# CALIFORNIA OZONE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PESTICIDE ELEMENT

ENCLOSURE 6

EMISSION INVENTORY METHODOLOGY

# Department of Pesticide Regulation

Mary-Ann Warmerdam Director 

## M E M O R A N D U M Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor

1001 I Street • P.O. Box 4015 • Sacramento, California 95812-4015 • www.cdpr.ca.gov A Department of the California Environmental Protection Agency Printed on recycled paper, 100% post-consumer--processed chlorine-free. 

### TO: Randy Segawa Environmental Program Manager I Environmental Monitoring Branch

FROM: Rosemary Neal, Ph.D. Original signed by Pam Wofford for Staff Environmental Scientist Environmental Monitoring Branch (951) 684-8625

DATE: November 5, 2008

SUBJECT: UPDATE TO THE PESTICID E VOLATILE ORGANIC INVENTORY: ESTIMATED EMISSIONS 1990–2006, AND PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES FOR 2007

I. OVERVIEW

This memorandum summarizes the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s (DPR’s) update of estimated pesticide volatile organic compound (VOC ) emission data, for the May–October “ozone season” in California’s five nonattainment areas (NAAs) : (1) Sacramento Metro, (2) San Joaquin Valley, (3) Southeast Desert, (4) Ventura, and (5) South Coast. 

### An electronic file containing detailed statewide 1990–2006 data is available by downloa d from DPR’s Web page at

< http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/vocproj/vocmenu.htm > along with a variety of VOC documentation.

The 1990–2007 VOC inventories incorporate new emissi on potential (EP) data for several hundred products, and DPR’s 2007 pesticide use data. In ventory calculations for 2005–2006 are based on the final report of pesticide use data for those years. Data for 2007 has yet to be finalized and should be, for the purposes of this memorandum, considered draft. These EP data reflect new thermogravimetric analyses (TGA) requested by DPR in 2005. Thermogravimetric analysis is currently the most accurate method for estimati ng the VOC content of pesticide products. DPR requested the data for most liquid products includ ed in the inventory that had not been tested previously. The VOC emissions described here in corporate the TGA data submitted, reviewed, and approved as of August 2007.

The emissions are compared to two sets of NAA goa ls (Table 1). The first set of goals are those required by an April 26, 2006, federal district cour t order (now overturned), and reflected in Title 3, California Code of Regulations secti on 6452.2. These are the goals shown as the “VOC regulation benchmarks” and represent a 20 percent reduction from the pestic ide VOC emissions in 1991 for all NAAs. The VOC regulations also show benchmarks specific to Ventura that incorporate a phase-in of the 20 percent VOC reductions from 1991 levels between 2008 and 2012. On August 20, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of App eals reversed the district court action, finding that it had no jurisdiction to i ssue its order. The second set goal s are those described in the 1994

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 2

California’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) (62 Fed. Reg. at 1170,1997) and Appendix H to the 2007 SIP (73 Fed. Reg. 41277, 2008). These “SIP goa ls” are a 20 percent reduction from 1990 for the Sacramento Metro, Southeast Desert, and South Coast NAAs; a 12 percent reduction from 1990 for the San Joaquin Valley NAA; and a phase-in of the reductions for the Ventura NAA, with a final reduction for Ventura of 20 percent from 1990 by 2012.

Table 1: Nonattainment Area Goals for 2009–2012.

NAA VOC Regulation Benchmark (tons/day) 2009–2012 SIP Goal (tons/day) 2009–2012 1–Sacramento Metropolitan 2.4 2.234 2–San Joaquin Valley 16.0 18.139

3–Southeast Desert 0.62 0.923

2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 4–Ventura

3.630 3.230 2.930 2.600 4.030 3.630 3.330 3.029 5–South Coast 4.1 8.672



### To date, DPR has reported an unadjusted emission inventory that assumes the entire volatile portion of a fumigant product even tually volatilizes, contributing to atmospheric VOC loadings. However, field studies have shown that actual emissions from soil-applied fumigants such as methyl bromide vary by application method and are generally less than 100 percent. DPR has developed an adjustment procedure to account fo r the effect of application method on reducing fumigant VOC emissions.

Procedure for Calculating Unadjusted and Ad justed Volatile Organic Compound Emissions

The unadjusted inventory is based on the premise that the VOC emission from a single application of fumigant or nonfumigant product is equal to the amount used times the EP (Spurlock, 2002; 2006).



### EP use lbs emission × = _ In the adjusted inventory the emission from a single application of a fumigant 

### active ingredient (AI) is equal to the amount of AI used times the EP times the Application Method Adjustment Factor (AMAF), also referred to as the emission rating. AMAFs have been determined from field study data and are AI and application met hod specific (Barry et al., 2007). Since the AMAFs are application method- and fumigant-specific they yield more re fined estimates of fumiga nt VOC emissions than

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 3

previous (unadjusted) assumptions . Emission ratings for applicati on methods not found on Tables A1- 2 through A1-6 pertaining to the 1990 application methods may be modifi ed based on more recent data.

AMAF EP use lbs emission × × = _

At this time nonfumigant 

### product emissions calculations use the same procedure as in the unadjusted inventory.

Usually there are several different types of application methods us ed for a particular fumigant in any particular NAA. Each method of use (e.g. drip, sprinkler, shank, tarp, etc.) represents a fraction of the total number of methods us ed and is referred to as the Method Use Fraction (MUF). The sum of all MUFs for any pa rticular (NAA/fumigant AI) combination is one. Use practices change over time so that differe nt MUFs are used for th e baseline year (1990) as opposed to more recent inventory years. MUFs are determined in a number of different ways. For 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) the MUFs are determined from use data collected by the registrant in support of DPR’s township applicat ion caps; for metam sodium and metam potassium grower/applicator su rveys were conducted to determine type s of applications for different crops and areas. Methyl bromide and chloropicrin MUFs are based on expert opinion and regulatory history. Finally, MUFs for dazomet and sodium tetrathiocarbonate equal one because the AMAFs for each of these two fumigants are consta nt, independent of application method.

A detailed discussion of how MUF and AMAF s are calculated can be found in the September 29, 2007, memorandum by Barry et al. Tables detailing the AMAFs and method use fractions for 1990, 2005, 2006, and 2007 in each of the nonattainment areas are included in the appendix of this document (Tables A1–1 to A1–21). The AMAFs are unchanged from the Barry et al. memorandum.

VOC emissions were calculated for each nonatt ainment area and summed according to primary AI, application site, and emission ca tegory as defined by the Air Res ources Board (ARB). The primary AI is defined as the pesticide AI present at the highest percentage in a product. If a pesticide product contains 20 percent of AI “A” and 10 percent of AI “B,” all estimated emissions from that product are assigned to the primary AI “A.” Th is approach prevents “double-counting” of emissions from products containing two AIs. Bo th unadjusted and adjusted emission inventory data for the top ten primary AIs contributi ng to May–October ozone in 2005, 2006 and 2007 are included in this memorandum. Emissions attrib uted to application sites (or commodities), however, are unadjusted because it is not possible to determ ine the adjusted emissions with the currently available data. The ARB defines f our VOC emission categor ies: methyl bromide emissions from agricultural applications, nonm ethyl bromide emissions from agricultural applications, methyl bromide emissions from st ructural applications, and nonmethyl bromide emissions from structural applications. Emissi ons were calculated for May–October, the ozone season, and are reported as U.S. tons per day (tpd).

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 4

Revised Emission Potential Values 

### Propylene oxide is used exclusively for post-harv est fumigation, and is widely used in the Sacramento Metro and San Joaquin Valley NAAs. In the past DPR has included these applications in its VOC inventory. Since the Air Pollution Cont rol Districts also include these uses in their inventories emissions are being double counted. In addition, DPR has concluded that the use of propylene oxide is not an agricultu ral use, and therefor e its products have been eliminated from DPR’s VOC inventory.

EPs for all sulfur products w ith dust/powder formulations th at do not contain any organic components have been set to zero. Most of these products had low or zero EP values in previous inventories, but recent findings by U.S. Department of Agri culture (McConnell et al., 2008) have shown that 132 products have zero EP.

Stakeholders raised concerns to an earlier dr aft version of this memo because the EP value assigned to a certain high use sp ray oil product was anomalously hi gh. DPR re-reviewed the initial TGA of the oil products 10951-15 (Britz 415 Suprem e Spray Oil and Britz Citrus Supreme Spray Oil; EP = 23.95) and 11656-97 (First Choice Narrow Range 415 Spray Oil and Leaf Life Gavicide Green 415; EP = 19.98) and determined that th e TGA data were unacceptable because the TGA experimental conditions deviated significantly from DPR’s expe rimental protocol (McKinney, 2008). In response, the EP values for these products have been set to the spray oil special default value of 1.53 until valid TGA data is received. A TGA data reporting error was also identified for product 48813-1 (Saf-T-Side products and Syner gy Super Fine Spray Oil Emulsion. After correctly accounting for the wate r content of the product, the e xperimental TGA-measured VOC EP value of the product and all of its ten sub-registration products ar e equal to zero (water is not a VOC). The net effect of this latter change on th e inventory was minor because these products have very low use.

