AAPCO: 1999 Pesticide Drift Enforcement Survey Results

AAPCO
1999 Pesticide Drift Enforcement Survey

November 30, 1999 -- Tel. 651/297-4872

To: Ned Zuelsdorff; President, AAPCO, and All State Lead Agencies / Pesticide Enforcement Programs

From: Paul Liemandt; AAPCO Committee on Off Target Movement of Pesticides

Subject: 1999 AAPCO PESTICIDE DRIFT ENFORCEMENT SURVEY REPORT

This is the second Drift Survey Report and the followup to the 1996 AAPCO Pesticide Drift Enforcement Survey.

This Report and the questions included were modeled in large part after the 1996 Survey/Report. However, certain modifications to some questions, addition of new questions, and deletion of other questions was done to hopefully produce more consistent and uniform data, current information, and information helpful to ongoing discussions regarding drift minimization and regulatory/enforcement response.

This Report is being provided to the State and Territorial Lead Pesticide Regulatory Agencies and to other interested parties, via the AAPCO Web Site, which can be found at:

http://aapco.ceris.purdue.edu

The Report is available in parts:

I. The Survey Report

- Tabulated data, and graphs/tables

- Comments on Survey Request, Methods, Participants, Strengths & Limitations of Data, Recognition of Team

II. Survey Specimen

III. "State by State Data", Responses to Each Survey Question

Questions or comments can be directed to me, at:

Compliance & Enforcement Section, APPD
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
90 West Plato Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55107

or eMail at: Paul.Liemandt@state.mn.us

1999 AAPCO Pesticide Drift Enforcement Survey

I. Survey Request:

AAPCO was asked by the National Coalition to Minimize Drift, as it was originally requested in 1996, to conduct a "Drift Survey" of the State Pesticide Regulatory Lead Agencies. Additionally, staff within the US Environmental Protection Agency working on pesticide product registration, label improvement, and specifically, drift related issues also expressed interest in data available thru a followup Survey

II. Methods:

Members of the AAPCO Committee on Off Target Movement of Pesticides cooperatively developed the questions for this 1999 Survey. Important input from members of the National Coalition to Minimize Drift, USEPA staff, and in particular, Karen Heisler, USEPA Region 9, contributed to the drafting of appropriate and desired questions.

Comments received as a result of conducting the first 1996 Survey were relied upon in decisions to include same or similar questions, or alternatively, in asking a question in a significantly different way. Finally, questions were (hopefully) drafted so as to be most amenable to data base input and reporting.

III. Participation:

All State Lead Pesticide Regulatory Agencies (SLAs), the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico participated by offering individual data. The Virgin Islands was sent a survey but did not respond. This is a vast and significant improvement over the partial SLA participation in the 1996 Survey.

SLAs reported again that substantial expenditure of staff time and other resources were necessary in order to complete the Survey. Fortunately, since 1996, many SLAs have implemented data bases which seemingly make the retrieval and reporting of data associated with drift complaints much easier, accessible, and consistent with developing an ability to answer questions similar to those asked in the 1996 Survey.

IV. Strengths & Limitations:

[Note: Many of the following comments are the same as were offered in regard to the 1996 Survey.]

States answered questions "as best they could".
Individual states (SLAs) accept, investigate and enforce pesticide drift complaints in many different ways.
SLAs have varying data base systems for recording drift complaint and enforcement data.
Definitions, data entry, design of data bases, and data utilization varies significantly among the SLAs.
Some states offered complete answers/data to all questions; some states offered only partial responses to some or all of the Survey questions.
Some questions produced insufficient data, or such variability in the answers/data, so as to render tabulation difficult, impossible, or meaningless. In these instances a reader will have to review the "State by State Data" in order to obtain details.
Questions # 12 and # 16 had insufficient data to reach conclusion(s). However, state by state report is available; SEE, "State by State Data".
The graphs, etc. in some instances do not exactly match the data in the associated tables; consolidation of some data was done to accommodate ease of presentation.
The data reflects 53 Surveys; please be informed one (1) survey was not returned and that data defaults as a "false" or a "no" to certain questions.

