Draft Summary of Major Comments from the Dallas Meeting held Jan. 20-21, 2010 January 27, 2010 Page 1 of 7 Summary of Major Comments from EPA/Stat es Pesticides General Permit Meeting Dallas, Texas January 20-21, 2010

The following is a summary of major comments captured during the 2-day meeting EPA held with the States and Regions, regarding the curr ent thinking on the Pesticides General Permit (PGP). The discussion below is organized by pe rmit section, not necessarily in the order the topics were discussed during the face-to-face meeting.

Coverage Under This Permit – Section 1.0

Authorized Dischargers (Cover Page)

Attendees asked whether homeowne rs should be excluded or explic itly included for eligibility for coverage under the PGP. EPA stated that ho meowners would not be e xplicitly “called out” for coverage, but could file a noti ce of intent (NOI) if desired.

In addition, the group discussed whether farmers s hould also be included under the scope of the permit. Overall, the group agreed that incl uding homeowners and farmers would protect them from litigation and would broaden environmental protection, but there wa s fear the inclusion would result in a burden on the states, in reference to processing NOIs and conducting

enforcement activities.

Activities Covered (Section 1.1.1) EPA discussed the four categories eligible for co verage under the PGP, stating they are seeking feedback from attendees regardi ng if additional categories, not currently included in the PGP, should be considered. EPA also stated they ar e working to clarify the “Area-Wide and Ditch Bank Pest Control” category.

EPA explained that agricultural stormwater runoff (and irrigation return flow) is exempt under the Clean Water Act (CWA) but indicated that “ unavoidable” discharges of residue resulting from spraying of ditch banks would require pe rmit coverage. EPA’s explanation of the “AreaWide and Ditch Bank Pest Control” category also touched on the omission of “near” from the description of this categ ory. This launched a discussion regard ing the potential consideration of adding a fifth category, relating to terrestrial applications of pesticides to row crops. Initial feedback, through group discussion, implied the attendees wanted to see the addition of this category but when put to a vote, it appeared spli t (i.e., two-thirds agains t and one-third in favor of adding the new category).

EPA inquired if the attendees had a strong pr eference for deleting Sections 1.1.1 and 1.2.2 (the bullet list) and includin g only a threshold table; a consen sus was not reached but discussion

ensued.

Operators Required to Submit a Notice of Intent (Section 1.2.2) Many states indicated the thresh old values listed in Section 1 .2.2 should be re-evaluated (e.g., 15 miles appeared to be too low a value and should be raised). A brief list of additional comments regarding the threshold values in the Section 1.2.2 table follows:Draft Summary of Major Comments from the Dallas Meeting held Jan. 20-21, 2010 January 27, 2010 Page 2 of 7 • Clarify the definition of “Treatment Area” and “Water-Treatment Area,” and applicability of those areas to applicators;

• Include in the definition of “Treatment Ar ea” and “Water-Treatment Area,” relation to linear miles;

• Clarify what the trigger is (i.e ., exceedance of threshold in either column as opposed to an exceedance of threshold values in both columns)

• Clarify applicability of permit coverage to homeowners;

• Re-evaluate values in the table and consider raising thresholds;

• Provide justification/background for threshold values (are alternat e threshold values appropriate?);

• Clarify timeframe associated with threshold values;

• Define/clarify definition of “Annual” (i .e., calendar or ro lling 12 months);

• Most agreed that th e threshold values should be cumu lative amounts for a calendar year;

Note: a typographical edit was id entified in Section 1.1.1, third bu llet, include “and Ditch Bank”

in the bullet title.

Technology-Based Effluent Limitations – Section 2.0

Attendees provided comments in support of and so me suggestions for revisions to language in specific sections regarding the te chnology-based effluent limitations.

