Document 2JOMKJJnR8MeQRLDja9kja5Dp

Federal policy D epartm ent 2300 O ver Plaza Drive. Sacramento, CM 95833-3293 - Phonin916} 561-5610 - Tax (916) 561-5693 June 10, 2016 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0856 RE: Biological Evaluations of Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, and Malathion The California Farm Bureau Federation (CFBF) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the biological evaluations of chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion and request that the agency take into account the impact the agency's actions may have on farmers and ranchers. As the largest farm organization in California, CFBF represents over 53,000 farm families and individual members. These growers are engaged in the production of the widest range of agricultural products and in many instances are critically dependent on pesticide products regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). CFBF has extensive policy regarding the safe use of pesticides to insure a reliable, high quality supply of safe, nourishing, and affordably priced food and agricultural commodities. Organophosphates (OPs) provide a number of beneficial uses to farmers for a wide range of crops. They can be readily implemented into an integrated pest management (1PM) program, as well as insect resistance management (IRM) programs. OPs also work readily in tank mixes while providing flexible timing and method of application; they have a history of usage and familiarity for growers while providing effective, consistent pest control. To cite one example, chlorpyrifos is widely used on a broad spectrum of crops, including apples, almonds, broccoli, cherries, cotton, dry beans, grapes, sunflowers, onions, and watermelon among many others. For an exhaustive discussion of its uses and benefits, we refer the agency to a document prepared by Dow Agro Sciences (DAS), viz., http://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dowagro/chlorpvrifos/IJse and Benefits of Chlorpyrifos i n Agriculture 2Q16.pdf. This carefully prepared paper delineates the many uses and benefits of the product and underscores its importance for production agriculture.1 Because of the important benefits OPs provide to agriculture, CFBF wishes to register its strong concern about EPA's approach in this proceeding. We strongly urge the agency to revisit its assumptions and revise its thinking because we believe the agency appears to be establishing an approach that will result in nearly irreparable impacts on farmers. As a general remark, we note that the agency has released in this docket a series of papers and materials that constitute over 12,000 pages of highly technical text, scientific assumptions and 1Included in this document as Appendix A is a copy of CFBF's comments filed on December 21, 2015 when the agency announced it was considering revoking all tolerances for chlorpyrifos. The comments also contain details about the benefits and usage of chlorpyrifos in California. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 3/4 ED 002061 00057100-00001 evaluations and consequent judgments. It is nearly impossible for farmers and ranchers to examine such a wealth of data in the amount of time provided by the agency and respond in a meaningful manner. As a result, the agency's process may well fail to live up to the statutory guidelines laid down by Congress, under which the agency is instructed to take into account the impacts of its pesticide evaluations on farmers. Accordingly, we caution the agency that its actions may well prove highly detrimental to agriculture. Additionally, the approach itself that EPA appears to favor presents problems. For instance, we are fearful that the agency may be proceeding in a manner that injects a `precautionary principle' approach into its evaluations and decisions. Such an approach is without precedent, flies in the face of the law and should not be adopted. EPA has an obligation, scientifically and validly, to evaluate the risk and exposure scenarios posed by a given chemical - in this instance, the three OPs under consideration. It appears that EPA has purposely chosen very low effects endpoints and unrealistic levels of exposure that artificially inflate `likely to adversely affect' (LAA) determinations. We anticipate that others will file related comments to these dockets underscoring flaws in EPA's methodology and how that methodology overstates potential risks and exposures. We strongly advise the agency to consider such comments carefully. While CFBF does not retain professional staff trained in biological evaluations, we are concerned that the agency has apparently adopted a methodology that overstates risk/exposure scenarios, the impact of