V. Recognition of Team:

The 1999 AAPCO Survey, Interim Report, and this final Report resulted from the hard work and voluntary efforts of the following MN Department of Agriculture staff:

Sharon Emert, Lead Administrative & Clerical; Roger Mackedanz, Lead Data Management & Reporting; John Hines, Graphics; Alice Waller, Data Base Reports, and other MDA Staff.

AAPCO 1999

1. How many drift complaints did your agency (1) receive, (2) evaluate and dismiss, and (3) field investigate in the following years?

Year	(1) Total Number Of Drift Complaints Received	(2) Total Number Of Drift Complaints Evaluated And Dismissed	(3) Total Number of Drift Complaints Field Investigated
1996:	2583	511	2410
1997:	2450	459	2292
1998:	2562	436	2313
TOTAL	7595	1406	7015

1999 Drift Survey Question
1 Graph

2. How many of your agency’s drift investigations (1) were not confirmed for pesticide involvement and closed, (2) were confirmed for pesticide involvement and no action was taken, and (3) were confirmed for pesticide involvement and regulatory/enforcement actions were taken?

Year	(1) Complaints Not Confirmed	(2) Confirmed/No Action Taken	(3) Confirmed Regulatory/Enforcement Actions Taken
1996:	633	850	808
1997:	724	537	968
1998:	785	687	742
Total	2142	2074	2518

1999 Drift Survey Question
2 Graph

3. Of the confirmed drift occurrences in question #2 above, for both (2) and (3), in how many instances were you able to determine a responsible party?

	(2) Confirmed/No Action Taken	(3) Confirmed Regulatory/Enforcement Actions Taken
Year
1996:	382	774
1997	355	907
1998:	396	787
TOTAL	1133	2468

1999 Drift Survey Question
3 Graph

4. How many of the drift complaints investigated and confirmed were for adverse effects to the following? ["Adverse Effects" means exceedences of label or state regulatory thresholds - economic damage, environmental harm, endangerment or probability of human bodily harm or death, regulatory residue tolerances, etc.]

	Agricultural Crops	Lawns and Gardens	Trees and Ornamentals	Humans Occupational Non-Occupational		Endangered or Threatened Species	Livestock	Domestic Animals/ Wildlife	Aquatic Ecosystem (Fish, Vegetation, or Other Aquatic Organisms)
Year
1996:	409	297	233	32	167	1	13	19	38
1997	310	236	271	16	159		21	34	19
1998:	420	210	268	10	136	2	7	21	24
TOTAL	1139	743	772	58	462	3	41	74	81

1999 Drift Survey Question
4 Graph

5. How many of the confirmed drift occurrences involved pesticide applications to the following targets?

	Agricultural Crops	Lawns and Gardens	Trees / Ornamentals	Road Right-of-Ways	Utility Right-of-Ways	Railroad Right-of-Ways	Structures	Other
Year
1996:	756	100	48	33	15	12	8	66
1997	614	90	55	51	10	10	13	52
1998:	722	99	56	39	15	11	6	39
TOTAL	2092	289	159	123	40	33	27	157

1999 Drift Survey Question
5 Graph

6. How many of the total drift complaints (1) received and (2) confirmed were reported by the following?

	Urban Residents (1) (2)		Rural Residents (1) (2)		Residents of Recently Developed, Former Farm Land (1) (2)		Another Government Agency (1) (2)		Another Applicator (1) (2)		Anonymous or other Tip (1) (2)		Other (1) (2)
Year
1996:	391	242	816	261	45	30	26	15	27	22	20	9	67	35
1997	365	234	715	329	26	18	30	20	23	12	19	9	72	42
1998:	392	195	807	279	38	25	50	15	22	10	19	9	45	26
TOTAL	1148	671	2338	869	109	73	106	50	72	44	58	24	184	103

1999 Drift Survey Question
6 Graph

7. How many of the total drift complaints (1) received and (2) confirmed were associated with applications made by the following?

