Comments on Draft PGP By Ralph Smith, NJ DEP-Pesticide Control Program

1.1.1

The word ‘residue’ is missing from the se ntence that follows ‘Activities Covered’

There is no use pattern for agricu ltural applications, such as fo r the treatment of cranberry bogs.

What use pattern covers wetlands restoration treatments, such as for phragmites control?

1.1.2.1

Answer to comment: Yes, add language to continue c overage under PGP until an individual permit is issued.

Provide a time limit for when submission for an indivi dual permit has to occur once impairment is documented.

1.1.2.2

Answer to comment: Yes

1.1.2.4

There is an Endangered Species Prot ection Program already in place for pesticides, with pesticide label language & county bulletins. Why can’t th at take care of this requirement?

1.2.2

Answer to comment: The threshold numbers should be based on treatment area & on annual use. Are the threshold numbers appropriate? Since they primarily affect the require ments to have a PDMP & annual reporting, the higher the thresholds the better, to lessen the burden on the re gulated community & the regulators.

Who has to submit an NOI: Just about everyone in NJ will have to submit an NOI unde r this criteria. We have quite a few municipalities that treat ju st one pond or lake for w eed/algae control. The same occurs with lake or

homeowner associations. The threshold numbers should apply to the government agency & lake/homeowner association operators – that is th ey need to submit an NOI only if they meet the threshold numbers.

For Hire applicators for aquatic weed/algae control add customers throughout the treatment season, and add & drop customers year to year. It seems th e NOI requires each treatment site to be identified in order for it to be covered by the PGP. Is this the case? If so, there has to be a provision that the NOI has to be updated at least annually if treatment sites are adde d or dropped & that the PGP covers the added sites in the interim.

1.2.5.2

Answer to comment: Yes, clear enough.

2.1.2

Answer to comment: Elaborat ion should not be necessary.

2.2.1.2

Answer to comment: More details should not be necessary.In a number of places, starting in this section, the term ‘Biological control agents’ is used. It is unclear if biological pesticides are included in this term, or does this just refer to biological contro ls that are not registered as pesticides?

3.0

The primary algaecides in use all contain copper, and there is a surface water quality standard for copper. Average application rates are between .5 ppm & 1 ppm, but certain species of algae ha ve labeled rates as high as 2 ppm. In NJ, we only allow 1⁄2 to 1/3 of the waterbody to be treated at one time, so theoretically .25 to .5 ppm of copper is being applied to the waterbody for alg ae control. Studies have shown that heavy algae growth removes most of the copper out of th e water column quite rapidly, and gra nular formulations sink to the bottom & result in even more of the coppe r being removed from the water column by adsorping to the silt on the bottom. However, copper products app lied as a liquid remain in the water column for over 4 hours at 50% or more of the application rate if the al gae density is light. Of course, water ch emistry plays a large role also in the amount of copper remaining in solution & for how long. It is safe to say th at copper applications are going to result in temporary exceedan ces of established SWQS for copper for so me applications. The way this section reads, copper applications for algae control are going to be problematic. Having the tool used for 90% of algae treatments subject to added restri ctions, individual permits & laws uits is a recipe for disaster.

Appendix A - Adverse Incident

Pesticides are regulated on a risk vrs benefits basis. They are by their natu re toxic. When aquatic weed control and mosquito control applica tions are made, it is obvious that there will be exposure to non-target organisms, & sometimes toxic effects to non-target organisms. It’s the nature of the beast. FIFRA uses the term ‘unreasonable adverse effects’. The key word is ‘unreasonable’. The enti re section that pertains to ‘Adverse Incident’ does not include ‘unreasonable’ anywhere.

Also, how is an applicator supposed to predict a ‘...delayed or chronic adve rse effect in the future’? Hire a psychic?