COMMENTS ON EPA’s WORKING DRAFT OF PESTICIDE GENERAL PERMIT 

Structural Pest Control & Pesticides Division 

North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

 January 25, 2010 

The only typographic error I noticed in the draft document was an omission in Section 1.1.1 

(page 1): “(2) chemical pesticides which leave a ? for the following pesticide use patterns.” It 

seems that ‘residual waste’ would be appropriate for the omission. It is somewhat ironic that 

‘residual waste’ would be missing because I believe the Office of Water developed a PGP that 

extended its mandate beyond the ruling of the 6th Circuit. The document is heavily skewed in 

managing the pesticide during the phase when it is performing its intended use (which is already 

regulated by FIFRA) and is making assumptions on the ultimate frequency and distribution of 

the waste residues that are not necessarily fact-based. 

The focus of pest management programs has been to minimize the potential adverse effects of 

chemicals while performing the intended pest control function. Excessive rates may select for 

pesticide-resistant pests, kill natural enemies that control other pests or impact an endangered 

species. Very few (if any) programs have been designed or evaluated with respect to the specific 

goal of just reducing the frequency and distribution of waste residues that have declined to a 

concentration that is no longer adequate for pest control. It is quite conceivable that a high rate 

pesticide strategy that totally eliminates a pest would result in less waste residues when evaluated 

over a long period of time or a wide geographic area. A low rate strategy could lead to the need 

for re-treatments, planned multiple treatments or the spread of the pest to other locations that 

would eventually require treatments over a broader area. While the high-rate strategy may have 

some real adverse effects as the pesticide is performing its intended use, the residual nonpesticidal waste residues may have a minimal impact on the environment. Conversely, the lowrate strategy may have minimal adverse effects while the pesticide is performing its intended use, 

but (if pest control is not complete) could lead to detectable waste residues over a longer interval 

or a wider geographic area due to necessary re-treatments or treatments of secondary 

infestations. 

The Office of Water should not attempt to use the PGP as a mechanism to assert authority over 

pesticides while the chemicals are at pest-control concentrations. In issuing the registration, the 

Office of Pesticide Programs has judged the products to provide an acceptable profile for 

environmental exposure when applied according to label direction. Admittedly, there is sparse 

information for pesticides at concentrations that are no longer effective at controlling pests. Even 

less is known about the adverse effects of non-pesticidal concentrations. There may be some 

relevant information that comes from the Endocrine Disruption Screening Program, but the core 

guidelines for those studies have just been issued. The paucity of information on pesticide waste 

residues should not be a valid excuse for OW establishing a PGP process that is focused on 

managing the effects of pesticidal concentrations (which is already covered by FIFRA). 

Many of the following concerns are rooted in the above discussion about the need to discriminate 

between the impact of pesticidal concentrations and pesticide wastes: 
Section 1.1.2.1 – OW should examine the listings of pesticides/degradates for which a body of 

water has been classified as impaired for that substance. Organochlorine insecticides, atrazine, 

chlorpyrifos, diazinon and nearly all the listed pesticides are not involved in the uses covered by 

the 6th circuit court decision. An examination of products with current approved uses for the 

target sites requiring a NPDES permits might reveal that it would be easy to provide a short table 

listing the bodies of waters impaired for the substances (are there any?) instead of asking NOI 

submitters to dig through the websites that are mentioned. 

Section 1.1.2.2 (pages 1-2) – Regarding comment jrf3, we think that biological pesticides should 

be allowed in Tier 3 waters by the PGP if they are labeled for this use and are safer to use than 

chemical pesticides or they are targeting an invasive species. 

Section 1.1.2.4 (page 2) – OPP is already involved with the impact of pesticidal rates on 

endangered species. OW should only be concerned with the impacts of the waste residues. For 

example, paragraph 1 of this section should be modified to read (changes in red): “Coverage 

under this permit is available only if the wastes resulting from your discharges and discharge-related 

activities will not adversely affect any species that are federally-listed as endangered or threatened 

and will not result in the adverse modification or destruction of habitat that is federally-designated as 

“critical habitat” under the ESA.” The pesticide as applied for its intended purpose may have a 

theoretical impact on an endangered species while the non-pesticidal waste residue may have an 

acceptable margin of exposure. 