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 5

II. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMP OUND INVENTORY RESULTS



### The main text of this document summarizes the adjusted pesticide VOC emission inventory data for 2005, 2006, and 2007. Data for the unadjusted emission inventory are given in Appendix 2. Previous reports included a summary of pestic ide VOC emissions by commodity/site. At this time it is not possible to determine the breakdow n of adjusted emissions by commodity, so only the unadjusted emissions are shown by commodity in Appendix 2. Tables 2a and 2b and Figure 1 summarize the adjusted pesticide VOC emissions for 2004 through 2007, and compare them to the 1990 base year and goals. Emissions from 19 91 used to determine the regulation benchmarks are shown for comparison.

TABLE 2a: 

### May–October (ozone season) adjusted pesticide VOC emissions and goals.

NAA 1990 Emissions (tons/day) 1991 Emissions (tons/day) SIP Goal (tons/day) VOC Regulation Benchmark (tons/day) 2004 Emissions (tons/day) 2005 Emissions (tons/day) 2006 Emissions (tons/day) 2007 Emissions (tons/day)

1 – Sacramento Metropolitan 2.792 3.056 2.234 2.4 1.238 1.246 1.359 1.062 2 – San Joaquin Valley 20.612 19.847 18.139 16.0 17.327 20.828 21.419 17.279 3 – Southeast Desert 1.154 0.784 0.923 0.62 0.995 0.741 0.635 0.764 4 – Ventura 3.787 3.320 3.029 a 2.6 a 3.924 3.616 3.682 3.361 5 – South Coast 10.840 5.020 8.672 4.1 1.922 1.984 1.492 1.495

a These numbers reflect the SIP goal and VOC Regulation Be nchmark for 2012 in Ventura, and do not reflect the phase in of reductions between 2008 and 2012.

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 6

Since 2004, even after adjusting for field conditi ons (AMAFs), fumigants continue to contribute the most pesticide VOC emissions in the Southe ast Desert and Ventura NAAs. Also consistent with previous years, pesticides formulated as emulsifiable concentrates are the other major pesticide VOC contributors, particul arly in the San Joaquin Valley NAA. In almost all cases, it is the solvents included as inert ingr edients of emulsifiable concentrat es that contribute most of the VOCs, not the AIs

TABLE 2b: 

### May–October (ozone season) fumigant and nonfumigant pesticide VOC emissions.

NAA 1990 Emissions (tons/day) 1991 Emissions (tons/day) 2004 Emissions (tons/day) 2005 Emissions (tons/day) 2006 Emissions (tons/day) 2007 Emissions (tons/day) 1 – Sacramento Metro Fumigants 0.384 (14%) 0.317 (10%) 0.111 (9%) 0.085 (7%) 0.162 (12%) 0.191 (18%) NonFumigants 2.408 (86%) 2.739 (90%) 1.126 (91%) 1.161 (93%) 1.197 (88%) 0.871 (82%) 2 - San Joaquin Valley Fumigants 5.536 (27%) 7.164 (36%) 6.362 (37%) 6.910 (33%) 6.808 (32%) 6.146 (36%) NonFumigants 15.076 (73%) 12.682 (64%) 10.965 (63% ) 13.918 (67%) 14.611 (68%) 11.134 (64%) 3 - Southeast Desert Fumigants 0.840 (73%) 0.401 (51%) 0.762 (77%) 0.474 (64%) 0.413 (65%) 0.575 (75%) NonFumigants 0.313 (27%) 0.383 (49%) 0.233 (23%) 0.267 (36%) 0.222 (35%) 0.189 (25%) 4 - Ventura Fumigants 3.140 (83%) 2.751 (83%) 3.302 (84%) 3.119 (86%) 3.175 (86%) 2.933 (87%) No-Fumigants 0.647 (17%) 0.568 (17%) 0.622 (16%) 0.497 (14%) 0.508 (14%) 0.428 (13%) 5 – South Coast Fumigants 9.372 (86%) 3.614 (72%) 0.702 (37%) 0.597 (30%) 0.422 (28%) 0.411 (28%) NonFumigants 1.468 (14%) 1.406 (28%) 1.220 (63%) 1.387 (70%) 1.069 (72%) 1.084 (72%)

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 7

In comparison to 2004:

• 

### Sacramento Metro NAA: VOC emissions incr eased between 2004 and 2006 but decreased in 2007. Emissions remain well below the SIP goa l and the VOC regulation benchmark. In 2007, 82 percent of emissions were derived from nonfumigants.

• 

### San Joaquin Valley NAA: VOC emissions increa sed in 2005 and 2006 and then decreased to below 2004 levels in 2007. The 2007 emissions are below the SIP goal but exceed the VOC regulation benchmark by 1.279 tpd. Two thirds of emissions are derived from nonfumigants.

• 

### Southeast Desert NAA: VOC em issions decreased annually th rough 2006, but then increased in 2007. Emissions in this NAA meet the SIP goal but exceed the VOC regulation benchmark. Emissions from fumigants account for approximately two thirds of total.

• 

### Ventura NAA: VOC emissions ha ve decreased, but do not m eet the regulation benchmark and SIP goal for 2012, but do meet the regulation benchmark 2009 of 3.63 tpd. More than 85 percent of emissions are derived from fumigants.

• 

### South Coast NAA: VOC emissions decreased an d remain well below the emission targets.

1. Sacramento Metropolitan Area–NAA 1



### The emissions in NAA 1 in 2007 are below those of the three previous years. Adjusted emissions in 2004 were 1.238 tpd, increased to 1.359 tpd in 2006 and decreased to 1.062 tpd in 2007 (Table 2a, Figure 1). Chlorpyrifos, a widely used insecticide, was the primary contributor and accounted for an average of 11.4 percent of the emissions over the three years (Tables 3a, 3b, and 3c). Emissions from chlorpyrifos use decr eased from 0.186 tpd in 2005 to 0.116 tpd in 2007 (Tables 3a and 3c). The rice herbicide molinat e accounted for the sec ond highest amount of emissions in 2005 (0.093 tpd), down from 0.198 t pd in 2004. Molinate use is being phased out, and this is reflected by a further reduction in emissions in 2007 to 0.011 tpd. This is consistent with reported use in NAA 1, which decreased from over 150,000 pounds AI used in 2004 to 52,000 pounds in 2005, just over 30,000 lbs in 2006, and 14,000 lbs in 2007. Emissions from metam-sodium, a pre-plant fumigant, increased from 0.028 tpd in 2005 to 0.063 tpd in 2006, but decreased to 0.022 tpd in 2007 (Tables 3a and 3b). Major commodities/sites include processing tomatoes, structural pest control, walnuts, and rice (Appendix 2).

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 8

TABLE 3a 

### : Top ten primary AI s contributing to 2005 

### May–October ozone season adjusted VOC emissions in NAA 1, the Sacramento Metropolitan Area.

Primary AI Total Product Adjusted Emissions (tons/day) Percent of All NAA 1 May–Oct 2005 Adjusted Emissions

CHLORPYRIFOS 0.186 14.93 MOLINATE 0.093 7.49 THIOBENCARB 0.070 5.64 TRIFLURALIN 0.064 5.11 PERMETHRIN 0.057 4.58 ETHALFLURALIN 0.048 3.83 CYPERMETHRIN 0.044 3.50 SETHOXYDIM 0.039 3.11 DIMETHOATE 0.038 3.08 N-OCTYL BICYCLOHEPTENE DICARBOXIMIDE 0.037 2.94



### TABLE 3b 

### : Top ten primary AI s contributing to 2006 

### May–October ozone season adjusted VOC emissions in NAA 1, the Sacramento Metropolitan Area.

Primary AI Total Product Adjusted Emissions (tons/day) Percent of All NAA 1 May–Oct 2006 Adjusted Emissions

TRIFLURALIN 0.123 9.06 CHLORPYRIFOS 0.115 8.43 ETHALFLURALIN 0.082 6.03 METAM-SODIUM 0.063 4.66 1,3-D 0.055 4.02 HYDROPRENE 0.047 3.48 MOLINATE 0.046 3.38 THIOBENCARB 0.040 2.97 OXYFLUORFEN 0.040 2.94 CYPERMETHRIN 0.035 2.57

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 9

TABLE 3c 

### : Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 

### May–October ozone season adjusted VOC emissions in NAA 1, the Sacramento Metropolitan Area.

Primary AI Total Product Adjusted Emissions (tons/day) Percent of All NAA 1 May–Oct 2007 Adjusted Emissions

CHLORPYRIFOS 0.116 10.95 1,3-D 0.109 10.26 TRIFLURALIN 0.057 5.40 METHYL BROMIDE 0.055 5.19 DIMETHOATE 0.049 4.66 THIOBENCARB 0.039 3.70 OXYFLUORFEN 0.038 3.57 PROPANIL 0.029 2.72 PENOXSULAM 0.027 2.51 ETHALFLURALIN 0.025 2.40



### 2. San Joaquin Valley–NAA 2



### Adjusted emissions in 2004 were 17.327 tpd a nd increased in 2005 to 20.828 tpd, and 21.419 tpd in 2006. However, 2007 emissions showed a marked decline to 17.279 tpd (Table 2a). All three years’ emissions are above the VOC regulation be nchmark of 16 tpd (Table 2a and Figure 1), but the 2007 emissions are below the SIP goal of 18. 139 tpd. Fumigants accounted for between 31.8 and 35.6 percent of adjusted emissions for th e 3 years (Tables 2b, 4a, 4b and 4c). The top emission contributor for 2005 through 2007 was the nonfumigant, chlorpyrifos, which accounted for 3.868 and 3.990 tpd in 2005 and 2006, respectiv ely, but fell to 2.263 tpd in 2007. Major commodities/sites include carrots, cotton, almonds, and oranges (Appendix 2). It should be noted that unadjusted emissions from cotton fell sh arply between 2006 and 2007 from 2.609 tpd to 1.049 tpd, respectively (Tables A2-2e and A2-2f).

