Source: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticide-permitting-frequent-questions
Timestamp: 2019-12-05 17:11:09
Document Index: 82510866

Matched Legal Cases: ['§122', 'art 122', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 4', 'art 6', 'art 9', 'arts 7', 'art 7', 'art 1', 'art 1']

Pesticide Permitting-Frequent Questions | National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) | US EPA
Pesticide Permitting-Frequent Questions
Questions and answers are organized into the following categories:
Pesticide Activities that Require an NPDES Permit
Eligibility Criteria for EPA's Pesticide General Permit
Declared Pest Emergency
The requirement to obtain NPDES permits for point source discharges from pesticide applications to waters of the United States stems from a 2009 decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In its ruling on National Cotton Council, et al. v. EPA, the Court vacated EPA’s 2006 rule which said NPDES permits were not required for discharges of pesticides to waters of the United States for applications of pesticides to, or over, including near such waters when in compliance with the existing label (per the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or “FIFRA”). In its ruling, the Sixth Circuit determined that (1) biological pesticides and (2) chemical pesticides that leave a residue are pollutants as defined under the CWA and as such are subject to regulations applicable to pollutants. Courts have previously determined that applications of pesticides, such as from nozzles of planes and trucks, irrigation equipment, etc. are point sources. As a result of the Sixth Circuit’s decision, point source discharges to waters of the United States from the application of pesticides require NPDES permits as of October 31, 2011.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required for any point source discharge to waters of the United States from the application of (1) biological pesticides and (2) chemical pesticides that leave a residue. EPA identified four pesticide use patterns that generally include the full range of pesticide application activities that meet this condition, including mosquitoes and other flying insect pests, weeds and algae, animal pests, and forest canopy pests. This includes point source discharges from entities such as irrigation and mosquito control districts, federal, state, and local governments, and for-hire pesticide applicators.
NPDES permits are not required for non-point source discharges. The Clean Water Act (CWA) also exempts discharges of agricultural stormwater or irrigation return flow from the need for NPDES permits. Furthermore, in promulgating the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule, EPA expressly noted that the Rule did not cover applications of pesticides to terrestrial agricultural crops where runoff from the crop, either as irrigation return flow or agricultural stormwater, discharges into waters of the United States. It is important to note that if the pest to be targeted is a distance from waters of the United States, but that application is made such that a portion of the pesticide will be unavoidably deposited to waters of the United States and result in a discharge, an NPDES permit is required.
Possibly. Some pesticide labels refer to “water” and not “waters of the United States.” It is possible that some pesticide products that are not approved for use in “water” may result in discharges to waters of the United States. For example, waters of the United States may be dry at the time of pesticide application, and there may be situations where pesticide applications to temporarily dry waters of the United States are performed using pesticides labeled for terrestrial or seasonally-dry use. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements apply regardless of whether the waters of the United States are wet or dry at the time of the discharge.
Yes. All applications of (1) biological pesticides and (2) chemical pesticides that leave a residue, in which applications are made directly to waters of the United States, or where a portion of the pesticide will unavoidably be deposited to waters of the United States, are required to be covered under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The Clean Water Act does not provide EPA with the authority to exclude certain types of discharges from the need to obtain permit coverage, such as small “de minimus” or short-term discharges, discharges from emergency situations (except in very limited circumstances as described in 40 CFR 122.3(d) where discharge is in compliance with the instructions of an On-Scene Coordinator), or discharges to “small” waters of the United States.
a. Method of application (e.g., using hand sprayers, vehicle-mounted tanks with sprayer nozzles, or fixed- or rotary-wing aircrafts, etc.)
b. Type of product (e.g., adulticides, larvacides, herbicides, insecticides, piscicides, algaecides, rodenticides, fungicides, etc.); or
c. Industry (e.g., utility right-of-way, agricultural, golf course, railroad track maintenance, irrigation control, mosquito control, etc.)?
Yes. For determining the need for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit coverage, federal agencies are not treated differently than any other discharger and thus are required to obtain NPDES permits for any pesticide applications that result in discharges to waters of the United States.
It depends. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, at 40 CFR §122.21(b), require that when a facility or activity is owned by one entity but operated by another, it is the Operator’s duty to obtain a permit. EPA, in its pesticide general permit (PGP), defines “Operator” as any entity associated with the application of pesticides which results in a discharge to waters of the United States that meets either of the following two criteria: (1) any entity who performs the application of a pesticide or who has day-to-day control of the application (i.e., they are authorized to direct workers to carry out those activities), or (2) any entity with control over the decision to perform pesticide applications including the ability to modify those decisions. Thus, in certain instances, more than one entity may meet the definition of “Operator.” In these instances, each Operator is required to be covered under an NPDES permit.
EPA, in its PGP, used the terms “Decision-maker” and “Applicator” to assign responsibilities for complying with the permit. The different terms acknowledge the different roles that these two types of Operators play in the process of applying pesticides. By definition, both are required to obtain NPDES permit coverage.
If a pesticide discharge occurs directly to waters of the United States, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required. If the pest to be targeted is at a distance from waters of the United States, but that application is made such that a portion of the pesticide will be unavoidably deposited to waters of the United States, an NPDES permit is required.
How does EPA define “near” waters of the United States?
Although the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals did not define the term “near” in the context of the 2006 Pesticides Final Rule, EPA interprets this term to refer to the unavoidable discharge of pesticides to waters of the United States in order to target pests in close proximity to but not necessarily in such waters. EPA does not use or define the term “near” in its pesticide general permit or elsewhere in its regulations.
How does one determine whether a discharge occurs to waters of the United States?
The determination of whether a discharge from the application of pesticides requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requires a site-specific evaluation of whether that discharge will be made to (i.e., within the boundary of) “waters of the United States”.
Additional information on EPA’s interpretation and implementation of the term “waters of the United States” can be accessed from EPA’s website. Interested parties may also contact their NPDES permitting authority.
Is an NPDES permit required for chemical pesticide applications that do not leave a residue?
No. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit would not be necessary if it is determined that a residual did not enter waters of the United States. However, if a chemical pesticide is discharged to waters of the United States, any excess pesticides or pesticides that no longer provide any pesticidal benefit that remain in those waters are considered “residual.” Thus, EPA expects that some portion of every pesticide applied to waters of the United States will leave a residual in those waters. As such EPA assumes that every application of chemical pesticides to waters of the United States will trigger the requirement for an NPDES permit.
