California Proposes New Regulations for MeBr Use

The California Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) has issued proposed regulations governing the use of methyl bromide as a soil fumigant. The regulations would require specific buffer zones, provide special protections for schools that abut farmland, and reduce workers' exposure times. Coupled with the January 2001 deadline for a 50-percent reduction in available methyl bromide, these regulations would pose major challenges for California produce growers.

Unlike the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency mandate to phase out methyl bromide to protect the ozone layer, the California DPR is acting to protect workers from the fumigant's toxic effects.

The proposed regulations would require users to obtain site-specific permits from the county agricultural commissioner before using methyl bromide. The commissioner could then require specific use practices. The regulations would further mandate a two-stage use notification plan and a mandatory minimum buffer zone of 100 feet. Users would have to notify those on "sensitive sites," such as homes, schools, and hospitals, of the intent to fumigate. Sensitive sites are those within 300 feet of the buffer zone boundary where methyl bromide is applied. The regulations would give these property owners the right to ask for a second notification 48 hours before the scheduled fumigation.

During four public hearings, growers noted that California's current guidelines for methyl bromide use are the nation's most stringent. But the guidelines, which are not mandatory or monitored, were deemed too vague and unenforceable. "This is the culmination of a years-long process of data gathering and analysis," says DPR Director Paul E. Helliker. "Methyl bromide, because of its toxicity, has been subject to increasingly tight restrictions by DPR since 1992, in the form of discretionary controls set at the county level. However, with new data on risks and exposure, we now have the solid scientific basis the law requires for statewide environmental regulations."

Last year, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ordered DPR to adopt by June 2000 more specific regulations for methyl bromide soil fumigation. Due to extended comment periods and an additional public hearing, DPR has requested a 4-month extension to that deadline.

At the public hearings, many California growers questioned whether the proposed size and duration time of the buffer zones are based on qualified studies. The Western Growers Association (WGA) commented, "The proposed 60-hour buffer zone durations are not supported by data, are overly stringent, and would unnecessarily extend the total time it will take to fumigate a grower's acreage."

The group added, "WGA believes that the current 24-hour duration in which buffer zone restrictions are maintained is adequate and protective of public health. . . . Proposing a 60-hour duration for tarped inner buffer zone is unjustifiable." Eric Lauritzen, Monterey County agricultural commissioner and president of the California Agricultural Commissioner and Sealers Association, testified, "As our office is charged with enforcing related laws and regulations, it is always our interest to revive the proper and safe use of pesticides. Therefore, I urge your careful consideration of the available peer-reviewed scientific data, then to adopt regulations grounded in fact that provide measurable increased safety and ones that are enforceable." He continued, "I believe regulations should be reserved for prescriptive requirements. Our current restricted-materials permit process works very effectively in dealing with site-specific concerns, taking into consideration local conditions."

Increasing buffer zones is of particular concern to growers. Doug Buessing of Tri Cal, Inc., Hollister, California, testified, "The growers will likely suffer a 20-percent loss of fumigated ground on 30 acres; that's one-fifth of production."

Larger and longer-lived buffer zones will dramatically increase the number of days required to complete fumigation and will have a detrimental effect, according to WGA. For instance, a grower who is double-cropping strawberries and lettuce depends on the moisture from lettuce that is disced under to prepare the soil for fumigation before planting strawberries. Under current guidelines, it takes 12 days to fumigate the soil, block by block. After discing, the lettuce may provide just enough moisture for effective methyl bromide application. But under the new regulations, it could take 20 days to fumigate, leaving the soil dried out. If that happens, the grower would have to irrigate to provide the necessary moisture. The labor required for this task would adds significantly to a grower's costs.

Another point of contention is the proposed limit on employees' hours. Work hours for nontarped, shallow-bed applications would be limited to 4 hours in a 24-hour period. Currently, employees can work 8 hours in any 24-hour period. For tarped, deep broadcast applications, workers would be limited to 3 hours in a 24-hour period. Under current conventions, these employees can work 12 hours.

Time limits on work hours is a severe blow to growers and workers alike. It will take longer to fumigate fields due to a shortage of qualified drivers, and workers will be paid for fewer hours.

Growers contend the proposed regulations would create undue hardship. "California standards are currently at least eight times stricter than those of the federal government and the rest of the country, making the added regulations even more burdensome to California growers who must compete with the rest of the country and the world's farmers," claimed one farmer.

Last Updated: July 24, 2000