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. T hese 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), j ust let me kno w . I also can provide more data regarding stream flow, other parameters such as pH, that sort of thing. T he 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.

T here is another important thing for you to kno w , 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. T hose standards may be found here: http :// www

. deq

. state

. mt

. us / wqinfo / standards / pdf / CompiledDEQ 7

. pdf
T hese 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 / oppefed 1 / 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 A M
To: A l Havin g a; ' A llan Welch'; A lvin Harris; A mar Sin g h; Bamber, A m y ; A ndrew Thostenson; A nd y Rackley; A nn Wic k ; A rty Williams; A udra 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. V illarreal; 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- A bdaoui; 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 A M
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 t heir 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, Alask a, and tribal lands. However, it will likely serve as a template for the remaining 45 states to devel op 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 perm it and what is required under the
CWA.

Over all, the meeting went very well and the permit approach ta ken by the Agency appears to be something that most states were amenable to.  I hope to be prov ided 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/info rmation 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, th at 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, th e EPA is proposing to use TBEL, rather than water quality‐based limits.

EPA is specifically interested in receiving any surface water m onitoring 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 ambien t monitoring data demonstrating protection of water resources. They did not specify whether the y only want data from pesticide use scenarios covered under the permit (aquatic weed control), so I would see what data you haveavailable and provide it to the Agenc y

.

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 c onfused anyone, please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached by e‐mail or at the following numb er.

Davis H. Daiker, Ph.D. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services