Spray Drift: Coming To A Head

Over the past 15 years, EPA has devoted considerable time and effort attempting to address spray drift issues, and Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 2009-X, released last November, represents EPA’s most recent effort to reduce spray drift through labeling statements.

How Did We Get Here?

In 1984, EPA published a new rule outlining the spray drift data it required for submission with each ag chemical registration. The requirements compelled pesticide registrants to submit two types of spray drift data: “When aerial application … and mist blower or other methods of ground application are proposed, and it is estimated that the detrimental effects level of those nontarget organisms expected to be present would be exceeded.” EPA regulations further required manufacturers to submit proposed spray drift label instructions. EPA was to evaluate the proposed instructions in light of the manufacturer’s spray drift data to determine whether the crop protection product, when used as labeled, would cause “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.”

The cost of providing EPA with the required information on spray drift for each individual pesticide product was immense. Therefore, in 1990, the Spray Drift Task Force (SDTF) was organized to “share the cost of developing a generic spray drift database.” The purpose of the database was to satisfy spray drift data requirements for virtually all pesticide product registrations in the U.S. and Canada, while reducing the time and expense required by registrants to gather spray drift data for every product registered. SDTF was created through a joint effort between EPA, CropLife America, Agriculture Canada, and Environment Canada, and was intended to lighten the financial burden on pesticide registrants while “providing the agency with a more complete and scientifically more sound basis for evaluating off-target movement of pesticides and assessing exposure of humans and the environment.” The database created by SDTF included information from previous submissions to EPA, published research, and other sources within the industry, government, and academia.

In 2001, EPA specifically addressed spray drift labeling. In Draft Pesticide Registration Notice 2001-X: Spray and Dust Drift Label Statements for Pesticide Products (PR Notice 2001-X), EPA stated that because “individual products must be evaluated according to formulation and use, and because individual circumstances may apply [it] must review and approve the labeling of each product.” EPA also noted that it required “various product label statements for preventing or controlling spray drift” and that in some instances EPA required more detailed language on individual product labels, including label statements related to the use of no-spray zones, maximum application heights, and worker protection.

The stated purpose of PR Notice 2001-X was to provide “more consistent product label statements for controlling pesticide drift” to protect human health and the environment. In order to provide applicators with “consistent and appropriate directions for controlling drift,” EPA suggested that product labeling regarding drift be standardized. The agency wanted to establish clear labeling that “set definitive standards for application practices,” and pesticide manufacturers were required to avoid labeling that was “inconsistent,” “inadequate,” or “unclear.”

Although PR Notice 2001-X was intended to clarify expectations of applicators and set definitive standards for application practices, the proposed language was problematic, which stated, “do not allow drift.” This raised many concerns throughout the industry and with state pesticide departments charged with the enforcement of the proposed label language. One of the biggest concerns with the language “do not allow drift” was that it created a zero drift policy. Such a policy was viewed by some state regulators as a physical impossibility and therefore unenforceable. The concerns over this language eventually led to PR Notice 2001-X failing to be finalized.

What’s On The Table?

EPA’s long-awaited PR Notice 2009-X represents the agency’s latest effort to address drift labeling language. The stated purpose of PR Notice 2009-X is to provide guidance to pesticide registrants when revising pesticide labeling instructions “to minimize drift and to protect people, other non-target organisms, and the environment from adverse effects that may be caused by off-target pesticide drift.” The new drift statements recommended by EPA “are intended to improve labeling of current and future pesticide registrations by proposing a clear, concise, generic drift labeling statement for all pesticide products and by providing specific use directions that EPA may require for pesticide applicators.” According to EPA, the new language should result in “fairer, more uniform enforcement that better protects human health, other non-target organisms, and the environment.”

Under PR Notice 2009-X, the general drift labeling language for three pesticide product categories would change. The categories subject to the proposed labeling language are: (1) pesticide products that currently bear the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) drift statement; (2) pesticide products which may be used commercially that currently do not bear the WPS drift statement; and (3) pesticide products intended solely for non-commercial application.

Products that currently use the standard WPS language regarding spray drift and commercially used products that do not currently use the WPS language would be required to use the following label language regarding ag chemical spray drift:

Do not apply this product in a manner that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift. In addition, do not apply this product in a manner that results in spray (or dust) drift that could cause an adverse effect to people or any other non-target organism or site.

Products used solely for non-commercial activity would be required to include the following spray drift language on their labels:

Do not apply this product in a way that could contact people, or that results in spray (or dust) drift that could cause harm to people, pets, property, aquatic life, wildlife, or wildlife habitat.

