## NPDES **Permits for the Application**  **of Pesticides**

**to Waters of the United States** 

Allison Wiedeman Office of Water, US EPA **August, 2009** 

# Outline
 **Overview of EPA’s National Pollutant**  **Discharge Elimination Sy** **stem (NPDES)**  **Pesticides Rule** 

##  **6 th**  

## Circuit Court’s decision


##  **Plans to develop General Permits for Aquatic**  **Pesticide applications**

### Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States

**in Compliance w ith**  **FIFRA –**  **Final Rule**

**November 27, 2006**
 **The application of a pesticide to w aters of the United States consistent**  **wi th**  **all relev ant**  **requirements under FIFRA d**  **oes not constitute the discharge of a pollutant that requires an NPDES permit in the follow**  **ing tw**  **o circumstances:**  **1.The application of pesticides directly to**  **wa ters of the United States in**  **order to control pests. Examples of such applications include applications to control mosquito larv** **ae, aquatic w**  **eeds, or other pests that are present**  **in w aters of the United States; and**  **2.The application of pesticides to control pests that are present ov** **er wa**  **ters of the United Sates, including near**  **such w aters, w**  **here a portion of the pesticides w**  **ill unav** **oidably be deposited to w**  **aters of the United States in order to target the pests effectiv** **ely; for example w**  **hen insecticides are**  **aerially applied to a forest canopy w here**  **wa ters of the United States may**  **be present below t**  **he canopy or w hen**  **pesticides are applied ov er**  **or near wa**  **ter for control of adult mosquitoes or other pests.** 

### Litigation **on Final Rule**



###  **Petitions for review w**  **ere filed in 11 Circuit Courts.**  

###  **The petitions w ere**  **consolidated in the 6 th**  

### Circuit **Court of Appeals ( National Cotton Council, et al.**  **v. EPA). On January**  **7, 2009 the 6 th**  

### Circuit Court issued a **decision.**

### 6 **th** 

### Circuit’s Decision 

###  **January 7**  **, 2009 the Court held that:** 

###  **The final rule w as**  **not a reasonable interpretation of the CWA and vacated the rule.**  

###  **The Court held that NPDES permits are required for:**  **(1) All biological pesticide applications that are**  **made in or over, including near w**  **aters of the U.S.**  **(2) Chemical pesticide applications that leave a residue or excess**  **pesticide in w ater**  **wh en**  **such applications are made in or over, including**  **near wa**  **ters of the U.S.**

### Response to Court’s Decision  **On April 9 th**  **the U.S. Government filed a Motion**  **for Stay of**  **the Mandate**  **for a period of tw o**  **ye ars.**   **The Court has granted**  **EPA’s request to stay**  **until April 2011**  **The tw o**  **ye ars w**  **ill provide EPA time to develop, propose**  **and issue final NPDES general permits**  **for unauthorized NPDES states,**  **territories and tribes**  **for pesticide applications**  **covered under the decision and to provide**  **outreach and education**  **to the regulated and**  **environmental communities.**  **During the stay , EPA w**  **ill wo**  **rk closely**  **w ith**  **NPDES authorized**  **States to develop their**  **general permits**  **concurrent wi**  **th the development of EPA’s general**  **permits to expedite**  **implementation.**

### Implications **of 6 th**  

### Circuit’s Decision

 **Irrigation return flow s**  **and agricultural runoff w ill**  **not require NPDES permits as they are specifically exempted from the CWA**  **.**  **At l**  **east the follow ing**  **large categories are cov ered**  **by Court’s decision wh**  **en sprayed**  **to, ov er,**  **or near w aters of the U.S:**   **Mosquito larv icides;**   **Mosquito adulticides;**  **Herbicides used to control w eeds**  **in lakes and ponds;**  **Herbicides used to control w eeds**  **in irrigation systems and other**  **wa ter**  **wa ys;**   **Herbicides used to control w eeds**  **along ditch banks in agricultural drainage systems;**   **Insecticides used in w ide**  **- area insect suppression programs;**   **Herbicides used in w ide**  **- area control programs directed at aquatic**  **inv asiv** **e plant species;**   **Herbicides, insecticides and other pesticides used in forestry programs w**  **hen applied ov** **er w aters of the U.S.**   **Products applied to kill fish, mussels, or other inv asiv** **e aquatic**  **species Example: Aerial**  **Mosquito Control Example: Weed and Insect Control Near Water** **Example: Direct Application to Water for Aquatic Pests Ag**  **ricultural Stormw**  **ater; Exempt by**  **S tatute** **Irrigation Return Flow**  **; Exempt by**  **S tatute** **Example: Off -**  **Target Spray Drift. Not covered by 2006 Rule** 

### Implications **of 6 th**  

### Circuit’s Decision



#  **OPP estimates that approximately 5.6 million such applications**  **annually are performed by 365,000 applicators for**  **these types of pesticide uses.** 

#  **500 different pesticide active**  **ingredients are contained in**  **approximately 3,700 product labels.** 

# Implementation  **EPA’s General Permit w ill**  **cover pesticide applications in AK, MA, ID, NH, and NM**  

###  **During the stay , EPA w**  **ill wo**  **rk closely** **wi th**  **the 46 NPDES**  **authorized States to concurrently d**  **evelop their general permits.**  

###  **Will provide outreach and education to the regulated**  **and environmental communities.** 

###  **Since the court decision, EPA has been review ing**  **the 23 existing state pesticide application permits,**  **initiated data gathering,**  **scoped out a road map for developing the NPDES permits.** 

# State Regulatory Workgroup  **Purpose: To exchange information during the permit**  **development processes, and to facilitate simultaneous general permit development for EPA**  **and the states**


###  **Members: Reps from the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution**  **Control Agencies (ASIWPCA) and the**  **American Association of Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO)** 


###  **Meet via conference call every 4**  **– 6 w**  **eeks**

# Schedule

2 mo. 8 mo.

8 mo. 4 mo.

# General Permit Prototype

 **Purpose: “reality check” prior to formal proposal**  

###  **For: One for mosquitocides, and one for herbicides** 

**to lakes and ponds** 

###  **When:** 

###  **Available to state WG in late summer, 2009** 

###  **Available to PPDC (EPA FACA) in October, 2009**  

###  **How :**  **No formal public comment or response, rather** 

**wi ll**  **receive input to improve the proposal** 

###  **Next Steps: w ill apply**  **lessons learned to remaining**

**6 pesticide use categories**

# General Permits

 **General Permit**  **1 permit issued per state**  **many applications**  **submitted**  **Appropriate wh**  **ere** 

###  **multiple, similar sources (e.g.,**  **same category or similar process) w**  **ithin the same**  **geographic area require permit coverage** 

###  **sources have similar discharges and w ould**  **require the same or similar permit conditions**

# Process for GP Coverage  **Permittee must complete an electronic form called “Notice of Intent” (NOI)** 


###  **Information required in an NOI**  

###  **Area of coverage** 

###  **Sources covered** 

###  **Address of permittee**


###  **Submit NOI and coverage begins** 


###  **Covered for 5 y ears** 

# Issues to be Considered

 **Who must apply f** **or the Pesticides permit?**


##  **What will be required in a permit?** 

##  **Effluent Limitations ?**  

##  **Water Quality S**  **tandards?** 

##  **Monitoring?** 

##  **Reporting?**


##  **Others?**

# Questions ?