Project for Encouraging the Use of Pesticide Drift Reduction Technologies

1. Norman Birchfield and Jay Ellenberger EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Gregory Sayles, Kerry Bullock, and Michael Kosusko EPA Office of Research and Development Environmental Technology Council Brownbag April 20, 2006 Project for Encouraging the Use of Pesticide Drift Reduction Technologies

2. Spray Drift • What is spray drift? • The movement of droplets through the air to any off-target site during, or shortly after, application

3. Modesto, CA Area Agriculture and Development

4. From EPA Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage Report

5. Motivation for this Work • Increased sensitivity to spray drift issues from suburban development and endangered species concerns • Growers/applicators currently manage drift via following labels • buffer zones, weather conditions • Product labels do not recognize many potentially effective technologies • certain low-drift nozzles • drift retardants • etc

6. Motivation for this Work • The acceptance of a larger variety of drift-reducing technologies (DRTs) would allow greater flexibility in drift management • Many potentially effective DRTs are not generally utilized but may be economical What is needed to support more use of more DRTs?

7. EPA DRT Team • OPP – spray drift risk assessment and policy • ORD • DC – ETC, cross-EPA communications • RTP – ETV experience • Athens – spray drift research • Cincinnati – project guidance • Contract support • RTI – QA and ETV experience • University of Queensland – technical support

8. What are the barriers / challenges to the use of DRTs? What research is needed to overcome these barriers / challenges? What process would support and motivate the use of DRTs? Development Process How should this process be tested and improved?

9. What are the barriers / challenges to the use of DRTs? • Experts meeting in Indianapolis – January 2003 • Equipment manufacturers, registrants, academic / government researchers, regulators, extension • Most significant challenges identified: • No established U.S. program to verify DRT performance • Currently no mechanism to reward use of DRTs in EPA risk assessments and on pesticide labels

10. What research is needed to overcome these barriers / challenges? What process would support and motivate the use of DRTs? • Experts meeting in Arlington VA – May 2004 • Equipment manufacturers, registrants, academic/government researchers, regulators • Research elements identified • Elements linked to form draft DRT Process

11. Draft DRT Process Develop information to support choice of DRT Update drift models for DRT use in R.A. Conduct verification of DRT performance Develop verification program for DRTs Nominate pesticide/use compatible with DRT Conduct grower/ applicator outreach Conduct R.A. with DRT included with use Develop label language allowing/crediting DRT Conduct cost savings analysis

12. How should this process be tested and improved? • Run feasibility test – evaluate and improve • 2005 ESTE grant received • focusing on boom-type sprayers • Subsidize testing of some promising DRTs • Stakeholder Technical Panels to develop test plans • January 2006 • July 2006 • 2006 ESTE funding proposal submitted for orchard/vineyard DRTs

13. Examples of Potential DRTs for Boom Sprayers • Spray Tank Adjuvant Drift Retardants • Low Drift Nozzles/Atomizers • Windbreaks • Electrostatic Sprayers • Shields/Shrouds • Air Assisted Sprayers

14. Two Air Assisted Sprayers Hardi International’s TWIN sprayer Ledebuhr Industries’ Proptec Horizontal Sprayer

15. Draft DRT Process Develop information to support choice of DRT Update drift models for DRT use in R.A. Conduct verification of DRT performance Develop verification program for DRTs Nominate pesticide/use compatible with DRT Conduct grower/ applicator outreach Conduct R.A. with DRT included with use Develop label language allowing/crediting DRT Conduct cost savings analysis

16. Develop information to support choice of DRT • Can the DRT effectively and economically reduce drift? • Review existing info • “Strawman” Risk Assessment • Preliminary cost analysis

17. Draft DRT Process Develop information to support choice of DRT Update drift models for DRT use in R.A. Conduct verification of DRT performance Develop verification program for DRTs Nominate pesticide/use compatible with DRT Conduct grower/ applicator outreach Conduct R.A. with DRT included with use Develop label language allowing/crediting DRT Conduct cost savings analysis

18. Update drift models for DRT use in R.A. Conduct verification of DRT performance Develop verification program for DRTs • Design a verification program that meets stakeholders’ needs • Scientifically sound verification protocol • Third-party verification using specific protocol increases confidence • Institute the verification program • Drift models used in EPA risk assessment need to include DRT

19. EPA – experienced in technology performance verification • Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program • Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program • Energy Star

20. Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program • ETV develops testing protocols and verifies the performance of technologies that have the potential to improve protection of human health and the environment • The Environmental and Sustainable Technology Evaluation (ESTE) Program is a new part of ETV • ESTE is funding the development of a DRT performance protocol and is expected to subsidize testing of initial DRTs

21. Draft DRT Process Develop information to support choice of DRT Update drift models for DRT use in R.A. Conduct verification of DRT performance Develop verification program for DRTs Nominate pesticide/use compatible with DRT Conduct grower/ applicator outreach Conduct R.A. with DRT included with use Develop label language allowing/crediting DRT Conduct cost savings analysis

22. Nominate pesticide/use compatible with DRT Conduct R.A. with DRT included with use Develop label language allowing/crediting DRT • Nominate pesticide/use which may benefit from DRT availability • OPP conducts RA including use of DRT based on: • Performance of DRT • Updated drift models • Label language developed giving incentives for use of DRT

23. Example of Possible DRT Incentives on Label

24. Draft DRT Process Develop information to support choice of DRT Update drift models for DRT use in R.A. Conduct verification of DRT performance Develop verification program for DRTs Nominate pesticide/use compatible with DRT Conduct grower/ applicator outreach Conduct R.A. with DRT included with use Develop label language allowing/crediting DRT Conduct cost savings analysis

25. Conduct grower/ applicator outreach Conduct cost savings analysis • Conduct cost analysis of spraying with and without DRT • Spraying at critical times • Additional spray hrs/day, days/yr • Lower liability? • Tech transfer to Growers/Applicators • Drift reduction capability of the DRT • Incentives on labels • Possible cost savings

26. Strong Interest to Date • Pesticide Registrants • Adjuvant Producers • Applicator Groups • Sprayer Manufacturers • Academic Researchers • USDA ARS, NRCS • Pursuing others • Grower Groups • Insurance Companies

27. DRT Project receiving high visibility in EPA Environmental Technology Council • Established by the EPA Administrator • To achieve improved, real world environmental results through the application of innovative technology • Identify priority environmental problems needing new approaches • Coordinate efforts by EPA and others to identify and implement technology solutions • Partner with other Feds, states, tribes, non-profits, and industry

28. Summary • This effort can be a winner for multiple stakeholders: • Gives greater flexibility to Grower/Applicators to meet or improve on drift requirements • May lower overall costs of spraying • Supports private-sector technology development • Minimizes impact of spraying on humans and ecosystems • Draft DRT Process constructed • Feasibility test of the DRT Process planned