In a June 16, 2010, meeting in Boise, representatives from the US EPA presented information clarifying a draft NPDES General Permit for pesticide discharges that has been submitted for public comment.
While the meeting was presented as an opportunity to ask for clarification and pose questions in order to have a better understanding of the permit, EPA representatives noted that testimony on the permit would not be taken at the time. Testimony on the draft permit must be made in writing via hand delivery, US mail or online. The public comment on the draft permit extends through July 19.
Allison Wiedeman, Chief of the Rural Branch, Water Permits Division, noted that drafting this permit has been one of the most challenging issues in her 30 years with the EPA. The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned EPA’s 2006 rule that said pesticides were not pollutants under the Clean Water Act and their application did not require NPDES permits. Rather than appeal the decision, EPA asked the court for time to develop a general NPDES permit.
Wiedeman says her department has talked with hundreds of groups including growers and applicators, manufacturers, NRCS, USDA and the state regulatory authorities as part of this process. This draft permit is, she says, the best shot at a balance between environmental protection and feasibility and practicality.
Presentation slides are available from the website: http://www.regulations.gov/, along with the 112-page fact sheet and FAQ.
Presentation Highlights:
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act that said pesticides are not pollutants is wrong.
At the time of this decision, the EPA asked the court for two years to develop a general permit for which industry could apply. After the public comment period, the permit will be finalized in December. EPA has until April 9, 2011 for implementation. The 2006 regulation that determines that permits are not necessary is still in effect today, but only until next spring.
The permit EPA has proposed applies only to the 6 states that do not have primacy—Alaska, Idaho, New Mexico, Oklahoma, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Forty-four states have their own state process for permitting. These states have some flexibility in developing their own permits, as long as they support the same kind of protection or are more stringent than the EPA’s permit.
EPA is proposing a structure whereby a general permit would be necessary if an entity is determined to be a point source, and is discharging into Waters of the US. Individual operators would apply for coverage under the general permit without going through their own, separate public process. EPA representatives hope this will cut down on the number of individual permit applications.
For the purpose of this draft, pesticide uses covered under the permit include:
- Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Control
- Aquatic Weed and Algae Control
- Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control
- Forest Canopy Pest Control
Some pesticide uses are not included:
- Terrestrial applications to control pests on agricultural crops or forest floors
- Off target spray drift
Activities exempt from permitting under the Clean Water Act:
- Irrigation Return Flow
- Agricultural Storm Water Runoff
The application of pesticides for control of terrestrial pests associated with crop production is not covered under EPA’s NPDES PGP.
In addition, discharges of pesticides to water bodies that are already considered impaired for the specific pesticide in question are not covered under the permit. It may be that in that instance, an operator would need to apply for an individual permit. EPA officials say they don’t anticipate this will happen very often.
Operators under this umbrella permit would be required to submit Notices of Intent (NOIs) to discharge pesticides.
Operators would be required to prepare plans for monitoring pesticide discharge. Monitoring should include visual monitoring for adverse incidents during and after application and monitoring of management practices.
Operators would also be required to provide:
- Annual documentation of pesticide application activities, and
- Adverse Incident reporting to help EPA identify possible permit violations where the permit may need modification to further protect water quality.
Questions and Comments reveal anxiety over costs, red tape, and lawsuits
Some audience members were undeterred by the fact that official public statements would not be recorded for consideration. Comments directed at the panel were prolific and largely critical of the draft EPA permit.
Norm Semanko with the Idaho Water Users Association asked why the EPA didn’t seek review of this court decision. In his mind, the EPA didn’t exhaust all avenues of appeal. EPA representatives noted that their legal counsel advised them that such efforts had little chance of success.
Scott Campbell, a water user attorney vented his frustration to the panel.
“This rule not only angers me to the depth of my soul, but it saddens me that people are being exposed to this kind of red tape and exposure to law suits and giving environmental terrorist ammunition to anyone who wants to file a notice of intent,” he said.
Other respondents commented that the record keeping and reporting requirements placed an undue burden on operators.
