UN ITED STATE S EN VIRONMEN T AL PRO TECT ION AGENCY WASHI NG TO N D .C ., 20 46 0



### MEMORANDUM 

## MA Y 0 12 00 9 O FFI CE OF P RE VE NT IO N, PES TIC I DES A ND TO XIC SUBST A NCES



### S UBJECT : FROM :

THRU:

TO : Revised Assess ment of Pereent Co mmod ity Treate d Va lue s u sed in th e Regi str ant ' s D ietary Ex posure Asses sm ent fo r Fluo ride ( DP # 36 104 1)



### " / ?} C o lwe ll A . Cook, E n to m o logist 

# It, <' 

# j ' Jo nathan Be cker , Se nior Scie nce Ad visck 

# d £. , Bio logica l Analy s i s B ranch E l isa R im, Eco nomi st 

# to<,1l 

# v« Econo mic A naly s i s B ranch 

# J Bio logical an d Eco no mic A nalysi s Di vi sion ( 7 P ) A me t Jo nes,C hief 

# j" 

# d ,,'i'u!.. , 8 , ',.. " B iolo g ical An aly s i s Br anch 

### e:f Ti moth y K iely , C h ief , /.\-

# vv....1 Eco no mic Ana ly s i s Br anch ' 

# J

# J Bio logical a nd Economic A nalysi s D ivi s ion 0 3P ) Kable Davi sN en u s Eag le Prod uct Regi s tration

- Sec t ion 3 Reg istratio n Di vi s ion (75 05P) M ichael D oherty /C hri s tina S wart z Regi str ation Ac tion B ranch 2 He alth E ffects D ivision 

### (7509P) PRODUCT REV IEW DATE : April 2 , 20 09 S l lMMA RY T he O ffice o f Wate r (OW) i s currentl y re- ev alua ting the rela tive so urce c ontribution of flu oride . A s part o f thi s asse ss ment , c ontribution s f rom a ll source s o f fl uoride a re b eing exami ned for th e ove rall expo s ure of fluor ide. Th e Office o f P e s ticide Programs (O PP) i s pr ovid ing OW w ith th e pes ticida l p ortion o f that overall e xposure . T hi s m emorandum review s th e p o st-harv e st u sage o f th e f umigant s u lf uryl fl uoride f or i nc orpor ation into th e H e alth E ffect s D ivis ion' s ( BED) report. Page Il n s upport o f ch ara cteri zi n g th e u sage of s ulfuryl fluorid e , D ow A g roSc ience s ( D AS), th e s u l furyl fl u o ride re gi s t ra nt , ha s s u b mitt e d in f orm a ti on t o re fine the di e t ary ex posure o riginally c alculated by H E D (E P A, 2 004 a nd 2 006) . Th e Bi ological and E co n omic An aly s is D iv i s i on ( BE A D) e v al uated the 

### I nformatio n pr ovided b y DAS a nd U S DA r e po rt s . B EAD i s prov id i ng H ED w i th co mmod ity tre ated c a lcu lat io n s b ased o n m ethyl br om id e u sa ge i nfo rm at ion . Sulfury l flu orid e i s a m ethyl bro m ide repla cement ; ho weve r, m an y o f the co mmod it ies d id n ot use m eth y l br om ide pri o r t o i ts ph a s e-out an d wo uld be un li kely t o us e s u l fu ryl fl u o ride . B EAD i s a lso pr ov idin g a compari so n o f s ulfury l fl uorid e wi th a luminum p ho s phide w hich i s t he curre nt m ark e t l eader in po s t h arve st fumig ation s . Su lfuryl fl uoride i s re gi ster ed b oth f or direct fum igation of certain co mmoditie s and al so for f umi ga tion of g rain m ill s a nd f oo d p roce ss in g p lant s w here food s ma y be pr ese nt and m a y be i n directl y tre ated . A s to direct fumigatio n , B EAD h a s a s sessed u sage onl y th ose co mmoditie s s pec ifi ca ll y li st ed o n the la b e l as f ood s th at may b e directl y fumi gat ed with s ul fury l fluor ide . Fo r s p a c e fu mi gat io n s (g rai n m ill s and proce s s ing p lant s) , BEAD co nclude s t hat up to 1 . 2 

### % o f grai n s c ou ld c ontain flu orid e re sidue s re s ultin g f rom s p ac e tr eatmen t s . F o r all o ther f ood s (i . c ., non-mill ed gra i n s) , th e frac t ion re s ultin g f ro m s pac e t reatment i s 

### 0.4 % . Fo r direct tre a tmen ts t o c omm odi tie s , B EAD h as da ta av ai lable f o r so me co m modities thr ough appl ica t ions s ubmitted fo r the me thyl br omid e c ritica l u se ex emp ti on pr oce ss under the M on tre al Pro to col. For o ther c rops , l i mited d ata are avai lable ( e . g . , U S D A NA SS s urv eys a n d priv ate m arket s ur v eys) . and B EAD c o n s ervativel y e s t ima t ed Percent Co m mod ity Tre a ted base d o n c urrent and pri or m eth y l bro m i de u sa g e . Alu m in um p ho s ph ide , o r p h o s phine, i s the d om in ant fumigant in th ese marke t s. 

### It i s e fficaci o u s , 

### cost-eff ecti ve, e as y t o a pply , an d B E AD d oe s n ot anti cipate a m igration f rom th e p ho sphi ne m a rket t o s u l f ury l tl u o r id e . B E AD d oe s , howeve r , a ntic ipate s ulfuryl fluo ride to r eplac e m eth yl b rom ide in th e se c omm odity m arket s . B EAD e xtrapol ate s th e s e e stim ate s to other co mmoditie s b a s ed o n s imilaritie s i n s torage, p ests , and l or end u s e s. T he s ummary o f B EAD 's e stim ate s o f p ercent co mmodity tre ated fr om d irect fumi gation i s pre sent ed in Table 1. T ABLE I. S l lMMARY OF R EVI S ED EST I:\IATES or Pt :R C ENT C n a xro nr r v DIR E CTl\" TR EATEO WITII S I I LFt"R\ ' L FU 'ORIDE 

### .

B E AD Co vn ron n-s P ERn :.' H C O . ' O I O DIT Y TR [ A TE O * G ROl"PI :"o G CC H I:\IODl T\ * () AS I B E AD I Es Tl \ IATE RE C O\I:\I ENOEO C he e se 0 .0 % 0. 0 % 0.0 %**EA TS '\~O**  CIIHS [ Il a m 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % B e e f ( Dried ) 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % Coco n ut 0 . 1 % 0 .0 % 0 .1 %**L" AR-\~T** **I:"rriED** uses ' Co ffee B e an 0 . 1 % 0 .0 % 0 . 1 % Maca d amia N ut 0 . 1 % 0 .0 % 0 . 1 % G in ge r 0 . 1 % 0 . 0% 0 . 1 %

Pa ge 2B a lded te xt ind icates B EAD s recornrncndarions are high er than DA S csum atcs . L Based on B EAD calc ulations f rom co mparat ive methyl bromide us age . 1 . Cu rrently f umigated wit h methy l bro mide to fulfill f ederal or stat e qua rantine requirements. 3 . Es timates b ased o n PCT for sorg hum and o ats. BE AD a ssumes s imilar categ orizatio n of small c oars e gra ins. 4 . T his g roup d id not request a methyl brom ide CU E and BEAD is anticip ating sulf uryl fluoride to r eplac e met hyl bromide. B EAD es t imates PCT to be n o mo re than the DAS e stimate for al monds . Based o n the pest spect rum, n uts ar c primaril y treat ed w ith phosphine . with som e treat ed with Propyl e ne O x i de. 5_ Based o n e st imates f rom s im il ar meth yl bromide crit ical us e exemption comm od ities 6 . Based o n reports of methyl bro m i de usage by USDA NASS 7. B EAD' s esti mate is based on a c ommodity with a si milar usc pattern ; therefo re B EAD de faults t o the high er of the two es t imates of t he ori g ina l commod ity .

BE AD C O . \ I_

\ 1

0 DrlT P J:: RC E:-i T CO :\I.\lODlTY TREATED'" GROt IPIN (; C ():\I:\IODlTY'" (l AS BEA D ES T IU\TE RE COI\IME)'IiDEU Ba rlev ' 0 . 1 % 0.1 % 0 . 1 % Com 0 . 1 % 0 .1 % 0 .1 % Cotto n see d 0 . 1 % 0 .1 % 0 . 1 % C OARSE GRAIN S Millet 0 .0% 0 .1 %. 0. 1 % Oat s 0 . 1 % 0 .1 % 0 . 1 % R ice**Hulls~** 0.0 % 0 . 1 % 0. 1 % Sor g hum 0 . 1 % 0.1 % 0 .1 % T r it ica le 0.0% 0. 1 % 0. 1 % C om Flo ur , G r it s, Mea l 0 . 1 % 0.0 % 0 .1 % He rb s A nd S p ic es 0 . 1 % < 0.1 % 0 . 1 % PROCE SSED P oocom 0 . 1 % < 0.1 % 0 .1 % 

### c oa a o oms s Ric e - F lo ur . Bran 3 . 0% 0 . 0 % 3. 0% Wh eat F lour. Germ, B ra n. S ho rts. Milled 0 . 1 % 0. 0 % 0. 1 % B yprod ucts P ea nut 6 0 .1 % 0. 6 % 0 .6 % ST ORED C O I\ I.\IODITIES Wheat 0. 1 % 0 .4 % 0.4 % Ric e 3. 0% 0 . 9% 3 . 0% Wil d R ice 0 .9 % 3 . 0% A lmonds 10.0% 2 .2% 10. 0 % B eechn ut 0.0% 2.2 % 10.0 % B r azil Nut 0. 1 % 2.2% 10.0 % Butternut 0.0% 2.2 % 10 .0 % Ca shew 0. 1 %. 2 .2 % 10.0 % N l IT S 4 C hest nut 0 .1 % 2.2 % 10.0 % Cfuecuaem 0 .0 % 2.2 % 10.0 % F ilber t 0. 1 % 2.2 % 10.0 % Htckorv Nut 0. 1 % 2.2 % 10.0 % Pecans 0. 1 % 2 .2 % 10.0 % Pine Nul 0. 1 OJ,, 2. 2 % 10 .0% P istachio l 0 .1 % 2 7 .0 % 27.0% Wa lnuts 20.0% 9 9. 0 % 99.0% MF.T IIYL B RO:\UDE D ates 40 .0% 4 2. 0 % 42.0 % C RITICAL USE Pr unes, Raisins, F ilJS 40.0% 6 9 .0 % 69.0 %**X~ I\I** **PT :-i**  Other Dried FruitS. 7 0 .1 % 6 9 . 0 % 69.0% C():'II:\IODITIES Dr ied B ean s 100 .0 % 9 2 .0 % 100 .0% L egumes (Dried , e xcept C hick pea & 0. 1 % 9 2.0 % 100.0 %**p ea ·7**  Cocoa Beans 100.0 % 100 . 0 % 100. 0 % 

### • 

## , , ,

Page 3BACKGRO USD Sul furyl flu oride i s a bi ocid e fu migant th at i s u sed to kill in sect pe sts , rodent s. bird s , and s nake s wi thin f acilities as we ll as co mmodities . Sul furyl flu oride w a s i nitially re gi ster ed as Vik ane " , a f umigant to tre at d ryw ood termite s an d o ther woo d bo ring in s ect s i n 1 95 9. 

