North Dakota Pesticide Quarterly, Volume 18, No. 1, January 2000

Pesticide use in the US and the rest of the developed world has been controversial ever since Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" was published in the early 1960s. By the early 1970s, fears of environmental degradation resulted in the establishment of the US EPA. Soon, some pesticides were banned (i.e., DDT and Agent Orange or 2,4,5-T). By 1978, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act was passed, mandating training and certification for certain pesticides. In the 1980s, high profile incidents and controversies such as the Alar scare as reported on 60 Minutes; the Bhopal, India pesticide plant explosion, and the enactment of the Endangered Species Act increased the pressure on users of pesticides. In the 1990s, more laws and regulations were passed: the Worker Protection Standard, the Water Quality Act, the Food Quality Protection Act, and North Dakota's Financial Responsibility Law all added to burdens placed on pesticide users.

My reason for cataloging all these milestones since the 1960s is to illustrate what many of you already know: That users of pesticides are under intense pressure, directly and indirectly, to reduce our real or perceived negative impact on the environment and on humans regardless of the costs. The outlook into the new century indeed looks dark. In a pesticide recertification training conducted at the Fargo Dome a couple of weeks ago, I was accused of recounting only the negative and not any of the positives. I had to admit, the comment from the audience was right on the mark. My Norwegian heritage of pessimism and gloom was clearly on display. So, to that end, I would like to relate some bright spots out there that often get glossed over:

I could list more bright spots, but I hope you get the picture. Pesticide use is here to stay, but only if we meet the challenges head on. Our future is in our hands: all we need to do is reach out grab it.

EPA To Propose Label Language on Spray Drift

Editors Note: The Environmental Protection Agency is close to proposing modifications to the guidelines for label language on pesticide spray drift. After working on the issue for a decade, the agency hopes to publish a Pesticide Registration Notice soliciting comment on label modifications by the first quarter of 2000. What follows is EPA's general view on this issue as articulated in a December 1999 release.

Spray drift of pesticides

The drift of spray from pesticide applications can expose people, wildlife and the environment to pesticide residues that can cause health and environmental effects and property damage. For these reasons and because EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is responsible for regulating the use of pesticides in the U.S., OPP has been actively engaged in a number of initiatives to help prevent such problems. These initiatives include broadening our understanding of the science and predictability of spray drift based on many new studies and helping pesticide applicators to reduce spray drift by improving product label use directions and promoting education and training programs on spray drift for applicators. These initiatives are consistent with the Agency's mission of protecting human health and the environment from potential adverse effects of pesticides. When we complete our decisions on how we intend to use the new studies for our regulatory decisions and on the new wording for product labels, we plan to issue a draft Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice for public comment before making and implementing final decisions. This "For Your Information" publication provides the Agency's position on spray drift issues and a summary of responsibilities and activities of EPA and others.

What is pesticide spray drift?

EPA defines pesticide spray drift as the physical movement of a pesticide through air at the time of application or soon thereafter, to any site other than that intended for application (often referred to as off-target). EPA does not include in its definition the movement of pesticides to off-target sites caused by erosion, migration, volatility, or contaminated soil particles that are windblown after application, unless specifically addressed on a pesticide product label with respect to drift control requirements.

How does spray drift occur?

When pesticide solutions are sprayed by ground spray equipment or aircraft, droplets are produced by the nozzles of the equipment. Many of these droplets can be so small that they stay suspended in air and are carried by air currents until they contact a surface or drop to the ground. A number of factors influence drift including weather conditions, topography, the crop or area being sprayed, application equipment and methods, and decisions by the applicator.

What are the impacts of spray drift?

Off-target spray can affect human health and the environment. For example, spray drift can result in pesticide exposures to farm workers, children playing outside, and wildlife and its habitat. Drift can also contaminate a home garden or another farmer's crops, causing illegal pesticide residues and/or plant damage. The proximity of individuals and sensitive sites to the pesticide application, the amounts of pesticide drift, and toxicity of the pesticide are important factors in determining the potential impacts from drift.

How does EPA view off-target spray drift?

EPA recognizes the importance of exposures to pesticides resulting from spray drift. There are thousands of reported complaints of off-target spray drift each year. Reports of exposures of people, plants and animals to pesticides due to off-target drift (often referred to as "drift incidents") are an important component in the scientific evaluation and regulation of the uses of pesticides. Other routes of pesticide exposure include consuming foods and drinking water which may contain pesticide residues, applying pesticides, and contacting treated surfaces in agricultural, industrial, or residential settings. EPA considers all of these routes of exposure in regulating the use of pesticides.