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 10

TABLE 4a 

### : Top ten primary AI s contributing to 2005 

### May–October ozone season adjusted VOC emissions in NAA 2, the San Joaquin Valley.

Primary AI Total Product Adjusted Emissions (tons/day) Percent of All NAA 2 May–Oct 2005 Adjusted Emissions

CHLORPYRIFOS 3.868 18.57 METAM-SODIUM 2.843 13.65 1,3-D 2.364 11.35 METHYL BROMIDE 1.073 5.15 OXYFLUORFEN 0.749 3.60 DIMETHOATE 0.650 3.12 GIBBERELLINS 0.628 3.02 ACROLEIN 0.572 2.75 ABAMECTIN 0.523 2.51 TRIFLURALIN 0.467 2.24



### TABLE 4b 

### : Top ten primary AI s contributing to 2006 

### May–October ozone season adjusted VOC emissions in NAA 2, the San Joaquin Valley.

Primary AI Total Product Adjusted Emissions (tons/day) Percent of All NAA 2 May–Oct 2006 Adjusted Emissions

CHLORPYRIFOS 3.990 18.63 METAM-SODIUM 2.572 12.01 1,3-D 2.059 9.61 METHYL BROMIDE 1.121 5.23 OXYFLUORFEN 0.779 3.64 POTASSIUM N-METHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE 0.770 3.59 GIBBERELLINS 0.679 3.17 TRIFLURALIN 0.677 3.16 DIMETHOATE 0.645 3.01 ACROLEIN 0.600 2.80

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 11

TABLE 4c 

### : Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 

### May–October ozone season adjusted VOC emissions in NAA 2, the San Joaquin Valley.

Primary AI Total Product Adjusted Emissions (tons/day) Percent of All NAA 2 May–Oct 2007 Adjusted Emissions

CHLORPYRIFOS 2.263 13.10 1,3-D 2.169 12.55 METAM-SODIUM 2.088 12.08 METHYL BROMIDE 1.005 5.82 OXYFLUORFEN 0.944 5.46 GIBBERELLINS 0.712 4.12 POTASSIUM N-METHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE 0.650 3.76 DIMETHOATE 0.643 3.72 ABAMECTIN 0.542 3.14 ACROLEIN 0.455 2.63



### 3. Southeast Desert–NAA 3



### Total adjusted emissions for the Southeast Dese rt declined steadily from 0.995 tpd in 2004 to 0.635 tpd in 2006 (Table 2a and Fi gure 1), but increased to 0.754 tpd in 2007. The 2007 rate is below the SIP goal of 0.923 tpd, but above the VOC regulation benchmark of 0.62 tpd. Metam-sodium is the primary contributor, accoun ting for an average of 46.3 percent of the adjusted emissions over the 3 years (Tables 5a, 5b, and 5c). The increased percentage to 53.2 percent in 2006 corresponds to a reduction in the adjusted methyl bromide emissions from 0.048 tpd in 2005 to less than 0.008 tpd in 2006. Me thyl bromide emissions increased to 0.170 tpd in 2007 and are responsible for the increase in total adjusted emissions in this NAA. Major commodities/sites include carrots, strawberries, peppers, and structural pest control (Appendix 2).

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 12

TABLE 5a: 

### Top ten primary AI s contributing to 2005 

### May–October ozone season adjusted VOC emissions in NAA 3, the Southeast Desert.

Primary AI Total Product Adjusted Emissions (tons/day) Percent of All NAA 3 May–Oct 2005 Adjusted Emissions

METAM-SODIUM 0.323 43.53 PERMETHRIN 0.079 10.61 METHYL BROMIDE 0.048 6.46 1,3-D 0.035 4.76 POTASSIUM N-METHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE 0.031 4.19 MALATHION 0.011 1.47 EPTC 0.011 1.45 BENSULIDE 0.010 1.41 TRICLOPYR, BUTOXYET HYL ESTER 0.009 1.28 MEFENOXAM 0.009 1.21



### TABLE 5b: 

### Top ten primary AI s contributing to 2006 

### May–October ozone season adjusted VOC emissions in NAA 3, the Southeast Desert.

Primary AI Total Product Adjusted Emissions (tons/day) Percent of All NAA 3 May–Oct 2006 Adjusted Emissions

METAM-SODIUM 0.338 53.27 1,3-D 0.041 6.40 PERMETHRIN 0.032 4.97 BENSULIDE 0.028 4.40 GLYPHOSATE, ISOPROPYLAMINE SALT 0.009 1.40 MEFENOXAM 0.009 1.38 GIBBERELLINS 0.009 1.35 PENDIMETHALIN 0.008 1.22 MALATHION 0.008 1.21 METHYL BROMIDE 0.008 1.21

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 13

TABLE 5c 

### : Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 

### May–October ozone season adjusted VOC emissions in NAA 3, the Southeast Desert.

Primary AI Total Product Adjusted Emissions (tons/day) Percent of All NAA 3 May–Oct 2007 Adjusted Emissions

METAM-SODIUM 0.323 42.32 METHYL BROMIDE 0.170 22.22 1,3-D 0.036 4.74 PERMETHRIN 0.020 2.65 BENSULIDE 0.017 2.18 EPTC 0.010 1.26 GLYPHOSATE, ISOPROPYLAMINE SALT 0.008 1.09 MALATHION 0.008 1.05 MEFENOXAM 0.007 0.94 METHOMYL 0.006 0.84



### 4. Ventura–NAA 4



### Ozone season adjusted emissions decreased from 3.924 tpd in 2004 to 3.616 tpd in 2005, increased to 3.682 tpd in 2006 and decreased to 3.361 tpd in 2007 (Table 2a and Figure 1). Emissions did not meet the SIP goal for 2012 (3 .029 tpd), but did meet the SIP goal for 2009 (4.029 tpd) and the VOC regulation benchmark for 2009 (3.63 tpd). As in previous years, fumigants dominate the pesticide inventory fo r this NAA, accounting fo r upward of 85 percent of the emissions (Table 2b, 6a, 6b, and 6c). The adjusted emissions for NAA 4 in 2004 differ significantly from those estimated by Barry, et al. (2007), due to a revision of the MUFs. For 2004 in NAA 4, the adjusted emissions changed fr om 4.826 tpd to 3.924 tpd. The difference is due to information indicating more frequent use of lower emission fumigation methods than previously estimated. Major commodities/sites in clude strawberries, tomatoes, raspberries, and lemons (Appendix 2).

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 14

TABLE 6a 

### : Top ten primary AI s contributing to 2005 

### May–October ozone season adjusted VOC emissions in NAA 4, Ventura.

Primary AI Total Product Adjusted Emissions (tons/day) Percent of All NAA 4 May–Oct 2005 Adjusted Emissions

METHYL BROMIDE 1.227 33.93 CHLOROPICRIN 1.166 32.25 1,3-D 0.659 18.21 CHLORPYRIFOS 0.086 2.37 METAM-SODIUM 0.060 1.66 PETROLEUM OIL, UNCLASSIFIED 0.046 1.27 OXAMYL 0.029 0.80 CLARIFIED HYDROPHOBIC EXTRACT OF NEEM OIL 0.029 0.80 ABAMECTIN 0.027 0.73 MINERAL OIL 0.026 0.71



### TABLE 6b 

### : Top ten primary AI s contributing to 2006 

### May–October ozone season adjusted VOC emissions in NAA 4, Ventura.

Primary AI Total Product Adjusted Emissions (tons/day) Percent of All NAA 4 May–Oct 2006 Adjusted Emissions

METHYL BROMIDE 1.218 33.07 CHLOROPICRIN 1.164 31.60 1,3-D 0.723 19.63 METAM-SODIUM 0.069 1.89 CHLORPYRIFOS 0.066 1.79 PETROLEUM OIL, UNCLASSIFIED 0.047 1.28 OXAMYL 0.036 0.98 AZADIRACHTIN 0.035 0.95 ABAMECTIN 0.027 0.72

CLARIFIED HYDROPHOBIC EXTRACT OF NEEM OIL 0.023 0.64

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 15

TABLE 6c 

### : Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 

### May–October ozone season adjusted VOC emissions in NAA 4, Ventura.

Primary AI Total Product Adjusted Emissions (tons/day) Percent of All NAA 4 May–Oct 2007 Adjusted Emissions

CHLOROPICRIN 1.252 37.26 METHYL BROMIDE 0.934 27.80 1,3-D 0.674 20.04 METAM-SODIUM 0.071 2.12 CHLORPYRIFOS 0.045 1.33 MINERAL OIL 0.035 1.06 PETROLEUM OIL, UNCLASSIFIED 0.032 0.96 CLARIFIED HYDROPHOBIC EXTRACT OF NEEM OIL 0.032 0.94 ABAMECTIN 0.025 0.74 OXAMYL 0.024 0.70



### 5. South Coast–NAA 5



### In the South Coast NAA, adjusted emissions have declined steadily since 2004. Adjusted emissions were 1.922 tpd in 2004, and although they increased slightly to 1.984 tpd in 2005, they declined to 1.495 tpd in 2007, well below the SIP goal of 8.672 tpd and the VOC regulation benchmark of 4.1 tpd. The fumigants methyl brom ide, chloropicrin and 1,3-D, contributed to 28.96 percent of 2005 adjusted emissions, 27.46 percent of 2006 adjusted emissions and 26.04 percent of 2007 adjusted emissions (Tables 7a , 7b, and 7c). Permethrin, an insecticide used on a wide range of commodities, was the larg est single contributor to the adjusted inventory accounting for approximately 20 percent of th e emissions. Major commodities/sites include structural pest control, strawb erries, and landscape maintenance.

