Volatile Organic Comp

Emissions from Pestic

Options for Reducin

Non-Fumigant Emissi

September 2011
Overview

• State implementation plan• Emission estimates and effect of fumiga• Evaluation of non-fumigant emissions• Non-fumigant reduction options and iss
State implementation plan

• As required by Clean Air Act, the state i

plan (SIP) describes measures to reducNOx to achieve ozone standard

• SIP (pending EPA approval) requires D

– Develop and maintain an emission inventory 

pesticide VOC emissions

– Reduce pesticide emissions by specified am

May-Oct peak ozone season – San Joaquin emission limit of 18.1 tons/day

– Require low-emitting fumigation methods– Implement restrictions on non-fumigant pest
Method for estimating pestVOC emissions

• VOC emission from a pesticide product 

by multiplying:

– Amount of product applied (from pesticide u– VOC fraction in product (emission potential, 

by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and ot

• Fumigants are adjusted by an additiona

account for emissions under field condit

– Emission rating varies with fumigant and ap
Pesticide VOC inventory

• Most pesticide VOC emissions from

– Fumigants– Emulsifiable concentrate products (active and 

• Four nonattainment areas should consist

SIP goals

– Sacramento Metro– South Coast– Southeast Desert– Ventura

• San Joaquin Valley does not always ach
Pesticide VOC emission in

Sacramento Metro

0.00.51.01.52.02.5

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Southeas

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.2

2004 2005 200

South Coast

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Ve

0.01.02.03.04.05.0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

VOC emissions (tons/day)

Fumigant Non-fumigant SIP 
Pesticide VOC emission invenSan Joaquin Valley

05

10152025

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20

VOC Emissions (tons/day)

Fumigant Non-fumigant
Emission changes due to fregulations

• Reductions beginning in 2008 primarily 

fumigant regulations

• Fumigant regulations implemented in 20

– Low-emission fumigation methods– Fumigant limit and allowances in Ventura– Possible fumigant allowances program in ot
Pesticide VOC emission invenSan Joaquin Valley

05

10152025

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

VOC Emissions (tons/day)

Fumigant Non-fumigant
Need for non-fumigant red

• SIP requirement – “DPR will implement 

reduce VOC emissions from non-fumigaby 2014.”

• Maintain San Joaquin Valley SIP emiss

(18.1 tons/day)

• Avoid fumigant limit
Reevaluation of non-fumig

• Most non-fumigant VOC emissions due 

liquid products (emulsifiable concentrat

• Reevaluation initiated in 2005, revised i• Assess reformulation of inert ingredient

with 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)
Proposed to focus VOC reducchlorpyrifos and oxyfluorfen p

• Two largest non-fumigant contributors i• Liquid “low-VOC” products available• Use of low-VOC products likely ensures 

reductions and fumigant allowances not 

• Use of low-VOC products likely has low

impact, compared to other major non-fu
Proposed to focus VOC reducchlorpyrifos and oxyfluorfen p

• Two largest non-fumigant contributors i• Liquid “low-VOC” products available• Use of low-VOC products likely ensures 

reductions and fumigant allowances not 

• Use of low-VOC products likely has low

impact, compared to other major non-fu
Top VOC pesticides for SaJoaquin Valley, May-Oct 20

1,3

9%

Glufosinate

3%

Methyl bromide

2% Dimethoate

4%

Abamec

5%

Gibbe

5

O

Metam

11%

Acrolein

2%

Fenpyroximate

2%

Trifluralin

2%

All other 

pesticides

32% Chlorp

10
Chlorpyrifos and oxyfluorfemissions, May-Oct 2009

Commodity Chlorpyrifos (lbs) Oxyfluorfen (lbs) 

Almond 152,511 149,291 

Walnut 82,255 19,448 

Orange 87,843 797 

Alfalfa 69,852 12 

Cotton 45,470 9,611 

Grape (all) 11,687 23,149 

All other crops 44,214 52,042 

TOTAL 484,101 250,354 
Proposed to focus VOC reducchlorpyrifos and oxyfluorfen p

• Two largest non-fumigant contributors i• Liquid “low-VOC” products available• Use of low-VOC products likely ensures 

reductions and fumigant allowances not 

• Use of low-VOC products likely has low

impact, compared to other major non-fu
Availability of low-VOC alterna

Pesticide Liquid w/ Same AI? Solid w/ Same AI?* 

Alt

Abamectin Yes Yes 

Chlorpyrifos Yes Yes 

Dimethoate No Yes 

Gibberellins No Yes 

Oxyfluorfen Yes No Permethrin No Yes Trifluralin No Yes 

*Solid formulations and alternative active ingredients meffective in all cases
Proposed to focus VOC reducchlorpyrifos and oxyfluorfen p

• Two largest non-fumigant contributors i• Liquid “low-VOC” products available• Use of low-VOC products likely ensures 

reductions and fumigant allowances not 

• Use of low-VOC products likely has low

impact, compared to other major non-fu
Projected SJV pesticide emissfumigant regs and low-VOC p

05

10152025

2006 actual 2006 w/ fum

regs

2006 w/ fum

regs; low-VOC

chlorp, oxyfl

VOC Emissions (tons/day)

Fumigant Nonfumigant
Proposed to focus VOC reducchlorpyrifos and oxyfluorfen p

• Two largest non-fumigant contributors i• Liquid “low-VOC” products available• Use of low-VOC products likely ensures 

reductions and fumigant allowances not 

• Use of low-VOC products likely has low

impact, compared to other major non-fu
Approximate cost of low-Valternatives

Pesticide Alfalfa Almonds Citrus Cotton 

Abamectin* Low use $36/ac Low use -$61/ac

Chlorpyrifos $0.02/ac $11/ac $16/ac $28/ac 

Dimethoate $14/ac No use $38/ac

? 