Section 1.2.2 (page 4) – The treatment area annual thresholds should be made applicable to all 

category of users. In the current format, a homeowner association would be required to file a 

NOI to control the aquatic weeds in a community lake regardless of size. However, individual 

property owners could treat their frontage areas as long as the treated area is less then 160 acres. 

Is it the intent of OW to discourage professional applications in lieu of more homeowner 

treatments? Also, how is the homeowner using a general pesticide supposed to be aware of 

NPDES requirements that are not on the pesticide label? When calculating the treatment area 

annual threshold or the water-treatment area annual threshold, would a site that is treated more 

than once be calculated based on the area once or multiplied by the number of times it was 

treated during the year? For example, 85 acres of water treated twice. Would this annual 

threshold be 85 acres or 170 acres? Regarding comment jrf5, we recommend the following: 

1. the thresholds be based on an annual amount, 

2. the treatment area annual threshold be increased to 1,000 acres, 

3. the water-treatment area annual threshold be increased to 200 acres, 

 Section 2.2.* (pages 9-15) – Throughout this section OW is managing the pesticidal phase of the 

application which should be governed by FIFRA. As discussed above, there is no assurance that 

a low-rate IPM program will result in less non-pesticidal waste residues over a long time interval 

or a broad geography. It is known that low rates or high rates will eventually decline to the nonpesticidal waste residue concentration. Any differences in environmental effects between the 

high and low rates will result from impacts during the pesticidal phase of the treatment. Once 

reached, the impact of the waste residue (whatever that is) should be the same regardless of the 

starting point of the concentrations that are performing the intended use. This entire section will 

require substantial paperwork with little enforceability. Many IPM guidelines are 

recommendations that allow considerable flexibility for user interpretation. It will be very 

difficult for any permitting authority to legally challenge anything that is recorded on an NOI for 
an approved labeled use. Pesticides used in agricultural production systems can have welldefined application thresholds that balance the cost of the treatment with the economic benefits 

in preventing yield loss. The objectives of the pest programs covered by the 6th Court ruling are 

not so easy to define. How many mosquitoes does it take to transmit West Nile Virus? How 

many mosquito bites should be acceptable for the average person? How much of a lake needs to 

be infested with aquatic weeds to be considered a problem? A single invasive aquatic weed can 

lead to many significant problems for any water body. 

Is it appropriate for OW to make recommendations for practices that provide more effective pest 

control (Section 4.1)? 

Comments on the remaining portion of the draft PGP are redundant to the previous comments on 

the lack of distinction between the pest control phase and the waste phase of a pesticide 

application. For example, how does someone conducting a visual assessment (Section 4.2) to 

determine if a perceived adverse effect resulted while the application was performing the 

intended pest control purpose or was caused by the waste residue? The Pesticide Discharge 

Management Plan and other reporting requirements are heavily skewed towards information 

from the pest control phase of an application that may not influence the ultimate characteristics 

of the pesticide waste. 

Appendix F – Notice of Intent Form (pages 51-53) – In part III. Operator Information: 5.a. It 

references item 4 above. Should the use patterns in item 4 be labeled with “a, b, c, and d?” 

Regarding providing a map or description, is this necessary for all sites or can there be a 

threshold size that requires a map or description? 

In summary, the PGP would best serve the public by efficiently meeting the minimal mandates 

of the 6th Circuit Court ruling. EPA management has publicly expressed their disagreement with 

the decision so why not implement a simple, time-efficient system? OPP has already conducted 

risk assessments (often using the most severe use parameters) and determined that the registered 

uses do not pose an unreasonable adverse risk. Why not design a PGP that just calls for sufficient 

information to verify that the product was applied according to label directions?