FW: NPDES

Bamber, Amy 

t

o

:

Jordan Page 01/27/2010 12:56 PM

Hi Jordan,

I am attaching an excel sheet of all our surface water detections. These go 

back to about 1989, although surface water sampling has never been a focal 

point of our program. In recent years we have increased the number of surface 

water samples taken. I also would like to draw your attention to the units--if it 

says ng/POCIS, the analyte concentration is not transferable to a ppb type of 

number. You should consider these to be qualitative results. If you would like 

more info on those results, or anything related (qa/qc, lab info, method info, 

etcl), just let me know. I also can provide more data regarding stream flow, 

other parameters such as pH, that sort of thing. The term groundwater in the 

program description is to differentiate these samples from enforcement 

program samples; they are not actual groundwater samples. I tried to keep 

this as simple as possible. 

There is another important thing for you to know, esp. in the context of this 

request. In Montana our statute requires us to request an interim numerical 

standard for any pesticide that we find in water. We do this through our DEQ, 

who works with our EPA Region 8 toxicologist. Those standards may be found 

here: http://www.deq.state.mt.us/wqinfo/standards/pdf/CompiledDEQ7.pdf 

These are human health based standards (and the circular is currently being 

updated, so some of our detections are not in this version). We also request 

aquatic life benchmarks from EFED: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/aquatic_life_benchmark.htm . We 

use both of these numbers to evaluate our detections. We have not had any 

pesticide detections exceed these standards or benchmarks. We are mandated 

to address the issue if a pesticide is at or above 50% of the human health 

standard, per our statute.

Amy

Amy Bamber

Montana Department of Agriculture

303 N. Roberts

Helena, MT 59620-0201

406-444-3676

abamber@mt.gov

From: grier stayton [mailto:aapco-sfireg@comcast.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 7:05 AM

To: Al Havinga; 'Allan Welch'; Alvin Harris; Amar Singh; Bamber, Amy; Andrew Thostenson; Andy

Rackley; Ann Wick; Arty Williams; Audra K. Gile; Bob Blankenburg; Bobby Simoneaux; 

Bonnie.Poli@usda.gov; Brad Berven; Bradford Robinson; Brenda Ball; Brian Rowe; Bruce Jacobson; Bruce 

Nicely; Bruce Wilkinson; Butch Alpe; Cam Lay; Carl Eichenwald; 'Carl Rew'; Carmen Zayas; Carol 

Ramsay; Cary Giguere; Cecil Tharp; Chad Carpenter; Charles Moses; Charlie Clark; Chris Ritland; 

Christopher Kirby; Chuck Andrews; Chuck Eckermann; Clark Burgess; Cliff Weed; Craig Romary; Dale 

Dubberly; Daniel Helfgott; Danny Lecompte; Dave Scott; David Duncan; David Phillips; David Pyne; David 

Rousseau; David Scott; David T. Villarreal; Davis H. Daiker; Dea Zimmerman; Dennis Howard; Dennis W. 

Howard; Derrick Lastinger; Diana Horne; Dirk Helder; Don Lott; 'Donald Baumgartner'; 'Donald Wood'; 

Doug Edwards; Doug Jones; 'Ed Crowe'; Ed White; Eugene B. Pepper; Fatima El-Abdaoui; Fred Corey; 

Gary Bahr; Gary Meyer; George Robinson; George Saxton; Gina Davis; Glenda Dugan

Cc: Davis H. Daiker

Subject: FW: NPDES

Forwarded January 27, 2010, from Grier Stayton, AAPCO Executive Secretary.

From: Daiker, Dave [mailto:daikerd@doacs.state.fl.us] 

Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 8:42 AM

To: grier stayton

Subject: NPDES

Dear state regulator,

On January 20 and 21, I attended the second NPDES face‐to‐face meeting held by the USEPA in 

Dallas. The purpose of the meeting was for the EPA to present their second draft of their general 

NPDES permit and to solicit input from state regulators (FIFRA and CWA). Recall, the federal permit 

will be applicable to those 4 NPDES un‐authorized states, Alaska, and tribal lands. However, it will 

likely serve as a template for the remaining 45 states to develop a permit through the regional EPA 

offices.  The format of the meeting was very similar to that of the Kansas City meeting, in that the 

EPA went section by section discussing the elements of the permit and what is required under the 

CWA. 

Over all, the meeting went very well and the permit approach taken by the Agency appears to be 

something that most states were amenable to.  I hope to be provided with meeting notes from the 

EPA’s consultant soon and can try to make those available. 

Today I am writing on behalf of EPA’s request for surface water monitoring data or even modeling 

efforts conducted by your program. The EPA is seeking data/information that demonstrates that the 

technology‐based effluent limits (TBEL) actively employed today (i.e., FIFRA labels) are sufficient to 

protect surface water quality and meet many state requirements of “no toxics in toxic amounts”. 

Further, the EPA hopes to be able to demonstrate, if needed, that the TBELs proposed in the draft 

permit (FIFRA‐approved labels combined with IPM and various BMP requirements) will be 

increasingly sufficient to protect waters of the US. Recall, the EPA is proposing to use TBEL, rather 

than water quality‐based limits.

EPA is specifically interested in receiving any surface water monitoring data on pesticide active 

ingredients. Although, data from more controlled studies, where application rates, dates, etc. are 

known, are preferred, the EPA would be interested in any ambient monitoring data demonstrating 

protection of water resources. They did not specify whether they only want data from pesticide use 

scenarios covered under the permit (aquatic weed control), so I would see what data you have 
available and provide it to the Agency.

Data can be submitted to Jordan Page at page.jordan@epa.gov

I’ve tried to word this as clearly as possible, but if I have confused anyone, please do not hesitate to 

contact me. I can be reached by e‐mail or at the following number.

Davis H. Daiker, Ph.D.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services