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 decision-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 decision-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 mandate 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? Need 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 some 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 the 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.