Jay Ellenberger US EPA/Office of Pesticide Programs Field & External Affairs Division

1. Encouraging the Use of Drift Reduction Technologies for Pesticide Applications --What’s in Store for 2007? Jay Ellenberger US EPA/Office of Pesticide Programs Field & External Affairs Division Western Region Pesticide Meeting May 2007

2. EPA’s Pesticide Drift Reduction Technology Program Problem: • Off-target spray drift continues to be an important issue for applicators, growers, the public, EPA, and state enforcement authorities • Recent conclusions of EPA’s stakeholder assessment Goals: • Reduce off-target spray drift and impacts on the environment and humans • The acceptance and use of a larger variety of verified drift-reducing technologies – equipment, chemicals, barriers Approach: • Validate DRTs’ effectiveness through testing • Credit use in OPP’s risk assessment and risk management decisions on labels and in the field

3.  spray drift Standard technology, no DRTgood DRT better DRT No reduction25% reduction50% - 95% reduction Desired Change

4. Use of Drift Reduction Technologies--Strong Interest by: • Pesticide Registrants • Adjuvant Manufacturers • Sprayer Manufacturers • Applicator Organizations • Academic Researchers • USDA ARS, NRCS • International agencies, organizations • Many advocacy organizations • EPA senior management

5. But there are barriers and challenges to the use of DRTs • No established U.S. program to verify DRT performance • Encouraging applicators to move to different technologies • Currently no mechanism to reward use of DRTs • in EPA risk assessments • on pesticide labels • in the field by applicators/growers

6. EPA – experienced in technology performance verification • Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program • Environmental Technology Council • established by the EPA Administrator to achieve improved, real world environmental results through the application of innovative technology • Energy Star

7. What’s the Focus of the DRT Project? Current focus: • Ground & aerial application of row & field crops • Low Drift Nozzles/Atomizers • Drift Retardant products Future: • Airblast application of orchards/vineyards? • Electrostatic Sprayers? • Shields/Shrouds? • Air Assisted Sprayers? • Windbreaks?

8. DRT Pilot Process Develop information to support choice of DRT Develop verification program including test protocol for DRTs Conduct test/verification of DRT performance Update OPP drift models for DRT use in risk assessment Nominate pesticide/use compatible with DRT (OPP and registrants) Conduct grower/ applicator outreach Develop label language allowing/crediting use of DRT Conduct risk assessment with DRT for pesticide/use Conduct cost savings analysis

9. Relationship Between Application Technologies, Amount of Drift/Risk, and Risk Management No DRT DRT * DRT ** DRT*** DRT**** Off-target distance at greatest risk Amount. of drift and risk Need for risk management restrictions Amt. of drift = toxic level of concern for the pesticide Distance from application site

10. What’s EPA’s Approach/Next Steps? How do we get started and finish? Start Finish

11. Need a valid test protocol • Develop a protocol to test/verify drift capabilities of specific technologies • Purpose: to develop test plans that will describe specific tests conditions used for a specific technology product (e.g., nozzle, drift retardant chemicals) • Draft protocol developed with input by DRT Stakeholder Technical Panel • Publicly available www.epa.gov/etv

12. What’s the baseline to measure against and who and what’s going to be tested? • Select reference (baseline) technologies • Ground boom nozzles – ASAE standards • Aerial nozzles – Spray Drift Task Force (major agchem manufacturers), May-June • Solicit nozzle and adjuvant manufacturers to volunteer to have their technologies tested • FR Notice, May

13. Where to conduct the tests? • Select qualified testing facilities • High (aerial) and low (ground) speed wind tunnels • Currently identifying candidate facilities • May-June ’07 • Conduct tests of selected/volunteered nozzles and drift retardant chemicals • EPA plans to cover test cost of these initial tests • Summer-fall ‘07

14. What do we do with the results? • EPA review of completed test results • Verify adequacy of test • Determine potential to reduce drift compared to standard • Assignment each verified technology to a drift reduction category, such as: • DRT* 25% reduction • DRT** 50% • DRT*** 75% • DRT**** 95%

15. How would results be used? • Use of verified technologies in EPA registration decisions • Pesticide registrants choose to label their products for use with DRT verified technology • E.g.,“Apply this product with DRT with a 3-star rating” • Not specific technologies • EPA recognizes proposed DRT use/product label in risk assessment of pesticide • Application with DRT less drift less risk • Less use restrictions may be necessary for product • 2008

16. Example of Possible DRT Incentives on a Pesticide Label

17. Other Important Steps/Considerations to Achieve Goals • Communications about DRT program • Incentives to keep program growing, self-sustaining • Education of growers/applicators on use of DRTs • Sales and purchase of DRTs—economics, supply/demand, benefits > costs • Expand range of tested technologies to include larger and other types of equipment, e.g., shielded sprayers, airblast equipment, electrostatic sprayers

18. This effort can benefit multiple stakeholders • Gives EPA data to use in its risk assessments/risk management decisions • Gives greater flexibility to grower/applicators to meet pest and drift control needs • Supports private-sector technology development • Reduces impact of spraying on humans and ecosystems • Sale & use of verified DRT products and pesticides labeled for use with DRTs fit with pesticide stewardship

19. Thank You Questions? Discussion Jay Ellenberger 703-305-7099 ellenberger.jay@epa.gov