EPA recommends that an entity applying chemical pesticides with a discharge to waters of the United States who disagrees with this assumption be able to provide scientific data supporting such a determination. Such data should show what level of the pesticide can be detected in water, and at what level in water the pesticide provides a pesticidal benefit. Such data should address the properties of the chemical pesticide under different water conditions (e.g., different pH, organic content, temperature, depth, etc.) that might affect the pesticide’s properties. A permit would not be necessary if the data indicates that a residual does not enter waters of the United States.
Are there thresholds for application areas below which an NPDES permit is not required? For example, are Operators exempt from NPDES permitting for pesticides applied below the “annual treatment area threshold” values listed in EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (e.g., 80 acres, 20 linear miles, 6400 acres)?
No. The “annual treatment area threshold” values listed in EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) establish whether or not Operators must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain coverage under EPA’s PGP and comply with more comprehensive permit requirements.
No. In fact, the opposite is true. Any Operator who does not have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and whose application of pesticides results in a discharge to waters of the United States, is discharging illegally and may be in violation of the Clean Water Act. An NPDES permit authorizes the discharge of pollutants provided all of the permit conditions are met, and thus obtaining an NPDES permit and complying with the terms of an NPDES permit actually shields the Operator from liability, including certain forms of third party citizen suit liability.
Which government agencies issue NPDES permits for pesticide application point source discharges?
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a framework that provides that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits except where a state, territory, or tribe submits a request to EPA (and EPA approves that request) for the state, territory, or tribe to administer the NPDES program in their jurisdiction. Forty-six states and the Virgin Islands have obtained this authority and as such issue NPDES permits. (Note: Alaska and Oklahoma took over permitting pesticide discharges in 2012.) Typically, it is the environmental protection agency in that state (e.g., the department of environmental protection or department of natural resources) that is authorized to issue NPDES permits. In certain instances though, a state or territory may not be fully authorized to issue NPDES permits in all areas or for all activities within their jurisdictional boundaries. In those instances, as well as elsewhere where a state, territory, or tribe has not obtained NPDES authorization, EPA issues the permits. As of 2013, areas where and activities for which EPA is still the authorized NPDES permitting authority for pesticide discharges to waters of the United States are as follows:
All activities, including federal facilities, in:
Puerto Rico and all other U.S. territories except the Virgin Islands
All activities on Indian Country nationwide except within the State of Maine
All federal facilities in:
Activities associated with oil and gas, or geothermal resources, in Texas
See EPA’s 2016 PGP, Appendix C for a detailed list of the areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority for pesticide discharges to waters of the United States.
If a federal agency has a decision-making role in the application of pesticides that are covered by this permit, is the area where those activities occur considered part of the “federal facility?”
Yes. For purposes of NPDES permit coverage, the term “federal facilities” includes areas of activity where the federal agency is a Decision-maker regardless of whether those pesticide applications are performed on federal lands. However, merely because activities are performed on federal land does not in itself make those areas "federal facilities." For purposes of this permit, if the federal agency has no involvement in the decision to control pests, then the area where the pesticide application occurs would not be considered a “federal facility.”
Operators must obtain permit coverage separately for each state where their discharges will occur. For example, if the discharges will occur in Idaho and Wyoming, the Operator must obtain a permit from EPA for the discharges in Idaho (since it is an EPA-administered area), and a permit from Wyoming for the discharges in Wyoming.
Contact your NPDES-authorized state for information on applicable pesticide permitting in your state. Contact information and permitting details for NPDES-authorized states can be accessed at EPA's Pesticide Permitting website.
EPA does not charge a fee for applying for or obtaining coverage under any National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit; however, many of the NPDES-authorized states do charge fees for permit applications, Notices of Intent, and/or permit coverage.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program provides for two types of permits: individual and general. Permitting authorities may develop general permits in part to reduce administrative burdens associated with individual permits for Operators. Without coverage under a general permit, any pesticide discharge to waters of the United States that requires coverage under an NPDES permit must be covered under an individual permit.
What are the primary differences between an NPDES individual permit and an NPDES general permit?
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) individual permit is written to reflect site-specific conditions of a single discharger (or in rare instances to multiple co-permittees) based on information submitted by that discharger in a permit application and is unique to that discharger whereas an NPDES general permit is written to cover multiple dischargers with similar operations and types of discharges based on the permit writer’s professional knowledge of those types of activities and discharges. Individual permits are issued directly to an individual discharger whereas a general permit is issued to no one in particular with multiple dischargers obtaining coverage under that general permit after it is issued, consistent with the permit eligibility and authorization provisions. As such, dischargers covered under general permits know their applicable requirements before obtaining coverage under that permit. Furthermore, obtaining coverage under a general permit is typically quicker than an individual permit with coverage under a general permit often occurring immediately (depending on how the permit is written) or after a short waiting period. Coverage under an individual permit may take six months or longer.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permits do not require that Operators “apply” for coverage; rather, general permits typically rely on the submission of a document called a Notice of Intent (NOI). An NOI differs from an individual permit application in that it is submitted by Operators after the general permit is issued by the permitting authority. An NOI for a general permit is a notice to the NPDES permitting authority of an Operator’s intent to be covered under a general permit, and typically contains basic information about the Operator and the planned discharge for which coverage is being requested. Some general permits, such as EPA’s Pesticide General Permit, automatically cover some Operator discharges without submission of an NOI. In these instances, Operators must comply with applicable permit requirements for their pesticide applications without submission of any paperwork to the permitting authority (or in some instances, submission of some other type of notification document).
An Operator must submit a permit application to apply for coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) individual permit. The application form must be submitted to the permitting authority at least 180 days before the expected commencement of the discharge. NPDES permit application requirements are in Part 122, Subpart B and identified on forms developed by EPA. NPDES-authorized states are not required to use EPA application forms; however, any alternative form used by an NPDES-authorized state must include the federal requirements at a minimum. EPA’s application forms are available at the permit applications and forms page.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits must contain permit conditions determined necessary to meet the Clean Water Act (CWA) and NPDES regulatory requirements for controlling discharges of pesticides to waters of the United States. For example, EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) includes both technology-based effluent limitations and water quality-based effluent limitations as necessary, which is consistent with CWA requirements. Since there are no national effluent limitation guidelines for such discharges, EPA developed the PGP’s effluent limitations based on permit writer’s Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA. NPDES permits also contain many other conditions (e.g., monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping) required under the NPDES regulations but based on permit writer’s BPJ specific to these pesticide discharges. In addition, all NPDES permits are required to include “standard conditions” consistent with the regulation requirements in 40 CFR 122.41. NPDES permits issued by NPDES-authorized states are required to follow similar procedures although states may include more stringent requirements consistent with any applicable state laws.
Do the NPDES-authorized states need to include requirements to protect endangered species and critical habitat, as EPA’s PGP does?
