropicrin is poured/injected or applied with  encapsulated vials
into all of the holes.  After the chloropicrin has been applied, the
holes are immediately plugged.
Application Rates:
For pre-plant soil fumigation use the following are the supported
maximum application rates:
    o  350 Ibs active ingredient (ai) per acre for tarped, shank
       injection applications;
    o  175 Ibs ai per acre for untarped, shank injection
       applications;
    o  350 Ib ai per acre for deep (at least 18 inches) untarped,
       shank injection applications;
                                                                                         19

-------
                               o  300 Ibs ai per acre for drip irrigation applications
                                  (including greenhouses);
                               o  500 Ibs ai per acre for tree hole replant applications, this is
                                  equivalent to 1 Ib of chloropicrin per 100 square feet.

                           When used as a warning agent prior to sulfuryl fluoride residential
                           fumigations 1 fluid ounce ai of chloropicrin is used per 10,000-
                           15,000 cubic feet.

                           Labels indicate that the amount of chloropicrin used for remedial
                           wood treatment is based on the size of the pole.  Pole applications
                           range from 4 ounces ai up to 1 1A  pints ai for larger poles.

Annual U.S. Usage:         According to 2007 Agency use information, about 10 million
                           pounds of chloropicrin are used annually for pre-plant soil
                           fumigations.  This amount may differ from what has been
                           presented in the Agency's revised risk assessments since that data
                           reflected usage data from 2002-2004.
       C. Regulatory History

       First registered in the U.S. in 1975.
       A registration standard was issued in 1982.
       Data Call-in's (DCIs) issued in September 1990 and October 1995.
       Reregi strati on Eligibility Decision (RED) for Chloropicrin, July 2008.
                                                                                       20

-------
III. Summary of Risk and Benefit Assessments and Links to Agency Documents

       A. General Overview of Soil Fumigants

       Soil fumigants are pesticides that form gasses when applied to soil. Once in the soil, the
fumigants work by controlling pests that can disrupt plant growth and crop production. Soil
fumigants play a very important role in agriculture, but they also have the potential to pose risk
concerns to people involved in the application (handlers), workers who re-enter fumigated fields
(workers), and people who may be near the treated area (bystanders).

       B. Human Health Risk from Chloropicrin

       The main risk of concern for handlers, workers, and bystanders associated with the soil
uses of chloropicrin is from acute inhalation exposure as a result of fumigant off-gassing. The
term handler refers to persons involved in the application of chloropicrin. For soil applications,
handlers also include persons involved in tarp perforation and removal.  The term worker in this
document refers to persons performing non-handler tasks (e.g., planting) within the application
block, after the fumigation process has been completed. The term bystander refers to any person
who lives or works in the vicinity of a fumigation site.

       In addition to the soil uses of chloropicrin, there are other uses that the Agency has
assessed and included in the July 2008 RED.  Chloropicrin's use as a warning agent was also
evaluated in the Agency's revised human health risk assessment.  Chloropicrin is also used  as an
antimicrobial to control internal wood decay in wood poles, timbers, pilings, and glue-laminated
beams.  These uses were assessed in a different document than the pre-plant soil and warning
agent uses.

       Estimating exposure to fumigants is different from non-fumigant pesticides due to
fumigants' volatility, and thus, their increased ability to move off-site during and after
application.  For example, pesticide spray drift is the physical movement of pesticide particulate
or droplets from the target site during the application and soon thereafter.  In the case of soil
fumigants, the pesticide moves as a gas (not as particulate or droplets) and movement off-site  can
occur for an extended period after application.  Importantly, fumigants have a well-documented
history of causing large-scale human exposure incidents up to several thousand feet from treated
fields.  Assessing fumigant exposure takes into account the size of the fumigated field, the
amount of fumigant applied, and the rate at which the fumigant escapes from the treated field.

       The term "flux rate" or "emission rate" defines the rate at which a fumigant off-gasses
from a treated field. Many factors influence the emission rate from treated fields. Factors such
as the application method, soil moisture, soil temperature, organic matter levels, water
treatments, the use of tarps, biological activity in the soil, soil texture, weather conditions, soil
compaction, and others influence the amount of fumigant that comes off the field and is available
to move off-site to areas where bystanders may be located.

       Chloropicrin can cause eye, nose, throat, and upper respiratory irritation. Results from a
chloropicrin human sensory irritation study indicate that eye irritation is the most sensitive effect.
                                                                                      21

-------
The Agency selected a reversible acute endpoint from the human study. EPA used this study to
determine a bench mark concentration level (BMCLio) of 0.073 parts per million (ppm). At this
level EPA does not expect eye or nose irritation, or upper respiratory changes.  Most of the study
participants detected chloropicrin within 20-30 minutes at 0.15 ppm. This level corresponds to
mild irritation without leading to more severe irritation and respiratory effects. In addition, the
human study shows that persons exposed to 0.15 ppm of chloropicrin did not experience
irritation effects 1 hour after the exposure ended, and also no irritation effects were seen the
following day.

       Based on the human study, a margin of exposure (MOE) of 1 defines the Agency's level
of concern  (LOG) for acute inhalation exposure. The uncertainty factors have been removed due
to a) chloropicrin's mode of action (MOA) of sensory irritation,2 and b) evaluation of the most
sensitive human subpopulation to sensory irritants (young adults, average age 23).3

       The Agency has high quality data that shows at 0.15 ppm (which corresponds to an MOE
of 0.50) humans begin to sense chloropicrin without leading to more serious effects. While there
are uncertainties about the effects of chloropicrin at higher concentrations and at exposure
durations longer than  1 hour, data do suggest that effects would not become more severe unless
the concentration of chloropicrin increases. Therefore, the Agency is confident that the human
study provides high quality information regarding the dose-response in humans at the levels that
lead to minor, reversible effects.

       In assessing risks from chloropicrin, the Agency considered multiple lines of evidence,
using the best available information from monitoring studies, modeling tools, and from incident
reports.

    •   Monitoring:  For the human health  risk assessments completed for chloropicrin and the
       other soil fumigants within the group,  several field-scale monitoring studies were
       considered, as well as monitoring of workers and handlers involved in various tasks.
       These studies quantify chloropicrin concentrations in and around fields at various times
       and distances during and after applications.  Many of these data indicate that there can be
       risks of concern associated with chloropicrin use at a broad range of distances from
       treated fields.  However, these data are limited in their utility because they provide results
       only for the specific conditions under which the study was conducted.

    •   Modeling: Models enable the use of data from monitoring studies to estimate
       concentrations and potential risks under a wide range of conditions and use patterns.
       EPA used Version 2.1.4 of the Probabilistic Exposure and Risk model for Fumigants
       (also called the PERFUM model), to evaluate potential risks at distances around treated
       fields. PERFUM incorporates actual weather data and flux distribution estimates, then
       accounts for changes and altering conditions.  Analyses based on a variety of model
 For details on guidance documents and framework the Agency used to determine chloropicrin's see, EPA-HQ-
OPP-2007-0350-0172. "MOA Mode of Action, Eye Irritation, and the Intra-Species Factor: Comparison of
Chloropicrin and MITC." June 25, 2008. (DP Barcode 293356)
3 For a more detailed explanation of the study see, "Chloropicrin: Third Revision of the HED Human Health Risk
Assessment. April 30, 2009. (DP Barcode D348637)."
                                                                                       22

-------
       outputs were used to compare the potential risks at a range of distances.  The PERFUM
       model and users manual are public domain and can be downloaded at
       http ://www. exponent, com/perfum/.

   •   Bystander, handler and worker incident reports: Incidents for the soil fumigants
       generally occur at a low frequency relative to the total number of fumigant applications
       performed annually. However, when incidents occur, there are often many people
       involved. Incidents involving handlers and workers tend to occur more often than
       incidents with bystanders.

       Reconstructing incidents to examine the exact  factors which led to the incident can be
       difficult, especially  when bystanders are involved since all the factors that contributed to
       the incident may not have been documented. Some of the factors that have been linked to
       incidents in the past have included equipment failure, handler accidents, applicator failure
       to adhere to label recommendations and/or requirements, and temperature inversions.
       Bystander incidents have occurred both close to fumigated fields and up to two miles
       away from the fumigated field.

       Based on these lines of evidence, and as described in  more detail in the risk assessments,
EPA has determined that chloropicrin risks to handlers, workers, and bystanders are of concern
given current labels and use practices. The human health risk assessments indicate that
inhalation exposures to bystanders who live and work near agricultural fields and greenhouses
where chloropicrin fumigations occur have the potential to exceed the Agency's LOG without
additional mitigation measures. There are also risks of concern for occupational handlers
involved in chloropicrin applications and tarp perforation/removal activities, and for workers
who may re-enter treated areas shortly after fumigation or tarp perforation has been completed.

       The Agency does not have risk concerns for bystanders when chloropicrin is used prior to
sulfuryl fluoride residential structure fumigations. When chloropicrin is used to treat wood
decay, the Agency has identified potential acute inhalation risks to bystanders and handlers. The
Agency's concern for acute inhalation exposure to bystanders and handlers is based on the same
data described above. The  Agency also does not have a risk  concern for dietary exposure
(including drinking water exposure).

       For more information about the specific information in the Agency's human health risk
analyses, refer to the documents listed below:

   •   Chloropicrin: Third Revision of the HED Human Health Risk Assessment. April 30,
       2009 (DP Barcode 348637).
   •   Methyl Bromide (PC Code 053201), Chloropicrin (PC Code 081501), Dazomet (PC
       Code 035602), Metam Sodium and Potassium  (PC Codes 039003 &039002), MITC (PC
       Code 068103), DP Barcode 362369, Updated Health Effects Division Recommendations
       for Good Agricultural Practices and Associated Buffer Credits. May 14, 2009.
   •   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0172, MOA Mode of Action, Eye Irritation, and the Intra-
       Species Factor: Comparison  of Chloropicrin and MITC. June 25, 2008. DP Barcode
       293356.
                                                                                    23

-------
   •   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0173, Factors Which Impact Soil Fumigant Emissions -
       Evaluation For Use In Soil Fumigant Buffer Zone Credit Factor Approach. June 9, 2008.
       (DP Barcode 306857)
   •   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0009, Review of Fumigants Group Incident Reports.
   •   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0010, Summary Fumigants Group Incident Reports.
   •   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0011, Summary Fumigants Group Incidents DP Barcode
       D326938.

For more information on the antimicrobial use of chloropicrin please see the following
documents:

   •   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0165, Revised Occupational and Residential/Bystander
       Assessment of the Antimicrobial Use (Remedial Wood Treatment) of Chloropicrin for
       the Reregi strati on Eligibility Decision (RED) Document (Phase 3 Comment Period). PC
       Code 081501, DP Barcode D314399. February 14, 2008.
   •   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0167, Updated Label Language for the Antimicrobial Uses of
       Chloropicrin (PC Code 081501) for the Reregi strati on Eligibility Decision Document.
       May 13, 2008.

   C. Environmental Fate and Ecological Risks

       The Agency's environmental fate and ecological effects risk assessment indicates that
there are some concerns for non-target organisms that may be exposed  to fumigants.

       Since chloropicrin is highly volatile and is a gas at room temperature and standard
pressure, inhalation is the major exposure pathway for non-target terrestrial animals. For aquatic
organisms, exposure in surface water could result from runoff with dissolved chloropicrin from
fumigated fields.

       The Agency evaluated the potential exposure of birds and mammals through inhalation
exposure to chloropicrin using air monitoring data and values derived from exposure modeling.
The Agency has not established LOCs  for inhalation risk in animals; standard dietary LOCs were
used.  Comparison of modeled exposure concentrations to acute mammalian inhalation toxicity
data did not exceed the endangered species LOG when exposure concentrations from PERFUM
were used.  Chronic exposure to chloropicrin from treatment of individual fields is not expected.

       The potential for inhalation risk to birds was not quantified, because avian inhalation
toxicity data were  not available.  The potential risk to non-target terrestrial plants was also not
evaluated due to lack of toxicity data.

       Exposure to aquatic animals and plants was simulated using the Pesticide Root Zone
Model (PRZM) and Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS), although there is some
uncertainty in their ability to fully  account for the transport of chemicals as volatile as
chloropicrin. Risk quotients exceeded  the acute LOG for fish for two of six modeled scenarios
(FL strawberry and FL tomato) and the endangered species LOG for all six scenarios modeled.
The acute LOCs for aquatic invertebrates (endangered species and non-endangered species
                                                                                   24

-------
LOCs) were exceeded for two of six scenarios (FL strawberry and FL tomato) although the lack
of a definitive toxicity endpoint means that risk could not be completely discounted from the
other four scenarios modeled. Chronic risk to aquatic animals was not evaluated due to lack of
data, but volatilization of chloropicrin from surface water would greatly reduce residues of
chloropicrin over time.

              1. Hazard

       Based on limited data, chloropicrin is considered very highly toxic to both fish (lowest
LC50 = 5.14 ppb) and aquatic invertebrates (lowest LC50 < 71 ppb).  Chloropicrin is also
considered highly toxic to mammals. The acute mammal inhalation LD50 is 0.114 mg/L (male
rats) and the developmental NOAEL in rabbits is 0.003 mg/L (LOAEL 0.008 mg/L, based on
abortions and decreased fetal weights). The mammal acute oral LD50 value (used in a
preliminary analysis) is 37.5 mg/kg (highly toxic).  The Agency does not have avian inhalation,
terrestrial/aquatic plant, or estuarine/marine aquatic life data.

              2. Exposure

                     a. Environmental Fate

       The high vapor pressure (23.8 mm @ 25ฐC), high Henry's Law Constant (2.05 X 10"3
atm M3/mole), and low soil adsorption coefficient (Koc 36.05 L kg"1) of chloropicrin suggest that
volatilization is the most important environmental route of dissipation. Direct photolytic
degradation  (ti/2 <8 hrs) of chloropicrin is the primary route of dissipation in the atmosphere,
which suggest it is not a significant threat to deplete stratosphere ozone layer.  Due to the fact
that volatilization is significant and occurs rapidly, the importance of other competing processes
such as leaching, biotic and abiotic degradation, and adsorption to the soil particles will certainly
depend on chloropicrin's emission rate from fumigated fields. This is because the emission rate
determines the amount of chloropicrin left for other processes and its residence time in the soil
system. However, if chloropicrin remains in soil, it also degrades with half-lives ranging from
3.7 to 4.5 days with CC>2being the terminal breakdown product. Since chloropicrin is highly
soluble in water and has low adsorption in soil, it can potentially leach into groundwater and to
surface water through runoff under a flooded condition.  The low octanol/water partition
coefficient of chloropicrin also indicates that it is not likely to be bioconcentrated in tissues of
aquatic organisms.

                     b. Terrestrial Exposure

       The Industrial Source Complex Short Term Version 3 (ISCST3) model was used to
calculate potential  air concentrations to which terrestrial animals might be exposed via
inhalation. Air concentrations at the field edge and at distances away from a 40-acre field  edge
were simulated, considering various  application rates and methods, including if tarps were used.
The highest air concentration of 0.019 mg/L was estimated. The values used for this assessment
yield conservative  air concentration estimates because considering a constant flux rate does not
allow for diurnal/nocturnal changes that may occur, which when coupled with the appropriate
wind speed and stability category, can result in lower concentrations. The meteorological inputs
                                                                                      25

-------
also will provide a conservative estimate of exposure because the wind direction is considered to
be perpendicular (pointed downwind) to the treated field for the entire 24 hours represented in
the calculation. This is not a normal situation in the atmosphere for most locations.

       PERFUM was used to refine the potential risks to terrestrial organisms. Twelve different
application scenarios (e.g., broadcast, bedded, tarped, untarped, drip irrigation,
Bakersfield/Ventura sites, application rates up to 350 Ib ai/A) were modeled. The highest 90th
percentile air residue across these scenarios is 0.004219 mg/ m3, for 40 acres, broadcast,
untarped, 0-5 meters radius from the field edge, 8-12 hours after application at 175 Ib ai/A.
This value is significantly less than the greatest value simulated using the ISCST3 model.

       Available ambient monitoring data for chloropicrin indicates a maximum ambient air
concentration of 0.000014 mg/L. Although it is possible that birds and mammals could be
exposed to chloropicrin repeatedly by ranging between treated fields, the historical ambient air
concentration was considered to determine the potential for chronic inhalation exposure.

                     c. Aquatic Exposure

       Aquatic exposure was simulated using the combined PRZM and EXAMS surface water
models. Estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) resulting from application of 350 Ib
ai/A and 175 Ib ai/A were simulated for six crop scenarios (CA tomatoes, CA onions, FL
tomatoes, FL strawberries, NC sweet potatoes, and NC tobacco). The calculated EECs were on
the order of 1.0 ug/L or less for the  California and North Carolina scenarios, but were on the
order of 70 ug/L for the Florida scenarios.

       There is an uncertainly in estimating chloropicrin exposure in water bodies due to post-
application tarping of the treated area.  If tarping is used to minimize the volatilization of
chloropicrin, the loading of the chemical through runoff will be limited until the tarp is
perforated or removed from the field. The present version of the PRZM model and the selected
crop scenarios have limited capabilities in capturing the load of applied chemical under a post-
application tarp scenario. Therefore, the estimated concentrations of chloropicrin in water bodies
may be upper bound for tarped scenarios since the load of chloropicrin from runoff is considered
in the PRZM/EXAMS simulation.

       Because chloropicrin is highly soluble in water and has low adsorption in soil, residual
chloropicrin in soil can potentially leach into groundwater under continuous irrigation and/or
high rainfall events. However, consideration of the potential for groundwater contamination
must take into account the fact that  irrigation is applied with the intent of keeping chloropicrin
within  a small depth range around the root zone (and not below to groundwater). In addition,
degradation of chloropicrin under a tarped field, and limited dissipation of material though a tarp
would  reduce the amount of residues which might be transported to groundwater by a potential
heavy rainfall soon after the tarp is removed.

              3.  Risk

                     a. Terrestrial Risk
                                                                                      26

-------
       A risk quotient derived from the maximum EEC from the ISCST3 model and acute
mammalian toxicity data was 0.17. Although the Agency has not set LOCs for inhalation risk to
terrestrial animals, this value exceeds the standard endangered species LOG used in ecological
dietary risk assessments. The maximum EEC from the refined PERFUM model, however,
results in a maximum RQ below the endangered species LOG.  Comparison of ambient
chloropicrin concentrations in air from historical monitoring data to chronic rabbit inhalation
toxicity data resulted in a RQ below the standard chronic LOG of 1.0.

       Risk to birds from inhalation exposure to chloropicrin could not be assessed using the
ISCST3 or PERFUM exposure estimates because avian inhalation toxicity data were not
available. The potential for risk to non-target terrestrial plants was also not evaluated due to lack
of toxicity data.

                    b. Aquatic Risk

       Risk quotients exceeded the acute LOG  for fish for two of six modeled scenarios (FL
strawberry and FL tomato), and the endangered species LOG for all six scenarios. The acute
LOCs for aquatic invertebrates (endangered species and non-endangered species) were exceeded
for two of six scenarios (FL strawberry and FL  tomato), although the lack of a definitive toxicity
endpoint means that risk could not be completely discounted from the other four scenarios
modeled. Chronic risk to aquatic animals was not evaluated due to a lack of data, but
volatilization of chloropicrin from surface water would greatly reduce residues of chloropicrin
over time.

       For more information about the specific information in the Agency's assessment of
environmental fate and ecological risks, refer to the following document:

   •   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0175,  Revised Screening Ecological Risk Assessment for the
       Reregistration of Chloropicrin. DP Barcode 348669. April 16, 2008.

   D.  Benefits

       Soil fumigation can provide benefits to both food consumers  and growers. For
consumers it means more fresh fruits and vegetables can be cheaply produced domestically year-
round because severe pest problems can be efficiently controlled.  Growers benefit because crops
grown in fumigated soil produce fewer blemished products, which translates into an increase in
marketable yields. Fumigation can also provide benefits to growers by increasing crop
management flexibility.  This includes shorter crop rotational intervals (i.e., less time when fields
are left fallow), improved ability to meet quarantine requirements (which are imposed when
states or other jurisdictions require a pest-free harvested product), and consistent efficacy against
critical pests.  The magnitude of benefits depends on pest pressure, which varies over space and
time, and the availability and costs associated with the use of alternatives.

       Since chloropicrin is often used in combination with other fumigants, it is difficult to
estimate an exact benefit for chloropicrin alone. Agency assessments (e.g., chloropicrin's use in
                                                                                     27

-------
pepper production) indicate that if chloropicrin were no longer available, growers could
experience large yield losses. These losses combined with increases in production costs that are
higher than revenue could cause growers to stop pepper production.

      Other benefits of chloropicrin include its use as a methyl bromide alternative and
chloropicrin's role as a warning agent which makes people aware of potential exposures to other
fumigants such as methyl bromide.

      There are a number of benefit assessments that have been completed by the Agency to
estimate the value of fumigants to various industries.  Below is a list of the specific benefit
assessments that include chloropicrin.

   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0017, Summary of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
      Chloropicrin in Crop Production.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0018, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
      Chloropicrin, Methyl Bromide, and Metam Sodium in Cucurbit Production.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0019, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
      Chloropicrin, Methyl Bromide, and Metam Sodium in Eggplant Production
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0020, Assessment of the Benefits Soil Fumigants (Methyl
      Bromide, Chloropicrin, Metam-Sodium, Dazomet) Used by Forest Tree Seedling
      Nurseries.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0021, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
      Methyl Bromide, Chloropicrin, Dazomet, and Metam Sodium for Use in Raspberry
      Nurseries, Fruit and Nut Deciduous Tree Nurseries, and Rose Bush Nurseries in
      California.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0022, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
      Chloropicrin and Metam-sodium in Onion Production.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0023, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
      Methyl Bromide, Chloropicrin, and Metam Sodium in Grape Production.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0024, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
      Methyl Bromide, Chloropicrin and Metam Sodium in Tree Nut Production.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0025, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
      Chloropicrin and Metam Sodium in Pome Fruits Production.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0026, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
      Methyl Bromide, Chloropicrin, and Metam Sodium in Stone Fruit Production.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0027, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
      Chloropicrin, Methyl Bromide, and Metam Sodium in Bell Pepper Production.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0028, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
      Metam Sodium in Potato Production.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0029, Assessment of Soil Fumigation with Chloropicrin,
      Methyl Bromide and Metam-sodium in Strawberry Production.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0030, Assessment of the Benefits of Chloropicrin, Methyl
      Bromide, Metam-sodium and Dazomet Use In Strawberry Nursery Runner Production.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0031, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
      Chloropicrin, Methyl Bromide, and Metam-sodium on Sweet Potato Production.
                                                                                  28

-------
   •   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0032, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
       Chloropicrin in Tobacco Production.
   •   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0033, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
       Chloropicrin, Methyl Bromide, and Metam Sodium in Tomato Production.
   •   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0034, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
       Metam-Sodium in Carrot Production.
   •   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-003 5, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
       Metam Sodium in Peanut Production.
   •   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0036, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
       Chloropicrin, Methyl Bromide, Metam Sodium and Dazomet in Ornamental Production.
   •   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0037, BEAD'S Planned Impact Assessments on Agricultural
       Sites with Significant Use of Soil Fumigants (Chloropicrin, Dazomet, Methyl Bromide,
       Metam Potassium, and Metam Sodium.

   E.  2008 RED Mitigation Impacts

Requirements in the July 2008 RED

       The July 2008 RED acknowledged that even with the use of credits, there could be
significant economic impacts to some growers who may not be able to accommodate large
buffers based on their current application practices. However, the Agency believed that the
options provided in the scalable buffer approach in the fumigant REDs would allow growers the
flexibility to modify their practices to achieve smaller buffers; for example, by treating smaller
application blocks, switching to a lower emission application method, or by switching to an
alternative fumigant that would require smaller buffers. In addition, EPA noted that pest control
efficacy may be improved with high barrier tarps which may enable growers to use the buffer
zone credits and utilize lower application rates resulting in further reductions of the buffer zone
distances. Therefore, the Agency concluded that growers would be able to alter their fumigation
applications, given the flexibility designed into the system, in a manner that would enable
growers to minimize the impact on production. The Agency noted, however, that the buffers
would significantly impact some growers by the use of more expensive high barrier film, delays
in planting due to longer fumigation operations, additional planning, and more trips to the field
for planting and other operations if fumigating in smaller blocks resulted in staggered operations.
It was determined that some of these costs could be substantial in some production  scenarios.

Comments on the July 2008 RED

       The July 2008 RED requested commenters to submit a description of fumigation
practices and provide maps of their property illustrating locations of fields, offices,  residences,
roads, and property lines so that the Agency could better understand the impacts of the mitigation
plan. In response, various stakeholders, including several forest seedling nursery operations,
submitted detailed information.  From an analysis of the information submitted, including an
analysis of a nursery and options they would have for compliance, the Agency concludes that it
had overestimated the ease with which many growers and fumigators would be able to comply
with the buffer requirements as presented in the July 2008 RED, and that potential impacts
would be much greater than previously anticipated for some types of production; please see the
                                                                                    29

-------
following Agency document for more details, "Analysis of Soil Fumigant Risk Management
Requirements using Geographic Information Systems: Case Studies Based on a Forest Seedling
Nursery (DP # 363546)" May 13, 2009. The analysis indicates that the buffer system identified
in the July 2008 RED can be less flexible than expected for certain scenarios and the associated
field topography, field infrastructure, and need for a consistent orientation in the application of a
fumigant, which constrain how a field may be divided.

       From the Agency's analysis, the primary driver of the impacts is the size of the buffer
zones, which will require many growers to divide their fields into smaller fumigation blocks to
achieve smaller buffer zone distances.  Two other contributing factors are the prohibition on
buffers overlapping in space and time and the duration of the buffer zone. Together, these
requirements could result in the loss of part of a grower's field that can be effectively fumigated.
Further, there may be substantial delays in completing fumigations and multiple trips to a field
with fumigation equipment may often be necessary. Not only could there be delays in
production activities in these instances, but it may  also be difficult to maintain proper soil
moisture over the period that multiple blocks would be fumigated.  Soil moisture has been
identified as a critical element in controlling emissions. Some growers will  face numerous
scheduling conflicts if they rely on commercial applicators, and the Agency estimates that
growers would be more likely to conduct their own fumigations. In addition, repeated trips to
the field to fumigate small blocks will increase costs, a further incentive for growers to conduct
their own fumigations.

       The Agency does agree that compliance with buffer zones requirements as outlined in the
July 2008 RED would be a significant challenge for applicators and growers. However, field
flux studies, monitoring data, modeling analyses, and information from incidents involving
fumigants continue to support a conclusion that chloropicrin off-gasses and moves away from
treated fields at concentrations that have the potential to cause adverse effects. Therefore, the
Agency still believes that buffer zones that exclude bystanders are a critical  aspect of mitigating
risks from the use of chloropicrin.

       In addition to these impacts, if emergency preparedness and response requirements were
triggered due to proximity of neighbors, for example, the requirement in the July 2008 RED to
monitor the buffer zone for its 48-hour duration was estimated to impose the highest direct costs.
The Agency estimates that the cost of sampling tubes alone could range from $1000 to over
$3000 for a field or enterprise, not including the cost of labor.  These costs would fall
disproportionately on growers with small acreage.  As an alternative, growers could notify their
neighbors of their intent to fumigate.  However, the Agency understands and appreciates the
many comments indicating that notification may not be an attractive option due to the potential
for neighbors to attempt to impede or block fumigant applications.

       Finally, the Agency concludes that the development and implementation of workable
fumigation strategies, considering buffer and other requirements, will require substantial new
information and management skills on the part of growers and applicators. While the Agency's
risk management approach provides flexibility to the grower, providing a reasonable period of
time for growers to adapt would reduce impacts.
                                                                                     30

-------
       Based on this new information and EPA's analyses, the Agency has identified
modifications to the mitigation which will maintain the important protections necessary for the
health and safety of workers and bystanders, but will increase the ability of fumigant users to
comply by reducing impacts associated with the mitigation.  This includes allowing buffer zone
overlap and changes in monitoring requirements. In addition, due to new data that have been
submitted to the Agency, buffer zones distances for some scenarios have been refined for
chloropicrin and additional buffer zone credits have been provided.  Although many aspects of
the RED mitigation will appear on labels in 2010, the Agency will not require buffers until the
2011 growing season.
                                                                                     31

-------
IV. Risk Management and Reregistration Decision

       A. Determination of Reregistration Eligibility

       Section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA calls for the Agency to determine, after submission of
relevant data concerning an active ingredient, whether pesticides containing the active ingredient
are eligible for reregi strati on. The Agency has previously identified and required the submission
of the generic (i.e., active ingredient specific) data required to support reregi strati on of products
containing chloropicrin.

       The Agency has completed its assessment of the dietary (including drinking water),
residential, occupational, and ecological risks associated with the use of pesticides containing the
active ingredient chloropicrin. Dietary (food) risks were not quantitatively assessed because
there are no food/feed uses of chloropicrin.  In addition to the risk assessments, the Agency
completed benefit assessments on crops with significant chloropicrin usage.4

       In Phase 5, the Agency published a risk mitigation options paper.5  This document
detailed potential mitigation options and sought public comment on these options.  The following
is the list of mitigation options discussed in the Agency's paper:
           •   Buffer zones,
           •   Sealing methods,
           •   Timing of applications,
           •   Application block size limitations,
           •   Respiratory protection,
           •   Tarp cutting/removal procedures,
           •   Entry-restricted period,
           •   Application method/practice restrictions,
           •   Fumigant management plans (FMPs),
           •   FMP certification,
           •   Responsible parties,
           •   Record keeping/reporting/tracking,
           •   Restricted Use Pesticide Classification (this option does not apply to
               chloropicrin, since it is already a RUP),
           •   Notification and posting,
           •   Good agricultural practices (GAPs),
           •   Fumigant manuals, and
           •   Stewardship programs.

       The July 2008 RED determined based on a review of the chloropicrin data and public
comments on the Agency's assessments for the active ingredient chloropicrin, that the Agency
had sufficient information on the human health and ecological effects as well as the benefits of
4 EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0037, BEAD'S Planned Impact Assessments on Agricultural Site with Significant Use
of Soil Fumigants
5 EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0003, Risk Mitigation Options to Address Bystander and Occupational Exposures from
Soil Fumigant Applications


                                                                                        32

-------
chloropicrin to make a decision as part of the reregi strati on process under FIFRA. The Agency
determined that the supported uses of chloropicrin would not pose unreasonable risks or adverse
effects to humans or the environment provided that the risk mitigation measures and label
changes outlined in the RED were implemented.  This remains the case for the amended RED
document.

      Based on its evaluation of chloropicrin, the Agency has determined that chloropicrin
products, unless labeled and used as specified in this document, would present risks inconsistent
with FIFRA.  Accordingly, should a registrant fail to implement any of the risk mitigation
measures identified in this document, the Agency may take regulatory action to address the risk
concerns from the use of chloropicrin.  If all changes outlined in this document are incorporated
into the product labels, then current risks for chloropicrin will be adequately mitigated for the
purposes of this determination under FIFRA.

      A substantial amount of research is currently underway or is expected to begin in the near
term to (1) address current data gaps, and (2) refine understanding of factors that affect fumigant
emissions.  Additionally, a number of new methods and technologies for fumigation are
emerging. EPA plans to move the soil  fumigants forward in Registration Review, from 2017 to
2013,  which will allow EPA to consider new data and information relatively soon, to determine
whether the mitigation included in this  decision is effectively addressing the risks as EPA
believes it will, and to include other soil fumigants which are not part of the current fumigant
group review.

      The Registration Review process for chloropicrin and the other soil fumigants will also
include a comprehensive endangered species assessment. Once that endangered species
assessment is completed, further changes to chloropicrin labels may be necessary.

      B. Public Comments and Responses

      The Phase 3 public comment period on the preliminary risk assessments and related
documents  commenced November 29,  2006 and ended on February 28, 2007.  The Agency
documents  and comments can be found in the chloropicrin docket, EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0661.
The Agency's responses to comments received are available in the new chloropicrin docket,
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350.  Both dockets can be found at www.regulations.gov.

      After the Phase 3 comment period, the Agency revised the human health risk assessment,
completed benefit assessments, and developed risk mitigation options.  These documents were
put out for public comment on May 2, 2007 and the comment period ended on November 3,
2007.  Comments on issues which were significant to many stakeholders and directly influenced
EPA's decisions were highlighted in the July 2008 RED. The following documents include the
EPA's responses to comments. These documents are located in the chloropicrin docket, EPA-
HQ-OPP-2007-0350.

   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0170, RESPONSE TO PUBLIC  COMMENTS. The Health
      Effects Division's Response to  Comments on the Agency's April 12, 2007 document,
                                                                                   33

-------
      Chloropicrin: Revised HED Human Health Risk Assessment for Phase 5 (Docket EPA-
      HQ-OPP-2007-0350). June 18, 2008. DP Barcode 348676.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0174, Response to Phase 5 Public Comments on the Phase 4
      Chloropicrin Reregi strati on Risk Assessment. April 16, 2008. DP Barcode 348669.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0168, Review of Stakeholder Submitted Impact Assessments
      of Proposed Fumigant Buffers, Comments on Initial Buffer Zone Proposal, and Case
      Studies of the Impact of a Flexible Buffer System for Managing By-Stander Risks of
      Fumigants.  June 25, 2008.  DP Barcode 353940.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0169, Response to Phase 5 BEAD Related Public Comments
      Received on the Reregi strati on of Chloropicrin, Dazomet, Metam Potassium, Metam
      Sodium, and Methyl  Bromide.  June 25, 2008. DP Barcode 353940.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-1066, Phase 6 Response to Substantive Public Comments on
      Antimicrobials Division's Occupational and Residential Assessments for the
      Reregi strati on Eligibility Decision (RED) Documents for the following chemicals:
      Methylisothiocyanate (MITC), Metam Sodium, Dazomet, and Chloropicrin. February,
      14, 2008.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-1077, SRRD's Response to Phase 5 Public Comments for the
      Soil Fumigants, July 2008.

      The Agency opened a 60-day public comment period following the publication of the
Chloropicrin RED on July 16, 2008. The Agency received requests to extend the comment
period, so in response to these requests, on August 29, 2008, EPA published a notice in the
Federal Register extending the comment period for an additional 45 days. The comment period
closed on October 30, 2008.  The Agency has reviewed these public comments as well as new
scientific data and other information provided and determined that all measures established in the
July 2008 RED to reduce risks to bystanders and workers will still be required. The Agency has
determined that certain modifications in how and when some measures will be implemented are
appropriate. The following documents include EPA's responses to comments on the July 2008
Chloropicrin RED which may be found in the Chloropicrin docket:

         •  Further Response to Public Comments on the 7/9/08 Completed Chloropicrin
            RED. (March 3, 2009)
         •  Evaluation of "Probabilistic Modeling of Chloropicrin Exposure to Aquatic
            Nontarget Organisms" (March 3, 2009).
         •  Response to Comments from Dow Agrochemicals Regarding EPA's Review of the
            Chain-2D Model (March 3, 2009).
         •  Methyl Bromide,  1,3-Dichloropropene, Chloropicrin, Dazomet, Metam
            Sodium/Potassium, MITC: Health Effects Division (HED) Component of Agency
            Response To Comments On 2008  Reregi strati on Eligibility Documents (May 14,
            2009)
         •  Response to BEAD Related Public Comments Received on the Reregi strati on
            Eligibility Decision for Chloropicrin, Dazomet, Metam Potassium, Metam Sodium,
            and Methyl Bromide (DP# 363545) May 14, 2009.
         •  Analysis of Soil Fumigant Risk Management Requirements using Geographic
            Information Systems: Case Studies based on a Forest Seedling Nursery
            (DP#363546). May 13, 2009.
                                                                                 34

-------
         •   SRRD's Response to Post-RED Comments for the Soil Fumigants (May 27, 2009).

       C. Regulatory Position

          1.  Regulatory Rationale

       The Agency has determined that the supported uses of chloropicrin are eligible for
reregi strati on provided the risk mitigation measures outlined in this document are adopted and
label amendments are made to reflect these measures.

                 a. Chloropicrin Pre-Plant Soil Uses

       As summarized in Section III, there are risks of concern to humans and the environment
resulting from chloropicrin use. Understanding these risks, and also the benefits of chloropicrin
(also outlined in Section III), the Agency's goal for this decision is to be protective, especially of
severe and irreversible  effects, encourage best practices, and to reduce the potential impacts on
benefits. To reach this goal, EPA considered a range of factors including:

   •   exposure characteristics of bystander and other populations exposed to chloropicrin;
   •   hazard characteristics of chloropicrin (the chloropicrin endpoint is based on a minor and
       reversible effect, eye irritation);
   •   hazard characteristics of other fumigants that are combined with chloropicrin;
   •   available information on levels of exposure, feasibility, cost, and effectiveness of various
       risk mitigation options;
   •   bystander, handler and worker incident reports;
   •   potential impacts of mitigation  on growers' ability to produce crops;
   •   uncertainties and assumptions underlying the risk and benefit assessments; and
   •   public comments.

       Considering these factors, EPA has determined that the modifications to the measures
outlined in the July 2008 RED, described herein, will achieve the same protection goals for
persons potentially exposed to chloropicrin but with a greater likelihood of compliance, fewer
impacts on the benefits of chloropicrin use, and with less uncertainty regarding the
protectiveness of the required measures.  The following is a summary of the rationale for
managing risks associated with chloropicrin use. Where labeling revisions are warranted,
specific language is set forth in the  summary label table in Section V of this document.

       The following is a summary of the rationale for managing risks associated with the
supported uses of chloropicrin.

                        i.  Human Health Risk Management

       The human health risk assessment indicates that inhalation exposures to bystanders,
handlers, and workers who live  and work near agricultural fields and greenhouses where
chloropicrin fumigations occur have the potential to exceed the Agency's level  of concern
without additional mitigation measures.  To reduce the potential for chloropicrin exposure to
                                                                                       35

-------
bystanders, handlers, and workers and to address associated risks of concern, EPA is requiring a
number of mitigation measures which include:
   •   buffer zones,
   •   buffer zone posting,
   •   respiratory protections,
   •   restrictions on the timing of tarp perforation and removal operations,
   •   entry restrictions,
   •   mandatory good agricultural practices (GAPs),
   •   fumigant management plans (FMPs),
   •   emergency preparedness and response, and
   •   notice to state-lead agencies.

       The Agency also believes that registrant developed and implemented training and
community outreach and education programs, will help reduce risk. Additionally, EPA will
continue to work with registrants  to identify additional measures that could be implemented as
part of product stewardship.  These additional measures should include efforts to assist users'
transition to the new label requirements.

       Some of the required mitigation measures only address one group of potentially  exposed
individuals (i.e., bystanders, handlers, or workers), while other measures will help reduce risk to
more than one group. All mitigation measures are designed to work together to reduce
exposures, enhance safety, and facilitate compliance and enforcement.  The Agency has based its
risk mitigation decision on a flexible approach which EPA believes will be protective and allow
users to make site-specific choices to reduce potential impacts on benefits of the use.  While
some of these measures, buffer zones for example, can be used to estimate MOEs, others such as
emergency preparedness and response and community outreach and education will contribute to
bystander safety, but are difficult to express in terms of changes to quantitative risk estimates
such as MOEs.   However, EPA has determined that these measures, working together, will
prevent unreasonable adverse effects on human health.

                               1.  Bystander Risk Mitigation

       Bystanders are persons who live and/or work near fumigated fields and could be
potentially exposed to fumigant emissions that travel  off-site.  In some cases the bystanders are
workers performing agricultural tasks in nearby fields. If they are employed by the grower who
has control of the fumigated field, they are more likely to be aware that a fumigant application
has occurred.

       Bystander risks for people that live near treated fields differ from other human health
risks evaluated under FIFRA, for example residential and worker reentry risks.  Unlike
residential exposures resulting from use of products to control pests in and around the home,
non-occupational bystanders receive no direct benefit from the pesticide which was applied
elsewhere. These bystanders have not made a decision to purchase a pest control product or
service, and as a result they have  little access to information about the product (e.g., hazards,
safety information, first aid, etc.)  or symptoms of exposure. Additionally, non-occupational
bystander exposures to fumigants are largely involuntary and unanticipated. In this regard non-
                                                                                      36

-------
occupational bystander exposure is similar to dietary exposure in that people consuming foods or
drinking water expect to be safe from possible adverse effects associated with pesticide residues
that could be present in their food and drinking water.

       Unlike workers, non-occupational bystanders typically receive no safety information or
training related to the pesticide to which they may be exposed. Whereas workers are generally
expected to play an active role in protecting themselves from pesticide risk, no such expectation
exists for non-occupational bystanders.  Workers who experience symptoms of pesticide
exposure are also more likely to link their symptoms to the pesticide and take steps to receive
appropriate treatment. Conversely, bystanders are much less likely to attribute adverse effects to
pesticide exposures or to have access to information needed to take appropriate steps to mitigate
the effects of the exposure.  Thus, EPA's mitigation includes elements of emergency
preparedness and response, notice to state lead agencies, training, and community outreach and
education as well as labeling changes.

                                      a.  Buffer Zones

       The human health risk assessments indicate bystanders may be exposed to chloropicrin
air concentrations that exceed the Agency's level of concern based on current label requirements.
In general, the risk from inhalation exposures decreases as the distance from the field where
bystanders are located increases. Because of this relationship, the Agency has determined that a
buffer zone must be established around the perimeter of each application block where
chloropicrin is applied. The Agency acknowledges that buffer zones alone will not mitigate all
risks or eliminate incidents caused by equipment failure, human error, adverse weather (e.g.,
temperature inversions), or other events. The Agency however does believe that buffer zones
along with other mitigation measures required by this decision described below will mitigate
risks so that bystanders will not experience unreasonable adverse effects.