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 16

TABLE 7a 

### : Top ten primary AI s contributing to 2005 

### May–October ozone season adjusted VOC emissions in NAA 5, South Coast.

Primary AI Total Product Adjusted Emissions (tons/day) Percent of All NAA 5 May–Oct 2005 Adjusted Emissions

PERMETHRIN 0.455 22.95 METHYL BROMIDE 0.348 17.53 CHLOROPICRIN 0.147 7.43 BIFENTHRIN 0.081 4.07 IMIDACLOPRID 0.081 4.06 1,3-D 0.079 4.00 N-OCTYL BICYCLOHEPTENE DICARBOXIMIDE 0.068 3.45 LIMONENE 0.056 2.85 PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE 0.053 2.66 CYFLUTHRIN 0.051 2.59



### TABLE 7b 

### : Top ten primary AI s contributing to 2006 

### May–October ozone season adjusted VOC emissions in NAA 5, South Coast.

Primary AI Total Product Adjusted Emissions (tons/day) Percent of All NAA 5 May–Oct 2006 Adjusted Emissions

PERMETHRIN 0.279 18.73 METHYL BROMIDE 0.247 16.56 CHLOROPICRIN 0.119 8.00 IMIDACLOPRID 0.096 6.44 N-OCTYL BICYCLOHEPTENE DICARBOXIMIDE 0.072 4.83 BIFENTHRIN 0.067 4.48 FIPRONIL 0.045 3.00 CYFLUTHRIN 0.044 2.94 1,3-D 0.043 2.90 CYPERMETHRIN 0.039 2.60

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 17

TABLE 7c 

### : Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 

### May–October ozone season adjusted VOC emissions in NAA 5, South Coast.

Primary AI Total Product Adjusted Emissions (tons/day) Percent of All NAA 5 May–Oct 2007 Adjusted Emissions

PERMETHRIN 0.275 18.40 METHYL BROMIDE 0.235 15.72 LIMONENE 0.121 8.11 CHLOROPICRIN 0.107 7.13 BIFENTHRIN 0.077 5.14 N-OCTYL BICYCLOHEPTENE DICARBOXIMIDE 0.069 4.59 1,3-D 0.048 3.19 CYFLUTHRIN 0.042 2.81 CYPERMETHRIN 0.042 2.80 DISODIUM OCTABORATE TETRAHYDRATE 0.042 2.78



### III. PRELIMINARY PROJECTION FOR 2009 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, SOUTHEAST DESERT, AND VENTURA NONATTAINMENT AREAS



### Regulations require DPR to esta blish a fumigant limit for NAAs that exceed 80 percent of the pesticide VOC benchmark. (NOTE: Benchmark is 20 percent reduction or 80 percent of 1991 emissions and a phase-in of reductions for Ventur a. Trigger for fumigant limit is 64 percent [80 percent of 80 percent] of 1991 emissions). The regulations also require DPR to determine the fumigant limit for the upcoming year by subt racting the nonfumigan t emissions from the regulatory benchmark. DPR proposes to determine nonfumigant emissions for the upcoming year by using the data from the single most recent year. For example, DPR proposes to use the nonfumigant emissions for 2007 to determine the fumigant limit for 2009. At the time of this memo, DPR has released pesticide use data for 2005 and 2006, and is awaiting publication of the 2007 pesticide use report. For the purposes of this memorandum, preliminary projected emissions for 2009 are based on a draft edition of 2007 data, and should be regarded merely as a guideline (Table 8). Projections for 2009 will be revised once the final version of the 2007 data has been released.

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 18

TABLE 8 

### : Preliminary projection for 2009 VOC emi ssions for NAAs 2, 3, and 4. The 2009 projected fumigant limits are determined by s ubtracting the 2007 nonfum igant emissions from the SIP goals and VOC regulation benchmarks.

NonAttainment Area SIP Goal (tons/day) VOC Regulation Benchmark (tons/day) 2007 Nonfumigant

Emissions (tons/day) 2009 Projected Fumigant Limit, Based on SIP Goal

(tons/day) 2009 Projected Fumigant Limit, Based on Regulation Benchmark (tons/day) 2007 Adjusted Fumigant Emissions (tons/day) 2–San Joaquin Valley 18.139 16.0 11.134 7.005 4.866 6.146 3–Southeast Desert 0.923 0.62 0.189 0.734 0.431 0.575 4–Ventura 4.030 a 3.63 a 0.428 3.602 3.202 2.933

a The Ventura SIP Goal and VOC Regulation Benchmark for 2009 are shown.



### Based on the available data, the San Joaquin Va lley, Southeast Desert , and Ventura NAAs are likely to exceed their fumigant limit trigge rs based on VOC regulation benchmarks for 2009 (Table 8 and Figure 1).

In 2007, fumigant emissions in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area we re calculated to be 6.146 tpd (Table 8), more than the projected fumigant limit based on the VOC regulation benchmark of 4.866 tpd. In the Southeast Dese rt NAA, a reduction in fumigant emissions of 0.144 tpd or more from 2007 levels would meet the projected fumigant limit for 2009 based on the VOC regulation benchmark. Overall emission s have declined for NAA 4 (Ventura) between 2004 and 2007. The total adjusted fumigant emissions for 2007 were 2.933 tpd, which is below the projected fumigant limit for 2009.

IV. CONCLUSIONS



### In 2005, 2006 and 2007 NAA 1 (Sacramento Metropolitan) and NAA 5 (South Coast) were the only regions with emission rates below their re spective VOC regulation benchmarks. The South Coast NAA continues a downward tr end, whereas Sacramento NAA emissions increased in both 2005 and 2006, but decreased in 2007. Emissi on rates for NAA 3 (Southeast Desert) were significantly lower in 2007 than those in 2004, but are up compared to emissions in 2006. NAA 2 (San Joaquin Valley) produced successive ly higher emissions from 2004 to 2006, with most of the increase due to nonf umigants (Figure 2). Total ad justed emissions in 2007 were largely due to nonfumigants that declined by over three tpd. It may be necessary to address the issue of nonfumigant emissions if VOC regulation benchmark emission goals are to be met in this NAA. Emissions declined for NAA 4 (Ventura) between 2004 and 2007. NAA 4 emissions meet the 2009 regulation benchmark for 2009. Fumi gants were a major source of emissions in NAA 3 and NAA 4, whereas nonfumigan ts contributed significantly to the Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, and South Coast nonattain ment areas. Unless these emissions are

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 19

significantly reduced, especially the increased use of emulsifiable concentrate formulations in the San Joaquin Valley, NAA 2 may continue to fail to meet its attainment goal.

cc: Christopher Reardon, Chief Deputy Director Charles M. Andrews, Associate Director Polly Frenkel, Chief Counsel John S. Sanders, Ph.D., Environmental Program Manager

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 20

V. REFERENCES



### Barry, T., F. Spurlock and R. Segawa. Sept ember 29, 2007, memorandum to John S. Sanders, Ph.D.: Pesticide Volatile Organic Compound Em ission Adjustments For Field Conditions And Estimated Volatile Organic Compound Reductions–Revised Estimates. Available at: <http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/ehapreps/analysis_memos/1955_sanders.pdf>.

Federal Register. 1997. January 8, 1997, page 1170, Emission Reductions.

Federal Register. 2008. July 18, 2008, page 41277, Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; Pesticide Element; Ventura County.

McConnell, L. L., Zeinali, M., Hapeman, C. J. and Schmidt, W. June 12, 2008. USDA ARS Report to CDPR on the Thermogravimetric and FT -IR Analysis of Sulfur Fungicide Products. USDA-ARS Environmental Management and By product Utilization Labo ratory, Beltsville, Maryland. Available at:

< http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/usda_ars_rpt.pdf >.

McKinney, M. August 26, 2008. memorandum to Randy Segawa: Analysis of Anomalously High Emission Potential Values for Cert ain Spray Oil Products. Available at:

< http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/ehapreps/analysis_memos/2079_segawa.pdf >.