Commercial Licensed Applicators (for hire)
(1) (2)

Non-Commercial Applicators (in-house business; government)
(1) (2)

Certified Private Applicators (farmers, growers)
(1) (2)

Uncertified or Unlicensed Applicators
(1) (2)

Other
(1) (2)

Unknown (1) (2)

Year

1996:

1080

724

118

246

140

1997

783

532

151

272

180

1998:

895

618

112

277

137

104

TOTAL

2758

1874

381

215

795

457

234

127

253

1999 Drift Survey Question
7 Graph

8. How many of the total drift complaints (1) received and (2) confirmed involved application by the following method?

	Aerial (1) (2)		Ground (1) (2)		Air Blast (1) (2)		Hand-Held Sprayer (1) (2)		Chemigation (1) (2)		Other (1) (2)
Year
1996:	630	342	681	338	30	11	178	91	2	2	71	30
1997	591	280	706	445	48	17	226	88	8	3	50	12
1998:	820	378	643	365	47	21	220	72	11	3	55	18
TOTAL	2041	1000	2030	1148	125	49	624	251	21	8	176	60

1999 Drift Survey Question
8 Graph

List the five (5) pesticide active ingredients most commonly confirmed by your agency in regards to drift complaints.

AAPCO Survey - Pesticides Reported in 1996

PESTICIDE	1^st Most Common	2^nd Most Common	3^rd Most Common	4^th Most Common	5^th Most Common	TOTAL
2,4-D	17	6	4	1	1	29
Acephate				1		1
Alachlor			1			1
Ambush					1	1
Atrazine	2	4	2	1		9
Azinphos-M	1			1		2
Bifenthrin			2			2
Bromoxynil			1		1	2
Carbaryl		1				1
Chlorothalonil				1		1
Chlorpyrifos	1	1	1		1	4
Clomazone		2		1	1	4
Clopyralid					1	1
Copper	1		1		1	3
Cyanazine				1		1
Cyfluthrine		1				1
Cyhalothrin	1			1		2
DDT					1	1
Diazinon				1		1
Dicamba		1	6	3	1	11
Dimethoate					2	2
Dimilin			1			1
Disulfoton			1			1
Diuron		1	1			2
Dormant Oil					1	1
EBDC		1				1
Endosulfan				1		1
Fenoxaprop					1	1
Glyphosate	5	6	3	3	3	20
Horticulture Oil	1					1
Imazapyr			1		1	2
Imazaquin				1		1
Kelthane		1				1
Lindane	1					1

AAPCO Survey - Pesticides Reported in 1996

PESTICIDE	1^st Most Common	2^nd Most Common	3^rd Most Common	4^th Most Common	5^th Most Common	TOTAL
Malathion	1		1			2
MCPA					1	1
Methamidophos	1					1
Methomyl				1		1
Methyl Parathion	1				1	2
Metolachlor	1				1	2
Metsulfuron			1		1	2
1-Naphthalenea-cetic Acid			1			1
Oxamyl			1	2		3
Paraquat	1	1	2	3		7
Pendimethalin	1			1		2
Picloram		1		3		4
Propanil				1	2	3
Quinclorac		1				1
Simazine		1				1
Spray Oil			1			1
Sulfonylurea		1		1		2
Sulfur		1				1
Thifensulfuron					1	1
Triasulfuron					1	1
Tribufos	1			1		2
Triclopyr					2	2
Trifluralin		1				1
Triforine		1				1

