AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY BOARD
To The Department of Environmental Protection
December 2, 1996
Mr. Dan Barolo
Office of Pesticide Programs
US EPA Mailcode 7501 C
401 M Street
Washington DC 20460
RE: Pesticides and Ground Water State Management Plan Regulation
Proposed Rule (OPP-36190)
Dear Mr. Barlo:
On Behalf of the Agricultural Advisory Board to the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), I am writing to
you about our concerns over Proposed Rule OPP-36190.
The Agricultural advisory Board to DEP is a legislatively mandated
board composed of framers, agricultural business, state legislators,
and State and Federal regulatory agencies. Its major responsibility
is to evaluate and provide recommendations to DEP on all rules
and regulations which affect the agricultural industry in Pennsylvania.
The Pesticides and Groundwater strategy recognizes
that, for some pesticides with high leaching potential, labeled
uses may be inappropriate in some highly vulnerable situations.
To address those situations, the strategy describes a tiered process
by which EPA will evaluate the risk produced by the normal use
of a product, and then if appropriate, apply increasingly stringent
measures: (A) additional national label requirements; (B) restricted
use requirements; (C) state management plans (SMPs) ; or (D) national
cancellation. If steps (A) and (B) do not protect groundwater
from unreasonable risk of contamination under normal product use,
then a state management plan for the chemical is the only alternative
to cancellation. legal sale and use would be confined to states
with a SMP approved by EPA. SMPs would control the use of specific
pesticides of concern in all areas, including urban and rural
areas, golf courses, rights-of-way and federal lands.
To implement the strategy, EPA initially proposed a rule on the
criteria for restricting pesticides due to groundwater concerns
(proposed May 13, 1991), but did not finalize the rule. Instead,
in June, 1996 EPA proposed a rule which requires five herbicides
(alachlor, atrazine, cyanazine, simazine, and metalochlor) to
have SMPs as a condition for continued registration. Public comments
on this proposed regulation were due no later than October 24,
1996., but that comment period has been extended thirty days.
States should have 33 months after the regulation becomes final
to develop and receive EPA approval for their SMPs. In proposing
the rule, EPA has interpreted FIFRA to give the agency authority
to make use of SMPs a condition of the initial registration, continued
registration, or legal availability of selected pesticides. The
five specific pesticides identified for regulation under SMPs
were selected after a subjective evaluation of available monitoring
date, Leaching potential and product use patters.
The Agricultural Advisory Board met on october 23, 1996 and noted
the following
problems with the proposed rules.
It is very conceivable that the 33 month proposed period for
the development and approval of state plans is going to put extreme
pressure on the state agency overseeing the pesticide program.
Staff members may not be expanded, and therefore this becomes
another job requirement for the existing staff. State budget processes
will undoubtedly delay cost intensive projects such as the development
and implementation of SMPs. Reasonable time will also be needed
for the registrant to implement label changes. Also, users must
be given ample time to install BMPs that may be required by the
SMP. We feel that the 33 month proposed must be expanded to a
longer time period.
Growers have had little awareness of the proposed rule. Even
with the 30 day extension, the comment period should be extended
by at least 60 additional days. Few growers understand its impact.
With harvest underway, growers are hard pressed for time, and
will be unable to properly respond. An extension would provide
growers enough time to complete the harvest and provide an informed
response to the proposed SMP rule.
Once this rule is approved, a pesticide that is classified
in the rulemaking may only be used in accordance with an EPA approved
SMP. Without a approved plan, pesticide products would be prohibited
from sale within the Commonwealth. All uses are subject to the
SMP requirements in spite of existing systems for certification
and restricted use.
The SMP proposal is an unfunded federal mandate on the states.
If adequate state level funding is not available via fees or enforcement,
monitoring, etc. who will foot the bill? If the plan is
rejected because it can't be funded, a possibility with EPA estimates
as high as $500,000 per active ingredient per state, farmers would
lose the use of these key management tools. The data shows
no such need.
The proposed rule does not provide the state sufficient flexibility
to tailor plans to meet its actual water quality risks. The Commonwealth
should be free to select the active ingredients for which management
plans are necessary, based on previous monitoring, vulnerability
assessments, etc. In Pennsylvania, the relationship of farmers
to the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and the Department
of Environmental protection is good. These agencies know best
where problems exist, both real and potential. The existing system
of best management practices is working. We urge you to give them
a chance!
The rule targets all uses of five active ingredients which
are not appropriate for every state. Minor uses may be inordinately
impacted in spite of use in nonvulnerable areas or in areas with
low acreage. EPA has provided no justification for including all
cases. Nor has an adequate economic impact assessment on minor
uses been done.
The proposal provides no evidence of ground water quality
impact on a national scale to justify such an extensive and expansive
national program, particularly when it duplicates ongoing state
level programs. The data actually shows no need for such a costly
federal program.
We believe that by allowing the use of "aquatic life
standard" for drinking water assessment, EPA has gone beyond
its mandate to "protect drinking water" for human consumption.
It is conceivable that the aquatic life standard could be lower
than the MCL, or there may be no standard available. We also feel
that the current regulatory process screens pesticides to meet
basic aquatic life protection levels.
We are concerned that the rule lacks a providing for states
to opt out where certain chemicals have little or no use, or environmental
impact. Flexibility in plan approach MUST be left with
the states.
Finally, we believe, it is totally useless for SMPs to be
required for products that are being canceled. This is an absolutely
unnecessary expense for the states.