Table of Contents
| I. OVERVIEW |
| II. INTRODUCTION |
| III. OUTREACH |
| A. Education and Training Programs |
| B. Public Information Programs |
| IV. STATE AND REGIONAL BOARDS' WATER QUALITY PROTECTION PROGRAMS |
| A. Background |
| B. Basin Plans |
| C. Statewide Plans |
| D. Beneficial Uses |
| E. Water Quality Objectives |
| F. Water Quality Standards |
| G. Antidegradation Policy |
| H. Implementation |
| V. GROUND WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM |
| A. Pollution Prevention Program |
| B. Monitoring of Ground Water |
| C. Response to Detections |
| VI. SURFACE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM |
| A. Prevention |
| 1. Public Outreach |
| 2. Pesticide Evaluation and Registration |
| 3. Surveillance Monitoring |
| B. Submission of Monitoring Data |
| C. Evaluation of Monitoring Data |
| 1. Determination of Valid Data |
| 2. Primary Evaluation of Valid Data |
| 3. Secondary Evaluation of Valid Data |
| a. Motivation |
| b. Evaluation of Field Characteristics |
| D. Response |
| 1. Detections Resulting from Illegal Use |
| 2. Detections Resulting from Legal Use |
| 3. Mitigation |
| Quantitative Response Limits (QRLs) |
| a. Stage 2--Self-Regulation |
| b. Stage 3--Regulatory Approach Using DPR's Authority |
| c. Stage 4--Regulatory Approach Using State and Regional Boards' Authority |
| VII. INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PROCEDURES |
| A. Meetings Between DPR and the State Board |
| 1. Annual Review |
| 2. Technical Briefing |
| B. MAA Coordinators |
| 1. Early Stages of Planning |
| 2. Notification of Pesticide Detections |
| C. Other Information |
| D. Procedures to Protect Proprietary Information |
| VIII. DISPUTE AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEDURES |
| A. Informal Procedures |
| B. Formal Procedures |
| APPENDIX I.Management Agency Agreement Between the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the State Water Resources Control Board. |
| APPENDIX II. Reduced-Risk Practices to Minimize the Potential for Pesticide Off-Site Movement and Transport of Residues to Ground and Surface Water. |
| APPENDIX III. Federal and State Authority for the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the County Agricultural Commissioners, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. |
| APPENDIX IV. Glossary. |
| APPENDIX V. Abbreviations. |
| APPENDIX VI. Procedures to Protect Proprietary Information. |
I. OVERVIEW
The California
Pesticide Management Plan for Water Quality (Plan) is a joint
effort by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and
the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) to protect
water quality from the potential adverse effects of pesticides.
It describes how DPR and the County Agricultural Commissioners
(Commissioners) will work in cooperation with the State Board
and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards)
to protect water quality from the use of pesticides. The Plan
is part of an effort to make state programs addressing pesticides
and water quality more understandable, consistent, and efficient.
The Plan
contains provisions for outreach programs, compliance with
water quality standards, ground and surface water protection
programs, self-regulatory and regulatory compliance, interagency
communication, and dispute and conflict resolution. The appendices
contain a copy of the Management Agency Agreement (MAA) between
DPR and the State Board, a list of reduced-risk practices
for minimizing the potential for offsite pesticide movement
and transport of residues to ground or surface water, information
on procedures to protect proprietary information, applicable
state and federal laws and regulations, a glossary of terms,
and a list of abbreviations used in the Plan. The Plan recognizes
both the importance of water quality in the state and the
role pesticides play in maintaining a strong economy and protecting
public health and safety.
II.
INTRODUCTION
Pesticides
are substances intended to be used for preventing or controlling
pest problems, for defoliating plants, or for regulating plant
growth. They are used in a variety of ways that benefit society.
Agricultural production, public health and safety programs,
structural pest control, ornamental landscapes, and exotic
pest control programs all rely to some degree on the availability
and use of pesticides.
However,
pesticides can also have detrimental effects, including offsite
movement to surface water at concentrations that can adversely
affect aquatic organisms and human health. Responsible pesticide
use maximizes the benefits of use while minimizing the adverse
effects that pesticides can cause.
The Food
and Agricultural Code (FAC) authorizes DPR to register pesticides
for sale and use in the State. The FAC also authorizes DPR
and the Commissioners to regulate the sale, storage, handling,
and use of pesticides, and states that one of the purposes
of the pesticide regulatory program is to protect the environment
from environmentally harmful pesticides. The California Water
Code (CWC) states that the State and Regional Boards are the
principal state agencies with primary responsibility for the
coordination and control of activities related to water quality.
The result is that the FAC and the CWC provide overlapping
authorities for protecting water quality from pesticides.
