|
|
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FACT SHEET
FOR WATER QUALITY ORDER NO 2001-12-DWQ
STATEWIDE GENERAL NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION
SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES OF
AQUATIC PESTICIDES TO WATERS OF THE UNITED
STATES (GENERAL PERMIT) GENERAL
PERMIT NO. CAG990003 BACKGROUND On March 12, 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that discharges of pollutants from the use of aquatic pesticides to waters of the United States require coverage under an NPDES permit, (Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation District). The Talent decision was issued just prior to the major season for applying aquatic pesticides. Because of the serious public health, safety, and economic implications of delay in such applications, this General Permit has been developed on an emergency basis in order to provide coverage for broad categories of aquatic pesticide use in California. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) will rescind or revise this General Permit if the law as stated in the Talent decision changes. Coverage under this General Permit is available to public entities for discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States (“water bodies”) associated with the application of aquatic pesticides for resource or pest management. This limitation to “public entities” is based on the provisions of the SWRCB’s Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (the State Implementation Policy, or SIP) allowing categorical exceptions from meeting priority pollutant criteria/objectives for resource or pest management control measures conducted by “public entities.” “Public Entity” is defined in the SIP to include “the federal government or state, county, city and county, city, district, public authority, or public agency.” The categorical exception provision also gives examples of management programs that such public entities may conduct: vector or weed control, pest eradication, or fishery management. The entities that conduct such programs vary in legal structure, but all have in common a public role of protecting waterways and/or the public health from harmful organisms. This General Permit is available to all such entities regardless of legal structure, including mutual water companies, public water purveyors, investor-owned utilities, and homeowners’ associations. The SIP further provides that the categorical exception is for resource or pest management conducted by public entities “to fulfill statutory requirements, including, but not limited to, those in the California Fish and Game, Food and Agriculture, Health and Safety, and Harbors and Navigation codes.” Some of these statutory provisions do not mandate the management programs but make their implementation discretionary. The exception is properly read to include such discretionary programs. This General Permit does not cover indirect or non-point source discharges from agricultural or other applications of pesticides to land that may be conveyed in storm water or irrigation runoff. This General Permit does not cover applications of pesticides that are not registered for use on aquatic sites. This General Permit does cover the uses of properly registered and applied aquatic pesticides that constitute discharges of “pollutants” to waters of the United States. The aquatic pesticides covered by this General Permit will be applied directly into the water body, and/or directly to organisms in the water or on the water surface with the purpose and intent of killing the target aquatic organisms. The impacts of these chemicals may not be limited to the target organisms - other plants and aquatic life in the treatment area may be impacted. Due to water movement at the treatment locations, the residual pesticides can be carried to adjacent areas while concentrations in the water are still high enough to cause adverse impacts not only to aquatic organisms but also to other beneficial uses, such as irrigation, municipal water supplies and recreation (such as swimming). As part of the pesticide registration process conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), adverse impacts relevant to these beneficial uses have been evaluated and determined not to be unreasonable. A purpose of this Order is to minimize the areal extent and duration of adverse impacts to beneficial uses of water bodies treated with aquatic pesticides.
To qualify for coverage under this General Permit, dischargers must meet the following criteria: 1. The discharger must submit a fully completed Notice of Intent (NOI), a project map, and first annual fee.2. The discharger must be a public entity. 3. Dischargers must be licensed by DPR or Department of Health Services (DHS) if such licensing is required for such public entities, to apply aquatic pesticides.
The basic requirements of this General Permit include: 1. The discharger must follow all pesticide label instructions and any Use Permits issued by a County Agricultural Commissioner. 2. The discharger must implement best management practices (BMPs). 3. The discharger must comply with monitoring requirements.
WATERS
OF THE UNITED STATES This General Permit regulates the addition of pollutants associated with the application of aquatic pesticides to navigable waters. “Navigable waters,” means waters of the United States. “Waters of the United States” include all waters currently used, used in the past, or susceptible to use in interstate commerce; all interstate waters; all other waters the use, degradation, or destruction of which would or could affect interstate or foreign commerce. Waters of the United States include waters used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreation, waters from which fish or shellfish are taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce, impoundments of and tributaries to waters of the United States, and wetlands adjacent to waters of the United States. For instance, irrigation canals that exchange water with natural streams and lakes are waters of the United States.