This varies by state. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 requires all federal agencies to ensure, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (together, the “Services”), that any federal action carried out by any agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species (together, “listed” species), or result in the adverse modification or destruction of habitat of such species that is designated by the Services as critical (“critical habitat”). See 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2), 50 CFR 402. EPA’s issuance of the Pesticide General Permit (PGP) is a federal action requiring such consultation. Section 7 of the ESA does not apply to NPDES-authorized states for issuance of their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits; although a number of states have adopted procedures to evaluate listed species and their critical habitat consistent with federal procedures.
What is EPA’s Pesticide General Permit?
The Pesticide General Permit (PGP) is an EPA-issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit that became effective beginning October 31, 2016. EPA’s PGP provides a means by which Operators can seek NPDES permit coverage for discharge to waters of the United States that result from the application of pesticides. Specifically, the permit is available in areas where EPA is the permitting authority. Without the availability of an NPDES general permit, such Operators would be required to obtain coverage under a more administratively burdensome NPDES individual permit..
What types of discharges are eligible for EPA’s PGP?
EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) is available for Operators who apply (1) biological pesticides or (2) chemical pesticides that leave a residue, either of which result in point source discharges to waters of the United States, from the following pesticide use patterns:
The PGP includes additional eligibility criteria, although those criteria are mostly for infrequent situations. EPA has developed a step-by-step, interactive, online tool, to help pesticide Operators determine whether they are eligible for EPA’s PGP. The tool is available at EPA's Pesticide Permitting website.
Is EPA’s PGP available for pesticide applications that result in discharges to impaired waters?
In certain instances, coverage under EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) is not available for discharges to impaired waters. Specifically, the following discharges of pesticides are not authorized for coverage under the PGP:
To waters which are impaired for the active ingredient of the pesticide
To waters which are impaired for degradates of that active ingredient
To waters which are impaired for the class of pesticides (e.g., pyrethroids) to which the pesticide to be applied belongs.
Discharges to waters impaired for temperature or some other indicator parameter, or for physical impairments such as “habitat alteration,” are eligible for PGP coverage unless the Operator is otherwise notified by EPA.
If a discharge is not eligible for coverage under the PGP, Operators must choose between obtaining coverage under an individual permit for such a discharge or selecting some other means of pest management, e.g., using mechanical means or a different pesticide active ingredient.
What are “Tier 3 waters” referenced in EPA’s PGP?
States, territories, and certain tribes (i.e., those tribes with “treatment as state” status for purposes of water quality standards) are required to adopt appropriate designated uses (i.e., goals) for their waters. Based on those goals, these states, territories, and tribes are required to adopt necessary water quality criteria to protect those designated uses for each of their waters. In addition to establishing designated uses and water quality criteria, these states, territories, and tribes must adopt an anti-degradation policy to help maintain existing water quality and protect high quality waters. That anti-degradation policy is to address three categories:
Tier 3 waters are identified by the state, territory, or tribe as waters having unique characteristics to be preserved (e.g., waters of exceptional recreational, environmental, or ecological significance). No degradation is allowed in Tier 3 waters except on a short-term or temporary basis, such as weeks or months, rather than years. Of note, many states/tribes have levels of protection that are similarly protective as Tier 3 waters but may allow more flexibility when making water quality determinations. These waters are often called Tier 2½ waters. Examples of such Tier 2½ designations include "Outstanding State Resource Waters," "Outstanding Natural Resource Waters," and "Exceptional Waters." A list of Tier 3 waters in geographic areas covered under EPA’s PGP is available at EPA's Pesticide Permitting website.
Is EPA’s PGP available for pesticide applications that result in discharges to waters designated as Outstanding National Resource Waters (Tier 3)?
EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) provides coverage for discharges from pesticide applications made to Tier 3 waters. However, this is only for applications made to those waters to restore or maintain water quality or to protect public health or the environment. These applications should not degrade water quality or only degrade water quality on a short-term or temporary basis. A list of Tier 3 waters in geographic areas covered under EPA’s PGP is available at EPA's Pesticide Permitting website.
EPA’s PGP available for pesticide applications that result in discharges to waters of the United States that are dry at the time when the pesticide applications are actually performed?
Yes. Discharges to waters of the United States, whether wet or dry at the time of application, are required to be covered under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and can be covered by EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP), where the PGP is available. As such, these pesticide applications may be performed using pesticides labeled for terrestrial, seasonally-dry, or aquatic uses.
Is EPA’s PGP available for pesticide applications that result in discharges to waters of the United States containing endangered species?
EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) is available for Operators who can ensure that pesticide discharges are not likely to adversely affect species that are federally-listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or habitat that is federally-designated as critical under the ESA, with certain exceptions outlined in the permit. This includes listed species and critical habitat managed by both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
Operators with discharges to waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern must determine their eligibility for coverage through additional ESA-related criteria outlined in the permit. They must also submit Notice of Intents (NOIs) and annual reports and implement Integrated Pest Management (IPM)-like practices. See Part 1.1.2.4 of EPA’s PGP for more information. Operators with discharges to waters of the United States containing FWS listed species and critical habitats have no additional permit requirements. EPA may, through consultation with FWS, determine that additional permit conditions are necessary and will follow the appropriate measures necessary to achieve this.
Does the method of pesticide application affect the determination of whether or not discharges from those applications are eligible for coverage under EPA’s PGP?
No. EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) covers discharges that result from pesticide applications to waters of the United States irrespective of whether the pesticide applications are made by hand sprayers, vehicle-mounted tanks with sprayer nozzles, fixed- or rotary-wing aircrafts, or other types of application methods.
Are pesticide activities to control pests along rights-of-ways or similar linear features (e.g., railroad, roadway, utility line) that result in discharges to waters of the United States, eligible for coverage under EPA’s PGP?
EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) is available for discharges from pesticide applications to waters of the United States for purposes of pest control along rights-of-ways or similar linear features for any of the four pesticide use patterns. For example, weed control using herbicides would be covered under the Weed and Algae Pest Control use pattern for those portions of the pest control that result in discharges to waters of the United States. Also, EPA’s PGP is available whether the pesticides are applied aerially or on the ground. Pesticide activities performed along rights-of-ways or similar linear features that do not result in discharges to waters of the United States do not require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Is pesticide spray drift covered under EPA’s PGP?
EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) does not cover spray drift. Consistent with the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule and the 2011 PGP, the 2016 PGP does not cover spray drift resulting from pesticide applications. Instead, to address spray drift, EPA is actively engaged in several initiatives to help minimize pesticide drift problems such as: (1) establishing a new voluntary Pesticide Drift Reduction Technology (DRT) program; (2) evaluating potential for drift as a routine part of pesticides risk assessments; (3) in collaboration with experts, improving scientific models and methods for estimating drift and risks from drift; (4) strengthening labeling for new pesticides and when re-evaluating older pesticides; (improving the clarity and enforceability of product label directions and drift management restrictions; and (5) promoting applicator education and training programs. More information on EPA’s work on reducing pesticide drift is available at https://www.epa.gov/reducing-pesticide-drift. It should also be pointed out that some pesticide applications, such as ultra-low volume (ULV) spraying of mosquito adulticides, are applied as a fog with the intent of the pesticide remaining airborne. EPA does not consider ULV applications to targeted sites to be “spray drift”, and, therefore, ULV applications are eligible for coverage under EPA’s PGP.
Are pesticide discharges that are covered under another NPDES permit eligible for coverage under EPA’s PGP?
No, discharges already covered under another National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit are not eligible for coverage under EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP). For example, a city may have discharges from pesticide applications already covered under an existing municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit. In that instance, those covered discharges would not be eligible for coverage under EPA’s PGP. This includes discharges currently covered under a different NPDES permit as well as discharges from activities where the associated NPDES permit has been or is in the process of being denied, terminated, or revoked by EPA (although this latter provision does not apply to the routine reissuance of permits every five years).
If a pesticide application activity is not eligible for coverage under EPA’s PGP, does this mean an NPDES permit is not required for discharges from those activities?
Not necessarily. EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) covers many pesticide application discharges required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit in the areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. However, there may still be some pesticide application discharges requiring NPDES permit coverage that are not eligible under EPA’s PGP. For example, pesticide application discharges may already be covered under another NPDES permit. In that case, those discharges would not be eligible for coverage under the PGP, yet still require coverage under another NPDES permit. Similarly, certain discharges of pesticides to Tier 3 waters (i.e., Outstanding National Resource Waters) are not eligible for coverage under the PGP but do still require coverage under an NPDES permit (e.g., an NPDES individual permit).
Is EPA’s PGP available only for Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registered products?
No. “Pesticide” is defined in Appendix A of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) to include a wide range of products, and includes both FIFRA registered and unregistered products. If a pesticide is being applied for any of the four pesticide use patterns included in the permit, that activity is subject to the requirement for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit coverage and eligible for coverage under EPA’s PGP. If a pesticide is being applied for a different reason, for example, clove oil being used to stun fish for collection purposes, or alum used to control phosphorus levels in the water as a way to inhibit algae growth (as an algaestat, not as an algaecide), that activity is not eligible for coverage under EPA’s PGP. Pesticide activities not eligible for coverage under EPA’s PGP may require an NPDES individual permit.
Is EPA's PGP available for the use of copper sulfate to control algae in a drinking water source that itself is a water of the United States?
EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) is available for those applications unless that waterbody is impaired for copper or sulfate. In that situation, EPA’s PGP is available for application of copper sulfate to control algae for taste and odor control under the weed and algae control pesticide use pattern. Operators wanting to apply copper sulfate to waters of the United States impaired for copper or sulfate must obtain coverage under an NPDES individual permit rather than EPA’s PGP.
Is EPA’s PGP available for activities in areas for which an existing Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation has been completed?
Yes. Provided all conditions and/or requirements of that consultation that address pesticide application activities covered under EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) are met, those activities are eligible for coverage under EPA’s PGP. See Part 1.6 of the PGP.
Does EPA’s PGP cover pesticide application activities in areas with threatened and endangered species managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) even though EPA has not completed its consultation with the USFWS?
Yes. EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) does cover pesticide application activities in areas with threatened and endangered species listed by the USFWS. EPA was able to issue the permit consistent with section 7(d) of the Endangered Species Act because its issuance does not foreclose either the formulation by the Services, or the implementation by EPA, of any alternatives that might be determined in the consultation to be necessary to comply with section 7(a)(2). EPA’s PGP also covers pesticide applications in areas containing threatened and endangered species listed by the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) although the permit includes additional terms for discharges to certain areas with NMFS-listed species and critical habitat.
What does it mean to be “covered” under EPA’s PGP?
EPA uses the term “covered” or “coverage” in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to identify Operators’ discharges to waters of the United States that meet all the necessary eligibility and application provisions of an existing NPDES permit and as such are authorized to discharge under the terms and conditions of that permit. For example, a pesticide applicator that is “covered under the Pesticide General Permit (PGP)” has met all eligibility requirements of the permit and is authorized to discharge to waters of the United States consistent with the terms and conditions of the permit.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations require that any “person” that discharges pollutants to waters of the United States can do so only under the terms and conditions provided in an NPDES permit. The NPDES regulations define “person” as an “individual, association, partnership, corporation, municipality, state or federal agency, or an agent or employee thereof.” This may include entities such as municipalities responsible for pest control, pest control districts, farmers, for-hire pesticide applicators, etc. Further, the regulations clarify that when an activity is owned by one person but operated by another person, it is the Operator’s duty to obtain a permit. Thus, EPA uses the term “Operator” when describing who is required to obtain NPDES permit coverage. EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) defines “Operator” to mean any entity associated with the application of pesticides which results in a discharge to waters of the United States that meets either of the following two criteria:
For the PGP, EPA calls any Operator identified by (i) above an “Applicator” and any Operator identified by (ii) above a “Decision-maker.” Thus, in some instances, there may be more than one Operator responsible for a discharge and as such, more than one Operator required to have coverage under EPA’s PGP. As described elsewhere, even when more than one Operator is responsible for a given discharge, EPA’s PGP never requires more than one Operator to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered under the permit. Any other Operators meeting the eligibility requirements of the permit are covered automatically without the need to submit an NOI (or, for that matter, any other application or similar paperwork).
How do Operators obtain coverage under EPA’s PGP?
Operators that meet the eligibility provisions specified in the permit can be covered under the permit in one of two ways. As detailed in EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP), certain Operators are automatically covered under the permit and are authorized to discharge pesticides immediately. Some Operators, namely certain Decision-makers as identified in EPA’s PGP, must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain coverage under the permit and are authorized to discharge pesticides at some point in time (generally, 10 to 30 days) after EPA receives such NOI and posts that complete and accurate NOI on the Agency website.
Do all Operators have the same requirements under EPA’s PGP?
No. EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) delineates different responsibilities for different types of Operators as well as different types of pesticide application activities and locations of those activities. Decision-makers and Applicators are both Operators and thus in some instances, more than one Operator may be responsible for compliance with the permit for any given pesticide application activity. The permit assigns different responsibilities to Decision-makers and Applicators; although any Operator covered under the permit is still responsible, jointly and severally, for any violation associated with its discharges.