This can lead to duplication of effort, inconsistencies, and
confusion for the regulated public.
One of
the reasons for the creation of the California Environmental
Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) was to bring these related regulatory
programs into a unified government entity. As member agencies
of Cal/EPA, DPR and the State Board signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) to develop a comprehensive, integrated
statewide water quality pesticide management program. The
principles of this MOU will be fully described and implemented
by an MAA signed by DPR and the State Board, and by this Plan.
An MAA is an agreement between the State Board and another
agency or agencies for managing water quality. The Plan describes
how DPR and the Commissioners will work cooperatively with
the State and Regional Boards to prevent and respond to pesticide
contamination of water. When signed, the MAA will replace
the MOU as the operative agreement between the agencies.
The scope
of the Plan includes water quality issues related to all pesticides
uses. The goal is to provide a coordinated approach to protect
water quality. However, the Plan does not specifically deal
with pesticide spills and is not intended to abrogate any
legal requirements on any person or agency to report such
spills.
DPR and
the State Board have adopted a four-stage approach to minimize
the potential for pesticide movement to ground and surface
waters. This is consistent with the State Board's Nonpoint
Source Management Plan approach. In Stage 1, prevention of
pesticide contamination of ground and surface water is promoted
through educational outreach. Stage 2 is initiated following
detections of pesticides that require response. This stage
relies on self-regulating or cooperative efforts to identify
and implement the most appropriate site-specific, reduced-risk
practices. Stages 1 or 2 may include self-regulating label
changes and implementation of registrant stewardship programs
that address water quality issues on a statewide or regional
basis. If adequate protection cannot be achieved by Stage
2, DPR and the Commissioners implement Stage 3. In this stage,
reduced-risk practices will be implemented by restricted material
use permit requirements, regulations, and other regulatory
authority used by DPR and the Commissioners. If Stage 4 is
necessary, the State and Regional Boards will use water
quality control planning programs or other appropriate
regulatory measures to protect water quality. These four stages
will be implemented, not necessarily in sequential order,
as necessary to protect water quality.
Because
DPR and the State Board have responsibilities for the protection
of water quality, both agencies intend that the Plan will
serve as a guide to coordinate interaction, facilitate communication,
promote problem-solving, and ultimately assure protection
of water quality.
III.
OUTREACH
This
outreach section represents part of the Plan's four-stage
approach to minimize the potential for pesticide movement
to ground and surface waters. Stage 1 promotes prevention
of pesticide contamination of ground and surface water through
education and outreach efforts, some of which are described
in this section. These activities will complement efforts
from affected industry, researchers, and educators.
A.
Education and Training Programs
The objective
of the Education and Training Programs of the Plan is to increase
awareness among pest control advisers, pest control businesses,
growers, farm managers, homeowners, and other pesticide users
in agricultural and nonagricultural situations regarding water
quality issues and reduced-risk practices so that they can
help prevent water quality problems. There are several options
that DPR with the cooperation of the State and Regional Boards
may pursue to further this objective:
1. Develop
a "Train the Trainer" course and reference manual for trainers.
There are several similar courses already being given. A new
course may not be needed as trainers could attend existing
classes that would incorporate and present material relating
to water quality protection.
2. Develop
a handbook to provide growers information about practices
they can adopt that will prevent pollution of ground and surface
water.
3. Encourage
outreach training programs that would include State and Regional
Boards' staff, DPR staff (Environmental Monitoring and Pest
Management Branch), or others as speakers at meetings or workshops
of influential agricultural organizations. To encourage participation,
licensees would earn continuing education credits for license
or certificate renewal purposes.
4. Develop
a one-page pamphlet summarizing water quality issues, problems,
and solutions for growers and land managers in English, Spanish,
and other appropriate languages, which can be distributed
by Commissioners when they issue restricted materials permits,
operator identification numbers, register licensees, or conduct
certified applicator training and grower meetings.
5. Develop
a one-page fact sheet for the general public that discusses
pesticide use and water protection.
6. The
Commissioners can provide information and training when they
issue restricted material permits, and operator identification
numbers, or register structural and agricultural pest control
operators, maintenance gardeners, and pest control advisers.
This outreach and training would target urban, rural, and
agricultural pesticide users. The Commissioners
also conduct training sessions, meet with interested citizens,
groups, and the regulated community.
B.
Public Information Programs
The purpose
of the Public Information Programs is to ensure public awareness
and coordinate responses to public concerns. The objectives
are to:
1. Notify
the general public concerning water quality issues through
news releases and public service announcements from State
and Regional Boards, DPR, and Commissioners.
2. Inform
interested parties about upcoming meetings and changes in
regulations and policy through trade journals, newsletters,
and other professional publications. This information shall
be posted in all offices (including districts) which license
holders, permit holders, and at other locations stakeholders
are known to frequent.
