SFIREG Joint EQI/POM Committee Meeting April 10, 2018 Nan - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SFIREG Joint EQI/POM Committee Meeting April 10, 2018 Nan Singhasemanon Environmental Program Manager Environmental Monitoring Branch California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR)

Outline

— CDPR Overview — CA Registration — Continuous Evaluation — Environmental Monitoring & Surface Water Protection — Fipronil Background — Data Collection & Analysis — Risk Management Decision — Mitigation Modeling — Stakeholder Engagement — Mitigation Proposal — Product Label Change — Outreach — Next Steps

CDPR Overview

— CA SLA for FIFRA (part of CalEPA)

— Implement & enforce FIFRA + CA statutory authority under CA Food

& Agricultural Code — ~430 employees – headquarter in Sacramento — 6 branches in Pesticide Programs Division (PPD):

— Registration — Environmental Monitoring — Worker Health & Safety — Human Health Assessment — Pest Management & Licensing — Enforcement

— Funded by mil assessment on pesticide sales in CA

CA Registration

— CDPR registers pesticide products to be sold & use in CA

— Can only do so after EPA grants registration — But may review products for CA registration sequentially or

concurrently — CDPR’s Product Registration Branch oversees this registration

evaluation process & coordinates review by PPD branches

— Includes Environmental Monitoring Branch (EMB)

— EMB evaluates products for potential for environmental impacts (Air,

Groundwater & Surface Water) – often rely on models

— Can influence product label at this stage prior to CA registration to

manage CA-specific eco-risks

— Preventative risk management — Powerful tool

CA Continuous Evaluation

— DPR also continuously evaluates pesticide products after

registration is granted for environmental impacts from their use

— Continuous Evaluation = environmental monitoring = safety net

— Some products & associated active ingredients (A.I.’s) may move

• ff-site based on labeled-use perhaps at levels that may cause

significant adverse impacts to the environment

— EMB scientists lay out risk picture for CDPR management

— If CDPR management finds risk to be too high → mitigation

— EMB scientists assist in finding appropriate risk mitigation

tools/solutions → collaborative problem solving

— Engage stakeholders — Finalize mitigation approach — Implement solution — Conduct outreach — Monitor for effectiveness (i.e., back to continuous evaluation)

Fipronil Case Study

Fipronil Background

— Fipronil - insecticide/termiticide, first registered in CA in 1997

→ ant baits (very low A.I.%)

— Works on GABA receptors of insects

— Causes excessive neural excitation → paralysis → death

— Currently 153 products registered — Primary uses in CA today: Treatment in and around structures

for termites, ants & other insect pests; also pet spot-on for fleas and ticks

— % A.I. range: 0.00045 – 9.8%, many formulations — New uses sought post-1997. SWPP resistant in recommending

registration initially due to toxicity to aquatic invertebrates, mobility, persistence & degradate concerns

Fipronil Background – cont.

— 1999 crayfish mortality in Louisiana rice growing

regions → CDPR did not grant registration on CA rice

— Homeowner use sought in CA 2002 → CDPR did not

grant registration

— Several granular product registrations sought ~2000

• 2004 → registration granted after data submissions

w/ conditions

— Use in Coachella Valley only (fire ant) — Restricted to driest months (April–Sept.) — For pest control operator (PCO) use only

Fipronil Background – cont.

— Structural perimeter spray use for non-termiticide

insect control by PCO’s appeared ~2003?

— This new use pattern = mixing of liquid concentrate

mainly for ant control on outdoor impervious surface

— CA urban areas are notorious for being heavily paved

→ urbanization + flood control

— Urban pest control A.I. shift post diazinon &

chlorpyrifos home & garden use → voluntary cancellation by registrants ~2003

— Pyrethroids & fipronil became main replacements

CA Structural Pest Control Fipronil Use

Source: CDPR Pesticide Use Data

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fipronil Use (lbs A.I. used in CA) from 2008-2015

CDPR’s Surface Water Protection Program (SWPP)

11

SWPP Monitoring

— 4 distinct urban and agricultural watersheds monitoring

projects: NorCal/SoCal urban & NorCal/SoCal ag

— Receiving water + “edge-of-field” samples — Water, sediment & toxicity samples

— Monitoring protocols & data reports generated annually — Site & analyte monitored change annually based on our