### It wa s identified a s a po tential a lternative f or po st -harve st u se s o f m ethyl bromide, which i s bein g ph ased o ut, i n a cco rdanc e with th e M ontreal Pr otoco l o n oz one - de p le ting s ubstances . In 2 004 , U SEPA regi s tered a s ulfury l fluor ide pro duct, Pro pume " , a fumiga nt to tre a t food proce s si ng faci litie s, ce real g rain s, tr e e n ut s . an d dried f ruit. A s n o ted abov e, D AS i s the so le regi s trant for thi s product. In the s ummer of200 5 , USE PA g ra nted DAS ' reque s t to expand it s s u l fury l fl uoride food use regi str ati o n s to e sse ntially m atch th e methy l bro mide labe l fo r commodity fu migati ons . Su lfuryl flu oride i s s tore d in s t andardi zed, co mpre sse d gas cont ainer s, w hich are pla ced o ut s ide the s tru c ture . Ga s i s i ntroduced fro m th e cy linder throug h a s uitab le leak-proof t ube w ith a mi nimum bur st pre s sure o f 3 450 k Pa (500 p si). Relea se of the fumigant in to a l arge ope n s pace i s re comme nd ed. T he label fo r s ulf ur y l flu oride require s the u s e of elect ric fan s t o pro vide forced air circ ulation f o r faci lit at in g rap id d i s persi o n of the f um igant durin g its i ntrod uction in to s pace s o r a ir re circu lati o n through c ommodity f um igation . S ulfury l flu oride' s label re quire s th e u se o fa DA S c omputer pro gram . d e si gnated a s th e Pumlgulde " , w hich ca lculate s th e a pplication ra te bas ed o n the pe st . l ife s t age, te mperature, a nd e xposure peri od f or s pecific f umigation s cenario s . Be cause the Fumiguide i s p art of th e pe st icide label, it i s unl awful under FIF RA to u se s ul f u ry l fl u orid e in a man ner incon s istent wi th the Fumi guide . M onitoring c oncentrat ions thr oughout the fum i gation i s requ ired a nd c oncentrat ions a re input int o the Fum i guide " , which will c alculate t he ac tual h alf- li fe t ime and a ny add ition a l am oun t o f f um igan t an d/or inc rea se in expo sure t im e nece ssary . In add iti on, s ul fury l fluoride fu mi gat ion s req uire a m in imum o f two traine d and certified applica tor s , at lea s t one o f whom mu st b e a licen sed fumig ator , at the trea tment s ite for the durat ion o f the applica tion and ae rat io n . Li cen s ed fum ig ators may be a vailab l e a t l arge g rain s to rage faciliti es, bu t typically , wor k for fumi ga tion co mpanie s . S ulfuryl fl uoride re tail s fo r abo ut $ 5 . 00 per p o und . A ppli cati o n rate s fo r commo dities vary w idely , and c hem ical co sts may ra nge from $ 15 to $5 0 fo r 1 , 000 bu s hels . Su lfuryl fl uoride i s expec ted to t ake ove r m o st o f th e methyl brom ide po s t-h arve s t m arket , as methyl b rom ide is p h ased o ut . Like s u lf uryl fluo ride , methyl br omide i s a vailable as a co mpressed g as s t o red in s tand ar dized cyl inder s . Fumigation with meth y l b romide d oes not requ ire a c omputer pr ogram like the Fumiguide '[. B oth f umigant s target e ss entially the same pe s ts alth ough th ere are s o m e d ifferen ce s. The effi cacy o f s ulfuryl flu o ride is m ore s ensitive to tem perature than met hyl b romide . The chem ical co s ts f or bo th c hemica ls a re s imilar fo r f umigation at h igh temperature s , but lower temperature s require m ore s ul f u ry l fluorid e. M ethyl bromide and s u l f u ry l flu or id e are u sed w hen rapid fumigati on is needed, o r in locat i on s whe re sil ver a nd c opper m eta ls and the ir a lloy s occ ur ( primarily i n electrica l a nd c omput er s ystem s i n m ill s and pro cessing fa cilities) a s meth y l bro m i de a nd s ulfu r yl fl uoride arc non-co rro sive.

Pa ge 4

### The o the r maj o r fumi ga nt i n the m arket is aluminum pho sphide. or pho sphine . S u lf uryl fluo ride i s no t anticipated t o repl ace any alumin um phosphide fumi gation s becau se a l um i num pho sphide i s effic aciou s f or th e same pe st s . e asy to u se, and i nexpensive . It i s manu factured a s tablet s o r pellet s that s lowly re act with atm o spheric moisture to produ ce ph osphine gas . Aluminum ph osphide i s the most widely u sed post harve s t fum igant for s tored co mmodities s uch as com , oa ts , pe a nut s , rice . s orghum. a nd whe at. It 

### c an 

### be in serted i nto the s to red g rain by a plunge r o r c an be ad ded as th e g rai n i s bei ng b inned . The b in is clo se d o r the s ur face o f the grain i s cove red by plas tic tarpaulin . Fumi gat ion take s fi ve to s eve n d ay s . The a luminum pho s phide label require s t wo pe rsons , at least o ne of w hom i s a c e rt i fie d applicator, to b e pr e s ent whe n pe llet s/tablet s are i ntroduced an d a gain at t he e nd of ae ration , b ut a fumi gator' s l icen s e i s not requir ed. So me f armer s m ay be ce rtified applicators and co uld co nduct th eir o wn a luminum pho sphide a pplication s o n farm. It 

### i s also re latively l o w co st. A luminum ph o s phide re tail s fro m $ 5 to $1 0 per po und. A pplication rate s va ry be tween 0 . 26 to 1 . 00 po und p er 1 , 000 bu s he s of grain , ther eby co s tin g anyw here f r om $ I . 30 to $ 10 in chem ical co sts for 1 ,0 00 bu s hel s . Alum inum phosph ide is s eldom u s ed to f umigate food p roce ssin g faci litie s or m ill s, however, unle ss it i s done in s mall. c o n fin ed a reas . It i s co rro s ive to meta l s and wo uld damage equipme nt , p articul arly componen t s of s ensitive co mput erized sy s tems. In additi on the time required for f umigation with a luminum ph osphide i s a m ajor d rawback to its u se as cl osing facilitie s f or up to a week w ould have s ub s tantial imp acts o n pr oduction . An other fum igant used f or s ome comm oditie s is prop yle ne o x ide ( P PO) . It 

### i s o fte n u sed to co ntro l a variety o f microbi al pe s t s th at are not affected by methy l bromide o r s u lfury l fl uoride . A combi natio n o f al uminum ph os phide and P PO wo rk ver y w ell fo r m any nu t s and d ried bean s . F

ood proce ss ors have s i g nifican tl y reduced th eir reliance on fumi gation in the la st c ouple of decade s. Th eir fi rs t line o f de fen s e is int egrated p e st m anagement, e s pecia lly s anit atio n , and e quipment de sign mod ifications to e nable cle aning a nd in spection in all area s o fa f acility . Facilities are now bein g monitored for pest p opu lations, u sing vi sual in spections, ph eromone tr ap s, li ght trap s, and e lectrocution trap s . When in s ect p e sts are found , f acilitie s w ill att empt to c on tai n the i nfestation w ith treatments o f low volat ility p e sticide s applied to bot h s urfaces and c r acks a nd crevice s; s p ot treatment s with heat o r p hos phine will be u sed in are as that are s u itab le. I ncoming in g red ients are i n spec ted fo r i nsect pe sts an d m ay be 

### tr eated wi th pho sp hine if temperature a nd time are s ufficie n t . o r c o ntaminated i ngredients m ay be rejected . The se techniques do n o t d is infe st a facility b ut are cri ti cal in monito ring and m anaging pe s t s , and hopefully preventin g ou tbreaks . However . when a ll the se method s f ail to contro l a pe st prob lem . facilities mu st rel y o n fum igation . to kill pe st s within the pro cessing equipment , bin s, s torage s pace s and even the wall s o f the s tructure . M o st grai n is n ot di rectl y tre ated with pe sticides . P est c ontro l i n g rain s torage is primarily by cle aning e mpty bi n s, aerati ng d uct s. and by removing s pilled grai n and vegetat ion n ear t he b in s . Ty pically b in s are treated w hen they ar e emp ty , either wi th a fu migant, a liqu id in sect icide, or d iatomaceou s e arth. G rain may be 

### tr eated a s it i s aug ured i nto a sto rage bin o r afte r i t i s in a grai n b in . If treated, the co mmonly use d in secticides a re cy fluthrin, c hlorpyrifo s meth yl , P age 5

### pirimi phos me thyl . and mala thion . Grain in s torage is mai nly trea ted with aerat ion device s. often with chill ing. e spec ially at ofT-farm s torage facilitie s . Or gra in in s torage ma y be 