3. Distribute
a one-page "fact sheet" designed to inform people about water
quality issues and where to get additional information concerning
water quality data, watershed planning, and status of ongoing
efforts.
4. Distribute
information about public meetings, hearings and changes in
laws, regulations and policies to interested parties when
appropriate.
5. Compile
water quality issues, standards, management options, responses
to the public, and other information on the Internet Home
Page for the State Board and DPR when appropriate.
IV.
STATE AND REGIONAL BOARDS' WATER QUALITY PROTECTION PROGRAMS
A.
Background
The State
Board along with the nine Regional Boards is the principal
State agency with regulatory responsibility for coordination
and control of water quality. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act [(CWC) sections 174 and 13000 et seq.] establishes
the requirements to adopt and revise State policy for water
quality control (CWC sections 13000 and 13140, et seq.).
Regional Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans) must conform
to these policies.
Authority
for each Regional Board to formulate and adopt Basin Plans
and periodically review the plans is provided in section 13240.
However, a Basin Plan, or a revision of a Basin Plan, adopted
by a Regional Board does not become effective until approved
by the State Board (section 13245). In addition, regulatory
provisions that are adopted or revised in Basin Plans do not
become effective until approved by the Office of Administrative
Law. Authority for State Board adoption of Water Quality Control
Plans (Statewide Plans, in accordance with provisions outlined
in sections 13240 to 13244) for waters that are required by
the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) to have water
quality standards is provided in section 13170. Also, Statewide
Plans for waters for which standards are required under the
CWA supersede regional Basin Plans to the extent of any conflict
that may arise (section 13170).
Section
303 of the CWA (which covers water quality standards) requires
that a state adopt water quality standards for surface waters,
including designated uses of water and criteria to protect
those uses. Further, the CWA requires that at least once every
three years, the State hold public hearings for the purpose
of reviewing applicable water quality standards and modify
and adopt these standards, as appropriate. These requirements
are also delineated in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
primarily 40 CFR 130 (which covers water quality planning
and management) and 40 CFR 131 (which covers water
quality standards).
B.
Basin Plans
Basin
Plans adopted by the Regional Boards identify existing and
potential beneficial uses of marine, ground, and surface waters
such as domestic water supplies; establish water quality objectives
to protect the beneficial uses; describe implementation programs
to achieve these objectives; and describe surveillance and
monitoring activities to evaluate the effectiveness of the
water quality control program (CWC section 13170).
Regional
Boards also consider the specific economic, political, demographic,
and weather conditions unique to the basin in adopting plans.
Background information, such as population and land use projections,
may be included as technical appendices to the Basin Plans.
C.
Statewide Plans
The State
Board adopts Statewide Plans to address water quality concerns
for surface waters that overlap Regional Board boundaries,
are statewide in scope, or are otherwise considered significant.
Statewide Plans are to be reviewed periodically (CWC section
13240), except for the California Ocean Plan (Ocean
Plan), which is to be reviewed at least every three
years to guarantee that the current standards are adequate
[CWC section 13170.2(b)]. Statewide Plans include the Ocean
Plan and the Thermal Plan. Another State Board-adopted
plan is the Bay-Delta Plan. Work is underway to develop a
new Inland Surface Waters Plan and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries
Plan. Statewide Plans supersede regional Basin Plans where
conflicts occur (CWC section
13170).
D.
Beneficial Uses
The types
of beneficial uses of the waters of the State (any water,
surface or underground, within the boundaries of the State)
that may be protected against quality degradation include,
but are not limited to, domestic, municipal, agricultural,
and industrial supply; power generation; recreation; esthetic
enjoyment; navigation; and preservation and enhancement of
fish, wildlife, and other aquatic resources or preserves.
As mentioned
above, the CWA (section 303) requires that the State adopt
designated beneficial uses for surface waters.
E.
Water Quality Objectives
A water
quality objective is the limit or level of a water quality
constituent or characteristic established for the reasonable
protection of beneficial uses of the water or the prevention
of a nuisance in a specific area [CWC section 13050(h)]. Thus,
the designated beneficial uses to be made of the water result
in objectives based upon sound scientific rationale to protect
the designated beneficial uses.
Factors
to be considered in establishing water quality objectives
shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following
(CWC section 13241):
1. Past,
present, and probable future beneficial uses of water.
2. Environmental
characteristics of the hydrographic unit under consideration,
including the quality of water available.
3. Water
quality conditions that could reasonably be achieved through
the coordinated control of all factors that affect water quality
in the area.
4. Economic
considerations.
5. The
need for developing housing within the region.