If EPA finalizes PR Notice 2009-X, the labels for the crop protection products in each category must change to reflect the new spray drift language.

EPA will still determine whether a product requires a product-specific drift statement. These will be made on a case-by-case basis. These product-specific statements will include, restrictions on wind speed, application release height, buffer zones around sensitive areas, and droplet size, to name a few. In most cases, EPA will evaluate the need for a product-specific drift statement during the registration process. If EPA determines that product-specific labeling is required, the registrant will be required to add product-specific drift statements to the label, as appropriate, to address potential risks.

What Are The Key Issues?

Public comment on PR Notice 2009-X closed on March 5. Once the period for comment closed, EPA could issue a final notice. If finalized as written, any product not yet registered with EPA must submit, along with its registration materials, product labeling that complies with the spray drift language described above. Registrants of existing products that do not have any spray drift language in their labels will have at least six months to submit new general drift labeling statements to EPA. If a registered product contains existing drift labeling statements, the registrants will be required to submit the proposed changes by filing an application to amend their registrations within 12 months of the final Notice being issued.

Although the time for public comment had yet to close at presstime, there have already been numerous public comments regarding the potential effects of PR Notice 2009-X. Initially, in response to many requests seeking a longer comment period due to the complexity of the draft and accompanying materials, EPA extended the original 60-day comment period to March 5. The main concerns expressed by those providing comments to date are two-fold: First, the suggested drift statement contains vague language not in accordance with FIFRA’s risk-based standard of “no unreasonable adverse events.” Second, there is a concern that EPA’s guidance on how to enforce the proposed drift label language sets an unachievable zero drift standard.

The Answer? Stay Tuned …

EPA is attempting to further its goal of promulgating clear and concise labeling statements to help reduce issues surrounding spray drift. While the crop protection industry has expressed support for the agency’s overall goal of reducing off-target spray and dust drift and ensuring pesticide label consistency and clarity, there has long been debate about the best way to reach those goals. Pesticide manufactures, applicators, growers, and other stakeholders will therefore continue to analyze PR Notice 2009-X, and the crop protection products industry and agriculture community will monitor closely how EPA reacts to these comments.

Topics:

Leave a Reply

Nozzles Stories

Case sprayer nozzle closeup
EquipmentSpray Application: A Nozzle Renaissance
May 2, 2017
If you had asked four-decade ag veteran Mark Bartel, President of Wilger Inc., just a few years ago what lay Read More
Greenleaf Technologies TADF03-D Dual Fan Nozzle
NozzlesSix Greenleaf Nozzles Approved For XtendiMax With VaporGrip Technology
February 22, 2017
Greenleaf Technologies has announced that six of its TurboDrop D Series nozzles have been approved for use with Monsanto’s XtendiMax Read More
ID3 Air Induction Flat Spray Nozzle | Lechler
Nozzles2016 Nozzles And Tips Report: Waste Watchers
May 5, 2016
Every year in the spring, ag retailers and their grower-customers prepare for the coming crop season. This involves prepping crop Read More
Greenleaf Technologies TurboDrop MKII Variable Rate Nozzle
NozzlesGreenleaf Technologies Launches New TurboDrop MKII Variable Rate Nozzles
March 23, 2016
Greenleaf Technologies has announced the introduction of its new TurboDrop MKII Variable Rate Nozzles for agricultural spraying and fertilizer applications Read More
Trending Articles
Stewardship‘Gonna Fly Now’ with Environmental Respect
July 20, 2017
One of the most memorable moments in movie history occurred in the Academy Award-winning 1976 film “Rocky.” Haven gotten his Read More
StewardshipEnvironmental Respect 2017 Kicks Off Enjoying an American Pastime
July 18, 2017
Following months of planning and scheduling, the 2017 Environmental Respect Awards (ERA) celebration kicked off in fine fashion as more Read More
Soybean Closeup
Crop InputsMissouri Lifts Dicamba Ban, Issues Stricter Application Parameters
July 14, 2017
The Missouri Department of Agriculture has lifted its barely week-old ban on new dicamba technologies, which have been at the Read More
Crop InputsMonsanto Responds to Arkansas, Missouri Dicamba Bans
July 10, 2017
Monsanto, provider of the dicamba-tolerant Roundup Ready Xtend crop system for soybeans and cotton, issued the following statement on Friday, Read More
Retail FacilitiesPCS-Hammond Meets Fertilizer Storage Needs with New Dome Facility
July 8, 2017
The new barrel dome facility at the PCS-Hammond Regional Distribution Center in Hammond, IN, can hold more than 100,000 tons Read More
PrecisionAg Vision Conference
Precision AgPrecisionAg® Vision Conference: Focused on the Future
June 13, 2017
PrecisionAg® is pleased to announce the return of its PrecisionAg Vision Conference, October 10-12, 2017. Based on overwhelmingly positive response Read More
Latest News
ManagementCropLife Retail Week: Dicamba Update and InfoAg Preview
July 21, 2017
Editors Eric Sfiligoj and Paul Schrimpf discuss reports from the field and comments from Monsanto about dicamba drift this season, Read More
Stewardship‘Gonna Fly Now’ with Environmental Respect
July 20, 2017
One of the most memorable moments in movie history occurred in the Academy Award-winning 1976 film “Rocky.” Haven gotten his Read More
StewardshipEnvironmental Respect: Grand Grounds, Posters Parade
July 19, 2017
To celebrate their accomplishments in the area of environmental stewardship, award recipients at the 2017 Environmental Respect week spent much Read More
StewardshipHarden’s Message to ERA Winners: Do Tell Your Good Stor…
July 19, 2017
As the daughter of a peanut farmer, Krysta Harden, Chief Sustainability Officer for DuPont Crop Protection, understands the importance the Read More
StewardshipFarming Smarter Hinges on 4R Best Management Practices
July 18, 2017
Preserving water quality while feeding another 2 billion people by 2050 is the challenge facing North America’s farmers and its Read More
StewardshipEnvironmental Respect 2017 Kicks Off Enjoying an Americ…
July 18, 2017
Following months of planning and scheduling, the 2017 Environmental Respect Awards (ERA) celebration kicked off in fine fashion as more Read More
Soybean Field Sunset
OpinionPicking Partners in the Crop Protection Market
July 17, 2017
Agriculture is a market awash in highs, lows, and everything in between. This is certainly true in the world of Read More
TMX-2050-In-Cab-Display-Launch-Run-Screen
EquipmentGPS Auto Steer: Innovating in a Mature Market
July 17, 2017
In the world of Big IRON, GPS auto steer has closely mirrored the evolutionary path of consumer GPS Navigation systems Read More
MFA-Centralia-MO
Eric SfiligojThe Resilience of Ag Retailers
July 17, 2017
After covering the ag retail market for 17 years, I think one of the most impressive character traits I’ve seen Read More
SERA-meeting
Stewardship4R Event Explores How to Minimize Phosphorus Losses
July 17, 2017
This year the Southern Extension and Research Activity (SERA) – 17; will be meeting in Oregon, OH, from August 14-17. Read More
Students Soybean Field
StewardshipCCA 4R Study Guide Available
July 17, 2017
In June the International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI) released the Certified Crop Advisor (CCA) 4R Nutrient Management Specialist (4R NMS) Read More
Soil soybean closeup
FertilizerThe 4Rs and Potassium
July 17, 2017
Are we meeting crop K needs? Using the 4R nutrient stewardship approach of selecting the right source at the right Read More
Soil Young Corn
StewardshipTop 10 Themes from the 2017 4R Nutrient Stewardship Sum…
July 17, 2017
Preserving water quality while feeding another 2 billion people by 2050 is the challenge facing North America’s farmers and its Read More
Soybean Field Sunset
Crop InputsWhich is Better for Soybeans: Fall or Spring Applicatio…
July 17, 2017
There have been many questions about fall versus spring applications of phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) to soybeans, writes Dr. T. Read More
corn-potassium-deficiency-University-of-Minnesota-Extension
Crop InputsRecognizing Potassium Deficiency Symptoms in Crops
July 17, 2017
Some crops exhibit characteristic deficiency symptoms when adequate amounts of K are not available for growth and development, according to Read More
ManagementComplexity in Agriculture: The Rise (and Fall?) of Mons…
July 17, 2017
Sometimes it seems as if the ag world is changing so fast that we can barely keep up with it Read More
Crop InputsMonsanto: Illegal, Improper Use at Root of Drift Proble…
July 14, 2017
Monsanto isn’t backing down from the position that its tool — the Roundup Ready Xtend dicamba-tolerant system for soybeans and Read More
Soybean Closeup
Crop InputsMissouri Lifts Dicamba Ban, Issues Stricter Application…
July 14, 2017
The Missouri Department of Agriculture has lifted its barely week-old ban on new dicamba technologies, which have been at the Read More