Surface Water Monitoring Prioritization (SWMP) Model

— Data → upload to SURF database → analysis

Monitoring Prioritization

CDPR Urban Monitoring Locations

Urban maps & data - credit Robert Budd, CDPR SWPP

Dry Season Rain Event

Locations & Timing

Storm Drain Receiving Water

Detection Frequencies & Benchmark Exceedances

Credit: Robert Budd Data queried Feb 13, 2018

Bifenthrin Bifenthrin Fipronil Fipronil

Concentration (ug/L)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.50 1.00 Stormdrain Receiving Waters

Site Type

Credit: Robert Budd Data queried Feb 13, 2018

Bifenthrin Bifenthrin Fipronil Fipronil

Concentration (ug/L)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.50 1.00 Dry Season Storm

Event Type

Credit: Robert Budd Data queried Feb 13, 2018

Regional Differences

Bifenthrin Bifenthrin Fipronil Fipronil

Concentration (ug/L) 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.50 1.00 1.50

NorCal SoCal

Monitoring Findings

— SWPP released Feb. 2016 data analysis report — Over 500 water samples from storm drains & urban

receiving waters between 2008 & 2015

— Fipronil found in ~50% of samples — EPA aquatic life benchmarks (BMs) = 0.11 ppb (invert.

acute), 0.011 ppb (invert. chronic)

— Statewide receiving water conc. > acute BM = 15% of

samples, > chronic BM = 48%

— Degradates: f. sulfone & f. desulfinyl detected 43 & 33%,

respectively.

— F. sulfone > acute BM = 1%, > chronic BM = 37%

Label Review

— Most products are for flea/tick control for pet uses — No Ag products in CA — No homeowner/consumer use products (except

containerized baits)

— Some outdoor termiticide use (underground

injection) but use small & low runoff risk

— 99% of reported use → structural pest control →

• utdoor perimeter spray use for general insect control =

ants

— Only 2 products fit this use pattern → BASF Termidor

SC & CSI Taurus SC

Modeling to Validate Real-World Baseline

— ? Is it plausible that the perimeter spray use pattern

could generate conditions seen in receiving waters ?

— SWPP has a CA-specific pesticide runoff PRZM-

VVWM model (based on EPA’s model)

— Been using for registration evaluations

— Fipronil modeling incorporated more “real-world”

input data, including industry survey data

— Also used application instructions from labels

— Apply 2 quarts of 0.06% finished spray (low-pressure) per

160 linear feet as perimeter spray, 1’ up & 1’ out, 2 times/year

CA Urban module: USEPA residential settings

58 residential lots (1/4 acre each) in a 10-ha watershed, runoff routed to a 1-ha pond Ref: USEPA, 2007, https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/endanger/ litstatus/effects/redleg-frog/carbaryl/determin-memo.pdf

Fipronil Modeling Results vs. Monitoring Data

Credit: Yuzhou Luo, CDPR SWPP

78% Reduction in modeled EEC needed to meet acute EPA BM

Risk Management Decision

— In July 2014, (24) registrants of (109) fipronil containing

products were informed initially of CDPR’s concerns

— Based on early monitoring data

— Early conversations took place w/ potentially affected

parties

— Municipal stormwater programs — CA clean water agencies (State & Regional Water Boards) — Pest Control Operators of CA — EPA

— Did not choose CA data call-in → reevaluation

Department of Pesticide Regulation

Mitigation of Fipronil Timeline Early Stakeholder Engagement

Oct Nov^ May^^ Jul Feb May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec July 2014 Jan Feb 2015 Oct Nov Dec Jan 2016

Nov^ Washoff (Fipronil) Study started (Anticipated completion Spring 2016) May^^ Field (Urban Outdoor) Application Research Trials started (Anticipated completion Fall 2016) (rev.7/5/16)

DPR Mtg w/ Fipronil Registrants (Urban + Waste) draft Fipronil Mitigation Concepts Document Research & Information Gathering Stakeholder (EPA, Water Boards/ CASQA, PCOCs) Mtgs DPR/ BASF Mtg

• Oct. 28, 2014

July 23, 2014

Stakeholder Outreach/ Input

• Mit. Concept Document Drafting

DPR Fipronil (Urb) Mitigation Planning Mtg

• Feb. 19, 2015

PCOC Mtg SWBs/ CASQA Mtg DPR Planning Mtg (2)

• Nov. 16, 2015

Rulemaking Drafting Water Quality Regulators (WQRs) Mtg

• Oct. 9, 2015

DPR EPA Mtg

May 11, 2016

DPR Registrants Mtg

May 4, 2016

Fipronil Monitoring & Model Scenarios Doc (Regs, PCOCs, EPA, WQRs)

1

Studies Supporting Mitigation

— UC Riverside 2015/2016 field trials

— Constructed wall trials - Runoff concentrations

— Some reduction w/ reduced bandwidth — Pinstream variability

— House trials – Runoff concentrations & ant control

efficacy

— Pinstream variability — Application restriction to garage door & driveway interface ↓ runoff

concentrations

— PCO field efficacy (call-backs) trials

— 2 PCOs participated May–August 2016 — Applied 1’, 6” & pinstream, not on garage door/driveway

interface, fipronil alternatives to this area ok.