Spurlock, F., 2006. July 18, 2006, memorandum to John S. Sanders Ph.D.: 2006 Revisions to Procedures for Estimating Volatile Organic Co mpound Emissions from Pesticides. Available at:

< http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/voc_calc_revision071805.pdf >.

Spurlock, F. January 7, 2002 memorandum to John S. Sanders Ph.D. Methodology for determining VOC emission potential of pesticide products. Available at:

< http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/vocs/vocproj/intro.pdf >.

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 21

FIGURE 1 

### : Annual ozone season pesticide VOC em issions by NAA. These figures show adjusted emissions, VOC regulation benchmarks (reductions from 1991 emi ssions) and SIP goals (reductions from 1990 emissions).



# • Adjusted Emissions (1990, 1991, 2004, 2005 & 2006)

VOC Regulation Benchmarks

▬ ● ▬ SIP Commitments 

### NAA 1 Sacramento Metropolitan

Year 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 5 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 2 0

1 0 2 0

1 5Emission Rate (tpd)

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 

### NAA 2 San Joaquin Valley

Year 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 5 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 2 0

1 0 2 0

1 5Emission Rate (tpd)

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22



### NAA 3 Southeast Desert

Year 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 5 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 2 0

1 0 2 0

1 5Emission Rate (tpd)

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 

### NAA 4 Ventura

Year 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 5 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 2 0

1 0 2 0

1 5Emission Rate (tpd)

2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6



### NAA 5 South Coast

Year 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 5 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 2 0

1 0 2 0

1 5Emission Rate (tpd)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12



# • Adjusted Emissions (1990, 1991, 2004, 2005 & 2006)

VOC Regulation Benchmarks

▬ ● ▬ SIP Goals

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 22

FIGURE 2 

### : Pesticide VOC emissions for the San Joaquin Valley NAA, May–October. Emissions for each year are divided into fumi gants and nonfumigants. Fumigant emissions are adjusted to account for fumigation method. Em issions for 2004 are shown for comparison. The solid line indicates the emissions benchmark sp ecified in VOC regulations (20 percent reduction from 1991).

APPENDIX 1: Summary Of Application Method Adjustment

Factors And MUF 

## 0 5 10 15 20 25

2004 2005 2006 2007VOC Emissions (tons/day) 

## Nonfumigants Fumigants

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 23

Table A1–1 

### : Application Method Adjustment Factors. AMAF Fumigation

Method 1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam Dazomet Na Tetrathio carbonate Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 61* 64* 74* not applicable not applicable not applicable Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast not applicable 44 48 not applicable not applicable not applicable Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed not applicable 64* 100* 77* not applicable not applicable Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed not applicable 64* 100* not applicable not applicable not applicable Shallow injection w/ water treatments 41 20 not applicable 21 not applicable not applicable Shallow injection w/ soil cap not applicable not applicable not applicable 14 not applicable not applicable Deep injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 41 64* 74* not applicable not applicable not applicable Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast not applicable 44 48 not applicable not applicable not applicable Deep injection w/ water treatments 27 20 not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable Rotovate/rototill not applicable not applicable not applicable 14 17 not applicable Sprinkler not applicable not applicable not applicable 77* not applicable 10 Sprinkler w/ water treatments not applicable not applicable not applicable 21 not applicable not applicable Flood not applicable not applicable not applicable 77* not applicable 10 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 29 not applicable not applicable 9 not applicable 10 Drip w/ low permeability tarp not applicable 15 not applicable 9 not applicable not applicable Nonfield soil(structural/postharvest) not applicable 100 100 not applicable not applicable not applicable * These are considered “high-emission” fumigation methods and are prohibited within the San Joaquin Valley, Southeast Desert, and Ventura NAAs during May–October.

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 24

Table A1–2 

### ; 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area. 1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007.

2 Use of 1,3-D was suspended in early 1990. 3 DPR assumes 100 pecent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of

MITC applied. 4 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### Percent of Amount Applied Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D 2 Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 3 Dazomet 3 Na Tetrathio carbonate 4 Shallow injection w/ highpermeability tarp or no tarpbroadcast 42 37 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 42 36 3 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed Shallow injection w/ water treatments Shallow injection w/ soil cap 15 Deep injection w/ highpermeability tarp or no tarpbroadcast 16 14 Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 2 100 Sprinkler 55 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments Flood 10 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 10 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 5Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 13

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 25

Table A1–3 

### : 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Barry et al., 2007. 2 Use of 1,3-D was suspended in early 1990. 3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount of MITC applied. 4 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### Percent of Amount Applied Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D 2 Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 3 Dazomet 3 Na Tetrathio carbonate 4 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 29 29 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 29 29 8 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed Shallow injection w/ water treatments Shallow injection w/ soil cap 25 Deep injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 42 42 Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 3 100 Sprinkler 60 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments Flood 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 2 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 2Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest)

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 26

Table A1–4 

### : 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Southeast Desert nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 2 Use of 1,3-D was suspended in early 1990. 3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount

of MITC applied. 4 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### Perceny of Amount Applied Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D 2 Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 3 Dazomet 3 Na Tetrathio carbonate 4 Shallow injection w/ highpermeability tarp or no tarpbroadcast 50 35 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 50 34 10 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed Shallow injection w/ water treatments Shallow injection w/ soil cap Deep injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 100 Sprinkler 30 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments Flood 50 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 5 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 5Non-field soil (structural/postharvest) 31

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 27

Table A1–5 

### : 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Ventura nonattainmetn area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 2 Use of 1,3-D was suspended in early 1990. 3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount

of MITC applied. 4 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### Percent of Amount Applied Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D 2 Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 3 Dazomet 3 Na Tetrathio carbonate 4 Shallow injection w/ highpermeability tarp or no tarpbroadcast 50 49 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 50 49 20 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed Shallow injection w/ water treatments Shallow injection w/ soil cap Deep injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 100 Sprinkler 50 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments Flood 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 15 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 15Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 3

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 28

Table A1–6 

### : 1990 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the South Coast nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memo Barry et al., 2007. 2 Use of 1,3-D was suspended in early 1990. 3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount

of MITC applied. 4 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### Percent of Amount Applied Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D 2 Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 3 Dazomet 3 Na Tetrathio carbonate 4 Shallow injection w/ highpermeability tarp or no tarpbroadcast 50 3 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 50 3 20 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed Shallow injection w/ water treatments Shallow injection w/ soil cap Deep injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 100 Sprinkler 50 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments Flood 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 15 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 15Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 95

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 29

Table A1–7



### . 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount

of MITC applied. 3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### Percent of Amount Applied Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 2 Dazomet 2 NaTetrathiocarbonate 3 Shallow injection w/ highpermeability tarp or no tarpbroadcast Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 56.0 11.3 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 21 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed 33.0 6.3 Shallow injection w/ water treatments Shallow injection w/ soil cap 15 Deep injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 99 Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 11.4 Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 100 Sprinkler 45 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments Flood 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 1 9 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 11.0 10Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 70.9

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 30

Table A1–8 

### : 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount

of MITC applied. 3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### Percent of Amount Applied Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 2 Dazomet 2 NaTetrathiocarbonate 3 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 2 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 97.0 79.5 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 21 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed 0.6 Shallow injection w/ water treatments Shallow injection w/ soil cap 20 Deep injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 97 1.0 Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 1.0 16.3 Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 100 Sprinkler 35 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments Flood 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 1 14 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 10Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 1.0 3.7

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 31

Table A1–9 

### : 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Southeast Desert nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount

of MITC applied. 3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### Percent of Amount Applied Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 2 Dazomet 2 NaTetrathiocarbonate 3 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 88 77.1 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 6 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed 18.9 Shallow injection w/ water treatments Shallow injection w/ soil cap Deep injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 10 Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 1.1 Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 100 Sprinkler 75 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments Flood 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 90 5 7 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 5 12Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 2 2.9

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 32

Table A1–10 

### : 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Ventura nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount

of MITC applied. 3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### Percent of Amount Applied Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 2 Dazomet 2 NaTetrathiocarbonate 3 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 1 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 67 100.0 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed Shallow injection w/ water treatments 25 Shallow injection w/ soil cap Deep injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 4 Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 100 Sprinkler 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments 20 Flood 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 95 5 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 33 50Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest)

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 33

Table A1–11 

### : 2005 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the South Coast nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount

of MITC applied. 3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### Percent of Amount Applied Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 2 Dazomet 2 NaTetrathiocarbonate 3 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 40 60.9 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 25 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed 36 30.8 Shallow injection w/ water treatments Shallow injection w/ soil cap Deep injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 2 Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 0.5 Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 100 Sprinkler 20 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments Flood 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 98 5 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 24 50 Nonfield soil (structural/post-harvest) 7.8

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 34

Table A1–12 

### : 2006 frequency of fumigation methods us ed (MUFs) in the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount

of MITC applied. 3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### Percent of Amount Applied Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 2 Dazomet 2 NaTetrathiocarbonate 3 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 3 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 56.0 11.3 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 21 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed 33.0 6.3 Shallow injection w/ water treatments Shallow injection w/ soil cap 15 Deep injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 95 Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 11.4 Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 100 Sprinkler 45 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments Flood 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 2 9 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 11.0 10Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 70.9