Gibberellins No use No use -$1/ac No use 

Oxyfluorfen No use $0.1/ac $5/ac -$17/ac 

*Recently registered low-VOC products not evalua
Approximate cost of low-Valternatives

Pesticide Alfalfa Almonds Citrus Cotton 

Abamectin* Low use 52% Low use -49%

Chlorpyrifos <0.1% 33% 22% 107% 

Dimethoate 40% No use 104%

? 

Gibberellins No use No use -2% No use 

Oxyfluorfen No use 0.8% 10% -30% 

*Recently registered low-VOC products not evalua
Updated impact evaluation

• UC analysis indicates low-VOC chlorpy

oxyfluorfen products less effective in so

• Need exceptions to high-VOC prohibitio• May need to include other pesticides to 

goal met and fumigant limit not triggere

– Abamectin – UC evaluating new low-VOC p– Gibberellins – may need additional cost info
Regulatory options

• Establish VOC product emission limit ba

product with lowest emissions

• Type of product emission limit

– EP limit, or– “VOC emission rate” limit (EP x application 

• Select affected active ingredients
Options for enforcing a proemission limit

• 41⁄2 options• All options require regulations• All options prohibit products exceeding emissio

exceptions

• Some options likely achieve more VOC reductio

others tailor the reduction to the SIP goal

• Different options place most of the burden and w

different groups
Enforcing an emission limit: Option 1 – deny/cancel registr

• Deny/cancel registrations of certain high-VOC p

exceptions

• Requirements statewide, year-round• Likely achieves more VOC reduction than need• Fumigant limit trigger unchanged• Compliance and enforcement is high, if few exc• Workload/burden is relatively high for growers a

low for ag commissioners
Enforcing an emission limit: Option 2 – prohibit use

• Prohibit use of certain high-VOC products, with • Requirements statewide or SJV, year-round or 

• Likely achieves more VOC reduction than need• Fumigant limit trigger unchanged• Extensive outreach needed to ensure complian• Workload/burden is relatively high for grower an

low for ag commissioners (if limited outreach)
Enforcing an emission limit: Option 3 – add restricted mate

• Designate additional pesticides as restricted ma

permit conditions as needed

• Requirements statewide or SJV, year-round or 

• Achieves needed VOC reduction• Fumigant limit trigger uncertain• Maximum flexibility for restrictions• Compliance and enforcement is high• Workload/burden is relatively low for most grow

applicators, high for ag commissioners

• Some growers will use restricted materials for fi
Enforcing an emission limit: Option 4 – change fumigant li

• Replace/amend fumigant limit trigger with trigge

of certain non-fumigant high-VOC products, wit

• Annual emission inventory report used to determ

prohibition is triggered, and which active ingred

– Example: Fall 2013 inventory report would use 2

determine if high-VOC prohibition triggered for M

• If triggered, requirements only in SJV, May-Oct

• Achieves needed VOC reduction• 2 possible methods to ensure compliance
Enforcing an emission limit: Option 4a – “authorizations” 

• If high-VOC prohibition triggered, use of high-V

would require an “authorization” issued by ag co

• Likely similar to permitting process, but no loca

conditions (yes/no for authorization)

• Regulations would describe the situations for w

commissioner could issue an authorization

• DPR would provide fact sheet that explains req

allowed exceptions to high-VOC prohibition

• No authorization required for low-VOC products• Workload/burden is relatively low for growers an

possibly high for ag commissioners
Enforcing an emission limit: Option 4b – dealer requiremen

• If high-VOC prohibition triggered, compliance th

sales requirement

• DPR would notify dealers of requirements and p

that explains allowed exceptions to high-VOC p

• As a condition of sale, purchaser must read the 

that a high-VOC product is needed for an allow

• No requirements for sale of low-VOC products• Similar to current clopyralid regulations• Workload/burden is relatively low for growers an

low for ag commissioners, possibly high for dea
Summary of options for prregulations

• List of active ingredients affected and p

emission limits

– Chlorpyrifos and oxyfluorfen, possibly others– Possibly identify affected active ingredients 

• Method to determine product emission

– Revise regulations describing method for de

VOC emissions, and include TGA method

– Assume product is high-VOC without TGA d
Summary of options for prregulations

• Restrictions on products exceeding emi

– 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/• Exceptions due to other adverse effects• Other exceptions? 

• Enforcement of restrictions on high-VOC 

– Registration requirements or sales/use requ– Possibly revise fumigant limit trigger
Next steps

• Summer-Fall 2011: Stakeholder meetin

informal comments

• Winter-Spring 2012: Prepare draft reg• Summer 2012: Notice proposed regula

formal public comment

• Summer 2013: Regulations in effect

• May 2014: Earliest possible prohibition 

products
Additional information and comments

• DPR web site

– www.cdpr.ca.gov– Click on “Air” under Quick Finder– Click on “Volatile Organic Compound Emiss

• Send comments to

– Randy Segawa– 916-324-4137– rsegawa@cdpr.ca.gov