Notes from 11/1/06 meeting (sign in sheet and agenda attached) 

Buffer zones 

Millers, applicators and registrants presented the following points:

buffer zones are not needed and will result in unnecessary burden to
industry if required

air monitoring during fumigation events are sufficient to ensure
bystanders are not at risk

current air monitoring data does not warrant use of buffer zones

additional monitoring could be done to further demonstrate that
bystander risk is not a concern

the buffer zones distanced proposed by the Agency are theoretical and do
not correlate with real word conditions

PERFUM and ISC  is designed for soil uses and is not applicable to
fumigations done in structures

PERFUM has not been adequately validated by comparing it to field air
monitoring data 

the lack of incident reported does not support the use of buffer zones

There have decades of safe MeBr Fumigant Commodity use without adverse
incidents reported and therefore buffer zones are not needed

EPA representatives made the following points/responses:

Available air monitoring and modeling was used to determine risks at
varying distances from commodity fumigations

The Agency's SAP determined that the PERFUM model was appropriate for
making regulatory decisions regarding buffer zones for fumigants

The PERFUM model was modified to use with commodity and other non-field
use patterns

The Agency believes that buffer zone distances (based on PERFUM with
ISC) are sufficiently accurate and appropriate for making regulatory
decisions 

The Agency is developing guidance on how site-specific monitoring can be
used to determine buffer zones and plans to ask for input from major
stakeholders after a draft is completed

The Agency clarified that the applicators and registrants proposal to
develop a protocol and air monitoring study was not to establish buffer
zones but rather to show that buffer zones are not needed and that the
estimates based on modeling are overly conservative

As mentioned in a conference call with millers and previous meeting with
applicators and other stakeholders, the Agency does not regulate on
incidents alone.   Incidents will likely not indicate whether or not
people have experienced developmental effects for which the MeBr
toxicity endpoint is based. Odor threshold properties of MeBr are not
sufficient to alert a bystander to exposure.  Bystander exposure may be
occurring but not reported.  MeBr TRED/TRED does indicate that incidents
related to MeBr Commodity Fumigations have been reduced since the
adoption of permit conditions that include buffer zones.  

Notification

Millers, applicators and registrants presented the following points:

notifying people is extremely time consuming 

TRED/RED does not state who needs to be notified?  Is the fumigator’s
responsibility to notify managers of the business?  Does every employee
or occupant need to be notified by the fumigator?  

What would people do with notification info? 

Its is standard procedure for fumigators to notify emergency responders
(i.e. police, fire dept, hospitals)

In some cases communication with nearby business occurs so that
fumigation can be conducted during periods when workers are not present
but this not a formal process 

Requiring notification of emergency responders is reasonable but is not
something that should be required for public or nearby
residents/businesses.

in 1 county  in California, any businesses inside buffer zone must
respond in writing that they will vacate during fumigation 

EPA representatives made the following points/responses:

Notification informs potential bystanders the specification location,
time, and duration of the buffer zones and instructs them not to enter
during those times.  Since buffer zones may not be marked or secured
they will need to know this information in order to ensure their
exposures do not exceed the Agency’s LOC

Notification informs potential bystanders the health effects and
symptoms of MeBr exposure and what steps to take in the event of an
incident

The Agency could consider modifying proposed notification requirements
if the buffer zone is contained within the facility property and the
property is enclosed by physical barrier (i.e. wall or fence) 

Labeling

Millers, applicators and registrants presented the following points:

TRED/RED does not state who is responsible for removing labeling and
when it would be allowed 

The rationale for requiring labeling is not clear

Labeling is not needed and may result in unreasonable alarm for
secondary workers and consumers 

EPA representatives made the following points/responses:

Labeling requirements were based on concern that fumigated items and
packaging may continue to off-gas after aeration is completed and that
persons handling those items may not be aware that they are being
exposed to MeBr

The Agency acknowledges that clarification on label must be provided to
answer questions asked

There is not adequate data to fully characterize which commodities
slowly off gas MeBr after aeration to 5 ppm has been achieved

Commodities such has timber and shelled nuts reportedly slowly off-gas
MeBr 

Cardboard, wood, and other packaging materials may also continue to
slowly off-gas MeBr even though the commodity treated may not be issue
in terms of MeBr emitted after aeration. 

The Agency could consider requiring labeling only for commodities that
are known to slowly off-gas provided data could be provided

The Agency could consider requiring fumigators to provide written
notification with shipment manifest instead of labeling of treated
containers

The Agency  could also consider other measures that would allow persons
receiving treated items information that would help know potential risks

There is also a concern for exposure to US workers that come into
contact with items fumigated outside the US

USDA recommended that the EPA consider the impacts of these requirements
on exports

Public Access to Recordkeeping

Millers, applicators and registrants presented the following points:

TRED/RED requirements to provide FMP to public may result in homeland
security concerns if information on facility layout is provided

There is a concern about providing FMP to industry competitors

Providing fumigation records does not add any safety or reduce the risk
for bystanders

EPA representatives made the following points/responses:

Potential conflicts with Homeland security will be addressed by the
Agency

CBI and facility layout information does not need to be provided to
public

The intent of this requirement is providing bystanders with information
that would needed to know the location and timing of buffer zones and
actions to take in the event of an incident. Since fumigators are
required to maintain FMPs and monitoring records they could provide
these items to convey the information.

The Agency could consider requiring a subset of the information from the
FMP and records to be provoded to potential bystanders.

EPA asked for info that would be acceptable to release

Enforcement

Millers, applicators and registrants stated the concern that State
enforcement staff without as much expertise as California may “go too
far” in enforcement or incorrectly enforce mitigation measures 

Next Steps

Before getting into the details of the modeling and air monitoring
protocols,  EPA scientists and Industry scientists (from Millers,
applicators and registrants) will meet to address questions about (1)
apparent absence of incidents in this sector, and (2) if fence line
monitoring fails to show a concern why EPA believes there could be a
concern farther away. After these issues are discussed the scientists
from both groups can discuss why EPA believes modeling is more useful
than monitoring for predicting bystander exposure and risk.

The Agency will consider and respond to all comments received (comment
period closes 11/24/06).