                                             i.  General Buffer Zone Requirements

General Requirements in the July 2008 RED

       The 2008 chloropicrin RED described general buffer zone requirements for chloropicrin
and other  soil fumigants. This included the definition of a buffer zone, the requirement to
exclude non-handlers from the buffer zone during the buffer-zone period, and the definition of
the application block.

       The RED also did not allow buffer zones to overlap and fumigations were prohibited
within Vi mile of difficult to evacuate sites such as schools, state licensed daycare centers,
nursing homes, and hospitals,  if occupied during the buffer zone period.  Exemptions for
vehicular  and bicycle traffic were allowed on roadways through the buffer zone.  However, bus
stops or other locations where persons wait for public transit were not permitted within the buffer
zone. Structures within the buffer zone were also not allowed to be occupied during the buffer
zone period and air samples were required before bystanders could enter the structure following
expiration of the buffer-zone period.  In addition, before a buffer zone could extend  onto
adjacent private or public property, the applicator needed to obtain written permission from the
                                                                                      37

-------
owner/operator or local authority to allow the buffer zone to extend onto the property. This was
to ensure that non-handlers would not enter the buffer zone and that buffer zones did not overlap.

Comments on the July 2008 RED

       During the post-RED comment period, the Agency received many comments from
stakeholders concerning the buffer zone requirements.  Many comments stated that the large
buffer zone distances would make fumigation infeasible and the mitigation options were not
flexible enough to allow some fumigations to occur; however, other comments expressed
concern that buffers EPA specified would not be large enough to protect bystanders.

       The Agency also received numerous comments that buffer zone duration will present
severe hardship for growers.  Many commenters expressed concern that the buffer zone overlap
restriction would have the unintended consequence of forcing some applications to occur during
less-than-optimal weather and soil conditions, because the restriction could preclude nearby
application blocks from being treated when weather and soil conditions would be optimal for
reducing emissions. Hence, subsequent fumigations in adjacent fields would have an increased
chance of occurring when weather and soil conditions are more conducive to off-gassing.
Examples cited by commenters where this situation could occur include the Southeast and
Pacific Northwest where optimal soil moisture conditions occur during a limited time period.
The commenters felt that while the buffer zone is in effect, properly trained and equipped
handlers should be allowed to enter adjacent application blocks to make applications.  Several
commenters felt that providing an exception to this prohibition would make buffers more
workable, reduce delays, allow a more efficient use of equipment and labor, allow growers
additional flexibility to achieve compliance with buffer requirements, and potentially reduce risk
if applications could be made under more favorable soil and weather conditions. In addition,
some commenters suggested  that allowing adjacent application blocks to be treated would not
increase risk to bystanders since the Agency's mitigation measures encourage users to split
application blocks into smaller treatment areas which result in less fumigant being applied, less
exposure, and less potential risk.

       Some commenters also asked for clarification on various  aspects of the buffer zone
requirements, and some asked that EPA provide additional increments for acreages and
application rates for buffer zone tables. In addition, many commenters stated that buffer zone
credits should be greater for the use of tarps and for certain environmental conditions. A number
of comments indicated that obtaining written permission from local authorities for buffers to
extend over roads and rights-of-way would be extremely difficult, and that neighbors may not
provide permission. EPA also received additional field emissions (flux) data for chloropicrin, as
well  as additional information regarding factors  that affect fumigant emissions.

       Based on EPA's review of the comments, and new data and information, the Agency has
determined that certain amendments to the buffer zone requirements are appropriate.  EPA
believes these amendments will maintain the important protections for bystanders but will
increase the feasibility of compliance with buffers and will reduce potential impacts of buffers  on
the beneficial uses of soil fumigants. The Agency does agree that compliance with buffer zone
requirements as outlined in the July 2008 RED would be a significant challenge for applicators
                                                                                     38

-------
and growers. However, field flux studies, monitoring data, modeling analyses, and information
from incidents involving fumigants continue to support a conclusion that chloropicrin off-gasses
and moves away from treated fields at concentrations that have the potential to cause adverse
effects. Therefore, the Agency still believes that buffer zones that exclude bystanders are a
critical aspect of mitigating risks from the use of chloropicrin.  The Agency believes the
modifications to the buffer requirements, specified below, will increase compliance feasibility
and encourage further adoption of emission reduction application techniques, while still
protecting human health and the environment.

Amended RED Requirements

       EPA has determined that no changes to several aspects of the general buffer zone
requirements from the 2008 RED are appropriate.  This includes:
           the definition and duration of a buffer zone;
       -   the requirement to exclude field workers, nearby residents, pedestrians, and other
           bystanders from the buffer zone during the buffer zone period;
           the exemption for transit through buffer zones;
           the definition of the application block;
           the minimum buffer of 25 feet and maximum buffer of 1A mile;
           the requirement limiting entry into buffer zones to handlers who have been properly
           trained and equipped according to EPA's Worker Protection Standard;
           the prohibition on including in buffer zones bus stops or other locations where
           persons wait for public transit;
       -   the prohibition against including in buffer zones buildings under the control of the
           owner/operator of the application block used for storage such as sheds, barns,
           garages, etc., unless the storage buildings are not occupied during the buffer zone
           period, and the storage buildings do not share a  common wall with an occupied
           structure;
           the prohibition against including in buffer zones residential areas that are not under
           the control of the owner/operator unless occupants agree in writing that they will
           voluntarily vacate the buffer zone until the buffer zone period expires;
       -   the prohibition against including in buffer zones agricultural areas that are not under
           the control of the owner/operator unless the owner/operator of the other area provides
           written agreement that they, their employees, and other persons will not enter the
           buffer zone; and
       -   the prohibition against including in buffer zones publicly owned and/or operated
           areas such as parks, sidewalks, walking paths, playgrounds, and athletic fields
           without first obtaining written permission from local authorities.

       EPA has determined that amendments to the July 2008 RED requirements are
appropriate; these are discussed in greater detail below.  The amended buffer zone requirements
are summarized at the end of this section.

       Buffer Zone Proximity - Exception to Allow Buffer Zone Overlap
                                                                                       39

-------
       The Agency is concerned that emissions from multiple fields located close to one another
could be higher than air concentrations from individually treated fields.  As a result, bystanders
outside of buffers for individual application blocks could be exposed to concentrations of
concern particularly if peak concentrations from multiple application blocks in proximity to each
other coincide.  To reduce the potential for off-site movement of fumigant emissions beyond
buffer zones for multiple fumigated fields, the July 2008 RED prohibited buffer zones from
multiple application blocks from overlapping, including application blocks fumigated by other
property operators.

       EPA has considered the comments submitted and has determined that allowing an
exception to the buffer zone overlap prohibition, under the conditions specified below, is
reasonable and will not demonstrably alter the protection goals provided to bystanders in the July
2008 RED. EPA has determined that buffer zones from nearby application blocks may  overlap
one another provided at least 12 hours have elapsed from the end of one application until the
start of the next application. By separating the application times by at least 12 hours the
fumigant emission peaks are less likely to occur at the same time which would sufficiently
reduce potential exposure outside buffer zones and meets the Agency's protection goals.

       The Agency is maintaining the requirement for buffer zones around each application
block to be in effect for 48 hours and that only properly trained and equipped handlers are
allowed to enter into buffers zones.

       To clarify, below are conditions when buffer zones may or may not overlap:

       - A buffer zone may NOT overlap buffer zones from other application blocks that are
       already in effect UNLESS a minimum of 12 hours has elapsed from the time the first
       application ends until the second application begins.

       EPA has determined that when fumigators exercise the exception to allow buffers to
overlap, the emergency preparedness and response measures described on page 114 of this
document must be implemented if there are homes, businesses, or property not within the control
of the fumigator within 300 feet of the buffer zone.

       To ensure handlers are aware that they are working in an existing buffer from an
overlapping buffer zone area, the labels will require the certified applicator, before beginning the
application, to determine whether the application block or its resulting buffer will overlap with a
buffer that is already in effect.  If so, the certified applicator must inform handlers of this, the
health effects, early signs of exposure, and respiratory protection and PPE requirements for
products applied in both the application block in which they are working and the other
application block.  The Agency is requiring that all treatment areas and buffers be clearly posted
with proper signage to ensure handlers entering a treatment area are aware of previous treatments
and the existence of buffers. In addition, certified applicators must obtain permission from other
landowners when buffers extend onto other lands, which provides an additional mechanism to
ensure handlers are aware when they are  working in a buffer zone and that they have the
necessary information regarding health effects, warning properties, and respiratory/PPE
requirements for all products to which they may be exposed.
                                                                                      40

-------
       Areas not under the control of owner/operator of the application block

       For areas not under the control of the owner/operator of the application block, the
requirements remain unchanged except (1) air samples do not need to be taken to allow
occupants to reenter buildings or homes after the buffer zone period has expired, and (2) buffer
zones may include publicly owned and/or operated roads, including rights of ways, without first
obtaining written permission from local authorities; however, if a sidewalk or permanent walking
path is associated with the road or right-of-way, written permission must be given by the
appropriate state and/or local authorities.

       In summary, areas of a buffer zone not under the control of the owner/operator of the
application block may not include residential areas (including employee housing, private
property, buildings, commercial, industrial, and other areas that people may occupy or outdoor
residential areas, such as lawns, gardens, or play areas) unless the occupants provide written
agreement that they will voluntarily vacate the buffer zone during the entire buffer zone period.
Air samples for chloropicrin do not need to be taken before the occupants can re-enter a building,
home, or outdoor area that was vacated in order to permit the fumigation to  occur. The Agency
determined that the concentrations of the fumigants 48 hours after completion of the application
were likely to be below the Agency's level of concern, and that the warning properties of
chloropicrin would alert persons reentering these sites if concentrations were of concern.
Therefore, monitoring of buildings and outdoor areas after termination of the buffer zone is not
necessary and will  no longer be required.

       Buffer zones may still not include agricultural areas owned/operated by persons other
than the owner/operator of the application block unless the owner/operator of the application
block can ensure that the buffer zone will not overlap with a buffer zone from any adjacent
property owners, taking into account the amended requirements for overlapping buffers.  In
addition, the applicator must still receive written permission from the owner/operator  of areas
that are not under the control of the applicator stating that the owner, their employees, and other
persons other than  handlers, consistent with buffer overlap provisions, will stay out of the buffer
zone during the entire buffer zone period. The goal of this agreement is to ensure that a property
owner of an agricultural field adjacent to an area that will be treated with a fumigant is aware
when the fumigation will occur.  This will allow the applicator to post on the adjacent property
and take other required safety measures to ensure that persons on the property will not be
exposed to a fumigant at levels above the Agency's level of concern. Informing the property
owner of the adjacent field will enable them to take any appropriate safety measures they deem
necessary.  The Agency believes that requiring the applicator to obtain written permission will be
an enforceable measure that will meet the goal of protecting workers and bystanders on adjacent
properties that fall  within a buffer zone.

       In addition, buffer zones still may include publicly owned and/or operated areas such as
parks, sidewalks, walking paths, playgrounds, and athletic fields only if the  area is not occupied
during the buffer zone period and entry by non-handlers is prohibited during the buffer zone
period. Written permission from the appropriate state and/or local authorities to include these
public areas in the  buffer zone is also still required.
                                                                                       41

-------
       However, for roads and rights-of-ways, EPA has determined that these may be included
in buffers, subject to local laws and regulations, as long as it is posted according to the
requirements of this amended RED.  If, as discussed above, the road or right-of-way has an
associated sidewalk or permanent walking path, then written permission would also be required
to include the area in the buffer zone. The Agency believes that if a town or county has invested
resources into building a sidewalk or establishing a walking path, it is reasonable to anticipate
pedestrian traffic at that location. In such circumstances, EPA believes a local authority would
be best positioned to make a determination about the practicality of preventing non-handlers
from entering the buffer zone. EPA acknowledges that laws and regulations vary from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and that the requirement to post points of entry into buffer zones may
necessitate additional steps on the part of fumigant applicators before a road or right-of-way can
be included in a buffer.

Buffer zone distances - Requirements in the July 2008 RED

       Based on several factors including the severity and reversibility of the effect and also the
quality of the hazard database, the goal of the buffer zone distances in the July 2008 RED was to
reach an air concentration of 0.073 ppm which equates to an MOE of 1.  In the July 2008 RED if
the target MOE was not reached, at minimum half of the target (MOE 0.5), which corresponds to
minor, reversible effects, was achieved at high percentiles of the PERFUM model Version 2.1.4.
PERFUM is one of the resources EPA used to help inform decisions regarding buffer zone
distances.

       As discussed in the July 2008 RED, the buffer zones distances were not based on the
selection of a specific percentile or distribution from the PERFUM modeling results.  Rather,
EPA used a weight of evidence approach to set the buffers, which included consideration of the
hazard profile of chloropicrin, information from incident reports, monitoring data, stakeholder
comments, along with comprehensive analysis of results from PERFUM modeling and
consideration of results using other models (e.g., Industrial Source Complex Model6).  The
analysis of PERFUM results considered distances at various percentiles  of the whole field and
maximum distance distributions, and predicted MOEs for various distances. The risk assessment
characterizes additional types of analysis that were performed. EPA's goal for risk management
was to achieve buffer distances where associated risks were at or above target concentration
levels at high percentiles of exposure. EPA also believed that the 2008 RED buffer zone
distances would be manageable for most  growers using existing  cultural practices because of the
flexibility and options provided to modify buffers by altering certain aspects of fumigation
practices.

       For the July 2008 RED, the Agency developed buffer zone distances that were scaled
based on application method, application rate, and application block size. For each of the
outdoor pre-plant soil emission profiles for the July  2008 RED, distances were determined for
the maximum supported rates as well as increments  less than the maximum rate with application
block sizes of 1, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 80,  100, and 120 acres. It should be noted that the
6 http://www.epa.gov/scramOOI/dispersion alt.htm#isc3
                                                                                      42

-------
distances in the lookup tables are not model outputs, although as described above the model
outputs were used to inform the selection of buffer zone distances.

       The risks associated with the July 2008 RED buffer zone distances are characterized as
follows:
   •   Buffer zone distances are based on a reversible endpoint.
   •   The buffer zone distances selected for agricultural field and greenhouse pre-plant soil
       fumigations generally reach the target MOE of 1 at high percentiles (>90%).
   •   Buffers are protective of more severe effects.  The MOEs at high percentiles (99th) of the
       whole field reach half of the target MOE. This MOE corresponds to the 0.15 ppm
       concentration of chloropicrin that can cause irritation without leading to more serious
       respiratory effects.
   •   It was assumed that chloropicrin air concentrations inside homes and other occupied
       structures are equal to outside concentrations. These structures could act as a barrier
       which in some cases may reduce potential inside air  concentrations.  However, there is
       insufficient data to  quantify differences between indoor and outdoor concentrations.
   •   The use of GAPs, FMPs, and other mitigation measures required by this decision will
       contribute to an additional decrease in risk (see GAP section on page 98 and FMP section
       on page 107).

       Minimum and Maximum Distances

       A minimum buffer  zone of 25 feet was required in the July 2008 RED regardless of site-
specific application parameters. In some instances the PERFUM model predicts that the risks
reach the target at the edge of the field. While modeling may support no buffer zone in some
cases, a minimum buffer was required because of variability in the emission rates over a field
and other factors not accounted for in the modeling; as such the Agency determined that a 25
foot minimum buffer zone  was a good agricultural practice.  Also, in the 2008 RED, application
scenarios requiring buffer zone distances of more than 1A mile (2,640 feet) were prohibited.  EPA
believes that for areas where chloropicrin is used, buffers greater than /^ mile are not practical
and difficult to enforce. These requirements have not changed since the July 2008 RED.

       "Greenhouse" Uses

       In the July 2008 RED the Agency developed buffer zones for the different size  structures
(up to 50,000 ft2) for greenhouse pre-plant soil fumigations.  The Agency limited the maximum
size of a greenhouse that can be fumigated to 50,000 ft2.  In  addition the 2008 RED stated that all
pre-plant greenhouse fumigations must be tarped. These requirements have not changed since
the July 2008 RED.

       The "greenhouse" industry  sector is extremely varied because of the breadth of the
facilities that are used across the country and because of the nature of the products that are
produced. As a result, some clarification is required to interpret the buffer zone distances for
"greenhouses."  In common "greenhouse" operations, many types of containerized ornamental
plants and vegetable starter sets are produced in either closed structures that will be referred to as
"greenhouses" or in other related nursery operations such as small fields, or in what are
                                                                                      43

-------
commonly known as "shade" houses (i.e., essentially fields with an overhead sunblock, typically
a semi-translucent black shade cloth). In the latter type of operation, cultural practices related to
chloropicrin use are essentially identical to the pre-plant field uses except they typically occur on
a smaller scale (e.g., 1 acre applications or less).  As a result, the minimum buffer zone distances
for these types of use patterns must be determined from the applicable outdoor lookup tables.
The Agency has not changed the buffer zones for the "greenhouse" use since the July 2008 RED.
The appropriate buffer zone table for this use is Table 17.

       Distances for Combination Products

       As mentioned previously, products containing chloropicrin often include other active
ingredients, for example methyl bromide, 1,3-D,  and iodomethane. Buffer distances have also
been developed for these fumigants.  In accordance with Agency policy, when a pesticide
product contains more than one active ingredient, the product shall bear labeling for the active
ingredient with the more restrictive measures.  When chloropicrin is formulated with methyl
bromide, the buffers generally are based on the fumigant with the greater amount of active
ingredient in the product; for example for products with 67% methyl bromide and 33%
chloropicrin, the buffer zone is driven by the amount of methyl bromide.

       The July 2008 RED also provided detailed descriptions of the PERFUM model inputs
and outputs. Most of these descriptions have not changed and are included in this Amended
RED in Appendix D. As detailed below in the New Emission (Flux) Study section on page 44,
the Agency received several new emission studies for the pre-plant soil uses.  This information
will be discussed in detail in the section below and not included in Appendix D. One additional
change is that PERFUM outputs were calculated  for up to 80 acres.  In the July 2008 RED the
outputs were calculated for up to 120 acres.

Comments on the July 2008 RED Buffer Distances and Amended RED Determinations

       Additional Acreage and Rate Increments

       During the post-RED comment period, the Agency received comments requesting buffer
zone distances for additional acreage increments  for small fields and additional application rate
increments.  In response, the Agency determined buffer distances for smaller block sizes (1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 acres) as well as more application rates for all of the agricultural field use
scenarios.  EPA believes this will help to better refine the buffer distances for these use
scenarios,  and will provide additional options for growers to achieve more workable buffers.

       Although the Agency added additional acreage and rate increments, not all increments
may be captured in the revised buffer zone tables. If the tables do not capture a specific acreage
or rate, round up to the nearest acre or rate.  For example, when applying to a 9.5 acre field,
round up to 10 acres.
                                                                                      44

-------
      New Flux (Emissions) Studies
       The Agency's Phase 5 risk assessment "Chloropicrin: Revised HED Human Health Risk
Assessment for Phase 5; DP Barcode: D305336, PC Code 081501" (April 12, 2007) modeled the
following emission studies in Table 3 for chloropicrin's pre-plant agricultural field soil use.

Table 3. Emission Studies Modeled in Phase 5
MRID
441492-01
451129-01
451129-02
Location
Phoenix, AZ*
Yakima, WA
Bradenton, FL
Salinas, CA*
Salinas, CA
Douglas, GA
Application Method
Shank, bed, untarp
Shank, bed, tarp
Shank, broadcast, untarp
Shank, broadcast, tarp
Shank, broadcast, tarp
Shank, broadcast, tarp
Drip irrigation, bed, ploy tarp
Drip irrigation, bed, VTF tarp
Drip irrigation, bed, tarp
Weather Data Modeled
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
• Yakima, WA
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL*
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
• Yakima, WA
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL
• Ventura, CA*
• Bakersfield, CA
• Yakima, WA
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL
• Ventura, CA*
• Bakersfield, CA
• Flint, MI
• Yakima, WA
• Flint, MI
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
• Yakima, WA*
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
• Yakima, WA
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL
• Yakima, WA
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL
                                                                                   45

-------
       The asterisks (*) in Table 3 represent the emission studies and weather data that were
used in the July 2008 RED to frame the buffer zone distances.  At the time of the 2008 RED the
emissions studies used were those that provided high-end emission and buffer estimates based on
the Agency's risk assessment, which used all of the valid and available emissions studies for
chloropicrin, as well as weather data that are representative of regions of the country where
chloropicrin is commonly used. The model used five years of weather data (i.e., 1825 potential
application days) for each location.

       In the July 2008 RED the Agency did not use the Salinas, CA drip irrigation with the
VIF tarp; the Phoenix, AZ shank bed tarp; the Yakima, WA shank broadcast tarp; or the
Bradenton, FL shank broadcast tarp emission studies as baselines for the buffers zones for those
application methods.  Although the human health risk assessment shows that PERFUM outputs
are the largest for the Salinas, CA study with the VIF tarp, the Salinas, CA poly tarp study was
used as the baseline instead. This is because poly tarps are much more commonly used; also, the
VIF study was conducted in 2000, and the Agency does not believe that the study reflects current
high barrier film technology. The Agency also did not use the Phoenix, AZ shank bed tarp study
in the July 2008 RED because of the late start time of the study. Based on comments from
CMTF, EPA did not believe that nighttime applications were typical. The Agency did not want
to restrict chloropicrin applications to the daylight hours, and as a result the Agency did not use
the study as the baseline.  Instead the Agency required that the buffer zones for the shank bed
tarp application increase 25% if the applications were made between one hour before sunset and
one hour after sunrise. EPA did  not use the Yakima, WA or the Bradenton, FL shank broadcast
tarp studies in the July 2008 RED because as noted above the Agency used the most conservative
study as the baseline for the buffers and this was the Phoenix, AZ study.  The Agency
understands that emission studies vary regionally and that more regionally representative
emissions data would reduce uncertainty in determining buffer zone distances for different areas.
However for the July 2008 RED, EPA did not use a site-specific approach because of data gaps
for many of the application methods, the variation among regions, and the complexity of
implementing and enforcing site-specific buffer zones. Instead, EPA addressed regional
differences with buffer credits. Also in the July 2008 RED the Agency determined buffer zones
for a deep (at least 18 inches) untarp broadcast  application method using surrogate data from the
Phoenix, AZ broadcast untarp emission study.

       During the post-RED comment period EPA received numerous comments on the flux
studies used to determine the buffer zones in the July 2008 RED. Specifically commenters
indicated that: the Phoenix, AZ flux studies should not be used as the baseline because those
studies did not reflect the July 2008 RED GAPs; the use of the surrogate study for the deep (at
least 18 inches) shank untarped broadcast application was inappropriate because of the difference
in application depth; and buffers for combination chloropicrin and 1,3-D products should be
based on flux studies for those products.   Commenters also expressed confusion regarding the
25% buffer zone increase for the shank bed tarp buffers.

       Regarding the request that EPA should use product specific flux data to determine the
buffer zones, the Agency is willing to review the studies and take them into consideration.
                                                                                     46

-------
       Since the July 2008 RED EPA has received and reviewed additional flux studies, please
see the Agency's document, "Chloropicrin: Third Revision of the HED Human Health Risk
Assessment" (April 30, 2009) for detailed analysis. Table 4 lists all of the emission studies
currently reviewed by the Agency. The bolded studies indicate the studies EPA has received
and reviewed since the July 2008 RED. The asterisks indicate the emissions studies and weather
data used as the baseline in the amended RED buffer zone tables.

Table 4. Emission Studies Reviewed by EPA as of May 2009
MRID
441492-01
451129-01
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Yakima, WA
Bradenton, FL
Salinas, CA*
Salinas, CA
Application Method
Shank, bed, untarp
Shank, bed, tarp
Shank, broadcast, untarp
Shank, broadcast, tarp
Shank, broadcast, tarp
Shank, broadcast, tarp
Drip irrigation, bed, ploy tarp
Drip irrigation, bed, "VTF tarp
Weather Data Modeled
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
• Yakima, WA
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
• Yakima, WA
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
• Yakima, WA
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
• Flint, MI
• Yakima, WA
• Flint, MI
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
• Yakima, WA*
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
• Yakima, WA
                                                                                   47

-------
MRID

451129-02
472952-03
472952-02
472952-04
474560-01
474560-01
476793-01
475769-01
Location

Douglas, GA
Bainbridge,
GA
Dover, FL
Hart, MI
Yuma, AZ
Yuma, AZ
Yuma, AZ*
Wasco, CA*
Application Method

Drip irrigation, bed, tarp
Shank, bed, Hytiblock tarp
Shank, bed, Metallized
tarp
Shank, bed, Blockade tarp
Drip irrigation (buried 10
inches), bed, tarp
Drip irrigation (buried 10
inches), bed, untarp
Drip irrigation (buried 6
inches), bed, untarp
Shank, broadcast, tarp
Weather Data Modeled
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL
• Yakima, WA
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
• Yakima, WA
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
• Yakima, WA
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
• Yakima, WA
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL*
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
48

-------
MRID

475769-01
475769-01
475769-01
Location

Wasco, CA*
Wasco, CA*
Wasco, CA*
Application Method

Shank, strip, tarp
Shank, broadcast, untarp
Shank, deep (18")
broadcast untarp
Weather Data Modeled
• Yakima, WA
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL*
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
• Yakima, WA
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL*
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
• Yakima, WA
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL*
• Ventura, CA
• Bakersfield, CA
• Yakima, WA
• Flint, MI
• Tallahassee, FL
• Bradenton, FL*
       Taking the new data and stakeholder comments into consideration, EPA has revised the
buffer zones that were presented in the July 2008 RED. The revised buffer zone tables are
presented in Tables 5-16. The Agency believes the Wasco, CA studies are more representative
of current shank application practices than the older Phoenix, AZ studies that were used as the
baseline in the July 2008 RED because the new studies included the GAPs required by the July
2008 RED. New buffer zone tables based on the Wasco, CA flux studies (Tables 5, 7, 8 and 9)
for shank strip tarp, shank bed tarp7, shank broadcast tarp,  shank broadcast untarp,  and shank
deep (18") broadcast untarp represent application blocks when soil moisture is measured at >
70% with an instrument (e.g., tensiometer) or if soil moisture is determined to be > 75% using
the USDA Feel and Appearance Method. Please see the GAP section on page 97 for details on
the USDA method. If the soil moisture is measured to be between 50-69% with a meter or falls
into the USDA Feel and Appearance Method category of 50-75%, then the buffer zones are
based on Tables 12,  14,  15 and 16, which represents a 3x increase from the Wasco, CA baseline.
The Agency believes that the different tables are warranted based on the  suite of emission studies
available to the Agency that indicate a significant difference in emissions depending on the
percent soil moisture.  EPA considered increasing the GAP for soil moisture to 70% field
capacity, but determined that larger buffers as provided in Tables 12,  14, 15, and 16 would
adequately address risks resulting from the increased emissions associated with lower moisture.
7 For the shank bed tarp application the Agency believes the Wasco, CA shank strip tarp study is a reliable and
appropriate surrogate because of the similarities in the application method.
                                                                                      49

-------
       Since the July 2008 RED, it has come to the Agency's attention that the Phoenix, AZ
shank bed tarp application did not start at 7 pm. Due to this error, and also the revision of the
buffer zones based on the new emission study, the Agency is no longer requiring a 25% increase
to the shank bed tarp buffers if applications are made between one hour before sunset and one
hour after sunrise.

       Although the Agency did not receive a new emission study for the shank bed untarp
application method, EPA has included an additional buffer zone table for this scenario provided
the soil moisture is measured to be > 70% with an instrument or is determined to be > 75% using
the USDA Feel and Appearance Method. The revisions are based information from the Wasco,
CA studies regarding the impact of soil moisture on emissions.  Additional information presented
to the Agency by Dr. Chad Hutchison of the University of Florida8 indicates that the recent
adoption of increased moisture and compaction of beds for potato production have allowed
growers to increase the efficacy of chloropicrin.  EPA believes that although an increase in
efficacy does not directly correlate to emission reduction, that these practices do reduce
chloropicrin emissions. The Agency believes that these important factors may not be reflected in
the Phoenix, AZ emission study, and has developed the supplemental buffer table taking these
factors into account. Since the Agency does not have an emission study specifically for the
shank, bed, untarp application method, EPA is calling in this study as part of the DCI to confirm
the buffer zones in Table 6.  Buffer zone tables based on the Phoenix, AZ study are presented in
Table 13.

       Since the July 2008 RED EPA did receive an additional tarp drip irrigation study.
However since the drip tape was buried  10 inches and the Agency understands that this is not a
typical practice; this study was not used in the determination of the buffer zones for this
application method. Therefore, the Agency is still using the Salinas, CA flux study with the poly
tarp as the baseline for this scenario. Although EPA is still using the same study as the baseline,
the buffers have increased slightly since the July  2008 RED. This is due to the percentage  of
organic matter in the soil. As detailed in the Agency's May 14, 2009 updated factors memo, the
Agency has determined that organic content of the soil has a significant impact on fumigant
emissions and that the July 2008 RED credit for organic content can be refined to allow a credit
at lower percentiles of organic matter. The July 2008 RED only gave a credit if organic matter
was > 3%.  In the amended RED, credit is given if the organic matter is > 1%. Since the organic
matter in the Salinas, CA study is greater than 1%, the buffer zone table had to be revised to
ensure that this credit was not already taken into account in the baseline buffer table.  The
revised buffers are presented in Table 10.

       In the July 2008 RED the Agency stated that it did not have adequate data to  evaluate the
drip buried untarp application method, and that this application method would be prohibited
unless data were submitted that allowed EPA to develop appropriate mitigation.  The Agency has
since received and reviewed two untarp  buried (6" and 10") drip irrigation emission studies. The
Agency used the buried 6" flux study as the baseline for the buffers for this application method,
and this use is now eligible for reregi strati on with the mitigation specified for this scenario.
Buffers for this application method are presented below in Table 11.
8 www.regulations.gov. EPA-HQ-2007-0350-0155.


                                                                                      50

-------
       In addition, new fumigant data submitted during the post-RED comment period has also
allowed the Agency to refine and update buffer zone credits for tarps, certain application
techniques, and environmental conditions.  As a result, buffers for growers who use emission-
reducing tarps or application methods, or have site conditions that qualify for credits will have
smaller buffers than those specified in the 2008 RED.  Available data indicate that for some
crops and regions, pest control efficacy may be improved with high barrier tarps that may enable
growers to use the buffer zone credits and utilize lower application rates, resulting in further
reductions of the buffer zone distances.  Some growers in the Southeast are commonly using
high barrier tarps and lower rates.  The amended credits are discussed in detail below in the
Buffer Zone Reduction Credits section on page 67.

       Chloropicrin agricultural field use buffer distances, amended as noted above, are
specified in Tables 5-16 below.  Distances in the buffer zone tables are listed in feet. Distances
greater than /^ mile (2,640 feet) are listed in the buffer zone tables. However, no buffer zone,
including a buffer zone that has been determined by applying credits, may exceed a distance of 1A
mile (2,640 feet).

       Like the July 2008 RED, it should be noted that the distances in the lookup tables are not
model outputs, although as described above the model outputs were used to inform the selection
of buffer zone distances. The greenhouse buffer zone table (Table 17) remains unchanged from
the July 2008 RED.

       The risks associated with the amended RED buffer zone distances are characterized as
follows:
   •  Buffer zone distances are based on a reversible endpoint.
   •  The buffer zone distances selected for agricultural field and greenhouse pre-plant soil
       fumigations reach the target MOE of 1 at high percentiles (95%).
   •  Buffers are protective of more severe effects. The MOEs at high percentiles (99th) of the
       whole field reach half of the target MOE.  This MOE corresponds to the 0.15 ppm
       concentration of chloropicrin that can cause irritation without leading to more serious
       respiratory effects.
   •  The use of GAPs, FMPs, and other mitigation measures required by this decision will
       contribute to an additional decrease in risk (see GAP section on page 98 and FMP section
       on page 107).
                                                                                      51

-------
Table 5. Shank Bed Tarp/Strip Tarp Buffer Zones Based on Wasco, CA Flux Study
01
2
-5
n

.a
at
4-*
2
c
o
u
u
Broadcast Equivalent Appi
Application Block Size |

90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
290
295
300
305
310
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
350
1
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
2
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
28
29
31
32
34
35
36
36
37
38
39
39
40
3
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
28
31
34
36
39
42
45
46
48
49
51
52
54
55
4
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
29
34
38
42
46
51
55
57
59
61
64
66
68
70
5
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
31
36
42
48
54
59
65
68
71
74
76
79
82
85
6
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
27
28
29
29
30
31
33
34
36
37
39
40
46
52
58
64
70
76
82
85
87
90
93
96
98
101
7
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
28
29
31
32
34
35
38
41
44
46
49
52
55
61
68
74
80
86
93
99
102
104
107
109
112
114
117
8
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
27
29
31
34
36
38
40
44
49
53
57
61
66
70
77
83
90
96
103
109
116
118
121
123
126
128
131
133
9
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
28
31
34
36
39
42
45
51
56
62
68
74
79
85
92
99
106
112
119
126
133
135
138
140
142
144
147
149
10
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
29
32
36
39
43
46
50
57
64
71
79
86
93
100
107
114
121
129
136
143
150
152
154
156
159
161
163
165
15
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
59
66
73
80
86
93
100
106
111
117
123
129
134
140
147
154
161
169
176
183
190
194
197
201
204
208
211
215
Acres)
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
33
41
49
56
64
72
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
154
159
163
167
171
176
180
187
194
201
209
216
223
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
265
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
26
27
28
29
29
30
41
53
64
76
87
99
110
119
129
138
147
156
166
175
182
189
195
202
209
216
223
230
238
246
254
262
270
278
283
288
293
298
303
308
313
30
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
28
29
31
32
34
35
50
65
80
95
110
125
140
149
157
166
174
183
191
200
209
219
228
237
246
256
265
274
282
291
299
308
316
325
330
335
340
345
350
355
360
35
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
29
32
36
39
43
46
50
65
79
94
109
123
138
153
161
170
179
188
197
206
215
224
234
243
252
261
271
280
290
301
311
321
332
342
353
360
367
374
381
388
395
403
40
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
31
36
42
48
54
59
65
79
94
108
122
136
151
165
174
184
193
202
211
221
230
239
249
258
267
276
286
295
307
319
331
344
356
368
380
389
399
408
417
426
436
445
50
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
36
46
57
68
79
89
100
114
128
142
156
170
184
198
208
218
229
239
249
260
270
281
291
302
313
324
334
345
358
371
385
398
411
424
438
448
458
469
479
489
500
510
60
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
41
56
72
88
104
119
135
149
162
176
189
203
216
230
241
253
264
276
287
299
310
322
334
346
359
371
383
395
409
424
438
452
466
481
495
506
518
529
541
552
564
575
70
25
25
25
25
27
29
30
32
34
36
38
54
70
86
102
118
134
150
166
182
198
214
230
246
263
271
280
288
297
305
314
323
340
358
375
393
410
428
445
460
474
489
504
518
533
548
561
574
587
600
614
627
640
80
25
25
25
25
29
32
36
39
43
46
50
66
83
99
116
132
149
165
184
202
221
239
258
276
295
301
306
312
318
324
329
335
358
381
404
426
449
472
495
510
525
540
555
570
585
600
615
630
645
660
675
690
705
52

-------
Table 6. Shank Bed Untarp Based on Wasco, CA Flux Study


_Q

-------
Table 7. Shank Broadcast Tarp Buffer Zones Based on Wasco, CA Flux Study

"o"
0
-5
'm

.a
.2
n
o:
c
0
valent Applicat
Broadcast Equ
Application Block Size (Acres)

70
80
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
290
295
300
305
310
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
350
1
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
28
32
35
37
39
41
44
46
48
50
2
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
27
29
30
32
34
36
38
39
41
43
45
46
48
50
51
52
53
54
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
64
68
73
75
78
81
83
86
89
91
3
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
29
32
36
39
43
46
50
54
57
61
64
68
71
75
77
79
80
82
84
86
87.5
89
91.3
93.1
95
100
105
110
113
116
120
123
126
129
133
4
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
30
36
41
46
52
57
63
68
73
79
84
89
95
100
103
105
108
111
113
116
119
122
124
127
130
136
142
148
151
155
159
163
166
170
174
5
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
32
39
46
54
61
68
75
82
89
96
104
111
118
125
129
132
136
139
143
146
150
154
158
161
165
172
178
185
189
194
198
202
206
211
215
6
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
27
28
30
32
34
35
37
45
53
61
68
76
84
92
99
106
113
119
126
133
140
144
147
151
155
159
162
166
171
176
180
185
192
199
206
210
214
218
223
227
231
235
7
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
28
32
35
39
42
46
49
58
66
75
83
92
100
109
116
122
129
135
142
148
155
159
163
167
170
174
178
182
188
194
199
205
212
220
227
231
235
239
243
247
251
255
8
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
30
35
40
46
51
56
61
70
80
89
98
107
117
126
132
139
145
151
157
164
170
174
178
182
186
190
194
198
205
212
218
225
233
240
248
252
256
260
263
267
271
275
9
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
32
39
46
52
59
66
73
83
93
103
113
123
133
143
149
155
161
167
173
179
185
189
193
197
202
206
210
214
222
230
237
245
253
261
269
273
276
280
284
288
291
295
10
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
34
42
51
59
68
76
85
96
106
117
128
139
149
160
166
171
177
183
189
194
200
204
209
213
217
221
226
230
239
248
256
265
273
282
290
294
297
301
304
308
311
315
15
25
25
25
25
25
25
29
34
38
42
46
51
55
64
73
82
91
100
109
118
129
140
151
162
173
184
195
203
210
218
225
233
240
248
254
260
266
272
278
284
290
300
310
320
330
341
352
363
367
372
376
381
386
390
395
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
34
42
51
59
68
76
85
94
104
113
122
131
141
150
161
173
184
196
207
219
230
239
249
258
267
276
286
295
303
311
319
326
334
342
350
361
373
384
395
408
422
435
441
446
452
458
464
469
475
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
36
46
57
68
79
89
100
112
124
135
147
159
171
183
194
205
217
228
240
251
263
274
286
298
310
321
333
345
355
365
375
385
395
405
415
423
430
438
445
460
475
490
498
505
513
520
528
535
543
30
25
25
25
25
25
25
38
51
64
76
89
102
115
129
144
158
172
186
201
215
226
238
249
261
272
284
295
309
324
338
352
366
381
395
407
419
431
444
456
468
480
484
488
491
495
512
528
545
554
564
573
582
591
601
610
35
25
26
27
28
29
30
45
59
74
89
103
118
133
147
161
175
190
204
218
233
249
265
281
297
313
329
345
359
373
387
401
415
429
443
453
463
474
484
494
505
515
526
538
549
560
573
585
598
608
618
628
638
648
658
668
40
25
27
29
31
33
35
51
68
84
101
117
134
150
164
179
193
207
221
236
250
271
291
312
333
354
374
395
409
422
436
449
463
476
490
499
507
516
524
533
541
550
569
588
606
625
633
642
650
661
671
682
693
704
714
725
50
25
32
39
46
53
60
78
95
113
130
148
165
183
198
213
229
244
259
275
290
312
334
355
377
399
421
443
456
470
484
498
512
526
540
551
563
574
586
597
609
620
642
664
686
708
718
729
740
752
764
775
787
799
811
823
60
25
37
49
61
73
85
104
122
141
159
178
196
215
231
248
264
281
297
314
330
353
376
399
421
444
467
490
504
519
533
547
561
576
590
604
619
633
647
661
676
690
715
740
765
790
803
817
830
843
856
869
881
894
907
920
70
25
40
55
70
85
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
259
277
296
314
333
351
370
394
417
441
464
488
511
535
549
564
578
592
606
621
635
656
677
698
719
740
761
783
798
814
829
845
862
878
895
906
916
927
938
949
959
970
80
25
43
61
79
97
115
136
158
179
201
222
244
265
286
306
327
348
369
389
410
434
459
483
507
531
556
580
594
609
623
637
651
666
680
708
736
764
791
819
847
875
881
888
894
900
920
940
960
969
977
986
994
1003
1011
1020
54

-------
Table 8. Shank Broadcast Untarp Buffer Zones Based on Wasco, CA Flux Study


'aT
o
Of
m

_o

Broadcast Equ
Application Block Size (Acres)