EMERGENCY CONDITIONS
This General Permit is being issued under emergency conditions. On March 12, 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation District determined that discharges of aquatic pesticides to waters of the United States require coverage under an NPDES permit. Discharge of aquatic pesticides by the public entities covered by this General Permit is necessary at this time. These public entities conduct resource or pest management programs in order to fulfill statutory requirements and to protect beneficial uses of water and the public health. Many of the public entities would be unwilling to perform the activities prior to issuance of an NPDES permit because of the substantial liability they could incur for discharging aquatic pesticides in violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Because of the emergency nature of this General Permit, many of the actions that would normally occur prior to issuance of a permit granting a categorical exception to priority pollutant objectives/criteria have not yet occurred. This General Permit is issued as a limited term permit, and it will expire January 31, 2004. During the term of this General Permit, activities will occur that will provide the basis for a full-term permit in the future. The public entities subject to the General Permit will complete necessary California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents to justify the categorical exception. The public entities will develop monitoring plans that will be the basis of monitoring requirements in the next permit. The SWRCB will consider issuing future permits that are more limited in nature as to specific pesticides, types of resource and pest management programs, or areas of the State. The future permits will be based on the submittals received during this General Permit term, will specify whether categorical exceptions are warranted, and will ensure that other applicable water quality standards, including the antidegradation policy, are achieved.
RELATED PESTICIDE REGULATIONS
DPR and the County Agricultural Commissioners (CACs) regulate the sale and use of pesticides in California. Pesticide applications subject to this General Permit must be consistent with the pesticide label instructions and any Use Permits issued by the CACs. According to federal law, pesticide label language is under the sole jurisdiction of USEPA. Label language and any changes thereto must be approved by USEPA before the product can be sold in this country. DPR cannot require manufacturers to make changes in labels; however, DPR can refuse to register products unless manufacturers address unmitigated hazards by amending the pesticide label. As part of the pesticide registration process, USEPA and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), evaluate data submitted by registrants to assure that a product used according to label instructions will cause no harm (or "adverse impact") on non-target organisms that cannot be reduced (or "mitigated") with protective measures or use restrictions. Registrants are required to submit data on the effects of pesticides on target pests (efficacy) as well as nontarget effects. Data on nontarget effects include plant effects (phytotoxicity), fish and wildlife hazards (ecotoxicity), impacts on endangered species, effects on the environment, environmental fate, breakdown products, leachability and persistence. Requirements
that are specific to use in California are included in many pesticide labels
that are approved by USEPA. Applicators
of a pesticide designated as a restricted material
must either be licensed by DPR or must work under the supervision of someone who
is licensed. For aquatic
herbicides, this must be a holder of a Qualified Applicator Certificate with the
category “aquatic.” Use must be
reported to the CAC where required by law or by agreement with DPR. State regulations require that the CAC determine if a substantial adverse environmental impact will result from the proposed use of a restricted material. If the CAC determines that this is likely, the commissioner may deny the Use Permit or may issue it under the condition that site-specific use practices be followed (beyond the label and applicable regulations) to mitigate potentially adverse effects. DPR conducts scientific evaluations of potential health and environmental impacts and provides commissioners with information in the form of suggested permit conditions. DPR’s suggested permit conditions reflect minimum measures necessary to protect people and the environment. CACs use this information and their evaluation of local conditions to set site-specific limits in permits. The State’s pesticide
regulation laws provide special procedures for vector control agencies operating
under cooperative agreements. (See, e.g., Food and Agricultural Code §
11408(e). The application of
pesticides by mosquito abatement districts and other vector control agencies is
regulated by a special arrangement among the DHS, DPR, CACs, and vector control
agencies. Vector control districts are not directly regulated by DPR. Instead, supervisors
or applicators are licensed by DHS. Pesticide
use by vector control agencies is reported to the CAC in accordance with a 1995
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among DPR, DHS, and the CACs for the
Protection of Human Health from the Adverse Effects of Pesticides and with
cooperative agreements entered into between DHS and vector control agencies,
pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 116180.
WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS USEPA established water quality criteria for priority pollutants in the National Toxics Rule and the California Toxics Rule, and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) establish water quality objectives for priority pollutants in basin plans. The SWRCB has adopted the SIP that contains implementation provisions for these water quality criteria and objectives. The SIP provides that categorical exceptions may be granted to allow short-term or seasonal exceptions from meeting the priority pollutant criteria/objectives if “necessary to implement control measures … for resource or pest management conducted by public entities to fulfill statutory requirements.” The SIP specifically refers to vector or weed control, pest eradication, and fishery management as bases for categorical exceptions. This General Permit grants a categorical exception from water quality criteria and objectives for priority pollutants for the application of aquatic pesticides by public entities in the exercise of resource or pest management powers authorized by State statute. The SWRCB recognizes that the discharges of pollutants may also cause or contribute to exceedance of water quality standards for parameters or constituents that are not priority pollutants. This General Permit does not require immediate compliance with such water quality standards, but requires that the dischargers implement additional BMPs to eliminate or reduce the pollutants that are causing or contributing to exceedance. As a condition to retaining the categorical exception, dischargers must comply with conditions that are included in the General Permit. Further, consistent with the SIP exception, dischargers are allocated a temporal zone of impact on beneficial uses of water within which there may be a temporary exceedance of criteria, but the resulting impact must be transient, and must allow for full restoration of water quality and protection of beneficial uses upon project completion. The SIP exception applies only to water quality criteria/objectives for priority pollutants and not to other water quality standards, such as the antidegradation policy. For parameters or constituents that are not priority pollutants, dischargers must implement appropriate BMPs to achieve compliance with other applicable water quality standards contained in a Statewide Water Quality Control Plan or in an RWQCB Basin Plan. If the discharges of any non-priority pollutants cause or contribute to exceedance of water quality standards, the dischargers are required to develop and implement improved BMPs to prevent or reduce such pollutants.