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 35

Table A1–13 

### : 2006 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount

of MITC applied. 3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### Percent of Amount Applied Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 2 Dazomet 2 NaTetrathiocarbonate 3 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 2 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 97.0 79.5 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 21 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed 0.6 Shallow injection w/ water treatments Shallow injection w/ soil cap 20 Deep injection w/ highpermeability tarp or no tarpbroadcast 97 1.0 Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 1.0 16.3 Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 100 Sprinkler 35 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments Flood 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 1 14 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 10Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 1.0 3.7

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 36

Table A1–14 

### : 2006 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Southeast Desert nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount

of MITC applied. 3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### Percent of Amount Applied Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 2 Dazomet 2 NaTetrathiocarbonate 3 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 88.0 77.1 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 6 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed 18.9 Shallow injection w/ water treatments Shallow injection w/ soil cap Deep injection w/ highpermeability tarp or no tarpbroadcast 16 Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 0.2 1.1 Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 100 Sprinkler 75 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments Flood 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 84 5.0 7 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 5.0 12Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 2.0 2.9

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 37

Table A1–15 

### : 2006 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Ventura nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount

of MITC applied. 3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### Percent of Amount Applied Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 2 Dazomet 2 NaTetrathiocarbonate 3 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 67.0 100.0 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed Shallow injection w/ water treatments 25 Shallow injection w/ soil cap Deep injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 7 Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 100 Sprinkler 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments 20 Flood 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 93 5 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 33.0 50Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest)

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 38

Table A1–16 

### : 2006 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the South Coast nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount

of MITC applied. 3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### percent of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 2 Dazomet 2 NaTetrathiocarbonate 3 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 40.0 60.9 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 25 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed 36.0 30.8 Shallow injection w/ water treatments Shallow injection w/ soil cap Deep injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 0.5 Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 100 Sprinkler 20 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments Flood 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 100 5 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 24.0 50Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 7.8

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 39

Table A1–17 

### : 2007 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount

of MITC applied. 3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### Percent of Amount Applied Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 2 Dazomet 2 NaTetrathiocarbonate 3 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 0.0 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 56.0 11.3 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 21 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed 33.0 6.3 Shallow injection w/ water treatments Shallow injection w/ soil cap 15 Deep injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 99.9 Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 11.4 Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 100 Sprinkler 45 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments Flood 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 0.1 9 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 11.0 10Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 70.9

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 40

Table A1–18 

### : 2007 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount

of MITC applied. 3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### Percent of Amount Applied Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 2 Dazomet 2 NaTetrathiocarbonate 3 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 0.3 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 97.0 79.5 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 21 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed 0.6 Shallow injection w/ water treatments Shallow injection w/ soil cap 20 Deep injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 99.3 1.0 Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 1.0 16.3 Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 100 Sprinkler 35 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments Flood 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 0.4 14 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 10Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 1.0 3.7

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 41

Table A1–19 

### : 2007 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Southeast Desert nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Barry et al., 2007. 2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount

of MITC applied. 3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### Percent of Amount Applied Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 2 Dazomet 2 NaTetrathiocarbonate 3 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 0.4 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 88.0 77.1 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 6 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed 18.9 Shallow injection w/ water treatments Shallow injection w/ soil cap Deep injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 0.0 Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 0.2 1.1 Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 100 Sprinkler 75 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments Flood 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 99.6 5.0 7 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 5.0 12Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 2.0 2.9

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 42

Table A1–20 

### : 2007 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the Ventura nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Bary et al., 2007. 2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount

of MITC applied. 3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### Percent of Amount Applied Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 2 Dazomet 2 NaTetrathiocarbonate 3 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 67.0 100.0 Shallow injection w/ highpermeability tarp or no tarpbed Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed Shallow injection w/ water treatments 25 Shallow injection w/ soil cap Deep injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast 5.0 Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 100 Sprinkler 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments 20 Flood 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 94.9 5 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 33.0 50Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest)

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 43

Table A1–2 

### 1: 2007 frequency of fumigation methods used (MUFs) in the South Coast nonattainment area.

1 Fumigation methods are described in detail in the memorandum Bary et al., 2007. 2 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of metam and dazomet to MITC and percentages are relative to the amount

of MITC applied. 3 DPR assumes 100 percent conversion of sodium (Na) tetrathiocarbonate to carbon disulfide and percentages are

relative to the amount of carbon disulfide applied. 

### Percent of Amount Applied

Fumigation Method 1 1,3-D Chloropicrin Methyl Bromide Metam 2 Dazomet 2 NaTetrathiocarbonate 3 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 40.0 60.9 Shallow injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-bed 25 Shallow injection w/ low permeability tarp-bed 36.0 30.8 Shallow injection w/ water treatments Shallow injection w/ soil cap Deep injection w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp-broadcast Deep injection w/ low permeability tarp-broadcast 0.5 Deep injection w/ water treatments Rotovate/rototill 100 Sprinkler 20 33 Sprinkler w/ water treatments Flood 33 Drip w/ high permeability tarp or no tarp 100.0 5 34 Drip w/ low permeability tarp 24.0 50Nonfield soil (structural/postharvest) 7.8

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 44

APPENDIX 2–SUMMARY OF UNADJUSTED PESTICIDE VOC EMISSIONS

1. Sacramento Metropolitan Area–NAA 1

TABLE A2-1a 

### : Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2005 

### May–October ozone season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 1, the Sacramento Metropolitan Area. Primary AI Total Product Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 1 May–Oct 2005 emissions CHLORPYRIFOS 0.186 14.17 MOLINATE 0.093 7.11 THIOBENCARB 0.070 5.36 TRIFLURALIN 0.064 4.85 1,3-D 0.062 4.74 PERMETHRIN 0.057 4.34 METAM-SODIUM 0.051 3.91 ETHALFLURALIN 0.048 3.63 CYPERMETHRIN 0.044 3.32 SETHOXYDIM 0.039 2.96



### TABLE A2–1b 

### : Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2006 

### May–October ozone season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 1, the Sacramento Metropolitan Area. Primary AI Total Product Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 1 May–Oct 2006 emissions 1,3-D 0.143 9.45 TRIFLURALIN 0.123 8.14 METAM-SODIUM 0.116 7.64 CHLORPYRIFOS 0.115 7.58 ETHALFLURALIN 0.082 5.42 HYDROPRENE 0.047 3.13 MOLINATE 0.046 3.04 THIOBENCARB 0.040 2.67 OXYFLUORFEN 0.040 2.64 METHYL BROMIDE 0.040 2.62

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 45

TABLE A2–1c 

### : Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 

### May–October ozone season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 1, the Sacramento Metropolitan Area. Primary AI Total Product Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 1 May–Oct 2007 emissions 1,3-D 0.274 21.77 CHLORPYRIFOS 0.116 9.25 METHYL BROMIDE 0.068 5.37 TRIFLURALIN 0.057 4.56 DIMETHOATE 0.049 3.94 METAM-SODIUM 0.041 3.24 THIOBENCARB 0.039 3.13 OXYFLUORFEN 0.038 3.01 PROPANIL 0.029 2.30 PENOXSULAM 0.027 2.12



### TABLE A2–1d 

### : Top ten pesticide applica tion sites contributing to 2005 

### May–October ozone

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 1. Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 1 May–Oct 2005 emissions RICE 0.229 17.48 STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.219 16.70 WALNUT 0.164 12.50 TOMATO, PROCESSING 0.131 9.96 GRAPE, WINE 0.064 4.88 RIGHTS OF WAY 0.063 4.82 ALFALFA 0.059 4.51 SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 0.054 4.13 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 0.044 3.37 SUNFLOWER 0.041 3.12



### TABLE A2–1e 

### : Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2006 

### May–October ozone

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 1. Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 1 May–Oct 2006 emissions TOMATO, PROCESSING 0.247 16.33 STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.218 14.41 WALNUT 0.177 11.71 RICE 0.176 11.67 SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 0.094 6.24 SUNFLOWER 0.083 5.52 RIGHTS OF WAY 0.073 4.84 ALFALFA 0.044 2.94 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 0.043 2.87 GRAPE, WINE 0.040 2.63

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 46

TABLE A2–1f 

### : Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2007 

### May–October ozone

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 1. Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 1 May–Oct 2007 emissions WALNUT 0.300 23.86 RICE 0.160 12.73 TOMATO, PROCESSING 0.143 11.39 RIGHTS OF WAY 0.076 6.03 STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.066 5.28 SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 0.061 4.83 N-OUTDR PLANTS IN CONTAINERS 0.053 4.23 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 0.047 3.71 UNCULTIVATED AG 0.045 3.60 GRAPE, WINE 0.043 3.39



### TABLE A21g 

### : Unadjusted 2005 

### May–October VOC emissions in NAA1 by ARB emission inventory classification (tpd).

NAA 1–2005 Agricultural Applications Structural Applications

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.035 0.000 NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 1.055 0.219



