2/9/2018

1

Status of Soil Fumigants

Tom HoffmannWSDA Pesticide Management Division

Washington StateDepartment of Agriculture

Topics► How We got Here► Current Situation► Management Practices► Questions

Washington StateDepartment of Agriculture

How We got Here►Food Quality Protection Act of 1996

Pesticide registration must be reviewed at least once every 15 years.

Determine whether a pesticide continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration.

►Pesticides registered before 1984 had not be been reevaluated.Reregistration is a comprehensive re-evaluation of

pesticides first registered before 1984 using current science and risk assessment methods.

Goal of reregistration is to ensure pesticides, as labeled, will not cause unreasonable adverse effects.

How We got Here►EPA completed the reregistration eligibility

decision (RED) process for four soil fumigants in May 2009.ChloropicrinDazometMetam sodium/potassiumMethyl bromide.1,3-Dichloropropene (Telone) – completed

reregistration in 1998 and had a revised risk assessment completed in 2007.

2/9/2018

2

How We got Here►Amended REDs issued June 2009

First time EPA conducted a comprehensive re-evaluation of these soil fumigants since registration

► Included measures to mitigate risks from soil fumigantREDs required use practices to mitigate risks to

workers & bystanders from exposure to fumigants►Measures implemented through product labels►Revised labels implemented protections in

2010 and 2011

Mitigation Measures RUP classification for all soil fumigation products Required Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) Rate reductions Dry disconnects Use site limitations (prior notification & monitoring) Pesticide handler respiratory protection Tarp perforation and removal restrictions Reentry restrictions Buffer zones Restrictions near difficult-to-evacuate sites Training information for workers Applicator training Fumigant Management Plans (FMPs) Post Application Summary (PAS) Outreach to first responders Emergency preparedness and response measures Registrant-provided training, information, and

community outreach programs

Current Situation►EPA moved the soil fumigants forward in

Registration Review from 2017 to 2013.This will allow EPA to:

consider new data and technologies sooner, determine whether mitigation measures included in the

reregistration decision is effectively addressing the risk, include other soil fumigants not part of the last review.

USEPA anticipates that the full implementation of the risk mitigation measures will decrease the likelihood of accidents and errors, foster applicator planning and compliance, and assure appropriate response to exposures that occur.

Current Situation►EPA must complete registration review by

October 1, 2022.►Registration Review Decision

EPA's determination whether a pesticide meets or does not meet statutory standard for registration.

Can the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.

Draft Risk Assessment●Human health & ecological risk (2018)

Proposed Interim Decision●Proposes risk management decisions & revise risk assessments (late 2018)

Interim or Final Decision● Label change information(2020)

2/9/2018

3

Current Situation►What is known at this point

Yu‐Ting Guilaran, DirectorPesticide Re‐evaluation DivisionOffice of Pesticide Programs, US EPA

Dana Friedman, Fumigant Review ManagerPesticide Re‐evaluation DivisionOffice of Pesticide Programs, US EPA

Teams have been meeting to begin the draft risk assessments.

Currently, updates are not available in order to make decisions on modifications to mitigation measures.

Fumigant Trade Names Registered Nematodes Pathogens Weeds

ChloropicrinNutraPic (Arystra)

Strike 100CP (TriEst Ag)Tri-Clor (Trical)

XXX

X X

1,3-Dichloropropene

Cordon (Dow)Inline (Dow)

Telone II (Dow)Telone Technical

XXXX

X X

Chloropicrin + 1,3-dTelone C-35 (Dow)

Strike 60CP (Trident)Strike 80CP (Trident)Telone C-15 (Trical)

XXXX

X X

Dazomet Basamid G (AMVAC) X X X X

Methyl bromide + Chloropicrin

MCB-33 (Trical)Terr-o-Gas 67 (Great Lakes)Terr-o-Gas 75 (Great Lakes)Terr-o-Gas 98 (Great Lakes)

Tri-Con 33/67 (Trical)Tri-Con 45/55 (Trical)Tri-Con 50/50 (Trical)Tri-Con 57/43 (Trical)

Tri-Con (Tri-Form) 80/20 (Trical)

XXXXXXXXX

X X X

Dimethyl disulfide (DMDS)