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONSNPDES permits for discharges to surface waters must meet all applicable provisions of Sections 301 and 402 of the CWA. These provisions require controls of pollutant discharges that utilize best available technology economically achievable (BAT) and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) to reduce pollutants and any more stringent controls necessary to meet water quality standards. It is not feasible at this time for the SWRCB to establish numeric effluent limitations for pollutants in discharges associated with aquatic pesticide applications. Establishment of numeric effluent limitations for pollutants is not feasible because: (1) aquatic pesticide applications are made directly to the water body and/or to organisms in the water or on the water surface, (2) there may be numerous short duration intermittent pesticide releases to surface waters from many different locations, and (3) there are numerous pesticides used, including many inert ingredients, and the SWRCB does not have the ability to establish numeric effluent limitations for each of these constituents. Therefore, pursuant to Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 122.44(k), the effluent limitations contained in this General Permit are narrative and include requirements to implement appropriate BMPs, including compliance with all pesticide label instructions. The BMPs required herein constitute BAT and BCT, and they will be implemented to minimize the areal extent and duration of impacts caused by the discharge of pollutants and to allow for full restoration of water quality and protection of beneficial uses of the receiving waters following completion of resource or pest management projects.
BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) The development of BMPs provides the flexibility necessary to establish controls to minimize the areal extent and duration of impacts caused by the discharge of pollutants and to allow for full restoration of water quality and protection of beneficial uses of the receiving waters following completion of resource or pest management projects. This flexibility allows dischargers to implement different BMPs for different types of applications and different types of waters. Much of the BMP development has been incorporated in the pesticide regulation process by the USEPA, DPR, DHS, and CACs. As discussed above, the dischargers must be licensed by DPR or DHS if such licensing is required for the aquatic pesticide application project. The pesticide use must be consistent with the pesticide label instructions and any Use Permits issued by CACs. A pesticide label has been
reviewed by both USEPA and DPR scientists to ensure that a product used
according to label instructions will cause no harm (or “adverse impact”) on
non-target organisms that cannot be reduced (or “mitigated”) with protective
measures or use restrictions. Many
of the label directions constitute BMPs to protect water quality and beneficial
uses. Label directions may include:
precautionary statements regarding toxicity and environmental hazards;
directions for proper handling, dosage, application, and disposal practices;
prohibited activities; spill prevention and response measures; and restrictions
on type of water body and flow conditions. A Use Permit issued by the CAC incorporates applicable suggested permit conditions from DPR and local site-specific conditions necessary to protect the environment. State regulations require that specific types of information be provided in an application to the CACs for a pesticide use permit. The CACs review the application to assure that appropriate alternatives were considered and that any potential adverse effects are mitigated. The CACs also conduct pre-project inspections on at least 5 percent of projects. The General Permit requires that the dischargers must comply with all pesticide label instructions, DPR and DHS regulations, and any Use Permits issued by the CACs. The General Permit also specifies the steps that will be followed to identify and implement appropriate BMPs that are designed to maximize efficacy of control efforts and minimize adverse impacts to the environment. These steps are: 1. Preliminary site evaluations. The discharger will conduct a site inspection to verify the need for treatment, options to treatment (including non-toxic and less toxic alternatives), and suitability of the site for treatment. 2. Alternative Control Measures. The discharger will evaluate other available BMPs and alternative control measures to determine if there are feasible alternatives to the selected aquatic pesticide application project that could reduce potential water quality impacts. 3. Secondary site evaluations and pre-treatment monitoring. The discharger will determine the type and intensity of treatment needed. This evaluation will include measurement and analysis of indicators to provide information on potential efficacy and water quality impacts. 4. Treatment. Immediately prior to treatment, the discharger will examine a series of indicators and modify treatment plans accordingly. These indicators may include day length, precipitation, recreational activity, sunlight, tidal water exchange, water depth, water flows, water turbidity, and wind. If this examination indicates a potential for reduced control efficacy and/or heightened water quality impacts, the treatment will be rescheduled. 5. Post-treatment. The discharger will assess control efficacy and water quality impacts. The results of this assessment will be evaluated by the discharger to refine project operations through an adaptive management process. The selection of control measures that use non-toxic and less toxic alternatives is an example of an effective BMP. Mosquito Control Districts and other vector control agencies can select larvicides for mosquito control in some situations that have very low toxicity and pose very little or no threat to the environment. Specifically, (a) for microbial larvicides (e.g., Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis, Bacillus sphaericus), USEPA has concluded that they do not pose risks to wildlife, non-target species, or the environment; and (b) for methoprene, USEPA has concluded that, as used in mosquito control programs, it does not pose unreasonable risks to wildlife or the environment. Thin film larvicides (e.g., Agnique) also have low inherent toxicity. The General Permit includes requirements for the dischargers to identify and implement additional BMPs and alternative control measures where such additional BMPs and measures will prevent or reduce impacts to water quality.