For purposes of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP), an Applicator is an entity who performs the application of a pesticide, or who has day-to-day control of the application (i.e., they are authorized to direct workers to carry out those activities). A Decision-maker is an entity with control over the decision to perform pesticide applications, including the ability to modify those decisions. A Decision-maker, for example, is the entity that hires a pesticide application company to apply pesticides or instructs its own staff to apply pesticides. Decision-makers and Applicators are both Operators and thus in some instances, more than one Operator may be responsible for compliance with the permit for any given pesticide application activity.
What is the procedure for obtaining coverage under EPA’s PGP?
Certain dischargers of pesticides must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be authorized to discharge under EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP). The NOI form is a short document requesting basic information about the nature of the activities under consideration. Many other dischargers are covered under EPA’s PGP without submission of an NOI, or for that matter, any type of documentation (e.g., a permit application).
Who must submit an NOI to obtain permit coverage under EPA’s PGP?
Certain Decision-makers, as defined in Appendix A of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP), must submit Notice of Intents (NOIs). See Table 1-1 of the PGP for identification of Decision-makers required to submit NOIs. EPA has developed an interactive web tool to assist Operators in determining their requirements under the PGP, including whether or not they need to submit an NOI. The tool is available at EPA's Pesticide Permitting website.
If the NOI is submitted electronically, the system will provide an immediate email confirmation to the certifying official that the NOI was received. EPA will provide separate notification within 30 days whether coverage has been granted or if further review is required. The status of a pending NOI can also be viewed on the eNOI Search tool at EPA's Pesticide Permitting website. If the NOI is submitted in paper form, EPA will not provide confirmation of receipt. EPA will only provide direct notification of whether coverage has been granted or if further review is required. As soon as EPA processes a paper NOI the NOI status can be viewed on the eNOI Search tool.
EPA's Pesticide Permitting website provides information to help Operators comply with the requirements of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP). One of the tabs on the page is to “ESA Procedures.” That webpage contains maps, tables, descriptions, etc. of the species and locations of concern to NMFS for EPA’s PGP.
Where an applicator is hired or authorized by an entity to perform pest control activities, the applicator is not considered a “Decision-maker” and therefore is not required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI).
What are the requirements under EPA’s PGP for an Operator who is eligible for EPA’s PGP, but is not required to submit an NOI?
Under the PGP, an Operator who is not required to submit an NOI is subject to fewer requirements than an Operator who is required to submit an NOI. Each part or subpart of the permit clarifies whether requirements in that part or subpart apply only to Operators required to submit an NOI or some other subset of Operators (for example, “all Operators,” “all Applicators,” “all For-Hire Applicators,” etc.). Operators covered under EPA’s PGP that are not required to submit an NOI must still comply with the provisions of the permit applicable to them where those requirements are not identified as only applicable to Operators required to submit an NOI.
Are separate NOIs required from Decision-makers for each pesticide application and/or for each separate treatment area?
No. EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) provides flexibility for Decision-makers on how information can be provided in the Notice of Intent (NOI). However, EPA expects that in most instances the Decision-maker will submit one NOI to cover all its pesticide applications in all treatment areas. The NOI is structured to allow for this flexibility. The only exception is that an NOI cannot include information for more than one state. Thus if a Decision-maker is required to submit an NOI for permit coverage and that Decision-maker’s activities are performed in more than one state, an NOI must be submitted for each state where those activities are to be performed. “Pest management areas” are those areas where the Decision-maker may be managing pests, and such management results in a discharge to waters of the United States. For example, an NOI may identify multiple pest management areas at the different state parks throughout an entire state, a mosquito district, or a single lake. Decision-makers have flexibility to decide which pest management areas are included on a single NOI. For example, a Decision-maker may, if it so chooses, submit separate NOIs for each of its treatment areas. However, EPA expects most Decision-makers will prefer having all their activities identified on one NOI.
If a Decision-maker requires permit coverage in multiple states covered by EPA’s PGP, can that Decision-maker file one NOI for all the states?
No. EPA established the Notice of Intent (NOI) requirements to address states on an individual basis, corresponding with the applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit number identified in Appendix C of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP). As such, an NOI cannot include information for more than one state. Decision-makers requiring permit coverage in more than one state covered by EPA’s PGP (e.g., Massachusetts and New Hampshire) must submit an NOI for each state for which permit coverage is required with that NOI containing information specific to pesticide application activities in that state.
It depends. Any mosquito control district (or similar pest control district) or agency (federal or state) for which pest management for land resource stewardship is an integral part of the organization’s operations is required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for all of its pesticide applications (larvicides and adulticides) that result in discharges to waters of the United States. See Table 1-1 of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP). Conversely, except for discharges to Tier 3 waters (i.e., Outstanding National Resource Water) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Listed Resources of Concern, which always require an NOI, any local government or other type of Operator is not required to submit an NOI if it:
o uses only larvicides, or o uses both larvicides and adulticides but applies adulticides to less than 6,400 acres a year.
Regardless of whether an NOI is required, discharges from both adulticides and larvicides require coverage under EPA’s PGP and discharges from these activities must comply with the appropriate provisions of the PGP.
Are all federal facilities (in areas where EPA’s PGP applies) required to submit an NOI for their pesticide application activities?
EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) specifies that “any agency for which pest management for land resource stewardship is an integral part of the organization’s operations” is required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for any discharges eligible for coverage under EPA’s PGP. EPA uses the term “agency” in the PGP to refer to federal and state agencies and believes that most pest control activities performed by federal and state agencies that result in discharges to waters of the United States will meet the requirement to submit an NOI.
EPA recognizes, however, that many such public entities may perform ad-hoc pest control on a small-scale that is not related to land resource stewardship, but rather incidental, for example, to its occupancy of a building. As an example, the U.S. Social Security Administration may maintain a building or group of buildings where weeds have overtaken a parking lot that is adjacent to a lake, and the local office determines that it should control those weeds with an herbicide. EPA would not consider this type of weed control related to land resource stewardship, but rather as incidental to operation of the facility. By contrast, a federal or state transportation department controlling weeds in flowing waters adjacent to roads would be considered to be performing a function associated with its land resource management purposes and as such would be required to submit an NOI. Similarly, the application of adulticides on a military base by the Department of Defense would also be considered an activity associated with a land resource management responsibility to protect public health, although incidental weed management around buildings on the base generally would not be considered a stewardship responsibility. To be clear, in all instances described above, discharges would require permit coverage; however, the requirement to submit an NOI is based only on those land stewardship responsibilities.
