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/States 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 current thinking on the Pesticides General Permit 

(PGP). The discussion below is organized by permit 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 homeowners should be excluded or explicitly included for eligibility 

for coverage under the PGP. EPA stated that homeowners would not be explicitly “called out” 

for coverage, but could file a notice of intent (NOI) if desired. 

In addition, the group discussed whether farmers should also be included under the scope of the 

permit. Overall, the group agreed that including homeowners and farmers would protect them 

from litigation and would broaden environmental protection, but there was 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 coverage under the PGP, stating they are seeking 

feedback from attendees regarding if additional categories, not currently included in the PGP, 

should be considered. EPA also stated they are 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 permit 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 category. This launched a discussion regarding 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 split (i.e., two-thirds against and one-third in favor 

of adding the new category). 

EPA inquired if the attendees had a strong preference for deleting Sections 1.1.1 and 1.2.2 (the 

bullet list) and including only a threshold table; a consensus was not reached but discussion 

ensued. 

Operators Required to Submit a Notice of Intent (Section 1.2.2)

Many states indicated the threshold 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 Area” 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 alternate threshold values 

appropriate?); 

• Clarify timeframe associated with threshold values; 

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

• Most agreed that the threshold values should be cumulative amounts for a calendar year; 

Note: a typographical edit was identified in Section 1.1.1, third bullet, include “and Ditch Bank” 

in the bullet title.

Technology-Based Effluent Limitations – Section 2.0 

Attendees provided comments in support of and some suggestions for revisions to language in 

specific sections regarding the technology-based effluent limitations. 

Some attendees agreed that Sections 2.1 through 2.3 were reasonable and practicable, while also 

strongly commenting against certain phrases. For 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 insect control.” He followed up by stating that very prescriptive 

statements were not recommended, because they 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 pesticide. Many attendees shared a similar opinion on 

such specific prescriptive statements specifically, the preference of using larvacides primarily, 

throughout the PGP. 

Comments specific to wording/phrasing within Section 2.0 included: 

• Section 2.1.1: “Use the lowest effective amount of pesticide product...” Attendees asked 

who decides what the lowest effective amount is. 

o Attendees suggested replacing “optimum (frequency)” with “minimum 

(frequency)” 

o Jeff Schardt (FL) suggested possibly expanding 2.1.1 to include a statement 

similar to “...management of invasive species/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 from the calculation...” Attendees sought 

clarification of what calculation 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 requested clarification of what “cultural methods” and 

“prevention” are. 

• Bill Meredith (DE) suggested the following text 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 aquatic nuisance insect control.” 

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

statement. 

o Section 2.2.1.3.5: “Use adulticides only where 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 species (as provided as an example parenthetically). 

EPA agreed that language in Section 2, specifically 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). Attendees 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 enforcement is possible. Others commented that if 

it’s hard to identify/clarify who is responsible for implementing IPM, then subsequent 

enforcement will be difficult. In addition, attendees noted the apparent disconnect between larger 

applicators and smaller municipalities with respect to equal availability of IPM. EPA requested 

feedback from attendees regarding what they feel is achievable; what works and what doesn’t. 

Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations – Section 3.0 

Attendees asked EPA how the States’ 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 antidegradation reviews/analyses fit into the PGP; who is responsible 

for completing (EPA clarified States are responsible 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 requirements for completing antidegradation reviews. 

Much of the discussion revolved around water quality monitoring practices, data available, and 

EPA’s need for data to support statements included in current PGP (with respect to expectation 

that the PGP required practices will meet WQS) and add to the 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 (during 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 may be of adequate quality 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/useful monitoring and are reviewing those data.

Compliance Monitoring – Section 4.0 

Attendees noted the first statement under Section 4.2 should be reworded, as not to imply 

immediate re-entry is required following application. EPA acknowledged 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 delayed 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 revisited the water quality data topic: the basis for EPA’s data 

requests, States’ existing monitoring programs. 

Pesticide Discharge Management Plan – Section 5.0 

Attendees commented their biggest concerns with this section of the PGP are with the public 

availability of information required by the PGP and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

consultations required for coverage under the PGP. 

EPA indicated that requesting the permittees’ plans, if requested by the public, would be the 

burden of EPA or the States, but the group acknowledged 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 individual permittees may be different. 

Attendees asked, regarding Section 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 Historic 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 impression that someone else may make a complaint and that would 

trigger an adverse effect report. Additionally, 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 where it is not possible to 

contact anyone without the use of a specific technology (e.g., satellite 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 imposed because of their report. EPA noted that 

clarification of the definition of an adverse effect is required, possibly to include a timeframe or 

geographical area for reporting purposes. 

Attendees also recommended reviewing the language in Section 6.3.2 and Appendix B (B.12.E) 

for consistency. Also, attendees recommended considering deleting “release” from the first bullet 

in Section 6.1. 

Annual Reporting – Section 7.0 

Attendees asked EPA whether States are required to keep the requirement for an Annual Report 

in their version of the PGP. Attendees asked if the requirement for an Annual Report is a 

duplicative effort of the NOI. States then asked about the value/usefulness 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 review the Annual Reports. 

Overall, EPA acknowledged the need to evaluate the consistency between 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 FIFRA 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 EPA may want to add that the permittee cannot 

exceed amounts of the FIFRA label requirement. 

Attendees suggested revising “pests controlled” to “target pests controlled.” Attendees also 

suggested adding “number of acres treated” to the list of items required in the Annual Report.

Recordkeeping – Section 8.0 

Attendees suggested some review 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 control and aquatic nuisance insect control, if 

applicable, why larviciding is impractical...” 

• Associate clear timeframes with recordkeeping requirements; 

• Chuck Corell (IA) suggested reorganizing the PGP requirements (i.e., NOI/application, 

IPM, monitoring, recordkeeping, etc.) to group them according to threshold level, as 

opposed to grouping by permit requirement; 

Attendees voiced their opinions against requiring development/creation of something new, for 

practices that are already being conducted by applicators. Many attendees commented that 

current recordkeeping requirements would be burdensome to consolidate, even though most 

applicators would have such information already recorded. Attendees asked who would be 

responsible for maintaining the Pesticide Management 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 with this requirement of the permit. Some 

discretion would be required in determining whether a permittee was satisfying this section of 

the permit. Attendees suggested EPA consider reviewing agriculture departments’ inspection 

requirements/criteria/evaluation systems (may provide documentation for verifying completion 

of various recordkeeping requirements). 

Finally, attendees expressed concern whether the 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 monitoring in the traditional 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 definition - the reference to the court case 

appears to be repeated within the definition)

Standard Conditions (Appendix B) 

Attendees recommended EPA review Appendix B for 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 setting thresholds from the states. Attendees were 

interested in seeing the Fact Sheet and the EPA rationale for setting 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 several months. EPA would like to meet with any 

stakeholder groups for public outreach and education regarding the General Permit.