SFIREG – EPA Region II Comments for EPA - Draft NPDES Pesticide Permit 

Scope of the Permit: 

• We believe EPA has accounted for all the products and use patterns that should fall under the 

scope of the court decision. It appears that the discussion of what constitutes “near” is not 

necessary as, in the context of the EPA Rule vacated by the court decision, near only refers to 

applications where the pesticide has to be applied over water to effectively target the pest, 

where a portion of the pesticides will “unavoidably” be deposited to waters. This should not 

include applications where the target pest is on land and the only way a residue may enter the 

water is by accidental drift. Applications up to and along the edge of waters, such as along 

roadsides, can “avoidably” be prevented from depositing in the water so that they should not 

fall under the scope. These would have to be considered under non-point source pollution. 

With land applications, there will be residues from runoff from applications greater than 

100 ft and those that occur up to the water’s edge and it will not be possible to make a 

distinction as to the source of the residues, whether it is non-point or point source pollution. 

• There is still much debate as to over what threshold, whether it is an total annual amount of 

pesticide applied or some total annual acreage treated, EPA will require a Notice of Intent 

(NOI) for NPDES permit coverage. Both have logistical problems as multiple applications in 

the same treated area over a period of time will repeatedly result in short-term residues, but 

these will dissipate before the next application, lessening the overall impact. One time 

large-scale applications are spread out over a wider area and may not necessarily have any 

more adverse impacts to non-target species beyond the treated area, especially with 

monocultures of invasive aquatic weeds. Pesticide labels have directions to limit the number 

of applications or not to exceed a total amount of product in a season. Labels also have 

Environmental Hazard statements to limit the potential for non-target impacts which serve as 

effective BAT. FIFRA already provides for BAT through the product registration process 

which already minimizes adverse incidents. The court decision does not analyze the 

relationship between CWA and FIFRA so there is still something to be said how FIFRA 

provides the necessary oversight for BAT. 

• Agricultural applications to water, i.e., cranberries, were discussed but not included in the 

“BAT-IPM Plan-Recordkeeping Nov 23.doc” document, provided by EPA. 

Comments on the EPA draft document “BAT-IPM Plan-Recordkeeping Nov 23.doc”: 

• It needs to be clear who decides, and who follows up on, what the effective amount and 

lowest number of applications is, in Section 2.0 (in italics below) of the BAT-IPM document. 

This is already accomplished through economic decisions made by the permitee and those 

responsible for the application. Pesticides are expensive. 

Section 2.0 Technology-Based Effluent Limitations: Minimize Pesticide Discharges into 

 Waters of the United States. 

 1. Use the effective amount of pesticide product per application and lowest 

 number of application per season necessary to control the target pest. 

• The two items from Section 2.0 (below in italics) are functionally already part of the FIFRA 

developed pesticide label directions necessary to achieve the target dosage rate. It would be 
more appropriate to simply state “Follow the label directions” for BAT. Anything beyond 

that may be superfluous. 

 2. Perform regular maintenance activities to minimize potential for leaks, spills, and 

 unintended/accidental release of pesticides from both pesticide containers and 

 application equipment to waters of the United States. 

 3. Calibrate and maintain equipment to ensure effective pesticide application and pest 

 control. 

• It needs to be clear who determines what the “action threshold” is for each target pest, and 

how that determination is to be made, in the BAT-IPM document. 

• It needs to be clear who determines the “effectiveness” of the treatment, and what this is 

based on, in the BAT-IPM document. 

• There are education requirements in the BAT-IPM document. Sounds like a good idea but in 

most cases permitees should not be the ones responsible for education. Training of 

applicators in pesticide safety and protecting the environment is already a component of State 

pesticide certification. Educating the public is the role of organizations such as Cooperative 

Extension, State agencies, and environmental commissions. 

• Having BAT requirements specified in each use patterns general permit should not 

automatically result in a requirement for reporting which would be onerous for everyone 

involved. Instead, each permitee should have documentation available that can be used to 

prove their compliance with the BAT if or when they are inspected. 

• It is unclear from the reporting and monitoring conditions what level of follow-up is required 

by states and in what time frame. 

