Volatile Organic CompoundEmissions from Pesticides:Options for ReducingNon-Fumigant EmissionsSeptember 20112Overview•State implementation plan•Emission estimates and effect of fumigant regulations•Evaluation of non-fumigant emissions•Non-fumigant reduction options and issues3State implementation plan•As required by Clean Air Act, the state implementationplan (SIP) describes measures to reduce VOCs andNOx to achieve ozone standard•SIP (pending EPA approval) requires DPR to–Develop and maintain an emission inventory to trackpesticide VOC emissions–Reduce pesticide emissions by specified amounts duringMay-Oct peak ozone season – San Joaquin Valley pesticideemission limit of 18.1 tons/day–Require low-emitting fumigation methods–Implement restrictions on non-fumigant pesticides by 20144Method for estimating pesticideVOC emissions•VOC emission from a pesticide product is calculatedby multiplying:–Amount of product applied (from pesticide use reports)–VOC fraction in product (emission potential, EP), determinedby thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and other methods•Fumigants are adjusted by an additional factor toaccount for emissions under field conditions–Emission rating varies with fumigant and application method5Pesticide VOC inventory•Most pesticide VOC emissions from–Fumigants–Emulsifiable concentrate products(active and inert ingredients)•Four nonattainment areas should consistently achieveSIP goals–Sacramento Metro–South Coast–Southeast Desert–Ventura•San Joaquin Valley does not always achieve SIP goal6Pesticide VOC emission inventorySacramento Metro0.00.51.01.52.02.52004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Southeast Desert0.00.20.40.60.81.01.22004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009South Coast0.02.04.06.08.010.02004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Ventura0.01.02.03.04.05.0 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2006 2007 2 0 0 8 2009 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2012 2 013

VOC emissions (tons/day)FumigantNon-fumigantSIP goal7Pesticide VOC emission inventory forSan Joaquin Valley05101520252004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

VOC Emissions (tons/day)FumigantNon-fumigantSIP goal8Emission changes due to fumigantregulations•Reductions beginning in 2008 primarily due tofumigant regulations•Fumigant regulations implemented in 2008 require–Low-emission fumigation methods–Fumigant limit and allowances in Ventura–Possible fumigant allowances program in other areas9Pesticide VOC emission inventory forSan Joaquin Valley05101520252004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

VOC Emissions (tons/day)FumigantNon-fumigantSIP goalFumigant limittrigger10Need for non-fumigant reductions•SIP requirement – “DPR will implement restrictions toreduce VOC emissions from non-fumigant pesticidesby 2014.”•Maintain San Joaquin Valley SIP emission limit goal(18.1 tons/day)•Avoid fumigant limit11Reevaluation of non-fumigants•Most non-fumigant VOC emissions due to certainliquid products (emulsifiable concentrates)•Reevaluation initiated in 2005, revised in Feb 2010•Assess reformulation of inert ingredients in productswith highest VOC contribution–Abamectin products (e.g. Agri-Mek)–Chlorpyrifos products (e.g. Lorsban)–Dimethoate products (e.g. Cygon)–Gibberellins products (e.g. Gibgro)–Oxyfluorfen products (e.g. Goal)–Permethrin products–Trifluralin products (e.g. Treflan)12Proposed to focus VOC reductions onchlorpyrifos and oxyfluorfen products•Two largest non-fumigant contributors in SJV•Liquid “low-VOC” products available•Use of low-VOC products likely ensures neededreductions and fumigant allowances not triggered•Use of low-VOC products likely has lower agriculturalimpact, compared to other major non-fumigants13Proposed to focus VOC reductions onchlorpyrifos and oxyfluorfen products•Two largest non-fumigant contributors in SJV•Liquid “low-VOC” products available•Use of low-VOC products likely ensures neededreductions and fumigant allowances not triggered•Use of low-VOC products likely has lower agriculturalimpact, compared