Department of Pesticide Regulation Update of Regulatory Issues

1. Department of Pesticide Regulation Update of Regulatory Issues California Association of Standards & Agricultural Professionals Conference Charles M. Andrews Associate Director Pesticide Programs Division January 17, 2009

2. Overview of Discussion • Pesticide Issues in California • Fumigants and Worker Safety • Surface Water Contaminants • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) • Pesticide Toxicity to Bees • Overview of Reevaluation • What is reevaluation • When does DPR initiate a reevaluation? • Possible Outcomes of a Reevaluation

3. Overview of Discussion - continued • Current Pesticides in Reevaluation • Surface water contaminants • Fumigants • Pesticides Under Investigation • Regulations/Mitigation Under Development • VOC III • Notification and Early Entry • MITC (Metam Sodium)

4. Pesticide Issues in California • Fumigants and Worker Safety • MITC Mitigation • Iodomethane Risk Assessment and Registration Decision • Chloropicrin – Under Consideration as a Toxic Air Contaminant • Notification and Early Entry Regulations

5. Pesticide Issues in California • Iodomethane Risk Assessment and Registration Decision • Risk assessment under development • Registration decision projected in 4th quarter of 2009 • Highly toxic and may require additional mitigation similar to methyl bromide • Legislative interest to register products

6. Pesticide Issues in California • Chloropicrin – Under Consideration as a Toxic Air Contaminant • Risk assessment under development • Public Hearing scheduled this Winter • Highly toxic and may require additional mitigation

7. Pesticide Issues in California • Surface Water Contaminants • Chlorpyrifos • Diazinon • Pyrethroids • Fipronil • Volatile Organic Compounds • Soil fumigants • Emulsifiable concentrate formulated products

8. Pesticide Issues in California • Pesticide Toxicity to Honey Bees • Imidacloprid • Neonicotinoids

9. Pesticide Issues in California How do we address these issues? • Adopt known mitigation approaches • Develop new approaches to mitigate the problem • Request additional data to evaluate problem and find solutions (e.g., Reevaluation)

10. What is Reevaluation? • Reevaluation is a tool DPR utilizes to require registrants to submit information/data • Determine the nature/extent of a hazard • Mitigate hazards

11. When does DPR initiate a reevaluation? • Initiation of a Reevaluation • Investigate all information indicating that a pesticide “may have caused” or is “likely to cause” an adverse effect. • Information may come from numerous sources. • If DPR determines that a pesticide “has caused” or is “likely to cause” a significant adverse effect, reevaluation is initiated.

12. Reevaluation • DPR may require registrants to provide data. • DPR may require registrants to develop mitigation measures. • Status of reevaluation included in semi-annual report. • DPR may cancel products due to registrant’s failure to provide data.

13. Possible Reevaluation Outcomes • No further mitigation measures needed. • Mitigation measures needed: • Regulation • Permit Conditions • Label Amendments • Adverse effect cannot be mitigated; pesticide product(s) must be canceled.

14. Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon Reevaluations • Initiated based on water quality monitoring data showing exceedances (Total Maximum Daily Load). • Chlorpyrifos labeling established nationally to mitigate off-site movement. Monitoring being conducted in the Delta and San Joaquin watersheds. • Diazinon supplemental labeling established in California to mitigate off-site movement. Monitoring being conducted for dormant spray season.

15. Pyrethroid Reevaluation • Pyrethroids, a class of insecticides, widely used in both agricultural and urban settings. • In August 2006, DPR placed over 600 products containing at least one of 20 different pyrethroid active ingredients into reevaluation. • Based on toxicity to sediment dwelling organisms in agricultural and urban waterways.

16. Pyrethroid Reevaluation Class Grouping • Group I: first generation photosensitive pyrethroids, typically used indoors and around residential areas. • Group II & Group III: second generation environmentally persistent pyrethroids widely used in urban and agricultural settings.

17. Pyrethroid Reevaluation Data Requirements • Develop a sediment analytical method. • Environmental fate studies(Groups I, III). • Sediment acute and chronic toxicity(Groups II, III). • Soil metabolism studies(Groups I, II, III). • Studies to characterize off-site movement(Group III).