which will be to limit the availability of these OPs to farmers, thus undermining the ability of farmers to manage their lands efficiently, productively and profitably. In a similar vein, EPA apparently is relying on provisional models and approaches that are defective (one spatial distribution estimate reportedly has several whale species occupying habitat in Indiana). For these reasons - the limited time available to affected stakeholders to provide comment; the voluminous amount of highly technical material; the potentially broad and negative impact on growers; the flawed methodology adopted by the agency; the overly conservative assumptions embedded in the agency's approach; and the adoption of a precautionary approach that is not consistent with the law - we urge the agency to carefully reconsider its approach and not proceed as outlined in these biological evaluations. We value the opportunity to provide comments to the agency. Sincerely, Chelsea Molina Legislative Analyst Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA California Farm Bureau Federation Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0856 Biological Evaluations o fChlorpyrifos, Diazinon, andMalathion Page 2 Tier 3/4 ED 002061 00057100-00002 Appendix A CaliforniaFarmBu ii'Au Federation Q OVSXNiM-NHAI. A December 21, 2015 Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Mailcode 2822IT 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N W Washington, DC 20460 Chiorpyrifos Tolerance Revocations Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2Q15-0653 The California Farm Bureau Federation would like to submit the following comments on the U.S. EPA proposal to revoke all tolerances fo r the insecticide chiorpyrifos in response to a courtordered deadline. As the largest farm organization in the state representing over 53,000 farm families and individual members, Farm Bureau works to find solutions to problems faced on the farm and throughput the rural community in California. We have extensive policy regarding the safe use of pesticides to insure a reliable, high quality supply of safe, nourishing, and affordably priced food and agricultural commodities. We support reducing pesticide risk, and danger where they actually exist. But in the absence of a refined, realistic and comprehensive drinking water analysis, proposing the revocation of all or any chiorpyrifos tolerances is unjustified. Products containing chiorpyrifos are critical to California agriculture. They are one part of comprehensive Integrated Pest Management programs and provide benefits fo r both small and large farm operations, including maximizing yield and yield quality, and contributing to insect resistance management. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation use reporting database indicates there were dose to sixty crops that were treated with chiorpyrifos products in 2013, on approximately 1.3 million acres. There are no known areas with drinking water concerns related to use of chiorpyrifos in California. Listed below are the crops obtained from the DPR database that benefit from having chiorpyrifos available. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA California Farm Bureau Federation Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0856 Biological Evaluations o fChiorpyrifos. Diazinon, and Malathion Page 3 Tier 3/4 ED 002061 00057100-00003 California Farm Bureau Chlorpyrifos Tolerance Revocations Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653 2013 Pesticide Use Reporting Table 7: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. A! 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 i 2010 : 2011 2012 CHLORPYRIFOS 2,051,34-8 1,928,989 1,442,521 1,368,568 1,248,584 I 1,288,733 ; 1,300,202 1,104,428 2013 1,450,672 T a b le S ; T h e r e p o r te d c u m u la tiv e a c re s t r e a t e d w it h p e s tic id e s t h a t a r e c h o lin e s te r a s e - in h ib itin g p e s tic id e s . A 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 CHLORPYRIFOS 1,631,634 1,538,958 1,154,631 1,162,554 935,588 1,097,107 1,188,150 1,053,936 1,288,690 CHLORPYRIFOS C om m odity A lfa lfa A lm ond A pple A pricot A s p a ra g u s Avocado B arley Bean, Dried Bean, Succulent Bermuda grass Bok Cboy B ro c c o li Brussels Sprout Cabbage Total Pounds O n This C om m odity 880.52 Total Pounds O n This C om m odity Cabbage, Savoy Canola (Rape) Cauliflow er C h e rry Chinese Cabbage (N apa) Christm as Tree Citrus 3,045.53 Total P ounds On This C om m odity C o l la rd C o m m o d ity Fumigation 543.43 Total P ounds On This C om m odity Corn (Forage -Fodder) Corn, Grain Corn, Human Consum ption C o tto n C ucum ber D a ik o n Gai Choy G ai I.on G ra pe Grape, W ine Total P ounds On This C om m odity 0.88 P ounds A pplied 193,653.45 448,672.96 3 ,6 3 1 .2 0 1.45 10,135.32 26.28 35.47 486.18 334.34 A pplications 6,991 2,580 96 174 2 2 34 243.52 37.50 1,283.19 6 ,9 8 5 .1 2 764.05 3 ,0 3 0 .8 6 14.66 15 1 184 385 72 308 3 12.97 29.59 867.33 338.07 89.88 4.00 543,33 0.04 2 1 100 30 26 1 23 2 73.81 21.16 1.00 22.16 40,433.78 827.21 9 ,2 1 6 .8 2 157,730.22 0.74 0.14 13 1 1,110 28 155 1,525 1.26 1.20 156.38 75,364,14 37,317.82 2 1 43 833 332 2 T re a te d 439,496.28 240,886.31 2,187 05 0 84 10,485 56 8 .0 0 133.00 535.00 715,600.00 Type A A A A A A A P 255.00 4,00 1,269 00 5 ,3 6 8 .6 2 986.66 3,166.31 19.86 A A A A A A U 19.00 14.00 771.51 514.88 111 02 4 .0 0 179.95 92.00 A A A A A A A U 137.37 A 45.00 ? 