30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
1
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
2
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
27
28
34
41
47
54
56
59
61
64
66
71
76
78
79
80
81
85
90
94
3
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
27
28
30
43
56
69
83
88
93
98
103
108
118
128
130
133
135
138
146
154
163
4
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
28
30
33
52
72
92
111
119
126
134
141
149
164
179
183
186
190
194
206
219
231
5
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
28
32
35
61
88
114
140
150
160
170
180
190
210
230
235
240
245
250
267
283
300
6
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
29
33
42.3
51.7
61
86.3
112
137
162
173
184
194
205
216
238
259
268
277
286
295
310
325
340
7
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
33
41
56
72
87
111
136
160
184
196
207
219
230
242
265
288
301
314
327
340
353
367
380
8
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
37
49
70
92
113
136
160
183
206
218
231
243
256
268
293
317
334
351
368
385
397
408
420
9
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
41
57
84
112
139
161
184
206
228
241
254
268
281
294
320
346
367
388
409
430
440
450
460
10
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
45
65
98
132
165
186
208
229
250
264
278
292
306
320
348
375
400
425
450
475
483
492
500
15
25
25
25
25
25
46
68
95
123
158
194
230
248
265
283
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
575
595
615
635
20
25
25
25
25
25
68
110
145
180
218
257
295
309
323
336
350
386
422
458
494
530
553
575
600
625
650
675
707
738
770
25
25
25
25
41
57.5
100
143
183
223
263
303
343
366
389
412
435
473
510
548
585
623
651
680
706
731
757
783
817
851
885
30
25
25
25
58
90
133
175
220
265
307
348
390
423
455
488
520
559
598
637
676
715
750
785
811
838
864
890
927
963
1000
35
25
30
38
76
115
161
208
253
298
343
389
435
473
510
548
585
628
670
713
755
798
833
868
903
938
973
1008
1038
1069
1100
40
25
35
50
95
140
190
240
285
330
380
430
480
523
565
608
650
696
742
788
834
880
915
950
994
1038
1081
1125
1150
1175
1200
50
25
43
80
133
185
238
290
343
395
452
508
565
616
666
717
768
817
867
916
966
1015
1040
1065
1108
1151
1194
1238
1283
1329
1375
60
25
50
110
170
230
285
340
400
460
523
587
650
709
768
826
885
938
991
1044
1097
1150
1165
1180
1223
1265
1308
1350
1417
1483
1550
70
25
63
137.5
201
265
325
385
448
510
578
647
715
794
873
951
1030
1079
1128
1177
1226
1275
1314
1353
1402
1451
1501
1550
1600
1650
1700
80
25
75
165
233
300
365
430
495
560
633
707
780
879
978
1076
1175
1220
1265
1310
1355
1400
1463
1525
1581
1638
1694
1750
1783
1817
1850
55

-------
Table 9. Shank Broadcast Deep (18 inches) Untarp Buffer Zones Based on Wasco, CA Flux Study
Broadcast Equivalent Application Rate (Ibs ai/arce)
Application Block Size (Acres)

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
290
295
300
305
310
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
350
1
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
32
39
46
54
61
68
75
82
89
96
104
111
118
125
129
132
136
139
143
146
150
151
153
154
156
157
159
160
2
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
26
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
59
61
63
66
68
70
73
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
101
109
118
126
134
143
151
159
166
174
181
189
196
204
208
212
216
220
224
228
233
235
238
241
243
246
249
251
3
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
28
30
38
46
55
63
71
79
88
92
97
101
106
111
115
120
126
131
137
143
149
154
160
170
179
189
199
208
218
228
235
243
251
259
267
275
283
287
292
296
301
306
310
315
319
323
327
331
335
339
343
4
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
29
33
45
57
69
82
94
106
119
126
133
140
147
154
161
168
176
185
193
202
210
219
228
238
249
260
271
282
293
304
312
320
328
337
345
353
361
366
372
377
382
387
392
398
403
408
413
418
423
429
434
5
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
30
35
51
68
84
101
117
134
150
159
169
178
187
196
206
215
226
238
249
261
272
284
295
307
319
331
344
356
368
380
389
397
406
414
423
431
440
446
451
457
463
469
474
480
486
493
499
506
512
519
525
6
25
25
25
25
25
33
42
50
58
74
91
107
124
140
157
173
183
193
203
214
224
234
244
257
269
282
294
307
319
332
345
358
371
383
396
409
422
431
440
449
459
468
477
486
493
500
507
515
522
529
536
543
550
557
563
570
577
584
7
25
25
25
25
25
39
53
67
81
97
114
130
147
163
180
196
207
218
229
240
251
262
273
287
300
314
328
342
355
369
383
396
410
423
437
450
464
474
483
493
503
513
522
532
541
549
558
566
575
583
592
599
607
614
621
628
636
643
8
25
25
25
25
25
45
65
84
104
120
137
153
170
186
203
219
231
243
255
266
278
290
302
317
332
347
361
376
391
406
420
435
449
463
477
492
506
516
527
537
547
557
568
578
588
598
608
618
628
638
648
656
663
671
679
687
694
702
9
25
25
25
25
25
51
76
102
127
143
160
176
193
209
226
242
255
267
280
293
306
318
331
347
363
379
395
411
427
443
458
473
488
503
518
533
548
559
570
581
591
602
613
624
635
647
658
670
681
693
704
712
720
728
737
745
753
761
10
25
25
25
25
25
55
85
118
150
166
183
199
216
232
249
265
279
292
306
319
333
346
360
377
394
411
429
446
463
480
496
511
527
543
559
574
590
601
613
624
636
647
659
670
683
696
709
721
734
747
760
769
777
786
794
803
811
820
15
25
30
35
45
55
99
143
179
215
234
253
272
291
310
329
348
365
382
399
416
433
450
468
491
515
538
562
585
609
633
650
668
686
704
722
740
758
769
780
791
802
813
824
835
853
871
889
906
924
942
960
973
986
999
1011
1024
1037
1050
20
25
35
45
65
85
143
200
240
280
301
323
344
366
387
409
430
451
471
492
513
534
554
575
605
635
665
695
725
755
785
805
825
845
865
885
905
925
936
946
957
968
979
989
1000
1023
1046
1069
1091
1114
1137
1160
1177
1194
1211
1229
1246
1263
1280
25
25
40
56
87
118
179
240
285
330
355
379
404
429
453
478
503
527
551
575
600
624
648
673
704
735
767
798
830
861
893
913
934
955
975
996
1017
1038
1057
1077
1096
1116
1136
1155
1175
1201
1226
1252
1278
1304
1329
1355
1371
1388
1404
1421
1437
1454
1470
30
25
46
67
108
150
215
280
330
380
408
436
464
491
519
547
575
603
631
659
686
714
742
770
803
836
869
901
934
967
1000
1021
1043
1064
1086
1107
1129
1150
1179
1207
1236
1264
1293
1321
1350
1379
1407
1436
1464
1493
1521
1550
1566
1581
1597
1613
1629
1644
1660
35
25
51
78
130
183
249
315
368
420
450
481
511
541
572
602
633
664
695
727
758
790
821
853
886
920
953
987
1020
1054
1088
1111
1135
1159
1183
1207
1231
1255
1283
1311
1339
1366
1394
1422
1450
1479
1507
1536
1564
1593
1621
1650
1675
1700
1725
1750
1775
1800
1825
40
25
57
88
152
215
283
350
405
460
493
526
559
591
624
657
690
725
760
795
830
865
900
935
969
1004
1038
1072
1106
1141
1175
1201
1228
1254
1281
1307
1334
1360
1387
1414
1441
1469
1496
1523
1550
1579
1607
1636
1664
1693
1721
1750
1784
1819
1853
1887
1921
1956
1990
50
25
63
102
178
255
334
413
478
543
579
615
652
688
725
761
798
841
884
927
970
1014
1057
1100
1139
1179
1218
1257
1296
1336
1375
1409
1444
1478
1512
1546
1581
1615
1641
1668
1694
1721
1747
1774
1800
1836
1871
1907
1943
1979
2014
2050
2085
2119
2154
2189
2223
2258
2293
60
25
70
115
205
295
385
475
550
625
665
705
745
785
825
865
905
956
1008
1059
1111
1162
1214
1265
1309
1354
1398
1442
1486
1531
1575
1617
1659
1701
1744
1786
1828
1870
1896
1921
1947
1973
1999
2024
2050
2093
2136
2179
2221
2264
2307
2350
2385
2420
2455
2490
2525
2560
2595
70
25
77
129
233
338
431
525
608
690
735
779
824
869
913
958
1003
1061
1120
1178
1237
1295
1354
1413
1452
1491
1530
1570
1609
1648
1688
1721
1755
1788
1822
1855
1889
1923
1962
2002
2041
2081
2121
2160
2200
2243
2286
2329
2371
2414
2457
2500
2559
2619
2678
2737
2796
2856
2915
80
25
84
143
262
380
478
575
665
755
804
854
903
952
1001
1051
1100
1166
1231
1297
1363
1429
1494
1560
1594
1629
1663
1697
1731
1766
1800
1825
1850
1875
1900
1925
1950
1975
2029
2082
2136
2189
2243
2296
2350
2393
2436
2479
2521
2564
2607
2650
2734
2817
2901
2984
3068
3151
3235
56

-------
Table 10. Drip Tarp Buffer Zones
Application Block Size (Acres)

"ซ"
'ซ

.Q
o
4-*
ซ
(Z
c.
O
Broadcast Equivalent Applicat

120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
290
295
300
1
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
2
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
3
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
4
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
5
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
6
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
32
33
35
36
38
39
7
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
8
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
35
39
44
48
53
57
9
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
36
42
48
54
60
66
10
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
38
45
53
60
68
75
15
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
39
40
45
46
48
49
50
51
53
61
69
78
86
94
110
20
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
32
32
32
32
32
32
33
35
40
48
50
60
63
65
68
70
73
75
84
93
103
112
121
130
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
34
34
34
34
34
34
37
39
50
56
60
68
70
73
76
79
82
85
95
105
115
125
135
145
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
36
36
36
36
36
36
40
44
60
65
70
75
78
82
85
88
92
95
108
122
135
148
162
175
35
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
38
38
38
38
38
38
43
49
60
67
73
80
86
93
99
105
111
118
131
145
159
173
186
200
40
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
47
53
60
68
77
85
94
103
113
122
131
140
153
167
180
193
207
220
50
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
38
38
40
50
50
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
68
77
85
103
122
140
143
147
150
153
157
160
176
192
208
223
239
255
60
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
45
45
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
77
93
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
215
230
245
260
275
290
70
30
35
40
45
45
45
45
53
53
60
60
60
60
62
64
66
68
70
73
90
108
125
134
143
153
165
177
189
201
213
225
241
257
273
288
304
320
80
30
40
50
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
64
68
73
77
81
85
103
122
140
148
157
165
179
193
208
222
236
250
267
283
300
317
333
350
57

-------
Table 1 1 . Drip Untarp Buried (6") Buffer Zones

o
o
^
ft
n

.Q
O
rs
0ฃ
c
O
rs
0
Broadcast Equivalent Appi


90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
290
295
300
Application Block Size (Acres)
1
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
2
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
33
37
40
42
44
46
48
50
53
53
54
55
56
57
58
3
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
37
43
50
54
58
63
67
71
75
77
78
80
82
83
85
4
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
40
50
60
66
73
79
85
91
98
100
103
105
108
110
113
5
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
43
57
70
78
87
95
103
112
120
123
127
130
133
137
140
6
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
33
34
36
38
40
43
46
49
51
52
54
56
58
60
75
89
104
112
120
128
136
143
151
155
160
164
168
172
176
7
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
33
35
38
42
46
50
56
62
68
71
75
78
82
86
90
106
122
138
146
153
161
168
175
182
187
193
198
203
207
212
8
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
34
38
42
48
54
60
69
78
87
92
97
102
108
114
120
137
155
172
179
187
194
200
207
213
219
226
232
237
243
248
9
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
35
41
46
54
62
70
82
94
106
113
119
126
134
142
150
169
187
206
213
220
227
233
238
244
251
259
266
272
278
284
10
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
37
43
50
60
70
80
95
110
125
133
142
150
160
170
180
200
220
240
247
253
260
265
270
275
283
292
300
307
313
320
15
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
33
37
40
48
57
65
78
92
105
118
132
145
162
178
195
208
220
233
242
251
260
278
297
315
325
335
345
355
365
375
383
390
398
404
411
418
20
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
37
43
50
67
83
100
120
140
160
177
193
210
228
247
265
282
298
315
323
332
340
357
373
390
403
417
430
445
460
475
482
488
495
502
508
515
25
30
30
30
30
33
37
40
54
68
83
105
128
150
170
190
210
228
245
263
281
299
318
334
351
368
378
389
400
420
440
460
472
483
495
508
520
533
544
556
568
579
591
603
30
30
30
30
30
37
43
50
72
93
115
143
172
200
220
240
260
278
297
315
333
352
370
387
403
420
433
447
460
483
507
530
540
550
560
570
580
590
607
623
640
657
673
690
35
30
30
30
30
45
60
75
103
130
158
182
206
230
252
273
295
315
335
355
376
397
418
437
456
475
485
495
505
533
562
590
602
613
625
638
650
663
681
699
718
732
746
760
40
30
30
30
30
53
77
100
133
167
200
220
240
260
283
307
330
352
373
395
418
442
465
487
508
530
537
543
550
583
617
650
663
677
690
705
720
735
755
775
795
807
818
830
50
30
42
53
65
93
122
150
182
213
245
273
302
330
349
368
388
413
438
463
488
514
540
565
590
615
627
638
650
680
710
740
753
767
780
800
820
840
862
883
905
923
942
960
60
30
53
77
100
133
167
200
230
260
290
327
363
400
415
430
445
473
502
530
558
587
615
643
672
700
717
733
750
777
803
830
843
857
870
895
920
945
968
992
1015
1040
1065
1090
70
30
64
98
133
165
198
230
257
283
310
350
390
430
457
483
510
543
577
610
636
662
688
713
739
765
786
807
828
868
908
948
964
981
998
1020
1043
1065
1089
1113
1138
1160
1183
1205
80
30
75
120
165
197
228
260
283
307
330
373
417
460
498
537
575
613
652
690
713
737
760
783
807
830
855
880
905
958
1012
1065
1085
1105
1125
1145
1165
1185
1210
1235
1260
1280
1300
1320
58

-------
Table 12. Increased Shank Bed Tarp/Strip Tarp Buffer Zones
8
-5
n

-------
Table 13. Shank Bed Untarp Based on Phoenix, AZ Flux Study

0
u
^
n
n

.a
0
n
a:
c
0
4-*
n
u
| Broadcast Equivalent Appi
Application Block Size

15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
1
25
25
25
25
25
25
38
50
75
100
113
125
138
150
163
175
175
188
200
217
233
250
263
275
288
300
308
317
325
331
338
344
350
2
25
25
25
25
25
31
47
63
91
119
134
150
166
181
197
213
225
238
250
271
292
313
325
338
353
369
379
390
400
409
419
428
438
3
25
25
25
25
25
38
56
75
106
138
156
175
194
213
231
250
275
288
300
325
350
375
388
400
419
437.5
450
463
475
488
500
513
525
4
25
25
25
25
25
44
66
88
122
156
178
200
222
244
266
288
325
338
350
379
408
438
450
463
484
506
521
535
550
566
581
597
613
5
25
25
25
25
25
50
75
100
138
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
375
388
400
433
467
500
513
525
550
575
592
608
625
644
663
681
700
6
25
25
25
28
30
70
95
120
160
200
228
255
283
310
340
370
420
435
450
483
517
550
568
585
610
635
657
678
700
720
740
760
780
7
25
25
25
30
35
90
115
140
183
225
255
285
315
345
380
415
465
483
500
533
567
600
623
645
670
695
722
748
775
796
818
839
860
8
25
25
25
33
40
110
135
160
205
250
283
315
348
380
420
460
510
530
550
583
617
650
678
705
730
755
787
818
850
873
895
918
940
9
25
25
25
35
45
130
155
180
228
275
310
345
380
415
460
505
555
578
600
633
667
700
733
765
790
815
852
888
925
949
973
996
1020
10
25
25
25
38
50
150
175
200
250
300
338
375
413
450
500
550
600
625
650
683
717
750
788
825
850
875
917
958
1000
1025
1050
1075
1100
15
25
28
30
59
88
213
250
288
344
400
444
488
538
588
638
688
763
794
825
871
917
963
969
975
1044
1113
1154
1196
1238
1272
1306
1341
1375
Acres
20
25
30
35
80
125
275
325
375
438
500
550
600
663
725
775
825
925
963
1000
1058
1117
1175
1150
1125
1238
1350
1392
1433
1475
1519
1563
1606
1650

25
25
34
43
103
163
313
388
463
525
588
644
700
763
825
881
938
1050
1100
1150
1208
1267
1325
1350
1375
1450
1525
1583
1642
1700
1753
1806
1859
1913
30
25
38
50
125
200
350
450
550
613
675
738
800
863
925
988
1050
1175
1238
1300
1358
1417
1475
1550
1625
1663
1700
1775
1850
1925
1988
2050
2113
2175
35
25
44
63
156
250
400
500
600
669
738
813
888
950
1013
1088
1163
1300
1369
1438
1500
1563
1625
1713
1800
1869
1938
2004
2071
2138
2194
2250
2306
2363
40
25
50
75
188
300
450
550
650
725
800
888
975
1038
1100
1188
1275
1425
1500
1575
1642
1708
1775
1875
1975
2075
2175
2233
2292
2350
2400
2450
2500
2550
50
25
75
125
238
350
550
638
725
825
925
1013
1100
1188
1275
1375
1475
1625
1700
1775
1875
1975
2075
2150
2225
2300
2375
2500
2625
2750
2813
2875
2938
3000
60
35
105
175
288
400
650
738
825
925
1025
1138
1250
1363
1475
1575
1675
1875
1938
2000
2125
2250
2375
2475
2575
2675
2775
2875
2975
3075
3194
3313
3431
3550
70
43
128
213
331
450
713
813
913
1019
1125
1244
1363
1494
1625
1738
1850
2175
2225
2275
2379
2483
2588
2663
2738
2863
2988
3129
3271
3413
3547
3681
3816
3950
80
50
150
250
375
500
775
888
1000
1113
1225
1350
1475
1625
1775
1900
2025
2475
2513
2550
2633
2717
2800
2850
2900
3050
3200
3383
3567
3750
3900
4050
4200
4350
60

-------
Table 14. Increased Shank Broadcast Tarp Buffer Zones

Broadcast Equivalent Application Rate (Ibs ai/arce)
Application Block Size (Acres)

70
80
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
290
295
300
305
310
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
350
1
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
85
95
105
111
118
124
131
137
144
150
2
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
80
86
91
96
102
107
113
118
123
129
134
139
145
150
153
155
158
161
163
166
169
172
174
177
180
193
205
218
226
234
242
250
258
266
274
3
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
86
96
107
118
129
139
150
161
171
182
193
204
214
225
230
236
241
246
252
257
263
268
274
279
285
300
315
330
340
349
359
369
378
388
398
4
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
91
107
123
139
155
171
188
204
220
236
252
268
284
300
308
316
324
332
340
348
356
365
373
382
390
408
425
443
454
465
476
488
499
510
521
5
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
96
118
139
161
182
204
225
246
268
289
311
332
354
375
386
396
407
418
429
439
450
461
473
484
495
515
535
555
568
581
594
606
619
632
645
6
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
80
85
90
96
101
106
111
135
158
182
205
229
252
276
297
317
338
358
379
399
420
431
442
453
465
476
487
498
512
527
541
555
576
597
618
630
643
655
668
680
693
705
7
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
85
96
106
116
126
137
147
173
198
224
250
276
301
327
347
366
386
406
426
445
465
477
488
500
511
523
534
546
563
581
598
615
637
659
681
693
705
717
729
741
753
765
8
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
90
106
121
137
152
168
183
211
239
267
294
322
350
378
397
416
435
453
472
491
510
522
534
546
558
570
582
594
614
635
655
675
698
721
744
756
767
779
790
802
813
825
9
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
96
116
137
157
178
198
219
249
279
309
339
369
399
429
447
465
483
501
519
537
555
567
580
592
605
617
630
642
665
689
712
735
759
783
807
818
829
840
852
863
874
885
10
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
101
126
152
178
204
229
255
287
319
351
384
416
448
480
497
514
531
549
566
583
600
613
626
639
651
664
677
690
716
743
769
795
820
845
870
881
891
902
913
924
934
945
15
75
75
75
75
75
75
88
101
114
126
139
152
165
192
219
245
272
299
326
353
386
419
452
485
519
552
585
608
630
653
675
698
720
743
761
779
797
815
834
852
870
900
930
960
990
1023
1055
1088
1101
1115
1129
1143
1157
1171
1185
20
75
75
75
75
75
75
101
126
152
178
204
229
255
283
311
339
366
394
422
450
484
519
553
587
621
656
690
718
746
774
801
829
857
885
909
932
956
979
1003
1026
1050
1084
1118
1151
1185
1225
1265
1305
1322
1339
1356
1374
1391
1408
1425
25
75
75
75
75
75
75
107
139
171
204
236
268
300
335
371
406
441
477
512
548
582
616
650
685
719
753
788
823
858
894
929
964
1000
1035
1065
1095
1125
1155
1185
1215
1245
1268
1290
1313
1335
1380
1425
1470
1493
1515
1538
1560
1583
1605
1628
30
75
75
75
75
75
75
114
152
191
229
268
306
345
388
431
474
516
559
602
645
679
714
748
782
816
851
885
928
971
1014
1056
1099
1142
1185
1221
1258
1294
1331
1367
1404
1440
1451
1463
1474
1485
1535
1585
1635
1663
1691
1719
1746
1774
1802
1830
35
75
78
81
84
87
90
134
178
222
266
310
354
398
440
483
526
569
612
655
698
746
794
842
890
939
987
1035
1077
1119
1160
1202
1244
1286
1328
1359
1390
1421
1452
1483
1514
1545
1579
1613
1646
1680
1718
1755
1793
1823
1853
1883
1913
1943
1973
2003
40
75
81
87
93
99
105
154
204
253
302
351
401
450
493
536
579
621
664
707
750
812
874
936
999
1061
1123
1185
1226
1266
1307
1348
1389
1429
1470
1496
1521
1547
1573
1599
1624
1650
1706
1763
1819
1875
1900
1925
1950
1982
2014
2046
2079
2111
2143
2175
50
75
96
117
138
159
180
233
285
338
390
443
495
548
594
640
686
732
778
824
870
935
1001
1066
1131
1197
1262
1328
1369
1411
1453
1495
1536
1578
1620
1654
1689
1723
1757
1791
1826
1860
1926
1991
2057
2123
2155
2188
2220
2255
2291
2326
2361
2397
2432
2468
60
75
111
147
183
219
255
311
366
422
478
534
589
645
694
744
793
842
891
941
990
1059
1127
1196
1264
1333
1401
1470
1513
1556
1599
1641
1684
1727
1770
1813
1856
1899
1941
1984
2027
2070
2145
2220
2295
2370
2410
2450
2490
2529
2567
2606
2644
2683
2721
2760
70
75
120
165
210
255
300
360
420
480
540
600
660
720
776
831
887
943
999
1054
1110
1181
1251
1322
1393
1464
1534
1605
1648
1691
1734
1776
1819
1862
1905
1968
2031
2095
2158
2221
2284
2348
2394
2441
2488
2535
2585
2635
2685
2717
2749
2781
2814
2846
2878
2910
80
75
129
183
237
291
345
409
474
538
602
666
731
795
857
919
981
1044
1106
1168
1230
1303
1376
1449
1521
1594
1667
1740
1783
1826
1869
1911
1954
1997
2040
2124
2207
2291
2374
2458
2541
2625
2644
2663
2681
2700
2760
2820
2880
2906
2931
2957
2983
3009
3034
3060
61

-------
Table 15. Increased Shank Broadcast Untarp Buffer Zones


lent Application Rate (Ibs ai/arce)
Broadcast Equiva
Application Block Size (Acres)

30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
1
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
2
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
78
80
83
102
122
142
161
169
176
184
191
199
214
229
233
236
240
244
256
269
281
3
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
80
85
90
129
169
208
248
263
278
293
308
323
353
383
390
398
405
413
438
463
488
4
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
83
90
98
157
216
275
334
356
379
401
424
446
491
536
548
559
570
581
619
656
694
5
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
85
95
105
184
263
341
420
450
480
510
540
570
630
690
705
720
735
750
800
850
900
6
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
87
99
127
155
183
259
335
410
486
518
551
583
616
648
713
777
804
831
858
885
930
975
1020
7
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
99
123
169
215
261
334
407
479
552
587
622
656
691
726
795
864
903
942
981
1020
1060
1100
1140
8
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
111
147
211
275
339
409
479
548
618
655
692
730
767
804
878
951
1002
1053
1104
1155
1190
1225
1260
9
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
123
171
253
335
417
484
551
617
684
724
763
803
842
882
960
1038
1101
1164
1227
1290
1320
1350
1380
10
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
135
195
295
395
495
559
623
686
750
792
834
876
918
960
1043
1125
1200
1275
1350
1425
1450
1475
1500
15
75
75
75
75
75
139
203
285
368
475
583
690
743
795
848
900
975
1050
1125
1200
1275
1350
1425
1500
1575
1650
1725
1785
1845
1905
20
75
75
75
75
75
203
330
435
540
655
770
885
926
968
1009
1050
1158
1266
1374
1482
1590
1658
1725
1800
1875
1950
2025
2120
2215
2310
25
75
75
75
124
173
300
428
548
668
788
908
1028
1097
1166
1236
1305
1418
1530
1643
1755
1868
1954
2040
2117
2194
2271
2348
2450
2553
2655
30
75
75
75
173
270
398
525
660
795
920
1045
1170
1268
1365
1463
1560
1677
1794
1911
2028
2145
2250
2355
2434
2513
2591
2670
2780
2890
3000
35
75
90
113
229
345
484
623
758
893
1030
1168
1305
1418
1530
1643
1755
1883
2010
2138
2265
2393
2498
2603
2708
2813
2918
3023
3115
3208
3300
40
75
105
150
285
420
570
720
855
990
1140
1290
1440
1568
1695
1823
1950
2088
2226
2364
2502
2640
2745
2850
2981
3113
3244
3375
3450
3525
3600
50
75
128
240
398
555
713
870
1028
1185
1355
1525
1695
1847
1999
2151
2303
2451
2600
2748
2897
3045
3120
3195
3324
3454
3583
3713
3850
3988
4125
60
75
150
330
510
690
855
1020
1200
1380
1570
1760
1950
2126
2303
2479
2655
2814
2973
3132
3291
3450
3495
3540
3668
3795
3923
4050
4250
4450
4650
70
75
188
413
604
795
975
1155
1343
1530
1735
1940
2145
2381
2618
2854
3090
3237
3384
3531
3678
3825
3941
4058
4206
4354
4502
4650
4800
4950
5100
80
75
225
495
698
900
1095
1290
1485
1680
1900
2120
2340
2636
2933
3229
3525
3660
3795
3930
4065
4200
4388
4575
4744
4913
5081
5250
5350
5450
5550
62

-------
Table 16. Increased Shank Broadcast Deep (18 inches) Untarp Buffer Zones
Broadcast Equivalent Application Rate (Ibs ai/arce)
Ap

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
290
295
300
305
310
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
350
1
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
96
118
139
161
182
204
225
246
268
289
311
332
354
375
386
396
407
418
429
439
450
454
459
463
467
471
476
480
2
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
79
83
95
107
119
132
144
156
169
176
183
190
197
204
211
218
226
235
243
252
260
269
278
303
328
353
378
403
429
454
476
499
521
544
566
589
611
624
636
648
661
673
685
698
706
714
722
730
738
746
754
3
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
83
90
115
139
164
189
213
238
263
276
290
304
318
332
346
360
377
394
411
429
446
463
480
509
538
567
596
625
654
683
706
730
753
777
800
824
848
861
875
889
903
917
931
945
957
969
980
992
1004
1016
1028
4
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
86
98
134
171
208
245
282
319
356
377
398
419
440
461
482
503
528
554
580
605
631
657
683
715
748
781
813
846
879
911
936
961
985
1010
1034
1059
1084
1099
1115
1130
1146
1161
1177
1193
1208
1224
1239
1255
1270
1286
1301
5
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
90
105
154
204
253
302
351
401
450
478
506
534
561
589
617
645
679
714
748
782
816
851
885
921
958
994
1031
1067
1104
1140
1166
1191
1217
1243
1269
1294
1320
1337
1354
1371
1389
1406
1423
1440
1459
1479
1498
1517
1536
1556
1575
6
75
75
75
75
75
100
125
149
174
223
273
322
371
420
470
519
549
580
610
641
671
702
732
770
807
845
883
921
958
996
1035
1073
1112
1150
1189
1227
1266
1293
1321
1348
1376
1403
1431
1458
1479
1501
1522
1544
1565
1587
1608
1629
1649
1670
1690
1711
1731
1752
7
75
75
75
75
75
117
159
201
243
292
342
391
440
489
539
588
621
654
687
720
753
786
819
860
901
942
984
1025
1066
1107
1148
1188
1229
1270
1311
1351
1392
1421
1450
1479
1509
1538
1567
1596
1622
1647
1673
1699
1725
1750
1776
1798
1820
1842
1863
1885
1907
1929
8
75
75
75
75
75
134
194
253
312
361
411
460
509
558
608
657
693
728
764
799
835
870
906
951
995
1040
1084
1129
1173
1218
1261
1304
1347
1389
1432
1475
1518
1549
1580
1611
1641
1672
1703
1734
1764
1794
1824
1854
1884
1914
1944
1967
1990
2013
2037
2060
2083
2106
Dlication Block Size (Acres)
9
75
75
75
75
75
152
228
305
381
430
480
529
578
627
677
726
764
802
840
879
917
955
993
1041
1089
1137
1185
1233
1281
1329
1374
1419
1464
1509
1554
1599
1644
1677
1709
1742
1774
1807
1839
1872
1906
1941
1975
2009
2043
2078
2112
2136
2161
2185
2210
2234
2259
2283
10
75
75
75
75
75
165
255
353
450
499
549
598
647
696
746
795
836
876
917
958
999
1039
1080
1131
1183
1234
1286
1337
1389
1440
1487
1534
1581
1629
1676
1723
1770
1804
1839
1873
1907
1941
1976
2010
2049
2087
2126
2164
2203
2241
2280
2306
2331
2357
2383
2409
2434
2460
15
75
90
105
135
165
296
428
536
645
702
759
815
872
929
986
1043
1094
1145
1197
1248
1300
1351
1403
1473
1544
1615
1685
1756
1827
1898
1951
2005
2058
2112
2165
2219
2273
2306
2339
2372
2405
2439
2472
2505
2559
2612
2666
2719
2773
2826
2880
2919
2957
2996
3034
3073
3111
3150
20
75
105
135
195
255
428
600
720
840
904
969
1033
1097
1161
1226
1290
1352
1414
1476
1539
1601
1663
1725
1815
1905
1995
2085
2175
2265
2355
2415
2475
2535
2595
2655
2715
2775
2807
2839
2871
2904
2936
2968
3000
3069
3137
3206
3274
3343
3411
3480
3531
3583
3634
3686
3737
3789
3840
25
75
121.3
167.5
260
353
536
720
855
990
1064
1138
1212
1286
1360
1434
1508
1580
1653
1726
1799
1872
1945
2018
2112
2206
2300
2395
2489
2583
2678
2740
2802
2864
2926
2988
3050
3113
3171
3230
3289
3348
3407
3466
3525
3602
3679
3756
3834
3911
3988
4065
4114
4164
4213
4262
4311
4361
4410
30
75
138
200
325
450
645
840
990
1140
1224
1307
1391
1474
1558
1641
1725
1809
1892
1976
2059
2143
2226
2310
2409
2507
2606
2704
2803
2901
3000
3064
3129
3193
3257
3321
3386
3450
3536
3621
3707
3793
3879
3964
4050
4136
4221
4307
4393
4479
4564
4650
4697
4744
4791
4839
4886
4933
4980
35
75
153.8
232.5
390
548
746
945
1103
1260
1351
1442
1533
1624
1715
1806
1898
1992
2086
2180
2275
2369
2463
2558
2658
2759
2860
2960
3061
3162
3263
3334
3406
3478
3550
3621
3693
3765
3849
3932
4016
4099
4183
4266
4350
4436
4521
4607
4693
4779
4864
4950
5025
5100
5175
5250
5325
5400
5475
40
75
170
265
455
645
848
1050
1215
1380
1479
1577
1676
1774
1873
1971
2070
2175
2280
2385
2490
2595
2700
2805
2908
3011
3114
3216
3319
3422
3525
3604
3684
3763
3842
3921
4001
4080
4161
4243
4324
4406
4487
4569
4650
4736
4821
4907
4993
5079
5164
5250
5353
5456
5559
5661
5764
5867
5970
50
75
190
305
535
765
1001
1238
1433
1628
1737
1846
1955
2065
2174
2283
2393
2522
2652
2781
2911
3041
3170
3300
3418
3536
3654
3771
3889
4007
4125
4228
4331
4434
4536
4639
4742
4845
4924
5004
5083
5162
5241
5321
5400
5507
5614
5721
5829
5936
6043
6150
6254
6358
6462
6566
6670
6774
6878
60
75
210
345
615
885
1155
1425
1650
1875
1995
2115
2235
2355
2475
2595
2715
2869
3024
3178
3332
3486
3641
3795
3928
4061
4194
4326
4459
4592
4725
4851
4978
5104
5231
5357
5484
5610
5687
5764
5841
5919
5996
6073
6150
6279
6407
6536
6664
6793
6921
7050
7155
7260
7365
7470
7575
7680
7785
70
75
231.3
387.5
700
1013
1294
1575
1823
2070
2204
2338
2472
2606
2740
2874
3008
3183
3359
3535
3710
3886
4062
4238
4355
4473
4591
4709
4827
4945
5063
5163
5264
5365
5465
5566
5667
5768
5886
6005
6124
6243
6362
6481
6600
6729
6857
6986
7114
7243
7371
7500
7678
7856
8034
8211
8389
8567
8745
80
75
252.5
430
785
1140
1433
1725
1995
2265
2413
2561
2709
2856
3004
3152
3300
3497
3694
3891
4089
4286
4483
4680
4783
4886
4989
5091
5194
5297
5400
5475
5550
5625
5700
5775
5850
5925
6086
6246
6407
6568
6729
6889
7050
7179
7307
7436
7564
7693
7821
7950
8201
8451
8702
8953
9204
9454
9705
63

-------
Table 17. Buffer Zones for Pre-Plant Greenhouse Tarped Soil Fumigations
Structure Size
< 25,000 square feet
> 25,000 square feet and < 30,000 square feet
> 30,000 square feet and < 35,000 square feet
> 35,000 square feet and < 40,000 square feet
> 40,000 square feet and < 45,000 square feet
> 45,000 square feet and up to 50,000 square feet
Buffer Zone
25 feet
50 feet
75 feet
100 feet
115 feet
130 feet
       Table 9, from the July 2008 RED, summarized the required buffer zone distances and
corresponding PERFUM modeling results for the pre-plant soil uses assessed by the Agency
during Phase 5 of the reregi strati on process.  It also showed the percentile for the whole and
maximum field distributions for each buffer distance, as well as the MOE at the 95th and 99th
percentile air concentration of PERFUM. (See Appendix D for more details on the PERFUM
model inputs and outputs).

       The Agency has revised Table 9 from the July 2008 RED based on the new Wasco, CA
data.  As noted above the Wasco emission data did not include a study for the untarp bed
application method, and therefore the numbers for the scenarios have not changed  since the July
2008 RED.  These scenarios are italicized in the table. Since the Agency believes  that the Wasco
studies are more representative of current practices, the results characterized below represent
information from the Wasco studies. Table 18 contains the new information.

       In Table 18 the buffer zones reach the target MOE of 1 at high percentiles,  i.e., at least at
95% whole field and  all maximum percentiles range from 50 to above 99 percent.  Furthermore
the numbers also reach half of the target at the 99th percentile air concentration in PERFUM runs.
This concentration corresponds to minor, reversible irritation effects observed in the human
study.  Even though the new buffer zones are smaller, the new distances reach the  Agency's
target at higher percentiles.  As such, the Agency is confident that the buffer zones are still
protective against severe health effects while also reducing the impacts to users.

       Focusing on the forest seedling nursery in the Southeast as an example, the buffer zone
for a 10 acre plot at a rate of 300 Ibs ai/A is 265 feet.  At 265 feet, the PERFUM model predicts
the 95th percentile for the whole field distribution and the 55th percentile for the maximum field
distribution. The risk level corresponding to this buffer zone distance at the 95th percentile
whole field distribution is equivalent to saying a person at any location on the perimeter of the
buffer zone during the 24 hour period following the fumigation of a specific field during a 5-year
period would have at least a 95 percent chance of having of an exposure below the level of
concern (i.e., MOE of lor higher).  The risk level corresponding to the buffer zone distances at
the 55th percentile maximum distribution is equivalent to saying a person at the location on the
perimeter of the buffer zone where the maximum concentration occurs during the worst case 24
hour period following the fumigation of a specific field during a 5-year period would have a 55
percent chance of having of an exposure below the level  of concern (i.e., MOE of  1 or higher).

       The Agency believes that the buffer zone distances described above, combined with other
risk mitigations described herein, will provide protection against unreasonable  adverse effects.
                                                                                      64

-------
Table 18. Projected Buffer Zone Distances for Crops with Significant Chloropicrin Usage
Crop
Cucurbits
Eggplant
Forest
Seedling
Orchard
Replant-Stone
Pepper
Strawberry
Strawberry
Nursery
Sweet Potato
Tobacco
Tomato
Carrot
Onion
Orchard
Replant-Grape
&Nut
Orchard
Replant-Pome
Orchard
Replant-Stone
Region
CA&
Southeast
CA&
Southeast
Michigan
Michigan
CA&
Southeast
Southeast
West
CA
CA&MI
Southeast
CA
FL
CA&
Southeast
Texas
All States
CA&FL
MI
CA
Oregon
Washington
CA
Pacific NW
Pacific NW
Application
Method
Tarp Broadcast
Tarp Bed
Tarp Broadcast
Tarp Bed
Tarp Bed
Tarp Broadcast
Tarp Broadcast
Deep Tarp Bed
Tarp Bed
Tarp Bed
Tarp Bed
Tarp Bed
Tarp Broadcast
Tarp Bed
Tarp Bed
Tarp Bed
Tarp Bed
Bed
Bed Compaction
Bed Compaction
Deep Bed
Compaction
Deep Bed
Compaction
Deep Bed
Compaction
Rate
(Ib
ai/A)
50
50
70
70
75
300
116
43
100
75
117
143
200
10
80
133
114
18
34
22
12
50
68
Block
Size
(acres)
10
40
10
40
10
40
10
40
10
40
10
20
10
20
20
30
10
40
10
40
10
20
10
20
10
40
10
40
10
40
10
40
10
40
80
40
40
20
30
5
5
Buffer
zone
Distances
without
credits
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
265
395
25
51
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
139
354
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
50
300
100
25
25
100
225
Whole and
Maximum Field
Percentiles
(MOE = 1)
Whole
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
95
95
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
97
95
99
95
99
99
99
99
99
95
99
97
90
90
97
97
95
90
90
Max
90
90
99
99
90
90
99
99
99
99
55
50
80
80
99
99
99
95
99
99
99
95
90
80
55
50
99
99
99
95
97
80
99
80
65
50
80
85
75
50
50
MOE at 95th
and 99th
Percentile of
PERFUM 2
95th
>1
>1
>1
>1
>1
>1
>1
>1
>1
>1
1
1
>1
>1
>1
>1
>1
>1
>1
>1
>1
>1
>1
1
>1
1
>1
>1
>1
>1
>1
1
>1
>1
0.9
0.9
0.9
>1
>1
0.9
0.9
99th
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.6
0.6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.6
1
1
0.5
0.5
                                                                                     65

-------
    Amended Buffer Zone Requirements

The following describes the general buffer zone requirements, as amended, for chloropicrin:

"Buffer zone" is an area established around the perimeter of each application block or
greenhouse where a soil fumigant is applied. The buffer zone must extend from the edge of
the application block or greenhouse perimeter equally in all directions.
All non-handlers including field workers, nearby residents, pedestrians, and other bystanders,
must be excluded from the buffer zone during the buffer zone period except for transit (see
exemptions section).
The "buffer zone period" starts at the moment when any fumigant is delivered/dispensed to
the soil within the application block and lasts for a minimum of 48 hours after the fumigant
has stopped being delivered/dispensed to the soil.
An "application block" is a field or portion of a field treated with a fumigant in any 24-hour
period. See exception provided in the "Buffer zone proximity" section below. (See Figures
8 and 9 in Appendix D on page 153 for further explanation.)

Buffer zone proximity
To reduce the potential for off-site movement from multiple fumigated fields, buffer zones
from multiple chloropicrin application blocks may not overlap UNLESS:
       o  A minimum of 12 hours have elapsed from the time the earlier application(s) for
          which a buffer is in place end(s) until the latter application begins, and
       o  Emergency preparedness and response measures specified later in this document
          have been implemented if there are any homes, businesses, or property not within
          the control of the fumigator within 300 feet of each buffer zone.

Buffer zone distances
Buffer zone distances must be based on look-up tables on product labels. Twenty-five feet is
the minimum buffer distance regardless of site-specific application parameters.
For selective replant fumigation in an  orchard using hand held application methods (e.g.,
deep injection auger probes), the minimum buffer zone will be 25 feet measured from the
center of each injection site (i.e., tree hole).

Authorized entry to buffer zones
Only authorized handlers who have been properly trained and equipped according to EPA's
Worker Protection Standard (WPS) and label requirements may be in the buffer zone during
the buffer zone period.

Exemptions for transit through buffer  zones
Vehicular and bicycle traffic on public and private roadways through the buffer zone is
permitted. "Roadway" means that portion of a street or highway improved, designed or
ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the sidewalk or shoulder even if such
sidewalk or shoulder is used by persons riding bicycles.  In the event a highway includes two
or more separated roadways, the term  "roadway" shall refer to any such roadway separately.
(This definition is based on the definition of roadway in the Uniform Vehicle Code prepared
                                                                                  66

-------
by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances. See
http://www.ncutlo.org/ for more details)
Bus stops or other locations where persons wait for public transit are not permitted within the
buffer zone.
See the Posting Section of this document for additional requirements that may apply.

Structures under the control of owner/operator of the application block
Buffer zones may not include buildings used for storage such as sheds, barns, garages, etc.,
UNLESS,
  1.   The storage buildings are not occupied during the buffer zone period, and
  2.   The storage buildings do not share a common wall with an occupied structure.
See the Posting Section of this document for additional requirements that may apply.