When labels of pesticide products state that off-target drift is to be avoided or prohibited, our policy is straightforward: pesticide drift from the target site is to be prevented. However, we recognize that some degree of drift of spray particles will occur from nearly all applications. Nevertheless, applicators and other responsible parties must use all available application practices designed to prevent drift that will otherwise occur. Prudent and responsible applicators must consider all factors, including wind speed, direction and other weather conditions, application equipment, the proximity of people and sensitive areas, and product label directions in making their decisions about pesticide applications. A prudent and responsible applicator must refrain from application under conditions that are inconsistent with the goal of drift prevention, or are prohibited by the label requirements. EPA uses its discretion to pursue violations based on the unique facts and circumstances of each drift situation.

Pesticide applicators and others, including land owners, play a very important role in pesticide application — deciding whether or not to apply a pesticide and if so how best to make that application. It is their responsibility to know and understand a product's use restrictions. They are responsible for complying with all other pesticide laws regarding pesticide applications and that their application equipment and techniques will ensure the maximum possible reduction of spray drift. EPA also expects applicators to exercise a high level of professionalism in making decisions about applications.

How does EPA help protect people and the environment from off-target spray drift?

EPA is responsible for a number of important programs that help protect people and the environment from potential adverse effects that can be related to off-target drift from pesticide applications. These programs include restricting how pesticides are used, certification and training of applicators, and enforcement and compliance of pesticide laws.

As a part of our evaluation of a pesticide, we estimate the amounts of off-target drift and the associated potential risks to human health and the environment. Restrictions on a pesticide's application may be triggered in two ways. For new pesticides and existing pesticides undergoing reregistration, estimated deposition levels are evaluated along with the pesticide's toxicity. For existing pesticides, available information on drift incidents is also evaluated. Based on these evaluations, OPP may impose specific restrictions for a pesticide's application. Specific restrictions may include prohibiting the use of certain pesticides under certain conditions; prohibiting certain methods of application; requiring use of a foliage barrier; or requiring a buffer zone distance between the site of application and areas to be protected. In general, applicators must use all available drift prevention practices in order to prevent drift.

During the past few years OPP has received and reviewed new studies on spray drift it required from pesticide registrants to support their product registrations. OPP has completed its review of these studies and reached conclusions about the factors that influence drift and the amounts of sprays which can drift from the application site.

OPP also collaborated under a cooperative research and development agreement with registrants and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the development of a model ("AgDRIFT") to predict distances of spray drift under many different conditions.

To ensure the scientific quality of the conduct of the studies, conclusions that were drawn from these studies, and the predictive model, OPP obtained independent expert peer reviews, including the FIFRA Science Advisory Panel. These expert peer reviews supported the use of these studies and model for OPP's science assessments of pesticides.

Based on these studies and reviews, OPP is now developing improved product labeling to inform applicators of requirements to control off-target spray drift. OPP plans to publish these requirements and an implementation plan in a draft notice (PR Notice) this winter and ask for public comments. Comments will be considered before publishing the final requirements in summer 2000.

Other activities that promote awareness and education of spray drift issues

For the past few years, EPA has been actively working together with other federal and state agencies and tribes, pesticide and application equipment manufacturers, applicators, university scientists and others (National Coalition on Drift Minimization) on many spray drift issues. Coalition members, including EPA, have focused attention on enhancing pesticide applicator education, application research, and regulatory initiatives to foster reductions in drift incidents.

Members of the Coalition have produced and widely disseminated training and educational materials for applicators, assisted with development of improved pesticide product label directions for drift reduction, and promoted common awareness and understanding of technical and regulatory issues regarding spray drift. Additional education and communication products are scheduled for future release.

Complementing these efforts in applicator education is an increasing number of training programs sponsored by industry and pesticide applicator organizations. Such programs are designed to raise the level of professionalism and education about drift issues for those involved in pesticide applications.

Where to direct complaints about spray drift

Should you believe that you have been exposed to pesticide spray drift and have health-related questions, you should contact your physician, local poison control center, or health department for assistance. You can also contact the National Pesticides Telecommunications Network.

If you suspect that there has been an occurrence of illegal spraying, you should contact your state or tribal pesticide regulatory agency (either the department of agriculture or environmental protection).

Pesticide Use Reporting: Once Again, Oregon – the Pioneer

Editors Note: The following article comes from the Oregon Department of Agriculture. It outlines sweeping new legislation on pesticide use reporting.

Oregon Governor Kitzhaber signed HB 3602 on September 1, 1999 amid much fanfare. That signature has set in motion construction of the most comprehensive pesticide use reporting system known in the United States. The carefully crafted Oregon legislation, a monument to compromise, sets up a system that will hammer out details not addressed by other states' reporting programs.