### fumigated. u sually w i th alumin um ph osphide . The food u sage o f s u l furyl fluoride i s currently low, w 

### -ith s ome exception s, but the s ituation i s dyna mic . Methy l bromide i s availa ble for the po st -harve st s ec tor only through the c ritical u se exem ption (C UE) p roce ss of the M ontreal P rotocol and is being greatly reduce d each year . For thi s memorandum. B EAD es timate s th at s ulfur yl flu oride replace s all m ethyl bro mide po st harve st u se s o ther th an the qu arantine u sc . Su lfury l fl uoride i s curre ntly no t a c o ntender for the q uarantine co mmodity uses o f methyl bromide. w hich are exe mpt fro m the Mont real Prot ocol . an d it has no t yet me t th e phyto sanitary co ndition s e sta blished by the I nt

e rn atio n al Plant Pro tection Co nvention . S PACE F UMIGAT I O :-rl S ( GR AI:-rl MIL LS A:-rlD PR O C ESSING PLAN TS) 

### R

esidue s may be left o n com modi ties i f they are p re sen t in a mill o r p roces s ing p lant at t he t ime of fu m iga tion . Th e prop o rtion o f commod itie s p re se nt du r i ng a f umigation d epend s o n the proportion of fac ilitie s treated, the f requency of treatment s , and the propo rtion of armual p roduct pre sent d uring the f umigation period . B EAD e s timates thi s as f ollows : PC]" ( Space Trea tmen ts) PFT 

## * N F 

## * ( DF I 

### TOD ) Where: • PCT ( Space Treatment s) is th e e stimated percen t o f commodi t ies expo sed durin g fu migatio n, P IT i s the percent of facili tie s treated , • NF i s the averag e n umber of fu migation s per year , • OF i s the dur ation o f a f umigation, and • TOO is th e total o perating day s of the facili tie s. Thi s metho d re sults in a co ns ervat i ve e stimate o f the percent o f co mmodities e xposed b ecau se the ratio o f fumig ation dur atio n to tot al d ays o f o peration o verstates th e p rop ortion o f a nnua l prod uct pr esent dur ing fu migation . F irs t. fumi gations m ay be lim ited to s peci fic areas o f a p lant or mill tha t are i sol ated f rom on -g oing p roduction . Seco nd , i f th e majo rity of the plant i s to be fu migated , f acilitie s will halt p roduction du ring f umigat ion and mo st w i ll s low, i f not cl ear, pro duction line s pri o r t o s h utt ing d own fo r fu mi g ation, red ucing th e a mount of p roduct that may be expo sed re lative to average da ily pr oduction . BEAD and DAS a gree with the followin g parameters : perce nt of the facilitie s treated ( 40%), number of day s o f product ion held in facilit y during a fumigation ( 2 days for grain mill s ; 1 da y f or proce ssing f acilitie s) and the numb er o f f umigations per yea r (3 per year f or grain mill s; 2 .5 per year f or p roce s sin g f acili tie s) . Ho w 

### eve r . B EAD and DAS d i ffer on the numbe r of ope rating da ys pe r year at grain mill s and p roce ssin g pl ant s . DAS ass umes th at th e s e fac ilitie s are in ope rati o n 350 day s per year , b ased o n "co n sulta tion w ith o perators . " BE AD o riginally a ssu med t hat the se f aci lities oper ate 3 00 d ays per yea r bec ause fac ilitie s d o n ot o perate at 100 % capa city year ro und (Be cker, e t a l. 2005) . Page 6M a nufac turer s nee d t o re p air or se rv ic e mach i ner y , so portio n s of a produ ct ion m ay te mporarily g o offlin e. A few fac ilities do n ot o p erate y ea r ro und . T o m aintain a co n se rvative e s timate , B EAD retain s th i s a ss umption ; a lthou g h , the di fferen c e in e s timated p er cent o f com modity e xpose d i s s mall. In a ddition , B EAD round s up to th e near est 0 . 1 % in or der to b e co n se rvativ e . T ab le 2 p re se nt s DAS a nd BEA D e s tim ate s. F f Y EXPO SED D UR G S C 

## c p 2 E T ABL t; S T IMA TED E RCENT OM:\IO DI c 1 :\ ru u TURAL l : M IGA Tl O :"l . S TRl lC Tl ' RE I)AS BEAD Grai n M ills 0 .7 % 0 .8 % Foo d Pr ocessine Fac ilities 0 .3 % 0 .4% Tota l ( Grain) 1.0 % 1.2% B EA D agre es wi th D AS that tre atm ents o ccurring in the m ill s and f o o d pr oce ssing fac iliti e s a re independ e nt. Th u s u p to 1 . 2 % o f g rains c ou ld c o ntain flu orid e re si du es re s ultin g from s pace tre atmen t s (i .e. , 0. 8% f rom treatment i n m ill s and 0 .4 % from tr ea tm e nt in pro ce ssi ng f aciliti es ) . For a ll ot he r foo d s ( i .e., non-mill e d grain s ) , th e fraction re su ltin g fro m s p ace treatment i s 0 .4 % . D I R I<:CT F OO l) TR EAT ME NTS DAS Me t hod ology D AS deri ve d p e rc ent cro p treated e st imates fo r s even co mm od iti es that are d irec tl y treated ( a lm o nds , cocoa, corn , p opcorn , pru ne s, r ice and whea t). Th e ir appro ach i s a s f oll o ws: PC T ( Commo dity) 

### [ VP(l -D c l) ]'p I ( F A P C'US p op) W here : • P C T ( Co mmodity) i s th e es ti m ated pe r ce nt of a co mmod ity d irectl y treat e d w ith s ulfuryl fl uoride , • VT is th e v o lu me of th e c omm o d ity treated, • p i s the bulk d e n s ity o f th e c omm odity, • FA C P i s Fo o d Avai labi lity P er C api ta, a nd • U S pop i s the p o pulation of the U nite d St ate s. Fu migat o r s u si ng s ulf ury l flu or ide rep ort t o DA S th e v ol ume of co mmodities tr ea te d v i a th e F umiguide ". DAS th e n a d ju s ts th i s va l ue do wnward b y 

### to % to a cco un t f or in c omp lete fill ing o f t he fu migation bi n . T o ta l vo lu me treated i s multi plied b y th e b ulk den si ty o f the c ommodity to e s timat e th e w ei ght of tr e ated co mm o dity . Foo d A va ilability Per Ca pita i s o btained fro m U SDAIE RS ( h ttp ://w ww.e rs. us da.gov / Data/ FoodCo ns u mpt ion/Foo dAvai llnd ex . ht m ) and is ca lculate d a s th e s um o f t ota l an nual p roduction, im port s, an d begi nning s toc ks o fa particular c omm od ity l e s s e xports, e nding s tocks, a nd no n -f oo d u s e s, di vid ed b y U .S . po pulation . T hu s, m ultipl yin g thi s am o unt by U . S . p opul a tion re turn s th e total a m o unt of a c o mmodi ty av ailable f or food co n su mptio n i n a y ear b ut does not a ccoun t for s po i l age or wa ste . Thi s m ethod i s a reas on ably c o nse rvative a pproac h f o r com moditi es w ith s ign ifi ca nt u s e a s a nim al f eed , s ince fee d m ay al so b e f umigated , and ve r y c ons ervative f or c o mmo d i ti es w ith s ign i ficant ex port s, a s the y are a l so lik el y to b e fu migated . BE AD h a s so m e c o ncern s o ve r the d ata u se d in th e DA S e s t i mates, i ncludin g: P age 7• Co mpany d ata are i ncomplete for many of the sev en co mmodities . In r ecent years, fumigato rs have not s ub m i tt ed com plete report s of u sage and com moditie s treated . • The re are lim ited data on how fu ll eac h b in is w hen th e fumigation occur s . Th e label req u ire s s o me ac tive ae ration du ring fum i gation, bu t thi s d oes n ot pre vent b i n s f rom be in g com p letely fi lled . B EAD M et hodology B EAD u sually e s t ima te s a pe rcent cro p o r co m m odi ty treated f o r new i n s ec ticid e s o r n ew u s e s a s the a verage and/o r o bse rv ed m aximum Percent C ro p T reated o f th e m a rket leade r , w hic h i s t he m ost wid el y u se d in s e cticide f o r th at cr o p . T hese i nitial es t imate s do no t co ns ider tar get p e st s or s p ec ifi cs o f the c hemi ca l. A naly s is ha s s ho wn th at new c he mi ca ls rarely o ve rta ke the mark et leader b y cr op s ite a nd pe sti cide t yp e within 5 ye ars , 

### i .e . le s s than 2% o f t he tim e ( Ke i g win, 2 00 6). D ata are p rim a rily fro m 

### US DN N ASS a nd C ali f o rnia D epartment o f P e sti cid e Re gul ation . B EA D a l s o u s e s E P A prop ri etary dat a to s up p le m e nt da ta gaps. Th ese d ata a re d irect rep ort s o fpcr ce nt c ro p tre ated , an d not c alc ulated f ro m vo lu me s . A n av erage o f th e hi ghest " area a pp li ed " perce nta ges fo r th e las t t hree yea rs fo r eac h s ite i s the n u se d . However, in th i s ca se, s ul f uryl fluorid e h a s bee n registered f or food u se s fo r 5 years . Its pe s t s pect rum and c hemi s try i s wel l-known . 