Areas not under the control of owner/operator of the application block
Buffer zones may not include residential areas (including employee housing, private
property, buildings, commercial, industrial, and other areas that people may occupy or
outdoor residential areas, such as lawns, gardens, or play areas) UNLESS,
1.  The occupants provide written agreement that they will voluntarily vacate the buffer zone
    during the entire buffer zone period, and
2.  Reentry by occupants and other non-handlers must not occur until,
    0  The buffer zone period has ended,  and
    0  Sensory irritation is not experienced.
Buffer zones may not include agricultural  areas owned/operated by persons other than the
owner/operator of the application block, UNLESS,
1.  The owner/operator of the application block can ensure that the buffer zone will not
    overlap with a buffer zone from any adjacent property owners, except as provided for
    above, and
2.  The owner/operator of the adjacent areas (i.e., areas that are not under the control of the
    owner/operator of the application block) provides written agreement to the applicator that
    they, their employees, and other persons will stay out of the buffer zone during the entire
    buffer zone period.
Buffer zones must not include roads and rights of way UNLESS,
1.  The area is not occupied during the buffer zone period, and
2.  Entry by non-handlers is prohibited during the buffer zone period.
3.  Applicators must comply with  all local laws and regulations.
For all other publicly owned and/or operated areas such as parks, side walks, walking paths,
playgrounds, and athletic fields, buffer zones must not include these areas UNLESS,
1. The area is not occupied during the buffer zone period,
2. Entry by non-handlers is prohibited during the buffer zone period, and
3. Written permission to include the public area in the buffer zone is granted by the
appropriate state and/or local authorities responsible for management and operation of the
area.
4.  Applicators must comply with  all local laws and regulations.
See the Posting Section of this document for additional requirements that may apply.
                                                                                   67

-------
                                            ii.  Buffer Zone Reduction Credits

Requirements in the July 2008 RED

       In preparing for the July 2008 RED, the Agency undertook a significant effort to evaluate
available empirical data results, modeling, and scientific studies reported in the literature
regarding the factors and control methods that may reduce emissions from soil fumigants. For
details on the Agency's analysis, please see the June 9, 2008 memo, "Factors Which Impact Soil
Fumigant Emissions - Evaluation for Use in Soil Fumigant Buffer Zone Credit Factor
Approach,"9 in the chloropicrin docket. The Agency also coordinated and led fora to discuss this
issue at the 2006 and 2007 Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach (MBAO) Conferences with
leading researchers and other stakeholders.  A general description of the MBAO sessions can be
found at http://mbao.org.

       Based on the Agency's analysis of the data, the 2008 chloropicrin RED gave buffer zone
reduction credits for: high barrier tarps (40%), high barrier tarps used in combination with the
Symmetry™ application system (50%), potassium thiosulfate (KTS) applied over tarped fields
(5%), soils with high organic matter (10%), and soils with high clay content (10%). The July
2008 RED stated that the buffer zone credits were additive, but that the total credit could not
exceed 50 percent. EPA noted that changing current use practices or site conditions to utilize
these credits may be a challenge, but that the Agency believed that in addition to reducing
bystander risk  and the size of buffer zones, the credits for high barrier tarps,  Symmetry™
application system, and KTS had the potential to increase efficacy, and also that the use of high
barrier tarps could reduce application rates.

Comments on the July 2008 RED

       Data were submitted since the July 2008 RED was issued that show greater reductions in
emissions from the use of tarps and environmental conditions than what was determined in the
July 2008 RED.  In addition, the information submitted during the comment period indicated an
additive effect in reducing emissions when multiple factors were combined.  As a result, EPA
has updated the buffer reduction credits and determined that the 50% credit cap should be
increased to 80%. The new credits for individual factors and the cap on credits are detailed
below. For details on the Agency's analysis please see the May 14, 2009 memo; "Methyl
Bromide (PC Code 053201), Chloropicrin (PC Code 081501), Dazomet (PC Code 035602),
Metam Sodium and Potassium (PC Codes 039003 & 039002), MITC (PC Code 068103), DP
Barcode D362369, Updated Health Effects Division Recommendations For Good Agricultural
Practices and Associated Buffer Credits," in the chloropicrin docket.

                           •  High Barrier Tarps

Credits in the July 2008 RED
9 EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0173. Factors Which Impact Soil Fumigant Emissions - Evaluation for Use in Soil
Fumigant Buffer Zone Credit Factor Approach, June 9, 2008, DP Barcode: 306857
                                                                                     68

-------
       The July 2008 RED determined that a 40% buffer credit for chloropicrin was appropriate
for the following high barrier tarps: Bromostopฎ (1.38 mil), IPM Clear VIF (1.38 mil),
Eval/Mitsui (1.38 mil), Hytiblock 7 Black (0.00125"), XL Black Blockade (0.00125"), and
Hytibar (1.5 mil). The Agency believed that the actual reduction for tarps could be higher for
certain conditions but that a 40% credit was appropriate based on uncertainties in the available
data.

Comments on the July 2008 RED

       Since the RED was published, data have been submitted by the United States Department
of Agriculture- Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) and other organizations that have
shown a greater reduction in emissions for a larger number of tarps.

Credits for the Amended RED

       From these data, the Agency has increased the credit for certain tarps and increased the
number of tarps that are given credits. The Agency has determined that the tarps tested can be
divided into two groups based on results in the emissions tests mentioned above. The  first group
includes the Canslit Heatstrip Silver and Canslit Metalized high-barrier tarps, which will be
given a buffer credit of 30%.  The second group includes the Olefinas Embossed VIF,  Klerks
VIF, Pliant Blockade, Bromostopฎ (1.38 mil), Eval/Mitsui TIF (1.38 mil), Hytiblock 7 Black
(0.00125"), XL Black Blockade (0.00125"), Hytibar (1.5 mil), and IPM Clear VIF (1.38 mil)
high barrier tarps, which will be given a buffer credit of 60%.

       It is important to note, however, that when considering the credits selected for  high
barrier tarps for each fumigant, a number of issues must be taken into account, including:
different tarp and fumigant combinations result in different degrees of emission control;
difficulty in determining the exact impact that high barrier tarps have on emissions in a full field
flux study unless a co-located field is also monitored in the same vicinity using a standard tarp;
and the lack of a standard fumigant tarp testing procedure.

       The Agency is currently validating a standard fumigant tarp testing procedure, developed
at USDA that measures the mass transfer coefficients of tarps. The purpose of this research is to
develop a standardized method of testing and rating permeability of tarps based on mass transfer
coefficients. From these results a permeability database and a standardized method for testing
tarp permeability will be developed.  The database will allow the Agency to evaluate potential
buffer zone credits for additional tarps. In addition, the method can be used by  other laboratories
or tarp manufacturers to test the permeability of their tarps which could augment the number of
tarps that receive buffer credits. For more details on USDA's research, please refer to the
Agency's May 14, 2009 memo; "Methyl Bromide (PC  Code 053201), Chloropicrin (PC Code
081501),  Dazomet  (PC Code 035602), Metam Sodium  and Potassium (PC Codes 039003 &
039002),  MITC (PC Code 068103), DP Barcode D362369, Updated Health Effects Division
Recommendations For Good Agricultural Practices and Associated Buffer Credits."

       The Agency has also co-funded a grant with USDA-ARS to conduct several flux studies
in the southeastern U.S. These studies will provide field data on the emission reduction potential
                                                                                     69

-------
of certain barrier films to further enhance EPA's understanding of the emission reduction value
of various agricultural films, and possibly support additional buffer reduction credits and an
affordable and reliable hybrid field/lab test to evaluate the many barrier films available to
growers.

          •   High Barrier Tarps with Symmetry™ Application System

Credits in the July 2008 RED

       In the July 2008 RED, the Agency gave a 50% credit when the Symmetry™ application
system was used with approved high barrier tarps (tarps listed in the July 2008 RED) and the
application rate was less than 100 Ibs ai/A.  The 50% credit was based on the 40% credit for the
high barrier tarps and a  10% credit for the Symmetry™ application method.  This credit was
based on studies sponsored by Arysta Life Sciences North America Corporation.10' u EPA stated
in the 2008 RED that due to limited information regarding how the application system reduced
emissions without high barrier tarps or at higher application rates, the Agency believed the
credit, while conservative, is appropriate.

Credits for the Amended RED

       The Agency did not receive any comments or additional data on this credit in particular.
However since the credits for the high barrier tarps have changed the Agency is increasing the
credit to 70% when the Symmetry™ application system is used with the following high barrier
tarps: Olefinas Embossed VIF, Klerks VIF, Pliant Blockade, Bromostopฎ (1.38 mil),
Eval/Mitsui TIP (1.38 mil), Hytiblock 7 Black (0.00125"), XL Black Blockade (0.00125"),
Hytibar (1.5 mil), and IPM Clear VIF (1.38 mil), provided the application rate is less than 100
Ibs ai/A. The 70% credit is based on the 60% credit for the  tarp and a 10% credit for the
Symmetry™ application method. In addition to the increase, the Agency is giving a 40% credit
when the Symmetry™ application system is used with Canslit Heatstrip Silver and Canslit
Metalized high-barrier tarps, provided the application rate is less than 100 Ibs ai/A. The 40%
credit was based on the 30% credit for the high barrier tarps and a 10% credit for the
Symmetry™ application method.

          •   Potassium Thiosulfate (KTS) and Tarps

Credits in the July 2008 RED
10 EPA MRID 472952-03 Baker, F.: Arndt, T. (2007) Direct and Indirect Flux Determination of lodomethane and
Chloropicrin Under Field Conditions Following Tarped/Raised Bed/Shallow Shank Injection of Midas 50:50 in
Bainbridge, GA. Project Number: 1619W, 1619W/1. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL West, Inc, Paragon
Research Services, Pacific Ag Group. 590 p. [Black Hytiblock]
11 EPA MRID 472952-04; Baker F.; Arndt, T. (2007) Direct and Indirect Flux Determination of lodomethane and
Chloropicrin Under Field Conditions Following Tarped/Raised Bed/Shallow Shank Injection of Midas 50:50 in
Hart, Michigan. Project Number: 1646W, 1646W/1.  Unpublished study prepared by PTRL West, Inc, Paragon
Research Services, Pacific Ag Group, 590 p. [Black Blockade]
                                                                                        70

-------
       EPA gave a 5% credit for applications of KTS.  The KTS credit was based on a field
study conducted by Dr. Husein Ajwa12 that indicated reductions in chloropicrin emissions when
KTS is applied to the top of tarps after the fumigation.  In the 2008 RED the Agency stated that
the KTS credit could be added to the high barrier tarp credit, e.g., the buffer zone could be
reduced by 45%. However, only a 5% credit would apply if KTS was used with any other tarp.

Comments on the July 2008 RED

       The Agency received comments that buffer zone credits should be greater than 5% for
KTS.  In addition, results from Ajwa's 2007 and 2008 research published by the California
Strawberry Commission, titled: "Reduce Fumigant Emissions Using Impermeable Film and
Water Seal in Strawberry Raised Beds.  California Strawberry Commission Annual Production
Research Report 2007-2008," show that applying a water seal/KTS combination over the bedded
tarped field resulted in a reduction in the peak flux of chloropicrin and the total mass of
chloropicrin lost. The water seal/KTS combination resulted in an approximate reduction of peak
flux of 36% and total mass loss was reduced by approximately 20% at Salinas when compared to
the standard tarp water seal scenario. The water seal/KTS combination resulted in an
approximate reduction of peak flux of 32% and total mass loss was reduced by approximately
10% at the Oxnard site when compared to the standard tarp scenario.

Credits for the Amended RED

       Based on the data, the Agency determined that a conservative credit of 15% is
appropriate for KTS when applied with 1A to !/2 inch of water over a tarp. When used with one of
the high-barrier tarps listed above, the  15% credit will be added to the tarp credit.  For example if
KTS is applied over Bromostopฎ (1.38 mil) which qualifies for a 60% credit, the total credit
would be 75%. If KTS is used with any other tarp not currently listed in the amended RED, the
credit is 15%.

          •  Water Seals

Credits in the July 2008 RED

       The July 2008 RED did not give credits for the application  of water seals.

Comments on the July 2008 RED

       The Agency received comments that buffer zone credits should be considered for water
seals. In addition, results from Ajwa's 2008 research study published by the California
Strawberry Commission, titled: "Reduce Fumigant Emissions Using Impermeable Film and
Water Seal in Strawberry Raised Beds. California Strawberry Commission Annual Production
Research Report 2007-2008," show that applying a water seal over the bedded tarped field
resulted in a reduction in the peak flux of chloropicrin and the total mass of chloropicrin lost.
12 Ajwa, H. Fumigant Emission Reductions by Using Low Permeability Film and Thiosulfate Water Seal.  2007
Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach Conference.  http://mbao.org/2007/PDF/Preplant/PPl/Ajwa(6).pdf.
                                                                                    71

-------
The water seal resulted in an approximate reduction of peak flux of 30% and total mass loss was
reduced by approximately 39% at Salinas when compared to the standard tarp scenario.

Credits for the Amended RED

       Based on the data, the Agency determined that a conservative credit of 15% is
appropriate when 1A to l/2 inch of water is applied over a tarp.  When used with one of the high-
barrier tarps listed above, the 15% credit will be added to the tarp credit. For example when a
water seal is applied over Bromostopฎ (1.38 mil) which qualifies for a 60% credit, the total
credit would be 75%. If a water seal is used with any other tarp not currently listed in  the
amended RED, the credit is 15%.

                           •  Soil Conditions

Credits in the July 2008 RED

       Like high barrier tarps, inherent soil conditions (e.g., organic matter and soil type) do
have an impact on fumigant emissions.  However, while the use of high barrier tarp is  a choice
an applicator can make, soil conditions are factors essentially beyond a grower's ability to
change. Although a grower may not be able to manipulate organic matter or soil type, the
Agency's June 2008 factors document indicates that soil conditions can reduce fumigant
emissions, and is offering credits for these conditions where they exist.

       In the  July 2008 RED, the  Agency determined that a 10 percent buffer zone credit was
appropriate if the application block contains soil with organic matter of greater than 3 percent
and/or for clay content of at least 27 percent. This was based on the review of literature
available before the July 2008 RED and modeling with the CHAIN_2D model.

Comments on the July 2008 RED

       Since the July 2008 RED,  information from the CMTF has been submitted that has
allowed the Agency to reevaluate  credits for soil organic matter. Analysis of peak emissions of
chloropicrin in five studies with very similar soil factors, except for organic matter, concluded
that peak flux was reduced by approximately 50% for soils that were composed of approximately
1.5% organic  matter compared to  soils that were composed of approximately 0.5% organic
matter.

Credits for the Amended RED

       From these studies the Agency has determined that the organic matter credit can be
revised. A 10% credit will be given if chloropicrin is applied in soils with an organic matter
range of >1% - 2%; a 20% credit for soils with an organic matter range of >2% - 3%; and a 30%
credit for soils with an organic matter range of >3%.  No credit will be given for soils with less
than 1% organic matter.
                                                                                     72

-------
       The Agency has not received any new data that would result in changes to the credit for
soil type. Therefore, the credit for clay content of greater than 27% will remain at 10%.

                           •   Soil Moisture

Credits in the July 2008 RED

       The Agency's document, "Factors Which Impact Soil Fumigant Emissions - Evaluation
For Use In Soil Fumigant Buffer Zone Credit Factor Approach. DP Barcode D306857 (6/9/08),"
reviewed data which examined the effects of proper soil moisture levels prior to application on
fumigant emissions. Through review of these data it was determined that soil moisture is a
critical parameter to reduce emissions for certain fumigants. However, in the July 2008 RED,
the Agency did not provide a credit for soil moisture because the Agency could not justify credits
based on the available data. The Agency established mandatory GAPs for soil moisture
conditions.

Comments on the July 2008 RED

       The Agency received comments that buffer zone credits should be considered for soil
moisture. For chloropicrin in particular, this fact was further supported by a chloropicrin field
flux study (performed in Wasco, CA) recently submitted to the Agency by CMTF. This study
was conducted with soil moisture field capacities in the 70-75% range.  When this study was
compared to previous studies done with the same application methods at much lower field
capacities, in the 35-55% range, and all other factors being relatively equal, a 3-4 fold reduction
in emissions was observed.

Credits for the Amended RED

       The amended RED  is not going to provide credits for soil moisture.  However, based on
the Wasco, CA emission studies the Agency has developed buffer tables based on different soil
moisture percentiles.

                           •   Soil Temperature

July 2008 RED

       EPA did not give a  credit for soil temperature in the July 2008 RED.  Instead the Agency
required a maximum temperature as part of the mandatory GAPs.

Comments on the July 2008 RED

       Stakeholders commented that chloropicrin should receive a credit for lower soil
temperatures.

Credits for the Amended RED
                                                                                    73

-------
       Most of the emission studies occurred at reasonable temperatures, with the average
day/night air temperature around 70ฐF. Data presented in the Agency's June 2008 factors
document indicate that increased soil temperatures correspond to increase fumigant emissions.
Based on this information and the GAP for soil temperature, a 10% emission credit is being
provided to reduce the buffers for applications in soils with temperatures of 50ฐF or less when
measured at a soil depth of 3 inches.

                           •  Buffer Zone Credit Cap

Credits in the July 2008 RED

       The Agency determined, in the July 2008 RED, that the buffer zone credits were
additive.  This meant, for example, that a 40% credit for a high barrier tarp  could be added to a
10 % credit for organic  matter to achieve a total credit of 50%. The Agency placed a limit, or
"credit cap," of 50% on the total size of the credit allowed for chloropicrin.

Comments on the July 2008 RED

       During the comment period, the Agency received new data concerning a number of
factors that impact fumigant emissions as well as a number of comments indicating that there
should not be a cap on credits or that the cap  should be raised.  Some suggested that the 50% cap
would be a disincentive to growers considering whether to adopt emission-reducing application
methods.

Credits for the Amended RED

       Upon review of the new data and public comments, the Agency has decided to raise the
credits cap to 80%.  The Agency has reviewed the new studies to evaluate the extent to which the
various factors that reduce emissions act independently, and has reconsidered the earlier studies.
As a result of this evaluation, the Agency concludes that credits be additive up to a cap of 80%
for chloropicrin.  This revised credit cap is based on studies that show a greater-than-50%
reduction in emissions when two or more factors are combined. Further, EPA believes that
increasing the credit cap to 80% will encourage adoption of emission reduction techniques, result
in lower off-site fumigant concentrations, and will allow for reduced application rates for various
tarps.

                           •  Buffer Zone Credit Example

       Focusing on forest seedling nurseries in the Southeast as an example, the buffer zone
distance for a 10 acre application block at a rate of 300 Ibs ai/A is 265 feet without any credits
(see Table 7). If the grower uses Bromostopฎ (1.38 mil) high barrier tarp,  the buffer zone can be
reduced by 60%. The resulting buffer zone distance for this case is 106 feet.  If the organic
matter in the application block is two percent and Bromostopฎ (1.38 mil) high barrier tarp is
used, the total credit would be 80% (60% for the tarp and 20% for organic content), and the
resulting buffer zone distance would be 53 feet.
                                                                                     74

-------
                           •   Other Buffer Zone Credits Considered

       The Agency's revised document; "Methyl Bromide (PC Code 053201), Chloropicrin (PC
Code 081501), Dazomet (PC Code 035602), Metam Sodium and Potassium (PC Codes 039003
& 039002), MITC (PC Code 068103), DP Barcode: D362369, Updated Health Effects Division
Recommendations for Good Agricultural Practices and Associated Buffer Credits (5/14/09),"
reviewed several other factors such as field preparation and compaction.  The Agency
determined that those factors could not be used to justify credits based on the available data.
However, EPA has established mandatory GAPs for these conditions. See the GAP Section of
this document for further discussion.

       The Agency has used the best available data to estimate potential  chloropicrin bystander
risks and has both quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated the impact of potential emission
control measures on bystander risk. The Agency recognizes that there is  substantial research
being conducted by  stakeholders to further quantify emission reductions.  The Agency will
consider such data in future decisions if new data become available.  Such data may also support
the Agency's decisions on additional emission credits in the future.

                                         b. Restriction for Schools and Other Difficult to
                                         Evacuate Sites

       Certain types of sites are difficult to evacuate should an incident occur. EPA determined
that additional measures to reduce the potential need to evacuate these types of sites were
necessary to reduce  risk of exposure to occupants and address potential challenges associated
with an accident.  There were many comments on this measure including: requests to delete this
requirement; suggestions to reduce the size of the restricted area; a proposal to use a scalable
approach to calculate the distance; requests to define and refine the places included on this list so
that facilities such as research universities were excluded; suggestions to  shorten the duration of
the requirement so applicators may be able to take advantage of weekends to fumigate; questions
about how to determine where these sites are located, and other suggestions to change the
required measures.

       Based on a review of the comments, the Agency has retained this  mitigation measure to
ensure the protection goals are still achieved and encourage lower-emission application methods.
This mitigation measure has been refined such that compliance is more effective in achieving the
protection goal. Modifications to this requirement include: shortening the duration of the
restriction so weekends may be used to fumigate near schools and daycare centers;  clarifying the
types of schools that are  covered by this requirement; removing the term  "elder care facilities"
from the list since many  of the same facilities are included in the phrase,  "assisted living
facilities, nursing homes, and in-patient clinics;"  and reducing the restricted area from 1A mile to
Ys mile for application blocks with less than 300 foot buffers. The Ys mile (660 feet) distance is
more than twice the required buffer distance and  remains protective of people who may be
difficult to evacuate while reducing the potential  challenges of complying with the restrictions
for some users who  may be fumigating in close proximity to these types of institutions.  EPA has
determined that these modifications achieve the same protection goals as  the 2008 RED but
provide additional clarity and flexibility that will enhance users' ability to practically and
                                                                                      75

-------
effectively comply with the requirements. EPA also believes that reducing the restricted area for
blocks with buffers less than 300 feet will provide an incentive for some users to adopt lower-
emission application methods or practices.  The revised measures are summarized below.

•  "Difficult-to-evacuate" sites include schools (preschool to grade 12), state licensed daycare
   centers, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, hospitals, in-patient clinics, and prisons.
•  No fumigant application with a buffer zone greater than 300 feet is permitted within Vi mile
   (1320 feet) of the sites listed above unless the site is not occupied during the application and
   the 36-hour period following the application.
•  No fumigant application with a buffer zone of 300 feet or less is permitted within Ys mile
   (660 feet) of the sites listed above unless the site is not occupied during the application and
   the 36-hour period following the start of application.

                                      c. Posting

       Posting is an effective means of informing workers and bystanders about areas where
certain hazards and restrictions exist. Current soil fumigant labels require treated areas to be
posted and handlers are required to wear specific PPE when they are in a treated area.  For buffer
zones to be effective risk mitigation, bystanders, including agricultural workers in nearby areas,
need to be informed of the location and timing of the  buffer zone to ensure they do not enter
designated areas.

       In addition  to alerting bystanders, posting a buffer zone will help handlers determine
where and when they are required to use PPE. As described in the Handler section on page 78
handlers working in treated areas or buffers during  the buffer zone period must use label-
specified PPE and meet other requirements under the WPS.  Therefore, EPA has determined that
to ensure the protectiveness of buffer zones for bystanders and handlers, the perimeter of the
fumigant buffer zones must be posted.

       Comments  received in response to the July 2008 RED recommended some changes to the
posting requirements to make them easier to understand and implement. Based on EPA's review
and consideration of these comments, EPA has slightly revised the posting requirements and
provided additional clarification as described below.

       EPA had included two exceptions for the buffer zone posting requirement. The first
exception did not require posting in situations where the land 300 feet from the edge of the
buffer was under the control of the property operator. Based  on comments that this measure was
too complicated and confusing this exception has been removed.  There were also comments that
the examples  provided in the description of a physical barrier may lead to misinterpretation  of
the requirement. EPA agrees and believes that a performance standard is a more effective means
of communicating the requirement. Therefore, to reduce the potential for confusion, the
examples have been removed.

       In the 2008 RED, signs were required to be posted at usual points of entry and likely
routes of approach  to buffer zones. If there were no usual points of entry or likely routes of
approach, then posting was required in the corners of buffer zones, and between the corners, so
                                                                                      76

-------
signs could be viewed from one another.  Many comments expressed concern over the burden
and potential confusion with the number of signs that may need to be posted and how many signs
may need to be posted depending on the configuration of the field.  EPA agrees that signs posted
in areas where there is low likelihood of workers or others approaching or accessing the buffer
provide little risk reduction, but can add substantially to the challenges of compliance.  As a
result, the Agency has revised the criteria for location of signs since the areas that are of most
concern are those where people are most likely to enter (e.g., roads, footpaths, etc.), and at likely
routes of approach such as the perimeter of a buffer that faces a housing development.

       Comments also indicated that the requirement to include certain application-specific
information on the posted signs would make reuse of the signs more difficult and would also
substantially increase the amount of time needed to prepare signs before posting.  These
comments stated that the primary purpose of signs is to communicate to bystanders the buffer
zone locations. EPA generally agrees with these comments; therefore certain application-
specific details on the posted signs, like the date and time of the fumigation and buffer zone
restrictions, have also been reduced to allow the signs to be reused more easily.

       Comments also stated that the posting example included in the 2008 RED was confusing.
Since the posting restrictions have been simplified by removing the distance criteria, the example
has been removed from this document.  There were no substantive comments suggesting a
change to the exception for posting multiple contiguous blocks and no changes have been made
in this amended RED.

       The revised posting requirements are listed below and have been included in the revised
label table.

Requirements

    •   Posting of a buffer zone is required unless there is a physical barrier that prevents
       bystander access to the buffer zone.

    •   Buffer zone posting signs must:
       o  Be placed at all usual points of entry and along likely routes of approach from areas
          where people not under the land operator's control may approach the buffer zone.
       o  Some examples of points of entry include, but are not limited to, roadways,
          sidewalks, paths, and bike trails.
       o  Some examples of likely routes of approach are the area between a buffer zone and a
          roadway, or the area between a buffer zone and a housing development.

    •   Buffer zone posted signs must meet the following criteria:
       o  The printed side of the  sign must face away from the treated area toward areas from
          which people could approach.
       o  Signs must remain legible during entire posting period and must meet the general
          standards outlined in the WPS for text size and legibility (see 40 CFR ง170.120).
       o  Signs must be posted before the application begins and remain posted until the buffer
          zone period has expired.
                                                                                     77

-------
       o  Signs must be removed within 3 days after the end of the buffer zone period.
       o  Registrants must provide generic buffer zone posting signs which meet the criteria
          above at points of sale for applicators to use.  The Agency is requiring registrants to
          submit proposals for these materials through the data call-ins that will accompany this
          RED.
Exception: If multiple contiguous blocks are fumigated within a 14-day period, the entire
periphery of the contiguous blocks' buffer zones may be posted. The signs must remain posted
until the last buffer zone period expires and signs may remain posted up to 3-days after the
buffer zone period for the last block has expired.

Additional requirements for treated-area posting:

   •   The treated area posted signs must remain posted for no less than the duration of the entry
       restricted period after treatment.
   •   Treated area signs must be removed within 3 days after the end of the entry-restricted
       period.
   •   Signs must meet the general standards in the WPS for placement, text size, and location
       (40CFRง170.120).

                                    Contents of Signs
   The treated area sign (currently required for
   fumigants) must state the following:
   ~ Skull and crossbones symbol
   - "DANGER/PELIGRO,"
   ~ "Area under fumigation, DO NOT
   ENTER/NO ENTRE,"
   — "Chloropicrin Fumigant in USE,"
   ~ the date and time of fumigation,
   ~ the date and time entry prohibition is
   lifted,
   - Name of this product, and
   ~ name, address, and telephone number of
   the certified applicator in charge of the
   fumigation.
The buffer zone sign must include the
following:
— Do not walk sign
- "DO NOT ENTER/NO ENTRE,"
~ "Chloropicrin OR [Name of product]
Fumigant BUFFER ZONE,"
~ contact information for the certified
applicator in charge of the fumigation
                                     d. Use Prohibitions

       In the July 2008 RED the Agency prohibited the drip untarp buried application method
because it did not have adequate data to determine the appropriate mitigation. As described in
                                                                                      78

-------
the Buffer Zone section on page 36, EPA has reviewed emission studies for the drip irrigation
buried untarp application method, and this use is now eligible for reregistration.

                               2.  Occupational Mitigation

                                      a.  Handler Definition

       Based on stakeholder comments provided during the Phase 5 comment period, the July
2008 RED clarified fumigation tasks that meet EPA's definition of handler activities, as
currently defined in the WPS and on fumigant labels.  During the post-RED comment period the
Agency received some comments from stakeholders who were concerned that the Agency was
redefining handlers.  It was not the Agency's intention to change the current definition.  As a
result, the Agency has slightly changed the language from the July 2008 RED so it is clear that
the Agency is just clarifying the existing definition and not writing a new definition. Below is
the revised language.

       The following activities are prohibited from being performed in the fumigant application
block or surrounding buffer zone during the buffer zone period by anyone other than persons
who have been appropriately trained and equipped as handlers in accordance with the
requirements in the WPS (40 CFR Part 170), from the start of the application until the entry-
restricted period ends. Those activities include those persons:
   •   Participating in the application as supervisors, loaders, drivers, tractor co-pilots,
       shovelers, cross ditchers, or as other direct application participants (note: the application
       starts when the fumigant is first introduced into the soil and ends after the fumigant has
       stopped being delivered/dispensed to the soil);
   •   Using devices to take air samples to monitor fumigant air concentrations;
   •   Persons cleaning up fumigant spills (this does not include emergency personnel not
       associated with the fumigation application);
   •   Handling or disposing of fumigant containers;
   •   Cleaning, handling, adjusting, or repairing the parts of fumigation equipment that may
       contain fumigant residues;
   •   Installing, repairing, or operating irrigation equipment in the fumigant  application block
       or surrounding buffer zone during the buffer zone period;
   •   Entering the application site or surrounding buffer zone during the buffer zone period to
       perform scouting or crop advising tasks;
   •   Installing, perforating (cutting, punching, slicing, poking), removing, repairing, or
       monitoring tarps:
          o  until 14 days after application is complete if tarps are not perforated and removed
              during those 14 days; or
          o  until tarp removal is complete if tarps are both perforated and removed less than
              14 days after application; or
          o  until 48 hours after tarp perforation is complete if they will not be removed within
              14 days after application.
                                                                                       79

-------
       In addition to the above, persons outside the perimeter of the buffer zone who monitor
fumigant air concentrations must also be trained and equipped as handlers in accordance with the
requirements in the WPS (40 CFR Part 170).

                                      b.  Handler Requirements

       Currently, chloropicrin labels require that all handlers involved in a chloropicrin
application must be under the supervision of a certified applicator who may not necessarily be
on-site. Since many incidents are caused by human error and equipment failure, EPA believes
the presence of on-site trained personnel will help to reduce these risks. Therefore, to address
these risks, the July 2008 RED required that a certified applicator maintain visual contact with
any fumigant handler while the fumigant is being incorporated into the soil.  The Agency also
stated that the  certified applicator supervising the fumigation may also perform fumigant handler
tasks.

       During the post-RED comment period the Agency received many comments that stressed
the difficulty of implementing a requirement that mandates certified applicators to maintain
visual contact  with handlers. The commenters also indicated that for longer applications this
requirement would be a significant burden. Other stakeholders stated that the Agency should
modify the requirement to ensure that the certified  applicator is on-site, while others commented
that EPA should require that all handlers are certified applicators, which would eliminate the
need for direct handler supervision.

       The Agency has considered the comments and has determined that the revisions outlined
below accomplish the same handler-protection goals as the July 2008 RED mitigation while
somewhat reducing the burden on users. The revised language is:
   •   For all  applications, except water run, (e.g.,  shank) from the start of the application until
       the  fumigant has stopped being delivered/dispensed into the soil, i.e., after the soil  is
       sealed, the certified applicator must be at the fumigation site and must directly supervise
       all persons performing handling activities.
   •   For water-run applications (e.g., drip),  the certified applicator must be at the fumigation
       site to start the application including set-up, calibration, and initiation of the application.
       The certified applicator may leave the site but must return every two hours to visually
       inspect the equipment to ensure proper functioning and must directly supervise all  WPS-
       trained handlers on-site until the fumigation has stopped being delivered/dispersed into
       the  soil. WPS-trained handlers may perform the monitoring functions in place of the
       certified applicator but must be under the supervision of the certified applicator and be
       able to communicate with the certified applicator at all times during monitoring activities
       via  cell phone or other means.  The results of monitoring activities must be captured in
       the  FMP's post-application summary report.
   •   For fumigant handling activities that take place after the fumigant has been
       delivered/dispensed into the soil until the entry restricted period expires, the certified
       applicator does not have to be on-site, but must have communicated in writing to the site
       owner/operator and handlers the information necessary to comply with the label and
       procedures described in the FMP (e.g., emergency response plans and procedures).
                                                                                       80

-------
       The July 2008 RED also required that certified applicators complete a registrant
administered chloropicrin training program within the preceding 12 months before they apply a
chloropicrin product.  The Agency is still requiring that certified applicators complete the
registrant training; however, the Agency is now requiring that certified applicators successfully
complete the training every 36 months. Please see Soil Fumigation Training for Applicators and
Other Handlers section on page 121 for further details.

       In addition to the certified applicator supervision requirement, the Agency also required
in the July  2008 RED that a minimum of two WPS trained handlers were on site during all
fumigation handling activities.  This mitigation measure addresses the concern that handlers
could be overcome with fumigant vapors and be unable to leave the area while they are
performing handler tasks. The Agency did receive some comments offering suggestions and
others asking clarifying questions. The Agency has modified the language of the requirement for
clarity; however, the mitigation measure itself is not changing. Comments related to this
requirement are more fully addressed in the following document, "SRRD's Response to Post-
RED Comments for the Soil Fumigants" May, 27, 2009.  The revised language for this
mitigation measure is as follows:
    •  For all fumigant handling tasks at least two handlers trained under the provisions of the
       WPS 40 CFR 170.230 must be present.

                                      c.  Respiratory Protection

       The Agency's human health risk assessment indicates that inhalation risks exceed the
Agency's level of concern for many handler activities. The human study which served as the
basis for the occupational risk assessment indicates that transient eye and nose irritation
associated with acute chloropicrin exposure do not carryover day to day, and therefore the
Agency is most concerned about protecting handlers and workers from acute inhalation
exposure.

       To address the acute inhalation risks the July 2008 Chloropicrin RED required  air
monitoring with colorimetric tubes or other real-time monitoring devices every two hours as  a
means of determining when respirators may be needed.  The tubes were required to have a
sensitivity of at least 0.15 ppm for chloropicrin, which is the level that corresponds to early signs
of exposure.  If air samples indicated chloropicrin levels were above the Agency's LOG (0.15
ppm) or if any handler experienced sensory irritation indicative of chloropicrin exposure, then
handlers were required to wear air-purifying respirators.

       The Agency's decision to require respiratory protection only if certain triggers were
reached took into consideration current label requirements,13 the identified risks, and stakeholder
comments that respirators are not necessary because (1)  chloropicrin's warning properties are
sufficient to alert handlers if there are unsafe concentrations; (2) respirators inhibit
13 Current chloropicrin labels state that the acceptable air concentration level is 0.1 ppm, and require air-purifying
respirators when the air concentration of chloropicrin exceeds 0.1 ppm, and SCB A when the air concentration
exceeds 4 ppm. The labels, however, do not require monitoring to determine whether the acceptable air
concentration as been exceeded. The 4 ppm level was formerly NIOSH's IDLH (immediately dangerous to life and
health) level. This level has since been revised to 2 ppm. (http://www.cdc.gov/Niosh/idlh/76062.html)


                                                                                        81

-------
communication which could increase the risk of an accident; and (3) in warm weather respirators
can cause heat stress and other ailments.

       During the post-RED comment period, the Agency received several comments on the
Respiratory Protection section. For chloropicrin, comments focused on the feasibility,
reliability, and protectiveness of using colorimetric tubes due to the current sensitivity and
accuracy of the tubes, the cost of the tubes, and the Agency's action level of 0.15 ppm (some
commenters claim that 0.15 ppm is overly protective, while others state the level should not have
been changed from 0.1  ppm). Other comments stated that handlers should have the option of
ceasing the application until air concentrations of chloropicrin are less than the action level.
Comments also suggested that tractor drivers do not need to be monitored if occupants are in an
enclosed cab that meets certain specifications.

       After reviewing the comments, the Agency is adding a stop work option where handlers
can leave the field and  surrounding buffer zone in lieu of putting on a respirator.  If handlers
remain in the field, EPA has determined that respiratory protection requirements are still needed
to mitigate risks if concentrations reach a certain level. However, EPA is revising the required
procedures for determining when respirators must be used due to technological limitations of the
monitoring devices that are currently available for field use.  The Agency is aware of several
commercial systems for monitoring chloropicrin including colorimetric tubes from
manufacturers including: Matheson/Kitagawa, Sensidyne, and Drager. While these tubes have
detection limits that are less than the Agency's action level of 0.15 ppm, the Agency has opted
not to require monitoring with colorimetric tubes or other devices as a trigger to put on
respiratory protection because EPA believes that these devices are not consistently reliable at
fumigant concentrations at or just below 0.15 ppm. EPA's action level is typically at the lower
end of the range for which the devices are rated, in fact; some of these action levels are at or near
the device's detection limits.  Additionally, colorimetric devices provide snapshot measurements
of the environment in which individuals are working. In conditions that are likely to be more
static (e.g., monitoring  an indoor fumigation such as a grain mill or warehouse) it is likely that
minute to minute  changes in conditions would not be as great as those anticipated for the more
dynamic conditions characteristic of outdoor field fumigation where exposure concentrations
could shift because of weather changes or stratification in soil conditions  across a single treated
field. Furthermore, commenters' experience indicates that handlers will likely  experience early
sensory irritation  before the air samples show concentrations at or above the action level. As
such, the Agency does  not believe that initial monitoring with available devices would
significantly reduce handler risks.  In addition, EPA is aware that monitoring with these devices
adds significant costs to fumigations, please see the following document for more details,
"Analysis of Soil  Fumigant Risk Management Requirements using Geographic Information
Systems:  Case Studies Based on a Forest Seedling Nursery (DP # 363546)" May 13, 2009.  EPA
is also concerned that monitoring with devices that are not reliable could cause handlers to
believe that concentrations are below the action level despite other indications such as eye
irritation. As a result, the Agency is removing the initial monitoring requirement.

       EPA does believe, however, that monitoring devices that are currently available will
generally be reliable at higher concentrations of chloropicrin and that there is high value in air
monitoring using  currently available devices in certain situations.  As a result, EPA is
                                                                                       82

-------
maintaining the monitoring requirement once use of respirators has been triggered and
respirators are being worn. This will enable handlers to detect concentrations that would exceed
the upper working limit of the respirator. Additionally monitoring will still be required to help
enable handlers to determine if concentrations have decreased and whether it is safe to either
remove respirators or to resume the application if the fumigator has opted to cease the
application rather than have handlers wear respirators.

      The Agency is modifying the procedures for respiratory protection because of
technological limitations of currently available devices that are practical and reliable for field use
at action-level concentrations. However, the Agency does believe that quantitative air
monitoring would enhance worker safety if the appropriate technology were available.  Some
equipment manufacturers have indicated interest in developing devices that would be more
functional and reliable for field fumigation applications (e.g., badge-type monitors). EPA
encourages such efforts and plans to stay abreast of developments and improvements in
monitoring devices and will consider this issue again in Registration Review or sooner should
such monitors become available in the short term.

      Although the Agency has removed the initial monitoring requirement, EPA is keeping the
action level for chloropicrin at 0.15 ppm. The Agency does not believe that this level is overly
conservative because 0.15 ppm corresponds to approximately two times the BMCLio of 0.073
ppm.  While 0.15 ppm is greater than the BMCLio, EPA is keeping this action level because this
is the level at which participants in the human study began to experience eye irritation that was
mild and reversible and effects did not carry over.  Since effects are non-severe and reversible
the Agency believes that this level is effective as a warning for handlers of when concentrations
are reaching the point where steps are needed to protect fumigant handlers.

      In addition to the comments on the monitoring devices,  EPA received a comment
requesting that tractor drivers should be exempt from monitoring when operating tractors with
enclosed cabs that meet one of the following specifications:
   •  ANSI/ASAE S525-1.1 May 1998 Sections 7.1.5., 7.1.7, 7.2.3, and  9, or
   •  The requirements listed in the WPS for agricultural pesticides- 40 CFR170.240(d)(5).
      The cab must be equipped with a vapor adsorptive filter containing a minimum of lOOOg
      of activated charcoal.  The filter must be changed after no more than 50 hours of
      application time.
The commenter requests that EPA add this language to chloropicrin labels since the language is
currently on 1,3-D labels.  Since the Agency is now relying on sensory irritation as the trigger for
when respiratory protection is needed, every handler must either put on a respirator or stop work
regardless of the handler's task.  Therefore drivers in any enclosed cab would be subject to the
same requirements.

      Even if EPA still had the initial monitoring  requirement the Agency does not currently
support adding this language to chloropicrin labels  because ANSI/ASAE has withdrawn this
standard due to problems with verifying protective  factors.