HB 3602 requires the department to collect, summarize, retain and report information on pesticide use by all categories of users—from farmers to foresters to roadside maintenance crews to homeowners.

The full program of pesticide use reporting in Oregon will not be implemented until January of 2002. Right now, there are still more questions than answers. What kind of pesticide use information is needed? What is the best way of collecting that information? How is information on homeowner pesticide use to be collected? Can it be done electronically? How often will reports be due? How accessible will this information be to the public? These are among the important details that still need to be ironed out well before 2002.

The shaping of the program resides within the Oregon Department of Agriculture and will be viewed with interest by supporters and skeptics alike, along with interested parties in other states. If Oregon, the pioneer, does it and does it right, perhaps it will be a model for others.

The spirit and the letter of the law

Developing a comprehensive, statewide pesticide use reporting system is to boldly go where no one has gone before. The plan calls for a scientific review group, utilizing expertise from Oregon State University and Oregon Health Sciences University to work on identifying the type of information needed in the system and its usefulness. At the same time, a work group to be appointed by the governor will also provide input on the programs specifics, interfacing with the scientific review. That group will consist of pesticide users and dealers, environmental and labor organizations, public health organizations, and public water suppliers.

The scientific review is to be completed by May 2000. Recommendations from both groups will help establish a pilot program of pesticide use reporting to be implemented in a specific geographic area of the state by January 2001. Results of that pilot project will be used to finalize rules for the full program.

Shooting down myths

While the idea of making detailed information on pesticide use publicly available may alarm some, others see an opportunity to put some false assumptions and accusations to rest.

Solutions to Sunflower Growers Pesticide Needs

The National Sunflower Association (NSA) has credited North Dakota's Pesticide Control Board (PCB) with helping gain federal approval of a major herbicide for use in sunflower fields. In a letter to Commissioner of Agriculture Roger Johnson this past summer, NSA Executive Director Larry Kleingartner said a PCB grant was instrumental in persuading FMC Corp. to seek federal registration of Spartan (sulfentrazone) for sunflowers.

Johnson chairs the PCB. Other members are Sharon Anderson, director of the North Dakota State University Extension Service, and Cole Gustafson, director of the NDSU Experiment Station. In the spring of 1998, the PCB approved a $75,700 grant from its minor use fund for the NSA to conduct tests needed to gain approval of Spartan. NSA also appropriated $18,000 for the effort.

"FMC was not very interested until we received the PCB grant," Kleingartner said. "This partnership (NSA and PCB) provided the necessary ammunition for local FMC reps to convince their home office that this was a worthy project. Eventually, FMC spent $150,000 on the project, while the NSA spent $29,400. The project used $41,339 from the PCB grant.

Eight states, including North Dakota, have issued emergency crisis exemptions for Spartan, allowing sunflower growers to use the herbicide this year. Because of the PCB/NSA-sponsored project, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to approve full exemption for Spartan next year.

"Without hesitation, I can confidently say this project rings with success," Kleingartner said. "I told the North Dakota House Appropriations Committee that FMC would not have proceeded on this project without the participation of the Pesticide Control Board."

"This is why the minor use fund was created," Johnson said. "By carefully investing in projects supported by growers and grower groups, we can help producers of so-called minor crops obtain the pesticides they need to protect their investment." The minor use fund was created by the 1997 North Dakota Legislature, and is funded through pesticide manufacturer registration fees.