AAPCO Survey - Pesticides Reported in 1997

PESTICIDE	1^st Most Common	2^nd Most Common	3^rd Most Common	4^th Most Common	5^th Most Common	TOTAL
2,4-D	14	8	4	2		28
Acephate					1	1
Acetochlor					1	1
Atrazine	1		1	1	1	4
Azinphos-M	1	1				2
Carbaryl	1				1	2
Carbofuran		1				1
Chlorothalonil			1			1
Chlorpyrifos		2	1	1	1	5
Clomazone	4	3	1	2	1	11
Copper			1		1	2
Cyanazine		1		1		2
Cypermethrin				1		1
Diazinon	1			4		5
Dicamba	1	1	4	2	3	11
Dimethenamid			1			1
Dimethoate	2					2
Diuron		2				2
Ethephon				1		1
Fenoxaprop					1	1
Fomesafen				1		1
Glyphosate	5	6	4	5	1	21
Horticulture Oil	1					1
Imazapyr			1		2	3
Imazaquin			1			1
Kelthane	1					1
Lambda Cyfluthtin	1			2		3
Malathion	1	3	2			6
MCPP				1		1
Methoxychlor			1			1
Methyl Parathion	1					1
Metolachlor		1	1			2
Metribuzin		1				1
Metsulfuron			1		1	2
Oil Manex				1		1
Paraquat	2	1	4	1	1	9
Parathion		1				1

AAPCO Survey - Pesticides Reported in 1997

PESTICIDE	1st Most Common		2nd Most Common	3rd Most Common		4th Most Common	5^th Most Common	TOTAL
Pendimethalin							1	1
Permethrin	1						1	2
Picloram	1				2	1		4
Primisulfuron						1		1
Prosulfuron						1		1
Sulfonylurea						1	1	2
Sulfur		1						1
Tempo					1			1
Thifensulfuron Methyl							1	1
Tribufos	1	1				1		3
Triclopyr	1				1		1	3
Trifluralin					1			1
Vapam							1	1

AAPCO Survey - Pesticides Reported in 1998

PESTICIDE	1^st Most Common	2^nd Most Common	3^rd Most Common	4^th Most Common	5^th Most Common	TOTAL
2,4-D	14	6	4	2		26
3-way				1		1
Acephate					2	2
Acetochlor				1	2	3
Atrazine	1	1	3	2	2	9
Bayleton			1			1
Captan		1				1
Carbaryl	2					2
Carbofuran		1				1
Chlorothalonil		1	1			2
Chlorpyrifos				2	1	3
Clomazone				1		1
Clopyralid			1			1
Copper		1	1	1		3
Cyanazine			1			1
Cyfluthrine	1					1
Desmedipham				1		1
Diazinon		1	1			2
Dicamba	2	1	3	2	1	9
Dimethoate					1	1
Diquat					1	1
Diuron	1					1
EBDC			1	1		2
Ethephon					1	1
Fenoxaprop					1	1
Glyphosate	6	8	4	5	2	25
Guthion	2			1		3
Horticulture Oil	1					1
Imazapyr	1	1		1	1	4
Lambda Cyfluthrin		1				1
Malathion	1	2	3	2		8
MCPP					1	1
Methomyl			1			1
Methoxychlor			1	1		2
Metolachlor		1	1			2
Molinate				1		1
Paraquat	2	1	2		2	7
Pendimethalin			1	3	1	5

AAPCO Survey - Pesticides Reported in 1998

PESTICIDE	1^st Most Common	2^nd Most Common	3^rd Most Common		4^th Most Common	5^th Most Common	TOTAL
Phenoxy Like		1					1
Picloram		1		2		1	4
Paraquat	2	1		2		2	7
Pendimethalin				1	3	1	5
Phenoxy Like		1					1
Picloram		1		2		1	4
Quinclorac	1				1		2
Sethoxydim		1					1
Simazine		1					1
Stam						1	1
Sulfonylurea		1			1		2
Sulfur		1					1
Thifensulfuron						2	2
Thiodan		1					1
Triasulfuron						1	1
Tribufos	1						1
Triclopyr				1		1	2

10. How many of the following enforcement actions were taken for confirmed occurrences of pesticide drift? [NOTE: Enforcement actions are often concluded in subsequent years, and some actions may be open or pending. Simply report actions taken/concluded in each year.]