Roger Batt of the Idaho Weed Awareness Campaign asked about the relationship between the permit and the standards as outlined by FIFRA, which covers the correct application of pesticides. EPA representatives noted that the idea is to minimize the discharge of pollutants, but Batt noted that this can subject someone to the threat of third-party lawsuits.
Another audience member asked the panel if they had considered homeowners, who often overuse pesticides and other products on their lawns and gardens.
“The poor people who are feeding over 90 percent of the population are unduly burdened,” Campbell said of the impact of this permit to the agricultural industry.
Comments may be submitted online at http://www.regulations.gov/. Click the “submit a comment” link near the top of the page. Enter the key word: DPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257. Click the orange “search” link which will pull up one item: The PGP docket. Click the blue “submit a comment” link and complete the form provided and upload your file. For more information, visit: www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Newly appointed EPA Administrator gives overview of environmental issues
Dennis McLerran was appointed Administrator for EPA’s Region 10 in January. He spoke to the Idaho Environmental Forum on Tuesday, April 6, 2010.
McLerran noted that he has experience working in local government and has worked on air quality issues in a large urban area, Seattle, and in the smaller community of Port Townsend. He has been on the other side of the fence in private practice as an attorney. He has family ties to Mackay, Idaho, as well.
He voiced his admiration for EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
McLerran outlined the Obama administration’s priorities for the Environmental Protection Agency:
· Climate change: EPA announced its endangerment finding regarding carbon as a pollutant in the absence of any action by Congress to control carbon emissions. The agency put together tailpipe rules for automobiles using a collaboration that included the auto industry and the State of California. The rules will go into effect in January, 2011.
In addition, EPA is looking at regulating large sources of CO2 emissions first with a tailoring rule in January 2011. This will include power plants and very large emitters.
What Congress does in the next year or two will have an impact on what EPA will pursue.
· Air quality: EPA will be setting tighter standards for fine particulate like that found in wood smoke or diesel. New ozone standards will be coming out in late spring or early summer. It is possible that they will be set at .06 or .065 which would mean that the Treasure Valley will be classified as a non-attainment area. He did mention the state’s auto emissions programs for the area. There could also be new standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides along freeways.
· Mercury: Idaho has been ground zero for impacts from surrounding states. He commended us for the work we are doing on mercury emissions. DEQ is collecting elemental mercury and EPA has funded mercury contamination cleanups in the last three years. There is still a ways to go in dealing with mercury, he said.
· Safety of chemicals: Work needs to be done to rewrite the toxic substances statute.
· Superfund communities: there is still cleaning up to be done. For Idaho, that means the Silver Valley, a massive superfund site on which a great deal of time, energy and dollars has been spent. Now blood levels in children are down to the national average rather than being way above it. This is still controversial but EPA is moving ahead.
· Protecting American waters: We need to make more progress on this, especially with nutrient loads and stormwater runoff. We need to do more than the traditional methods. We should be looking at trading schemes in Idaho and Washington. Nutrient problems in streams are a big issue. We need to develop innovative programs to deal with that. McLerran encouraged the group to look at innovation to improve water quality in the Boise River.
· Environmental justice: This is on Lisa Jackson’s list of priorities. EPA will be working with the tribes and low income populations to understand the needs of low income communities. The agency will be reaching out to these communities to help improve children’s health.
McLerran stressed that it is not EPA’s job to punish states for the economic crisis. The agency would like to figure out a way to make progress during these tough times. Water quality monitoring in Idaho has been suspended because of budget cuts at DEQ, but that cannot go on indefinitely. Perhaps a partnering program with EPA and the use of loaned employees might be a solution.
HUD, DoT and EPA are trying a partnership to drive highway and housing funds in ways that mutually re-enforce the missions of the three agencies.
During questioning, McLerran discussed the cement plant in eastern Oregon, saying that Oregon’s plan may not do enough to lower mercury emissions.