Some attendees agreed that Sections 2.1 through 2.3 were reasonable and practicable, while also strongly commenting against certain phrases. Fo r example, Steve Dwinell (FL) commented it was “ridiculous” to state (in Section 2.2.1.3.4): “Use larvacides as the primary pesticide for mosquito or aquatic nuisance ins ect control.” He followed up by st ating that very prescriptive statements were not recommended, because th ey would impose too many restrictions on applicators. He suggested the associated Fact Sheet for the PGP provide an explanation of why EPA desires larvacides as the primary pestic ide. Many attendees shar ed a similar opinion on such specific prescriptive statements specifically , the preference of using larvacides primarily, throughout the PGP.

Comments specific to wording/phra sing within Section 2.0 included:

• Section 2.1.1: “Use the lowest effective am ount of pesticide produc t...” Attendees asked

who decides what the lowest effective amount is.

o Attendees suggested replacing “optimu m (frequency)” with “minimum (frequency)”

o Jeff Schardt (FL) suggested possibly expanding 2.1.1 to include a statement similar to “...management of invasive sp ecies/aquatic weeds is to keep them at low levels” – the idea of ‘manage early and manage often’ and frequent but minimal applications

• Section 2.2., second bullet: “...but excluding fr om the calculation...” Attendees sought

clarification of what cal culation this referred to. (EPA clarified what this referred to and attendees accepted explanation)Draft Summary of Major Comments from the Dallas Meeting held Jan. 20-21, 2010 January 27, 2010 Page 3 of 7 • Section 2.2.1.1: “...for each treatment area ...” Attendees suggested refining that

statement.

• Section 2.2.1.2: Attendees re quested clarification of what “cultural methods” and “prevention” are.

• Bill Meredith (DE) suggested the following te xt revisions (underlined text indicates new text suggestions):

o Section 2.2.1.3.4: “Where practicable and effective, use larvacides as the primary pesticide for mosquito and aqua tic nuisance insect control.”

 Steve Dwinell (FL) suggested omitting “primary” from the above

statement.

o Section 2.2.1.3.5: “Use adulticides only wh ere the adult action threshold has been met and/or under emergency condition (e .g., flooding, disease outbreak); or when larvacides are not practicable for control ; and”

• Section 2.2.1.3.6: Attendees disagreed with the second portion of the statement.

• Section 2.2.3.3.6: Attendees requested clarification that “emergency condition” does not apply to only invasive sp ecies (as provided as an example parenthetically).

EPA agreed that language in Section 2, sp ecifically Sections 2.2, 2.2.1.2, 2.2.3.3.6, requires additional review and refinement.

Attendees expressed concern with the difficulty of enforcing an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Practices (Section 2.2). Atte ndees asked who would be responsible for implementing IPM, and how they would document implementation sufficiently to determine compliance with PGP requirements. Some attendees felt that IPM enfor cement is possible. Others commented that if it’s hard to identify/clarify who is responsib le for implementing IPM, then subsequent enforcement will be difficult. In addition, attendees noted the apparent di sconnect between larger applicators and smaller municipalities with respect to equal avai lability of IPM. EPA requested feedback from attendees regarding what they feelis achievable; what works and what doesn’t.

Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations – Section 3.0

Attendees asked EPA how the St ates’ requests for changes in Water Quality Standards (WQS) will be handled (e.g., may revise WQS to allow for temporary excursions of WQS, etc.). Attendees also asked how antidegra dation reviews/analyses fit into the PGP; who is responsible for completing (EPA clarified States are res ponsible for completing reviews) , and if EPA will provide States with guidance on how to complete antidegradation reviews. EPA indicated they believe the Fact Sheet will discuss requireme nts for completing antidegradation reviews.