6. The need to develop and use recycled water.
Water
quality objectives can be either numerical values based upon
CWA guidance [section 304(a)] or other scientifically
defensible methods or narrative objectives with which compliance
is evaluated through methods such as biomonitoring or chemical
analysis. Water quality objectives must support the most sensitive
of the designated beneficial uses (40 CFR
131.11).
F.
Water Quality Standards
The CWA requires states to develop water quality standards for all surface waters. In California, water quality standards are established through the basin planning process. Water quality standards consist of the designated beneficial uses and water quality objectives of the Statewide and Basin Plans. Water quality standards shall protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water, and serve the purposes of the CWA. Such standards must take into consideration the use and value of water for: (1) public water supplies; (2) the protection
and propagation
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife; (3) recreation in and on
the water; and (4) agricultural, industrial, and
other purposes including navigation [CWA section 303(c)].
G.
Antidegradation Policy
Water
quality standards must also conform to federal regulations
covering antidegradation (40 CFR Section 131.12)
and State Board Resolution No. 68-16, "Statement of Policy
with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California."
Application of the antidegradation provisions to the standard
setting process requires supporting documentation and appropriate
findings whenever a standard (beneficial use and water quality
objective) would allow a reduction in water quality below
currently existing water quality or below higher water quality
which may have existed since 1968. The federal antidegradation
regulation does not absolutely bar reductions in water quality
in surface waters. Rather, the regulation requires that reductions
in water quality be justified to accommodate important social
and economic development as long as instream beneficial uses
are not impaired and the water quality of any waters constituting
an outstanding national resource is maintained and protected.
Under State Board Resolution No. 68-16, which applies to all
waters of the State, the State and Regional Boards must adopt
findings that show that the change is for the maximum benefit
of the people of the State.
H.
Implementation
The State
and Regional Boards ensure that water quality objectives are
achieved through various implementation programs including
issuance of waste discharge requirements, monitoring, compliance
inspections, and enforcement actions such as issuance of cleanup
and abatement orders, cease and desist orders, and administrative
civil liability orders.
V.
GROUND WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM
In 1985,
California enacted the Pesticide Contamination Prevention
Act (PCPA) (Division 7, Chapter 2, Article 15, FAC). The purpose
of the PCPA is to prevent further pesticide pollution of ground
water from legal agricultural use of currently registered
pesticides. Pollution as used in this act is defined in section
13142(j) as meaning the introduction into the ground waters
of the state of an active ingredient, other specified product,
or degradation product of an active ingredient of an economic
poison above a level, with an adequate margin of safety, that
does not cause adverse health effects. This act has been incorporated
into DPR's overall ground water protection program and provides
a mechanism for identifying and tracking pesticides with the
potential to pollute ground water.
A.
Pollution Prevention Program
The PCPA
requires DPR to identify pesticidal active ingredients with
the potential to pollute ground water by leaching based on
their specific chemical and physical properties and specific
uses. These chemicals are placed on the Ground Water Protection
List in regulation and are monitored by DPR in ground water.
The PCPA (FAC section 13149 and 13150) establishes procedures
for reviewing and modifying the use of pesticides found in
ground water or in soil under certain conditions as a result
of legal agricultural use. These use modifications are designed
to prevent pesticides from reaching ground water at concentrations
that would be considered pollution.
As part
of its pollution prevention program, DPR yearly conducts a
statewide educational program that is required for those pesticide
advisors who write the ground water protection advisories
that are required before certain pesticides can be used in
designated areas sensitive to ground water pollution by pesticides.
It is intended that this program will promote reduced-risk
practices in these sensitive areas for users of pesticides
on the 6800(a) portion of the Ground Water Protection List.
This list contains pesticides that have the potential to pollute
ground water based either on their detection in ground water
due to agricultural use or on their physical, chemical, and
use characteristics.
DPR evaluates
the effect of climate, soil type, product formulation, method
and rate of application of pesticides, timing and method of
irrigation, seasonal timing of application of pesticides,
and other factors affecting the movement of the pesticides
to ground water. From this evaluation, DPR develops reduced-risk
practices to minimize movement of pesticides to ground water.
To identify areas sensitive to ground water pollution by pesticides,
DPR uses a model based on climate and soil type.
The County
Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association has accepted
a stewardship program for wellhead protection that may be
adopted at the discretion of each Commissioner. The program
consists of guidelines and management practices to prevent
pesticide contamination of ground water from wells. The general
guidelines for wellhead protection are:
1. No
well should serve as a catchment or receiving basin for surface
water runoff containing pesticide residues or be contaminated
by back-siphoning during mixing, rinsing, or chemigation.
2. Storage,
handling, and disposal of pesticides (including mixing, loading,
and cleaning practices) should not occur in the immediate
vicinity of a wellhead.