Paladin (Arkema)Paladin EC (Arkema) X X X

DMDS + Chloropicrin Paladin Pic-21 (Arkema) X X X

Allyl isothiocyanate(biopesticide)

Dominus (Isagro USA)Dominus 100 (Isagro USA)

XX X X X

Ethoprop Mocap 15% Granular (AMVAC)Mocap EC (AMVAC)

XX X

Fumigant Trade Names Registered Nematodes Pathogens Weeds

Metam Potassium(potassium

methyldithiocarbamate)

K-PAM HL (AMVAC)Metam KLR 54% (Taminco)

Sectagon K54 (TKI NovaSource)

XXX

X X X

Metam Sodium(sodium

methyldithiocarbamate)

Metam CLR 42% (Taminco)Sectagon 42% (TKI NovaSource)

Vapam HL (AMVAC)

XXX

X X X

Sodiumtetrathiocarbonate Enzone (Arysta) X X X

Oxamyl Vydate C-LV (Dow) X X

Fluopyram Luna Privilege (Bayer)Velum Prime (Bayer)

XX X X

Hydrogen Peroxide + Peroxyacetic Acid TerraStart (BioSafe) X X X

FluensulfoneFluensulfone 480EC (Adama)

MCW-2 15G (Makhteshim Agan)Nimitz (Makhteshim Agan)

XXX

X

Clothianidin + Bacillus firmus(Strain I-1582)

Poncho/Votivo (Bayer) X X

Azadirachtin Neemix 4.5 (Certis)Ornazin 3% EC (EsPRO)

XX X

Terbufos Counter 20G SmartBox (AMVAC) X X

Saponins of Quillajasaponaria Brandt Nema-Q (Brandt) X X

Bacillus firmus(Strain I-1582) Nortica (Bayer) X X

Burkholderia spp.(Strain A396) Majestene (Marrone) X X

Systematic Synergism►Nematode management must mutually and

reflexively considerSite preparationSoil condition during application (and at depth)Product selection and rateSpatial placementMethod of applicationSoil sealing (shank disruption)BiofumigationChemotaxis (chemo-attractant plants)Weed managementNutrient management

2/9/2018

4

Very poor field preparation Poor field preparation

Poor field preparation Excessively dry soil

2/9/2018

5

Subsoil compaction layer

Shank

2/9/2018

6

Nobel Blade or Sweep Imants Spader

Disrupt Shank TraceRollers do not provide

adequate soil surface seal

2/9/2018

7

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0‐4 in 4‐8 in 8‐12 in 12‐16 in 16‐20 in

Single Level Injection @ 8 inch depth, Moses Lake, 3 fields, 450 readings,

disk then packer

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0‐4 inch 4‐8 inch 8‐12 inch 12‐16 inch 16‐20 inch

Imants Spader, 60 Readings (Ontario, OR)

Information provided by Kyle Coleman, TKI

Volatilization Diffusion Dissipation

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

0-4 inch 4-8 inch 8-12 inch 12-16inch

16-20inch

Rumble 30 GPA @ 6 inches + 30 GPA @ 15 inches vs 40 GPA @ 6

inches + 20 GPA @ 15 inches,400 readings (Echo, OR)

R 30/30 R 40/20 Two‐tier Shank

Weed Seeds

Soil-

born

e Pa

thog

ens

Nem

atod

es75%

25%

Other than methyl bromide, soil fumigants do not effectively reach all three pests in a single application.

0” – 4”

0” – 8”

0” – 48+”

2/9/2018

8

Comparison ‐ Vapor Pressure (20° C)Material mmHg

Anhydrous Ammonia 6,460Chlorine 88Chloropicrin 18Gasoline 414Methyl BromideTelone 282,4-D Amine 4 16.5Vapam (Metam Sodium) 21Water 17.5

1,420

SummaryPrinciple reason for ineffective control

was poor field preparation.A secondary factor was poor soil

condition at time of application.Shank trace disruption and soil surface

seal are critical.Public comment period will occur in early

2019.Revised soil fumigant labels will enter the

marketplace in 2020.Washington StateDepartment of Agriculture

Thank You!Thank You!Washington StateDepartment of Agriculture