One audience member cited Industrial livestock (CAFO) operations as one of the biggest environmental problems. She said that antibiotics and endocrine disrupters are showing up in drinking water, and that sampling shows that 22% of homes have nitrates above safe drinking water levels. This, she says, is driving people to have to buy drinking water at Wal-Mart.
When asked if carbon trading in going to be included in the analysis of water quality issues. McLerran responded that EPA was in the formative stages on CO2 issues. Carbon trading is not on the radar screen right now. If Congress acts in that area, things would change. He is hoping that Congress will step in.
NPDES permitting, wastewater treatment and phosphate issues are among priorities in Idaho. EPA will be the point on NPDES permits. That is a priority for the region.
Another person asked about the proposed MACT standard for wood-fired boilers which would discourage the use woody biomass. McLerran responded that we would have to find a balance.
McLerran encouraged people to submit additional comments. With the increase in CAFÉ standards for automobiles, any insights in consumer innovative technologies would be welcome. These could include aerodynamic improvements, better fuel combustion, turbo charging and plug-in hybrids.
McLerran noted that he has experience working in local government and has worked on air quality issues in a large urban area, Seattle, and in the smaller community of Port Townsend. He has been on the other side of the fence in private practice as an attorney. He has family ties to Mackay, Idaho, as well.
He voiced his admiration for EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
McLerran outlined the Obama administration’s priorities for the Environmental Protection Agency:
· Climate change: EPA announced its endangerment finding regarding carbon as a pollutant in the absence of any action by Congress to control carbon emissions. The agency put together tailpipe rules for automobiles using a collaboration that included the auto industry and the State of California. The rules will go into effect in January, 2011.
In addition, EPA is looking at regulating large sources of CO2 emissions first with a tailoring rule in January 2011. This will include power plants and very large emitters.
What Congress does in the next year or two will have an impact on what EPA will pursue.
· Air quality: EPA will be setting tighter standards for fine particulate like that found in wood smoke or diesel. New ozone standards will be coming out in late spring or early summer. It is possible that they will be set at .06 or .065 which would mean that the Treasure Valley will be classified as a non-attainment area. He did mention the state’s auto emissions programs for the area. There could also be new standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides along freeways.
· Mercury: Idaho has been ground zero for impacts from surrounding states. He commended us for the work we are doing on mercury emissions. DEQ is collecting elemental mercury and EPA has funded mercury contamination cleanups in the last three years. There is still a ways to go in dealing with mercury, he said.
· Safety of chemicals: Work needs to be done to rewrite the toxic substances statute.
· Superfund communities: there is still cleaning up to be done. For Idaho, that means the Silver Valley, a massive superfund site on which a great deal of time, energy and dollars has been spent. Now blood levels in children are down to the national average rather than being way above it. This is still controversial but EPA is moving ahead.
· Protecting American waters: We need to make more progress on this, especially with nutrient loads and stormwater runoff. We need to do more than the traditional methods. We should be looking at trading schemes in Idaho and Washington. Nutrient problems in streams are a big issue. We need to develop innovative programs to deal with that. McLerran encouraged the group to look at innovation to improve water quality in the Boise River.
· Environmental justice: This is on Lisa Jackson’s list of priorities. EPA will be working with the tribes and low income populations to understand the needs of low income communities. The agency will be reaching out to these communities to help improve children’s health.
McLerran stressed that it is not EPA’s job to punish states for the economic crisis. The agency would like to figure out a way to make progress during these tough times. Water quality monitoring in Idaho has been suspended because of budget cuts at DEQ, but that cannot go on indefinitely. Perhaps a partnering program with EPA and the use of loaned employees might be a solution.
HUD, DoT and EPA are trying a partnership to drive highway and housing funds in ways that mutually re-enforce the missions of the three agencies.
During questioning, McLerran discussed the cement plant in eastern Oregon, saying that Oregon’s plan may not do enough to lower mercury emissions.
One audience member cited Industrial livestock (CAFO) operations as one of the biggest environmental problems. She said that antibiotics and endocrine disrupters are showing up in drinking water, and that sampling shows that 22% of homes have nitrates above safe drinking water levels. This, she says, is driving people to have to buy drinking water at Wal-Mart.