### TABLE A2–1h 

### : Unadjusted 2006 

### May–October VOC emissions in NAA1 by ARB emission inventory classification (tpd).

NAA–2006 Agricultural Applications Structural Applications

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.037 0.000 NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 1.255 0.218



### TABLE A2–1i 

### : Unadjusted 2007 

### May–October VOC emissions in NAA1 by ARB emission inventory classification (tpd).

NAA 1–2007 Agricultural Applications Structural Applications

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.062 0.000 NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 1.124 0.066

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 47

2. San Joaquin Valley–NAA 2

TABLE A2–2a 

### : Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2005 

### May–October ozone season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 2, the San Joaquin Valley. Primary AI Total Product Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 2 May–Oct 2005 emissions 1,3-D 5.938 20.25 METAM-SODIUM 5.912 20.17 CHLORPYRIFOS 3.868 13.19 METHYL BROMIDE 2.461 8.39 POTASSIUM N-METHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE 0.928 3.16 OXYFLUORFEN 0.749 2.56 DIMETHOATE 0.650 2.22 GIBBERELLINS 0.628 2.14 ACROLEIN 0.572 1.95 ABAMECTIN 0.523 1.78



### TABLE A2–2b 

### : Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2006 

### May–October ozone season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 2, the San Joaquin Valley. Primary AI Total Product Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 2 May–Oct 2006 emissions METAM-SODIUM 5.350 18.05 1,3-D 5.094 17.18 CHLORPYRIFOS 3.990 13.46 METHYL BROMIDE 2.645 8.92 POTASSIUM N-METHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE 1.601 5.40 OXYFLUORFEN 0.779 2.63 GIBBERELLINS 0.679 2.29 TRIFLURALIN 0.677 2.29 DIMETHOATE 0.645 2.17 ACROLEIN 0.600 2.02

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 48

TABLE A2–2c 

### : Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 

### May–October ozone season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 2, the San Joaquin Valley. Primary AI Total Product Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 2 May–Oct 2007 emissions 1,3-D 5.465 22.02 METAM-SODIUM 4.342 17.49 METHYL BROMIDE 2.319 9.34 CHLORPYRIFOS 2.263 9.12 POTASSIUM N-METHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE 1.351 5.44 OXYFLUORFEN 0.944 3.80 GIBBERELLINS 0.712 2.87 DIMETHOATE 0.643 2.59 ABAMECTIN 0.542 2.18 ACROLEIN 0.455 1.83



### TABLE A2–2d 

### : Top ten pesticide applica tion sites contributing to 2005 

### May–October ozone

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 2. Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 2 May–Oct 2005 emissions CARROT 5.096 17.38 COTTON 3.017 10.29 ALMOND 2.641 9.01 ORANGE 1.945 6.63 N-OUTDR PLANTS IN CONTAINERS 1.857 6.33 GRAPE, WINE 1.175 4.01 GRAPE 1.152 3.93 WALNUT 1.114 3.80 ALFALFA 1.013 3.46 POTATO 0.878 2.99



### TABLE A2–2e 

### : Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2006 

### May–October ozone

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 2. Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 2 May–Oct 2006 emissions CARROT 4.308 14.53 ALMOND 3.816 12.87 COTTON 2.609 8.80 N-OUTDR PLANTS IN CONTAINERS 1.597 5.39 ORANGE 1.569 5.29 SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 1.152 3.89 POTATO 1.105 3.73 WALNUT 1.079 3.64 ALFALFA 1.029 3.47 GRAPE 0.975 3.29

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 49

TABLE A2–2f 

### : Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2007 

### May–October ozone

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 2. Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 2 May–Oct 2007 emissions CARROT 3.943 15.89 ALMOND 3.922 15.80 GRAPE 1.400 5.64 ORANGE 1.303 5.25 N-OUTDR PLANTS IN CONTAINERS 1.068 4.30 WALNUT 1.063 4.28 COTTON 1.049 4.23 POTATO 0.942 3.79 SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 0.774 3.12 TOMATO, PROCESSING 0.764 3.08



### TABLE A2–2g 

### : Unadjusted 2005 

### May–October VOC emissions in NAA 2 by ARB emission inventory classification (tpd).

NAA 2–2005 Agricultural Applications Structural Applications

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 2.126 0.008 NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 26.490 0.367



### TABLE A2–2h 

### : Unadjusted 2006 

### May–October VOC emissions in NAA 2 by ARB emission inventory classification (tpd).

NAA 2–2006 Agricultural Applications Structural Applications

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 2.200 0.029 NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 26.707 0.293



### TABLE A2–2i 

### : Unadjusted 2007 

### May–October VOC emissions in NAA 2 by ARB emission inventory classification (tpd).

NAA 2–2007 Agricultural Applications Structural Applications

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 1.905 0.012 NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 22.210 0.291

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 50

3. Southeast Desert–NAA 3

TABLE A2–3a 

### : Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2005 

### May–October ozone season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 3, the Southeast Desert. Primary AI Total Product Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 3 May–Oct 2005 emissions METAM-SODIUM 0.503 44.50 1,3-D 0.181 15.98 METHYL BROMIDE 0.106 9.39 PERMETHRIN 0.079 6.96 POTASSIUM N-METHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE 0.048 4.28 DAZOMET 0.025 2.17 MALATHION 0.011 0.96 EPTC 0.011 0.95 BENSULIDE 0.010 0.92 TRICLOPYR, BUTOXYET HYL ESTER 0.009 0.84



### TABLE A2–3b 

### : Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2006 

### May–October ozone season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 3, the Southeast Desert. Primary AI Total Product Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 3 May–Oct 2006 emissions METAM-SODIUM 0.527 54.26 1,3-D 0.201 20.72 PERMETHRIN 0.032 3.25 BENSULIDE 0.028 2.87 METHYL BROMIDE 0.015 1.52 GLYPHOSATE, ISOPROPYLAMINE SALT 0.009 0.91 MEFENOXAM 0.009 0.90 GIBBERELLINS 0.009 0.88 PENDIMETHALIN 0.008 0.80 MALATHION 0.008 0.79

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 51

TABLE A2–3c 

### : Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 

### May–October ozone season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 3, the Southeast Desert. Primary AI Total Product Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 3 May–Oct 2007 emissions 1,3-D 3.705 40.80 METHYL BROMIDE 2.995 32.97 CHLOROPICRIN 1.446 15.92 METAM-SODIUM 0.496 5.46 CHLORPYRIFOS 0.045 0.49 MINERAL OIL 0.035 0.39 PETROLEUM OIL, UNCLASSIFIED 0.032 0.36 CLARIFIED HYDROPHOBIC EXTRACT OF NEEM OIL 0.032 0.35 ABAMECTIN 0.025 0.27 OXAMYL 0.024 0.26



### TABLE A2–3d 

### : Top ten pesticide applica tion sites contributing to 2005 

### May–October

ozone season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 3. Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 3 May–Oct 2005 emissions CARROT 0.196 17.31 STRAWBERRY 0.161 14.25 STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.129 11.39 PEPPER, FRUITING 0.125 11.05 UNCULTIVATED AG* 0.086 7.65 GRAPE 0.081 7.21 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 0.054 4.76 CELERY 0. 048 4.28 POTATO 0.046 4.04 CAULIFLOWER 0.041 3.65 * Treatment of an area prior to dete rmining which crop will be planted.

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 52

TABLE A2–3e: 

### Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2006 

### May–October ozone

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 3. Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 3 May–Oct 2006 emissions UNCULTIVATED AG* 0.205 21.07 PEPPER, FRUITING 0.188 19.34 STRAWBERRY 0.163 16.80 STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.072 7.43 CARROT 0.047 4.80 WATERMELON 0.043 4.42 POTATO 0.039 4.05 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 0.039 4.05 CELERY 0. 031 3.22 LETTUCE, LEAF 0.024 2.49 *Treatment of an area prior to dete rmining which crop will be planted.



### TABLE A2–3f 

### : Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2007 

### May–October ozone

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 3. Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 3 May–Oct 2007 emissions PEPPER, FRUITING 0.311 24.39 TURF/SOD 0.207 16.19 STRAWBERRY 0.184 14.44 POTATO 0.121 9.46 UNCULTIVATED AG 0.083 6.54 GRAPE 0.073 5.70 STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.059 4.65 WATERMELON 0.043 3.37 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 0.023 1.84 CELERY 0. 019 1.49 * Treatment of an area prior to dete rmining which crop will be planted.