                                             i.   Respiratory Requirements
                                                                                      83

-------
       Based on the Agency's review of the comments as described above in the Respiratory
Protection section on page 80, EPA has amended the requirements that trigger the need for
respiratory protection. In addition to the revised respiratory protection requirements below, the
Agency believes that GAPs, FMPs, and other mitigation measures will reduce inhalation risks to
concentrations below the EPA's level of concern. When chloropicrin is used in combination
with other fumigants such as methyl bromide, iodomethane, and 1,3-D, the mitigation may differ
somewhat due to the risks associated with the other fumigant; the most stringent mitigation must
be followed. The following procedures must be followed for all agricultural field and
greenhouse pre-plant soil applications of chloropicrin:

    •   If at any time any handler experiences sensory irritation (tearing, burning of the eyes or
       nose) then either:
          o   An air-purifying respirator (APR) must be worn by all handlers who remain in the
              application block and surrounding buffer zone, or
          o   Operations must cease and handlers not wearing respiratory protection must leave
              the application block and surrounding buffer zone.
    •   Handlers can remove respirators or resume operations if two consecutive breathing-zone
       samples taken at the handling  site at least 15 minutes apart show that levels of
       chloropicrin have decreased to less than 0.15 ppm, provided that handlers do not
       experience sensory irritation.  Samples must be taken where the irritation is first
       experienced.
    •   When respirators are worn, then air monitoring samples must be collected at least every 2
       hours in the breathing zone of a handler performing a representative handling task.
    •   If at any time:  (1) a handler experiences any sensory irritation when wearing  a respirator,
       or (2) an air sample is greater than or equal to 1.5 ppm, then all handler activities must
       cease and handlers must be removed from the application block and surrounding buffer
       zone.  If operations cease the emergency plan detailed in the FMP must be implemented.
    •   Handlers can resume work activities without respiratory protection if two consecutive
       breathing-zone samples taken  at the handling site at least 15 minutes apart show levels of
       chloropicrin have decreased to less than 0.15 ppm, provided that handlers do not
       experience sensory irritation.
          o   During the collection of air samples an air-purifying respirator must be worn by
              the handler taking the air samples. Samples must be taken where the irritation is
              first experienced.
    •   Work activities may resume if the  following conditions exist provided that the
       appropriate respiratory protection is worn:
          o   Two consecutive breathing zone samples for chloropicrin taken at the  handling
              site at least 15  minutes apart must be less than  1.5 ppm but greater than 0.15 ppm,
          o   Handlers do not experience sensory irritation while wearing the APR,  and
          o   Cartridges have been changed.
          o   During the collection of air samples an air-purifying respirator must be worn by
              the handler taking the air samples. Samples must be taken where the irritation is
              first experienced.
                                                                                      84

-------
Figure 1 provides an illustration of the requirements when handlers cease operations.
Handler activity begins. Handlers
are NOT wearing APRs.
i
r
Sensory Irritation
i
r
Certified applicator in charge
decides to cease operations rather
than continue with respirators.
i
r
Handlers must stop work and
leave application block and buffer
zone.
i
r
If 2 samples taken at least 15
minutes apart (by a handler
wearing an APR) show
concentrations are less than 0.15
ppm and NO sensory irritation,
then
i
r
Resume operations.
                                                                                        85

-------
Figure 2 provides an illustration of the requirements when handlers put on a respirator.
                                Handler activity begins. Handlers
                                are NOT wearing APRs.
                                       Sensory Irritation
                                Certified applicator in charge
                                decides to continue operations.
                                All handlers in the application
                                block and buffer zone put on an
                                APR. Air monitoring program
                                begins.
     Feel irritation through APR, OR
     monitoring indicates
     concentrations above 1.5 ppm.
     Handlers must stop work and
     leave application block and buffer
     zone.
     If, 2 consecutive samples taken at
     least 15 minutes apart, by a
     handler wearing an APR are
     above 0.15 ppm BUT below 1.5
     ppm, no sensory irritation is felt,
     and the cartridge is changed, then
     Resume operations wearing an
     APR. Air monitoring continues.
 If 2 consecutive samples taken at
   least 15 minutes apart, by a
 handler wearing an APR, are less
 than 0.15 ppm and NO sensory
         irritation, then
Resume operations without an
APR or remove respirator.
                                                                                     86

-------
          •  Respiratory Protection Equipment Requirement

       The purpose of this section in the July 2008 RED was to establish general conditions and
requirements for respiratory protection equipment.  Below is a summary of what was included in
the July 2008 RED.
   •   The Agency required half-face respirators with organic vapor cartridges when respirators
       are necessary.  In the RED EPA noted that although currently there are no APR cartridges
       certified by the Mine Safety and Health Administration-National Institute for
       Occupational Safety and Health (MSHA-NIOSH) for protection against chloropicrin
       specifically, NIOSH/OSHA does recommend respirators with organic vapor cartridges
       for chloropicrin use. EPA also  stated that it would consider other APR-cartridge
       combinations, provided written certification of their efficacy against chloropicrin is
       submitted to the Agency.
   •   EPA assumes half-face respirators have a protection factor of 10, therefore these
       respirators are protective up to chloropicrin concentrations of 1.5 ppm; and if
       concentrations  exceed  1.5  ppm  operations must cease.
   •   SCBA has a protection factor of 1,000, but, due to practical limitations, SCBA should
       only be used for short durations.

       EPA is making revisions to the  requirements above taking into consideration the
comments and the revisions to the Respiratory Requirements section on page 82.  Since the
Agency is relying on the warning properties of chloropicrin to indicate when an APR must be
worn, the Agency does not believe that a half-face respirator would be appropriate because the
handler would still experience eye irritation if a half-face respirator is worn. Therefore, EPA has
determined that when handlers opt to continue operations when the action level for respiratory
protection is triggered  (i.e., sensory irritation is recognized), handlers must wear a full-face
respirator. Note that while EPA assumes that a full-face respirator has a protection factor of 50,
the Agency is keeping the cease-work action level at 1.5 ppm because respirators have not been
tested for effectiveness against chloropicrin specifically and EPA does not believe handlers
should continue fumigant operations, even if using respiratory protection, if chloropicrin
concentrations resulting from the  application are near the IDLH of 2 ppm.

       The Agency received additional comments regarding the cartridge recommendations,
SCBA use, and the respirator protection factor. EPA is providing a clarification to address the
concerns brought up in the comments.  Comments suggested that the Agency require organic-
vapor cartridges. This was the Agency's intention in the July 2008 RED. Others remarked that
use of goggles should be prohibited. The Agency agrees with the comments regarding goggles
and notes that current chloropicrin labels do not permit the use of closed goggles, and it was not
EPA's intention to imply a change in current label language with regard to closed goggles in the
July 2008 RED. For more detailed responses on the above comments please see the following
document, "Methyl Bromide,  1,3-Dichloropropene, Chloropicrin, Dazomet, Metam
Sodium/Potassium, MITC: Health Effects Division (HED) Component of Agency Response To
Comments On 2008 Reregi strati on Eligibility Documents" May 14, 2009.

        As a result of the changes discussed above the amended requirements are listed below:
                                                                                     87

-------
   •   The Agency is requiring full-face respirators with organic-vapor cartridges when
       respirators are necessary.  EPA will also consider other APR-cartridge combinations,
       provided written certification of their efficacy against chloropicrin is submitted to the
       Agency.
   •   If chloropicrin concentrations exceed 1.5 ppm operations must cease.

          •   Tarp Repair

       The July 2008 RED required handlers to wear APRs if they perform tarp repair
operations before the entry-restricted period has ended. The requirements were different from
other handling activities because the duration of tarp repair activities was believed to be shorter
than other handling tasks and therefore tarp repair activities would not trigger the initial
monitoring requirement. Upon consideration of comments the Agency received on this
requirement, which are addressed in detail in the following document, "Methyl Bromide, 1,3-
Dichloropropene, Chloropicrin, Dazomet, Metam  Sodium/Potassium, MITC: Health Effects
Division (HED) Component of Agency Response  To Comments On 2008 Reregi strati on
Eligibility Documents" May 14, 2009, EPA has determined that respiratory protection for tarp
repair activities should be handled consistently with other handler activities, i.e., handlers
repairing tarps are not required to wear respirators unless sensory irritation is experienced.
Additionally, the Agency believes that tarp repair like other handling activities described above
would benefit from the  development of sensitive monitoring devices to reliably inform handlers
if and when concentrations are above the action level for respiratory protection. EPA will
reevaluate this measure during Registration Review or sooner if such devices are available in the
short term.

          •   Respirator fit testing, medical qualification, and training

       To ensure that respirators are mitigating inhalation risk,  the July 2008 RED respirator
requirements included fit testing, respirator training, and an annual medical evaluation.  Without
these requirements, it is unclear whether the reduction in inhalation exposure that is assumed by
the use of respirators will be achieved.

       During the comment period the Agency received a variety of comments ranging from full
support of the requirement, to comments  about the cost and time burden associated with fit-
testing, training, and medical exams. The Agency also received several comments regarding the
details of this requirement, for example, some commenters questioned who conducts the fit-
testing and medical exam and what the medical exam entails. Detailed responses to these
comments are included in the following document, "SRRD's Response to Post-RED Comments
on the Soil Fumigants"  May 27, 2009.

       While EPA recognizes that there is a cost associated with the fit-testing, training, and
medical exam requirements, the Agency still believes these are  necessary to ensure respirators
perform as intended.  Also note that, in response to suggestions from several fumigators, EPA is
now allowing fumigators the option to cease operations and have handlers leave the application
block and  surrounding buffer zone in lieu of wearing a respirator and continuing fumigation
                                                                                      88

-------
activities. Only handlers who will wear a respirator must be fit-tested, trained, and medically
examined. For fumigators who exercise the cease operations option, the Agency believes that
this revision will reduce the cost associated with the respirator requirement, while maintaining
the same level of protection for the handlers that wear respirators.  The following revised
language takes into account the new cease operations option and must be added to product
labels:

"Employers  must also ensure that any handler who uses a respirator is:
•  Fit-tested and fit-checked using a program that conforms to OSHA's requirements (see
   29CFR Part 1910.134)
•  Trained using a program that confirms to OSHA's requirements (see 29CFRPart 1910.134)
•  Examined by a qualified medical practitioner to ensure physical ability to safely wear the
   style of respirator to be worn.  A qualified medical practitioner is a physician or other
   licensed  health care professional (PLHCP) who will evaluate the ability of a worker to wear a
   respirator. The initial evaluation consists  of a questionnaire that asks about medical
   conditions (such as a heart condition) that would be problematic for respirator use. If
   concerns are identified, then additional evaluations, such as a physical exam, might be
   necessary. The initial evaluation must be  done before respirator use begins. Handlers must
   be reexamined by a qualified medical practitioner at least annually or if their health status or
   respirator style or use-conditions change."

          •   Respirator availability

       The July 2008 RED  required that every handler had the appropriate respiratory protection
equipment available. This requirement has been slightly modified as a result of the cease
operations option.  The new language requires that the handler's employer must confirm and
document in the FMP that an air-purifying respirator  and cartridge is immediately available for
each handler who will wear one. The Agency is requiring that at minimum two handlers have
the appropriate respirator and  cartridges available and that these handlers are fit-tested, trained,
and medically examined.

          •   Air-Rescue Device  Availability

       EPA slightly altered the air-rescue device availability language from the July 2008 RED
to include that the device is  not only on-site, but also  ready to use.  This change was made to
clarify the Agency's previous  requirement, and the following language must be added to product
labels:
       "The fumigation handler employer must confirm and document in the FMP that at least
       one air rescue device (e.g.,  SCB A) is on-site and is  ready for use in case of an
       emergency."

                                      d. Tarp Perforation and Removal

       The Agency's risk assessment indicates that there is a risk concern for handlers during
the perforation (cutting, poking, punching, or  slicing) and removal of tarps, and notes potential
                                                                                      89

-------
for increased risk when high barrier tarps are used. To address these risks EPA required the
following mitigation in the July 2008 RED:
   •   Tarps cannot be perforated until a minimum of 5 days (120 hours) after fumigation was
       complete.
   •   Tarps cannot be removed until 24 hours after tarp perforation is complete.
   •   If tarps are not removed after perforation, planting cannot start until 48 hours after
       perforation is complete.
   •   If tarps are left intact for at least 14 days after the fumigation is complete then planting
       can take place as tarps are being perforated.
   •   Broadcast tarps could be removed before 5 days if adverse weather compromised the
       integrity of the tarp provided that at least 48 hours had passed since the fumigation was
       completed, the buffer zone was extended until 24 hours after the tarp removal was
       complete, and untreated areas in the application block are not treated for at least 24 hours
       after tarp removal is complete.
   •   Tarp perforation must be done using  mechanical methods.
   •   Each broadcast tarp panel must be perforated using a lengthwise cut.

       During the post-RED comment period the  Agency received comments on the tarp
perforation and removal requirements. In particular the Agency received comments on: the
adequacy of the 5 day  requirement for high barrier tarps to protect workers; the feasibility of
leaving tarps down for 5 days in areas that use seepage irrigation for flood prevention; the
difficulty implementing the 24 hour period between tarp perforation and removal; and concerns
regarding the weather  condition exceptions,  mechanical perforation, and broadcast panel
perforation.

        There is some uncertainty regarding potential risks if high barrier tarps are perforated
after 5 days. This is because worker exposure data used in the risk assessments are generally
based on what has been the industry  standard tarping  technology, i.e., low or high density
polyethylene tarps, typically with higher application rates and no significant emphasis on using
the GAPs as defined in the RED. Data indicate that high barrier tarps are effective measures to
reduce fumigant emissions.  While this reduction decreases the risk to bystanders, it could
increase the  risk to handlers perforating or removing tarps because more fumigant could be
trapped between the soil surface and the tarp—currently California Department of Pesticide
Regulation (CDPR) prohibits the use of methyl bromide with certain high barrier tarps due to
worker concerns.

       Based on CDPR's prohibition and stakeholder's comments, EPA considered requiring a
longer interval such as 10 days before allowing high barrier tarps to be perforated. However,
EPA was concerned that adding such a requirement could discourage fumigators from using high
barrier tarps which potentially allow for lower application rates and reduce bystander risk
associated with off-gassing. New studies currently underway which involve use of high barrier
tarps may enable EPA to refine estimates of handler risk in the future. EPA will consider these
data during Registration Review, or sooner as the  information becomes available.

       Since the Agency has designed the mitigation measures to work together and believes
that measures to address handler risks are likely to protect these handlers when the reduced rates
                                                                                      90

-------
are considered in conjunction with other measures such as respiratory protection, GAPs, FMPs,
and training, EPA is not increasing the number of days before high barrier tarps can be
perforated.

       In the comment period EPA learned from stakeholders that leaving the tarps on for 5 days
would pose problems for current flood prevention activities. According to the comment, for
flood prevention, fields must be properly drained. In order to ensure proper drainage, tarps must
be manually cut, soil removed, and then tarps retucked. The Agency understands that the 5 day
requirement before tarps can be perforated and the restriction on manual tarp perforation would
be difficult for this situation and the Agency has added language to address this situation.

       During earlier comment periods EPA heard from various stakeholders that windy
conditions sometimes caused tarps to blow off fields and create other hazards, e.g., to motorists
on nearby roadways. As a result, in the July 2008 RED the Agency provided an exception to
allow tarps to be removed after 48 hours under adverse weather conditions.  During the post-
RED comment period EPA received comments that this exception did not fully address the issue
since the mitigation required waiting a minimum of 48 hours after fumigation but tarps could
blow of fields sooner than that. Commenters also said waiting 24 hours between tarp perforation
and removal and the requirement to cut every broadcast tarp panel added to the potential for tarps
to blow off fields and create other hazards:  once tarps are cut they are prone to blowing off
when windy conditions occur.  To decrease the potential of tarps blowing off commenters also
suggested that the Agency add flexibility to the 24 hour requirement by giving tarp removers the
option to remove tarps 2 hours after tarp perforation if monitoring indicated levels below the
Agency's LOG. Commenters also suggested that every 1-3 tarp panels should be cut based on
the professional judgment of the handler.

       Upon review of the comments the Agency agrees that the mitigation should be revised
somewhat to allow for tarp removal at any time if the tarp is no longer performing its intended
function and it is creating other types of risk. Therefore, EPA is revising the exception outlined
in the RED to address these comments. EPA notes that handlers undertaking these tasks must
follow the respiratory protection procedures detailed in the Respiratory Requirements section on
page 82; this change still provides handler protection while reducing the unintended
consequences of tarps creating other hazards.

       The Agency believes cutting every panel allows the fumigant trapped beneath each panel
to off-gas before the tarp is removed.  If each panel is not cut, it is not likely that necessary off-
gassing can take place to reduce risks  to handlers removing tarps.  The Agency understands that
the main concern for not cutting every panel is due to the potential for tarps to blow off and has
determined that this concern is best addressed by modifying the 24-hour wait period.  Tarps may
be removed 2 hours after tarp perforation is complete provided that tarp removers follow the
procedures set forth in the Respiratory Requirements section on page 82; therefore the risk to
handlers will  not increase as a result of this  modification.  EPA considered the suggestion to
monitor before tarp removal begins; however, because of technical limitations with current
technology the Agency did not include monitoring as part of the mitigation.   As with the
respiratory protection section, the Agency sees the value in a monitoring program if reliable and
                                                                                      91

-------
accurate devices are available and will consider monitoring during Registration Review or
sooner if information becomes available.

       The Agency received comments supporting the requirement for mechanical tarp
perforation, though other commenters stated that for some situations mechanical cutting is not
feasible. Examples cited included at the start of a row when a mechanical device such as an
ATV will be used to cut the tarps on the field, during flood prevention activities, and for small
fields.  Based on comments, EPA believes these are necessary and short-duration activities.
Provided the respiratory protection procedures for handlers are followed, these activities would
not increase the risk to handlers. With regard to small fields where mechanical cutting is not
feasible, the Agency considered the duration of the activity and the respiratory protection
considerations and will permit manual perforation only for application blocks that are 1 acre or
less in  size.

       As a result of the Agency's review and consideration of comments, the following
summarizes the revised mitigation measures to address inhalation risks from tarp perforation and
removal activities:
   •   As described in the Handler Definition section on page 78, tarp perforators and removers
       are considered handlers for a specified duration and every handler must adhere to  the
       respiratory protection procedures outlined in the Respiratory Requirements section on
       page 82.
   •   Tarps must not be perforated until a minimum of 5 days (120 hours) have elapsed after
       the fumigant injection into the soil is complete (e.g., after injection  of the fumigant
       product and tarps have been laid or after drip lines have been purged and tarps have been
       laid), unless a weather condition exists which necessitates the need  for early perforation
       or removal. (See Early Tarp Removal for Broadcast Applications Only and Early Tarp
       Perforation for Flood Prevention Activities sections below).
   •   If tarps will be removed before planting, tarp removal must not begin until at least 2
       hours after tarp perforation is complete.
   •   If tarps will not be removed before planting, planting or transplanting must not begin
       until at least 48 hours after the tarp perforation is complete.
   •   If tarps are left intact for a minimum of 14 days after fumigant injection into the soil is
       complete, planting or transplanting may take place while the tarps are being perforated.
   •   Each tarp panel used for broadcast fumigation must be perforated.
   •   Tarps used for fumigations may be perforated manually ONLY for  the following
       situations:
          o   At the beginning of each row when a coulter blade (or other device which
              performs similarly) is used on a motorized vehicle such as an ATV.
          o   In fields that are 1 acre or less.
          o   During flood prevention activities
   •   In all other instances tarps must be perforated (cut, punched, poked, or sliced) only by
       mechanical methods.
   •   Tarp perforation for broadcast fumigations must be completed before noon.
   •   For broadcast fumigations tarps must not be perforated if rainfall is expected within 12
       hours.
   •   Early Tarp Removal for Broadcast Applications Only:
                                                                                      92

-------
          o   Tarps may be removed before the required 5 days (120 hours) if adverse weather
              conditions have compromised the integrity of the tarp, provided that the
              compromised tarp poses a safety hazard. Adverse weather includes high wind,
              hail, or storms that blow tarps off the field and create a hazard, e.g., tarps blowing
              into power lines and onto roads.  A compromised tarp is a tarp that due to an
              adverse weather condition is no longer performing its intended function and is
              creating a hazard.
          o   If tarps are removed before the required 5 days have elapsed due to adverse
              weather, the events must be documented in the post fumigation summary section
              oftheFMP.
   •   Early Tarp Perforation for Flood Prevention Activities
          o   Tarp perforation is allowed before the 5 days (120 hours) have elapsed.
          o   Tarps must be immediately retucked and packed after soil removal.

                                     e.  Entry Restricted Period

       Most of the current chloropicrin labels allow reentry to the treated field by workers 48
hours after application. When chloropicrin is used in combination with 1,3-D the labels permit
worker reentry into the treated field 5 days after application. The risk assessment indicates that
risks exceed EPA's LOG for workers entering fields after 48 hours. However, the risk
assessment indicates that extending this period decreases workers' risks.  In addition, stakeholder
comments prior to the July 2008 RED indicated that non-handler entry to perform post-
application (i.e., non-handler) tasks is generally not needed for at least 10 to 14 days following
the completion of the application.

       Due to the volatile nature of chloropicrin and the potential for worker exposure, in the
July 2008 RED the Agency restricted entry into the treated area by anyone other than a properly
trained and protected handler. This restriction differs from Restricted Entry Intervals (REIs) that
are currently required for most conventional pesticides where dermal exposure is the primary
pathway of exposure.  Under the WPS, exceptions  allow certain tasks to take place before the
REI has expired as long as dermal contact with treated surfaces will be limited; however for
fumigants where inhalation exposure is the primary risk concern, entry to a treated area is further
restricted.

       During the post-RED comment period the Agency received some comments that
expressed concern that extending the entry-restricted period for fumigants could prevent certain
important activities from taking place, contrary to the comments received during earlier
comment periods. Based on  discussions with stakeholders, EPA's review of public comments,
and the risks identified in EPA's risk assessment, EPA does not believe any change to the entry-
restricted period is warranted. EPA's review of comments indicates that extending the entry-
restricted period to protect workers will not have a  substantial impact on agricultural operations.
Therefore, the Agency is not making any changes to this section of the July 2008 RED. The
mitigation is listed below.

       EPA believes that risks will not exceed the  Agency's LOG provided entry (including
early entry that would otherwise be permitted under the WPS) by any person - other than a
                                                                                      93

-------
correctly trained and PPE-equipped handler who is performing a handling task - is prohibited
from the start of the application until:
    •   5 days (120 hours) after application has ended for untarped applications, see Figure 3, or
    •   After tarps are perforated and removed if tarp removal is completed less than 14 days
       after application, see Figure 4, or
    •   48 hours after tarps are perforated if they will not be removed prior to planting, see
       Figure 5, or
    •   5 days (120 hours) after application is complete if tarps are not perforated and removed
       until 14 days after the application is complete, see Figure 6.

Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6 provide illustrations of tarp perforation/removal and entry prohibition
mitigation required for various chloropicrin applications. The intervals depicted are the
minimum that must be followed.

Figure 3. Untarped Applications
                                               5 days (120 hours)
                                    48 hours
                                                                                        94

-------
Figure 4.  Tarp Broadcast Applications (tarps removed before planting)
                            5 days (120 hours)
Tarp
Perforation
Begins


Tarp
Perforation
Ends
                                                                   2 hours
Tarp
Removal
Begins


Tarp
Removal
Ends
                                                                                         95

-------
Figure 5.  Tarp Bed Applications (Tarps not removed before planting)
                                  5 days (120 hours)
Tarp
Perforation
Begins




Tarp
Perforation
Ends

                                                                             [hours
                                                                                        96

-------
Figure 6.  Tarp Bed/Broadcast Applications (Tarps are not perforated until 14 days after
application)
                                    5 days (120 hours)
                                                14 days
                                                                                           97

-------
                       ii.  Other Mitigation

       Below are requirements for FMPs, GAPs, emergency preparedness and response, notice
to state-lead agencies, training, and community outreach and education that the Agency
concludes are needed to mitigate risks and the likelihood of incidents caused by human error,
equipment failure, and weather events such as temperature inversions.

                              1.  Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs)

       Since the application methods and work practices of fumigators have direct impacts on
the amount of fumigant applied and emitted, the Agency determined that labeling should require
proven practices that will reduce risks to handlers, bystanders, and the environment. Registrants,
applicators, growers, and other stakeholders have consistently reported to the Agency that GAPs
are a key mitigation measure to reduce the amount of fumigants applied and fumigant emissions.

       The purpose of this section in the July 2008 RED was to specify GAPs that were required
for soil applications of chloropicrin.  The practices specified contribute to reducing emissions
and thereby are expected to reduce potential for worker and bystander exposures.

       The Agency received comments regarding the GAPs outlined in the July  2008 RED.
These comments addressed a range of topics:
   •   making the GAPs voluntary rather than mandatory label requirements,
   •   buffer zone credits associated with GAP implementation,
   •   wind speed requirements  and the description of inversion conditions,
   •   crop residue requirements,
   •   application equipment requirements,
   •   soil moisture and temperature requirements,
   •   flexibility in the event that new GAPs are developed,
   •   enforceability of GAPs, and
   •   university research exemptions.

       These comments are addressed in detail in the following document, "SRRD's Response
to Post-RED Comments on the Soil Fumigants" May 27, 2009. Based on the comments, the
Agency has revised some of the GAPs.

       The GAPs outlined in the July 2008 RED and this RED amendment have been shown to
reduce emissions and bystander exposures and will continue to be mandatory label requirements.
Buffer zone credits have been reanalyzed and additional credits have been calculated for various
GAPs depending on the soil fumigant used (see Buffer Zone Reduction Credit section on page
67).

       The Agency has clarified the language regarding inversions and wind speed
requirements.  The Agency agrees that erosion control is an important consideration. However,
removing the crop residue prior to fumigation is important to limit the natural "chimneys" that
will occur in the soil when crop residue is present. These "chimneys" allow the soil fumigants to
move through the soil quickly and escape into the atmosphere. This may create potentially
                                                                                    98

-------
harmful conditions for workers and bystanders and will limit the efficacy of the fumigant. To
accommodate both of these important considerations (erosion control and human health
protection), the Agency encourages that the field be cleared of crop residue as close to the timing
of the fumigation as possible to limit the length of time that the soil would be exposed to
potentially erosive weather conditions.

       Requirements for soil temperature monitoring have been revised from "air temperatures
have been above 100 degrees F for more than three hours in any of the three days prior to
application" to "air temperatures have been above 100 degrees F in any of the three days prior to
application."

       The GAPs outlined below must be followed during all fumigant applications.  Registrants
may develop additional optional GAPs to include on product labels provided they do not conflict
with the required practices. All measurements and other documentation necessary to ensure that
the mandatory GAPs are achieved must be recorded in the FMP and/or the post-application
summary report as described in the FMP section.

Tarps (when tarps are used in chloropicrin applications)
•  A written tarp plan must be developed and included in the FMP that includes:
   o   schedule and procedures for checking tarps for damage, tears, and other problems
   o   plans for determining when and how repairs to tarps will be made, and by whom
   o   minimum time following injection that tarp will be repaired
   o   minimum size of tarp damage that will be repaired
   o   other factors used to determine when tarp repair will be conducted
   o   schedule, equipment, and methods used to perforate tarps
   o   aeration plans and procedures following perforation of tarp, but prior to tarp removal or
       planting/transplanting
   o   schedule, equipment, and procedures for tarp removal

The written tarp plan must be included in the site specific FMP as described in the FMP section
on page 106. This section of the GAPs has not changed from the July 2008 RED.

Weather Conditions

       The Agency is concerned with off-gassing occurring during temperature inversion. In
many reported incidents, a temperature inversion is often given as a potential contributing factor.
To address this concern in the 2008 RED, the Agency prohibited applications during periods of
temperature inversion, or when the wind speed is less than  2 mph, which can sometimes be an
indication an inversion is occurring.  In addition, the Agency provided additional information on
the label as guidance to applicators in determining if an inversion exists.

       The Agency received many comments related to the inversion label language including:
concern that some of the characteristics of inversion conditions (like misty conditions or clear
skies at night) do not always indicate the presence of an inversion,  relying on a weather forecast
to predict inversions is unreliable and not enforceable, and  that prohibiting application during
inversions does not address concerns of inversions during the off-gassing period.
                                                                                      99

-------
       Based on these comments the Agency has revised the weather conditions section of the
GAPs that relates to temperature inversions to clarify that parts of the weather conditions that are
requirements and those that are included to help guide the applicator to identify temperature
inversions. The measures have also been updated to prohibit application only if temperature
inversion conditions are forecasted to persist for more than  18 of the 48 hours after the start of
the application since this will filter out conditions when diurnal temperature inversions may
occur, though even diurnal temperature inversions could contribute to exposures to fumigant
concentrations outside buffers. As such, EPA believes that the measures described below in the
Emergency Preparedness and Response section of this document are important to address
potential risks associated with shorter-term diurnal inversions.  The Agency is also changing the
wind speed requirement so winds may either be 2 mph at the start of application or be forecasted
to reach 5 mph during the application.  These changes are designed to prevent applications when
inversion conditions are predicted to occur after the application has begun, since this is the time
when the peak off-gassing is expected to occur. In summary, EPA has determined that
applicators must (1) check the weather forecast and make a decision whether to proceed with a
planned fumigation, based on conditions that are predicted, (2) only begin a fumigant application
if wind speed is a minimum of 2 mph at the start of the application or forecasted to reach at least
5 mph during the application, and (3) not fumigate if there will be a persistent low-level local
inversion or an air stagnation advisory is in effect. EPA believes advisory language providing
more detailed information on how to identify inversions and adverse weather conditions will
increase the likelihood that applicators will proceed with applications only when weather
conditions are or are forecast to be favorable for safe fumigations. See the revised language
below and the label table in Section V of this document for label statements.

       Stakeholders also questioned where the inversion conditions must exist and to what
extent the temperature inversion must exist that would prevent an application. The Agency has
provided additional temperature inversion details  and has added a prohibition for application
during an air-stagnation advisory.  Air-stagnation advisories are issued through the National
Weather Service and usually capture long periods of air stillness that may remain in an area from
one to several days.  EPA has determined that these modifications achieve the same goals as the
2008 RED since they provide additional clarity that will enhance users' ability to practically
comply with the requirements.  The revised statements are stated below.

    •  Prior to fumigation the weather forecast for the day  of the application and the 48-hour
       period following the fumigation must be checked to determine if unfavorable weather
       conditions exist or are predicted and whether fumigation should proceed.
    •  Wind speed at the application site must be a minimum of 2 mph at the start of the
       application or forecasted to reach at least 5 mph during the application.
    •  Do not apply if a shallow, compressed (low-level) temperature inversion is forecast to
       persist for more than 18 consecutive hours for the 48-hour period after the start of
       application, or if there is an air-stagnation advisory in effect for the area in  which the
       fumigation is planned.
    •  Detailed local forecasts for weather conditions, wind speed, and air stagnation advisories
       may be obtained on-line at: http://www.nws.noaa.gov. For further guidance, contact your
       local National Weather Service Forecasting Office.
                                                                                      100

-------
    Unfavorable Weather Conditions

       Unfavorable weather conditions block upward movement of air, which results in trapping
fumigant vapors near the ground. The resulting air mass can move off-site in unpredictable
directions and cause injury to humans, animals or property.  These conditions typically exist
prior to sunset and continue past sunrise and persist as late as noontime. Unfavorable conditions
are common on nights with limited cloud cover and light to no wind and their presence can be
indicated by ground fog or smog and can also be identified by smoke from a ground source that
flattens out below a ceiling layer and moves laterally in a concentrated cloud.

Soil Temperature and Soil Moisture
       In the July 2008 RED the Agency required the soil temperature and soil moisture GAPs
for all chloropicrin applications, i.e., both shank and drip. After discussions with CMTF, the
Agency is no longer requiring these GAPs for drip applications.  Soil temperature has been
removed because once the water is applied the soil temperature is cooled by evaporative cooling.
The soil moisture GAP was removed from drip applications because the soil needs to be below
field capacity before the application to prevent the potential  for the beds to become oversaturated
during the application, which could potentially cause chloropicrin to leak into the furrows or
could cause the beds to collapse.  Since water is a part of the drip application, the soil moisture is
brought up to field capacity during the application.  As a result soil temperature and soil moisture
GAPs have been moved to the Chloropicrin Bedded and Broadcast Shank Applications:
Additional GAPs section on page 101.

Soil Preparation
•   Soil shall be properly prepared and at the surface generally be free of clods that are golf ball
    size or larger. The area to be fumigated shall be tilled to a depth of 5 to 8 inches.
•   Field trash must be properly managed. Residue from a previous crop must be worked into the
    soil to allow for decomposition prior to fumigation. Little or no crop residue shall be present
    on the soil surface.  Crop residue that is present must not interfere with the soil seal.
    Removing the crop residue prior to fumigation is important to limit the natural "chimneys"
    that will occur in the soil when crop residue is present.  These "chimneys" allow the soil
    fumigants to move through the soil quickly and escape into the atmosphere.  This may create
    potentially harmful conditions for workers and bystanders and will  limit the efficacy of the
    fumigant. However, crop residue on the field serves to prevent soil erosion from both wind
    and water and is an important consideration.  To accommodate erosion control, fumigant
    efficacy, and human health protection, clear fields of crop residue as close to the timing of
    the fumigation as possible to limit the length of time that the soil would be exposed to
    potentially erosive weather conditions.

Soil Sealing
•   For Broadcast Untarped Applications:  Use a disc or similar equipment to uniformly mix the
    soil to at least a depth of 3 to 4 inches to eliminate the chisel or plow traces. Following
    elimination  of the chisel trace, the soil surface must be compacted with a cultipacker, ring
    roller, and roller in combination with tillage equipment.
                                                                                     101

-------
•  For Bedded Applications: Performed beds shall be sealed by disruption of the chisel trace
   using press sealers, bed shapers, cultipackers, or by re-shaping (relisting, lifting and
   replacing, etc.) the beds immediately following injection.  Beds formed at the time of
   application shall be sealed by disrupting the chisel trace using press sealers, or bed shapers.
•  Soil Sealing for Tarped Applications: The use of a tarp does not eliminate the need to
   minimize chisel traces prior to application of the tarp, such as by using a nobel plow or other
   injection shank that disrupts the chisel traces.

          Chloropicrin Bedded and Broadcast Shank Applications: Additional GAPs

In addition to the GAPs required for all chloropicrin soil fumigation applications, the following
GAPs apply for injection  applications:

Tarps (when tarps are used in chloropicrin applications)
•  Tarps must be installed immediately after the fumigant is applied to the soil.

Soil Preparation
•  Trash pulled by the shanks to the ends of the field must be covered with tarp, or soil,
   depending on the application method before making the turn for the next pass.

Soil Temperature
•  The maximum soil temperature at the depth of injection shall not exceed 90 degrees F at the
   beginning of the application.
   o   If air temperatures have been above 100 degrees F in any of the three days prior to
       application, then soil temperature shall be measured and recorded in the FMP.

Soil Moisture
•  The soil must be moist 9 inches below the surface.  Soil moisture must be determined by one
   of the following methods:
   o   The USDA Feel and Appearance Method for testing (see below). Surface soil generally
       dries rapidly and must not be considered in this determination, or
   o   An instrument, such as a tensiometer.
•  If there is insufficient moisture 9 inches below the surface, the soil moisture must be
   adjusted. If irrigation is not available and there is adequate soil moisture below 9 inches, soil
   moisture can be adjusted by discing or plowing before fumigant injection.  To conserve
   existing soil moisture, pretreatment irrigation or pretreatment tillage should be done as close
   to the time of application as possible.
•  Measure soil moisture at a depth of 9 inches  at either end of the field, no more than 48  hours
   prior to application.

   Soil moisture determination

To use the buffers zones tables based on the Wasco, CA data (Tables 5-9), the soil shall contain
at the time of application  enough moisture at 9 inches below the surface. Soil moisture must
either be measured at > 70% with an instrument  (e.g., tensiometer), or meet the following criteria
                                                                                      102

-------
defined in the USDA Feel and Appearance method for estimating soil moisture as appropriate for
the soil texture.
   •   For coarse textured soils (fine sand and loamy fine sand) there must be enough moisture
       (75-100 percent available soil water moisture) so that the soil is wet, forms a weak ball,
       loose and aggregated sand grains remain on fingers, darkened color, heavy water staining
       on fingers, will not ribbon.
   •   For moderately coarse textured soils (sandy loam and fine sandy loam) there must be
       enough moisture (75-100 percent available soil water moisture) so that the soil is wet,
       forms a ball with a wet outline left on hand, light to medium staining on fingers, makes a
       weak ribbon between the thumb and forefinger.
   •   For medium textured soils (sandy  clay loam,  loam, and silt loam) there must be enough
       moisture (75-100 percent available soil water moisture) so that the soil is wet, forms a
       ball with well-defined finger marks, light to heavy soil/water coating on fingers, ribbons
       between thumb and forefinger.
   •   For fine textured soils (clay,  clay loam, and silty clay loam) there must be enough
       moisture 75-100 percent available  soil water moisture)) so that the soil is wet, forms a
       ball, uneven medium to heavy soil/water coating on fingers, ribbons easily between
       thumb and forefinger.
   •   For fields with more than one soil texture, soil moisture content in the lightest textured
       (most sandy) areas must comply with this soil moisture requirement. Whenever possible,
       the field should be divided into areas of similar soil texture and the soil moisture of each
       area should be adjusted as needed.  Coarser textured soils can be fumigated under
       conditions of higher soil moisture than finer textured soils; however, if the soil moisture
       is too high, fumigant movement will be retarded and effectiveness of the treatment will
       be reduced. Previous and/or local  experience with the soil to be treated or the crop to be
       planted can often serve as a guide to conditions that will be acceptable. If there is
       uncertainty in determining the soil moisture content of the area to be treated, a local
       extension service or soil conservation service specialist or pest control advisor
       (agriculture consultant) should be consulted for assistance.

If the field capacity is measured to be between 50-69% with a meter or falls into the USDA Feel
and Appearance Method category of 50-75% then the buffer zones are based on Tables 12-16.
   •   For coarse textured soils (fine sand and loamy fine sand) there must be enough moisture
       (50 to 75 percent available soil water moisture) so the soil is moist, forms a weak ball
       with loose and clustered sand grains on fingers, darkened color, moderate water staining
       on fingers, will not ribbon.
   •   For moderately coarse textured soils (sandy loam and fine sandy loam) there must be
       enough moisture (50 to 75 percent available soil water moisture) so the soil is moist,
       forms a ball with defined finger marks, very light soil/water staining on fingers, darkened
       color will not stick.
   •   For medium textured soils (sandy clay loam, loam, and silt loam) there must be enough
       moisture (50 to 75 percent available soil water moisture) so the soil is moist, forms a ball,
       very light staining on fingers, darkened color, pliable, and forms a weak ribbon between
       the thumb  and forefinger.
   •   For fine textured soils (clay,  clay loam, and silty clay loam) there must be enough
       moisture (50 to 75 percent available soil water moisture) so the soil is moist, forms a
                                                                                     103

-------
       smooth ball with defined finger marks, light soil/water staining on fingers, ribbons
       between thumb and forefinger.
   •   For fields with more than one soil texture, soil moisture content in the lightest textured
       (most sandy) areas must comply with this soil moisture requirement. Whenever possible,
       the field should be divided into areas of similar soil texture and the soil moisture of each
       area should be adjusted as needed. Coarser textured soils can be fumigated under
       conditions of higher soil moisture than finer textured soils; however, if the soil moisture
       is too high, fumigant movement will be retarded and effectiveness of the treatment will
       be reduced.  Previous and/or local experience with the soil to be treated or the crop to be
       planted can often serve as a guide to conditions that will be acceptable. If there is
       uncertainty in determining the soil moisture  content of the area to be treated, a local
       extension service or soil conservation service specialist or pest control advisor
       (agriculture consultant) should be consulted  for assistance.

Application Depth
•  For Tarped-Broadcast and Tarped-BeddedApplications:  The injection point shall be a
   minimum of 8 inches from the nearest final soil/air interface.
•  For Untarped-BeddedApplications: The injection point shall be a minimum of 12 inches
   from the nearest final soil/air interface.
•  For Untarped-Broadcast Applications: The injection point shall be a minimum of 10 inches
   from the nearest final soil/air interface.

Prevention of End Row Spillage
•  Do not apply or allow fumigant to drain onto the soil surface. For each injection line either
   have a check valve located as close as possible to the final injection point, or drain/purge the
   line of any remaining fumigant prior to lifting injection shanks from the ground.
•  Do not lift injection shanks from the soil until the shut-off valve has been closed and the
   fumigant has been depressurized (passively drained) or purged (actively forced out via air
   compressor) from the system.