3. Pest
control around a wellhead should be achieved, whenever possible,
by nonchemical means.
4. Soil-applied
pesticides should be avoided when chemical controls must be
considered around a wellhead.
The following
regulations enable DPR and the Commissioners to better regulate
the handling of pesticides to prevent pollution of ground
water:
1. 3
CCR section 6610 requires that each service rig and piece
of application equipment that handles pesticides and draws
water from an outside source shall be equipped with an air-gap
separation, reduced pressure principle backflow prevention
device, or double check valve assembly. Backflow protection
must be acceptable to both the water purveyor and the local
health department.
2. 3
CCR section 3142 specifies the proper disposal of legally
rinsed pesticide containers.
3. 3
CCR section 3143 specifies the proper disposal of pesticides
and unrinsed pesticide containers.
B.
Monitoring of Ground Water
Monitoring
is an important component of DPR's ground water protection
program. DPR conducts four types of ground water monitoring:
1. Ground
water protection list monitoring to determine whether pesticides
identified as having the potential to pollute ground water
have moved to ground water.
2. Four-section
monitoring which is the monitoring of other wells in the vicinity
of a well containing pesticide residues. This monitoring is
conducted to help determine whether a pesticide detected in
ground water is due to agricultural use. Four-section monitoring
is conducted only when active ingredients, degradation products
of active ingredients, and other specified ingredients that
have not been reviewed by the subcommittee of the Pesticide
Registration and Evaluation Committee (PREC) are detected
in ground water, or when chemicals previously reviewed by
the subcommittee are detected in areas that are not currently
designated as sensitive areas susceptible to ground water
pollution by pesticides.
3. Sensitive
area monitoring is conducted to help identify areas sensitive
to pollution by pesticides.
4. Investigative
monitoring is conducted to help identify and understand the
factors that affect the movement of pesticides to ground water.
DPR maintains
a statewide database of wells sampled for pesticide active
ingredients. Data for this database are submitted by other
agencies, such as the Regional Boards and the Department of
Health Services, as well as by DPR itself.
C.
Response to Detections
Within
90 days after an economic poison is found under any of the
conditions listed in 1, 2, or 3, DPR is required to determine
whether the economic poison resulted from agricultural use
in accordance with state and federal laws and regulations,
and shall state in writing the reasons for the determination
[FAC section 13149].
1. An
active ingredient of a pesticide is found at or below specified
soil depths.
2. An
active ingredient of a pesticide is found in the ground waters
of the state.
3. The
degradation products or other specified ingredients of a pesticide
that pose a threat to public health are found under either
conditions (1) or (2).
If DPR
verifies a detection and determines that it is the result
of a legal agricultural use, DPR is required to immediately
notify the registrant of the determination and of the registrant's
opportunity to request a hearing [FAC section 13149(b)]. If
the registrant requests a hearing, DPR schedules a hearing
of a PREC subcommittee of consisting of one member each representing
DPR, the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment,
and the State Board. If the registrant does not request the
hearing within 30 days after the notice is issued, DPR shall
cancel the registration of the economic poison [FAC section
13149(c)]. The subcommittee is authorized to make one of the
following findings:
1. That
the ingredient found in the soil or ground water has not polluted
and does not threaten to pollute, the ground water of the
state.
2. That
the agricultural use of the pesticide can be modified so that
there is a high probability that the pesticide would not pollute
the ground water of the state.
3. That
the modification or cancellation of the agricultural use of
the pesticide would cause a severe economic hardship to the
agricultural industry. In this case, the subcommittee recommends
a level of the pesticide that does not significantly diminish
the margin of safety recognized by the subcommittee to not
cause adverse health effects.
The registration
for any pesticide identified pursuant to section 13149 which
fails to meet any of the conditions of section 13150 shall
be canceled.
The Director,
within 30 days after the subcommittee issues its findings,
may concur with one of the above findings or may determine
that no pollution or threat of pollution exists. If the Director
concurs with the subcommittee that use can be modified, the
pesticide is added to 3 CCR section
6800 (a).
Detections
of pesticides resulting from illegal use or point sources
are referred to the Commissioners, Regional Boards, and other
appropriate agencies. All detections, regardless of source,
are included in the well inventory database and will be brought
to the attention of and made available to Commissioners and
the State and Regional Boards.
Not withstanding
the above-described DPR Ground Water Protection Program, action
may be taken at any time through the State or Regional Board
water quality control programs or through other appropriate
regulatory measures to assure protection of beneficial uses.
Such action will include compliance with the State Board's
antidegradation policy.
VI.
SURFACE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM
A.
Prevention
1.