Much of the discussion revolved around water qual ity monitoring practices, data available, and EPA’s need for data to support statements include d in current PGP (with respect to expectation that the PGP required practices will meet WQS) and add to th e administrative records. EPA noted that this similar approach is used in other General Permits issued by EPA (e.g., Vessel GP, MSGP, and Construction Stormwater GP). EPA noted they will provide States with a list of basic

data needs. Bill Jordan stated that EPA’s interest is in pesticide use data from States to support statements regarding WQBELs/WQS compliance.Draft Summary of Major Comments from the Dallas Meeting held Jan. 20-21, 2010 January 27, 2010 Page 4 of 7 Attendees expressed concern that groups (dur ing public review and comment period) will comment on the lack of ambient quality monitoring requirements in the PGP, but attendees acknowledged it does not seem feasible to require monitoring of all permittees, and information gathered by existing state monitoring programs ma y be of adequate qua lity to justify PGP requirements. Bill Jordan noted that EPA’s response to groups criticizing monitoring requirements will be that EPA has been working with States and information gathered indicates that States are already conducting necessary/u seful monitoring and are reviewing those data.

Compliance Monitoring – Section 4.0

Attendees noted the first statement under Sect ion 4.2 should be reworded, as not to imply immediate re-entry is required following application. EPA acknowle dged the need to review and revise the language in Section 4.2.

Multiple attendees commented on the definition of “Adverse incident” in Appendix A. Specifically, the second bullet, “The person or non-target organism suffered a toxic or adverse effect, or is reasonably likely to suffer a dela yed or chronic adverse effect in the future.” Attendees asked how applicators are able to assess the likelihood of a future effect.

Attendees also expressed concern that if additional requirements are linked to the use of specific products, the use of those products may be skewed (deter use and use of alternate products because of additional monitoring requirements).

In addition, the discussion revis ited the water quality data topic: the basis for EPA’s data requests, States’ existi ng monitoring programs.

Pesticide Discharge Manage ment Plan – Section 5.0

Attendees commented their biggest concerns with this section of the PGP are with the public availability of information required by th e PGP and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultations required for coverage under the PGP.

EPA indicated that requesting the permittees’ plan s, if requested by the public, would be the burden of EPA or the States, but the group ackno wledged that might be burdensome, if many requests are made. EPA noted that the third sentence in Section 5.3 will likely read, “EPA will provide access to your PDMP or portions of your PDMP to a member of the public upon request.”

EPA commented they currently have consultations underway regarding the ESA, but the

outcomes of ESA consultations with i ndividual permittees may be different.

Attendees asked, regarding Secti on 5.1.6, what other federal laws are required for compliance

with the PGP. This section is still under development, regarding what other federal laws are required (e.g., National Hist oric Preservation Act, Coast Guard rules, etc.).Draft Summary of Major Comments from the Dallas Meeting held Jan. 20-21, 2010 January 27, 2010 Page 5 of 7 Corrective Action – Section 6.0

Most of the attendees’ comments were in relation to reporting for adverse effects. Some attendees were under the impressi on that someone else may make a complaint and that would trigger an adverse effect report. Additionall y, some attendees also interpreted the 24-hour reporting requirement to mean 24 hours within the adverse effect, and not 24 hours from becoming aware of an adverse effect occurring. Attendees noted the 24 -hour notification period may not be feasible in some remote locations of pesticide application wher e it is not possible to contact anyone without the use of a specific technology (e.g., satelli te phone). Also, it was noted that some laboratories may not be able to turn around analyses within 14 days, as required by the

PGP. Some attendees commented that applicators may be reluctant to report an adverse effect if they expect additional requirements will be impo sed because of their report. EPA noted that

clarification of the defini tion of an adverse effect is required, possibly to include a timeframe or geographical area fo r reporting purposes.

Attendees also recommended reviewing the la nguage in Section 6.3.2 and Appendix B (B.12.E) for consistency. Also, attendees recommended consid ering deleting “release” from the first bullet

in Section 6.1.

