Fumigation Under Fire

A series of events, not directly related to each other, has put fumigants in the public and regulatory crosshairs. And while it’s too early to tell how, it’s likely that PMPs who perform structural, container, chamber, tarp and other fumigations will have to change their practices.

“I think we’re in uncharted waters here,” said Jim Fredericks, vice president, technical and regulatory affairs, National Pest Management Association, of the “perfect storm” that’s come down on these products. “The endpoint, we can only assume, will be increased regulation,” he said at a meeting of NPMA’s fumigation committee in October.

GETTING TO THIS POINT. Several events occurred to get the industry to this point, including the announcement in December 2013 that the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) would evaluate exposure risks and potential mitigation measures for sulfuryl fluoride to reduce these risks to workers, bystanders and occupants re-entering structures.

Even though a DPR registration review completed in March 2013 found no additional mitigation measures were necessary, this evaluation — a legislative mandate tied to the fumigant being named a toxic air contaminant in 2006 — may find otherwise. DPR is expected to announce its ruling in mid-2016. (The original deadline of Dec. 31, 2015, was extended so the agency can assess new research.)

Earlier, in September 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began a registration review of structural and commodity fumigants like methyl bromide, metal phosphides and phosphine. (Its review of sulfuryl fluoride began in 2009.) All registered pesticides undergo registration review every 15 years to ensure they work without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment, and this process may or may not result in label changes, use restrictions or additional mitigation measures.

In March 2015, NPMA and the Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials (ASPCRO) hosted a workshop for EPA officials re-evaluating fumigants to help them better understand the products, types of fumigation activities and the planning and monitoring that goes into each event. Over three days at the Rollins Learning Center in Atlanta, PMPs demonstrated four live fumigations: a full-blown residential structural fumigation, a chamber fumigation targeting bed bugs in furniture, and container and tarp fumigations to treat commodities for stored product pests. They also walked attendees through tape-and-seal fumigation procedures.

EPA attendees found the workshop “to be very helpful, especially considering the broad group of disciplines that are involved in the re-evaluation of fumigants,” wrote Cathy Milbourn, an EPA spokesperson, in an email.

Ironically, it was at this workshop that EPA and industry officials learned of the poisoning of a Delaware family on vacation in the U.S. Virgin Islands from methyl bromide, used off label to fumigate an adjacent condo to treat wood-destroying beetles. The incident received national media attention. Three of four family members remain in serious condition; the Associated Press reported the family and Terminix are in settlement talks.

The incident was caused by “a blatant misuse of the product,” said Travis Swope, president of Griffin Pest Management in Santa Ana, Calif., and an active member of Pest Control Operators of California. But being together with EPA when the news broke “afforded us the opportunity to explain that this was the exception, not the standard,” he said.

Then in August, more national headlines: A young boy was poisoned after he and his family re-entered their Palm City, Fla., home, which had been treated with sulfuryl fluoride for drywood termites. The boy faces a long recovery; lawsuits against Terminix and its subcontractor are ongoing. (Read more at http://bit.ly/1Ji9Ya2.)

Later in August, Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency announced new risk mitigation requirements for metal phosphides and phosphine gas, primarily used to treat food commodities, storage facilities and transport vehicles, citing unacceptable risks to workers and bystanders. Most notable: A buffer zone of 50 to 500 meters around treated sites.

Registrants were required to amend labels by Nov. 22 or lose registration on Dec. 31, but PMRA may modify the buffer zone requirements before approving the new labels. As such, PMPs and phosphine producers are submitting historical monitoring data for consideration. As currently proposed, the buffer zones would “stop fumigation in many places, especially grain processing and storage facilities across Canada,” as they’d require evacuating people from homes, closing streets and businesses, and policing and monitoring these areas for traces of phosphine, said Fredericks in a phone call.

Bystander exposure is a potential risk that PMRA has identified, noted Fredericks. “It’s a risk that hasn’t borne itself out in the decades of use of these products. The incidents that occur are when people are exposed to these products in the fumigated structure,” he said. In February 2015, two children died and three were sickened when their parents used illegally imported phosphine pellets off label to rid their Fort McMurray, Alberta, apartment of bed bugs.

In light of the U.S. exposures, the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) announced on Oct. 7 it would evaluate the extent and nature of adverse impacts caused by structural fumigants, and whether the execution of the agency’s regulatory program (e.g., training, funding, inspections, enforcement, etc.) led to these incidents. The OIG is “like an internal quality assurance program” for EPA, said Fredericks.

According to OIG Spokesperson Jennifer Kaplan, the OIG program evaluation team is undertaking preliminary research, and then it will determine whether/how the review will proceed. Field work typically follows preliminary research. “It is too early to project when the review may be completed or what the next steps may be,” she said. NPMA met with OIG in November to provide industry perspective.

HOW WILL IT PLAY OUT? It’s difficult to say if or how these events may influence the EPA’s registration review decision, which should be complete in 2020.

The two poisoning incidents are under investigation by EPA. “As with other re-evaluations, EPA considers incidents as a line of evidence in our risk assessments and our risk management decisions,” wrote Milbourn. The agency already is discussing how to improve label clarity to ensure proper use by applicators, and is working to enhance stewardship plans and develop fumigation management plans, she said.

