Transcript Slide 1

Public Health Pesticides and
the Clean Water Act:
Current Status
Joseph M Conlon
Technical Advisor
FIFRA vs CWA
FIFRA
CWA
Cost/benefit
Risk-based
$7000/incident
No citizen suits
No cost/benefit
Hazard-based
$37,000/day
Citizen suits
Pesticide General Permit:
Contents
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fact sheet
Notice of Intent
Effluent Limits
Pest Management Discharge Plan
Monitoring
Annual Reporting
3
Recordkeeping
Pesticide General Permit:
Contents
• Fact sheet
•
•
•
•
•
•
Notice of Intent
Effluent Limits
Pest Management Discharge Plan
Monitoring
Annual Reporting
Recordkeeping
4
Fact Sheet Components
• Fact sheet will be public noticed with draft permit.
• Fact sheet includes information such as:
– Principal facts and significant factual, legal,
methodological, and policy questions considered in
preparing the permit.
– Description of types of activities covered.
– Types of discharges covered.
– Rationale for permit requirements, incl. calculations
and analysis.
– Brief summary of the basis for permit conditions.
Pesticide General Permit:
Contents
• Fact sheet
• Notice of Intent
•
•
•
•
•
Effluent Limits
Pest Management Discharge Plan
Monitoring
Annual Reporting
Recordkeeping
6
Notice of Intent (NOI)
• Type or scale of application – water-acres?
• Identify the responsible entity
–
–
–
–
–
–
Contact information - address, phone, email
Description of entity
Type of discharges (pesticide use patterns)
Receiving stream(s)
File electronically by > 10 days prior to discharge
Authorization date – 10 days after EPA receipt
• 25 (B) not “exempt”
Pesticide General Permit:
Contents
• Fact sheet
• Notice of Intent
• Effluent Limits
•
•
•
•
Pest Management Discharge Plan
Monitoring
Annual Reporting
Recordkeeping
8
Technology-Based Effluent Limits
General Concept
• Minimize pesticide discharges
– Based on integrated mosquito management
practices
– Minimize pesticide discharges by BMPs that
are available and economically practicable
– Use lowest effective amt. and optimize
frequency of applications
– Regular maintenance
– Calibrate
Technology-Based Effluent Limits
Integrated Mosquito Management
– Identify problem
– Mosquito management
• Prior/each year select for each treatment area
• Water quality/non-target/resistance/feasibility/cost
effectiveness
–
–
–
–
–
–
No action
Prevention
Mechanical/physical methods
Cultural methods
Biological control
Pesticides
– Pesticide Use - larvicides are primary
“Best Management Practices for
Integrated Mosquito Management”
•Mosquito Surveillance
•Mapping
•Action Thresholds
•Physical Control or Source Reduction
•Biological Control
•Chemical Control
•Monitoring for Efficacy/Resistance
•Education and Community Outreach
•Record-keeping
Water Quality-Based Effluent
Limitations
• Narrative
– Discharge must be controlled as necessary to
meet numeric WQS
– EPA may impose additional limitations or
require individual permit
Pesticide General Permit:
Contents
• Fact sheet
• Notice of Intent
• Effluent Limits
• Pest Management Discharge
Plan
• Monitoring
• Annual Reporting
• Recordkeeping
13
Pesticide Discharge Management
Plan - General
• Within 90 days of NOI
• Documents implementation of permit
requirements
• Can reference pre-existing IMM plans
• Not subject to challenge
Pesticide Discharge Management
Plan - Components
•
•
•
•
•
Pesticide Discharge Management Team
Problem
Control measures
Surveillance
Schedules and procedures
–
–
–
–
Spill prevention/response
Equipment maintenance
Adverse incident response plan
Pesticide monitoring
Pesticide Discharge Management
Team
• Person(s) responsible for:
–
–
–
–
Managing mosquitoes
Developing PDMP
Taking corrective actions
Pesticide applications
Problem Description
• Treatment area – description and boundaries
• Mosquito management objective
• Target species
• Action thresholds
• Applicable WQS and data source
Description of Control Measures
• Water quality/nontarget/resistance/feasibility/cost
effectiveness
–
–
–
–
–
No action
Prevention
Mechanical/physical methods
Cultural methods
Biological control
Description of Control Measures
• Name of pesticide and EPA registration #
• Procedures for determining lowest
effective amt. and freq of application
• Document why larviciding is not primary
method
Surveillance
• Must document procedures for conducting
pre and post-application surveillance
– Where
– When
– How
Schedules and Procedures
• Spill prevention/response
• Equipment maintenance/calibration
• Adverse incident response procedure
• Pesticide monitoring
– Process for determining monitoring location
– Schedule and procedures for monitoring
– Person(s) responsible for monitoring
Pesticide General Permit:
Contents
•
•
•
•
Fact sheet
Notice of Intent
Effluent Limits
Pest Management Discharge Plan
• Monitoring
• Annual Reporting
• Recordkeeping
22
Site Monitoring
• Required
– “visual monitoring” of “application area”
•
•
•
•
During application in daylight – except aerial/truck
During post application efficacy check
Unanticipated death/distress of non-targets
Disruption of wildlife habitat, recreational, or municipal water
– “enhanced visual monitoring” for some
applications
– No ambient water quality testing foreseen – yet
Pesticide General Permit:
Contents
•
•
•
•
•
Fact sheet
Notice of Intent
Effluent Limits
Pest Management Discharge Plan
Monitoring
• Annual Reporting
• Recordkeeping
24
Annual Reporting
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Permittee’s name
NPDES Permit tracking #
Permittee’s mailing address
Contact name, title, e-mail, phone #
EPA registration #s
Amount of product used
Location/names of waters
Mosquitoes controlled
Submit electronically
Pesticide General Permit:
Contents
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fact sheet
Notice of Intent
Effluent Limits
Pest Management Discharge Plan
Monitoring
Annual Reporting
• Recordkeeping
26
Recordkeeping
• Required to be on hand
– Copy of permit – can be electronic
– Copy of any adverse incident reports
– Copy of NOI
EPA Permit Issuance as Federal Action
• Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires EPA
consultation with USFWS and NOAA
• EPA is discussing PGP with the Services
• Discussions may result in additional permit
requirements.
Schedule
2 mo.
8 mo.
8 mo.
4 mo.
Update
• Cert petitions appealing 6th CCA decision to
SCOTUS filed on 11 January 2010
• Congressional amicus curiae
• AMCA filed amicus curiae in two cases
involving CWA
– NPDES – 6th Circuit (with NASDA, et al.)
– Peconic – 2nd Circuit
Supreme Court Cert
Amicus Curiae
• Industry - invasive species
• Solicitor General Files in opposition
– Argued opinion and should have deferred to EPA
expertise
– However:
• Only applies to very narrow range of activities
• Cited grant of 2 year stay
• Sufficient time for general permit development to minimize
potential disruptions
Supreme Court Cert
Environmentalist Amicus Curiae
"Imagining catastrophe, Petitioners argue
that the Sixth Circuit's opinion will sweep
into the Act's permitting program a variety
of activities Congress did not intend to
regulate…they suggest that this case
warrants review because other courts may
mistakenly extend the Sixth Circuit's
analysis beyond the opinion's holding.”
Second Circuit
• Peconic Baykeeper
– Appealing dismissal of claims made against Suffolk
County for spraying w/o permit
– No precedence to abide by 6th Circuit
– Court wants to wait until permit to be issued
What Now?
• Supreme Court to accept/deny Cert by
February 22
– If accepted, oral arguments by October
– If cert denied, mandates goes into effect 9 April
2011
• Second Circuit to opine April – June in
Peconic