### 1 

## PGP State Face**- to** **- Face Meeting** 

**Day 2 TECHNOLOGY BASED EFFLUENT LIMITS**  **(“Minimize”)**  Jeff (FL) **–** Section 2.1.1 is good but what does frequency mean? o Jack – Fewer is not necessarily a better concept.  Bill (DE) – “Operators” - does it include applicators and decision -makers? Decision -maker also makes 2.1.1. Use language – “sometimes decision -maker can make 2.1.1 decisions.”  Courtney (IA) – How does this work under NOI? IF go with the majority, then do no link this to NOI.  Beth (OR) – What about decision - makers who have licensed applicator on staff? Need to include specific language.  Courtney (IA) – If decision -maker have applicator, will both b ecovered? o Jack – Yes  Bill (DE) – Can decision - makers take responsibility for applicator? Usually done through contractual agreement. Alleviate applicator burden. Could be duplicative of efforts if both have to do it. o Bill J – 2.1 independent of whether person ahs filed an NOI. Every applicator obliged to minimize. If applicator in contractual obligation with deci sion -maker (i.e. prescribed optimum amount), does applicator follow the optimal? o Jack F – 2.1.1 . – There is a decision -maker role in this. Maybe need to use this language for both applicator and decision - maker. o Bill J – 2 situation examples

1) Homeowner hires applicator – obvious that the responsibility falls on applicator. 2) When decision - maker knows enough about frequency and optimum pesticide amount – makes sense to go after the decision - maker. **Add to 2.1.1 –**  **“to the extent not determined by the decision** **- maker use the optimum**  **amount......” Add to 2.1**  **– “if you, as a decision** **- maker, determine what frequency ot amount then**  **follow 2.1.1”**  Courtney (IA) – This is like permitting city and applicator. Does not make sense because it will be duplicative. o Jack F – Applicator means “company” not the individual person. o Allison W – Individuals need to follow the permit conditions that the company has.  Bill (DE) – If applicators do not follow decision - maker’s instructions, hope enforcement will not hold the decisi on - makers accountable. o Allison W – Will speak with enforcement people .

### 2

 Elise (MN) – Dividing the permit makes things easier. Can enforce both.  Cary (NM) – There are cases when decision - maker has no idea what to do and give all responsibility to the applicators.  Darcy (R8) – We would have to sue everybody. Will need extra resources. States are concerned about enforcement. o Mindy K- currently, everyone is liable.  Daveki (NJ) **–** In NJ operator is defined as someone having the financial authority. We just want one to file NOI. Want homeowners exempted. 

### DEFINITION OF “FUNCTION”  Courtney (IA) – We would like just big companies/entities to submit NOIs. Plans cannot be separated from NOI, too complex. o Jack F – We have statuary obligation. Tough for us to make it very simple.  Steve (FL) – “function” – “if you have the legal authority to control pests” or “...have an established program under legal authority....” o Allison W – We don’t want small entities (i. e. police stations, fire stations..)  Bill (DE) – Under applicator flow-chart, add – who’s doing the hiring (govt. decision - makers vs. non -govt. decision -makers). Govt. decision -makers should have more control and responsibilities.  Mindy K – Mission or ma ndate at govt. level requiring pest control.  Sharmon (AK) – Looping all function together is difficult. Should be different for registered pesticides. Also there should be a category for public health applications.  Courtney (IA) – Just because you have a certified applicator does not necessarily mean that your company has a function to control pests.  Charles (TX) – Another way of function – Who do we mean besides NAICS code? Who do we think we are missing?  Bobby (LA) – Statutory author defines function. o Jack F – Works for govt. but does not work for private sector. o Allison W – Want to limit appropriately. 

### IPM  Phil (FL) – Consider the State revolving loan fund (~10,000)  Phil (FL) – Is the NAICS code about function? o Jack F – It is to distinguish between applicators and decision -makers.

### 3

 Bill (DE) – The last box in applicator flow chart (i.e. TBEL, WQ, recordkeeping) can be done by the decision -maker. Do not want the applicators establishing their own rules.  Bill J – Remove 1, 3, and 5 oval from the applicator flowchart.