54,224 60 1 ,3 0 8 .2 0 9,927.01 169,015.74 5 ,5 6 2 .3 2 3 ,5 2 7 .7 5 A A A A P U 2.75 A 0 20 A 154 50 A 42,749.07 A 20,582.71 A California Farm Bureau Federation Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0856 Biological Evaluations o fChlorpyrifos. Diazinon, and Malathion Page 4 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 3/4 ED 002061 00057100-00004 California Farm Bureau Chlorpyrifos Tolerance Revocations Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653 G rapefruit Guava Kale Total P ounds On This C om m odity Landscape M aintenance Lemon Lettuce. Leaf L im e M u stard N -G rnhs Flower Tots! P ounds On This C om m odity N -G rnhs P lants In C ontainers Total P ounds On This C om m odity N -G m hs Transplants N -O utdr Flower Total P ounds On This Com m odity Total P ounds On This C om m odity N -O u tdr P lants In C o nta in ers 257.49 151.SI 257.93 5. 672.34 Total P ounds On This Com m odity N-O utdr Transplants Total P ounds On This C om m odity N ectarine O at (Forage - Fodder) O nion, Dry O ra n g e O rchard Floor Peach Pear Pecan P is ta c h io Plum Pom elo Prune P ublic Health Radish Regulatory Pest Control Research Com m odity Rights O f W a y Total P ounds On This Com m odity Total P ounds On This C om m odity Soil Fum igation/Preplant S orghum (Forage -Fodder) S orghum /M ilo Squash S traw berry S tructural Pest Control 707.2S 576.29 109.24 380139" 3 2 ,2 7 3 .3 9 0.70 242.23 15.26 372.96 30.129,83 10.50 9.39 29.65 81.08 70.82 187.91 70.01 3.19 2.37 56 543.42 128.93 649.32 55.07 2.40 575.73 0.51 1 8 9 1 .5 6 82.67 5 ,1 4 2 .2 2 152,323,91 38.43 5 ,5 1 3 .4 3 S3.32 1,874.71 0.13 1 1 2 4 .7 9 248.27 473.20 .88 1 2 1 3 .3 4 10.54 78.05 3113 987.81 138 10.59 2 ,5 3 6 ,3 7 2 ,9 0 0 .3 5 6.15 8 ,1 9 6 .4 0 1 ,66128 91 1,284.70 A 1 2.00 A 44 332.09 A 1 20.35 U 545 1 4 5 61 36 9,937.10 A 10.00 A 23.25 A 8S.38 A 189.83 A 1290,749.00 S 133 4 ,0 3 0 ,9 3 0 00 -S 45 68.42 A 6 1.78 A 11 274,340.00 S 175 1,283.50 A 37 778,824.00 S 242 1 00 7 34 A 52 1,325,020.00 S 5 9,300.00 u 55 473.11 A 19 16,755.00 S 83 3 123 1917 5 143 6 38 1 65 12 11 1 ,360 61 A 88 00 A 5 ,8 2 4 41 A 49,740.21 A 2150 A 2,655.44 A 50.50 A 1,370.50 A 40.00 A 730 43 A 85 50 A 254 70 A 266 720.12 A 14 39.51 A 1 4 55 77 10 207 2 00 A 1134 A 4,193.60 A 5,019.73 A 40.00 A 8,405.08 A California Farm Bureau Federation Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0856 Biological Evaluations o fChlorpyrifos. Diazinon, and Malathion Page 5 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 3/4 ED 002061 00057100-00005 California Farm Bureau Chlorpyrifos Tolerance Revocations Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2Q15-0653 | Sudan grass j j Sugar beet j I S ugar beet (Forage -Fodder) i I S unflow er j I S w eet Potato j I Tangeio j | Tangerine j i Turf/Sod | i Turnip j | Total P ounds On This C om m odity j i U ncultivated Ag ! j V ertebrate C ontrol j | W alnut i i Wheat j ; W heat (Forage -Fodder) j ! C h em ica l T o ta l j 57.97 1 ,2 7 6 .4 7 35,114.86 122.74 1,071 39 1.475.26 947.78 23.314.52 854.52 57,35 0.63 55.02 9 48 1 6 6 ,2 0 8 21 3 ,4 1 4 .7 8 1 ,4 6 0 ,6 7 2 .4 5 40 704 3 19 30 31 523 29 38 7 5 2,823 107 24,178 1.279.70 A 47.6687 A 162 00 A 1,253 09 A 728.69 A 529.20 A 15,682.31 A 80S.S3 A 23.69 A 21.000.00 S 69.59 A 91,422 74 A 7,246.04 A U.S. EPA has presented no justification to revoke any of these tolerances and all should be retained. As the Agency produces refined information on drinking water risk and economic impact, we would suggest that analysis should he representative o f realistic scenarios in key areas of use, including the State of California. We look forward to working with the Agency as they finalize this important policy decision. Sincerely, (jLyfiX jhtt P Cynthia L Cory Director, Environmental Affairs Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA 4 California Farm Bureau Federation Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0856 Biological Evaluations o fChlorpyrifos, Diazinon, andMalathion Page 6 Tier 3/4 ED 002061 00057100-00006