to other major non-fumigants14Top VOC pesticides for SanJoaquin Valley, May-Oct 20091,3-D9%Glyphosate8%Glufosinate3%Methyl bromide2%Dimethoate4%Abamectin5%Gibberellins5%Oxyfluorfen5%Metam11%Acrolein2%Fenpyroximate2%Trifluralin2%All otherpesticides32%Chlorpyrifos10%Needed TGA data15Chlorpyrifos and oxyfluorfen SJVemissions, May-Oct 2009CommodityChlorpyrifos(lbs)Oxyfluorfen(lbs)Total(lbs)Almond152,511149,291291,802Walnut82,25519,448101,703Orange87,84379788,640Alfalfa69,8521269,864Cotton45,4709,61155,351Grape (all)11,68723,14934,836All other crops44,21452,04296,255TOTAL484,101250,354738,45116Proposed to focus VOC reductions onchlorpyrifos and oxyfluorfen products•Two largest non-fumigant contributors in SJV•Liquid “low-VOC” products available•Use of low-VOC products likely ensures neededreductions and fumigant allowances not triggered•Use of low-VOC products likely has lower agriculturalimpact, compared to other major non-fumigants17Availability of low-VOC alternativesPesticideLiquid w/Same AI?Solid w/Same AI?*Liquid w/Alternative AI?*AbamectinYesYesYesChlorpyrifosYesYesYesDimethoateNoYesYesGibberellinsNoYesNoOxyfluorfenYesNoYesPermethrinNoYes??TrifluralinNoYes??*Solid formulations and alternative active ingredients may not beeffective in all cases18Proposed to focus VOC reductions onchlorpyrifos and oxyfluorfen products•Two largest non-fumigant contributors in SJV•Liquid “low-VOC” products available•Use of low-VOC products likely ensures neededreductions and fumigant allowances not triggered•Use of low-VOC products likely has lower agriculturalimpact, compared to other major non-fumigants19Projected SJV pesticide emissions withfumigant regs and low-VOC products05101520252006 actual 2006 w/ fumregs2006 w/ fumregs; low-VOCchlorp, oxyfl

VOC Emissions (tons/day)FumigantNonfumigantSIP goalFumigant limittrigger20Proposed to focus VOC reductions onchlorpyrifos and oxyfluorfen products•Two largest non-fumigant contributors in SJV•Liquid “low-VOC” products available•Use of low-VOC products likely ensures neededreductions and fumigant allowances not triggered•Use of low-VOC products likely has lower agriculturalimpact, compared to other major non-fumigants21Approximate cost of low-VOCalternativesPesticideAlfalfaAlmondsCitrusCottonGrapesWalnutsAbamectin*Low use$36/acLow use-$61/ac?-$36/acChlorpyrifos$0.02/ac$11/ac$16/ac$28/ac$7/ac$4/acDimethoate$14/acNo use$38/ac?Low useNo useGibberellinsNo useNo use-$1/acNo use$150/acNo useOxyfluorfenNo use$0.1/ac$5/ac-$17/ac-$8/ac$5/ac*Recently registered low-VOC products not evaluated22Approximate cost of low-VOCalternativesPesticideAlfalfaAlmondsCitrusCottonGrapesWalnutsAbamectin*Low use52%Low use-49%?-35%Chlorpyrifos<0.1%33%22%107%20%9%Dimethoate40%No use104%?Low useNo useGibberellinsNo useNo use-2%No use68%No useOxyfluorfenNo use0.8%10%-30%-17%32%*Recently registered low-VOC products not evaluated23Updated impact evaluation•UC analysis indicates low-VOC chlorpyrifos andoxyfluorfen products less effective in some cases•Need exceptions to high-VOC prohibition•May need to include other pesticides to ensure SIPgoal met and fumigant limit not triggered–Abamectin – UC evaluating new low-VOC product–Gibberellins – may need additional cost information24Regulatory options•Establish VOC product emission limit based on currentproduct with lowest emissions•Type of product emission limit–EP limit, or–“VOC emission rate” limit (EP x application rate)•Select affected active ingredients25Options for enforcing a productemission limit•41⁄2 options•All options require regulations•All options prohibit products exceeding emission limit, withexceptions•Some options likely achieve more VOC reduction than needed,others tailor the reduction to the SIP goal•Different options place most of the burden and workload ondifferent groups26Enforcing an emission limit:Option 1 – deny/cancel registrations•Deny/cancel registrations of certain high-VOC products, withexceptions•Requirements statewide, year-round•Likely achieves more VOC reduction than needed•Fumigant limit trigger unchanged•Compliance and enforcement is high, if few