When asked if carbon trading in going to be included in the analysis of water quality issues. McLerran responded that EPA was in the formative stages on CO2 issues. Carbon trading is not on the radar screen right now. If Congress acts in that area, things would change. He is hoping that Congress will step in.
NPDES permitting, wastewater treatment and phosphate issues are among priorities in Idaho. EPA will be the point on NPDES permits. That is a priority for the region.
Another person asked about the proposed MACT standard for wood-fired boilers which would discourage the use woody biomass. McLerran responded that we would have to find a balance.
McLerran encouraged people to submit additional comments. With the increase in CAFÉ standards for automobiles, any insights in consumer innovative technologies would be welcome. These could include aerodynamic improvements, better fuel combustion, turbo charging and plug-in hybrids.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Aerobic Garbage Reduction
While the legislature is rumored to be heading toward adjournment sine die by Friday, March 26, some legislation other than budget-related has been introduced, passed committees in both House and Senate and passed on the floors for both chambers. One of the most interesting, dealing with land fills, was introduced on February 25th.
HB 599 allows the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality to review, approve, and issue research, development and demonstration permits for design, construction and operation of bioreactor landfill operations.
There are currently 70 bioreactor landfills in operation in the country. Bioreactor landfills work by breaking down waste and converting it to other useful purposes over the course of years instead of decades, reducing the need to site new landfills as frequently. They also produce electricity by expanded production of methane gas.
The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), characterizes a bioreactor landfill as that in which "liquid and gas conditions are actively managed in order to accelerate or enhance biostabilization of the waste... significantly increasing the extent of organic waste decomposition, conversion rates, and process effectiveness over what would otherwise occur with the landfill.”
In basic terms, it takes the addition of liquid and air to increase decomposition. Regular landfill waste often does not have enough moisture to meet the microbial needs for this process. Bioreactor landfills add liquid and sometimes oxygen to speed up anaerobic waste decomposition by turning it into aerobic decomposition.
Bioreactor landfills convert waste to other useful purposes faster than standard practices—in a matter of years instead of decades. As waste breaks down, it decomposes and is converted into gas which could be used to produce power while decreasing greenhouse gases. The process results in a 15 to 20 percent recovery of landfill space, could provide an alternative to land application of some liquid wastes, and reduces costs for garbage disposal.
The legislation stipulates additional environmental controls for bioreactor landfills and limits such operations to facilities with sufficient design to accommodate bioreactor operations and gas recovery systems.
HB 599 allows the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality to review, approve, and issue research, development and demonstration permits for design, construction and operation of bioreactor landfill operations.
There are currently 70 bioreactor landfills in operation in the country. Bioreactor landfills work by breaking down waste and converting it to other useful purposes over the course of years instead of decades, reducing the need to site new landfills as frequently. They also produce electricity by expanded production of methane gas.
The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), characterizes a bioreactor landfill as that in which "liquid and gas conditions are actively managed in order to accelerate or enhance biostabilization of the waste... significantly increasing the extent of organic waste decomposition, conversion rates, and process effectiveness over what would otherwise occur with the landfill.”
In basic terms, it takes the addition of liquid and air to increase decomposition. Regular landfill waste often does not have enough moisture to meet the microbial needs for this process. Bioreactor landfills add liquid and sometimes oxygen to speed up anaerobic waste decomposition by turning it into aerobic decomposition.
Bioreactor landfills convert waste to other useful purposes faster than standard practices—in a matter of years instead of decades. As waste breaks down, it decomposes and is converted into gas which could be used to produce power while decreasing greenhouse gases. The process results in a 15 to 20 percent recovery of landfill space, could provide an alternative to land application of some liquid wastes, and reduces costs for garbage disposal.
The legislation stipulates additional environmental controls for bioreactor landfills and limits such operations to facilities with sufficient design to accommodate bioreactor operations and gas recovery systems.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Fund established for working lands projects
A bill presented by the Working Lands Coalition to establish a fund in the state treasury generated more discussion than expected in the Senate Resources and Environment Committee Wednesday.