— No change in call-backs among treatments or before/after

— Review of registrant-submitted data showed

efficacy for ants @ 0.06% (label), 0.05% & 0.01%

Fipronil Mitigation

— In fall 2016, CDPR & registrants discussed the potential of

mitigation measures via label change

— CA-specific regulation initially considered, but BASF & CSI

willing to discuss label changes w/ EPA!

— In early 2017, CDPR completed addendum to fipronil

analysis report

— Explored reductions from various application scenarios — Discussed field trials & PCO call-back results

— In Feb. 2017, registrants voluntarily agreed to place CA-

specific use restrictions on product labels

— In April 2017, EPA accepted amended fipronil labels

Summary of Modeling Results for Potential Fipronil Application Scenarios

Run ID1 Dilution Application to garage door and driveway interface Application around house (except for garage door and driveway interface) Number of applications per year Minimum days between applications Predicted reduction from baseline swath (up and out) @ volume rate2 swath (up and out) @ volume rate2 Applied mass Estimated environmental concentration Baseline 0.06% 1 ft @ 2 qt 1x 1 ft @ 2 qt 1x 2 1 0.06% 1 ft @ 2 qt 1x 1 55% 31% 2 0.06% ≤1 in3 @ 1 qt 6x ≤1 in @ 1 qt 6x 1 75% 54% 3.1 0.06% ≤1 in @ 2 qt 12x ≤1 in @ 2 qt 12x 1 50% 8% 3.2 0.06% ≤1 in @ 2 qt 12x 1 ft @ 2 qt 1x 1 50% 8% 3.3 0.06% ≤1 in @ 1 qt 6x 1 ft @ 2 qt 1x 1 52% 20% 3.4 0.06% ≤1 in @ 1 qt 6x 6 in @ 1 qt 1x 1 75% 54% 4 0.06% ≤1 in @ 1 qt 6x 2 55% 62% 5 0.06% 1 ft @ 2 qt 1x 2 10% 24% 6 0.06% 6 in @ 1 qt 1x 2 55% 62% A 0.06% 6 in @ 2 qt 2x 2 10% 24% C 0.06% ≤1 in @ 2 qt 12x 2 10% 24% D 0.06% ≤1 in @ 1 qt 6x 2 55% 62% 7 0.03% 1 ft @ 2 qt 1/2x 2 55% 62% 8 0.03% 6 in @ 1 qt 1/2x 2 77% 81% 8B 0.03% 6 in @ 1 qt 1/2x 4 60 55% 83% 8B-1 0.03% 6 in @ 1 qt 1/2x 4 (Apr.1–Oct.31) 60 55% 89% 8B-2 0.03% 6 in @ 1 qt 1/2x 4 (Mar.1–Oct.31) 60 55% 87%

New CA Label Restrictions for Fipronil Products w/ perimeter spray use for general insect control

EPA Approved April 10, 2017: Termidor: www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/007969-00210-20170410.pdf Taurus: www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/053883-00279-20170410.pdf

California Restrictions

• Do not apply to garage door or driveway
• Do not apply between November 1st and February 28th
• Do not apply more than 4 times per year
• Do not re-apply at intervals less than 60 days
• Do not apply bandwidth more than 6 inches up/out from foundation
• Only use 0.03% dilution

CDPR Outreach: Professional Applicators

Continuing Education Workshops Training Demonstration

Placards for Applicators

Status

— Amended fipronil product labels are now entering the

CA marketplace

— New products must also comply — DPR and registrants are coordinating on outreach and

education materials for professional applicators

— Continue monitoring to see if actions are effective! — A great example of CA collaborative problem solving

paradigm

— Maintains fipronil in pest management toolbox

Additional Info:

Webpage - http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/index.htm

Contact: Nan Singhasemanon

Nan.Singhasemanon@cdpr.ca.gov 916-324-4122