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

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
easyFlow
NozzlesGreenleaf Technologies Introduces New easyFlow Closed Transfer System
March 22, 2016
Greenleaf Technologies has announced the launch of its new easyFlow closed transfer system for the North American market. Designed to meet Read More
IDKT Twin Air Induction Flat Spray Nozzles | Lechler
NozzlesIndiana Company Becomes Exclusive Lechler Distributor
January 21, 2016
The fluid flow experts of Green Leaf, Inc., a Fontanet, IN, manufacturer of agricultural products, introduces Lechler Inc.’s IDTA asymmetrical Read More
Trending Articles
ASMARK 2016 Retailers Live! Tour - CPS
CropLife 100CPS Acquires Texas Retail Operation
August 23, 2016
Crop Production Services (CPS) has acquired the assets of Larry’s Chemical and Spray, Inc., for an undisclosed amount in an Read More
Key Cooperative Marcus Construction Steel Building
Retail FacilitiesMarcus Construction Builds High-Speed Agronomy Center For Key Cooperative
July 7, 2016
Key Cooperative in Grinnell, IA, wanted a state-of-the-art Agronomy Center to better serve its customers. Marcus Construction delivered exactly that. Read More
Heritage Cooperative
Retail FacilitiesKahler Automation Designs State-Of-The-Art Facility For Heritage Cooperative
July 4, 2016
Heritage Cooperative in Marysville, OH, needed an efficient liquid, dry and grain facility to serve the many needs of their Read More
The Andersons Waterloo
ManagementFirst Indiana Facility Certified Under 4R Nutrient Stewardship Certification Program
June 27, 2016
The 4R Nutrient Stewardship Certification Program has announced that The Andersons, Inc.’s Waterloo, IN, facility has been added to its Read More
Food IT
Industry NewsCalifornia Event Will Mix Ag And Tech Professionals To Explore IT Solutions
June 20, 2016
Silicon Valley is hot on agriculture, and an upcoming event in California will bring together the food and tech industries Read More
Monsanto Luling Plant
Eric SfiligojWhat’s Next For Monsanto?
May 31, 2016
For the folks at Monsanto’s headquarters in St. Louis, MO, it has been an eventful few weeks. Back on May Read More
Latest News
2016 ShowStopper | Case IH Patriot 4440 Sprayer
Equipment5 Show-stopping Products On Display At 2016 MAGIE
August 26, 2016
For 10 years now, visitors to the yearly Midwest AG Industries Exposition (MAGIE) show have been tasked with voting for Read More
Crop InputsDuPont Pioneer: Corn Belt P and K Levels Lagging
August 24, 2016
A new DuPont Pioneer study conducted across 12 Corn Belt states demonstrates that growers may be leaving profit potential in Read More
Monsanto sign
Crop InputsCould a Monsanto-Bayer Union Be 2 Weeks from Fruition?
August 24, 2016
Via STLToday.com (The St. Louis Post-Dispatch): Merger talks between Monsanto Co. and Bayer AG are advancing after a series of Read More
EquipmentCase IH Debuts Nutri-Tiller 955 Strip-Till Applicator
August 24, 2016
With strip-till continuing to expand across new acres, Case IH designed the new Nutri-Tiller 955 strip-till applicator to help producers Read More
EquipmentCase Launches Aim Command FLEX, 25th Anniversary Patrio…
August 24, 2016
Case IH announces new AIM Command FLEX advanced spray technology for greater application accuracy, as well as special 25th Anniversary Read More
ASMARK 2016 Retailers Live! Tour - CPS
CropLife 100CPS Acquires Texas Retail Operation
August 23, 2016
Crop Production Services (CPS) has acquired the assets of Larry’s Chemical and Spray, Inc., for an undisclosed amount in an Read More
PrecisionAg Video Conference
Precision AgVideo: PrecisionAg Vision Conference
August 22, 2016
A Strategic Conference Focused on the Future of Farm Digitization and Precision Agriculture Visit precisionagvision.com and register today! Read More
Young Corn Plants
Industry NewsOABA Welcomes Nicole Wallace As Communication & Adm…
August 22, 2016
The Ohio AgriBusiness Association has hired Nicole Wallace as its communication and administrative coordinator. Wallace will help provide comprehensive communication Read More
Syngenta Sign
Crop InputsChemChina, Syngenta Receive Clearance From CFIUS
August 22, 2016
China National Chemical Corp. (ChemChina) and Syngenta have announced that the companies have received clearance on their proposed transaction from the Read More
ManagementAg Industry Shows and Rumors
August 18, 2016
Editors Paul Schrimpf and Eric Sfiligoj talk about the upcoming trade show schedule, crop protection merger updates, and content for Read More
MAGIE 2015
EquipmentMAGIE Takes The Pulse Of The Ag Retail Industry
August 18, 2016
Every year, one of the major highlights of my career as an ag journalist is attending the Midwest AG Industries Read More
MAGIE 2015 Overview
EquipmentPride In Professionalism On Display At MAGIE
August 18, 2016
The Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association (IFCA) is proud to partner with CropLife IRON and continue the tradition of bringing Read More
SprayersJenner Ag To Debut 25th Anniversary Edition Case IH Pat…
August 18, 2016
Visitors at the 2016 Midwest Ag Industries Exhibition (MAGIE) in Bloomington, IL, will have a unique photo opportunity, as Jenner Read More
Crop InputsEU Glyphosate Controversy Heating Up Yet Again
August 17, 2016
The battle over glyphosate rages on in Europe, creating a lot of question marks over whether the herbicide will continue Read More
Industry NewsNew Partnership Provides Improved Representation At Ohi…
August 16, 2016
The Ohio AgriBusiness Association (OABA) has retained Belinda Jones of Capitol Consulting Group, Inc. (CCG) for government relations work in Read More
Tissue testing
FertilizerMosaic: 6 Tips For Better Crop Nutrition In Corn
August 16, 2016
Late in the crop season is a good time to assess visual nutrient deficiencies and ensure early- and mid-season deficiencies Read More
WebinarsWebinar Schedule
August 14, 2016
Register for one of our upcoming Webinars or access our archive of past Webinars to view recordings of presentations that may be of interest to you. Read More
Dow DuPont
Crop InputsDowDuPont Update: EU Takes Closer Look at Merger
August 12, 2016
Dow Chemical Co. and DuPont Co. face months of haggling with European Union antitrust regulators who opened an in-depth probe Read More