### It i s com parable to methy l bromi de a nd not th e po s tharve st m arket leader ( alu m in um ph o sphid e ). fo r reason s pre viously de scribe d i n the B ackground s ect ion of thi s doc ument . The refore , B E AD use s t he hi st oric values f or methyl brom ide a s the percent o f the commod ity th at may be treated w ith s u lf uryl fluori de, unle ss ot herwi s e s tated in the s p eci fi c co mmodity sect io n s be low . Due to the ph a s e ou t of methyl b romide , B EAD al so u ses data f rom th e me thyl brom id e CU E proce ss. For the pu rpo s e of e s timat ing percen t of co mmodity tr eated f or d ie ta ry ri sk ass essme nt, to b e co n s ervat iv e. B EAD' s rec o mm ende d e st imate i s the hi gher o f eit h e r B EAD ' s li kel y es ti mate o r D AS ' s es tima te . In a dditio n, i n c erta in c ircums tan ces, when the e st imate i s b ase d o n a co mmo d it y with a s imila r u se p attern, B E A D d ef a ults to th e h i gher o f th e t wo e s t imates o f th e o r ig inal co mmod ity. C ommoditie s S u lf uryl flu orid e i s reg istere d o n a n e xten si ve li st of com moditie s . Th e fo ll o win g tab le s h ave c omm od itie s w ith t he p ercent c ro p tr e ated as proposed by DA S b a se d o n their pro p osed meth odol ogy and F umi g uide '" data fro m 20 0 4 ·2 007 . Su l fury l flu orid e i s a me thy l bro mide replace me nt , an d m a ny o f th e c o mmodit ie s d id not u se meth yl b romid e p ri or to it s p hase -out. B EAD h as d ata ava i labl e f or so me co mmod ities t hrough ap pli cation s s ubmitte d fo r t he meth yl b romide cri tical u s e e xempt ion p roce ss . Fo r o the r cro ps, l im ite d d ata ar e availab le ( e .g . , U SD A NA SS s urvey s and private mar ket s urveys) , and B EAD co nservat ively e s timated Percent Co mmodity T reated to e qual current or prior me thyl b romide usage . A luminu m p ho sphid e, o r p hosphine , i s th e d ominant f um ig ant in the s e m arket s . 

### It is e fficacious, co s t-effective, an d easy to a pply ; th erefore B EAD doe s no t an ticipate a m igration from th e p hosphine m arket to s u l furyl fl uoride . B EAD doc s . howeve r . an t icipate s u l furyl fl uori de to rep lace methy l bromide in the se c ommod ity m arket s .

P ag e 8

### Meats and Ch eese D AS i s a nticipating zer o perce nt c omm odity treated o n th e fo llo wing co mmodities: c heese a nd ham . BE AD c an c onfirm that th ese two c ommoditi e s are not lik ely to und ergo s ulfury l flu oride tr eatment ( Table 3 ) . Th ese co mmodities ar e pa rt o f the M ethyl Bromid e C ritical U se Ex emption Pr ocess a nd h ave dem on strated c ritica l nee d b ecause th ere are n o alt ernatives f or the key p est s . BE AD ag rees that s ulfury l fluo ride wi ll not b e u sed o n c heese a n d ham b ased o n d ata d emonstrating n o e fficacy o n th e t arget p ests i n th ese co mmoditie s ( Phillips, e t a l. 2 008). BE AD a lso a grees th at s ulf ury l fl uoride will not b e u sed o n dri ed m eat (b eet) b ecause it i s p rocessed and p ackaged in s uch a wa y to minim ize p est infestations a nd th er ef ore n ot f umigated (T able 3 ). T AB LE3 REV ISED EST I\l \TES 01<' PE R('Io; :\,T MEA TS A:'Ii D C IlEE SES TR Io;\H'D WIT II S UI H1RY L F LUORIDE 

# . 

# . . 

# . 

# . . 

# . . B EAD CO .\1.\10DITY PERU::"T cosmoenv TREATED G ROl :j' ISG Cm l:\IOI lITY DAS BEAD ESTI\J..\ TE**RE('O~I\ lEl\D** **ED** Ch eese 0 . 0% 0. 0 % 0 .0% MI:A l'S A!'IiD C H E ESE H am 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0.0% Beef ( Drie d) 0 .0% 0 .0 % 0 .0 % I . Bas ed on BEA D c alculations from co mparative m ethyl b romide us age. 

### Qu arantine Uses A ccording to th eir F umig uide '" , D AS ha s h ad no d ocumented u ses o n coc onut , coffee b ean , g inger, a nd ma cadamia nut in th e l as t f our yea rs. Th ey ar e p roposi ng 0 .1 

### % a s a co nservative e st imate f or th ose commodit ies. C oconut i s import ed int o th e USA an d requi re s quarantine f umigation. US DA AP HIS , in th eir tr eatment m anu a l , r equires m ethy l b romide to b e u sed in these fum igation s . Th e o ther co mmodities ha ve st ate ( primarily H awaii and C a l ifo rn i a) qua rantine requirements. B EAD do es not expe ct s ulfury l fluo ride to replace q uarantine u s e s o f m ethy l bro mide, b ecause th ese u ses have a special exe mption und er th e M ontrea l Protocol (Tab le 4 ) . In a ddition, s ulf ury l flu oride h as not ye t m et t he ph ytosanitary con ditions es tablished by th e Int ernat ional P lant Prot ection Co nvention to me et quara ntine requi rements. ' Th er ef ore B EAD d oes not ex pect s u lf uryl fl u o r id e to di splace m ethy l br omide qua rantine u ses. BEAD believes it i s l i kel y th at ze ro p ercent co mmodity will b e tr eated. Ho wever, fo r th e purp ose of e s timat ing p ercent o f c ommodity tre ated f or d ietary ri sk asses s ment an d f or c onsistency w ith BE AD's m ethodology of u sing th e high er o f th e two es timates, B E AD co ns ervative ly recommends 0 . 1 % co mmodity t reated f or coco nut , co ffee b ean , g inger, a nd m acadam ia nu t. QUARA:'oI Tl SE U SES TRE TE D WIT II St 'LFVR YL FU 'ORID E T B LE 4 R EVISED EST T S OF P C

A 

### . . 1\1A E I: R E:\T 

# . . A 

### . 

# . DEAD COMMOIllTY PI::RCEKf CO:\I\lODrI"V TREAn:n CO.\I,\foJ)ITY DEAD 

### caornxo DAS ESTI\J,\n : RECOM :\JENJ)[ D Coc onu t 0 . 1 % 0 .0 % 0 .1 % Ql IAR. \:'\' TI:\ED USES I Co ffee B ean 0 . 1 % 0. 0% 0 . 1 % M ac a dami a N Ul 0 . 1 % 0 .0 % 0 . 1 % Gineer 0 .1 % 0 .0 % 0 . 1 % I . Cu rrently f umigated With meth yl bromide t o ful fill f ederal o r s tate qu arantine req uirements

Page 9

### C oarse G rains DAS h as no d ocumented f um igat ion on co tto nseed, oa t s, sorg hum, b arle y acco rding to th e las t fou r ye ar s of Fum iguide f data . D AS h as doc umentation of fu m igation o n a ve ry s m a ll a mount o f c o m in 200 4 . DAS h as p ropo sed t hat th e follow ing co mmod itie s be a ss es sed a t 0 . 1 % co mmodity treated : co tton see d, oat s , sorg hum , ba rley, and c o m . DA S al so has not d ocu mented s ulf ury l fluori de fu migation of mill et , ri ce h ull s a nd tri ticale . DAS d oes not ant icipate any use and e s timate s 0 % com modity tre ated fo r th e s e commodities . U SDA d ata are a vailab le fo r fu migant use on c o m. s o rghum , and oat s . B as ed on th ese usage data and the s imilar u se pattern s for cott onseed, o ats, s o rghum , bar ley and c om, B EAD believe s that the DAS e stimate for the se grai ns of 0 .1% i s c on servativ e . BEAD 's analy sis o fth e data o n co m, so rghum , and oat s i s di scussed below . Si nce millet, rice hull s, and triti cale are al so coar se g rains w ith s imi lar pe st s pectru m and use s to oa ts, so rghum, barley and com , BEAD expect s the u sage o f s ulfuryl flu o ride to be s imilar . The ref ore , B EAD h as u sed 0 . 1 % as a con servative e s timate (Ta ble 5 ) . C om DAS e st imate s a pe rcent co m modity trea ted f or c o m o f 0 . 1 %. Ba sed on a vaila b le data cove ring hi s toric met hyl b rom id e use pattern s , B EAD be lieve s th at thi s i s a c on s ervative e s timate . A s in dicated i n t he B ackground s ec tio n , mo st s to re d g rai n i s n ot trea ted w ith i nsecticide s . BEA D e st imates le ss tha n 7 % are t reated wi th in s ecticide s b a s ed o n E PA private mark et d ata a nd U S D A N ASS da ta . T o th e ex tent th at s t o re d c om i s treated w ith an i nsecticide , the m ost rece nt U SDA da ta f rom 200 4 i ndicate th at t he m ost w idely u s ed in secticide i s the fu migant a luminum ph o sphid e (NASS , 2 004) . U S D A report s t hat aluminum ph o sphi de w a s u sed o n 9 7% o f th e vo lume treated w ith a n i n sec ticide. A luminum ph o sph ide i s e fficacious, c ost-effective , easy to apply, a nd B EAD d oes not anti cipate a m igration from the a luminum ph o sphid e m arket t o s u l furyl flu orid e . B EAD d oes , however , a nticipate that s u l furyl fluorid e will repl ace m ethy l bromid e in thi s market. US DA d ata indic ate that meth y l bromid e w a s u sed in th e 2 002 mark et in g y ear on co m; however , U SDA report s the u sage as so lo w th at a num erical e s timate i s not pro vided . US DA d oe s not m ake a numeri cal es timate wh en u sage i s s o inf requent th at rep orting a n umber m ay co mpromise th e co nfidentiality o f th e s ur vey. The 2002 m ethyl b romide d ata are a co nservative e stimate f or s ulfuryl flu oride u s age becau se the se data ar e pri or to the co n clus io n of t he ph ase out of m ethyl bro mide whe n met hy l b romid e w as readily avai lable. A c cordin g l y, B EAD b elieve s that th e re comm ended e s timate of su lfuryl flu or ide u s e o f 0 .1 % i s co nservative . So rghum a nd Oat s DAS e stimate s a perce nt commodi ty trea ted fo r so rgh um an d oa t s of 0 . 1 % . B ased o n availab le data c overi ng i nse cticide u se o n s to red s o rg hu m and oat s and hi storic m ethyl bromide u s e p atterns , B EAD be lieve s th at thi s i s a c on serva tive e s timate . A s indi ca ted in the Background s ection, m o s t s tored gr ain i s not treated with insect icide s . Accordin g to U SDA d ata (N ASS , 2 007) 6% o f s tored o ats are treated with an insec ticide . Pa ge 10

### S imilarly , accord ing to U S DA data (N ASS, 20 01) 4 % o f s t o r e d s o r gh um are tre ated w it h an in s ecticide . To the ex tent that s t ored s o rg hum and oa t s are tre ated wi th an i n s ecticide , t he mo st rec en t U S D A data f rom 20 01 an d 2 007 i ndicate th at the mo st widely u s ed in s ecticide i s th e fumi gant a lumi num ph osphide. U SDA re port s th at a l uminum pho sp hide w a s u sed o n 77% o f s to re d s orgh um an d 86 % o f s to re d oa t s of the vo l ume tre ated w ith an i n s ecticide. A luminum ph o sph ide , o r p ho sphine, i s e fficaciou s and co s te ff e ctiv e and B EAD d oes not ant icipate a mi gration from th e ph o s phine mar ket to s ul furyl flu oride . B EAD d o cs, however, a nti cipate that s ulfu ry l fl uor ide wi ll rep l ace me th yl bromid e in thi s m arket. U S D A data ind ica te that m eth yl b rom ide wa s u sed in the 1999 and 2005/ 06 

### m arketin g ye ar o n s tore d s o r ghum an d oat s, respecti vely; how ever, U SDA report s th e u sage a s s o l ow th at a num erica l e s timate i s n o t pro v ided . U SDA d oes not m ake a num erica l e sti mate wh en u s age i s s o infr eque nt th at r eporting a numb er m ay c o mpro mi se the c on fidentia l ity of the s urvey. A ccord i ng l y, B EA D believ es that reco mmended es tim ate o f s ul f uryl flu orid e u s e o f 0 . 1 % i s c o n serva tive .