Public Outreach
DPR
and the State and Regional Boards recognize that public outreach
is important in preventing water quality problems associated
with pesticides. Management practices advocated in such outreach
programs are preventive; their use should be encouraged as
Stage 1 activities, even when impairment of water quality
from pesticides has not been demonstrated. A discussion of
outreach efforts is presented in Section III.
2.
Pesticide Evaluation and Registration
State
law requires DPR to thoroughly evaluate and register pesticides
before they are sold or used in California. During the evaluation
and registration process, DPR evaluates potential water quality
problems associated with specific uses of pesticides, including
use on sites where pesticides are likely to move with runoff
or irrigation tailwater into surface waterways. DPR gives
special attention to the potential for toxicity to the aquatic
biota and to factors that may interfere with attaining water
quality objectives. If DPR determines that such uses will
likely result in significant adverse impacts that cannot be
avoided or adequately mitigated, registration is not granted
unless the Director indicates otherwise, as provided in 3
CCR section 6158.
DPR
notifies the State Board and other members of the PREC of
pesticides that are under review for registration.
3.
Surveillance Monitoring
Surveillance
monitoring is used to help identify potential problems before
direct evidence of impairment of water quality is available.
DPR and the State Board, in consultation with the Regional
Boards and Commissioners, will develop sampling protocols
for monitoring sites with the highest potential for the presence
of pesticides. Sites will be selected based on activities
and natural characteristics within the watershed including,
but not limited to, pesticide use and application methods,
crop production characteristics, and irrigation and rainfall
patterns. Biotoxicity monitoring, toxicity identification
evaluations, and chemical analyses will be performed using
protocols (e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), U.S. EPA) and other methods approved by DPR and the
State Board. DPR and the State Board will monitor these sites
as resources allow. Data from surveillance monitoring activities
will be evaluated as described below.
B.
Submission of Monitoring Data
DPR will
describe the desired format for submissions of pesticide detections.
Analytical data contained in such submissions should include
the following:
1. Sampling party
2. Date of sample
3. Location of sampling site (including latitude and longitude if available)
4. Method of collection
5. Chemical analyzed
6. Analytical method
7. Dates of extraction and analysis
8. Limits of quantitation
9. Individual sample concentration and
10.
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) statement
If biotoxicity
monitoring data are included with such submissions, the data
will be assessed using procedures approved by DPR and the
State Board.
DPR,
Commissioners, and the State and Regional Boards will exchange
information on monitoring and QA/QC procedures and lists of
laboratories currently used for analyzing pesticides in water.
DPR will accept for consideration all data indicating the
presence of pesticides in surface water. DPR, Commissioners,
and the State and Regional Boards will share such data on
at least a quarterly basis. A computerized database for surface
water monitoring data is being developed by DPR.
C.
Evaluation of Monitoring Data
1.
Determination of Valid Data
DPR
will evaluate monitoring data and determine their validity
based on completeness and quality. If deficiencies are noted,
DPR will notify the reporting party and request upgrading
if possible.
2.
Primary Evaluation of Valid Data
If detections
are determined to be valid, DPR may request additional available
data, including negative detections of the pesticide and results
of biotoxicity monitoring, from the reporting party. DPR will
identify potential sources of the pesticide by reviewing DPR's
Pesticide Use Database and conferring with Commissioners.
DPR will compare concentrations reported with valid detections
to toxicological characteristics of the pesticide and to federal
water quality standards, and established numerical water quality
objectives, or if none are applicable, to other appropriate
values such as water quality control plan performance goals
or Quantitative Response Limits (QRLs) (see section
D.3.a.) or federal water quality criteria if available.
DPR will then transmit findings to the State and Regional
Boards and appropriate Commissioners immediately for review.
The PREC will be briefed as needed.
3.
Secondary Evaluation of Valid Data
(a) Motivation
DPR
will evaluate conditions associated with multiple valid detections
when:
(1)
Concentrations are greater than federal water quality standards,
established numerical water quality objectives, or if none
are applicable, then other appropriate values such as water
quality control plan performance goals, QRLs, or federal water
quality criteria if available.
(2)
Toxicity monitoring indicates that toxicity is present and
associated with the detected pesticide or pesticides.
(3)
Toxic concentrations of the pesticide or pesticides are regularly
detected or detected at several locations. This process is
the secondary evaluation of data.
(b) Evaluation of Field Characteristics
During
secondary evaluations, additional information will be prepared
that addresses the pesticide, its use, and monitoring. DPR
and Commissioners will determine whether the presence of the
pesticide in surface water was the result of legal use. If
the detections were the result of legal use, DPR may request
additional available data from appropriate parties including
negative detections of the pesticide and results from biotoxicity
monitoring. Additionally, DPR will evaluate the environmental
fate and behavior of the pesticide and will further evaluate
the environmental risks indicated by the monitoring data.
