1. 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. 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. 3 Desired Change Standard technology, no DRT good DRT better DRT  spray drift No reduction 25% reduction 50% - 95% reduction

4. 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. 5 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 But there are barriers and challenges to the use of DRTs

6. 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. 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. 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 risk assessment with DRT for pesticide/use Develop label language allowing/crediting use of DRT Conduct cost savings analysis Conduct grower/ applicator outreach

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

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

11. 11 Need a valid test protocol 1. 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/etvwww.epa.gov/etv

12. 12 What’s the baseline to measure against and who and what’s going to be tested? 2. Select reference (baseline) technologies Ground boom nozzles – ASAE standards Aerial nozzles – Spray Drift Task Force (major agchem manufacturers), May-June 3. Solicit nozzle and adjuvant manufacturers to volunteer to have their technologies tested FR Notice, May

13. 13 Where to conduct the tests? 4. Select qualified testing facilities High (aerial) and low (ground) speed wind tunnels Currently identifying candidate facilities May-June ’07 5. Conduct tests of selected/volunteered nozzles and drift retardant chemicals EPA plans to cover test cost of these initial tests Summer-fall ‘07

14. 14 What do we do with the results? 6. 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. 15 How would results be used? 7. 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. 16 Example of Possible DRT Incentives on a Pesticide Label Application Equipment or Drift Retardant Release Height Buffer Zone Size (ft) Standard application equipment High boom80 Low boom40 DRT*--60 DRT**--40 DRT***--20 DRT****--0

17. 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. 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. 19 Thank You Questions? Discussion Jay Ellenberger 703-305-7099 ellenberger.jay@epa.gov