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

Nozzles18 Spray Nozzles That Reduce Drift, Optimize Coverage
May 7, 2014
This year’s line-up of tips feature the versatility to handle any spray job. View photos and product descriptions of the latest nozzles on the market in our slideshow. Read More
NozzlesChanging Crop Protection Landscape Demands Drift Advances
May 1, 2014
New weed control systems and growing public pressure mean technologies to minimize drift can’t come fast enough. Read More
NozzlesGreenleaf Launches Free NozzleCalc App
January 16, 2014
Quickly calculate sprayer settings for TurboDrop and AirMix nozzles anywhere with the new Greenleaf Technologies Nozzle Calculator app. Read More
NozzlesTeeJet Technologies Launches New Droplet Size Monitor, Guidance System
July 24, 2013
TeeJet has unveiled two new products: the Sentry 6120 Droplet Size Monitor, which helps operators improve spray applications, and the Matrix Pro GS guidance system with enhanced swath control. Read More

Top 100 Articles

CropLife 100CHS: Driving Momentum To Help Farmer-Owners Grow
December 11, 2014
CHS Inc., the nation’s leading farmer-owned cooperative and a global energy, grains and foods company, must capture new opportunities to Read More
CropLife 100BRANDT, Verdesian Ink Distribution Agreement
December 9, 2014
The agreement grants BRANDT the exclusive right to sell and market Verdesian’s patented Steric chemistry in the Turf and Ornamental and eastern U.S. ag markets under the BRANDT Reaction product line name. Read More
CropLife 100CropLife 100: The Colors Of Custom Application
December 5, 2014
Although many color spray rigs are in the yards of the nation’s top ag retailers, the majority of them still come in only a few shades. Read More
CropLife 100Pinnacle Invests In Meridian Agriculture Distribution
December 4, 2014
Meridian will provide retailers with supplier-branded products and numerous opportunities to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Read More
CropLife 100CropLife 100: Entering A New Seed Era
December 4, 2014
The seed category has been re-vitalized during the past few years, and more good news (and varieties) are headed the industry’s way in 2015. Read More
CropLife 100CropLife 100: The Depressed State Of Fertilizer
December 3, 2014
Following downright giddy growth earlier this decade, fertilizer sales have fallen back down to earth the past two years. Read More

Latest News

Seed/BiotechKaren Arthur Joins AgriThority As Seed Treatment Produc…
December 19, 2014
Prior to joining AgriThority, Arthur directed research and development programs, overseeing laboratory and field research, to build the Valent U.S.A. seed treatment portfolio. Read More
EquipmentJohn Deere To Sell Crop Insurance Business
December 19, 2014
Deere & Co. has reached a definitive agreement to sell its crop insurance business, subject to regulatory approval, to Farmers Mutual Hail Insurance Co. of Iowa. Read More
Crop InputsNufarm Fills Regulatory VP Position
December 18, 2014
Nufarm announced today that Rob Schwehr has been promoted to the position of Vice President of Innovation & Regulatory Affairs for Nufarm Americas. Read More
Seed/BiotechReport: China Approves Viptera Corn, U.S. Officials Awa…
December 17, 2014
Chinese authorities have informed some agriculture industry officials the government has approved U.S. imports of a type of genetically modified corn developed by Syngenta. Read More
FertilizerMonty’s Plant Food Brings In New Sales Rep
December 16, 2014
Monty's Plant Food Company has hired Warren Kearns as its newest Sales Representative for the South Carolina area. Read More
EquipmentHagie Wins 2014 CropLife IRON Product Of The Year Award
December 15, 2014
The self-propelled sprayer maker has a hit on its hands with the new STS Series model. Read More
Syngenta
Seed/BiotechSyngenta Sees China Approving Contentious GMO Corn Soon
December 15, 2014
Syngenta will make an announcement when it receives official documentation from China that Agrisure Viptera corn, known as MIR 162, has been cleared for import. Read More
Crop InputsVerdesian Life Sciences Names Vice President Of Communi…
December 15, 2014
Amy Bugg will oversee the execution of all promotional strategies for the corporate brand and the complete product portfolio. Read More
StewardshipFarmers, Retailers Attend 4R Certification 4U Workshop
December 15, 2014
More than 160 farmers and ag retailer attended the “4R Certification 4U” workshop December 12 to learn more about the 4Rs of nutrient stewardship, water quality research in the area and cost-sharing opportunities. Read More
Matt Hopkins10 Best New Agriculture Apps For 2015
December 15, 2014
These new agriculture apps are certain to help ag professionals do their jobs more efficiently in 2015 and beyond. Read More
ManagementARA Learnings, Retail Buying Intentions: Welcome To Cro…
December 12, 2014
This informal video program puts news and events effecting retailers into context, and features Editors Paul Schrimpf and Eric Sfiligoj. Read More
Seed/BiotechMonsanto Herbicide-Tolerant Technology Closer To Commer…
December 12, 2014
The final EIS moves Monsanto one step closer to the introduction of Bollgard II XtendFlex cotton and Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans, paving the way to provide access to dicamba-tolerant soybeans and cotton. Read More
Seed/BiotechUSDA Issues Final Environmental Impact Statement On Her…
December 12, 2014
The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is issuing a final environmental impact statement on varieties of cotton and soybeans that have been genetically engineered for resistance to several herbicides, including the one known as dicamba. Read More
CropLife 100CHS: Driving Momentum To Help Farmer-Owners Grow
December 11, 2014
CHS Inc., the nation’s leading farmer-owned cooperative and a global energy, grains and foods company, must capture new opportunities to Read More
LegislationARA Applauds CFATS Passage Prior To Holiday Adjournment
December 11, 2014
The streamlined bill provides a four-year authorization of the CFATS program and guidance to DHS on key issues of chemical facility security Read More
Seed/BiotechBayer CropScience’s ILeVO Approved By EPA
December 11, 2014
EPA has approved ILeVO, the only seed treatment that protects the root system against infections caused by the Sudden Death Syndrome fungus and has activity against dangerous nematodes. Read More
Biologicals in Emerging Markets Map.
Crop InputsBiocontrols Could Quadruple By 2025; Will Regulators Pl…
December 11, 2014
The European experience with GMOs offers caution — and a promise — for biologicals. Read More
Crop InputsBASF Donates $75,000 To Feeding America
December 10, 2014
The donation will support Feeding America’s National Produce Program, an initiative that helps with planning, transportation and logistics to ensure fresh produce deliveries to the 200 member food banks around the country. Read More