18. Soil Fumigant Reevaluation • Many pesticide active and inert ingredients are Volatile organic compounds or VOCs. • VOCs and nitrogen oxides react with sunlight to form ozone, a major air pollutant. • State Implementation Plan (SIP) to achieve ozone standard requires DPR to: • Develop and maintain an inventory to track pesticide VOC emissions from agricultural and structural applications • Implement regulations by 1/26/08 to achieve 20% reduction from 1991 in five nonattainment areas

19. Method to estimate pesticide VOC emissions • VOC emissions from non-fumigant pesticides are based on worst-case lab data or TGA data (thermogravimetric analysis data). Emission of liquid products = amount of product x emission potential (VOC content) • Historically, VOC emissions from fumigants assumed to be 100% of applied fumigant.

20. Method to estimate fumigant VOC emissions • January 2008, DPR adopted regulations assigning estimated VOC emission to specific fumigant application methods. • DPR needs field monitoring data to confirm fumigant VOC emissions • DPR is requiring data to better estimate emissions

21. Pesticides Under Investigation: Fipronil • Preliminary studies show potential for water quality concerns based on the active ingredient and its breakdown products. • The product is highly toxic to all aquatic life. • The product and its metabolites are very stable. • These characteristics are shared by older active ingredients no longer in use.

22. Pesticides Under Investigation: Imidacloprid • DPR received an adverse effects disclosure regarding the active ingredient imidacloprid. • DPR’s evaluation of the data noted several critical findings • Imidacloprid is toxic to honey bees • High levels of imidacloprid in leaves and blossoms of treated plants • Increases in residue levels over time.

23. Pesticides Under Investigation: Imidacloprid • Residues in some plants measured higher than 4 parts per million (ppm). • After application, remained stable in some cases for more than 500 days after treatment. • DPR estimates the lethal concentration of imidacloprid needed to kill 50 percent of a test population (LC50) of honey bees is 185 ppb.

24. Pesticides Under Investigation: Imidacloprid • Imidacloprid and other similar classes of pesticides are under investigation to determine the impacts on honey bees • Coordinating our investigation with U.S. EPA • Minimal data to determine impacts on various crops

25. Regulations Under Development: VOC Regulations • DPR proposing regulations to change the benchmark for regulating VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley • Changes from 20% to 12% to be consistent with the 1994 SIP • Postpones the allowance system to regulate VOC emissions in all non-attainment areas but Ventura

26. Proposed SIP Changes in the San Joaquin Valley • Changes from 20% to 12% to be consistent with the 1994 SIP • Establishes a cap of 18.1 tons per day • Commitment to use current technology for estimating future emission inventories • Requires DPR to place restrictions on fumigants and non-fumigants to meet the 18.1 tons per day cap

27. Regulations Under Development: Notification and Early Entry • Performance-based regulation • Grower and contractor responsible for ensuring workers are notified • Flexibility for pest control operator to schedule and make an application • Grower must manage property to ensure workers don’t enter treated field

28. Regulations Under Development: Notification and Early Entry • Established requirements for notification after an application has been completed • Minor changes to application-specific information requirement • Adds early entry provisions that EPA established (no contact, limited contact provisions) • Clarifies training and information that must be provided to early entry workers

29. Mitigation Under Development • MITC mitigation under development to address off-site exposures to bystanders • Buffer zones developed for sprinkler, shank, drip, flood, rototiller, and dazomet applications • Working with U.S. EPA on proposal • Proposal should be available for comment in Winter 2009

30. Challenges • Development of mitigation measures to address fumigants, VOCs, and pollutants in surface water are new challenges that are more complex than traditional mitigation measures • Modeling and other scientific tools are being used to develop a program

31. Challenges and Partnerships • We are challenged with developing and demonstrating effective mitigation measures. • Critical to coordinate with other agencies and county agricultural commissioners • Commissioner staff have the knowledge and experience to assist DPR in solving these problems

32. Questions? Chuck Andrews, Associate Director <candrews@cdpr.ca.gov> CDPR Web site <www.cdpr.ca.gov>