exceptions•Workload/burden is relatively high for growers and applicators,low for ag commissioners27Enforcing an emission limit:Option 2 – prohibit use•Prohibit use of certain high-VOC products, with exceptions•Requirements statewide or SJV, year-round or May-Oct•Likely achieves more VOC reduction than needed•Fumigant limit trigger unchanged•Extensive outreach needed to ensure compliance•Workload/burden is relatively high for grower and applicators,low for ag commissioners (if limited outreach)28Enforcing an emission limit:Option 3 – add restricted materials•Designate additional pesticides as restricted materials, withpermit conditions as needed•Requirements statewide or SJV, year-round or May-Oct•Achieves needed VOC reduction•Fumigant limit trigger uncertain•Maximum flexibility for restrictions•Compliance and enforcement is high•Workload/burden is relativelylow for most growers andapplicators, high for ag commissioners•Some growers will use restricted materials for first time29Enforcing an emission limit:Option 4 – change fumigant limit trigger•Replace/amend fumigant limit triggerwith trigger prohibiting useof certain non-fumigant high-VOC products, with exceptions•Annual emission inventory reportused to determine if high-VOCprohibition is triggered, and whichactive ingredients are affected–Example: Fall 2013 inventory report would use 2012 PUR todetermine if high-VOC prohibition triggered for May-Oct 2014•If triggered, requirementsonly in SJV, May-Oct•Achieves needed VOC reduction•2 possible methods to ensure compliance30Enforcing an emission limit:Option 4a – “authorizations” for use•If high-VOC prohibition triggered,use of high-VOC productswould require an “authorization” issued by ag commissioner•Likely similar to permitting process, but no local evaluation orconditions (yes/no for authorization)•Regulations would describe thesituations for which an agcommissioner could issue an authorization•DPR would provide fact sheet thatexplains requirements and listsallowed exceptions to high-VOC prohibition•No authorization required for low-VOC products•Workload/burden is relatively low for growers and applicators,possibly high for ag commissioners31Enforcing an emission limit:Option 4b – dealer requirements•If high-VOC prohibition triggered, compliance through dealersales requirement•DPR would notify dealers of requirements and provide a formthat explains allowed exceptions to high-VOC prohibition•As a condition of sale, purchasermust read the form and certifythat a high-VOC product isneeded for an allowed use•No requirements for sale of low-VOC products•Similar to current clopyralid regulations•Workload/burden is relatively low for growers and applicators,low for ag commissioners, possibly high for dealers32Summary of options for proposedregulations•List of active ingredients affected and productemission limits–Chlorpyrifos and oxyfluorfen, possibly others–Possibly identify affected active ingredients in annual report•Method to determine product emission–Revise regulations describingmethod for determining productVOC emissions, and include TGA method–Assume product is high-VOC without TGA data33Summary of options for proposedregulations•Restrictions on products exceeding emission limit–Prohibit affected high-VOC products•San Joaquin Valley (possibly statewide)•May-Oct (possibly year-round)–Describe exceptions and process to add•Exceptions due to efficacy for specific crops/pests•Exceptions due to other adverse effects•Other exceptions?•Enforcement of restrictions on high-VOC products–Registration requirements or sales/use requirements–Possibly revise fumigant limit trigger34Next steps•Summer-Fall 2011:Stakeholder meetings andinformal comments•Winter-Spring 2012:Prepare draft regulations•Summer 2012:Notice proposed regulations forformal public comment•Summer 2013:Regulations in effect•May 2014:Earliest possible prohibition of high-VOCproducts35Additional information andcomments•DPR web site–www.cdpr.ca.gov–Click on “Air” under Quick Finder–Click on “Volatile Organic Compound Emissions”•Send comments to–Randy Segawa–916-324-4137–rsegawa@cdpr.ca.gov