NDSU Advanced Crop Advisor Workshop

February 24 & 25 in Fargo

Registration

Lodging

Campus parking

Preregistration Form

North Dakota Department of Agriculture Pesticide Complaint Summary for 1999

Complaint		Action	Aerial or Ground Application
1.	Dealer importing Reclaim herbicide from Texas and re-packaging as Stinger	No violation - could not prove
2.	Worker got sick when unloading garbage dumpsters - hospitalized	Fumigant flasks found in dumpsters - Unknown
3.	Renter is using Sonalan herbicide off label on canola	Canola was planted when sunflowers were dug up. Warning letter.	G
4.	Drift from nearby lawn care application	$500	G
5.	Railroad workers were sprayed by helicopter spray application	No violation	A
6.	Roundup herbicide drift onto trees	No violation – could not prove	A
7.	Cheyenne EXTRA herbicide sprayed on durum wheat	$400	G
8.	Herbicide drift into farmyard from nearby spray application – strong smell	$400	A
9.	Renter parked truck and spray equipment on land – sprayer leaked	Fertilizer – no violation Referred to Health Department	G
10.	Herbicide application drifted into residential yards	$775	A
11.	Herbicide drift onto corn	No violation	A
12.	Herbicide drift onto sunflowers	No violation	G
13.	Parathion insecticide drift into farmyard – no posting	No violation	A
14.	Herbicide drift into city and onto person	$2975- Loss of certification for two years	A
15.	Herbicide drift from aerial applicators and farmers	$400	A
16.	Herbicide drift onto sugar beets	No violation	A
17.	Herbicide drift onto field peas	No violation	G
18.	Herbicide drift into farmstead	$400	A
19.	Herbicide drift into farmstead	No violation – could not prove where drift came from.	A
20.	Herbicide drift onto trees	$400	G
21.	Herbicide drift onto sunflowers, spraying in the wind	$775	G
22.	Herbicide drift onto sunflowers	No violation	G
23.	Herbicide drift onto canola, spraying in the wind	$200	G
24.	Herbicide drift onto alfalfa field	$625	A
25.	Herbicide drift into farmyard	No violation
26.	Herbicide drift onto wheat field	$500	G
27.	Herbicide drift onto sunflowers	$200	G
28.	Aerial applicator spraying, odor coming into yard and into town	No violation Warning	A
29.	Herbicide drift onto sunflowers	$775	G
30.	Spraying in wind and strong odor blowing towards populated area	No violation	A
31.	Herbicide drift onto sunflower	$400	A
32.	Herbicide drift onto sunflower	$500	G
33.	Herbicide drift onto sugar beets	No violation	G
34.	Herbicide drift onto farmyard trees	$400	A and G
35.	Herbicide drift onto shelter belt	$625	A
36.	Aerial applicator dumping rinsate on land with slough	No violation – dumping $100 – records	A
37.	Herbicide drift into trees	No violation	G
38.	Neighbor poisoning neighborhood animals	Under investigation
39.	Herbicide drift onto trees	$400	A
40.	Herbicide drift onto trees	$200	G
41.	Herbicide drift onto soybeans and trees	No violation	A
42.	Herbicide drift onto canola	$500	G
43.	Herbicide drift into greenhouse	$400	G
44.	Herbicide drift onto sunflowers	$775	A
45.	Herbicide drift onto sunflowers	$500	G
46.	Airplane sprayed car on road	No violation	A
47.	Herbicide drift onto trees	$400	G
48.	Treflan carryover damaged wheat because of over label rates	$1375	G
49.	Poor application by commercial applicator	No violation	G
50.	Human exposure	$4575-Two year suspension of certification	A
51.	Off label use of pesticide in bee hives	$10,000	G
52.	Pesticide barrels floating in Lake Metigoshe	Could not trace Health Department Complaint
53.	Off label use of pesticide in bee hives	No violation

Pesticide Control Board Okays Funds for State Weed Survey

The North Dakota Pesticide Control Board (PCB) has approved a $75,000 grant from the Minor Use Pesticide Fund for a statewide weed survey. The survey will be used to substantiate economic loss figures submitted to the U.S. EPA as part of the herbicide registration process.

"Twenty years have passed since the last statewide weed survey," said Commissioner of Agriculture Roger Johnson, PCB chairman. "Since that time, a number of new crops are being grown in the state, and several new weed species have either been discovered or have increased in importance. The new survey will provide us with much-needed information about the species and distribution of weeds in North Dakota to help us develop and implement successful weed control strategies."

Johnson said, "The information from the study will be invaluable in documenting the need for herbicide registrations, whether they be: federal labels (Section 3), state local need labels (24C), or emergency labels (Section 18). Instead of estimates, our applications for registrations will contain hard facts. This should strengthen our petitions to the U.S. EPA and improve our success in obtaining herbicide labels for North Dakota Agriculture."

The survey will be conducted by weed scientists Richard Zollinger, Cal Messersmith, and Alan Dexter from the Department of Plant Sciences at North Dakota State University, Fargo. NDSU is contributing $30,000 and the chemical industry is giving $5,000 to the $110,000 project. The survey will be conducted from October 1999 through March 2001.

In addition to Johnson, the PCB is comprised of Sharon Anderson, director of the North Dakota State University Extension Service, and Cole Gustafson, director of the NSDU Experiment Station. The Minor Use Fund was created by the 1997 North Dakota Legislature, and is funded through pesticide manufacturer registration fees.

NDSU Extension Service, North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science, and U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating. Sharon D. Anderson, Director, Fargo, North Dakota. Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914. We offer our programs and facilities to all persons regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, Vietnam era veterans status, or sexual orientation; and are an equal opportunity employer.
This publication will be made available in alternative format for persons with disabilities upon request 701/231-7881.

Contents

Coordinator's Comments