At 03:12 PM 9/5/97 -0700, Glenn Brank wrote:
>Members of your newsgroup may be interested in the
>following statement issued on the day of the press
>conference held by EWG, PAN et al.
>Glenn Brank, Information Officer
>California Department of Pesticide Regulation
>(916) 445-3970
>gbrank@cdpr.ca.gov
>
> Statement
> James W. Wells
> Director, Department of Pesticide Regulation
>
> The hysterical accusations against the
>Department of Pesticide Regulation have reached a
>despicable low point. DPR has been the national
>leader in developing and enforcing safer ways to use
>pesticides, including methyl bromide. Ironically, it is
>since we began tightening down on methyl bromide
>use in 1992 that the chorus of criticism has
>escalated, reaching a overwrought crescendo with
>today's accusations by Californians Against Pesticide
>Reform.
>
> It is time to look at science and fact, not--as
>our accusers do--start with a point of view and bend
>and stretch the truth until it somehow fits their skewed
>view of the world.
>
> Key facts are:
>
> DPR did not keep *secret* that methyl bromide
>can move from one area to another. Any high school
>physics student can tell you that a gas--like methyl
>bromide--will move from one area to another. This
>scientific principle is known as Graham's Law of
>Diffusion, and was actually discovered in 1829.
>
> FACT: We didn't need to tell fumigators about
>it. They already knew--that is why they use tarps to
>hold methyl bromide in a structure during fumigation.
>
> FACT: That is also why existing law has long
>required that all openings in a structure be sealed
>before fumigation.
>
> As part of its continuing evaluation of methyl
>bromide use practices, DPR did study methyl
>bromide levels outside homes. As a result, new
>regulations will be noticed in September to carry out
>even-tighter controls over methyl bromide use,
>including buffer zones around structures, better tarps
>over the fumigated structure, and increased controls
>over methyl bromide when tarps are removed.
>
> FACT: Even though the regulations are still to
>be formalized, structural pest control firms have has
>already adopted the new restrictions as the industry
>standard.
>
> DPR recognized in 1992 that structural
>exposures to methyl bromide needed stronger
>controls. Acting by emergency regulation, the
>Department required lengthy ventilation periods after
>structural fumigations to reduce the risk to returning
>residents. DPR's action was later followed by U.S.
>EPA, which imposed similar measures for the rest of
>the nation. In California, DPR's regulation had the
>effect of dramatically reducing the use of methyl
>bromide in structural fumigations. Before DPR took
>action in 1992, methyl bromide was used in about 45
>percent of the state 100,000 structural fumigations
>each year. (The remaining fumigations used sulfuryl
>fluoride.) Today, only about 13 percent of the
>fumigations are with methyl bromide.
>
> FACT: There is no connection between a
>fatality in Los Angeles and alleged shortcomings in
>laws or regulations governing methyl bromide.
>
> Before a structure can be fumigated with
>methyl bromide, the law requires the applicator to
>carefully inspect the structure and seal all openings.
>Until last March, there had been no deaths related to
>methyl bromide structural fumigations since early
>1992--before DPR imposed strict controls. The
>March fatality involved a woman in Los Angeles
>County. After investigation, it was found there were
>several open electrical conduits running from the floor
>of the treated building underground to the floor of the
>woman's home. These conduits are not standard in
>building construction, and the applicator did not see
>them and therefore did not seal them, as required by
>the law.
>
> FACT: The study was not secret. It was
>mailed early last year to at least 15 university
>libraries--standard practice for this type of study. It
>was also presented and distributed at a public
>meeting last November.
>
> As part of its continuing evaluation of methyl
>bromide use practices, DPR scientists have done a
>number of studies of structural fumigations. One
>study was done at an abandoned Air Force base near
>Sacramento. The base was selected for the study
>because the homes were unoccupied. The study
>involved treating one house seven times using various
>application techniques. Each time, methyl bromide
>levels were measured outside around the home and
>in neighboring homes. In the first phase of the study,
>methyl bromide levels inside one neighboring home
>were much higher than would be expected.
>
> An examination of blueprints of the area
>revealed a nonstandard sewer connection between
>this home and the treated house. We found that the
>sewer system had been drained when the Air Force
>abandoned the base, and there was an open
>connection between the two homes. Our scientists
>filled the sewer with water and next time a treatment
>was done, the problem did not reoccur. It would also
>not be expected to occur in any home with functioning
>plumbing. And if plumbing did not function, odors
>from sewer gases would drive residents out.
>
> FACT: No entity--inside or outside
>government--has studied methyl bromide as
>intensively and extensively as DPR scientists have in
>the past five years.
>
> It is ironic that DPR began its strict controls on
>methyl bromide in 1992 and has been the focus of
>criticism ever since. First from farmers, who
>protested that their counterparts in other states did
>not have to abide by such restrictions, and the cost of
>complying would make California farmers less
>competitive. Nonetheless, DPR has continued to
>carry out increasingly tough restrictions to protect
>both workers and the public.
>
> DPR will continue to evaluate the toxicology of
>methyl bromide and periodically examine the
>effectiveness of use restrictions to fine-tune them if
>necessary. DPR has earned its expertise in this
>arena through careful, complex, and meticulous
>scientific work. DPR scientists and specialists have
>devoted thousands of hours to ensuring that this
>chemical be used safely with every protection for all
>citizens.
>
>