January 25, 2010 

Mr. Jack Faulk 

Water Permits Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA East (4203M) 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: EPA Draft General Permit for Discharges from Pesticide Applications 

EPA PGP Working Draft 011310 pm.doc 

Dear Mr. Faulk: 

 We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the Pesticide General Permit (PGP) 

Working Draft dated January 13, 2010. 

 We do not understand the Environmental Protections Agency’s (EPA’s) decisions not to 

appeal the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that vacated EPA’s Aquatic Pesticide Rule or to 

develop national effluent guideline standards in lieu of the general permit approach. We believe 

it will be hard, if not impossible, to implement the proposed Pesticide Application permitting in a 

timely manner because of existing staffing, resource, and budgetary constraints. Currently our 

State Legislature is in session crafting a State budget that projects a $400 million deficit at the 

end of State Fiscal Year 2011 (starting July 1, 2010). The State constitution requires that Kansas 

end the year with a balanced budget. This is on top of State government already having taken 3 

reductions during the course of the current State Fiscal Year (2010). Additional new significant 

workloads have been created in other permit program areas as well that will need to be addressed 

by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) States. An example is the 

implementation of the new Construction and Development Effluent Guideline Standards. 

Without new EPA funding or resources, neither of these activities can/will be implemented in a 

timely manner. Since EPA has not developed national regulations or effluent guideline standards 

addressing discharges from pesticide applications and it has been EPA’s stance the current 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) regulatory program was adequately 

addressing water quality protection, we would like for EPA to consider allowing States the 

freedom of developing their own general permits that may not reflect the scope and detail 

provided in the current PGP Working Draft. Our concern is that when the EPA Regional Offices 

review for approval the State developed pesticide general permits, the EPA Headquarters PGP 

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENT 

Bureau of Water – Industrial Programs Section 

CURTIS STATE OFFICE BUILDING, 1000 SW JACKSON ST., STE. 420, TOPEKA, KS 66612-1367 

Voice 785-296-5547 Fax 785-296-0086 Email dcarlson@kdheks.gov 
permit will be employed as a “checklist” for comparison purposes. Where the State general 

permit does not mirror in concept or detail the EPA Headquarters’ PGP, States will be expected 

to incorporate the same general requirements in some form. While the Court has ruled that 

discharges from pesticide applications requires NPDES permit coverage, the Court has left open 

the details of that permitting to EPA and the NPDES States i.e., use of best professional 

judgment (BPJ) in lieu of promulgated regulations or effluent guideline standards. 

 Was there ever consideration given for EPA Headquarters to simply issue these permits 

nationally (similar to the EPA Vessel General Permits), except for those states that desire to issue 

their own permits? Why shouldn’t this approach be considered? 

 In the event EPA determines they can’t or won’t issue their PGP nationally, states should 

be allowed the flexibility to issue their state PGP by rule. 

 On the permit cover page, there is a comment indicating the item is intended to exclude 

homeowners from coverage under this permit. Is it EPA’s intent to exempt the individual 

homeowner from the need to secure an NPDES permit or to require that an individual NPDES 

permit in lieu of the GPG be employed? Without regulations or effluent guideline standards in 

play, if it is EPA’s intent to exempt individual homeowners from NPDES permitting, the cover 

page should clearly detail this and any other exemptions that are intended. 

 1.1.1; first paragraph; third line: There appears to be some extra unneeded text i.e., “... 

which leave a ...”. 

 1.1.2.1: Regarding the comment on what happens when a waterbody becomes impaired 

after coverage by the GPG has been obtained, we suggest the permit remain in effect and the 

permitting authority issue an administrative action either terminating the activity, or continuing 

coverage under the GPG only if the permittee agrees to additional requirements, provisions, or 

controls needed to address whatever the specific situation involves. If the permittee does not 

agree to the requirements in the administrative action, they would have to cease operations and 

go through the individual permit process that could take 2-3 months. It would be their call. 

 1.1.2.2: There is a major flaw and unintended consequence resulting from EPA’s 

decision not to challenge the Court’s ruling. By definition we are issuing NPDES permits 

because there will be a discharge of pollutants from a point source to Water of the United States. 

Under the current water quality standards provisions, it has been an absolute stance by EPA that 

there shall be no discharge of new or increased pollutants to Tier 3 Waters. As such, neither an 

individual permit nor a general permit can be issued for this purpose. As such, use of pesticides 

in, over, or near Tier 3 Waters could not be allowed, from a water quality standpoint whether the 

intent is to address an invasive species or prevent/address a public health threat. I don’t believe 

the definition provided in Appendix A for a “Declared Emergency Situation” can be employed to 

override the current position EPA has already staked out regarding degradation of Tier 3 Waters. 

 2.1.2: The permit should elaborate on what EPA expects the maintenance activities to 

include, if there are established industry accepted practices. 

 All of 2.2: If the documentation of integrated pest management practices is already being 

required as a part of the FIFRA regulatory program, then those provisions are acceptable. If the 

documentation of the integrated pest management practices is only a requirement for this PGP, I 

see this as being good information, but in the real world will constitute a significant amount of 
paperwork on the part of the permittee and paperwork that NPDES States won’t have time to 

routinely review to any degree. The required paperwork will generate “documentation 

violations” from EPA compliance inspections. The paperwork would provide good evidence if 

pesticide misuse creates environmental problems or damage. With current State workloads, this 

paperwork would only be utilized for investigations of pesticide misuse or misapplication. Some 

credence should be given to pesticide applicator licensing by federal and/or state pesticide 

licensing programs. 

 4.1: The permittee either needs a checklist form or a detailed listing as to what EPA 

expects to be documented, otherwise this will lead to second-guessing between inspectors and 

permittees as to what should have been documented. 

 All of 5.0: If the documentation of a pesticide discharge management plan is already 

being required as a part of the FIFRA regulatory program, then these provisions are acceptable. 

If the documentation of the pesticide discharge management plan is only a requirement for this 

PGP, I see this as being desirable, but in the real world will constitute a significant amount of 

paperwork on the part of the permittee and paperwork that NPDES States won’t have time to 

routinely review to any degree. The paperwork will generate “documentations violations” from 

EPA compliance inspections. The paperwork would provide evidence if pesticide misuse creates 

environmental problems or damage. With current State workloads, this paperwork would only 

be utilized for investigations of misuse or misapplication. Some credence should be given to 

pesticide applicator licensing by federal and/or state pesticide licensing programs. 

 7.0 and 8.2: Requiring the submission of the 8-digit HUC identifier, if known is 

acceptable, but I would expect few operators/permittees to be able to provide this information. 

 Appendix F: NOI Form: Regarding the comment as to how to address the “multiple 

location” concept where decisions may be made at the corporate office with the pest control 

being performed in the field offices, the permit should make a single entity/person responsible 

for the entire operations oversight. That entity/person needs to have day-to-day responsibility 

and working knowledge regarding application activities conducted by the company. A single 

“designated felon” needs to be established. 

 Miscellaneous: EPA needs to consider placing requirements in the PGP addressing 

equipment cleaning along with the handling and disposal of the wash water and/or unused 

pesticides from the applicator(s). 

 Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to give me a call at 

(785) 296-5547. 

 Sincerely, 

 Donald R. Carlson, P.E., Chief 

 Industrial Programs Section 

 Bureau of Water