Comments on IPM: 

• Some of the examples of IPM cited are appropriate, some are impractical and some aren’t 

IPM. Pest ID, using the lowest dosage rate for efficacy, and application timing are practical 

IPM activities. Calibration and maintenance of equipment may be BMPs but are not 

necessarily IPM. Alternative pest control methods are some important components of IPM 

but in many cases, with pest control in and around water, are not feasible. For nuisance 

aquatic plant control, weed harvesters are very expensive and result in a solid waste disposal 

problem. For larval mosquito control, water management and predator fish introduction 

require the hurdle of regulatory permits and are expensive, with government budgets 

currently very tight. Source reduction is also problematic. For aquatic plants and algae, 

eliminating septic systems by sewering and reducing fertilizer use by landowners are great 

ideas but out of the control of most permitees. Advocating the use of chemicals to reduce 

nutrients such as alum is a bad idea as they are not pesticides and should not be referenced in 

this manner. It might be better to not use the IPM acronym and instead develop a set of 

BATs for each use pattern which lists the minimum requirements needed for using the 

general permit. These would be a combination of common sense requirements such as 

maintenance and calibration pest ID and then more specific items on the timing of treatments 

for most efficacious results the lowest effective dosage rate and practical source reduction 

methods and alternative treatment protocols. This is often what is already achieved through 

FIFRA and economic decisions. 

• If the application does not result in residues that exceed a WQ standard, then do they get a 

pass on certain BAT or IPM? For NPDES, does all this kick in only if they violate an 
effluent limit? We have not seen what constitutes “Corrective Action” in the Draft General 

Permit. 

• It is likely that EPA will have very generic IPM requirements in a General Permit leaving the 

specifics for each NOI, which will be project specific and very burdensome on the states and 

permitees. It is not clear which State program (i.e., Pesticides, Water) will implement permit 

conditions, and follow up on reporting and monitoring. How will EPA determine what the 

appropriate level of detail is required in the BAT/IPM that each state implements? 

General Comments: 

• It is understood that there will be some short term non-target impacts, within the treated area, 

with any pesticide application, to achieve the necessary efficacy on the target pest. So how 

does one balance efficacy with minimizing non-target impacts when designing BAT? This is 

already predetermined through the oversight provided by FIFRA through product registration 

and efficacy data generated by the Registrant. Anything above or below the labeled 

application rate may be a violation of State regulations. 

• The court decision vacates the EPA rule in the context of “Pesticide residuals” or those 

portions of the pesticide that “remain in the water after the application and its intended 

purpose (elimination of targeted pests) have been completed.” This does not address at what 

point the intended purpose of a pesticide ends and at what point does it become a residue or a 

pollutant. 

• There is still much needed to define residues in the context of the concentration of pesticide 

needed for efficacy, relative to the breakdown time of the product. This will be product 

specific rather that based on a particular type or method of application. This does not 

account for products such as SONAR (fluridone) that require extended contact time with the 

target species, perhaps upwards of 30-60 days. The direct application of any pesticide for 

effect may exceed a water quality standard for a discreet time period, some much longer than 

others. 

• How does adverse effects monitoring, perhaps weeks after an application, provide a 

connection to the actual pesticide application? Product registration under FIFRA already 

provides adequate modeling for residues and adverse effects, based on use patterns. 

• Some herbicides take a long time to show efficacy. It would be very product specific as to 

what time to best monitor for efficacy and adverse effects. 

• Best Available Technology Economically Achievable. It has not been discussed how BAT 

economics fit in. It would be cost prohibitive to ask for certain types of monitoring or IPM 

planning for some lake associations and mosquito control districts. How is this 

determination made? On the quality of the resources potentially impacted? The scope of the 

project? The permitees ability to pay? Many of the public agencies that fall under the scope 

of this permit are already strapped for money. 

• The Notice of Intent filing requirement for the pesticide general permit should be limited to 

the "Service Requestor" (including agencies, land or lake managers, land owners) and not 

include the pesticide applicators, or a subset of applicators. The pesticide applicator is a 

specialist and may have a limited function within an overall pest control program. The 

applicator does not necessarily have a role in overall pest control planning, Integrated Pest 

Management planning, or in follow-up monitoring, unless he is specifically contracted by the 
Service Requestor to perform these functions. The lead responsibility for these elements of 

the overall permit resides with the Service Requestor. 

• It would be beneficial for EPA to allow states to use EPA’s e-NOI/posting system until states 

can build/update their own NOI systems. 

• The water quality requirement should clearly state that the standard applies to the residual 

after mixing zone for monitoring.