Annual Reporting – Section 7.0

Attendees asked EPA whether Stat es are required to keep the re quirement for an Annual Report

in their version of the PGP. Attendees aske d if the requirement fo r an Annual Report is a duplicative effort of the NOI. States then as ked about the value/usef ulness of information reported in the Annual Report and recommended EPA consider expanding the information requested in the NOI to provide information sought from the Annual Report. Additionally, States raised concern that they lack resources to process and dutifully re view the Annual Reports. Overall, EPA acknowledged the need to evalua te the consistency be tween the information requested by the NOI, Annual Reports, and Recordkeeping requirements in the PGP.

Attendees suggested again that the PGP should reference the FIFRA label requirements. EPA commented they do not want to put in the FI FRA label requirements as permit limits, because that would require that these labels are noticed for public review and comment (EPA noted FIFRA label requirements change often), but EP A may want to add that the permittee cannot exceed amounts of the FIFRA label requirement.

Attendees suggested revising “p ests controlled” to “target pests controlled.” Attendees also suggested adding “number of acres treated” to the lis t of items required in the Annual Report.

Recordkeeping – Section 8.0

Attendees suggested some revi ew and revision, specifically:

• Check consistency between “Pest Management Log” and “Pesticide Management Log,” in the first bullet;

• Use terms already familiar to applicators (e.g., “records” as opposed to “logs”);Draft Summary of Major Comments from the Dallas Meeting held Jan. 20-21, 2010 January 27, 2010 Page 6 of 7 • Re-evaluate the statement, “For mosquito cont rol and aquatic nuisance insect control, if applicable, why larviciding is impractical...”

• Associate clear timeframes with recordkeeping requirements;

• Chuck Corell (IA) suggested reorganizing th e PGP requirements (i.e., NOI/application, IPM, monitoring, recordkeeping, etc.) to gr oup them according to threshold level, as opposed to grouping by permit requirement;

Attendees voiced their opinions against requir ing development/creation of something new, for practices that are already be ing conducted by applicators. Many attendees commented that current recordkeeping requireme nts would be burdensome to c onsolidate, even though most applicators would have such information alre ady recorded. Attendees asked who would be responsible for maintaining the Pesticide Ma nagement Log. There was question about who would be responsible for the recordkeeping if an entity hired a commercial applicator for pesticide application. Some noted the permittee would be responsible, but acknowledged the need to request information from a commercial applicator to maintain in their records.

Another concern was determining compliance wi th this requirement of the permit. Some discretion would be required in determining wh ether a permittee was sati sfying this section of the permit. Attendees suggested EPA consider reviewing agriculture de partments’ inspection requirements/criteria/evaluation systems (may provide documentation fo r verifying completion of various recordkeeping requirements).

Finally, attendees expressed concern whether th e records kept by the permittee would be public information; it may be burdensome to request and further, may be used by pesticide companies to generate marketing information.

Definitions (Appendix A)

• Improve/include definition of “public entity” and “public utility;”

• Include clear definition of “treatment area” and “water-treatment area;”

• Define “12-months” (e. g., calendar or rolling);

• Define “area-wide;”

• Define “action threshold;”

• Define “monitoring,” because it is not monito ring in the traditiona l sense of an NPDES permit;

• Reconsider if references to court cases are necessary in the definition of “Water Quality

Standards.” (Note: There may be a typo in this defin ition - the reference to the court case appears to be repeated within the definition)

Standard Conditions (Appendix B)

Attendees recommended EPA review Appendix B fo r consistency of terms and references (e.g., Section B.12.F). EPA acknowledged Appendix B will be reviewed and language refined.Draft Summary of Major Comments from the Dallas Meeting held Jan. 20-21, 2010 January 27, 2010 Page 7 of 7 Closing Statements

In closing, EPA requested suggestions for setti ng thresholds from the states. Attendees were interested in seeing the Fact Sh eet and the EPA rationale for se tting thresholds. A number of States mentioned that they do not currently have the authority to implement a general pesticides permit and the process to do so may take seve ral months. EPA would like to meet with any stakeholder groups for public outreach and education regarding the General Permit.