Calibration, Set-up, Repair, and Maintenance for Application Rigs
   •   Brass, carbon steel or stainless steel fittings must be used throughout. Polyethylene
       tubing, polypropylene tubing, Teflonฎ tubing or Teflonฎ -lined steel braided tubing
       must be used for all low pressure lines, drain lines, and compressed gas or air pressure
       lines. All other tubing must be Teflonฎ -lined steel braided.
   •   Galvanized, PVC, nylon or aluminum pipe fittings must not be used.
   •   All rigs must include a filter to remove any particulates from the fumigant, and a check
       valve to prevent backflow of the fumigant into the pressurizing cylinder or the
       compressed air system.
   •   Rigs must include a flowmeter or a constant pressure system with orifice plates to insure
       the proper amount of fumigant is applied.
   •   To prevent the backflow of fumigant into the compressed gas cylinder (e.g. nitrogen,
       other inert gas or compressed air), if used, applicators must:
          o  Ensure that positive pressure is maintained in the cylinder at not less than 200 psi
             during the entire time it is connected to the application rig, if a compressed gas
             cylinder is used.  (This is not required for a compressed air system that is part of
                                                                                     104

-------
              the application rig because if the compressor system fails the application rig will
              not be operable}.
          o   Ensure that application rigs are equipped with properly functioning check valves
              between the compressed gas cylinder or compressed air system and the fumigant
              cylinder.  The check valve is best placed on the outlet side of the pressure
              regulator, and is oriented to only allow compressed gas to flow out of the cylinder
              or compressed air out of the compressed air system.
          o   Always pressurize the system with compressed gas or by use of a compressed air
              system before opening the fumigant cylinder valve.
   •   Before using a fumigation rig for the first time, or when preparing it for use after storage,
       the operator must check the following items carefully:
          o   Check the filter, and clean or replace the filter element as required.
          o   Check all tubes and chisels to make  sure they are free of debris and obstructions.
          o   Check and clean the orifice plates and screen checks, if installed.
          o   Pressurize the system with compressed gas or compressed  air, and check all
              fittings, valves, and connections for  leaks using soap solution.
   •   Install the fumigant cylinder, and connect and secure all tubing. Slowly open the
       compressed gas or compressed air valve, and increase the pressure to the desired level.
       Slowly open the fumigant cylinder valve, always watching for leaks.
   •   When the application is complete, close the fumigant cylinder valve and blow residual
       fumigant out of the fumigant lines into the soil using compressed gas or compressed air.
       At the end of the application, disconnect all fumigant cylinders from the application rig.
       At the end of the season, seal all  tubing openings with tape to prevent the  entry of insects
       and dirt.

Application equipment must be calibrated and all control systems must be working properly.
Proper calibration is essential for application equipment to deliver the correct amount of
fumigant uniformly to the soil. Refer to the manufacturer's instructions on how to calibrate your
equipment, usually the equipment manufacturer, fumigant dealer, or Cooperative Extension
Service can provide assistance.

                      Chloropicrin Drip Applications: Additional GAPs

The Agency has made one minor change to the additional GAPs for chloropicrin  drip
applications from the July 2008 RED. This change is in the soil sealing section.  The July 2008
RED required that every drip application was tarped.  Since the Agency has received and
reviewed drip untarp emission studies, EPA has deleted this requirement.

In addition to the GAPs required for  all chloropicrin soil fumigation applications, the following
GAPs apply for drip applications:

Soil Preparation
•  Till fields with known plowpans  because they can lead to puddling of the fumigant due to
   inadequate soil drainage.

Product and Dosage
                                                                                     105

-------
   •   Plan the application by calculating the amount of fumigant required at the appropriate
       rate for the crop, acreage and target pest.  Fumigant must be metered into the water
       supply line and then passed through a mixing device, such as a centrifugal pump or static
       mixer, to assure proper agitation.

System Controls  and Integrity
   •   The irrigation system (main lines, headers, drip tape) must be thoroughly checked for
       leaks before the start of application. Leak detection requires that the irrigation system be
       at full operating pressure. The amount of time needed at full operating pressure will vary
       by irrigation system design. Look for puddling along major pipes (holes in pipes or leaky
       joints), at the top and ends of rows (leaky connection, open drip tape), and on the bed
       surface (damaged drip tape, malfunctioning emitters). Any leaks discovered during the
       pre-application check must be repaired prior to fumigant application.
   •   To inject fumigant, use a metering system (such as a positive pressure system, positive
       displacement injection pump, diaphragm pump, or a Venturi system) effectively designed
       and constructed of materials that are compatible with the fumigant and capable of being
       fitted with system interlocking controls. Do not use  containers pumps or other equipment
       made  of aluminum, magnesium or their alloys as chloropicrin can be corrosive to such
       metals.
   •   The system must contain:
          o  A functional check valve and low-pressure drain appropriately located on the
             irrigation pipeline to prevent water source contamination and backflow;
          o  A functional, automatic, quick-closing check valve to prevent the flow of fluids
             back toward the fumigant container;
          o  A functional, normally closed valve located on the intake side of the injection
             point and connected to the system interlock to prevent the fumigant from being
             withdrawn from the supply tank when the irrigation system is either automatically
             or manually shut down;
          o  Functional interlocking controls to automatically shut off the fumigant injection
             when the irrigation water flow stops or decreases to the point where fumigant
             distribution is adversely affected.

Site of Injection and Irrigation System Layout
   •   Site of injection must be  as close as practical to the area being treated (such as direct
       injection of fumigant into the header pipe/manifold or into an aboveground delivery pipe
       attached to the header).  If the fumigant is injected into a main line, make sure the
       irrigation pipe is able to be cleared of all fumigant as the fumigant  may pool in low
       sections of the pipe. Also make sure that valves on lateral lines of the main line are
       closed, if these lateral lines lead to areas not being fumigation at the time of the
       application.

System Flush
   •   After application of the fumigant, continue to drip-irrigate the area with water to flush the
       irrigation system. Do not allow the fumigant to remain in the irrigation system after the
       application is complete.  The total volume of water, including the amount used for
       flushing the irrigation system, must be adequate to completely remove the fumigant from
                                                                                     106

-------
       the lines, but should be less than the amount that could over-saturate the beds (bed
       collapse can occur from over-saturation). If common lines are used for both the fumigant
       application and water seal (if a water seal is applied) these lines must be adequately
       flushed before starting the water seal and/or normal irrigation practices.

Soil Sealing (change, no longer requiring tarps if the drip tape is buried)
    •   If tarps are used they must be put in place before the fumigation begins.
    •   Tarp edges must be buried along the furrow and at the ends of rows.

                       Chloropicrin Tree Replant Application: GAPs

This section has not changed from the July 2008 RED.

This application method is used when chloropicrin is applied to individual tree sites in an
existing orchard where shank or drip application are not possible.

In addition to the GAPs required for all chloropicrin soil fumigation applications, the following
GAPs apply for chloropicrin tree replant applications:

Site Preparation
    •   Each individual  tree-site must remove the tree stump and primary root system with a
       back-hoe or other similar equipment, for example an auger.
    •   The hole must be backfilled with soil before application.

Application Depth
    •   The fumigant must be injected at least 18 inches into the soil.

System Flush
    •   Before removing the application wand from the soil the wand must be  cleared using
       nitrogen or compressed air.

Soil Sealing
    •   After the wand is cleared and removed from the soil, the injection hole must be either
       covered with soil and tamp or the soil must be compacted over the injection hole.

                              2.  Fumigant Management Plans (FMPs)

       As noted elsewhere in this document, soil fumigation is a complex site-specific activity.
Failure to adhere to label requirements and procedures for safe use has led to accidents affecting
workers involved in fumigations as well as bystanders. Information from various sources shows
that health and safety plans, FMPs in this context, typically reduce workplace  injuries and
accidents by prescribing a series of operational requirements and criteria. In fact, plans like
these are widely implemented in a variety of industries and are recommended  as standard
approaches for occupational health and safety management by groups such as  American
                                                                                     107

-------
Industrial Hygiene Association14 (i.e., through "Administrative" and "Workplace" controls). The
Centers for Disease Control provides guidance for developing health and safety plans in
agricultural settings.15  The effectiveness of similar plans has also been evaluated in the
literature. Examples include "lookback" reviews conducted by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) which essentially implemented standards in various industries
then reviewed their effectiveness in this process as they are required to determine whether the
standards should be maintained without change, rescinded or modified.  OSHA is required by
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610) and Executive Order 12866 to
conduct the "lookback" reviews. These reviews are conducted to make the subject final
standards more effective or less burdensome in achieving their objectives, to bring them into
better alignment with the objectives of Executive Order 12866, and to make them consistent with
the objectives of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Two examples of "lookback" reviews that
support the use of FMPs for soil fumigant health and safety management include: ethylene oxide
use as a fumigant/sterilant, and grain  handling facilities requirements.16

       In the July 2008 RED, EPA required FMPs to be completed before a fumigant
application occurs.  EPA concluded that FMPs will reduce potential risks to bystanders as well as
handlers by requiring that applicators have carefully planned, in writing, each major element of
the fumigation. In this context, an FMP is a set of performance criteria for each application,
including how the fumigator intends to comply with label requirements. As added benefits, the
Agency determined that FMPs would ensure directions on the product labels were followed and
that the conditions under which fumigation occurred were documented.  EPA also concluded that
FMPs would  help ensure an appropriate response by the applicator or others involved in the
application should an incident occur since a proper and prompt response would reduce the
potential risk to bystanders from potential high exposure situations (e.g., readily available first
responder contact information could reduce response times to impacted bystanders  and carefully
thought out emergency response plans can help ensure appropriate actions are taken in case of
unforeseen events).

       The July 2008 RED provided a list of each major element FMPs would need to address.
These included general site and applicator information, application procedures, and a description
of how the fumigator planned to comply with label requirements for GAPs, buffer zones,
monitoring, worker protection, posting, and providing notification to the state or tribal lead
agency.  FMPs  also were required to  include plans for communication between the applicator
and others involved in the fumigation, documentation,  and handling emergency situation.
Additionally, EPA required that applicators complete a post-fumigation summary that described
any deviations from the FMP, measurements taken to comply with GAPs, and information about
any problems such as complaints or incidents that occurred as a result of the fumigation.  The
14Ignacio and Bullock (2006) A Strategy For Assessing and Managing Occupational Exposures (Third Edition),
American Industrial Hygiene Association, AIHA Press 2700 Prosperity Avenue, Suite 250 Fairfax VA 22031 (ISBN
1-931504-69-5)
15 Karsky (2002) Developing a Safety and Health Program to Reduce Injuries and Accident Losses, Centers For
Disease Control National Ag Safety Database, available at http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d001501-
dOO 1600/dOO 1571/dOO 1571 .html
16 United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2008) Lookback Reviews
available at http://www.osha.gov/dea/lookback.html


                                                                                       108

-------
RED also specified requirements for record keeping and that FMPs must be provided, upon
request, to enforcement officials and handlers involved in the fumigation.

       According to stakeholder comments in earlier comment periods, much of the information
required for the site-specific FMP was already being documented by users, and most industry
stakeholders supported mandatory FMPs provided they are not too restrictive or complex and do
not result in an excessive administrative burden.

       During the post-RED comment period, EPA received several comments regarding FMPs.
Several comments from industry and user stakeholders expressed concern that FMP
requirements would increase paperwork burden without providing significant risk reduction,
though others supported FMPs provided they did not result in an excessive administrative
burden. A number of comments suggested that the level of detail EPA had required was too
great and could result in voluminous, resource-intensive plans. Some of these comments
suggested that a checklist format would be more efficient and far less burdensome. Some
comments expressed reservations about the ability of FMPs to enhance compliance with label
requirements. Some commenters were concerned about the feasibility of providing a copy of the
FMP to on-site handlers or enforcement personnel,  though others said that copies of the FMP
should be provided to workers in areas adjacent to the application block.

       Following EPA's review of the post-RED comments, the Agency still believes that
FMPs will reduce potential risks to bystanders as well as handlers and are a key component of
the package of measures to reduce risks. EPA believes that FMPs will also enhance
compliance by requiring that applicators verify and document compliance with the label
requirements during and after application events are completed. In cases where errors may
have occurred, a post-application summary may also prevent similar problems from occurring
during future applications.  However, in response to comments, the Agency has somewhat
modified the list of elements that must be addressed in the FMP (as described below) to make
it more streamlined and thus less burdensome to applicators and growers. In addition, the
Agency has developed a sample template in which many  of the elements are covered in
checklist format, which fumigators have the option of downloading and modifying to meet the
needs of their specific fumigation situations. See
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumigants/.  EPA will also continue to work
with stakeholders to refine the FMP template and potentially develop others so it is a more
useful tool for ensuring the safe application of chloropicrin.

       The Agency estimates that, if a certified applicator decides not to use the FMP template
and decides to prepare a narrative FMP,  a carefully designed FMP could take several days to
develop the first time.  Subsequent FMPs should require substantially less time to develop
because much of the information can be reused from the initial plan. In addition, an enterprise
fumigating multiple application blocks as part of a larger fumigation may format their FMP in a
manner whereby all of the information that is common to all the application blocks is captured
once, and any information unique to a particular application block or blocks is captured in
subsequent, separate sections.

Amended FMP Requirements
                                                                                    109

-------
       Consistent with the July 2008 RED, the Agency is not requiring FMPs to be submitted to
state or local agencies.  They must, however be maintained by the applicator and grower (if the
grower is not the applicator) for a period of 2 years.

       The Agency agrees with comments that having both the applicator and the
owner/operator provide copies of the FMP to handlers is unnecessarily duplicative and that
providing each worker with a hardcopy of the FMP wastes paper. The Agency also agrees that it
is not necessary for the FMP  to be provided to the workers in areas adjacent to the application
block. Workers in adjacent areas will be notified of the fumigation by buffer posting
requirements and, in the case of neighbors whose land is part of a buffer zone, the adjoining
neighbor has responsibility for workers in areas adjacent to the application for which permission
was granted to use as part of  a fumigation buffer.  The Agency has revised the following
requirement that was included in the 2008 RED, "Once the application begins, the certified
applicator and owner/operator of the application block must provide a copy of the FMP to
handlers involved in the fumigation, workers in adjacent areas to the application block, and
federal/state/local enforcement personnel, upon request."  The RED Amendment requires the
certified applicator to make a copy of the FMP available for viewing by handlers involved in the
fumigation.  The certified applicator or the owner/operator of the application block must provide
a copy of the FMP to any federal, state, tribal, or local enforcement personnel who request the
FMP.  In the case of an emergency, the FMP must be made available when requested by
federal/state/local emergency response and enforcement personnel.

       The Agency agrees with comments that the term "etc." complicates enforcement
activities and has removed that term from the label tables.

Each site-specific FMP must  contain the following elements:

ปปป  Applicator information (name, phone number, license number, employer name, employer
   address, date of completing registrant chloropicrin training program)
*ป*  General site information
   >  Application block location, address or global positioning system (GPS) coordinates
   >  Name, address, and, phone number of owner/operator of the application block
   >  Map, aerial photo, or detailed sketch showing field location, dimensions, buffer zones,
       property lines, roads, rights-of-ways, sidewalks, permanent walking paths, bus stops,
       water bodies, wells, nearby application blocks, surrounding structures (occupied and  non-
       occupied), locations of posted signs for buffers, and sites requiring 1A or Vs mile buffer
       zones (schools, state licensed daycare centers, nursing homes, assisted living facilities,
       hospitals, in-patient clinics, and prisons) with  distances from the application site labeled
ปปป  General application information (target application date/window, brand name of fumigant,
   EPA registration number)
*ป*  Tarp information and procedures for repair, perforation, and removal (if tarp is used)
   >  Brand name, lot number, thickness
   >  Name and phone number of person responsible for repairing tarps
   >  Schedule for checking tarps for damage, tears, and other problems
                                                                                     110

-------
> Maximum time following notification of damage that the person(s) responsible for tarp
   repair will respond
> Minimum time following application that tarp will be repaired
> Minimum size of damage that will be repaired
> Other factors used to determine when tarp repair will be conducted
> Name and phone number of person responsible for cutting and/or removing tarps (if other
   than certified applicator)
> Equipment/methods used to cut tarps
> Schedule and target dates for cutting tarps
> Schedule and target dates for removing tarps
Soil conditions (description of soil texture in application block, method used to determine
soil moisture)
Weather conditions (summary of forecasted conditions for the day of the application and the
48-hour period following the fumigant application)
> Wind speed
> Inversion conditions (e.g., shallow, compressed (low-level) temperature inversion)
> Air stagnation advisory
Buffer zones
> Application method
> Application rate from lookup table on label (Ibs ai/acre)
> Application block size from lookup table on label (acres)
> Credits applied
> Buffer zone distance
> Description of areas in the buffer zone that are not under the control of the
   owner/operator of the application block
Respirators and other personal protective equipment (PPE) for handlers (handler task,
protective clothing, respirator type, respirator cartridge type, respirator cartridge replacement
schedule, eye protection, gloves,  other PPE)
Emergency procedures (evacuation routes, locations of telephones, contact information for
first responders, local/state/federal contacts, key personnel and emergency
procedures/responsibilities in case of an incident, equipment/tarp/seal failure, complaints or
elevated air concentration levels outside buffer zone suggesting potential problems, or other
emergencies).
Posting procedures (person(s) who will post signs, location of posting signs, procedures for
sign removal)
Site-specific response and management (if applicable)
> Fumigant site monitoring
   •   Description of who, when, where, and procedures for monitoring buffer zone
       perimeter
> Response information for neighbors
   •   List of residences, businesses, and neighboring property owners informed
   •   Name and phone number of person doing notification
   •   Method of providing the information
State and tribal lead agency notification (If state and/or tribal lead agency requires notice,
provide a list of contacts that were notified and date notified).
                                                                                  Ill

-------
ปปป Plan describing how communication will take place between applicator, land owner/operator,
   and other on-site handlers (e.g., tarp perforators/removers, irrigators) for complying with
   label requirements (e.g., buffer zone location, buffer zone start/stop times, timing of tarp
   cutting and removal, PPE).
   >  Name and phone number of persons contacted
   >  Date contacted
*ป* Authorized on-site personnel
   >  Names, addresses and phone numbers of all handlers
   >  Employer name, addresses, and phone numbers for all handlers
   >  Tasks that each handler is authorized and trained to perform
   >  Date of PPE training for each handler
   >  For handlers designated to wear respirators, respiratory protection is required (minimum
       of 2 handlers),  date of medical qualification to wear a respirator and date of fit testing for
       respirator.
ปปป Air monitoring plan
   >  For buffer zone monitoring:
       •   Name, address, and, phone number of handler to perform monitoring activities
       •   Location and timing of monitoring for the buffer zone
   >  For handlers without respiratory protection:
       •   If sensory irritation is  experienced, indicate whether operations will be ceased or
          operations will  continue with respiratory protection
       •   If intend to cease  operations when sensory irritation is experienced, provide the name,
          address, and phone number of the handler that will perform monitoring activities
          prior to operations resuming
   >  For handlers with respiratory protection:
       •   Representative  handler tasks to be monitored
       •   Monitoring equipment to be used and timing of monitoring
ปปป Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs)
   >  Description of applicable mandatory GAPs (registrants may also include optional GAPs)
   >  Measurements  and  documentation to ensure GAPs are achieved (e.g.,  measurement of
       soil and other site conditions)
ปปป Description of hazard communication. (The buffer zone around the application block has
   been posted in accordance with the label. Pesticide product labels and material safety data
   sheets are on-site and readily  available for employees to review.)
*ป* Record-keeping procedures (the owner/operator of the application block as well as the
   certified applicator must keep a signed copy of the site-specific FMP and  the post application
   summary for 2 years from the date of application)

       For situations where an initial FMP is developed and certain elements do not change for
multiple fumigation sites (e.g., applicator information, authorized on-site personnel, record
keeping procedures, emergency procedures) only elements that have changed need to be updated
in the site-specific FMP provided the following:


   •   The certified applicator supervising the application has verified that those elements are
       current and applicable to the application block before it is fumigated and has documented
       the verification in the site-specific FMP.
                                                                                     112

-------
   •   Recordkeeping requirements are followed for the entire FMP (including elements that do
       not change).

       Once the application begins, the certified applicator must make a copy of the FMP
available for viewing by handlers involved in the fumigation.  The certified applicator or the
owner/operator of the application block must provide a copy of the FMP to any federal, state,
tribal, or local enforcement personnel who request the FMP. In the case of an emergency, the
FMP must be made available when requested by federal/state/local emergency response and
enforcement personnel.

       Within 30 days of completing the application portion of the fumigation process, the
certified applicator supervising the application must complete  a post fumigation application
summary that describes any deviations from the FMP that have occurred, measurements taken to
comply with GAPs as well as any complaints and/or incidents that have been reported to
him/her.

   Specifically the Post-Application Summary must contain the following elements:

*ป* Actual date of the application,  application rate, and size of application block fumigated
*ป* Summary of weather conditions on the day of the application and during the 48-hour period
   following the fumigant application
ปปป Soil temperature measurement (if air temperatures were above 100 degrees F in any of the 3
   days prior to the application)
*ป* Tarp damage and repair information (if applicable)
   >  Location and size of tarp damage
   >  Description of tarp/tarp seal/tarp equipment failure
   >  Date and time of tarp repair
*ป* Tarp removal details (if applicable)
   >  Description of tarp removal (if different than in the FMP)
   >  Date tarps were cut
   >  Date tarps were removed
ปปป Complaint  details (if applicable)
   >  Person filing complaint (e.g., on-site handler, person off-site)
   >  If off-site person, name, address, and phone number of person filing complaint
   >  Description of control measures or emergency procedures followed after complaint
*ป* Description of incidents, equipment failure, or other emergency and emergency procedures
   followed (if applicable)
ปปป Details of elevated air concentrations monitored on-site (if applicable)
   >  Location of elevated air concentration levels
   >  Description of control measures or emergency procedures followed
   >  Air monitoring results
       •  When sensory irritation experienced:
          •   Date and time of sensory irritation
          •   Handler task/activity
          •   Handler location where irritation was observed
                                                                                     113

-------
          •   Resulting action (e.g., cease operations, continue operations with respiratory
              protection)
       •  When using a direct read instrument:
          •   Sample date and time
          •   Handler task/activity
          •   Handler location
          •   Air concentration
          •   Sampling method
*ป* Date of sign removal
ปซป Any deviations from the FMP

       In addition to recordkeeping requirements from 7 CFR part 110 "Recordkeeping
Requirements for Certified Applicators of Federally Restricted Use Pesticides," this decision
requires that both the applicator and owner/operator of the application block keep a signed copy
of the site-specific FMPs and the post-application summary record for 2 years from the date of
application.

       Applicators and other stakeholders have the flexibility to use EPA's template (Appendix
E), prepare their own FMPs templates, or use other commercially available software with certain
elements listed above in check-list and/or fill in the blank format.  Below are examples of other
FMP templates available on the internet for structural fumigations that may be useful to users
when developing FMPs for methyl bromide soil applications:

   •   http ://www. cardinalproproducts. com/Mi sc/FMP%20 Version%203. pdf
   •   http://www.pestcon.com/techlibrary/fum mgmt_plan.doc
   •   http://www.agr.state.ne.us/division/bpi/pes/fumi gation_plan.pdf
   •   http://www.agr.state.ne.us/division/bpi/pes/fumi gation_plan2.pdf
   •   http ://nmdaweb .nmsu. edu/pesticides/Management%20Plans%20Required%20for%20Fu
       migations.html

The Agency has provided a template in Appendix E on page 156.  This template is specific for
methyl bromide. A chloropicrin template will be provided at a later date.

                              3.  Site Specific Management and Response

       EPA believes measures for ensuring preparedness for situations when accidents or
emergencies occur are an important part of the suite of measures necessary to address risks posed
by fumigants.  Therefore, EPA is requiring such measures at the community level in the form of
educational materials for first responders, and measures for specific sites to ensure early
detection and quick and appropriate response to situations as they arise.

       Although EPA believes buffers and other mitigation will prevent many future incidents, it
is likely that some incidents will still occur due to accidents, errors, and/or unforeseen weather
conditions such as diurnal inversions. Early detection and appropriate response to accidental
chemical releases is an effective means of reducing risk, as well as addressing the source of the
release. Reducing risks associated with incidents that may occur in the future is a key part of
                                                                                     114

-------
EPA's soil fumigant decisions.  By combining buffers with GAPs, FMPs, and effective
emergency response, EPA is able to reach a "no unreasonable adverse effects" finding under
FIFRA.

       To ensure that appropriate response mechanisms are in place in the event of a fumigant
exposure incident, EPA is requiring that registrants provide training information, in the context
of their community outreach and education programs (see the Community Outreach and
Education Programs section on page 126) to first responders in high-fumigant use areas and
areas with significant interface between communities and fumigated fields. In addition, for
situations in which people, homes, or other structures are in proximity to buffer zones,
applicators must either monitor buffer zone perimeters or, alternatively, provide emergency
response information directly to neighbors.  Each element is discussed in more detail below.

                                     a.  First Responder Education

       EPA is requiring registrants through their community outreach and education programs
see Community Outreach and Education Programs section on page 126, to ensure that
emergency responders have  the training and information that they need to effectively identify
and respond to fumigant exposure incidents.  EPA believes this will help ensure, in the case of a
fumigant accident or incident that first responders recognize the exposure as fumigant related
and respond appropriately.

                                     b.  Emergency Preparedness and Response

Emergency Preparedness and Response Considerations for the 2008 RED

       Prior to the 2008 RED EPA received comments from many stakeholders about the
Agency's emergency preparedness and response option.  Users have commented that notification
is burdensome and that it is unnecessary if buffer zones are also required. However, community
groups have commented on the importance of bystanders being informed when fumigations are
occurring, since this group of pesticides, compared to other pesticides, has a greater potential to
move off-site and affect people not involved in the application.  State regulators have different
views on this  requirement. Some support the sharing of information with neighbors, and some
states have notification requirements for fumigations with certain products or for certain
application methods. In addition, some states require notification to chemically sensitive
individuals in proximity to pesticide applications.  Others also had concerns about the
enforceability of this type of measure and the possible burden on the states to enforce a
notification requirement.

       California currently requires notification of persons within 300 feet of a methyl bromide
buffer zone.  California strawberry growers consider the 300 foot notification area for methyl
bromide applications to be an extension of the buffer zone.  In areas where a large number of
people would need to be notified about a planned methyl  bromide application,  strawberry
growers indicated that they would rather not use methyl bromide because some communities
could mobilize to prevent the fumigation from taking place. Some stakeholders also commented
that it would be protective and less burdensome if EPA required the user to monitor fumigant air
                                                                                    115

-------
concentrations at the edge of the buffer for 24 hours after the application to ensure the fumigant
does not move beyond the buffer at concentrations that exceed EPA's level of concern. If
concentrations of concern were detected, the user would be required to implement the emergency
response measures specified in the fumigant management plan.

       EPA has concluded that bystanders could take steps to protect themselves if they had
basic information about fumigations and the appropriate steps to take if they experienced
symptoms of exposure. In a number of fumigant incidents that have occurred, the magnitude and
severity of the incident could have been significantly reduced if people had such information.
Similarly, having on-site monitoring will enable site managers to take remedial action (i.e.,
activate the control plan in the FMP) to lower emissions sooner,  also resulting in fewer and less
severe exposures. And, if necessary, site managers would activate the emergency response
elements of the FMP.

       Providing communities with information about local chemical releases is an important
part of emergency preparedness programs and is recognized as an effective means of addressing
risk at the local level.  Some states, like Florida and Wisconsin, have requirements for providing
information to chemically-sensitive individuals about chemicals  used nearby so they can take
steps to protect themselves from potentially harmful exposures (see http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pi004
and http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/atcp/atcp029.pdf). The requirements in Florida do not
apply to agricultural chemical applications. Wisconsin also requires fumigators applying metam
sodium products through chemigation to provide written notice to the county public health
agency and to every individual or household within 1A miles of the chemigation application site
(see http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/atcp/atcp030.pdf). EPA agrees that information about
how to recognize and address exposures can help citizens reduce potential risk.

       EPA understands that difficult challenges exist when agricultural land borders urban or
suburban communities. While EPA's decisions for the fumigants will not alleviate challenges
that already exist, EPA is allowing options for ensuring emergency preparedness in an effort to
lessen potential impact on growers, while maintaining the Agency's protection goals.

       EPA is not requiring a specific method of providing the information to neighbors, but
rather that it be done in a way that effectively communicates, in a manner the recipients will
understand.  Some methods may not result in documentation that would be retained.  To address
concerns about enforcement, EPA is requiring that information on how and when the emergency
response information was delivered, and to whom, be included in the FMP.

Emergency Preparedness and Response Revisions

       To reduce risks to people who may be near a buffer zone (e.g., at their home or working
in a nearby field) in the July 2008 RED EPA required applicators to either monitor buffer zone
perimeters or, alternatively, provide emergency response information directly to neighbors. This
measure is intended to ensure protection in places people may be found.  Whether measures are
required depends on the size of the buffer zone and how close land, e.g., residential properties
and businesses, not under the control of the owner/operator of the application block may be to
the buffer zone.
                                                                                     116

-------
       The Agency received many comments about the Emergency Preparedness and Response
requirements that suggested the requirements were too complex and confusing.  To address these
concerns, EPA has revised the structure and content of the requirements in the amended RED to
improve clarity.  As was outlined in the 2008 RED, it is important to note that site-specific
Emergency Preparedness and Response measures are only required if there are people, homes, or
businesses within a certain specified distance from the edge of the buffer zone.

       Some comments were received that questioned the rationale behind scaling the
Emergency Preparedness and Response measures. EPA believes that scaling the size of the
Emergency Preparedness and Response area will be protective. Generally the larger the buffer
distance, the higher the application rate or the size of the treated area, which translates to a
greater total amount of fumigant being applied and potentially higher exposure in the area
surrounding the application block. The buffer distances for triggering the Emergency
Preparedness and Response requirements are scaled to allow the amount of fumigant used (a
surrogate for potential exposure) to determine the applicable distance for implementing this
requirement. When the area is scaled to the size of the buffer, small buffers which generally
result from applications to small areas, at low application rates, and/or using low-emission
application techniques, will have small or no areas to monitor or inform, while larger
applications will have larger areas to monitor or inform. In addition, to create additional
incentive to achieve the smallest buffer possible, the EPA has included an exception for
application blocks so fields with the smallest required buffer (25 feet) would not be subject to
this requirement, since they are most likely using lower application rates, applying to smaller
areas, and/or using lower-emission application methods. Based on changes to the buffer zone
section regarding overlapping buffer zones, any buffer zone that overlaps with another buffer
zone must use the maximum  distance in the Emergency Preparedness and Response measures to
determine if monitoring or providing information to neighbors is needed.  None  of the other
distances have changed.

       Many stakeholders also expressed concern over the potential burden the 2008 RED
requirements may have on applicators and growers.  Specifically,  the frequency  and cost of
monitoring using sampling devices such as colorimetric tubes were of concern.  Several of these
comments noted concerns with the reliability of such devices at low concentrations.
Stakeholders felt the inherent warning properties of chloropicrin and MITC (i.e., eye irritation)
were better indicators of exposure than available devices.  Additionally, several  stakeholders
indicated that monitoring is most appropriate and effective at dawn and dusk, the times of day
when off-site movement of concentrations is most likely. Based on these comments, the Agency
has revised the requirement so monitoring is required during those periods when risk of high
concentrations of fumigant moving beyond buffers is greatest (i.e., at dawn and dusk).  As a
precaution, monitoring is also required once during the night  and during the day.

       Additionally,  as noted in the respiratory protection section of this document, due to
limitations on currently available technology for monitoring,  use of sampling devices such as
colorimetric tubes will not be required at this time. EPA believes that currently  available devices
are likely to be more reliable at fumigant concentrations which exceed EPA's action level
concentrations.  In  fact, some of these action levels are at or near the detection limits for the
                                                                                     117

-------
devices available for some fumigants. Additionally, colorimetric devices provide snapshot
measurements.  In conditions that are likely to be more static (e.g., monitoring an indoor
fumigation such as a grain mill or warehouse) it is likely that minute to minute changes in
conditions would not be as great as those anticipated for the more dynamic conditions
characteristic of outdoor field fumigation where exposure concentrations could shift because of
weather changes or stratification in soil conditions across a single field.

       While the Agency is modifying the procedures for monitoring buffer zones because of
technological limitations of currently available devices for chloropicrin that are not practical or
reliable for field use, the Agency does believe that quantitative air monitoring would enhance
safely if the appropriate technology were available as it is for methyl bromide. Some equipment
manufacturers have indicated interest in developing devices that would be more functional and
reliable for field fumigation applications (e.g., badge-type monitors). EPA encourages such
efforts and plans to stay abreast of developments and improvements in monitoring devices and
will consider this issue again in Registration Review or sooner should such monitors become
available in the short term. In the interim, buffer monitoring for chloropicrin will rely on sensory
indicators (e.g., eye and/or nasal irritation) to trigger a response instead of using tubes.

       Finally some comments provided suggestions to increase flexibility in how a grower may
comply with these measures as well as the effectiveness of the option to provide information to
neighbors.  EPA agrees with the importance of users being able to comply with these measures
and has modified some aspects of the requirements for this option to reduce the number of
notices an applicator may need to provide to a given neighbor. Also, to enhance the
effectiveness of the information neighbors would receive, EPA is requiring that the information
is provided close to when the application is planned to take place and early enough for neighbors
to make use of the information. EPA believes these modifications will  enhance  compliance and
effectiveness of the information if the emergency response criteria are met and applicators
exercise this option.

Emergency Preparedness and Response Requirements

   When are Emergency Preparedness and Response Measures Needed?
If the buffer zone is:

25 feet < Buffer < 100 feet
100 feet < Buffer < 200 feet
200 feet < Buffer < 300 feet
Buffer > 300 feet or buffer zones
overlap
AND





There is land (e.g. residential properties
and businesses) NOT in the control of the
property operator within this distance
from the edge of the buffer zone:
50 feet
100 feet
200 feet
300 feet
Then either monitoring of the buffer zone perimeter or providing emergency response
information to neighbors is required.
                                                                                     118

-------
       If the buffer zone is 25 feet, the minimum buffer zone size, then the Emergency
Preparedness and Response requirements are not applicable. Also, if all of the land within 300
feet of the edge of the buffer zone is under the control of the property operator, then no site
monitoring or informing neighbors would be required regardless of the size of the buffer zone.

Fumigation Site Monitoring

       EPA has determined that monitoring of the buffer zone perimeter for fumigants moving
beyond buffers is an effective approach to protecting bystanders. Under this approach, if the
person monitoring the buffer perimeter experiences eye or nasal irritation, an early sign of
exposure to concentrations that exceed the Agency's action level, then the emergency response
plan specified in the FMP must be implemented. If other problems occur, such as a tarp coming
loose, then the appropriate control plan must be activated. Because data indicate that peak
concentrations sometimes occur on the second day following applications, and the greatest
potential for concentrations outside buffers may be observed at dawn and dusk, EPA has decided
that this monitoring must be done at least three times per day during the full buffer zone period at
dawn, dusk, and once during the night and during the day, to ensure concentrations do not
exceed the action level which will be specified on product labels.

Specific requirements include:
•  Monitoring must take place beginning on the day the application begins until the buffer zone
   period expires.
•  Monitoring must be conducted by a certified applicator or someone under his/her supervision.
•  Monitoring for air concentrations above the action level for the fumigant, as determined by
   sensory irritation, must take place in areas between the buffer zone perimeter and residences
   or other occupied areas that trigger this requirement.
•  The person(s) monitoring for perceptible levels must start monitoring approximately 1 hour
   before sunset of the day the application begins and continue once during the night, once at 1
   hour after sunrise, and once during the day until the end of the buffer zone period.
•  If at any time the person(s) monitoring the air concentrations experiences sensory irritation,
   then the emergency response plan stated in the FMP must be immediately implemented.
•  If other problems occur, such as a tarp coming loose, then the appropriate control plan must
   be activated.
•  The location and any results of the air monitoring must be recorded in the FMP.

       While protective, this site monitoring might be burdensome for users fumigating in areas
with few people. Therefore, EPA is allowing users the alternative option of providing
emergency response information directly to neighbors.

Response Information for Neighbors

       As an alternative to on-site monitoring, the certified applicator supervising the fumigation
(or someone under his/her direct supervision) would need to ensure that residences, businesses,
or other sites that meet the criteria outlined below have been provided the required information
below at least one week prior to the fumigant application in a specified field.  If after four weeks,
the fumigation has not yet taken place, the information must be delivered again.
                                                                                     119

-------
          •  Information that must be provided includes:
             o   The general location of the application block,
             o   Fumigant(s) applied including the active ingredient, name of the fumigant
                   products(s), and the EPA Registration number,
             o   Contact information for the applicator and property owner/operator,
             o   Time period in which the fumigation is planned to take place (must not range
                 more than 4 weeks),
             o   Early signs and symptoms of exposure to the fumigant(s) applied, what to do, and
                 what emergency responder phone number to call who to call if you believe you
                 are being exposed (911 in most cases), and
             o   How to find additional information about fumigants.

          The method for distributing information to neighbors must be described in the FMP and
   may be accomplished through mail, telephone, door hangers, or through other methods that can
   be reasonably expected to effectively inform people at residences and businesses within the
   required distance from the edge of the buffer zone.

To clarify this measure, the following example is provided:

   •   IF the buffer zone is 125 feet, then these requirements apply to residences within 100 feet of
       the buffer zone. Either the applicator must monitor the area between the dotted house and
       the buffer zone or residents of the dotted house must be provided emergency response
       information.
   •   The location of the cross-hatched house would not prompt any action.
                                                                                       120

-------
Figure 7. Example Site Map for Informing Neighbors
          If there are no residences or other occupied structures within 300 feet of the edge of the
   buffer zone, or if the buffer distance is the minimum of 25 feet, neither site monitoring nor
   providing information to neighbors is required.

                                  4.  Notice to State Lead Agencies

          Ensuring fumigant users understand and comply with the new label requirements is an
   important component of the fumigant risk mitigation package since these requirements are
   designed to mitigate risks of concern for bystanders, handlers, and workers.  Knowledge of the
   location and timing of fumigant applications allows enforcement officials to focus their
   compliance assistance and inspection efforts around periods when, and places where,
   fumigations are expected to occur. Therefore, in the July 2008 RED, the Agency required written
   notification of the appropriate state or tribal lead agency prior to fumigant applications.

          Following publication of the July 2008 REDs, the Agency received feedback from some
   states that were interested in receiving the notice because it would enhance their ability to
   provide technical assistance and assure compliance. However, the Agency also received
   comments from states that were concerned about the notification requirement largely due to
   resource constraints. Some states also indicated that they are already well-informed about when
   and where fumigations take place, and receiving specific notice of applications would create a
   paperwork burden  rather than aid their compliance assistance and assurance  programs. Some
   states recommended that, in lieu of receiving notice of fumigations, states could modify their
   cooperative agreements with EPA to incorporate specific  strategies for assuring compliance with
   the new fumigant labels. States also suggested that rather than providing notice directly to states,
   fumigators could enter application information into a registrant-developed and maintained
                                                                                        121

-------
database.  They suggested this would be an appropriate mechanism because it would standardize
and streamline the process for applicators to provide the required information, and states could
access and utilize information more quickly, with greater ease, and using fewer state resources.

       Based on consideration of public comments, the Agency still believes that compliance
assistance and assurance is a critical component of the soil fumigant mitigation. EPA agrees that
some states already have mechanisms in place to provide them with information needed to assist
and assure compliance with new fumigant requirements, but other states are in need of additional
information to accomplish this objective. The Agency also believes that all states in which
fumigants are used will need to modify their cooperative agreements, to some extent, to
incorporate strategies for compliance assistance and assurance to aid the transition from current
labels to labels that reflect the new mitigation.

       While the Agency will continue to work with all state and tribal lead agencies on efficient
ways to obtain the information needed to plan and implement  compliance assistance and
assurance activities, the Agency is currently retaining the notification requirement only for state
and tribal  lead agencies that choose to be notified of fumigant applications.  The Agency plans
to provide a website listing these  state and tribal lead agencies, and also how and when  these
agencies want applicators to provide to them the following information:

          o   Applicator and  property owner/operator contact information (name, telephone
              number, and applicator license number)
          o   Location of the application block(s)
          o   Name of fumigant(s) products(s) applied including EPA Registration number
          o   Time period in which fumigation may occur

        The Agency will work with all states to amend  their cooperative agreements to  include
strategies  for compliance assistance and assurance, which will be particularly important over the
next several years as the new mitigation measures are implemented.  For  states that do not
choose to  be notified of fumigant applications, modification of their cooperative agreements
must include the methods these agencies will use to survey fumigation application periods and
locations.

                               5.  Soil Fumigation Training for Applicators and Other
                                  Handlers

       Soil fumigation is an inherently complex activity involving specialized equipment and
application techniques. Additionally, the mitigation measures required as part of these  decisions
will introduce new requirements in the form of more detailed instructions and restrictions on soil
fumigations. Failure to adequately manage fumigant applications increases risks to handlers
involved in the fumigation, nearby workers, and other bystanders. Incident data show that a
number of fumigant incidents are the result of misapplications, failure to follow label
requirements and other safety precautions, and other errors on the part  of fumigant applicators.
Although  states have certification programs, some of which include a specific category  or
subcategory for soil fumigation, there currently is not a consistent standard across states and
regions  where soil fumigation is done.  Additionally, the federal certification program currently
                                                                                     122

-------
has no category for soil fumigation, and while EPA is considering the development of a category
for soil fumigation, the potential changes to the federal certification program and worker safety
regulations to include a soil fumigation category are not anticipated in the near future.

       EPA believes that training is an effective way to increase applicators' skill and
knowledge so they are better prepared to effectively manage the complexities and risks
associated with soil fumigation. Further, training is a means of ensuring fumigators are able to
understand and comply with revised fumigant labeling.  Therefore, EPA determined that training
designed to establish a national baseline for safe fumigant use, developed and implemented by
registrants, will help enhance fumigators' ability to adequately manage the complexities of soil
fumigation and enhance compliance with fumigant product labeling.  EPA also determined that
providing additional safety information to other fumigant handlers will help them understand and
adhere to practices that will help handlers protect themselves from risks of exposure.

Soil Fumigation Training Considerations

       In comments on fumigant risk management options, stakeholders were broadly
supportive  of additional training for applicators and handlers. During the Phase 5 and post-RED
comment periods, the majority of stakeholders, including growers, community groups, farm
workers, states, and registrants expressed strong support for increased training for applicators
and other handlers. Several comments noted that fumigant incidents affecting both fumigant
workers and bystanders could have been prevented or mitigated if applicators had better training
about correct practices and procedures.