In determining whether a Decision-maker exceeds an annual treatment area threshold (i.e., 80 acres or 20 linear miles or 6,400 acres) for the purpose of the Notice of Intent submission, is the Decision-maker required to aggregate all pesticide applications that result in a discharge to waters of the United States, regardless of the pesticide use patterns?
No. EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) establishes annual treatment area thresholds for each of the four pesticide use patterns (i.e., mosquito and other flying insect pests, weeds and algae, animal pests, and forest canopy pests). Decision-makers must calculate the annual treatment area independently for each of the four pesticide use patterns - including only those pesticide activities that result in a discharge to waters of the United States. See the question below on how to calculate the annual treatment areas.
How do Operators calculate the treatment area?
The “Treatment Area” as defined in Appendix A of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) is the entire area, whether over land or water, where a pesticide application is intended to provide pesticidal benefits within the pest management area. In some instances, the treatment area will be larger than the area where pesticides are actually applied. For example, the treatment area for a stationary drip treatment into a canal includes the entire width and length of the canal over which the pesticide is intended to control weeds. Similarly, the treatment area for a lake or marine area is the water surface area where the application is intended to provide pesticidal benefits.
The procedures for calculating the treatment area are identified in Appendix A of EPA’s PGP in the definition of the term “annual treatment area threshold.”
For calculating annual treatment areas for Weed and Algae Control and Animal Pest Control, calculations should include either the linear extent of, or the surface area of, waters for applications made to waters of the United States or at water’s edge, adjacent to waters of the United States. For calculating the annual treatment area, count each treatment area only once, regardless of the number of pesticide application activities performed on that area in a given year. Also, for any linear feature (e.g., a canal or ditch), use the length of the linear feature, whether treating in, or adjacent to, the feature, regardless of the number of applications made to that feature during the calendar year. For example, whether treating the bank on one side of a ten-mile long ditch, banks on both sides of the ditch, and/or water in that ditch, the total treatment area is ten miles. Additionally, if the same 10 mile area is treated more than once in a calendar year, the total area treated is still 10 miles. Also, the treatment area for these two pesticide use patterns (Weed and Algae Control and Animal Pest Control) is not additive over the calendar year. Each pesticide use pattern (Animal Pest Control, etc.) is to be evaluated separately and compared to the applicable threshold.
For calculating annual treatment areas for Mosquitoes and Other Flying Insect Pest Control and Forest Canopy Pest Control, calculations should include all applications made by the Decision-maker, regardless of whether those individual applications may result in a discharge to waters of the United States. As long as some portion of the treatment results in a discharge requiring permit coverage, the calculation of treatment area for these two use patterns are to include all activities made by the Decision-maker during the calendar year. Also, unlike the previous two use patterns, the treatment area is additive over the calendar year (i.e., multiple treatments to the same area are to be combined to calculate a cumulative treatment area). Also, for purposes of calculating annual treatment areas for mosquito control, only adulticide applications are to be counted. While larvaciding that results in discharges to waters of the United States do require permit coverage, those activities are not to be included in the calculation of area treatment (for purpose of determining if a Notice of Intent is required). Similar to the previous two pesticide use patterns, each pesticide use pattern (Mosquitoes and Other Flying Insect Pest Control and Forest Canopy Pest Control) is to be evaluated separately and compared to the applicable threshold.
In determining whether a Decision-maker exceeds an annual treatment area threshold for a specific pesticide use pattern (i.e., 80 acres or 20 linear miles or 6,400 acres) for the purpose of the Notice of Intent submission, is the Decision-maker required to aggregate all pesticide applications that result in a discharge to waters of the United States for that use pattern, regardless of the pest management areas?
Yes. “Pest management areas” are those areas where the Decision-maker may be managing pests within a state. Treatment areas are those areas within the pest management areas where pesticide activities actually will be performed, and that will result in a discharge to waters of the United States. For each pesticide use pattern, the total annual treatment area must include all treatment areas where pesticide activities are expected to be performed that will result in a discharge to waters of the United States, for all the pest management areas within a state.
The Decision-maker must file the Notice of Intent (NOI) at least ten days before exceeding an annual treatment area threshold. Such deadlines are listed in Table 1-2 of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit.
EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) establishes annual treatment area thresholds for each of the four pesticide use patterns (i.e., mosquito and other flying insect pests, weeds and algae, animal pests, and forest canopy pests). For two of the four pesticide use patterns - weeds and algae and animal pests - the annual treatment area is to be calculated based only on those applications that result in discharges to waters of the United States (i.e., treatment areas can be excluded that do not result in discharges to waters of the United States). However, for the other two pesticide use patterns - mosquito and other flying insect pests and forest canopy pests -the area treated is the entire area to be treated rather than only those areas that result in discharges to waters of the United States.
Is permit coverage under EPA’s PGP automatic upon submission of a Notice of Intent?
No. See Table 1-2 of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PG), NOI Submittal Deadlines and Discharge Authorization Dated for Discharges from the Application of Pesticides. Activities may be covered as early as ten days after EPA receives a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI). However, it may take 30 days or longer in treatment areas with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Listed Resources of Concern.
Can a senior executive officer at a federal facility be the signatory for an NOI required by EPA’s PGP?
It depends. Appendix B.11.A.3 of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) states that the Notice of Intent (NOI) for a municipality, state, federal, or other public agency is to be signed by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. A principal executive officer of a federal agency includes (i) the chief executive officer of the agency, or (ii) a senior executive officer having responsibility for the overall operations of a principal geographic unit or the agency (e.g., Regional Administrator of EPA).
A federal facility can be considered a principal geographic unit if the senior executive officer has responsibility for the overall operation of the federal facility. Otherwise, a senior executive officer of the regional office, or the agency that has responsibility for the overall operation of the federal facility, is the signatory for the NOI.
No. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations do not allow for delegation of responsibility for signing and certifying a Notice of Intent (NOI). Other types of NPDES documents, such as annual reports and Pesticide Discharge Management Plans, may be delegated and signed by a duly authorized representative of the principal executive officer, consistent with delegation procedures described in Section B.11.B of Appendix B of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit.
No. There is no need to submit a new Notice of Intent (NOI) or update an existing NOI because the signatory of the NOI has changed. Any subsequent documents that need to be signed can be signed by the new signatory. If an updated NOI is required, the new signatory can contact EPA NOI processing center to gain access to the NOI submitted by a previous signatory.
No, unless the discharge is to waters of the United States containing National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Listed Resources of Concern. See Part 1.2.3, Table 1-3 of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit.
No. Any updated Applicator information is to be provided to EPA in the annual report, not in an updated Notice of Intent.
EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) requires Decision-makers to submit changes to previous NOI forms where, for example, coverage for an additional discharge not included in the original NOI is being requested. EPA expects these requests for NOI changes to be submitted primarily in four instances:
coverage for a new or expanded pest management area is being requested,
discharge to a Tier 3 water is identified for permit coverage,
discharge to any waters of the United States containing National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Listed Resources of Concern, as defined in Appendix A of the permit, is being requested, or
changes in the treatment area, pesticide product, method or rate of application, or approximate dates of applications for discharges to waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.
In these four instances, Decision-makers are required to submit revised NOIs that reflect changes in the areas and types of activities for which coverage is being requested. See Part 1.2.2 of the permit and Part III, 1.2.2 of the accompanying fact sheet.
What are the requirements under EPA’s PGP?
EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) delineates different responsibilities for different types of Operators as well as different types of pesticide application activities and locations of those activities. For example, the permit assigns different responsibilities to Decision-makers and Applicators; although any Operator covered under the permit is still responsible, jointly and severally, for any violation associated with its discharge. Similarly, the permit includes different requirements for discharges from the control of mosquitoes or from the control of pests in the forest canopy. EPA has developed a step-by-step, interactive, online tool on its pesticide website to help Operators summarized their requirements under the EPA’s PGP.
How do Decision-makers determine if they are a large entity or small entity, for the purpose of EPA’s PGP?
Under EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP), “small entity” is defined as any (1) private enterprise that does not exceed the Small Business Administration size standard as identified at 13 CFR 121.201, or (2) local government that serves a population of 10,000 or less. All other Operators are considered large entities for purposes of EPA’s PGP.
Are all federal agencies considered large entities for the purpose of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit?
How do quasi-governmental entities, such as irrigation districts, determine if they are large or small entities, for purposes of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit?
Does compliance with Whole Effluent Toxicity testing to demonstrate consistency with the "free from toxics" narrative standard apply under EPA’s PGP?"
EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) does not require Operators to perform water quality testing (including no requirement to monitor whole effluent toxicity). As written, EPA assumes that pesticide applications performed consistent with the PGP will generally be adequate to protect water quality.
The monitoring requirements in EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) provides flexibility for Applicators to respond to the wide range of environments, situations, and targets to which pesticides may be applied. Visual monitoring is required only when safety and feasibility allow visual assessment of the treatment area. See Part 4.1 of EPA’s PGP. Visual monitoring during post-application surveillance is required of all Operators, but only if the Operator (i.e. Applicator, the Decision-maker or both) performs post-application surveillance in the normal course of business. The PGP does not require aerial applicators to perform post-application surveillance unless such surveillance is part of the Operator’s normal course of business.
Are Decision-makers, who are required to submit an NOI solely because their application will result in discharges to waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, required to develop a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP)?
No. Any Decision-maker who is or will be required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) must prepare a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP) with two exceptions:
o The application made in response to a Declared Pest Emergency Situation, or o The Decision-maker is required to submit an NOI solely because their application results in a point source discharge to waters of the United States containing U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Listed Resources of Concern.
When are Decision-makers who are required to develop a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP) required to develop that plan?
When do Decision-makers need to update their Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP)?
Decision-makers must modify their Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP) whenever necessary to address any of the triggering conditions for corrective action in Part 6.1 of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit, or when a change in pest control activities significantly changes the type or quantity of pollutants discharged. Changes to the PDMP must be made before the next pesticide application that results in a discharge, if practicable, or if not practicable, no later than 90 days after any change in pesticide application activities. The revised PDMP must be signed and dated in accordance with Appendix B, Subsection B.11 of PGP.
Does EPA’s PGP require posting of the Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP) on the EPA’s website?
In general, EPA's Pesticide General Permit (PGP) does not require posting of the PDMP on EPA’s website (nor does the PGP require the Decision-maker to submit the PDMP to EPA); however, as noted in Part 9 of the permit, some States, Tribes and territories do require the submission of PDMPs based on their Clean Water Act 401 certification of the permit.
EPA’s PGP does require the Decision-maker to retain any required plan at the address provided in the NOI and make it readily available upon request to EPA, State, Tribal or local agencies governing discharges of pesticides in their respective jurisdictions and representatives of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service or the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service.
Does EPA’s PGP require submission of records indicating that visual monitoring for adverse effects has taken place?
EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) does not require submission of visual monitoring records. However, all Decision-makers who are required to submit an NOI and all Operators who are For-Hire Applicators are required to retain records on whether or not visual monitoring was conducted during pesticide application and/or post-application. If visual monitoring was not conducted they must note the reason. In addition, they must also note whether monitoring identified any possible or observable adverse incidents caused by application of pesticides.
Who must submit an annual report for pesticide application point source discharges?
Parts 7.6 and 7.7 of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) require Decision-makers who meet the following conditions to submit an annual report:
Any Decision-maker who is required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and is a large entity (as defined in Appendix A of EPA’s PGP), or
Any Decision-maker who is required to submit an NOI and is a small entity with discharges to waters of the United States containing U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Listed Resources of Concern as defined in Appendix A of the PGP.
If a Decision-maker contracted a commercial applicator to perform pest control, and the Decision-maker is mostly hands off, who must file the annual report?
If the Decision-maker meets the conditions to submit an annual report (see the above question), the Decision-maker is responsible for submitting the annual report. However, if a commercial applicator is the “duly authorized representative” of the Decision-maker, the commercial applicator can prepare, sign, and submit the annual report on behalf of the Decision-maker. A person is a “duly authorized representative” if he or she meets the criteria outlined in B.11.B of Appendix B of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit.
Where must the annual report required under EPA’s PGP be submitted/filed?
Decision-makers must submit the annual report electronically through EPA’s notice processing system (eNOI), available at www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticide-permitting, unless the Decision-maker meets the waiver requirements for submitting a paper annual report. Decision-makers waived from the requirement to use eNOI for annual report submission must sign and send in a wet signature copy of the paper annual report form to EPA at the appropriate address identified in the instructions on the annual report form provided in Appendix G of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP).
Are Decision-makers exempt from the annual reporting requirements if their previous calendar year treatment area is below the “annual treatment area threshold” values listed in EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (i.e., 80 acres, 20 linear miles, 6,400 acres)?
No. There are no threshold values in EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) to determine whether or not annual reporting is required. The “annual treatment area threshold” values listed in EPA’s PGP established whether or not Operators must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain coverage under EPA’s PGP and comply with more comprehensive permit requirements. See the question above, “Who must submit an annual report for pesticide application point source discharges?”