DPR may collaborate with the pesticide's registrants and pesticide
user groups to develop additional information on sources,
fate and behavior, potential management options, and other
relevant factors.
DPR
will provide secondary evaluations to the State and Regional
Boards and to Commissioners for review. DPR will periodically
report to the PREC on activities relating to secondary evaluations.
D.
Response
1.
Detections Resulting from Illegal Use
DPR
will refer detections determined to be from illegal uses to
Commissioners and may provide technical and legal assistance
to properly penalize responsible parties. The State and Regional
Boards will be notified of these detections.
2.
Detections Resulting from Legal Use
After
secondary evaluations conclude that detections of pesticides
are the result of legal use of the pesticide, DPR may solicit
participation of local interested parties in an advisory group.
Advisory groups help identify issues, goals, mitigation options,
and monitoring requirements. If the pesticides are detected
in more than one region, more than one advisory group may
be appropriate. Membership in advisory groups will include
DPR and appropriate Regional Boards and Commissioners; other
members will represent industry interests and public agencies
as appropriate.
3.
Mitigation
Management
strategies for protecting surface water from pesticide problems
may be included in four stages (as described previously),
arranged in order of regulatory severity: Stage 1--outreach
and education (preventive), Stage 2--self-regulating (response),
Stage 3--regulatory (DPR and Commissioners), and Stage 4--regulatory
(State and Regional Boards). Stages 2, 3, and 4 are used to
mitigate pesticide problems in surface water after secondary
evaluations conclude that detections of pesticides are the
result of legal use of the pesticide. These three stages and
a procedure for developing interim water quality goals for
Stage 2 and Stage 3 activities (QRLs) are described below.
Stage 2 and stage 3 activities will not be delayed
while QRLs are developed.
Quantitative Response Limits (QRLs)
are numerical values used during Stage 2 and Stage 3 activities
to help determine whether pesticide concentrations are in
conformity with narrative water quality objectives in the
absence of numerical objectives. QRLs are not intended of
themselves to be enforceable standards but rather may be used
as measures of success for mitigation efforts.
DPR
will develop QRLs after repeated valid detections of pesticides
for which there are no numerical objectives in surface water.
The number of detections, water bodies affected, identity
and concentrations of the pesticides, and recommendations
of the State and Regional Boards will be considered when determining
QRLs.
QRLs
are developed after a review of the following:
a. U.S. EPA health advisories, federal and California Maximum Contaminant Levels, and other levels established to help protect human health.
b. Water quality criteria for protecting aquatic species.
c. Biotoxicity monitoring data.
d. Other
relevant toxicological data.
QRLs
will be reviewed at least once every three years and updated
toxicological information will be considered. Adjustments
to the QRLs will be made as necessary. If federal water quality
standards or numerical water quality objectives are established,
such standards or objectives will replace the QRLs as measures
of success for mitigation efforts.
When
developing QRLs and when QRLs are adjusted, DPR will seek
concurrence from the State and Regional Boards and will consult
with other appropriate agencies. Additional information will
be sought from the public at workshops. The State and Regional
Boards and the PREC will be notified of changes in status
of QRLs.
(a) Stage 2--Self-Regulation
Sponsors
will be sought to direct local self-regulating implementation
of control options identified by the advisory group. Sponsors
may include, but are not limited to, local commodity groups,
Resource Conservation Districts, pesticide registrants, and
pesticide users participating in stewardship programs. Sponsors
will submit to DPR for approval a draft plan that includes
the following elements:
(1) A review of the use of the pesticide in relation to current pest management practices.
(2) Consideration of reduced use of the pesticide.
(3) Other management practices to be used for mitigation.
(4) Economic consideration of management options.
(5) Selection of management practices to be used in the mitigation effort.
(6) A timetable for implementation. Timetables are not to exceed four years; two one-year extensions are possible.
(7) Measures of success. Ultimately measures of success shall be conformity with applicable federal water quality standards and water quality objectives. Interim measures such as water quality control plan performance goals, QRLs, federal water quality criteria if available or reasonable progress toward complying with federal water quality standards or water quality objectives may be used when necessary.
(8) A monitoring program.
(9) An outreach program describing how pesticide users and other interested parties will learn of issues and mitigation programs.
(10)
Sources of funding, if any, for Stage 2 activities, including
monitoring.
DPR
will review the plan in consultation with Commissioners and
the Regional Boards and notify the sponsor of the outcome.
If the plan is rejected, DPR will indicate elements that were
not adequately addressed and establish time lines the sponsor
must meet for resubmittal to DPR for review. If DPR agrees
with the plan, DPR will report to the PREC.