Bo lded te xt indicate s B EAD s rec ommendatio ns are hig her th an DAS e stimates . I . Ba sed o n reports of met hy l br omide by US DA N ASS. 2 . Estimates b ased on PCT f or so rghum and o ats. B EAD ass umes s imilar ca tego rizat i on o f small c oa r se gra in s . T \B LE 5 RHIS ED E STI MATE S 01 - P ERCt: N T COAR SE G RA I :'Ii S US E D T REAT ED W ITH Sl ILH ' RYI F ll l ORIDE , , , , , , B EA D CO .\l: \ 10 Dl T Y Pf:RCENT C O . \ I.\ 1 0 D IT Y TR EATEDGROl 'PI:'IiG**C()~1~ 10** **DlTY-** " AS B EAD E ST I .\ 1A T£**t:C .\1** **1f: S D**  Ba r ley ' 0 . 1 % 0. 1 % 0 . 1 % Co m 0 .1 % 0 .1 % 0 . 1 % Cott o ns eed 0 .1 % 0.1 % 0.1 % COA RSE GR A IN S Mill et 0 .0% 0 .1 % 0. 1 % Oa t s 0 .1 % 0 .1 % 0 . 1 % Ric e H ulls 0.0% 0 .1 % 0 . 1 % S o rghum 0 .1 % 0.1 % 0 .1 % Tr iticale 0 .0 % 0 . 1 GIG 0. 1 % 

### • Proces sed Commodities Pro ce ss ed f o od s are n ot likel y to ge t fumi gated w ith s u l f ury l fl uorid e. Afte r c o mmo d i ti es are p roce ssed they are s h ipp e d to s tor age w are h ouses, w he re s anitati o n i s c ri tica l. Proce ss ed c o mm o di t ies are in sp ected , b oth th e c ommodity and th e ir packa g in g m aterial , upon re c e ipt at a warehou se. Sanitation a nd o the r I PM s trate g ie s are u sed to pre vent i nfe st ation o f proc esse d f o od s ( see Bac kground Sec tion) . However, i f an y p ro c e ss ed f ood is c o ntaminated , pes t s ei ther o n o r w i thin th e p acka gin g , i t w ill be re mo ve d for d e struc tion or fumigat e d . The f umigant of c hoice i n the se si tu ation s i s phos phine becau se it i s e ffic ac ious, ea sy t o u se and co st effect ive (Ma so n , per so nal c o mmunication , 2 0 0 9; Hui , e t at 2 003) . DA S ha s e vide nce of d irect treatment o n pop c orn . A s a re sult , D AS e s t im ate d th at p op corn mi ght ge t fumigate d and c alc u l ated 0 . 1 % com modi ty treated . G iven h ow p rocessed goo d s are h and le d , B EAD bel ieve s th e d irect treat m e nt o f p opcom is an an omal y an d p ossi bl y the res ult of lab e li ng a s p ace tre atment b y the com modi ty th at was to b e s to re d i n the treate d sp ace. M oreov er, BEAD w ou l d typ i ca lly ave ra ge u sage ofa reg iste red p roduct acro ss s evera l data poi nt s, rather th an u s in g t he max imum ob serve d . Thu s, B EAD e s timates u sag e at mu c h less than 0 . 1 %. In kee pin g wi th B EAD 's m etho dology to be co n serva t ive, h o w e v er, B EAD rec ommend s u s in g 0 . 1 % c omm odi ty tr eat e d f or pop corn . Page I I

### DAS also an ticipate s fumi gating a s mall proportio n of herbs and s pices ba sed on past methy l bromide C UE reque s t s. However, p ast reque sts for methyl bro mide we re f or space treatment s o f areas u sed to proce ss or s tore herb s and spices, n ot for di rect treatment s . Proce ssors of he rb s and s pices ceased u se of methyl b romide well before the conclus ion of the p haseout of methy l bro mide , and f umi gate w ith e ither PP O o r ethyle ne ox ide to con trol m icrobial pe s t s. Th erefore B EAD e stimate s m uch l e ss than 0 . 1 pe rcent c rop treated . However, to be con servat ive , B EAD recommend s u s ing 0 .1 % 

### com modity tre ated, whic h is th e hi gher of th e tw o es timate s. DA S es timated 0 .1 % 

### co mmodity treated for c o m flour, co m grit s, c o m meal , whea t fl our, w heat ge rm , whe at br an, whe at milled byproducts and w heat s ho rt s (Table 6). Th e se es timates are ex trapolated from DA S es timates o f the treated grain (s ee Table 7 ) r ather tha n e vidence of d irect treatments o f th e proce ss ed forms . B EAD anticipate s that the fo llowing proce ss ed co mmoditie s (c om fl our, co m grits , co rn meal , wheat flour , wh eat g erm a nd w heat bran , wh eat s hort s a nd whe at m illed b yproducts) w ill not be tre ated as a d ire c t co mmodity f umigation (zero pe rcent c rop tre ated) . As p reviously i ndicated, to th e exten t p roce ssed com modities s uch a s the se become inf ested , th ey are ei ther de stroy ed o r fumigated w ith phosp hine . Th ere is n o evi denc e of m ethyl bro mide u se o n the s e co mmoditie s to addre ss infe s tati on either fr om pre -methyl bromide p haseout da ta o r in term s o f CU E reque sts after conclu sion o f the ph aseou t. Ho wever. for the purpose of e s timating percent of commodity treated for dietary ri s k ass essme nt and f or c onsistency 

### with B EAD' s method ology of u sing the highe r of the tw o e stimate s, BEAD c on servatively recommend s 0 .1 % commodi ty treated f o r the proces se d comm odit ies for d irect fum igat ions (Table 6) . DAS es timated th at ri ce flour an d ric e bran would be tre ated at 3 % co mmodity treated; h owever , B E AD d oes not think thi s e s timate i s r ea s onable a s it w as - extrapolated fro m t he ri ce grai n e st imate w ithout regard to how proce ssed co mmodities are treated . B EAD ca tegorizes thi s co mmodity a s a p roce sse d co mmodity and be lieves it is likel y th at ze ro per cent c ommodity w ill be treated a s a dir ect co mmodity fumig ation f or th e r easons g iven above a s to proc essed grain co mmodities. However , fo r the purpo se o f e s timating percent of c ommodity treated for dietar y ri sk a ssessment a nd f or c onsistency w ith B EAD ' s m ethodology o f u sing th e h igher of the tw o es timates, B EAD con servatively recommend s 3 .0 % 

### c ommodity tre ated for r ice flour and ri ce b ran f or d irect fumigation s (Table 6) .



### Page 1 2TABI [6 Rn ' lsl 'o ESTJ:\1AT£S O F PERCE:\T PRO C.E s.. s EO C OI\I\ IOIll TU. :'s T R£ \T £ D WITII S t: U I I RYl FU :ORIDE 

### . . 

# . 

# . . BE AD Cml\lOlHTY PI :R CEST co seronrr v TRE ,\ no GR Ol ' I' I' G CO .\I. \ 100 11'\ · HAS DEAD [ sTnI ATE**RE CO"i\lE~DED**  Co m F l o ur , G rits , Me a l 0 . 1 % 0.0 % 0 .1 % Herb s A nd S o ices 0 . 1 % <0.1 % 0 .1 % P R OCESSED Poeco m 0 . 1 % < 0.1 % 0.1 %**O~M ODrTlE**  R ice F lou r . Bran 2 3 .0 % 0 .0 % 3 .0 % Wh ea t - F lo ur . Germ , B ra n , S horts, M illed 0 .1 % 0 . 0 % 0. 1 % bv o rod ucts I . Es tima tes b ased o n ass umption t hat these c ommoditie s are treat ed a s a re s ult o r s pac e f umigations and nOI direc t com modi ty f u migatio ns . 2 . B EAD assu mes these u ses are m isca teg onzed by DAS a cco rd ing to si mil ar co mmod i ty t ype and nOI by usc p attern . 