Once a Decision-maker meets the obligation to submit an annual report, the Decision-maker must submit an annual report each calendar year thereafter for the duration of coverage under EPA’s PGP, whether or not the Decision-maker has discharges from the application of pesticides in any subsequent calendar year. After terminating permit coverage, the Decision-maker no longer has to submit an annual report, except to report any discharges that occurred during the year that coverage was terminated. For example, a Decision-maker submitting a Notice of Termination in September 2018 is required to submit an annual report for discharges between January and September 2018.
If a Decision-maker is required to file an annual report because the Decision-maker is a small entity with discharges to waters of the United States containing National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Listed Resources of Concern, does the Decision-maker need to report pesticide activities that occurred in the Decision-maker’s other pest management areas?
No. In this scenario, the Decision-maker is required to report only the pesticide activities that result in discharges to waters of the United States containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern.
Since filing a Notice of Intent (NOI), the preparer and/or certifying official on that NOI no longer holds that position within the organization (or have left the organization altogether). How does a new preparer, new certifying official, or duly authorized representative of the Decision-maker file the annual report electronically?
The new preparer and/or new certifying official needs to register a new account in EPA's Central Data Exchange. Once registered, they must contact the eNOI processing center to have the old information linked to the new account.
What is a “pest management area” and a “treatment area,” as identified on the annual report form?
A “pest management area” or “PMA” is an area where the Decision-maker may be managing pests within a state, and such management could result in a discharge to waters of the United States. A PMA is identified by the Decision-maker and reported to EPA when they file a Notice of Intent (NOI). A Decision-maker must use the PMAs identified on their NOI when completing the annual reports.
A “treatment area” is the entire area, whether over land or water, where an actual pesticide application is intended to provide pesticidal benefits within a pest management area. EPA’s Pesticide General Permit provides flexibility for Decision-makers to report treatment areas within a PMA as separate treatment areas or combine as one larger treatment area within a PMA. For example, non-contiguous areas treated once or several times or spot treatments may be reported as one treatment area provided the areas are within the same PMA.
Can Decision-makers report the location of their treatment areas by attaching a map onto the annual report instead of a written description?
Yes, as described in Part 7.6 of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit, for each treatment area the annual report must include: a description or map of each treatment area indicating at a minimum, the location and size, (acres or linear feet) of treatment area, and identification of any waters, either by name or by location, to which pesticide(s) are discharged.
For the annual report, how does a Decision-maker calculate the size of treatment areas?
When reporting the “size of treatment area” on the annual report, count each treatment area only once, regardless of the pesticide use patterns and the number of pesticide application activities performed on that same area in a given year. The treatment area is not additive over the calendar year. However, note that for the purposes of reporting the amount of pesticides used, Decision-makers must report the total amount of pesticides used over the calendar year. For example, if 10 pounds of a pesticide is applied one day to a defined treatment area and then 20 pounds the next month to that same treatment area, the annual report should identify 30 pounds as the amount applied in the calendar year for that treatment area.
Are Decision-makers required to report pesticide applications to terrestrial areas in their annual reports?
It depends. Decision-makers are required to report pesticide activities that result in discharges of pesticides to waters of the United States regardless of whether the waters of the United States are wet, partially wet, or dry at the time of the discharge. If the terrestrial area is a water of the United States, the Decision-maker is required to report the pesticide activities.
Are Decision-makers required to include in their annual reports the adjuvants and surfactants used?
No. Adjuvant and surfactants do not need to be reported in the annual report. Only the amount of the registered pesticide product, the quantity before water or any other substances are added, must be reported. The “pesticide product” is defined in Appendix A of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit, as the pesticide in the particular form (including composition, packaging, and labeling) in which the pesticide is, or is intended to be, distributed or sold.
Not necessarily. EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) requires Decision-makers who submitted Notices of Intent to submit annual reports that identify the total amount of each pesticide product applied to each treatment area and a list of Applicators who performed the activities in each treatment area. The PGP does not require the Decision-maker to link each specific application with the specific Applicator who performed that activity.
An annual report was filed in error, how do Decision-makers delete or correct their annual reports?
The annual reporting system was designed such that once the Annual Report is certified, no edits can be made to that Annual Report. However, Decision-makers can submit another report to supersede their original report.
Any Decision-maker who was required to submit an NOI and meets the conditions of Part 1.2.5 of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) is required to submit an NOT to terminate coverage under the permit. NOTs can be filed through the eNOI system. If the Decision-maker is required to submit annual reports prior to the termination of coverage under the PGP, an annual report must be submitted for the portion of the year up through the date of termination.
No. The Clean Water Act and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations do not provide a waiver from NPDES permits for emergency situations, even those related to public health. Although permit coverage is required, EPA’s Pesticide General Permit allows Operators to be covered for declared pest emergency situations, without delay, by:
delaying the submission of the Notice of Intent (NOI) for those Decision-makers otherwise required to submit an NOI (see Table 1-2 and Table 1-3 of the Pesticide General Permit), and
not requiring development of a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP) for such a pesticide application.
Are pesticide activities that are conducted as part of a public declaration of a pest emergency but begin ten days or more after the identification of the need for pest control considered “Declared Pest Emergency Situation” under EPA’s PGP?
No. EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP) defines a “Declared Pest Emergency Situation” as an event defined by a public declaration by a federal agency, state, or local government of a pest problem determined to require control through application of a pesticide beginning less than ten days after identification of the need for pest control. See Appendix A of EPA’s PGP. The goal of the “Declared Pest Emergency Situation” provision is to allow Decision-makers to respond to pest emergencies without delay.
Is a Declared Pest Emergency Situation, as defined in EPA’s PGP, limited to only pesticide activities conducted within ten days of that declaration?
No, although for an event to be considered a Declared Pest Emergency Situation under EPA’s Pesticide General Permit (PGP), the first pesticide application must be conducted less than ten days after the public declaration. Any subsequent pesticide activities that are necessary and described in the declaration are also considered to be part of the emergency.
Decision-makers are required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) within 30 days of commencing a pesticide application that results in a discharge to waters of the United States unless those waters contain U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Listed Resources of Concern, in which case the NOI must be submitted within 15 days of commencing discharge. See Table 1-2 of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit.
EPA expects that in many instances, the Decision-maker responding to a Declared Pest Emergency Situation will already have an active NOI for the routine pest control activities in the same pest management area. In those instances, the Decision-maker is not required to submit a new NOI for the emergency, provided the contents of the active NOI includes activities included in the emergency declaration.
No. Another Notice of Intent (NOI) is not required but the Decision-maker is required to update the NOI if the criteria in Part 1.2.3, Table 1-3 of EPA’s Pesticide General Permit are met.
Yes. For activities covered under EPA’s Pesticide General Permit, an annual report is due by February 15th of the following calendar year.