       The Agency agrees that additional training for fumigant applicators and handlers will
help educate and inform these workers, thus decreasing the likelihood of both incidents and
noncompliance. EPA believes fumigant-specific training for applicators and additional training
information for handlers also will help reduce the magnitude and frequency of exposure
incidents and coupled with the other mitigation measures described in this  decision, training will
address risks of unreasonable adverse effects from the use of soil fumigants.

       It is important to note that training developed and provided by registrants as required by
this RED is separate and distinct from state certification programs. EPA encourages registrants,
in developing their training proposals, to work with states where their products are used to
identify opportunities to build on and complement state programs. However, the training
programs required as part of this decision are intended to be separate from  the state certification
process and will be developed and administered by registrants. Individual  state regulatory
agencies have the option of working with registrants on these activities, but are not  required to
do so.  It is important to note that some fumigant registrants have already developed soil
fumigant training programs that will serve as a good basis for this expanded effort.

       As noted above, several states have high-quality certification programs for fumigators
that include exams to test the competency of fumigators. EPA recognized  that for applicators to
become certified in those states, they must acquire the knowledge and skill necessary to pass the
exam.  But several stakeholders commented that training opportunities are  varied across the
country, and the scope and detail  of information provided in available training is not consistent.
                                                                                      123

-------
EPA is also concerned that information in existing programs will need to be substantially
updated as a result of new requirements associated with this decision and the label changes
which will implement it.  Although EPA is considering revisions to the federal certification and
training program in the future to include a soil fumigation category/subcategory, EPA believes
that registrants have access to resources and materials to best develop and deliver training in the
interim.

       EPA stresses that registrant training programs will be separate from the state certification
process and will be developed and administered by registrants in coordination with EPA. EPA
will, however, work with state organizations and training experts to explore opportunities for the
registrant programs to supplement any existing state programs to provide additional training
resources for fumigators working in those states. EPA will also work with state lead agencies
and extension programs to review training program proposals, the content for the programs and
materials, and proposed vehicles for delivery.

       During the post-RED comment period, the  Agency received comments from several
states asking that the applicator training requirements be coordinated with existing state
certification and training programs. The Agency agrees that for states that have existing soil
fumigation certification programs that address the  same training elements required of the
registrant soil fumigant training programs,  as outlined in this section of the RED addendum,
applicators should be able to complete the state certification program in lieu of completing the
registrant soil fumigation training. For the state soil fumigation certification program to qualify,
both EPA and the state must agree that the  program satisfies the applicator training elements
required in the RED.

       Pesticide labels will state that  "Before applying the product, the certified applicator
supervising that application must successfully complete, within the last 36 months, a chloropicrin
training program made available by the registrant.  The FMP (see details elsewhere on this label)
must document when and where the training program was completed.  This requirement for
registrant-provided applicator training does not supersede or fulfill state requirements, unless the
state has expressly acknowledged that the registrant training may substitute for state
requirements."

                                      a.  Training for Applicators Supervising
                                         Fumigations

       The July 2008 RED required registrants to  develop and implement training programs for
applicators in charge of soil fumigations on the proper use of and best management practices for
soil fumigants.  During the public comment period on the proposed mitigation measures and the
post-RED comment period, stakeholders were broadly supportive of additional training for
fumigators, but concerns were raised with regard to implementation of the training.  The Agency
also received comments from state representatives  and pesticide applicator training
organizations, such as the Association of American Pesticide Control Operators, American
Association of Pesticide Safety Educators,  and Certification & Training Assessment Group,
expressing concern over EPA's decision to implement the training via labeling and raising
questions over compliance and state enforcement of such a requirement and the potential for
                                                                                      124

-------
conflict or redundancy with state certification and training programs. Various stakeholders
recommended that, rather than a label-mandated training requirement, the Agency, instead,
should require registrants to develop and implement training for soil fumigant applicators as a
condition of registration.

       The Agency's goal in requiring soil fumigation training for applicators is to ensure that
all applicators in charge of soil fumigations understand the safe use of soil fumigants and in how
to apply products in compliance with new product labeling, including provision required by the
RED. Given the unique properties of soil fumigants and their application and safety procedures
compared with other agricultural and non-agricultural pest control practices, the inherent
complexities involved in soil fumigant applications, and the additional complexities that will
arise with the implementation of the REDs, the Agency feels that additional training, beyond that
available currently, will be needed. The states that currently have certification programs that
include soil fumigation categories will not have requirements pertaining to the new mitigation
and their programs will need to be modified. EPA agrees that making the required training
programs a condition of registration is an important means of ensuring that such training is
ultimately developed and implemented.  However, it would not ensure that all individuals in
charge of soil fumigant applications avail themselves of the training.  The Agency believes that
making successful completion of the training a condition of use is also important to achieve this
goal.  Therefore, EPA has decided that development and delivery of training will be included in
the DCI that accompanies this amended RED and successful completion of the  training will
remain a condition of use.

       Each registrant must develop and implement training programs for applicators in charge
of soil fumigations on the proper use of and best practices for soil fumigants. In addition,
registrants will be required to submit proposals for these programs as data requirements that will
accompany this RED.  EPA will review each program and determine whether it adequately
addresses the  requirements specified in the DCI. The proposal must address, among other
elements, both the content and the format for delivering training. The Agency acknowledges the
value of hands-on training in the field, but recognizes that may not be feasible in all instances.
The Agency welcomes and is actively seeking participation from state lead agencies and
extension programs  in the evaluation of the registrant training proposals and materials that are
submitted.

       The training programs must address, at a minimum, the following elements: (1) how to
correctly apply the fumigant, including how to comply with new label requirements; (2) how to
protect handlers and bystanders; (3) how to determine buffer zone distances; (4) how to develop
a FMP and complete the post-fumigation application summary; (5) how to determine when
weather and other site-specific factors are not favorable for fumigant application; and (6) how to
comply with required GAPs and how to document compliance with GAPs in the FMP. In
addition, based on comments received during the post-RED comment period, the Agency is
adding a seventh training element—training programs must also include information on how to
develop and implement emergency response plans—to ensure that applicators are prepared in the
event that a problem develops during or shortly after the fumigant application.  EPA is also
requiring registrants to incorporate a mechanism for evaluating the effectiveness of their training
                                                                                     125

-------
programs at conveying the required information to participants and for determining whether
participants have successfully completed the training program.

       To assist states in enforcing these training requirements, the registrants will be required to
(1) develop a database to track which certified applicators have successfully completed the
training, (2) make this database available to state and/or federal enforcement entities upon
request, and (3) provide documentation (e.g., a card) to each training participant who
successfully completes the training.  This documentation shall include the applicator's name,
address, license number, and the date of completion. Applicators must provide to federal, state,
or local enforcement personnel, upon request, this documentation that verifies successful
completion of the appropriate training program(s).

       In the July 2008 RED, the Agency required applicators supervising fumigations to
complete the training annually. During the post-RED public comment period, the Agency
received comments from various stakeholders indicating that the substance and content of
training would not change  significantly from year to year, and that an annual training
requirement for applicators would be excessive and  burdensome to both applicators and
registrants and was unnecessary.  As a result of these comments, the Agency has decided to
require applicators supervising fumigations to have  successfully completed the program within
the preceding 36 months and to document when and where the training program was completed
in their FMPs. This may be accomplished, for example, by  simply attaching a copy of the
training documentation provided by the registrant to the FMP.  The registrant also must be able
to provide to federal, state, or local  enforcement personnel, upon request, the names, addresses,
and certified applicator license numbers of persons who successfully completed the training
program, as well as the date of completion.

       Based on questions received during the post-RED comment period, the Agency is
clarifying that the applicator training requirements are active ingredient-specific rather than
product-specific. That is, applicators who apply more than one of the soil fumigant active
ingredients (i.e., methyl bromide, chloropicrin, metam sodium/potassium, or dazomet) will be
required to complete training for each soil fumigant active ingredient they apply, but not for each
different product containing the same active ingredient(s). Further, EPA encourages the soil
fumigant registrants to jointly develop  programs to reduce the redundancy of this training
requirement.  For example, a substantial portion of the required training is universal to all soil
fumigants.  Therefore modules addressing the information common to all could be generic and
each fumigator would participate in those modules, while separate modules addressing active
ingredient-specific content could be provided to those fumigators supervising applications with
those active ingredients only.  Documentation provided to trainees could indicate the active
ingredient modules completed. While EPA sees efficiencies in such an approach, it will be the
registrants' choice as to how they will comply with the requirement to develop and implement
training programs.

                                      b.  Training Materials for Handlers

       EPA is requiring registrants to prepare and disseminate training information and
materials for other fumigant handlers, i.e., those working under the supervision of the certified
                                                                                     126

-------
applicator in charge of fumigations. The Agency is requiring registrants to submit proposals for
these materials through the data call-ins that will accompany this RED. EPA will review these
materials to determine whether they adequately address the requirements specified in the DCI.
The Agency welcomes and is actively seeking participation from state lead agencies and
extension programs in the evaluation of these handler training materials.

       The training materials must address, at minimum, the following elements: (1) what
fumigants are and how they work, (2) safe application and handling of soil fumigants, (3) air
monitoring and respiratory protection requirements for handlers, (4) early signs and symptoms of
exposure, (5) appropriate steps  to take to mitigate exposures, (6) what to do in case of an
emergency, and (7) how to report incidents. Registrants must provide this training information
through channels open to the public (e.g., via  a website).  Pesticide labels will require that
applicators supervising fumigations provide this training information to handlers under their
supervision before they perform any fumigant handling task, or they must ensure that handlers
have been provided the required information within the preceding 12 months.  The label will also
require that the training information be provided in a manner that the handler can understand.
Applicators supervising fumigations must ensure the FMP includes how and when the required
training information was provided to the handlers under their supervision.  The following
language must be added to labels.

       "The certified applicator must provide fumigant safe handling information to each
       handler involved in the  application in a manner that they can understand prior to
       performing any fumigant handling task or confirm that each handler participating in the
       application has received fumigant safe handling information in the past 12 months."

       During the post-RED comment period, no substantive comments were received that
resulted in changes to the RED requirements for training materials for handlers, as a result, these
requirements are identical to those published in the July 2008 RED. However, during the
comment period, the Agency received comments indicating that there was some confusion about
whether fumigant handlers working under the supervision of the certified applicator would be
required to be trained, i.e., participate in a training program developed by the soil fumigant
registrant(s), or whether handlers would need only to be provided with training information and
materials. The Agency wishes  to clarify that handler participation in a registrant training
program, per se, is not required. As noted above, applicators supervising a soil fumigation will
be required to provide the registrant-developed, EPA-approved training information to handlers
in a manner that they can understand prior to performing any fumigant handling task, or
applicators must ensure that the handler has been provided the required information within the
proceeding 12 months.

                               6.  Community Outreach and Education Programs

       EPA understands from public comments, site visits, and stakeholder meetings, conducted
as part of the soil fumigant review, that there is often a fundamental lack of information and
communication within communities where soil fumigation occurs, which has raised health and
safety concerns among community members.  This lack of information and communication has
led to inappropriate responses in cases where  fumigants have moved off-site and into
                                                                                     127

-------
communities. This also has led in some cases to unwarranted concern and anxiety among
communities about the risks associated with the use of fumigants. The Agency believes that
outreach and education to communities where soil fumigation occurs is an important component
of the overall package of measures to address bystander risk. This outreach and education will
address the risk of acute bystander exposure by educating community members in high-use areas
about buffer zones and their characteristics and purpose; the importance of not entering these
zones; how to recognize early signs of fumigant exposure, and how to respond appropriately in
case of an incident. The first responder education discussed in the First Responder Education
section on page 114 is a significant part of this program.

       In the July 2008 RED, the Agency required registrants to develop and implement
community outreach and education programs to address these needs.  At a minimum, these
programs were to include the following elements: (1) what soil fumigants are and how they
work, (2) what buffer zones are, (3) early signs and symptoms of exposure, (4) appropriate steps
to take to mitigate exposures, (5) what to do in case of an  emergency, and (6) how to report an
incident as well as a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of these programs. Few details on how
the programs would be implemented were provided in the RED.  Rather, during the post-RED
comment period, the Agency sought feedback from the registrants and other stakeholders on how
best to design and target programs to community members in high-use areas. The Agency
encouraged the registrants to work with existing community resources, such as community
health networks, for disseminating information and implementing community outreach
programs.

       During the post-RED comment period, the Agency received some comments from
stakeholders that suggested that having registrants develop and implement a community outreach
and education program is unnecessary and likely to needlessly raise heath and safety concerns
among community members, and such a requirement could draw scarce resources from other
registrant stewardship efforts.  As noted previously, the Agency believes that providing basic
information about soil fumigants and buffer zones as well as information on what to do in the
event that an incident occurs to communities in high fumigant use areas is an important
component of the overall package of risk mitigation measures to address bystander risk.  EPA's
community outreach requirements do not preclude other voluntary stewardship  programs or
activities targeted to community members or the applicator/grower community, but rather are
meant to help ensure that community members in high fumigant usage areas are informed about
soil fumigant safety and better able to respond appropriately if an incident were to occur.

       Few recommendations  and no specific proposals for these programs were received  during
the post-RED comment period. Therefore, the Agency is  identifying minimum requirements that
each registrant must fulfill when developing its community outreach programs in response to a
DCI that will be issued. The Agency remains open to considering additional registrant outreach
program elements that address the same needs and goals as the program requirements described
below in their response to the DCI.  EPA notes that registrants have suggested that programs
focusing on specific target audiences, such as staff and managers of migrant healthcare and
daycare facilities, prison officials, and school nurses and principals, may be more effective in
providing useful information in a meaningful way than broadcast messages to entire
communities. Registrants have indicated that they will provide proposals for such programs in
                                                                                   128

-------
late May 2009.  EPA looks forward to these proposals and will consider the extent to which they
contribute to meeting the goals of the community outreach programs required by the RED.

       In the absence of acceptable alternative proposals, registrants will be required to provide
information to communities in the form of monthly public service announcements (PSAs)
distributed via local radio stations or newspapers in high-use fumigant areas during the
fumigation season(s) in those areas.  As per the requirements included in the July 2008 RED, at a
minimum, registrants must include the following information in their community outreach
messages: (1) what soil fumigants are and how they work, (2) what buffer zones are, (3) early
signs and symptoms of exposure to  chloropicrin, (4) appropriate steps to take to mitigate
exposures to chloropicrin, (5) what to do in case of an emergency, and (6) how to report an
incident as well as a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of these programs. Based on
comments, EPA has decided that information on the meaning of posted warning signs is also
important to help ensure the signs convey the needed information about the importance of
staying out of buffer zones and treated areas.

       The Agency is requiring registrants to implement their outreach programs in communities
located in areas where there is high  soil fumigant use. For the purposes of the RED amendment,
high-use areas are considered at the county level. To identify these areas, the Agency is
proposing a process for identifying high-use areas in the subsection following the section on
information for first responders. However, the Agency  is willing to consider alternative
proposals for identifying high soil fumigant-use areas, based on additional data sources and
alternate approaches identified by the registrant(s) and other stakeholders.

Information for First Responders

       In the July 2008 RED, the Agency required registrants to ensure that first responders in
areas with high fumigant usage have the training and information that they need to effectively
identify and respond to fumigant  exposure incidents.  Specifically, the registrants were required
to provide information and/or training to first responders,  which at a minimum, included the
following elements: (1) how to recognize the early signs and symptoms of fumigant exposure,
(2) how to treat fumigant exposures, and (3) how fumigant exposure differs from other pesticide
exposure. In addition, the registrants were required to provide material safety data sheets to first
responders for both the fumigant  applied. Few details on  how the education programs would be
implemented were provided in the RED. Rather, during the post-RED comment period, the
Agency sought feedback from the registrants and other stakeholders on how best to design and
target programs to first responders in high-use areas.  The Agency encouraged the registrants to
work with state and local emergency response coordinators to identify needs and opportunities to
supplement any information already included in state and local training for first responders about
soil fumigants specifically.

       During the post-RED comment period, the Agency received comments from several
registrants indicating that rather than requiring registrants to implement face-to-face training
programs, the Agency should consider allowing the required first responder training information
to be conveyed via written materials to state and local emergency response agencies, which
would provide these agencies the ability to incorporate this information into their existing
                                                                                     129

-------
training programs. Other comments indicated that even if training programs were developed, it
would be difficult to ensure participation of first responders. The Agency's goal for the first
responder training program is to ensure that first responders in high use fumigant areas have
access to the information that they need to be able to quickly and effectively identify an exposure
that is fumigant related and respond appropriately. The Agency agrees that this goal can be met
by requiring the soil fumigant registrants to develop informational materials on the soil
fumigants and distribute this information to first responders (i.e., police, fire, rescue, emergency
medical services,  and others who respond to "911" calls) in high soil fumigant-use areas. This
would then provide the first responder entities the ability to incorporate this information into
their existing first responder training programs as they best see fit. This recommendation has
been incorporated into the RED amendments for the  soil fumigants.

       The Agency is willing to consider additional registrant proposals so long as they address
the same needs and achieve the same goals as the program requirements described below.  At a
minimum, registrants will be required to develop and disseminate chemical-specific soil
fumigant training materials to first responders i.e., police, fire, rescue,  emergency medical
services, and others who respond to "911" calls) operating in high fumigant-use areas.  As a data
requirement in the DCIs that will accompany the REDs, registrants must submit proposals
detailing how they will (1) identify the first responder entities in high soil fumigant-use areas to
which they will disseminate the training materials, and  (2) provide materials to the first
responders in these areas.  Additionally registrants must provide draft copies of the training
materials for EPA review and approval. As per the requirements included in the July 2008 RED,
at a minimum, the materials must convey the following information to first responders: (1) how
to recognize the early signs and symptoms of chloropicrin fumigant exposure, (2) how to treat
chloropicrin fumigant exposures, and (3) how chloropicrin fumigant exposures differ from other
pesticide exposures as well as (4) copies of material safety data sheet(s) for the fumigant applied.
Training materials can take a number of forms, including: brochures, fact sheets, CDs, videos,
web-based training materials, etc., as long as these materials incorporate, at a minimum, the
information requirements identified above.

       The Agency is requiring registrants to target their first responder training information to
those communities located in high soil fumigant-use  areas.  For the purposes of the RED, high-
use areas are considered at the county level. To identify these areas, the Agency is proposing the
process described below. However, the Agency is willing to consider  alternative proposals in the
registrants' response to the DCIs for identifying and targeting high-use soil fumigant areas, based
on additional data sources and alternate approaches identified by the registrant(s).

Process for Identifying High-Use Fumigant Areas:

       Identifying high-use areas for chloropicrin is  a two-step process because reliable
fumigant use data is not available at the county level from either publicly available data sources
or EPA proprietary data sources.  First, the states with high use of chloropicrin have been
identified by the Agency using EPA proprietary data. [Although state-level data are available
from USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), EPA proprietary data are more
robust.] Second, the high-use counties  for chloropicrin  within those states must be identified.
                                                                                      130

-------
The second step, identifying high-use counties, will be the registrant's responsibility, using the
process defined below.

Step 1: Identifying States with High Use of Chloropicrin: The Agency is defining states with
high usage of chloropicrin as those states where, on average, more than 100,000 Ibs of
chloropicrin or methyl bromide. (Since chloropicrin is often used with methyl bromide for pre-
plant soil uses, the states with greater than 100,000 Ib of methyl bromide applied annually are
also included in the list.)  To determine those states where, on average, more than 100,000 Ibs of
chloropicrin or methyl bromide have been applied annually, the Agency obtained data on the
average number of pounds of both chloropicrin and methyl bromide applied in all states across a
ten-year period (1999-2008) using EPA proprietary data. To view the Agency's analysis of this
data, please see the following memo, "Process for Defining High-Use Fumigation Areas at the
State and County Levels (DP# 364647)" May 14, 2009 and supporting documentation located in
the chloropicrin docket.  The states identified for chloropicrin and methyl bromide are
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, California, Florida, and
Michigan.

Step 2: Identifying Counties with High Use of Chloropicrin:  For each of the high-use states that
the Agency identified in Step 1, the registrants will be required to identify the counties where use
of chloropicrin may be high. Because county-level fumigant usage data is not publicly  available
and EPA proprietary data are not appropriate for this level of specificity,  crop acreage should be
used as a surrogate indicator for fumigant usage. Crop acreage can be obtained for major use
sites of chloropicrin from the publicly available 2007 USDA Census of Agriculture.  Crop
acreages for each of the major use sites for chloropicrin should be obtained for each the major
use sites for chloropicrin and then summed by county. All counties making up at least the top
90% of acreage in a state are considered high-use areas. Registrants will be required to target
each of these high-use counties for community outreach programs.

For the purposes of this analysis, the Agency defines a "major use site" as any crop that has more
than 5% crop treated annually or more than 1,000,000 Ib of chloropicrin applied annually. The
crops identified for chloropicrin are cantaloupes, peppers, squash, strawberries, sugar beets,
tobacco, tomatoes, and watermelons.

Example Identifying High-Use Fumigant Areas for Metam Sodium in California:

       To help explain the process for identifying high-use fumigant areas  for chloropicrin the
Agency is providing the following example, which identifies the high-use counties for the soil
fumigant, metam sodium, usage in California.

    •   Step 1: Identify States with High Use of Metam Sodium:
          o   Based on its analysis of proprietary data, the Agency has identified the following
              high-use states for metam sodium: California, Washington, Idaho, Oregon,
              Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Minnesota, North Carolina, Virginia, Arizona,
              Nevada, Georgia, Colorado, and North Dakota. This example will focus  only on
              identifying the counties in California with high use of metam sodium.  The same
              process would be applied to other high-use states.
                                                                                     131

-------
   •   Step 2: Identify the Counties in California with High Use of Metam Sodium:
          o   EPA has identified the following as the major use sites of metam
              sodium/potassium: artichokes, cabbage, cantaloupes, carrots, onions, peanuts,
              peppers, potatoes, spinach, squash, tomatoes, and watermelons.
          o   Using the 2007 USDA Census of Agriculture, registrants will need to obtain
              harvested crop acreage data for each of the 12 major use sites for metam sodium
              identified above for each county in California. An example of this analysis is
              provided as a supporting document to the Agency's  memo "Process for Defining
              High-Use Fumigation Areas at the State and County Levels (DP# 364647)" May
              14, 2009, which is located in the chloropicrin at docket.
          o   Registrants will then need to sum the total number of combined crop acres for
              these major use sites for each county in California and then select all the counties
              that make up at least the top 90% of acreage in the county. An example of this
              analysis is also provided as a supporting document to the Agency's memo
              "Process for Defining High-Use Fumigation Areas at the State and County Levels
              (DP# 364647)" May 14, 2009, which is located in the chloropicrin at docket.

       As with the training for fumigant applicators and handlers and the community outreach
program that the Agency is requiring, the first responder training requirements are intended to be
part of the registrants'  long-term product stewardship.  The Agency encourages registrants to
work with appropriate state emergency response entities in these areas to ensure that the
appropriate first responder entities are being targeted and that the information being provided to
first responders is both useful and presented appropriately.

                       iii.  Environmental Risk Mitigation

       In the July 2008 RED, EPA addressed the concerns for both aquatic and terrestrial risks
which are mentioned in Section III.C on page 24. The July 2008 RED also stated that EPA
believed that mitigation measures detailed in the Human Health Risk Mitigation Section would
also reduce ecological  risks. The Agency stated that although buffer zones and GAPs do not
directly reduce the potential risk to ecological organisms, these mitigation measures do provide
an incentive to reduce  fumigant application rates and individual treatment areas which in turn
will contribute to lower exposure and risks for non-target organisms.

       The July 2008 RED discussed EPA's concern regarding chloropicrin's potential to leach
into ground and surface water.  Since chloropicrin has been detected in ground water, the Label
Review Manual indicates that the following language should be added to chloropicrin labels,
"Chloropicrin is known to leach through soil into ground water under certain conditions  as a
result of label use.  This chemical may leach into ground water if used in areas where soils are
permeable, particularly where the water table is  shallow." In the July 2008 RED, EPA deviated
from the Label Review Manual language because dissipation of chloropicrin in aquatic
environments is predominately dependent on volatilization and to a lesser extent on leaching and
degradation.  In addition, as discussed in the Human Health Risk Mitigation section managing
soil moisture is an important factor that may be used to reduce peak emissions.  Due to the
importance of adequate soil moisture as described in the GAP section and the knowledge that
                                                                                    132

-------
volatilization is chloropicrin's most important route of dissipation, EPA required the following
language in the July 2008 RED taking these factors into consideration, "While chloropicrin has
certain properties and characteristics in common with chemicals that have been detected in
groundwater (chloropicrin is highly soluble in water and has low adsorption to soil),
volatilization is this chemical's most important route of dissipation."

       The Agency still believes that a deviation from the recommended language in the Label
Review Manual is necessary due to the importance of soil moisture and chloropicrin's volatility.
While the Agency believes that volatilization is this chemical's most important route of
dissipation, it is being removed from the ground water statement because volatilization is
addressed in other areas of the mitigation package. The new language will state, "Chloropicrin
has certain properties and characteristics in common with chemicals that have been detected in
groundwater (chloropicrin is highly soluble in water and has low adsorption to soil)."

       EPA also discussed, in the July 2008 RED, the potential for chloropicrin to leach into
ground water when tarps are used in broadcast applications.  Falling temperatures typically found
in the late afternoon and evening would not promote dissipation of remaining chloropicrin under
the perforated tarp and rainfall may cause remaining chloropicrin under the perforated tarp to
leach into ground water. For raised bed applications, rainfall is not a factor since planting occurs
with the tarp in place and perforation and/or tarp removal occurs  after chloropicrin has
dissipated.  In the 2008 RED, EPA required that tarps for broadcast applications must be
perforated before noon  and only when rainfall is not expected within 12 hours.  The Agency is
keeping this requirement in the amended RED.  The language is included in the Tarp Perforation
and Removal section of this document on page 88.

       The July 2008 RED also discussed the potential for chloropicrin to leach into ground
water and surface water if a rainfall event occurs after an untarped application.  Chloropicrin
may impact surface water quality due to runoff of rain water. This is more likely for poorly
draining soils and soils  with shallow ground water. Chloropicrin triggers the following language
according to the Label Review Manual,
       "Chloropicrin is known to leach through soil into  ground water under certain conditions
       as a result of label use. This chemical may leach into ground water if used in areas where
       soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is shallow. Chloropicrin may also
       impact surface water quality due to runoff of rain  water.  This is especially true for poorly
       draining soils and soils with shallow ground water. This chemical is classified as having
       high potential for reaching surface water via runoff several days after application.
       Leaching and runoff of this product will be reduced by avoiding applications when
       rainfall is forecasted to occur within 48 hours."
       The Agency modified this language in the July 2008 RED due to the importance of soil
moisture and chloropicrin's volatility. The Agency required the following  language in the July
2008 RED, "For untarped applications of chloropicrin, potential leaching into ground water and
runoff into surface water can be reduced by avoiding applications when heavy rainfall is
forecasted to occur within 24 hours."
       During the post-RED comment period commenters stated that the above July 2008 RED
language was not clear  or enforceable. EPA would like to clarify that the statement was meant to
                                                                                      133

-------
be advisory and not mandatory.  However in an effort to clarify the requirement the Agency has
revised the July 2008 RED language as follows, "For untarped applications, leaching, and runoff
may occur if there is heavy rainfall after soil fumigation."  This is more likely in areas with
poorly draining soils.  The revised statement is based on information presented in a 2007 article
by Zhang and Wang.17
       EPA received also comments from the CMTF during the post-RED comment period.
The comments have been addressed in the following documents:  "Further Response to Public
Comments on the 7/9/08 Completed Chloropicrin RED" (March 3, 2009) and "Evaluation of,
'Probabilistic Modeling of Chloropicrin Exposure to Aquatic Nontarget Organisms'" (March 3,
2009).
       In addition to the changes above, EPA is requiring several ecological fate and effect
studies to address data gaps identified in the ecological risk assessment. See Section V of this
document for the revised label statements and for details on the studies.

                 b.  Residential Structure Warning Agent Use Mitigation

       Details on chloropicrin's use as a warning agent prior to sulfuryl fluoride applications are
included in the Agency's revised human health risk assessment as listed in Section III.B of this
document.

       The Agency reviewed monitoring studies completed by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) of the  California Environmental Protection Agency.  These studies directly
monitored Chloropicrin. The results of these studies are below the Agency's level of concern for
bystanders.

                        i.  Occupational Risk Mitigation

                               1.  Respiratory Requirements

       When Chloropicrin is used as a warning agent prior to sulfuryl fluoride fumigations the
July 2008 RED required that handlers wear respiratory protection, and that each handler was
were fit tested, trained, and medically examined. The July 2008 RED, did not require
monitoring because the Agency did not anticipate that the level of Chloropicrin would exceed 1.5
ppm based on conservative estimates of labeled use rates.

       The Agency received comments requesting that this use be reviewed during the
Registration Review of sulfuryl fluoride, and  also that additional  mitigation for Chloropicrin was
not necessary for this use. Other commenters asked EPA to clarify the type of respiratory
protection needed for this use.

       Based on current data EPA is not changing the mitigation required in the July 2008 RED.
Respiratory protection is still required  and handlers must be fit-tested, trained and medically
17 Zhang, Y. and Wang, D .2007. Emission, distribution, and leaching of methyl isothiocyanate and Chloropicrin
under different surface containments. Chemosphere, 2007 Jun; 68(3): 445-454.
                                                                                     134

-------
examined.  The Agency has listed acceptable respiratory protection devices and cartridges in the
label table in Section V of this document.

                 c.  Chloropicrin Antimicrobial Use Mitigation

       For details on the chloropicrin human health risk assessment for antimicrobial uses,
please refer to the revised occupational and residential/bystander assessment described in Section
III.B of this document.

       The July 2008 RED required that the antimicrobial uses of chloropicrin are subject only
to the mitigation listed below.  The Agency is only making one change to the Air Concentration
section below to make the concentration level consistent with the 0.15 ppm level discussed in the
Respiratory Requirements section on page 82.  The rest of the mitigation remains the same as the
July 2008 RED.

                         i.  Bystander Risk Mitigation

       The revised risk assessment indicates the potential for acute bystander exposure to
chloropicrin when it is used for remedial wood treatment. The Agency believes that requiring
the following will reduce this potential below the Agency's level of concern:
    •  Plug the pre-drilled holes immediately after chloropicrin applications;
    •  Do not treat structures/beams indoors;  and
    •  Do not drill an application hole through seasoning checks to apply product. If the hole
       intersects a check, plug the hole and drill another. If more than 2 treatment holes
       intersect an internal void or rot pocket, redrill the holes farther up the pole into relatively
       solid wood.

                        ii.  Occupational Risk Mitigation

       The Agency's revised risk assessment indicates the potential for handler inhalation
during the transfer of chloropicrin into vials and during the pouring/injection of chloropicrin into
pre-drilled holes. To mitigate these risks, the Agency is requiring that applicators and handlers
wear a full  face tight-fitting or loose-fitting helmet or hood style NIOSH/MSHA approved
respirator at all times when handling  chloropicrin during the transfer of the product into vials and
during the pouring/injecting of chloropicrin into pre-drilled holes.  However, use of a respirator
is not being proposed for application  of the vials once they are filled.

                               1.  Air Concentration

       If a spill or leak were to occur, some of the current labels require respiratory protection if
air concentrations of chloropicrin exceed 0.3 ppm at any time, while others require respiratory
protection if the air concentrations exceed  0.1 ppm. To rectify these differences, the Agency is
requiring that unprotected persons not be permitted entry into a spill area or clean-up area until
the concentration of chloropicrin is measured with a device to be less than 0.15 ppm.

                               2.  Respiratory Requirements
                                                                                      135

-------
       Applicators and handlers that directly pour or inject chloropicrin into timbers or fill vials
must wear a full-face tight-fitting, or loose-fitting helmet or hood style NIOSH/MSHA approved
respirator when handling chloropicrin. Since the Agency is requiring a full-face respirator and
eyes are covered, and not a half-face respirator, all references to wearing goggles and/or full face
shields for this application use must be removed from the labels.

       Applicators and handlers that are involved in the vial application method are not required
to wear a respirator (as the vials are already filled and capped).  However, at least one air rescue
device (e.g., SCBA) and air-purifying respirators and cartridges for each handler must be
immediately available on-site in case of a spill or an emergency.

       In order to ensure that the respiratory protection EPA is assuming is being achieved for
this use, respiratory requirements for chloropicrin will include fit testing, respirator training, and
annual medical evaluation.  These requirements are  the same as detailed in the respiratory
protection section for pre-plant soil fumigation on page 87.
                                                                                       136

-------
          2.  Endocrine Disrupter Effects

       EPA is required under the FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening
program to determine whether certain substances (including all pesticide active and other
ingredients) "may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally
occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate. "
Following the recommendations of its Endocrine Disrupter Screening and Testing Advisory
Committee (EDSTAC), EPA determined that there were scientific bases for including, as part of
the program, androgen and thyroid hormone systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone
system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC's recommendation that the Program include evaluations of
potential effects in wildlife. When the appropriate screening and/or testing protocols being
considered under the Agency's Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP) have been
developed and vetted, chloropicrin may be subjected to additional screening and/or testing to
better characterize  effects related to endocrine disruption.

          3.  Endangered Species Considerations

       The Agency has completed an endangered species risk assessment of the potential effects
of chloropicrin on the Federally-listed threatened California red-legged frog. After completing
the analysis of the effects of chloropicrin on the California red-legged frog, the Agency
concluded that chloropicrin is "likely to adversely effect" this species.18  Following a Biological
Opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Agency may require additional mitigation.

       D. Conclusions

       The Agency has determined that products containing chloropicrin are eligible for
reregi strati on provided the risk mitigation measures outlined above are adopted and label
amendments are made to reflect these measures. Where labeling revisions are warranted,
specific language is set forth in the label table in Section V of this document.
18 http://www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/effects/redleg-frog/index.html#chloropicrin


                                                                                     137

-------
    V.    What Registrants Need to Do

       EPA recognizes that the extent of the mitigation needed for chloropicrin and the other
 soil fumigants will require continued coordination among state regulatory agencies, EPA,
 registrants, growers and other stakeholders to ensure that all provisions of the RED are
 understood, that data are developed and evaluated expeditiously, and that bystander and worker
 protection measures are implemented as soon as practicable.

       When the soil fumigant REDs were issued in July, 2008, EPA specifically requested
 comment on the mechanisms and timing of implementing the provisions of the REDs. After
 considering stakeholder comments largely focused on the challenges of implementing many new
 measures simultaneously, EPA has developed the following schedule:
 July 2008
 October 2008
 May 2009
 Mid 2009
 September 1, 2009
December, 2009
During 2009-10
 September 1, 2010
 2009-2012
 2013

 Labeling
Chloropicrin RED issued
Comment period closed
EPA responds to comments, amends RED as appropriate
EPA issues product and generic DCIs
Registrants must submit revised labels to EPA, reflecting phase one of
the mitigation measures as outlined in Table 2:  GAPs, rate reductions,
limitations on use sites, new handler protection measures, tarp cutting and
removal restrictions, extended worker re-entry restrictions, training
information for workers, and relevant portions of the FMP requirements.
EPA reviews/approves new labeling for 2010 use season
EPA works with registrants, states and stakeholders to develop and begin
implementation of first responder and community outreach, applicator
training, and compliance assistance and assurance measures.
Registrants must submit revised labels to EPA reflecting all remaining
mitigation measures outlined in Table 2 including:
applicator training, restrictions on applications near sensitive sites, buffer
zones, buffer  credits, buffer zone posting and buffer overlap prohibitions
and exceptions, and the full FMP requirements.
Registrants develop data per DCIs
EPA begins Registration Review for chloropicrin and other fumigants
       Registrants must submit labeling reflecting phase one mitigation measures by September
1, 2009. All measures will need to be reflected on labels submitted to EPA by September 1,
2010. Because of the relatively large amounts of product shipped under a single label, e.g., 50
gallon drums and railroad tank cars, changes to fumigant labeling can be adopted relatively
quickly. Therefore, the Agency anticipates that labeling approved late in 2009 would begin to
appear on products used for the 2010 fumigation season.
                                                                                    138

-------
       A. Manufacturing Use Products

             1. Additional Generic Data Requirements

       The generic data base supporting the reregi strati on of chloropicrin has been reviewed and
determined to be substantially complete. However, the data listed below are necessary to
confirm the reregi strati on eligibility decision documented in this RED.

             a. Data Requirements for Chloropicrin Soil Uses

                    i.  Human Health

                           1.  Toxicity

       There are no data requirements.

                           2.  Residue Chemistry

       There are no data requirements.

                           3.  Occupational and Residential Exposure

       See chart below.
OPPTS Guideline
Number
835.8100
835.8100
Data Requirement
Field volatility from soil, to determine
flux for modeling purposes for
applications using water seals
Field volatility from soil, to determine
flux for modeling purposes for untarp
bed shank applications.
Study type
ORE
ORE
835.8100 - Field volatility from soil

Volatility studies are required for chloropicrin's soil uses to determine flux for modeling
purposes.  These studies will allow the Agency determine appropriate buffer zones when water
seals are used. Data for the untarp bed shank application will enable a more refined inhalation
risk assessment to be completed for buffer zone determinations.
                                                                                    139

-------
              ii. Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects

                    1. Environmental Fate

       There are no data requirements.

                    2. Ecological Effects

       See chart below.
OPPTS Guideline
Number
Special Study
870.1300
850.1075
850.1010
850.1075
850.1025
850.1035
850.4225
850.4250
850.4400
850.3020
Data Requirement
Avian Acute Inhalation
Acute Inhalation Toxicity Test-Rat
Acute Fish Toxicity -bluegill and
rainbow trout
Acute Aquatic Invertebrate Toxicity
Acute Marine/Estuarine Fish
Acute Marine/Estuarine Mollusk

Acute Marine/Estuarine Shrimp

Seed Germination/Seedling Emergence
-Tier II.
Vegetative Vigor - Tier II.
Aquatic Plant Growth - Tier II

Honeybee Acute contact.
Study type
ECO
TOX
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
Special Study—Avian acute inhalation.

The current estimate of avian risk is based largely on the mammal assessment.  This study will
enable an inhalation risk assessment specific to birds.  Since the risk assessment for terrestrial
wildlife is focused on inhalation and this study will provide actual inhalation data rather than an
estimation based on acute oral data, it is of even higher priority than the acute oral study.

870.1300—Acute inhalation toxicity test - rat.

The existing study (MRID 45117902) is classified by HED as Acceptable/Non-guideline. The
7/25/00 DER and 1/31/05 Revised HED Human Health Risk Assessment state: "The LC50
calculated for the study should not be considered to be a true LC50 for chloropicrin. Due to the
sacrifice of all live animals at day 3 of the study instead of day 14, and too large of exposure
particle sizes, the true LC50 could be lower." Thus, a new study will enable an improved wild
mammal risk assessment with reduced uncertainty.
                                                                                    140

-------
850.1075—Acute Fish Toxicity - bluegill and rainbow trout.

The risk assessment is currently relying on supplemental data.  Flow-through studies with
measured  concentrations will greatly reduce uncertainty.

850.1010—Acute aquatic invertebrate toxicity.

The risk assessment is currently relying on supplemental data.  Flow-through studies with
measured  concentrations will greatly reduce uncertainty.

850.1075—Acute Marine/Estuarine Fish.

Given the use patterns of chloropicrin, marine/estuarine species could be exposed. This study
will enable a risk assessment specific for marine/estuarine species exposure.

850.1025—Acute Marine/Estuarine Mollusk.

Given the use patterns of chloropicrin, marine/estuarine species could be exposed. This study
will enable a risk assessment specific for marine/estuarine species exposure. It will also improve
certainty with the endangered species risk assessment, as this test species may be more
representative of endangered freshwater mussels than the freshwater Daphnia.

850.1035—Acute Marine/Estuarine Shrimp.

Given the use patterns of chloropicrin, marine/estuarine species could be exposed. This study
will enable a risk assessment specific for marine/estuarine species exposure. One toxicity value
is available from a study published in the scientific literature, but it is from a static study without
measured  concentrations.

850.4225—Seed Germination/Seedling Emergence - Tier II.

Chloropicrin is used in part due to its phytotoxicity at the application site, and a wide range of
open literature and other non-guideline studies indicate the potential for plant damage. This
study will enable the assessment of risk to non-target terrestrial plants off-site.

850.4250—Vegetative Vigor - Tier II.

Chloropicrin has at least some phytotoxicity on the treatment site, based on label and open
literature information.  This  study will enable the assessment of risk to non-target terrestrial
plants off-site.

850.4400—Aquatic Plant Growth - Tier II.

Chloropicrin has at least some phytotoxicity on the treatment site, based on label and open
literature information.  This  study will enable the assessment of risk to non-target aquatic plants
off-site.
                                                                                       141

-------
850.3020—Honeybee Acute contact.

This basic study is now being requested for virtually all outdoor uses, and will help determine
the need for, and specifics of, bee hazard labeling.

              iii. Other
OPPTS Guideline
Number
Special
Special
Special
Special
Data Requirement
Community Outreach and Education
Programs
Training for Applicators Supervising
Fumigations
Training Materials for Handlers
Buffer Zone Posting Signs
Study type
Special
Special
Special
Special
Special Study - Community Outreach and Education Programs

       The Agency is requiring registrants to develop and implement community outreach and
education programs, including programs for first responders, to address these needs. Community
outreach  and education programs must include the following elements, at minimum: (1) what
soil fumigants are and how they work, (2) what buffer zones are, (3) early signs and symptoms
of exposure, (4) appropriate steps to take to mitigate exposures, (5) what to do in case of an
emergency, (6) how to report an incident, and (7) how to develop and implement emergency
response  plans to ensure that applicators are prepared in the event that a problem develops during
or shortly after the fumigant application.  EPA is also requiring registrants to incorporate a
mechanism for evaluating the effectiveness of their training programs at conveying the required
information to participants and for determining whether participants have successfully completed
the training program. EPA expects registrants' proposals for the first responder programs
described in Section IV will also be designed to integrate with existing local first-response and
emergency preparedness networks.