### TABLE A2–3e: 

### Unadjusted 2005 

### May–October VOC emissions in NAA 3 by ARB emission inventory classification (tpd).

NAA 3–2005 Agricultural Applications Structural Applications

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.081 0.000 NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.894 0.130

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 53

TABLE A2–3f 

### : Unadjusted 2006 

### May–October VOC emissions in NAA 3 by ARB emission inventory classification (tpd).

NAA 3–2006 Agricultural Applications Structural Applications

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.013 0.000 NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.884 0.074



### TABLE A2–3g 

### : Unadjusted 2007 

### May–October VOC emissions in NAA 3 by ARB emission inventory classification (tpd).

NAA 3–2007 Agricultural Applications Structural Applications

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.286 0.000 NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.897 0.061



### 4. Ventura–NAA 4

TABLE A2–4a– 

### Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2005 

### May–October ozone season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 4, Ventura. Primary AI Total Product Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 4 May–Oct 2005 emissions METHYL BROMIDE 3.734 39.99 1,3-D 3.633 38.90 CHLOROPICRIN 1.008 10.80 METAM-SODIUM 0.418 4.47 CHLORPYRIFOS 0.086 0.92 PETROLEUM OIL, UNCLASSIFIED 0.046 0.49 POTASSIUM N-METHYLDITHIOCARBAMATE 0.034 0.36 OXAMYL 0.029 0.31 CLARIFIED HYDROPHOBIC EXTRACT OF NEEM OIL 0.029 0.31 ABAMECTIN 0.027 0.28

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 54

TABLE A2–4b 

### : Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2006 

### May–October ozone season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 4, Ventura. Primary AI Total Product Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 4 May–Oct 2006 emissions 1,3-D 3.970 41.26 METHYL BROMIDE 3.868 40.21 CHLOROPICRIN 0.787 8.18 METAM-SODIUM 0.482 5.01 CHLORPYRIFOS 0.066 0.68 PETROLEUM OIL, UNCLASSIFIED 0.047 0.49 OXAMYL 0.036 0.37 AZADIRACHTIN 0.035 0.37 ABAMECTIN 0.027 0.28 CLARIFIED HYDROPHOBIC EXTRACT OF NEEM OIL 0.023 0.24



### TABLE A2–4c 

### : Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 

### May–October ozone season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 4, Ventura. Primary AI Total Product Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 4 May–Oct 2007 emissions 1,3-D 3.705 40.80 METHYL BROMIDE 2.995 32.97 CHLOROPICRIN 1.446 15.92 METAM-SODIUM 0.496 5.46 CHLORPYRIFOS 0.045 0.49 MINERAL OIL 0.035 0.39 PETROLEUM OIL, UNCLASSIFIED 0.032 0.36 CLARIFIED HYDROPHOBIC EXTRACT OF NEEM OIL 0.032 0.35

ABAMECTIN 0.025 0.27 OXAMYL 0.024 0.26

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 55

TABLE A2–4d: 

### . Top ten pesticide applica tion sites contributing to 2005 

### May–October ozone

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 4. Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 4 May–Oct 2005 emissions STRAWBERRY 6.644 71.15 SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 1.579 16.91 LEMON 0.207 2.22 RASPBERRY 0.190 2.03 TOMATO 0.180 1.93 UNCULTIVATED AG 0.131 1.40 PEPPER, FRUITING 0.094 1.00 N-OUTDR FLOWER 0.062 0.67 CELERY 0. 035 0.37 STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.035 0.37



### TABLE A2–4e: 

### . Top ten pesticide applica tion sites contributing to 2006 

### May–October ozone

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 4. Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 4 May–Oct 2006 emissions STRAWBERRY 6.363 66.15 SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 2.200 22.86 TOMATO 0.237 2.47 LEMON 0.179 1.86 RASPBERRY 0.099 1.03 CELERY 0. 099 1.03 PEPPER, FRUITING 0.086 0.90 N-OUTDR FLOWER 0.059 0.62 PEPPER, SPICE 0.054 0.57 ARTICHOKE, GLOBE 0.036 0.38



### TABLE A2–4f: 

### Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2007 

### May–October ozone

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 4. Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 4 May–Oct 2007 emissions STRAWBERRY 5.117 56.34 SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 3.459 38.09 LEMON 0.152 1.67 TOMATO 0.098 1.08 RASPBERRY 0.052 0.57 STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.038 0.42 PEPPER, FRUITING 0.024 0.26 CELERY 0. 018 0.20 TURF/SOD 0.018 0.19 AVOCADO 0.017 0.18

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 56

TABLE A2–4g 

### : Unadjusted 2005 

### May–October VOC emissions in NAA 4 by ARB emission inventory classification (tons per day, tpd).

NAA 4–2005 Agricultural Applications Structural Applications

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 2.556 0.000 NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 5.400 0.035



### TABLE A2–4h 

### : Unadjusted 2006 

### May–October VOC emissions in NAA 4 by ARB emission inventory classification (tpd).

NAA 4–2006 Agricultural Applications Structural Applications

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 2.537 0.000 NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 5.729 0.024



### TABLE A2–4i 

### : Unadjusted 2007 

### May–October VOC emissions in NAA 4 by ARB emission inventory classification (tpd).

NAA 4–2007 Agricultural Applications Structural Applications

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 1.946 0.000 NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 6.049 0.038



### 5. South Coast - NAA 5

TABLE A2–5a 

### : Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2005 

### May–October ozone season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 5, South Coast. Primary AI Total Product Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 5 May–Oct 2005 emissions METHYL BROMIDE 0.688 25.56 PERMETHRIN 0.455 16.92 1,3-D 0.446 16.57 CHLOROPICRIN 0.082 3.06 BIFENTHRIN 0.081 3.00 IMIDACLOPRID 0.081 2.99 N-OCTYL BICYCLOHEPTENE DICARBOXIMIDE 0.068 2.54 LIMONENE 0.056 2.10 DAZOMET 0.056 2.09 PIPERONYL BUTOXIDE 0.053 1.96

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 57

TABLE A2–5b 

### : Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2006 

### May–October ozone season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 5, South Coast. Primary AI Total Product Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 5 May–Oct 2006 emissions METHYL BROMIDE 0.487 24.77 PERMETHRIN 0.279 14.20 1,3-D 0.245 12.46 CHLOROPICRIN 0.127 6.48 IMIDACLOPRID 0.096 4.88 N-OCTYL BICYCLOHEPTENE DICARBOXIMIDE 0.072 3.66 BIFENTHRIN 0.067 3.40 FIPRONIL 0.045 2.28 CYFLUTHRIN 0.044 2.23 CYPERMETHRIN 0.039 1.97



### TABLE A2–5c 

### : Top ten primary AIs contributing to 2007 

### May–October ozone season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 5, South Coast. Primary AI Total Product Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 5 May–Oct 2007 emissions METHYL BROMIDE 0.473 24.04 PERMETHRIN 0.275 13.99 1,3-D 0.271 13.77 LIMONENE 0.121 6.17 CHLOROPICRIN 0.078 3.95 BIFENTHRIN 0.077 3.91 N-OCTYL BICYCLOHEPTENE DICARBOXIMIDE 0.069 3.49 CYFLUTHRIN 0.042 2.14 CYPERMETHRIN 0.042 2.13 DISODIUM OCTABORATE TETRAHYDRATE 0.042 2.11

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 58

TABLE A2–5d: 

### Top ten pesticide applica tion sites contributing to 2005 

### May-October ozone

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 5. Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 5 May–Oct 2005 emissions STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 1.041 38.67 STRAWBERRY 0.856 31.80 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 0.214 7.95 TURF/SOD 0.213 7.89 FUMIGATION, OTHER 0.068 2.51 RIGHTS OF WAY 0.050 1.85 N-OUTDR PLANTS IN CONTAINERS 0.048 1.77 SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 0.038 1.42 PEPPER, FRUITING 0.036 1.34 COMMODITY FUMIGATION 0.026 0.95



### TABLE A2–5e 

### : Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2006 

### May–October ozone

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 5. Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 5 May–Oct 2006 emissions STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.781 39.68 STRAWBERRY 0.747 37.98 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 0.163 8.30 FUMIGATION, OTHER 0.087 4.42 RIGHTS OF WAY 0.036 1.83 N-OUTDR PLANTS IN CONTAINERS 0.032 1.65 SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 0.029 1.48 COMMODITY FUMIGATION 0.019 0.99 PEPPER, FRUITING 0.012 0.64 AVOCADO 0.008 0.41



### TABLE A2–5f 

### : Top ten pesticide application sites contributing to 2007 

### May–October ozone

season unadjusted VOC emissions in NAA 5. Application Site Emissions (tons/day) Percent of all NAA 5 May–Oct 2007 emissions STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 0.786 39.94 STRAWBERRY 0.752 38.21 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 0.161 8.18 FUMIGATION, OTHER 0.058 2.94 N-OUTDR PLANTS IN CONTAINERS 0.043 2.17 RIGHTS OF WAY 0.036 1.83 SOIL FUMIGATION/PREPLANT 0.033 1.68 COMMODITY FUMIGATION 0.027 1.38 AVOCADO 0.009 0.44 GRAPEFRUIT 0.008 0.40

### Randy Segawa November 5, 2008 Page 59

TABLE A2–5g 

### : Unadjusted 2005 

### May–October VOC emissions in NAA 5 by ARB emission inventory classification (tpd).

NAA 5–2005 Agricultural Applications Structural Applications

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.508 0.003 NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.963 1.041



### TABLE A2–5h 

### : Unadjusted 2006 

### May–October VOC emissions in NAA 5 by ARB emission inventory classification (tpd).

NAA 5–2006 Agricultural Applications Structural Applications

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.360 0.003 NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.698 0.782



### TABLE A2–5i 

### : Unadjusted 2007 

### May–October VOC emissions in NAA 5 by ARB emission inventory classification (tpd).

NAA 5–2007 Agricultural Applications Structural Applications

METHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.344 0.002 NONMETHYL BROMIDE EMISSIONS 0.707 0.788