### Stored C ommodities B as ed o n th eir Fu m iguide f d ata. D AS e sti m ated a percent co mmodi ty tre ated f or s to red peanut s a nd w he a t o f 0 . 1 % . an d r ice of 3 %. B EAD ' s analy s i s f o r the se c o mm odi ties i s ex pla ined bel ow . Peanut s D AS est im a te s 0 . 1 % c rop trea ted fo r s to r ed p eanut s . B E AD r ec omm end s th e e stim ate of s to red p ean u t s that ma y be tr eated wi th s ulfuryl fl u o r id e to b e 0 .6 % base d o n av a il abl e d a ta re g ard in g meth yl b romi d e u s e . A s indi ca ted i n the Ba ckgrou nd s ectio n, mo s t s tored pe a nut s a re n ot treated w ith i n s ec t ic ide s . U S DA ( 2 0 06 ) e s t i mate s t hat 33% o f p eanu t s s to red off- f arm i s trea ted with an in s ecticide ( s ee Ba ckground s ectio n for exp lan at i o n on w h y o n - farm f um iga tion i s un likely ) . T o th e e xtent s tored pe anut s are treated w ith a n in se cticide, the m ost re cent U S DA d ata fr om 2 006 indi cate th at th e m o st wid e ly u s ed in se cti cid e in s tored p eanut s i s th e fumi g ant a luminum pho sp hide . U SDA rep ort s th at alum inum ph o sphide wa s u sed o n 7 3 % of the vo lume tre ated w ith an in s ecticide . A lum i num ph o sphide i s efficacious , co steffe ctive , ea sy to apply , and BEAD doe s n ot a nticip ate a mi g ration from th e pho sphine m a rket to s ul f u ry l flu orid e. BEAD do es. h owever , a nt i c i pate th at s u l fu ry l flu oride w ill rep l ace the m ethyl b rom ide i n thi s market. U SDA ( 200 I) data a lso i ndicate that m eth yl brom id e w a s u sed on 0 .6% of s tored pea nut s f or the 1 9 9 9 marketi ng year . T he 1 999 m e thyl bromid e da ta a re a conservative es t imate f o r s u l fury l flu o rid e u sag e beca u se the se d ata a re before th e c onclu s ion of th e ph a s eout o f methyl brom ide w hen methy l br omide w a s readil y avai lable . M ore over , th ere h ave b een n o CU E req ue sts for methyl bromid e o n p eanut s un der the Montre a l Pro to co l. A ccordingly, B EAD e stim ate s th a t the pe rcent o f s to re d p e anut s tr eated wi th s ulfury l flu oride to be 0 . 6 % (Tab le 7) . Wh eat DA S e st imated a p ercent c ommodi ty treated f or w heat of 0 . 1 % . B EAD re c ommend s t he e s tima te o f w heat t hat ma y be tre ated wi th s ulfury l fl uoride to be 0.4 % bas ed o n ava il able d ata re g ard ing m ethyl b rom id e u s e . A s ind ica ted i n th e Ba ck ground s ec tion, m ost s to red grai n i s n ot treated w ith in s ecticide s . T he am o u n t o f wh eat trea ted with in sect icide f o r bo th o ff

- farm an d o n -farm u se i s e s timated to be a pproxi m at el y 30% , b ased o n E PA m arket d ata an d U SDA report s o f the Pa ge 13vo lume o f off -farm s tored whe at handl ed (N ASS, 200 2) . T o the ex tent th at sto red wh eat i s tre ated w ith an i ns ectici de, th e m o st rec ent U SDA d ata from 2 002 i ndicate tha t the m o st w id ely u se d i n sec ticide i s th e f umigant a luminum ph osphide . U S D A report s th at a luminum ph o s phide w as us ed o n 87 % o f th e vo lume tre ated wi th an in sec ticide . Al uminum ph o sph ide, o r ph o sphin e , is e fficacio us , cos t- eff ective, e asy to appl y, and BE AD d oes not an ticipate a m i gration from the ph osphine m arket to s ul f u ry l flu oride . B EAD d ocs , however, a nticipat e that s u l f u ry l fl uoride will repl ace the meth yl bromid e i n th i s market. US DA data al so ind icate that methy l bromide wa s u sed o n 0.4 % of s to red wh eat for bot h 1997 and 2000 m arketing year s . T he 19 9 7 and 2 000 m ethy l bromid e d ata are a con servati ve e stima te f or s ulfuryl flu oride u sage becau se the se d ata are before th e co nclu sion o f the ph a seou t of met hyl b romide when m e thyl br omide w as readi ly ava ilabl e . M oreove r , there h ave b ee n no CU E re quest s f or m eth yl bro mide o n w he a t under the Mon trea l Protocol. Accord ing ly, B EAD es tim a te s that th e p e rcent o f w heat treated w ith s ulf ury l fl uoride to be 0 .4% (Tab le 7 ). R ice Fo r rice , DA S h a s data d ocum entin g u s e o n 0 . 14 to 2.5 % ofrice with an a verage p eT of 0 .8 %. DAS e stimated a percent c ommod ity treated for rice o f 3 .0% ba s ed o n anti cipated future po tential e xpan sion into the ri ce , brown ri ce, and w ild ri ce m arkets and round ing up fro m their m aximum e stim ate . DA S 's m aximum es timate i s fr om 2006 , the y ear a fter me thyl bromide wa s ph ased out and B EAD belie ves th at th is " v as a tri al pe riod a nd m any ric e co mpanie s tr ied s u l furyl fl uoride . In 2 004 and 2 005 there we re 4 to 6 fumigatio n s o n rice , i n 2 006 ther e w ere 4 5 f umigat ions , an d i n 200 7 there were 6 fu migations . B EAD c on s ider s the o ne y ear s p i ke an a nomaly and d oe s not an ticipate u s age to reach that level in th e fu ture . Ba s ed o n hi storic m ethyl bromide u s e p atterns ; B EAD be lieves 3 .0 

### % i s a v ery c o nserva tive es timate . A s indicated in th e Background s ection , mo st s tored grain i s no t trea ted with in secti cide s. Total off-f arm s tored rice treated wit h all i n sect icides i s e sti mat ed a t 2 1 % for rou gh r ice and 23 % fo r proce sse d ri c e (NASS, 2 00 1) . E PA proprietary d at a s u gges ts th at mo st ri ce i s s to r ed o ff-farm and th at a large r p roportion ofof f

-f

arm s tored rice i s trea ted w ith a n in secticid e th an o n- farm s to red rice . Ho wever , the da ta are s parse and , to be con servat ive, B EAD ass umes s imilar p roporti ons are tre ated . Ba sed on the se limited d ata , a c on s ervative es timate o f th e amount o f off

- fa nn r ice treat ed w ith an i nse cticide i s app rox imately 2 3 %. To the extent that s tored rice i s treated w ith a n i n s e c tic ide , th e m o st re cent U SDA d ata indicate s that the m ost widel y u sed in secticide i s the fumi gant aluminum ph o sphide . US DA report s th at a luminum ph o sphide w as u sed on 97 % o f t he vo lume treated wi th an in secticide . A luminum ph o sphid e, o r ph o sph ine, is effi caciou s and co s t -effect ive and BE AD d oes not an ti ci pate a m igration from th e p hosp hine m arket to su lfuryl fl u o ride . B EAD d oes , h owever, a nticipate th at su lf uryl flu o ride will re place m ethyl bro mide in thi s market . U S DA d ata i ndicate that th ere i s s o m e us c of m ethyl bro mide i n th e 1 999 m arke ting yea r o n proce s sed rice ; however , U S D A reports the u sage as s o lo w th at a num erica l e s t imate i s not provided . US DA d oe s not m ake a n umerical es t i ma te wh en u sage i s s o inf requent that re po rting a numbe r m ay c omp ro mise the confid entiality of th e s urvey .

Page 14DAS d ata repre s ent t he best ava ilab le es t imates o f th e amo unt o f r ice tr eated wi th s u l fury l flu oride . T o acco unt for th e pos s ibi l ity that c hambe r s ar e c o mple tely fill ed, h owev e r , BEAD incre a ses t he vo l ume treated by 10% . BEAD doe s n ot m ake an adjustme nt fo r the total r ice a va ilab le for food cons umption a s rice i s not s ubje ct t o s ignificant s po i lage o r was tage . O nce d ried, rice i s ea sy to s tore for lon g . Th erefore , BEAD esti mate s abo ut 0 .9 perce nt co mmod ity treated . H owever , f or th e p urpose o f e st imating p ercent of com modity tr eated for d ietary ri sk asse ss ment an d for co nsistenc y w ith B EAD 's m ethodolog y of u si ng th e hi gher o f th e two e st imates, BEAD c o n serva tive ly recom mend s 3 . 0 % co mmodity treated on r ice (Ta ble 7). In the abse nce of d ata s pecific to wil d r ice, B EAD a ss um es it w ill be tr eat e d like o ther s m all gra ins , i ncluding wheat , b arley , rye , and rice . T o be c o ns ervative, B EAD ex trapo late s fr om the highes t es ti mate am ong th e s e c om mod ities, ri ce , to be u s ed for w ild rice ( Tab le 7) . T \BLE '7 REVIS ED ESTIMA 1 'ES OF P E R CE" T STOR ED**Cm·l~10 [)lTlES**  T K J' AT H ) WITII S UI H 'Rn FU TORIDE

Boldcd text indicat es R EAD s rec ommendation s are hig her than DAS e sumat es . I . B ased o n reports o f methyl br o mi de usag e by US D A NASS 2 . DA S grouped w ith rice .

, 

### . . . 0 

### . . 0 B E AD Co.\nIODlTY P ERCE!"T CmI MO I>lTY TREATED* GKOl !PI'O(; CO \ I\ IOIHTY'" D AS B EAD E STIMATE R ECO\ l l\l E:"DED Peanu t' 0 .1 % 0 .6 % 0 .6 % S TORED C m l MODlT JES Wheat 0. 1 % 0.4 % 0.4 % R ice 0 . 9% 3 . 0% Wild Rice 3 . 0% 0 . 9% 3 . 0% • 