Special Study - Training for Applicators Supervising Fumigations

       EPA has determined that training, developed and implemented by registrants to foster
product stewardship, will help reduce potential risks associated with failure to adequately
manage the complexities of fumigation, and failure to comply with fumigant product labeling.
Additionally, EPA believes that providing safety information to other fumigant handlers will
help them understand and adhere to practices that will help handlers protect themselves from
risks of exposure.

       Registrants are required to develop and implement training programs for applicators in
charge of soil fumigations on the proper use of and GAPs for soil fumigants. EPA is requiring
                                                                                     142

-------
registrants to submit proposals for these programs.  The training programs must address, at
minimum, the following elements: how to correctly apply the fumigant; how to protect handlers
and bystanders; how to determine buffer zone distances; how to develop a FMP and complete the
post-fumigation application summary; how to determine when weather and other site-specific
factors are not favorable for fumigant application; how to comply with required GAPs and
document compliance in the FMP. The training program must be made available to applicators
at least annually. The registrant shall provide documentation, such as a card or certificate, to
each applicator who successfully completes the training. This documentation shall include the
applicator's name, address, license number, and the date of completion.  The registrant must be
able to provide to federal, state, or local enforcement personnel, upon request, the names,
addresses, and certified applicator license numbers  of persons who successfully completed the
training program, as well as the date of completion. Applicators supervising fumigations must
have successfully completed the program within the preceding 36 months and must document
when and where the training program was completed in the FMP. The registrants will be
required to (1) develop a database to track which certified applicators have successfully
completed the training and (2) make this database available to state and/or federal enforcement
entities upon request.  In addition, the applicator must provide to federal, state, or local
enforcement personnel, upon request, documentation that verifies completion of the appropriate
training program(s).

Special  Study - Training Materials for Handlers

       EPA has determined that registrants must prepare and disseminate training information
and materials for other fumigant handlers, i.e., those working under the supervision of the
certified applicator in charge of fumigations.  The training materials must address, at minimum,
the following elements:  (1) what fumigants are and how they work, (2) safe application and
handling of soil fumigants, (3) air monitoring and respiratory protection requirements for
handlers, (4) early signs and symptoms of exposure, (5) appropriate steps to take to mitigate
exposures, (6) what to do in case of an emergency,  and (7) how to report incidents.  Registrants
must provide this training information through channels open to the public (e.g., via a website).
Pesticide labels will require that applicators supervising fumigations provide this training
information to handlers under their supervision before they perform any fumigant handling task,
or they must ensure that handlers have been provided the required information within the
preceding 12 months.  The label will also require that the training information be provided in a
manner that the handler can understand. Applicators supervising fumigations must ensure the
FMP includes how and when the required training information was provided to the handlers
under their supervision.

Special  Study - Buffer Zone Posting Signs

       EPA has determined that registrants must prepare and disseminate generic buffer zone
posting  signs which meet the following criteria: (1) signs must remain legible during the entire
posting  period (2)  signs must meet the general standards outlined in the WPS for text size and
legibility (see 40 CFR ง170.120). The requirements for the contents of the sign are as follows:
                                                                                     143

-------
   The treated area sign (currently required for
   fumigants) must state the following:
   ~ Skull and crossbones symbol
   - "DANGER/PELIGRO,"
   ~ "Area under fumigation, DO NOT
   ENTER/NO ENTRE,"
   ~ "Chloropicrin fumigant in USE,"
   ~ the date and time of fumigation,
   ~ the date and time entry prohibition is lifted
   ~ Name of this product, and
   ~ name, address, and telephone number of the
   certified applicator in charge of the fumigation.
The buffer zone sign must include the
following:
— Do not walk sign
-- "DO NOT ENTER/NO ENTRE,"
~ "Chloropicrin OR [Name of product]
Fumigant BUFFER ZONE,"
~ contact information for the certified
applicator in charge of the fumigation
       Registrants must capture all of the information above, excluding the contact information
for the certified applicator in charge of fumigating. However, registrants must provide
appropriate space on the sign, and the sign must be made of material appropriate for applicators
to write in this information on the buffer zone posting signs. Registrants must provide buffer
zone posting signs at the point of sale for applicators to use. EPA is requiring registrants to
submit proposals that must address their strategy for development and dissemination of the
buffer zone posting signs.

       b. Chloropicrin Warning Agent Uses

       There are no data requirements.

       c. Antimicrobial Uses

       There are no data requirements.

2. Labeling for Manufacturing-Use Products

       To ensure compliance with FIFRA, manufacturing use product (MUP) labeling must be
revised to comply with all current EPA regulations, PR Notices, and applicable policies.

B.  End-Use Products

       1.  Additional Product-Specific Data Requirements

       Section 4(g)(2)(B) of FIFRA calls for the Agency to obtain any needed product-specific
data regarding the pesticide after a determination of eligibility has been made. The Registrant
must review previous data submissions to ensure that they meet current EPA acceptance criteria
                                                                                     144

-------
and if not, commit to conduct new studies.  If a registrant believes that previously submitted data
meet current testing standards, then the study MRID numbers must be cited according to the
instructions in the Requirement Status and Registrants Response Form provided for each
product.  The Agency intends to issue a separate product-specific data call-in (PDCI), outlining
specific data requirements.

       2. Labeling for End-Use Products

       In order to be eligible for reregi strati on, amend all product labels to incorporate the risk
mitigation measures outlined in Section IV.
                                                                                     145

-------
Appendix A
             Chloropicrin PC Code 081501 Uses Eligible for Reregistration
Use Site
Formulation
Application
Method
Maximum
Application
Rate/Number of
Applications
Use Limitations
Pre-Plant Soil
Agricultural Crops
Berries:
caneberries,
blackberries,
boysenberries,
dewberries,
loganberries,
raspberries,
youngberries,
blueberries,
cranberries,
gooseberries,
huckleberries.

Small fruits:
strawberries, currants,
grapes, kumquat,
bananas, figs,
persimmons,
pineapple,
pomegranates,
tree fruits (all), vine
fruits (all).
Citrus fruits:
Grapefruit, lemon,
limes, oranges,
tangelos, tangerines.
Nut crops:
almonds, cashews,
chestnuts, filberts,
hickory nuts, pecans,
walnuts, pistachios.
Pome and stone fruits:
apples, pears, quinces,
soluble
concentrate/liquid,
pressurized gas,
pressurized liquid,
emulsifiable
concentrate, and a
ready-to-use
product


























1. Shank injection
tarped**

2. Shank injection
untarped

3. Shank injection
deep (at least 18
inches) untarped

4. Drip Irrigation
Tarp

5. Tree hole
replant



















1. 350 Ibs ai/A



2. 175 Ibs ai/A



3. 350 Ibs ai/A




4. 300 Ibs ai/A


5. 500 Ibs ai/A ( 1
lb/100 ft2)
















See applicable
GAPS from the
label table.































                                                                               146

-------
Use Site
Formulation
Application
Method
Maximum
Application
Rate/Number of
Applications
Use Limitations
apricots, cherries,
nectarines, peaches,
plums, prunes, dates.

Cucurbits:
Melons (all),
cantaloupes, casaba
melons, crenshaw
melons, honeydew,
muskmelons, persian
melons, watermelon,
cucumbers, pumpkins,
squash (summer and
winter), mango
melons.

Vegetables: asparagus,
eggplant,_peppers,
pimentos, tomatoes,
cole crops, broccoli,
brussels sprouts,
cabbage, cauliflower,
collards, kale,
kohlrabi, endive,
lettuce (all), mustard,
spinach, Swiss chard,
carrots, garlic, leeks,
okra, onions, parsnips,
potatoes, radishes,
rutabagas, salsify,
shallots, sweet potato,
yams, popcorn,
garden beets, celery,
turnips, vegetables
(all).

Field crops:
beans (all), peas (all),
kenaf, forage-fodder
grasses (all), pastures,
alfalfa, clover,
lespedeza, vetch,	
                                                                                           147

-------
Use Site



birdsfoot trefoil,
barley,
corn, oats, rye,
sorghum,
wheat, sugarcane,
buckwheat, tobacco,
safflower, cotton, flax,
peanuts, soybeans,
millet.
Ornamentals:
golf course turf,
ornamental turf, forest
trees (all), herbaceous
plants (all), woody
plants (all), flowering
plants (all).
Miscellaneous: hops,
horseradish, mint,
olives,
greenhouse soils,
mushroom house soils.
Formulation
























Application
Method























Maximum
Application
Rate/Number of
Applications





















Use Limitations
























Warning Agent Prior to Sulfuryl Fluoride Residential Fumigations
Residential Structures














Ready-to-Use














Chloropicrin is
then placed in the
center of the
structure in either
a shallow pan or
onto absorbent
material. A fan is
then placed to
direct the air
stream over the
pan or absorbent
material to
accelerate the
chloropicrin' s
evaporation.
1 fluid ounce ai of
chloropicrin is
used per 10,000-
15,000 cubic feet.


























Remedial Wood Treatment
Wood poles, timbers,
Ready to use
There are two
Pole
Do not treat
148

-------
Use Site
pilings, and glue-
laminated beams.




























Formulation






























Application
Method
methods for
application of
chloropicrin for
remedial wood
treatment. One
method involves
using
encapsulated vials.
Applicators pour
liquid chloropicrin
into vials and cap
them. After the
applicator has
reached the area
to be treated, the
cap is removed
and the vial
inserted into the
holes that have
been pre-drilled
into the timber.
The hole is then
capped. The other
method involves
pouring/injecting
liquid chloropicrin
into holes that
have been pre-
drilled. The hole
is then capped.
Maximum
Application
Rate/Number of
Applications
Circumference in
inches and
amount of
solution to be
applied :

22-29in, use 1A
pint
30-38in, use 1A
pint
39-56in, use 1.0
pint
57-65in, use 1 1A
pint
















Use Limitations
structures/beams
indoors.

Do not drill an
application hole
through seasoning
checks to apply
product. If the
hole intersects a
check, plug the
hole and drill
another. If more
than 2 treatment
holes intersect an
internal void or
rot pocket, re-drill
the holes farther
up the pole into
relatively solid
wood.










**The application method matches up with the same number for the maximum application rate.
For example, the maximum application rate for shank bedded tarped applications is 350 Ibs ai/A.
                                                                                 149

-------
Appendix B
Table of Generic Data Requirements and Studies Used to Make the Reregistration Decision

This section is currently not available.
                                                                                 150

-------
Appendix C.

Technical Support Documents

Additional support of this RED is maintained in the OPP docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350.  This
docket may be accessed in the OPP docket room located at S-4900, One Potomac Yard 2777 S.
Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA.  It is open Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays,
from 8:30-4:00 pm. All documents may be view in the OPP docket room or downloaded or
viewed via the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Health Effects Support Documents
   •  Methyl Bromide, 1,3-Dichloropropene, Chloropicrin, Dazomet, Metam
       Sodium/Potassium, MITC: Health Effects Division (HED) Component of Agency
      Response To Comments On 2008 Reregi strati on Eligibility Documents (Date May 14,
      2009)
   •  Chloropicrin: Third Revision of the HED Human Health Risk Assessment. April 30,
      2009 (DP Barcode 348637).
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0170, RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.  The Health
      Effects Division's Response to Comments on the Agency's April 12, 2007 document,
      Chloropicrin: Revised HED Human Health Risk Assessment for Phase 5 (Docket EPA-
      HQ-OPP-2007-0350). DP Barcode 348676.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0172, MOA Mode of Action, Eye Irritation, and the Intra-
       Species Factor: Comparison of Chloropicrin and MITC. June 25, 2008. DP Barcode
      293356.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0173, Factors Which Impact Soil Fumigant Emissions -
      Evaluation For Use In Soil Fumigant Buffer Zone Credit Factor Approach.  June 9, 2008.
      (DP Barcode 306857)

Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects Support Documents
   •  Further Response to Public Comments on the 7/9/08 Completed Chloropicrin RED.
      (March 3, 2009)
   •  Evaluation of "Probabilistic Modeling  of Chloropicrin Exposure to Aquatic Nontarget
      Organisms" (March 3, 2009).
   •  Response to Comments from Dow Agrochemicals Regarding EPA's Review of the
      Chain-2D Model (March 3, 2009).
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0174, Response to Phase 5 Public Comments on the Phase 4
      Chloropicrin Reregi strati on Risk Assessment. April 16, 2008. DP Barcode 348669.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0175, Revised Screening Ecological Risk Assessment for the
      Reregistration of Chloropicrin. DP Barcode 348669. April 16, 2008.

Biological and Economical Analysis Support Documents
   •  Response to BEAD Related Public Comments Received on the Reregistration Eligibility
      Decision for Chloropicrin, Dazomet, Metam Potassium, Metam Sodium, and Methyl
      Bromide (DP# 363545) May 14, 2009.
                                                                                151

-------
Analysis of Soil Fumigant Risk Management Requirements using Geographic
Information Systems: Case Studies based on a Forest Seedling Nursery (DP#363546).
May 13, 2009.
Process for Defining High-Use Fumigation Areas at the State and County Levels
(DP#364647) May 14, 2009.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0168, Review of Stakeholder Submitted Impact Assessments
of Proposed Fumigant Buffers, Comments on Initial Buffer Zone Proposal, and Case
Studies of the Impact of a Flexible Buffer System for Managing By-Stander Risks of
Fumigants. June 25, 2008. DP Barcode 353940.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0169, Response to Phase 5 BEAD Related Public Comments
Received on the Reregi strati on of Chloropicrin, Dazomet, Metam Potassium, Metam
Sodium, and Methyl Bromide. June 25, 2008. DP Barcode 353940.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0017, Summary of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
Chloropicrin in Crop Production.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0018, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
Chloropicrin, Methyl Bromide, and Metam Sodium in Cucurbit Production.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0019, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
Chloropicrin, Methyl Bromide, and Metam Sodium in Eggplant Production
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0020, Assessment of the Benefits Soil Fumigants (Methyl
Bromide, Chloropicrin, Metam-Sodium, Dazomet) Used by Forest Tree Seedling
Nurseries.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0021, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
Methyl Bromide, Chloropicrin, Dazomet, and Metam Sodium for Use in Raspberry
Nurseries, Fruit and Nut Deciduous Tree Nurseries, and Rose Bush Nurseries in
California.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0022, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
Chloropicrin and Metam-sodium in Onion Production.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0023, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
Methyl Bromide, Chloropicrin, and Metam Sodium in Grape Production.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0024, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
Methyl Bromide, Chloropicrin and Metam Sodium in Tree Nut Production.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0025, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
Chloropicrin and Metam Sodium in Pome Fruits Production.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0026, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
Methyl Bromide, Chloropicrin, and Metam Sodium in Stone Fruit Production.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0027, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
Chloropicrin, Methyl Bromide, and Metam Sodium in Bell Pepper Production.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0028, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
Metam Sodium in Potato Production.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0029, Assessment of Soil Fumigation with Chloropicrin,
Methyl Bromide and Metam-sodium in Strawberry Production.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0030, Assessment of the Benefits of Chloropicrin, Methyl
Bromide, Metam-sodium and Dazomet Use In Strawberry Nursery Runner Production.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0031, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
Chloropicrin, Methyl Bromide, and Metam-sodium on Sweet Potato Production.
                                                                         152

-------
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0032, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
      Chloropicrin in Tobacco Production.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0033, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
      Chloropicrin, Methyl Bromide, and Metam Sodium in Tomato Production.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-0034, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
      Metam-Sodium in Carrot Production.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-03 50-003 5, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
      Metam Sodium in Peanut Production.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0036, Assessment of the Benefits of Soil Fumigation with
      Chloropicrin, Methyl Bromide, Metam Sodium and Dazomet in Ornamental Production.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0037, BEAD'S Planned Impact Assessments on Agricultural
      Sites with Significant Use of Soil Fumigants (Chloropicrin, Dazomet, Methyl Bromide,
      Metam Potassium, and Metam Sodium.

Antimicrobial Assessment Support Documents
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-1065, Revised Occupation and Residential/Bystander
      Assessment of the Antimicrobial Use (Remedial Wood Treatment) of Chloropicrin for
      the Reregi strati on Eligibility Decision (RED) Document.  (Phase 3 Comment).  PC Code
      081501, DP Barcode 314399.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-1066, Phase 6 Response to  Substantive Public Comments on
      Antimicrobials Division's Occupational and Residential Assessments for the
      Reregi strati on Eligibility Decision (RED) Documents for the following chemicals:
      Methylisothiocyanate (MITC), Metam  Sodium, Dazomet, and Chloropicrin.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-1067, Updated Label Language for the Antimicrobial Uses of
      Chloropicrin (PC Code 081501) for the Reregi strati on Eligibility Decision Document.

Buffer Zone Credits Support Document
   •  Methyl Bromide (PC Code 053201), Chloropicrin (PC Code 081501), Dazomet (PC
      Code 035602), Metam Sodium and Potassium (PC Codes 039003 &039002), MITC (PC
      Code 068103), DP Barcode  362369, Updated Health Effects Division Recommendations
      for Good Agricultural Practices and Associated Buffer Credits. May 14, 2009
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-1073, Factors Which Impact Soil Fumigant Emissions -
      Evaluation for Use in Soil Fumigant Buffer Zone Credit Factor Approach. Dawson, J.
      and Smith, C.; D306857; June 9, 2008..
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-1078, Health Effects Division Recommendations for Fumigant
      Data to Refine Exposure Assessments.  DP Barcode 353724.

Risk Management Support Documents
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-1077, SRRD's Response to Phase 5 Public Comments for the
      Soil Fumigants. Rice, M. and McNally, R.; July 2008.
   •  EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0003, Risk Mitigation Options to Address Bystander and
      Occupational Exposures from Soil Fumigant Applications.
   •  SRRD's Response to Post-RED Comments for the Soil Fumigants. May 27, 2009.
                                                                               153

-------
Appendix D
PERFUM Model Inputs and Outputs

       Version 2.1.4 of the Probabilistic Exposure and Risk model for Fumigants (also called
the PERFUM model) combined with monitoring data and incident data were used to characterize
the risk for specific buffer zone distances corresponding to the range of application scenarios
anticipated. A CD containing all of the PERFUM input/output files and files with the PERFUM
MOE/air concentration analysis that were considered for this decision are available upon request
at the OPP Docket Office. Additional information on the PERFUM inputs and outputs can be
found in the Agency's risk assessment3, in a June 2006 a peer-reviewed article describing the
model (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310), and/or the PERFUM user's
guide which can be download from the internet (http://www.exponent.com/perfum/)

       The major input parameters for the PERFUM model were:  application rates, application
block sizes, application method emission studies, weather conditions, and target air concentration
(based on acute inhalation endpoint and uncertainty factors). The following summarizes the key
points for each of these input parameters.

          •  Rates

                 o  Agricultural Field

       Although labels currently allow higher rates, the Agency modeled the maximum rates
supported by the CMTF.  These rates are listed in Section IIB on page 18.  Buffer zones were
determined for the maximum rates as well as increments less than the maximum application rate.
This was done to allow flexibility in the buffer approach while taking into consideration current
typical use patterns. According to 2007 Agency  proprietary data about 93% of chloropicrin
usage is at rates less than 125 Ibs ai/A.  The Agency completed a series of benefit assessments by
crop and region that include a more detailed analysis of use rates.

                 o  Greenhouse

       The maximum application rate for greenhouse drip applications is 300 Ibs ai/A.  This is
the same rate used in outdoor agricultural field drip applications.

       Rates for bedded or strip applications (Ib  ai per treated area) were converted to broadcast
equivalent application rate to determine the minimum buffer zone distance. In Figures 8 and 9
(shown below), the dashed line represents the perimeter of the field, the shaded area is the
portion of the field that is treated, and the un-shaded area is the untreated portion of the  field.
Assuming both fields are 10 acres, and only 50% of field in Figure 9 is fumigated, the rate per
treated acre is 400 Ibs ai/A for both Figure 8 and 9. The broadcast rate for Figure 8 is 400 Ib
ai/A but the effective broadcast equivalent rate for Figure 9 is 200  Ibs ai/A.

       Labels may express rates as Ibs per treated acre under the application instructions but
they must identify buffer zone distances based on the broadcast or  effective broadcast equivalent
rates.
                                                                                     154

-------
            Figure 8. Broadcast Application               Figure 9. Bedded Application

          •   Block Size

                 o  Agricultural Field

       The Agency has limited information regarding the size of the application blocks typically
treated in a given day, but estimates that each crew or application rig treats less than 40 acres for
most scenarios. However several  commercial applicators have indicated that they sometimes use
multiple rigs and crews to treat blocks greater than 80 acres per day.

        Buffer zone distances were determined for 1, 5, 10, 20,  30, 40, 50, 60, and 80 acres.

       The application block size pertains to size of the field and not the size of the area treated.
The area inside the dashed lines in both Figures 8 and 9 is the application block. In this example
the application block size for both figures is 10 acres.  For both  figures, 10 acres would be used
to determine the buffer zone distance.

                 o  Greenhouse

       Greenhouse soil fumigations can take place in a wide range of structure sizes.  The
Agency modeled the following 5,000; 10,000; 15,000; 20,000; 25,000; 30,000; 35,000; 40;000;
45,000; and 50,000 ft2.

          •   Emission Studies and Weather Data

                 o  Agricultural Field

       This section has been updated and is presented in the New Flux (Emission) Studies
section on page 44.

                 o  Greenhouse

       A flux study was not used. Instead a 24-hour continuous single emission was used in the
modeling runs. This is based upon current California permit conditions.  Ventura, CA weather
data was used.

          •   Target Air Concentration
                                                                                      155

-------
                 o  Agricultural Field and Greenhouse

       Based on several factors including the severity and reversibility of the effect, and the
quality of the hazard database, the buffer zone distance target is to reach an air concentration of
0.073 ppm which equates to an MOE of 1.  At minimum, if the target MOE was not reached, half
of the target (MOE 0.5), which corresponds to minor, reversible effects, was achieved with the
buffer zone distance selected.

PERFUM Model Outputs

       The PEFRUM model outputs are presented in percentiles for "whole field" and the
"maximum distance" distributions.  The model also provides outputs as distributions of air
concentrations from which MOEs can be estimated.   The following summarizes the key points
for each of these output parameters.

       The maximum distance distribution is a compilation of the farthest predicted distances
(i.e., the farthest downwind points) over 5 years of weather. The whole field distribution differs
because it includes all points around the perimeter of the application block for the same period.
Another way to consider the difference between the distributions is that maximum distance
results are a subset of the whole field results and that maximum distances allow for more
resolution at the upper percentiles of this distribution.  Version 2.1.4 of PERFUM also allows for
direct consideration of air concentrations at various distances around treated fields.  These air
concentrations and MOEs were also considered in the decision making process.

       An analysis based on a variety of PERFUM outputs was used in the buffer distance
determinations. This involved consideration of the typical maximum and whole-field results,
which are predictions of the distances where a target concentration of concern is achieved at
varying percentiles of exposure. In addition, a complementary approach, which determined the
percentiles of exposure for maximum and whole-field buffers at predetermined buffer distances,
was employed.  Air concentration data were also used to calculate risk estimates (i.e., MOEs) at
predefined buffer distances and varied percentiles of exposure.

       This overall approach allowed the Agency to utilize more  of the information available
from PERFUM so that a more comprehensive view of the risks could be considered. Buffer
distances indicated by this type of analysis along with information from monitoring studies and
incidents were valuable in determining buffer distances to manage potential risks from
chloropicrin use when coupled with other mitigation measures.
                                                                                     156

-------
                                     Appendix E
                          Sample FMP for Soil Applications

(Please note that this example is tailored to methyl bromide and will be refined for chloropicrin
                                    at a later date).
                                                                                   157

-------
                                          FUMIGANT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Certified Applicator Supervising the Fumigation
Name and phone number:
      License number:
                                                                                                D Commercial applicator

                                                                                                D Private applicator
Employer name and address:
                                                Date of completing registrant
                                                training program:
General Site Information
Application block location, address, or global positioning system (GPS) coordinates:
Name, address, and phone number of owner/operator of application block:
General Application Information
Target application date/window:
Brand name of fumigant:
EPA Registration Number:
Tarps  (check here if section is not applicable D )
Brand name:
Lot#:
Thickness:
Name and phone number of contact person responsible for repairing tarps:
Schedule for checking tarps for damage, tears, and other problems:
Maximum time following notification of damage that the person(s) responsible for tarp repair will respond:
Minimum time following application that tarp will be repaired:
               Minimum size of damage that will be repaired:
Other factors used to determine when tarp repair will be conducted:
Name and phone number of contact person responsible for cutting
and/or removing tarps (if other than certified applicator):
               Equipment/methods used to cut tarps:
Schedule and target dates for cutting tarps:
               Schedule and target dates for removing tarps:
Soil Conditions
Description of soil texture and moisture in application block:
               Description of method used to determine soil moisture level:
                                                                                                              158

-------
Weather Conditions
Summary of the weather forecast for the day of the application and the 48-hour period following the fumigant application (may attach a copy
of printed forecast to FMP):
Buffer Zones
 Application method:
  D Bedded
  D Broadcast
  D Hot gas - outdoor
  D Hot gas - greenhouse
  D Hand held probes
Rate from
lookup table
on label (Ib
ai/A):
Block size
from lookup
table on label
(acres):
Credits applied:
D high barrier film
D organic content
D clay content
D other:
Total credits
            Buffer zone
            distance:
 List and describe areas in the buffer zone that are not under the control of owner/operator of the application block:
Personal Protective Equipment for Handlers
        Handler Task
    Clothing
 Respirator Type, Filter Cartridge
 Type and Change-out Schedule
                    Eye
                 Protection
Gloves
Other
Emergency Response Plan
Description of evacuation routes:
Locations of telephones:
Contact information for first responders:
               Local/state/federal contacts:
                                      Other contact information for emergencies:
Emergency procedures/responsibilities in case of an incident, equipment/tarp/seal failure, complaints or elevated air concentration levels
outside buffer zone suggesting potential problems, or other emergencies).
Posting Signs	
Name and phone number of person that is doing posting:
Location of posting signs:
Procedures for posting and sign removal:
                                                                                                                 159

-------
Site Specific Response and Management	D Fumigation Site Monitoring  or  DResponse Information for Neighbors
If Response Information for Neighbors has been selected, completed the following:
      If buffer zone is 25-100 ft:
      If buffer zone is 100-200 ft:
      If buffer zone is 200-300 ft:
      If buffer zone is > 300 ft:
      If buffer zones overlap
D Neighbors within 50 ft of buffer zone   D No neighbors within 50 ft of buffer zone
D Neighbors within 100 ft of buffer zone  D No neighbors within 100 ft of buffer zone
D Neighbors within 200 ft of buffer zone  D No neighbors within 200 ft of buffer zone
D Neighbors within 300 ft of buffer zone  D No neighbors within 300 ft of buffer zone
D Neighbors within 300 ft of buffer zone  D No neighbors within 300 ft of buffer zone
List of residences and businesses informed (neighboring property owners):
Name, address, and phone number of person providing information:
Method used to provide information:
Notice to State Lead Tribal Agencies
If your state and/or tribal lead agency requires notice, list contacts that were notified:
                                                                          Date notified:
Communication Between Applicator, Land Owner/Operator, and Other On-site Handlers	
Plan for communicating to the land owner/operator and all on-site handlers (e.g., tarp cutters/removers, irrigators) requirements to comply
with label including location and start/stop times of buffer zones; timing of tarp cutting/removal, and PPE:
Names and phone numbers of persons contacted:
                                                                         Date contacted:
Comments/notes:
                                                                                                               160

-------
                                                                 Site Map
Location of application block:
                                                                  Map Legend
Application block




Bus stop
Inpatient clinic
                                   Buffer zone

                                                         Property lines
                              Water body
                              Prison
J Daycare facility





'Well
 1  Roads




School
                                                                            Nursing home
 Right-of-way




J Nearby application block
                                                                        Walkway, sidewalk, path
                                                Assisted living facility
                                                                                                                               161

-------
Handler Information
Handler Name, Address, and Phone
Number










Employer Name, Address, and Phone
Number










Tasks They are Trained and
Authorized to Perform










DateofPPE
Training










Date of
Medical
Qualification to
Wear a
Respirator










Date of Fit
Testing for
Respirator










                                                                  162

-------
Air Monitoring Plan
For Buffer Zone Monitoring: (check here if section is not applicable D )
Name of handler
performing monitoring
activities





Handler address





Handler phone
number





Location of monitoring





Timing





For Handlers without Respiratory Protection: (check here if section is not applicable D )
If sensory irritation is experienced: D Intend to cease operations D Intend to continue operations with respiratory protection
If intend to continue operations with respiratory protection, complete section for Handlers with Respiratory Protection below.
If intend to cease operations - Name, address, and phone number of handler to perform monitoring
activities prior to operations resuming:
Monitoring equipment:
For Handlers with Respiratory Protection: (check here if section is not applicable D )
Representative Handler Tasks to be Monitored





Monitoring Equipment





Timing





                                                 163

-------
	Air Monitoring Plan for Methyl Bromide Formulation with < 20% Chloropicrin
 For Buffer Zone Monitoring: (check here if section is not applicable D )
 Name, address, and phone number of person(s) to perform sampling:
   Area or Structure to be Monitored Before Reentry is Permitted
         Monitoring Equipment
    Timing
 For Handlers with Respiratory Protection:
     Representative Handler Tasks to be Monitored
Monitoring Equipment
Timing
                                                                                                      164

-------
                                           Methyl Bromide FMP Check List
General Site Information
A map, aerial photo, or detailed sketch is attached to this FMP that shows each of the following with distances from the application site
labeled: field location, application block dimensions, buffer zones, property lines, roads, bus stops, water bodies, wells, rights-of-ways,
nearby application blocks, surrounding structures, and sites requiring 1A and 1A mile buffer zones.
Supervision of Handlers	
An on site certified applicator will directly supervise the handlers participating in the application starting when the fumigant is first
introduced into the soil and ending after the fumigant has stopped being delivered/dispensed to the soil and the soil is sealed.	
After the application is complete, and before leaving the application block, the certified applicator has provided the owner/operator and
handlers with written information necessary to comply with the label and procedures outlined in the FMP.	
Fumigant safe handling information has been provided to each handler involved in the application or confirm that each handler
participating in the application has received fumigant safe handling information in the past 12 months.
For all fumigation handling tasks, at least 2 WPS-trained handlers  must be present.
Weather Conditions	
Wind speed at the application site is a minimum of 2 mph at the start of the application or forecasted to reach at least 5 mph during the
application.	
A shallow, compressed (low-level) temperature inversion is not forecast to persist for more than 18 consecutive hours during the 48-hour
period after the application.
An air-stagnation advisory is not in effect for the area where the application site is located.
If air temperatures have been above  100  degrees F in any of the 3 days prior to application, then soil temperature will be measured and
recorded in the post application summary report.	
Soil Conditions	
The soil has been properly prepared and the surface has been checked to ensure that it is free of clods that are golf ball size or larger.
The area to be fumigated has been tilled to a depth of 5 to 8 inches.	
Field trash has been properly managed (e.g., residue from a previous crop has been worked into the soil to  allow for decomposition prior
to fumigation, little or no crop residue is present on the soil surface, and crop residue that is present does not interfere with the soil seal).
The soil temperature at the depth of injection S 90 degrees F at the beginning of the application.
The soil moisture at 9 inches below the surface is sufficient (field capacity is 50 to 80 percent).
Trash pulled by the shanks to the ends of the field will be covered  with tarp or soil before making the turn for the next pass.	
Shank Applications (check here if section is not applicable D )	
For tarped-broadcast and -bedded applications, injection points will be at least 8 inches from the nearest  final soil/air interface.	
For tarped-bedded applications, the injection depth will not be as deep as the lowest point of the tarp (i.e., the lowest point of the tuck).
For untarped-bedded applications, the injection points will be at least 12 inches from the nearest final soil/air interface.
For untarped-broadcast applications,  the injection points will be at least 18 inches from the nearest final  soil/air interface.
For broadcast untarped applications,  a disc or similar equipment will be used to uniformly mix the  soil to at least a depth of 3 to 4 inches
to eliminate the chisel or plow traces and will following elimination of the chisel trace, the soil surface will be compacted with a
cultipacker, ring roller, and roller in combination with tillage equipment.	
For performed bed applications, the soil will be sealed by disruption of the chisel trace using press  sealers, bed shapers, cultipackers, or
by re-shaping (e.g., relisting, lifting, replacing) the beds immediately following injection.
For beds formed at the time of application, the soil will be  sealed by disrupting the chisel trace using press sealers, or bed shapers.
For shanked bedded and broadcast applications, tarps will be installed immediately after fumigant is injected into the soil.
Applicators have been trained and instructed not to apply or allow fumigant to drain onto the soil surface.
For each injection line a check valve  been located as close  as possible to the final injection point, or applicators will drain/purge the line
of any remaining fumigant prior to lifting injection shanks  from the ground.	
Applicators have been trained and instructed not to lift injection shanks from the soil until the shut-off valve has been closed and the
fumigant has been depressurized (passively drained) or purged (actively forced out via air compressor) from the system.
Brass, carbon steel, or stainless steel  fittings must be used throughout application rigs.
Polyethylene tubing, polypropylene tubing, Teflonฎ tubing or Teflonฎ -lined  steel braided tubing have been used for all low pressure
lines, drain lines, and compressed gas or air pressure lines and is all other tubing Teflonฎ -lined steel braided.	
Application equipment been inspected to ensure that application rigs do not contain galvanized, PVC,  nylon, or aluminum pipe fittings.
All rigs include a filter to remove any particulates from the fumigant, and a check valve to prevent backflow of the  fumigant into the
pressurizing cylinder or the compressed air system.
All rigs include a flowmeter or a constant pressure system with orifice plates to insure the proper amount of fumigant is applied.
Applicators have been trained and instructed to ensure that positive pressure is maintained in the cylinder at not less than 200 psi during
the entire time it is connected to the application rig, if a compressed gas cylinder is used.  (This is not required for a compressed air
system that is part of the application rig because if the compressor system fails the application rig will not be operable).	
Application rigs are equipped with properly functioning check valves between the compressed gas  cylinder or compressed air system and
the fumigant cylinder.
Applicators have been trained and instructed to always pressurize the system with compressed gas or by  use  of a compressed air system
before opening the fumigant cylinder valve.	
                                                                                                                     165

-------
Before using a fumigation rig for the first time, or when preparing it for use after storage, applicators have been trained and instructed to:
0   Check the filter, and clean or replace the filter element as required.
0   Check all tubes and chisels to make sure they are free of debris and obstructions.
0   Check and clean the orifice plates and screen checks, if installed.
0   Pressurize the system with compressed gas or compressed air, and check all fittings, valves, and connections for leaks using soap
    solution.	
Applicators have been trained and instructed to:
0   Install the fumigant cylinder, and connect and secure all tubing. Slowly open the compressed gas or compressed air valve, and
    increase the pressure to the desired level.  Slowly open the fumigant cylinder valve, always watching for leaks.
0   When the application is complete, close the fumigant cylinder valve and blow residual fumigant out of the fumigant lines into the
    soil using compressed gas or compressed air. At the end of the application, disconnect all fumigant cylinders from the application
    rig. At the end of the season, seal all tubing openings with tape to prevent the entry of insects and dirt.
ฐ   Calibrate all application equipment and ensure that all control systems must be working properly.	
Hot Gas Applications (check here if section is not applicable D )	
Tarps have been installed prior to starting the application.	
All delivery tubes have been placed under the tarp in such a way that they do not move during the application of methyl bromide.
The fumigant will be introduced from outside of the greenhouse.
All fittings, connections, and valves have been checked for leaks prior to fumigation and if cylinders are replaced during the fumigation
process, the connections and valves were checked for leaks prior to continuing the job.
Tree  Replant (non-shank) Application (check here if section is not applicable D )	
For each individual tree-site, the tree stump and primary root system have been removed and the tree hole has been backfilled with soil
before application.
The fumigant will be injected at a depth of at least 18 inches into the soil.
The wand will be cleared using nitrogen or compressed air before removing it from the soil and after the wand is cleared and removed
from the soil, the injection hole will be covered with soil and tamp or the soil will be compacted over the injection hole.	
Buffer Zones
There are no difficult to evacuate sites within 1A (or Vs)  miles of the application block that will be occupied during the buffer zone period.
There are no bus stops or other locations where persons wait for public transit within the buffer zone.
There are no buildings used for storage such as sheds, barns, garages, within the buffer zone that are occupied or that share a common
wall with an occupied structure.
For areas in the buffer zone that are not under the control of owner/operator of the application block, written agreement has been
obtained from occupants that they will voluntarily vacate the buffer zone during the entire buffer zone period.	
For nearby agricultural areas that are in the buffer zone the owner/operator of that property provided written agreement that they, their
employees, or other persons will  stay out of the buffer zone during the entire buffer zone period.
For publicly owned and/or operated areas (e.g., parks, rights of way, side walks, walking paths, playgrounds, athletic fields) written
permission has been given to include the public area in  the buffer zone from the appropriate local and/or state officials.
Buffer Zones Overlap (check here if section is not applicable  D )	
A minimum of 12 hours has elapsed from the time the 1st application ends until the 2" application begins.	
If a structure exists within 300 feet of the buffer zone, appropriate emergency preparedness and response procedures are followed.	
Certified applicator has informed handlers of the overlapping buffers and associated health protection requirements.	
Personal  Protective Equipment for Handlers	
At least 1 air rescue device (e.g.,  SCBA) is on-site in case of an emergency.
All of the handler's PPE has been cleaned and maintained as required by the WPS for Agricultural Pesticides.
Hazard Communication
The application area buffer zone has been posted in accordance with the label.	
Pesticide product labels and material safety data sheets  are on-site and readily available for employees to review.	
Recordkeeping
The owner/operator of the application block has been informed that he/she as well as the certified applicator must keep a signed copy of
the site-specific FMPs and the post-application summary record for 2 years from the date of application.

I have verified that this site-specific FMP reflects current site conditions and product label directions before beginning the
fumigation.
Signature of certified applicator supervising the fumigation                                   Date
                                                                                                                   166

-------
                                             Post-Application Summary
General Application Information
Application date and time:
                  Application rate:
Size of application block:
Weather Conditions
Summary of the weather on the day of the application:
Summary of the weather during the 48-hour period following the fumigant application:
Soil Conditions  (check here if section is not applicable D )
Soil temperature if air temperatures were above 100 degrees F in any of the 3 days prior to the application:
Tarp Damage and Repair   (check here if section is not applicable D )
Location and size of tarp damage:
Description of tarp/tarp seal/tarp equipment failure:
Date and time of tarp repair:
Additional comments or other deviations from FMP (if applicable):
Tarp Removal   (check here if section is not applicable D )
Description of tarp removal (if different than in the FMP):
Date tarps were cut:
                                 Date tarps were removed:
Complaints   (check here if section is not applicable D )
Person filing complaint:
D On-site handler
D Person off-site
If off-site person, name, address, and phone number of person filing complaints:
Description of control measures or emergency procedures followed after complaint:
Additional comments:
                                                                                                               167

-------
Description of Incidents   (check here if section is not applicable D )
Description of incident, equipment failure, or other emergency:
   Date and time:
Description of emergency procedures followed:
Additional comments:
Elevated Air Concentration Levels   (check here if section is not applicable D )
D On-site
D Outside buffer zone
                         Location of elevated air concentration levels:
Date and time:
Description of elevated air concentration levels: (provide air monitoring results on next page)
Description of control measures or emergency procedures followed:
Description of deviations from FMP (if applicable):
Posting Signs
Date of sign removal:
Description of deviations from FMP (if applicable):
Other
Additional comments/notes:
                                                                                                                 168

-------
                                              Air Monitoring Results
When Respiratory Protection is Not in Use - Sensory Irritation Experienced (check here if section is not applicable D )
Date and Time





Handler Task/ Activity





When Respiratory Protection is in Use - Direct
Sample Type
DArea
DBreathing Zone
D Structure
DArea
DBreathing Zone
D Structure
DArea
DBreathing Zone
D Structure
DArea
DBreathing Zone
D Structure
DArea
DBreathing Zone
D Structure
DArea
DBreathing Zone
D Structure
DArea
DBreathing Zone
D Structure
DArea
DBreathing Zone
D Structure
DArea
DBreathing Zone
D Structure
DArea
DBreathing Zone
D Structure
Sample
Number










Sample
Date/Time










Handler Location Where
Irritation Was Observed Resulting Action
D Cease operations
D Respiratory protection
D Cease operations
D Respiratory protection
D Cease operations
D Respiratory protection
D Cease operations
D Respiratory protection
D Cease operations
D Respiratory protection
Comments





Read Instrument Air Monitoring (check here if section is not applicable D )
Handler
Task/Activity
(not
applicable for
structural
monitoring)










Handler
Location/
Structure
Location










Air
Concentration










Sampling
Method










Comments (e.g.,
sensory irritation
experienced while
wearing
respirator)










I have verified that this post application summary reflects the actual site conditions during the fumigation and an accurate
description of deviations from the FMP (if applicable).
Signature of certified applicator supervising the fumigation
Date
                                                                                                           169

-------
170

-------
171

-------