Buffer zones, which have been in place for soil fumigants for several years, were included in new methyl bromide commodity use product labels that EPA accepted in September (the result of a previous re-evaluation), wrote Milbourn.

The industry is concerned buffer zones might be applied to all fumigants. “Since all of these products are now in registration review, what we would hate to see is some kind of spillover in a way that EPA is thinking about mitigating risk,” said Fredericks.

According to Lee Whitmore of Quality Pest Services in Southern California, buffer zones “would be a nightmare” in densely populated Southern California and could “eliminate the opportunity to help homeowners with protection of their personal property.”

He said a better option to mitigate exposure risk is finding ways “to utilize our tools in a safe and efficacious manner. Proper product stewardship and doing things in accordance with the label; those are the things that will solve a lot of the concerns.”

Swope foresees a version of the California Aeration Plan (CAP) eventually making its way onto labels. Required by California DPR, CAP is a more rigorous safety practice developed by the industry that aerates treated structures while tarps are in place so employees removing tarps aren’t exposed to fumigant more than 1 part per million. The process uses ducted fans and takes a minimum of 12 hours.

While CAP is expensive to implement — requiring more equipment, training and time — and has required companies to change their business practices, “I can say without a shadow of a doubt the process we developed is superior to what the standard label requirement was previously,” said Whitmore, who played an active role in creating and revising the plan, an updated version of the state’s Tarpaulin Removal Aeration Plan implemented 20 years ago.

Another action could be increased regulatory oversight, something California PMPs have encouraged for 20 years. They collect $8 on fumigation jobs in the four Southern California counties with the highest prevalence of drywood termites to fund additional inspections (about 4 percent vs. 1 percent of jobs each year). This ensures “the most egregious violations are addressed” and “brings us to the table with the regulators” to identify trends, address discrepancies and interpret regulations, Whitmore said.

Following the poisoning incidents, some PMPs in Florida, Mississippi and the Caribbean said local regulators had upped their scrutiny on fumigations. In the Virgin Islands, EPA and Department of Planning and Natural Resources are increasing training and permitting requirements for restricted use pesticides, according to media reports. Other possibilities are use restrictions and even the removal of certain uses or sites.

WHAT NOW? In the meantime the pest management industry is making itself available as a resource to EPA and other regulatory agencies.

NPMA is developing a “concentrated, unified industry strategy” as the current situation “requires an extraordinary response by the industry,” said NPMA CEO Bob Rosenberg at the group’s October fumigation committee meeting. In January, the association held webinars to get member input on common-sense stewardship opportunities. This input will be developed into strategy during an industry stewardship summit held during Legislative Day in March, and eventually shared with regulators at a stakeholder meeting later in 2016.

Milbourn encouraged industry stakeholders to engage in EPA’s public participation process (http://1.usa.gov/1NkkxnV). “It is helpful to the Agency to keep an open line of communication with stakeholders throughout the entire re-evaluation process,” she wrote.

In early December, NPMA, ASPCRO and other partners hosted intensive training workshops in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (with a live video feed to St. Thomas) on fumigation safety and compliance.

Registrants continue to conduct studies and gather information so regulators “have the science to evaluate risks,” says Janet Rowley, global business leader — pest management for Douglas Products, which makes fumigants for commodity and structural use and recently purchased the ProFume and Vikane gas fumigant (sulfuryl fluoride) business from Dow AgroSciences. The conclusions of EPA and DPR are “definitely a work in progress,” she said.

Douglas Products has a long tradition of product stewardship, including annual classroom and field training programs that keeps applicators well-versed in regulatory nuances, Rowley said. This month the company will unveil a website designed to help consumers understand the process of structural fumigation. There’s a lot of confusion about what a fumigation is, and the website, which is based on consumer research, will provide information in a way consumers can understand, she said.

Fleeson of ASPCRO reminded PMPs to read and follow the entire pesticide label and all labeling, such as application manuals, before applying fumigants, as well as to be aware of state laws and regulations (including certification or licensure requirements) that may differ from federal regulations. Methyl bromide labels have been amended and new label language will appear in 2016, and sulfuryl fluoride labels require the certified applicator and application personnel to complete the product stewardship training prior to use, she reminded. “Now is a good time to self-audit your operation to ensure compliance,” said Fleeson, who encouraged PMPs to contact their state lead agency with questions.

Industry experts admit the stakes are high as fumigation has few effective alternatives. Sulfuryl fluoride and phosphine are critical when it comes to protecting homes, businesses, international trade and the food supply from devastating pests. “Fumigation is the silver bullet,” said Whitmore, who’s seen this in treating difficult bed bug infestations. “It really does serve a very valuable service to the consumer.”

Because of this, Rowley says she believes there’s a collective desire among regulators and industry to find workable solutions. She’s “very optimistic” the industry will be able to continue offering fumigation service. Modifications to labels are a possibility, “but I still think it will be very doable in the end,” she said.

Email the author at anagro@gie.net.