Norman Birchfield and Jay EllenbergerEPA Office of Pesticide Programs
Gregory Sayles, Kerry Bullock, and Michael Kosusko
EPA Office of Research and Development
Environmental Technology Council Brownbag April 20, 2006
Project for Encouraging the Use
of Pesticide Drift Reduction
Technologies
Spray Drift• What is spray drift?
The movement of droplets through the air to any off-target site during, or shortly after, application
Modesto, CA Area Agriculture and Development
From EPA Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage Report
Motivation for this Work• Increased sensitivity to spray drift issues from
suburban development and endangered species concerns
• Growers/applicators currently manage drift via following labels buffer zones, weather conditions
• Product labels do not recognize many potentially effective technologies certain low-drift nozzles drift retardants etc
Motivation for this Work
• The acceptance of a larger variety of drift-reducing technologies (DRTs) would allow greater flexibility in drift management
• Many potentially effective DRTs are not generally utilized but may be economical
What is needed to support more use of more DRTs?
EPA DRT Team• OPP – spray drift risk assessment and policy• ORD
DC – ETC, cross-EPA communications RTP – ETV experience Athens – spray drift research Cincinnati – project guidance
• Contract support RTI – QA and ETV experience University of Queensland – technical support
Development Process
How should this process be tested and improved?
What are the barriers /challenges to the use of DRTs?
What research is needed to overcome these barriers / challenges?
What process would support and motivate the use of DRTs?
• Experts meeting in Indianapolis – January 2003• Equipment manufacturers, registrants,
academic / government researchers, regulators, extension
• Most significant challenges identified: No established U.S. program to verify DRT
performance Currently no mechanism to reward use of DRTs in
EPA risk assessments and on pesticide labels
What are the barriers /challenges to the use of DRTs?
• Experts meeting in Arlington VA – May 2004
• Equipment manufacturers, registrants,
academic/government researchers, regulators
• Research elements identified
• Elements linked to form draft DRT Process
What research is needed to overcome these barriers / challenges?
What process would support and motivate the use of DRTs?
Draft DRT Process
Develop information to support choice of DRT
Develop verificationprogram for DRTs
Conduct verification ofDRT performance
Update drift models for DRT use in R.A.
Nominate pesticide/use compatible with DRT
Conduct R.A. with DRTincluded with use
Develop label language allowing/crediting DRT
Conduct cost savingsanalysis
Conduct grower/applicator outreach
• Run feasibility test – evaluate and improve• 2005 ESTE grant received
focusing on boom-type sprayers Subsidize testing of some promising DRTs Stakeholder Technical Panels to develop test
plans• January 2006• July 2006
• 2006 ESTE funding proposal submitted for orchard/vineyard DRTs
How should this process be tested and improved?
Examples of Potential DRTs for Boom Sprayers
• Spray Tank Adjuvant Drift Retardants
• Low Drift Nozzles/Atomizers
• Windbreaks
• Electrostatic Sprayers
• Shields/Shrouds
• Air Assisted Sprayers
Two Air Assisted Sprayers
Ledebuhr Industries’Proptec Horizontal Sprayer
Hardi International’sTWIN sprayer
Draft DRT Process
Develop information to support choice of DRT
Develop verificationprogram for DRTs
Conduct verification ofDRT performance
Update drift models for DRT use in R.A.
Nominate pesticide/use compatible with DRT
Conduct R.A. with DRTincluded with use
Develop label language allowing/crediting DRT
Conduct cost savingsanalysis
Conduct grower/applicator outreach
• Can the DRT effectively and economically reduce drift? Review existing info “Strawman” Risk Assessment Preliminary cost analysis
Develop information to support choice of DRT
Draft DRT Process
Develop information to support choice of DRT
Develop verificationprogram for DRTs
Conduct verification ofDRT performance
Update drift models for DRT use in R.A.
Nominate pesticide/use compatible with DRT
Conduct R.A. with DRTincluded with use
Develop label language allowing/crediting DRT
Conduct cost savingsanalysis
Conduct grower/applicator outreach
• Design a verification program that meets stakeholders’ needs Scientifically sound verification protocol Third-party verification using specific
protocol increases confidence
• Institute the verification program• Drift models used in EPA risk
assessment need to include DRT
Develop verificationprogram for DRTs
Conduct verification of DRT performance
Update drift models for DRT use in R.A.
EPA – experienced in technology performance
verification
• Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program
• Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program
• Energy Star
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program
• ETV develops testing protocols and verifies the performance of technologies that have the potential to improve protection of human health and the environment
• The Environmental and Sustainable Technology Evaluation (ESTE) Program is a new part of ETV
• ESTE is funding the development of a DRT performance protocol and is expected to subsidize testing of initial DRTs
Draft DRT Process
Develop information to support choice of DRT
Develop verificationprogram for DRTs
Conduct verification ofDRT performance
Update drift models for DRT use in R.A.
Nominate pesticide/use compatible with DRT
Conduct R.A. with DRTincluded with use
Develop label language allowing/crediting DRT
Conduct cost savingsanalysis
Conduct grower/applicator outreach
• Nominate pesticide/use which may benefit from DRT availability
• OPP conducts RA including use of DRT based on: Performance of DRT Updated drift models
• Label language developed giving incentives for use of DRT
Nominate pesticide/use compatible with DRT
Conduct R.A. with DRTincluded with use
Develop label language allowing/crediting DRT
Example of Possible DRT Incentives on Label
Application Equipment
Release Height
Droplet Size
Buffer Size (ft)
Standard application equipment
High boom Fine 80
Coarse 40
Low boom Fine 40
Coarse 20
DRT -- -- 20
Draft DRT Process
Develop information to support choice of DRT
Develop verificationprogram for DRTs
Conduct verification ofDRT performance
Update drift models for DRT use in R.A.
Nominate pesticide/use compatible with DRT
Conduct R.A. with DRTincluded with use
Develop label language allowing/crediting DRT
Conduct cost savingsanalysis
Conduct grower/applicator outreach
• Conduct cost analysis of spraying with and without DRT Spraying at critical times Additional spray hrs/day, days/yr Lower liability?
• Tech transfer to Growers/Applicators Drift reduction capability of the DRT Incentives on labels Possible cost savings
Conduct cost savingsanalysis
Conduct grower/applicator outreach
Strong Interest to Date• Pesticide Registrants• Adjuvant Producers• Applicator Groups• Sprayer Manufacturers • Academic Researchers• USDA ARS, NRCS• Pursuing others
Grower Groups Insurance Companies
DRT Project receiving high visibility in EPA
Environmental Technology Council• Established by the EPA Administrator
To achieve improved, real world environmental results through the application of innovative technology
Identify priority environmental problems needing new approaches
Coordinate efforts by EPA and others to identify and implement technology solutions
Partner with other Feds, states, tribes, non-profits, and industry
Summary• This effort can be a winner for multiple
stakeholders: Gives greater flexibility to Grower/Applicators to
meet or improve on drift requirements May lower overall costs of spraying Supports private-sector technology development Minimizes impact of spraying on humans and
ecosystems
• Draft DRT Process constructed• Feasibility test of the DRT Process planned