### . , 

### Nuts B a s ed on the pest s pec tru m, nut s are pri mari ly a p hosphi ne m arket , w ith s o m e treate d w ith P PO. DAS h a s doc ume nted fumi gations o f a lmonds i n the l ast f our yea rs , w hich DAS es timate s to ra nge from 3. 1 to 8 .3% com modit y treated with a n ave rage P C T of6 .0%. DAS e s timated a percent com modi ty trea ted for a lmond s of 10 % ba se d on a nticipated fut ure p otential expa n sion into t he a lmo nd market and . rou nding u p from their m aximum e st imate . DAS metho dology res ult s i n a very co n servative e s timate i n thi s si tuation because they ca lculate P C T a ss uming tha t tota l s u l fury l flu orid e u sage on almo nds is u s ed o nly on a lmo nds a vailable for d ome s tic co n su mptio n. Howeve r , nearly 8 0% ofV .S. al mond p rodu ction i s ex p orted (FAS , 2008) and th e re i s no rea so n to bel ieve that export s are l e ss lik ely to be fu m igated wit h s ulf u ry l flu oride tha n almo nds de s tined for th e do me st ic mar ket. DAS d ata repre s ent the best ava ilable in form ation on amo unt treated . T o e st imate pe rcent co mmodity trea ted , BEAD ca lculates the ave rage quan tity treated ba se d on DAS dat a, w hich B EAD increa ses by 10 % to acco unt f or comple te fill of fu migation c hambers, and d ivide s by ave rage ut ilized pro duct ion , w hich i s total p rodu ction le ss c ull s a nd s to r age lo ss e s (NASS , 2008) . Thi s re su lt s i n a B EAD e st imate o f2 .2% com modit y treated fo r a lmonds . H owever , f or th e purpo se of es timating perce nt of com modi ty tr eated for d ietary r i sk asse s smen t and f or co n s istency wi th B EAD 's methodo logy of u s ing th e h igher o f t he two es timates , BEAD co n servative ly reco mmend s 10% c om modi ty trea ted on almo nds ( Table 8 ). Ba se d on the s i milar i ty of the fo llow ing co mmod itie s to a lmond s ( i .e., th ey are a ll tree n ut s), BEAD es timate s 2.2 % com modit y trea ted fo r beec lmut , buttern ut , Brazi l n ut , ca s hew s , c he stn ut s , Page 15chi nquapin , fil berts , hic kory nut s , peca n s, and pine nut s . D AS an ticipated z ero u sag e fo r beechnut, butternut , and c hinquapin and 0 . 1 % u sage for B razil nut , c ashew s, che stnut s, filbert s , hi ckory nut s , pecan s , a nd pine nut s . The se g roup s did not requ est a meth yl bromide C UE and B EAD i s n ot anti cip ating s ulfuryl flu oride will penetrate thi s m arket o ther th an as s erving as a meth yl brom ide replacement. H owev er, f o r the purpo se of estim ating perc ent o f commodity tre ated for d ietar y ri s k ass essment and f or co n sis tency with B EAD ' s me th odo logy, we recommend defau lting to the h igher of th e t\V O e s tim ates . In thi s ca se, s in ce a ll e st imate s ar e b as ed o n da ta fro m al mond s, B EAD co n servatively rec omm end s 10% commodity treated on beech nut, b uttern ut , c hi nqua pi n, B razil n ut , c as hew s, c he s tnut s, filbert s, h i cko ry nut s , peca n s, a nd p ine n ut s (Tab le 8 ) . T ABLE 8 R HI SED E S"I' IM ATES OF P ERCF.:'Ii T N UTS T REATEll WITH SUL fU RYL FU IORIUE

• B o lded text indicate s B EAD s re co mmendation s ar c high e r lhan DA S esti ma tes. I . Thi s group d id nol reque s t a meth yl b romide CUE . B ased o n the pe s t s pectrum, nu ts ar e pri mari ly tre ated w ith pho s phine• w ith some tre ated w ith P ropylene Ox ide . 2 . BEA D 's est ima te is b ased on a c om mod ity .... i t h a s imilar u sc patt ern ; therefore BEAD defaults to the h igher o f th e t wo est ima tes o f the orig inal c om modity . , , " , DEAD C O . \ I :\IO l>l H · PE RO : :\T CO MMODITY TR L\T EI> * GR()( 'PI:"' G CO:\ I:\IOIlITY * OAS D EAIl E H IM" T F. R ECO:\I :'> IE :'IiDED Alm ond s 10.0 % 2 .2 % 10.0 % Beec hn ut 0 .0 % 2 .2 % 1 0.0 -;. Br a zil N ut 0 .1 % 2.2 0/_ 10 . 0 V . Butt ernut' 0 .0 V . 2 . 2 - /_ 10 . 0 V. Cas he w' 0 .1

-;. 2 .2 V . 1 0 . 0 V. 

### x crs ' C h es t nu t 0. 1 

# - I. 2.2 V . 10 .0 V. C hinq ua pin 0.0 

# - I. 2 .2 % 10 .0 ·/e F il be r t 0 . 1

- /e 2 . 2 % 10 .0 % Hickon: Nut' 0 . 1

- /e 2 .2 V . 10 .0 % Peca ns O . t -/e 2 .2 V . 10 .0 % P in e N ut- 0 . 1 % 2 .2 V. 10 .0 %

,



### M eth yl B ro mi de Critical Use E xemption Co mmodities ( CUE) S evera l c omm odity grou p s h ave reque s ted a m ethy l bromide CUE eac h ye ar s i nce th e ph a s e-o ut of me thy l b rom ide (Tab le 9) . Th ese co mmod itie s are wa l nuts , raisin s , pr unes, fi g s , dri ed b ean s , a nd da tes . P i s tachio s reque sted a methy l b romide CUE f or the fir s t three years o f t he pro ces s. Tab le 9 cont a in s th e calculation s o f BEAD ' s be st e s timate o f the pro jec t ion o f s ul fury l flu oride percen t cro p tre ated fo r th ese c ommod i tie s . E stimate s are b ased on the d iffere nce be tween th e app licant -reque s ted am oun t o f methy l bromide a nd the final n ominated am ount g ranted f or critical use of meth yl bromid e . BEAD as s umes the gap between the am ount reque sted and the a mount n omin ated w ould reflect the porti on of the s u lf uryl flu oride u se o n that co mmodity becau se s ulf uryl flu oride i s a m ethyl br omid e repl a cement. For e xampl e, the applicant requ e sted am ount o f meth yl brom ide f or prune s , ra i s in s , a nd fig s w as 2 0,41 2 kg and th e final n ominated a mount gr anted for thi s cr itical u se w as 6 , 266 kg . Acc o rding ly, methy l b romide i s pro jected to be u sed on 3 1 % o f the pru ne s , ra i sin s , a n d figs s o the rema in in g 6 9 % c ould be treated with s u l f uryl fluoride .

Pag e 1 6B EAD's appro ach t o e stimating p ercent c rop treated f or the se c ommodities i s co n servative f or tw o re asons. F irst , th e portion o f th e requ est ed am ount of m ethyl bromid e no t grant ed a s a CUE is u nlikely t o be replaced full y b y s u lf uryl flu oride giv en the ava ilability o f other methyl br omide alt ernati ve s, i ncluding ph o sphine . S econd , th e a pproach a ssum e s that th e ent ire c ommodity (10 0% c rop treated) i s c urrently tre ated wi th m ethyl br omide , w hich i s unlikel y to b e the c ase. N ot onl y w ould it b e unc omm on for th e entire c ommodity to b e f umig ated but other fu migant s (e . g ., ph o s phine) ar e likel y t o b e u sed in circum stanc es w here s p e ed o f fumig ation is not e sse ntial. Sul furyl flu oride i s unlikel y to r eplace a ny m eth yl bromid e u se g ranted a s a C U E gi ve n both th e g eneral a dvantage s o f m ethyl bromid e ove r s ulfuryl fluoride ( se e Ba ckground) an d the f act th at re source s requir ed to o btain a CUE d emonstrate a s trong preferen ce f or meth yl bromid e . For n earl y a ll c o mm od iti es , B EAD e stim ates hi gher p ercent com modity treated than doe s DAS a nd rec ommend s u sing BE AD ' s e s timate s i n th e d ietar y ri sk a ssess ment. T he e xc e ption i s dri ed b ean s , w here DA S an ticipate s 1 00 % P C T . Th e dri ed b e an c o m mod i ty gro up h a s demon s trated a c rit ic a l n eed fo r me th yl bro mide f or th e ne xt s eve ral ye ars i n ord er t o t ran sition to th e u se o f alt ernati ve s, including s ulf ury l fluorid e . T he U S ha s n omin ated 8 % o f the requ e st ed am o un t of m ethyl b romide ; th eref ore B EAD e s timates 92 % of dri ed b ean s m ay be tr eated w ith s u lf uryl fluorid e . Ho w ev er , f or the purpo se o f est imating p erc ent of co mmodity tr e ated f or dieta ry ri sk a ss e ss ment and fo r c on sisten cy w ith B EAD ' s methodol ogy o f u s ing the high er o f the two es timates , B E AD c on se rvativ el y e s timates 100 % co mmodity tr eated . DA S a nticipat ed 0 .1 % co mmodity treated on o ther dri ed fruit and l egum e s ( dried , exc ept c hickpea a nd cowpe a). T hes e g roup s did not reque st a me thyl br omid e CU E and , a s B EA D i s anti cipating s ulfur y l fl uorid e to repl a c e me th yl brom ide, th ere i s l ikely t o b e littl e u s e . H owe ver , i n th e ab s enc e o f d ata , B EAD e s ti mat es th at 6 9 % of th e o ther dr ied f rui t m ay be treated wi th s ul fury l fl uorid e ba sed on e stimated u se in s imilar c ommoditie s, prune s, ra i sins , a nd fig s. B a sed o n th e e s timated u s e o f s ul f ur y l flu orid e in dri ed b eans , B EAD al so e s timate s th at 9 2.0 % of the o ther dri ed l egume s (ex cept chi ckpea and co wpea) m ay b e tr eated w ith s ulfuryl flu oride. How e ver , f or th e purp o s e o f e s timating p ercent o f c omm odit y tre at ed f or die tary ri sk a ss e ss ment and fo r co nsi s tenc y w ith B EAD 's methodol ogy o f def aultin g to th e hi gher o f th e two e s tim a t es of th e o riginal c ommodity ( in thi s c ase, dri ed b ean s); BE AD c onservativel y recommend s 10 0 .0 % co mmodity treat ed o n le gume s ( dried , exce pt c hickpea and c ow pea ) (T ab le 9 ) . C ocoa b ea n p roduc ers h ave m ade g reat s trides in t ran siti oning f rom m ethyl b romid e to s ulfury l flu oride , a n d the y in tend to co nvert 1 00 . 0 % to s ulfur y l flu oride b y 2 0 I O . BE AD con cur s w ith D AS and recomm end s a n e stim ate o f 1 00. 0 %.