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS The General Permit requires that the dischargers comply with the Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) that is incorporated as Attachment B of the General Permit. Dischargers are also required to submit technical and monitoring reports as directed by the appropriate RWQCB's Executive Officer. The MRP requires that the dischargers develop and implement Monitoring Plan (Plans) to: 1. Document compliance with the requirements of the General Permit; 2. Support the development, implementation, and effectiveness of BMPs; and 3. Demonstrate the full restoration of water quality and protection of beneficial uses of the receiving waters following completion of resource or pest management projects. 4. Identify and characterize aquatic pesticide application projects conducted by the discharger. 5. Assure that projects are monitored that are representative of all pesticides and application methods used by the discharger. Dischargers must comply with these requirements either individually or by joining with other dischargers to participate in one or more Regional Pesticide Monitoring Program(s) (RPMPs). Any discharger planning to comply through an RPMP must so indicate at Section VI. of the NOI (Attachment A). The establishment of the RPMPs by groups of dischargers that use similar pesticides and application methods provides an opportunity for dischargers to cost-effectively comply with the MRP. By combining resources and selecting a limited number of representative projects, the RPMPs will be able to conduct monitoring efforts that are comprehensive and technically sound. Each Discharger shall submit a Plan to the appropriate RWQCB(s) by March 1, 2002 for approval. Copies of Plans developed by RPMPs shall be provided to the SWRCB and each RWQCB. The Plan submitted by a discharger should describe any individual monitoring activities and incorporate by reference the RPMP Plans that have been prepared by RPMPs in which the discharger is participating. The Plan must include monitoring of a representative project for each pesticide identified by the discharger at Section IV. B. of the NOI. The dischargers and RPMPs shall implement the Plans by July 1, 2002 in accordance with any modifications required by the RWQCB. The MRP lists six monitoring elements that must be incorporated in all monitoring plans except for some plans for vector control projects. Monitoring exemptions may be appropriate for vector control projects that use microbial larvicides, thin film larvicides, and methoprene. These aquatic pesticides may represent the non-toxic or less toxic pest control alternative with reduced or no threat to the environment. Furthermore, feasible specific quantitative test methods may not be available for these pesticides at label application concentrations. Dischargers of these pesticides should document the rationale for not including plan elements where appropriate. The MRP requires the dischargers to submit a monthly report to the RWQCB documenting specific information for each aquatic pesticide treatment site. The discharger is also required to submit a calendar-year annual report to the RWQCB by January 31 of the following year (beginning January 2003). The report shall include a summary for the previous year including but not limited to (1) objectives of the monitoring program(s); (2) results; and (3) interpretation of data in relation to frequency, duration, and magnitude of impacts to beneficial uses.
To obtain coverage under this General Permit, an NOI and the first annual fee ($400.00) must be submitted. A separate enrollment is required for discharges located within more than one RWQCB’s boundary, as defined in Section 13200 of the California Water Code. Each enrollment will cover all discharges occurring within the boundaries of that RWQCB. Only one annual fee must be submitted to the SWRCB for all covered discharges from one entity. Signing the certification on the NOI signifies that the discharger intends to comply with the provisions of this General Permit. Dischargers are authorized to discharge upon submission of a complete and accurate NOI application for coverage. The NOI Form A is included as Attachment A within this General Permit package. The fully completed NOI, a project map, and first annual fee constitute a complete application for coverage under this General Permit. An NOI must be signed to be valid. Dischargers who submit a valid NOI application are not required to submit an individual permit application. The authorization to discharge under this General Permit is terminated upon receipt of a Notice of Exclusion (NOE) or upon the adoption of either an individual or other general NPDES permit covering the discharge. The discharger must submit additional information if requested by the SWRCB or RWQCB. The RWQCB may determine that a discharger submitting an NOI is not eligible for coverage under this General Permit and may require submittal of an application for an individual permit. Individual application forms will be provided by the appropriate RWQCB. This General Permit will expire on January 31, 2004. Enrollees who are covered under this General Permit must obtain coverage under another general permit for aquatic pesticide applications or an individual NPDES permit.
|