Senate Bill 1343 would establish a fund to make grants to landowners as incentive to engage in natural resources stewardship projects, helping to retain farms, forests and grazing lands as working lands.
Senators questioned why the language of the bill was not more specific to easements, whether it duplicated work being done by existing agencies and programs, and if establishing a mechanism but no money for such a fund would serve as an invitation later to return to the state for money.
“Are we going to hear from you in a couple years asking for money with this empty bucket of conscience sitting in front of us?” Senator Pearce asked.
Chairman Schroeder did not agree that the committee was setting itself up for a future funding request.
“The question comes down to should we keep the group together and the structure to put together a mechanism of funding working lands projects. This doesn’t tie the state into funding at all,” he said.
Ultimately, the committee voted send the bill on to the Senate with a do pass recommendation.
Senate Bill 1343 would establish a fund to make grants to landowners as incentive to engage in natural resources stewardship projects, helping to retain farms, forests and grazing lands as working lands.
Senators questioned why the language of the bill was not more specific to easements, whether it duplicated work being done by existing agencies and programs, and if establishing a mechanism but no money for such a fund would serve as an invitation later to return to the state for money.
“Are we going to hear from you in a couple years asking for money with this empty bucket of conscience sitting in front of us?” Senator Pearce asked.
Chairman Schroeder did not agree that the committee was setting itself up for a future funding request.
“The question comes down to should we keep the group together and the structure to put together a mechanism of funding working lands projects. This doesn’t tie the state into funding at all,” he said.
Ultimately, the committee voted send the bill on to the Senate with a do pass recommendation.
Timber scaling assessments to be split between buyer and seller
On Wednesday, the Senate Resources and Environment Committee approved a bill to provide a funding source for a tiny state agency responsible for making qualified assessments of timber volume. The bill would divide the cost of such assessments between timber owners and timber purchasers. Currently, only the purchaser pays the fee. The bill is supported by a number of timber industry organizations, with supportive testimony offered by the Intermountain Forestry Association and the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation.
Hunters speak out against motorized vehicle rule
The Senate Resources and Environment committee this week heard testimony regarding off-road motorized vehicle use by hunters. Except for disabled hunters with the appropriate vehicle tags, it is illegal to hunt from a motorized vehicle, including ATVs.* Idaho Departments of Fish and Game, Parks and Recreation and Transportation testified to specific points of the IDFG rule, and the US Forest Service and the BLM presented as well (* unfortunately, sometimes in our hurry to get information published, we make misstatements like this one, please see comments below).
Hunters says that IDFG should not be able to apply this rule where the Land management agency or owner say otherwise. They questions whether hunting from a vehicle had any appreciable difference in game populations, and how there is any difference between hunting from and ATV or horseback.
“It’s time to stop restricting people from using their public lands in a reasonable manner,” said one Soda Springs resident offered his testimony in opposition to the rule.
Others testifying against the rule noted that senior citizens needed the additional access to hunting areas provided by ATVs, and remarked on the disparity between registration fees paid by ATV users versus hikers and those traveling on horseback.
“We are paying fees and taxes for these motorized vehicles, the horsemen and the hikers pay nothing. I don’t think that’s fair at all.”
Hunters says that IDFG should not be able to apply this rule where the Land management agency or owner say otherwise. They questions whether hunting from a vehicle had any appreciable difference in game populations, and how there is any difference between hunting from and ATV or horseback.
“It’s time to stop restricting people from using their public lands in a reasonable manner,” said one Soda Springs resident offered his testimony in opposition to the rule.
Others testifying against the rule noted that senior citizens needed the additional access to hunting areas provided by ATVs, and remarked on the disparity between registration fees paid by ATV users versus hikers and those traveling on horseback.
“We are paying fees and taxes for these motorized vehicles, the horsemen and the hikers pay nothing. I don’t think that’s fair at all.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)