1) Have in flowchart eligibility for both applicator and decision - maker. 2) Definition for for- hire applicators is tricky. a. Different definitions for different states – based on finance.... b. Most of the time straight forward but need t o define more clearly. 3) Who decides applicator has NAICS code for pest control? N eed to look into specific codes.  Charles (TX) – Requirements 2.2 is still a lot of stuff for some. Is there some threshold where you can further reduce compliance for the really small? o Allison W – We don’t want to focus on home-owners by they are legally obligated. They don’t need to submit NOI and will outreach to home-owners later.  Bill (DE) – Seems like everyone has to do something if they apply pesticides. Seems like there is a lot of education needed. o Allison W – This is the first permit. Cannot solve all the problems. Trying to capture the largest dischargers.  Phil (FL) – Should visual monitoring be only for applicators? o Jack F – There is monitoring while applying but also when going back later.  Steve (NE) – How do you justify no applying BAT to everybody? Is that ok? o Allison W – It is ok because we don’t think everyone needs to do IPM. o Jack F – We re sub-categorizing BAT. We are grouping things by similar characteristics.  Ed (MD ) – Confused about hoe-owner applications. Opens up potential for litigation with homeowners. 

### WATER QUALITY BASED EFFLUENT LIMITS  Darcy (R8) – Will 4.1 be consistent to section 2.1? Will optimum amount be defined in this permit? o Jack F/Kevin M – Case- by-case- determination.  Charles (TX) – Once TMDL is done for impaired waters, can discharge be done under permit? o Jack F – Under this permit “no discharge” allowed. **Overall –**  **No support for ambient water quality monitoring**   Phil (FL) – Ambient data monitoring outside scope of permit would be good. Need to know how this permit is effective. 

### REPORTING REQUIREMENTS & CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

### 4

 Bill (DE) Can we prepare a permit that references. Is PDMP required by the Clean Water Act. o Kevin M – No PDMP required by CWA. o Allison W – If already have some documentation similar to PDMP, then you can just reference that.  Andrea ( R1) – Is this on a per state basis? o Allison W – It has to be per state since each state has different requirements.  Sharmon (AK) – If I was on -site inspecting, what records should be kept on -site? o Hank (WY) - Just need access, don’t care where at.  Charles (TX) – For EPA states would there be forms made available? o Allison W – Considering forms for smaller decision -makers. For parger PDMP, often made guidance documents. o Charles (TX) Want to see consistency. Want clarity of permit requirements. o Allison W – Want to give states so me flexibility. 

### OTHER ISSUES  Charles (TX) – If pesticide activities covered under other permit, is that adequate ? o Jack F – IfIf other than stormwater then will need NPDES permit.  Bill (DE) – Need guidance from EPA about citizen involvement. (i.e. “idiots guide to citizen involvement”) Where is it fair for citizen to intervene? Concerned about administrative nuisance. Is NOI information challengeable? o Allison W – Local, state NPDES folks would be the right people for that.  Elleanore (VA) – PDMP form would be good. Footnotes in fact sheet for threshold calculations not enough, need more examples.  Courtney (IA) – Consider scope change to “weed, algae, bacteria, fish parasite control”

- Section 2.2.1.1.1 – Using just population densities not appropriate . Need to include weather pattern (conditions)

- Discharges to drinking water sources? IOWA already has pest permit. Drinking sources need special considerations.  Darcy (R8) – Under section 7.0 change “recommend” to “require”  Beth (OR) – Would EPA object if if said drift and silviculture is exempt? o Kevin M – “Exempt” will be problematic, “Not covered” is not a big issue.  Courtney (IA) – Linear miles are too low. Could lead to the use of longer acting pesticide (more negative effects). Recommend raising t he threshold to 60 linear miles.  Bill (DE) – Annual Reporting – If Enviros want easy access, how will the info. be used. Chemical manufacturers are concerned about confidentiality.

### 5 o Allison W – Our required info. is not considered CBI. We have a process to go through to identify CBI. o Steve (FL) – Our information is already on the website, Nobody cares.  Phil (FL) – Will annual - reporting through EPAs electronic system be available to all the states? o Jack F – If reporting requirement same as ours then it can be possible.  Courtney (IA) – This permit should not be used to reduce the use of pesticides. Look as tool to enforce non -followers.  Cheryl R – If 1 violated then all “all violate” If there is discharge all are responsible.  Bruce (LA) – How do you define “use” pesticide? Is is applicators, decision - makers, or both? o Kevin M – Do not want to control “use” , want to prevent discharge.  Bill (DE) – Why EPA cannot request for extension for 44 states? o Kevin M – Need to get to the place where EPA has completed its permit. o Allison W – This is a maybe. 

### NEXT STEPS

**- Options Selection on Oct.14 with Assistant Administrator.** 

**- Options Selection the week after with Administrator.** 

**- Will follow up with States with conference call.**