	Written Warning	Administ-rative Hearing	Administrative Penalty or Penalty Settlement (imposed by Agency)	Civil Penalty (imposed by Court)	Criminal Fine/Penalty	Referral to US EPA	License Suspension/ Revocation	Other
Year
1996:	442	20	245	13	5	7	19	54
1997	548	34	245	28		10	12	46
1998:	450	22	228	13	1	8	12	49
TOTAL	1440	76	718	54	6	25	43	149

1999 Drift Survey Question
10 Graph

11. How many of the actions detailed in Question #10 involved repeat drift offenders?

	Written Warning	Administ-rative Hearing	Administrative Penalty or Penalty Settlement (imposed by Agency)	Civil Penalty (imposed by Court)	Criminal Fine/Penalty	Referral to US EPA	License Suspension/ Revocation	Other
Year
1996:	58	9	69	5		1	10	14
1997	58	9	63	4		1	3	7
1998:	64	9	45	1		1	2	7
TOTAL	180	27	177	10		3	15	28

12. How often does your state require training for the following categories of applicators?

Question 12 had insufficient data to reach conclusion(s).

13. What is the percentage (best estimate) of annual total drift occurrences which are reported to your agency?

1999 Drift Survey Question
13 Graph

14. Does your state have definitions of the following in statute or other regulation?

Pesticide Drift Yes 13 No 40

Buffer Zone Yes 5 No 48

Adverse Effect(s) Yes 13 No 40

Due Diligence (of Applicators) Yes 5 No 48

15. Does your state consider a positive detection of pesticide outside a target area confirmation of pesticide drift?

Yes 41 No 12

16. What standard or amount of detection is necessary for your agency to issue an enforcement response? Insufficient answers to reach a conclusion.

17. What methodology(s) or protocol(s) does your agency use to confirm pesticide drift?

Examination of Alleged Site & Affected Plant Tissue	T 49	F 4
Drift Cards	T 15	F 38
Laboratory Results of Field Samples:
Pesticide Residue	T 51	F 2
Visual Examination of Plant Tissue	T 43	F 10
Statements of Witnesses	T 45	F 8
Medical and/or Laboratory Results
Human and Animal Exposures	T 44	F 9
Applicator Records	T 47	F 6

18. Does your agency currently consult with the insurance industry in your state in regard to drift occurrences/damages - injuries?

Yes 4 No 49

19. Does your state law require that insurance companies report drift damage or injury claims to the state lead pesticide regulatory agency?

Yes 2 No 51

20. Does your agency have authority to assess fees for costs incurred in investigating complaints of drift damage?

Yes 11 No 42

If your agency has such authority, does your agency utilize it?

Yes 6 No 47

21. How many of the enforcement actions taken by your agency for drift violations were for violations of the following?

	1996	1997	1998
Label Use Directions	429	148	204
State Pesticide Drift Regulations/Prohibitions	554	142	214
Both of the above	466	106	184

22. Does your state have explicit, general, or no regulatory language prohibiting pesticide drift?

Explicit Prohibition	T 12	F 41
General Prohibition	T 23	F 30
No State Statute or other Regulation Prohibiting Pesticide Drift	T 18	F 35

23. If your state has no state regulations prohibiting pesticide drift, does your agency rely on US EPA registered label language for enforcement authority in regard to drift violations?

Yes 33 No 20

24. Have other environmental laws or regulations in your state been utilized as authority for taking enforcement action(s) in regard to drift occurrences in your state? If so, please comment and detail.

Yes 9 No 44

Pesticide Drift	Yes 13	No 40
Buffer Zone	Yes 5	No 48
Adverse Effect(s)	Yes 13	No 40
Due Diligence (of Applicators)	Yes 5	No 48