P age 1 7• Bo lded text indica te s B EA D s r ecommen dation s a re hig he r than IJA S estima tes. I . B ased on B EAD c alcu l atio ns f ro m c omparative methyl bromi de usage, 2 . B ased on e stimate s fro m s imilar methyl b romide c ritical u se e xemptio n co mmoditie s J . BEA D ' s e st imate i s b ase d on a c ommodity with a s imilar u se p attern ; th erefore B EA D d ef aults to the higher o f the t wo es timate s o f the or ig inal c o m mo dity . T ABLE 9. REVI SED Es Tl ;\L\ T1: :S o r PER CE:'IoT MET HYL BROMIDE C RITI CAL USE EXE MPTIO"i C O WUO Dl T IE :S T REATED WITII S n R IU 'L Hl' ORIDE 

### . B E AD 

# I P l:RC E :'O T C m mO DI TI ' TR L-\ rrn - CO \ I 'I O DI H ' CO 'l 'lO DlTY

- DA S B E AD GROl 'PI.'li G E$ T1\ f-\TE R E C O .\fM ESP ED Pi st a ch i o ' 0.1

- /_ 27. 0

- /_ 27.0 % !\IEn lH Walnut s 20 . 0 -/0 9 9 . 0 -/

_ 99 .0 % B RO;\nD E D al es 40 . 0 % 42. 0 -/

_ 42.0 % C RITICAL USE Pr-un es , R aisin s, Fta s 40 .0 % 6 9 . 0 -/_ 69 .0 % Exu wTlo:\, O t he r- D ri ed F r ui t ' 0.1 -/

_ 6 9.0 % 69 . 0

- /_ CO " "O DITIl:S Dr ie d Be an s 10 0.0 % 9 2 .0 % 1 0 0 . 0 % Leaumes lD r ie d, exc e ot C hic kn ea & Co woea r'" 0 .1 % 92.0 % 100.0 ' '/0 Co co a B ean s 1 00 . 0 % 100 .0 % 1 00 . 0 % 

# ..

Co nclusion DAS s ubmi tt ed s tud i es 1 0 EPA to refine thei r diet ary e xpos ure s f o r the po st -harve st u ses o f s ulfuryl flu oride . B EAD ev aluated the information prov ided by DAS . B EAD agr-ee s with m o st o f the s p ace fumig ati on a ss umption s, th e exc eptio n ' being the number o f o perating da ys per yea r at mill s and proce ssin g f acilities . F or s pa c e f umigations ( grain mill s and pr oces sin g plant s, B EAD co nclude s that up to 1.2% o f g rain s c ould c ontain flu o rid e re sidue s re s ulting from s pa ce treatment s ( i. e ., 0 .8 % from trea tm en t i n mill s and 0 .4 % from treatmen t in proce ss ing faciliti e s ) . Fo r all ot her f ood s (i .e. , n on-milled g rain s ) , th e f ract ion r e sult in g fro m s pa ce tre a tment i s 0 .4 % . For d irect treatment s to co mm od ities , B E AD reviewe d t he i nformat io n s u bmitte d by D AS . B EAD c o ns e rvat ive ly e st imated Percent C o mm od i ty T reated b a s ed o n cu rrent and pri or methyl b romide u sc . B EAD fin d s th at th e D AS e s timate s fo r beef ( dr ie d ), c hee se, ham , coco nut , coff ee b ean , mac adamia nut s , g inger , cotton seed , c orn, p opcorn , herb s and s pice s, o at s , barle y, ri c e , s org hum , alm ond s , dri ed b eans , and c ocoa b ean s a re c onservati ve . BEAD re commend s a hi gher p ercent c ommodity treated f or millet , ri ce h ull s, triti cale , co rn fl our , c o rn g rit s, co rn me al , pean ut , wh eat, b eechnut , Brazil n ut, b utternut, ca s hew , c hinquapin , fil bert. h ickory nu t , pe c an s , p ine n ut, p ist achi o s , w a lnut s, d ate s, d ri e d f ruit ( prunes, ra isi n s , fi g s ) , othe r d ried f ruit , and l e gum e s ( dri ed, e xce pt c hickpea & co wpea ) . 

### R eferen ces: Becke r , 

### J . , W . C hi s m, a nd 

### C. C ook . 2 005 . B EAD Re spon se to S elected S ulfuryl fluoride ( P ro Fume 

### TM ) C o mment s Submitted By the F luoride A c ti on Network Pe s t icide Project ( DP B arc ode D 3 I 

### 6797 ) . Mem orandum s ubm itted to Regi st ration D ivi si on . Ju ne I . Be cker , J . , C. Coo k, and E . Ri m. 2 009 . A sse ss ment o f P ercent Cr o p Trea ted Va lu

es used i n the R

egi strant' s Di etary Ex posure A s sessm en t f

or Fluor ide ( DP# 36 104 1) . Memo ran d um s u bm i tte d to Re gi str ation Divi sion . February 

### 26 ,2 009.

Page 18F AS, USDA. 2008. T ree N uts: W orld Markets & Tr ade . Nove mbe r 20 08. Un ited S tates 

### De partment of A griculture, Foreign A gricultur al Service . Ava ilable o nline a t : h ttp : // www . f as. u sda.gov /htplh orticulture r r ree%20N u ls

/ 2008

_Treenu t s. pdf 

### H ui , Y . H ., Wa i-Kit N ip, and 1. 

### R. Go rham. 2 003. San itation and Wa rehousing. In : Fo od Plant S anitation, e dited b y : Y . 

### H. Hui , 

### B. L. Br ui nsma, 1. R . Go rham , W -K N ip, P . S. To ng, 

### and P . Ventresca. Mar cel Dekker , Inc , New Y ork. 7 19 pp . 

### Keigwin, R. 

### 20 06. BEA D's A pproach to Pr oviding Proj ected P ercent C rop Tre ated E st imate s fo r U se in Di etary Ri sk A ssess me nts in O PP . Me morandum s ubmitted t o Lois Ro ssi an d 

### Ti na Levi ne. De cember 14 . Maso n , Linda . 2009 . Pro fe s sor o f Foo d Indu stry Pest M anagement , D epartm ent o f Entomology , Purdu e U niversity, We st L af ayette , IN . S poke w ith Co lwe ll Co ok, A pril 2 0 , 20 09 . 

### NASS , USDA. 1 999 . Agr icultural Che mica l Usage Postharvest A pplications

- C om and Wheat S ummary . Ma rch 1 999. U nited States D epartment of Ag riculture , Nat ional Ag ricultural S tatistics Servi ce . NASS, U SDA. 2001. Ag ricultural C hemical Usa ge Po stharve st A pplications

- P eanut s, Ri ce a nd So rghum S u mmary. March 2 00 1. U nited S tate s D ep artment o f A griculture, Nati onal Agr icult ural Statis tics Serv ice . 

### NASS, US DA. 2 002. Ag ricultura l C hemical Usa ge Postharve s t A pplications

- Wh eat S um mary. M arch 20 02. U nited St ate s D epartmen t of Ag riculture, N at io n a l Ag ricu ltural S tatistics Serv ice. NASS, USDA. 20 04 . Ag ricu lt ura l C he mica l Usage P o st harv est A ppli ca tions

- Com and 

### S oybean S ummary. M arch 2 004. Unit ed S tate s Department of A griculture, Na tional Ag ricultural St atist ic s Service. NASS , USDA . 20 06. Ag ricultural C hemical Usag e P ostharves t Ap plications

- Pean ut s Su mmary . M arch 

### 2 006 . United S tate s De partment of Ag riculture , Na tional Agr icultural Sta ti s tic s Serv ice . NASS , U SDA 2007. Agr icultural C hemical Usage Postharvest A pplications

- Oats and Potatoes Su mmary. Ma rch 2007 . United S tate s Department o f Ag riculture , Na tiona l Agric ultural S tatistics S ervice. NASS , U SDA . 20 08 . No ncitru s Fru it s and N ut s 2 007 Preliminary S ummary . Jan uary 2 008. U nite d S tates De partment o f Agricu lture , Na tional Ag ricultural Stati st ic s Service . Avai lable o nline at: http : //u sda .mannl ib .co me ll .edu/ u s da/n a s s /N o ne FruiN u/ 

### 1 20 00s/200 

### 81No ncF rui N u-0 1- 2 3- 20 08 .pdf

Page 1 9Phillip s, T ., Md . M . H asan , M . 

### J . A ikins, an d W . S chillin g. 20 08 . Effi cacy o f s u lf uryl flu oride to c ont rol h am mit es and red -le gged ham be etles. Pr esented a t 

### M BAD , O rlando, FI , No v embe r 12 , 2008 . Fo und a t : htt p:// mb a o.o r g/200 8/0 89Phillip s .pdf . U SDA . 2 002 . Popc orn Pe st M anagement S trategic Plan f or the No rth C entral Re gion . Fo und a t : htlp :/IW\ \w .ip m center s.o rg/p m s p/pdf fNC RPo QCo m .pdL U SDA . 2 003 . C rop Pro file f or Com (P op) i n th e Uoi ted State s (N orth C entra l Region ) . Found at : http ://\ \ ' w w . 

### i p mce nt er s.o rg! cropp r o 

### Ii 1 e sl d oc s/u s - nc r- p o pc o rn . pd 

### f EPA. 200 4. H uman Health Ri s k A ssess ment for Su lfuryl Fl u o ride a nd Flu oride A nion Ad dre ss ing the S ec tion 3 Re gistr ati on o f S u lf uryl Fl uoride P o s t-Harve s t Fumigation of S tored C e rea l Gra in s, D ried F ruits a nd Tr ee N uts a nd Pe st C ontro l in G rain Pr oces sin g Facilitie s . PP #l F63 12 . D P Barcode D 275 199 . From M . Do herty , E . Budd, a nd B. D ai ss ( Healt h E ffect s Divi sion, O ffi ce of Pe sticide Program s , U. S . Enviro nme nta l Protection Agen cy) . J anuary 2 0 . Ll. S . Env ironm enta l Protect ion Ag e n cy (E PA) . 2 006 . H uman Health Ri sk A sses sment for Sulfuryl Flu oride and F l uoride Ani on Add re s sing th e Secti on 3 Re gistrati on of Sulfu ryl Flu oride as a Fumi gant for Fo ods and Food Pr ocessing F a cilit ie s . PP #3F 6573 . DP Barc ode D 312659. From M . D ohert y ( Health E ffects Di vision, Office of Pe sticide Program s , U . S . Environmental Protection Age ncy) . January 1 8 .

Page 20