After
a plan is approved, the sponsor must submit a progress report
to DPR annually. DPR may recommend reevaluating mitigation
options with the advisory group if progress is unsatisfactory
in meeting timetables for implementing management practices
and improving water quality. DPR will report to the PREC the
outcome of the review of the progress report.
If there
are no sponsors forthcoming to implement the self-regulation
stage, other measures will be taken, such as Stage 3 or Stage
4.
(b) Stage 3--Regulatory Approach
Using DPR's Authority
DPR
may exercise its option to begin a Stage 3 program if a sponsor
declines to support Stage 2 efforts or if there is unsatisfactory
progress toward meeting timetables for submitting reports
or implementing mitigation measures. Depending on circumstances,
DPR may begin Stage 3 activities before Stage 2 options are
exhausted.
DPR
will consider matters relating to the elements listed in Stage
2 above. Regulatory options will be considered, including
establishing new regulations in Title 3 of the CCR. Such regulations
may place the pesticide on the list of California restricted
materials (if it is not yet restricted), establish use requirements,
or both. For situations where a pesticide use permit is required,
such as the use of restricted materials, Commissioners issuing
the permit may specify conditions of use that protect water
quality. DPR may also consider action on the pesticide's registration,
such as cancellation.
DPR
will prepare a report including elements that would be required
of a Stage 2 plan and information on regulatory steps to be
taken by DPR and Commissioners. The report will be submitted
to the advisory group and the PREC.
DPR
will implement the mitigation efforts as presented in the
final report. DPR will prepare subsequent reports presenting
the progress of these efforts every three years and will submit
it to the advisory group. The appropriate Regional Board(s)
will review the progress report and comment on the progress
made toward meeting water quality objectives and other issues
related to basin plan requirements. The Regional Board may
recommend that the advisory group reevaluate mitigation options
or the Board may consider a DPR recommendation that the Regional
Board initiate regulatory action.
(c) Stage 4--Regulatory Approach
Using State and Regional Boards' Authority
The
State or Regional Boards may, after conferring with DPR, begin
regulatory-based programs if a Board finds that the effort
as described in Stage 2 or Stage 3 is not reasonably protecting
water quality, such as where there is an actual or threatened
violation of water quality standards.
Not
withstanding the above-described DPR Surface Water Protection
Programs, action may be taken at any time through the State
or Regional Board water quality control programs or through
other appropriate regulatory measures to assure protection
of beneficial uses. Such action will include compliance with
the State Board's antidegradation policy and with requirements
of the federal Clean Water Act including regulation of point
source discharges of pesticides to surface waters.
VII.
INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION PROCEDURES
A.
Meetings Between DPR and the State Board
1.
Annual Review
DPR
and the State Board will meet at least annually to discuss
existing and proposed projects, evaluate the effectiveness
of the MAA and Plan, to discuss DPR and State Board priorities,
and consider changes to the MAA and Plan. The Commissioners
and Regional Board staff are encouraged to attend and to submit
items for the agenda. Prior to each meeting, an agenda will
be mailed to every Regional Board and Commissioners. Meeting
summaries which recap the issues and outcome of any evaluations
will be provided in writing to each Regional Board and Commissioner.
Decisions
and information from these meetings will be publicized and
distributed by State Board and DPR to their respective interested
parties mailing list.
2.
Technical Briefing
Staff
of DPR and the State Board will meet at least twice each year
to discuss recent activities of each agency, technical issues
that deal with pesticides and water quality, and to review
overall program direction.
B.
MAA Coordinators
The MAA
Coordinators (Manager of the Implementation Program, Environmental
Monitoring and Pest Management Branch, DPR; and Chief of the
Nonpoint Source Agricultural Unit, State Board) will oversee
the exchange of information among DPR, Commissioners, State
and Regional Boards in the following situations.
1.
Early Stages of Planning
To facilitate
consultation during the early stages of planning, staff will
inform the MAA Coordinators in any of the following situations
related to pesticides and water quality:
a. Before issuing any public notice of regulations or of workshops, hearings, or public meetings where policies or projects of mutual interest, including basin planning, will be addressed. DPR and the State Board will provide written notice or other appropriate notification to the other organization for each of the above-mentioned items.
b. Before releasing any pertinent reports, staff will provide a draft copy when possible.
c. Before completing the study design or contract workplan for any field monitoring or other investigations of mutual interest. A brief project description and name of contact person will be provided.
d. Before proposing legislation, budget change proposals, or grant workplans that impact mutual program interests. Appropriate written legislative concepts, budget change proposal concepts, or grant workplans will be provided.
e. Before setting or revising any water quality objectives or other standards.
f. During
the development of policies, guidelines, and management plans
for federal and/or State projects.
2.
Notification of Pesticide Detections
When
a pesticide is detected in surface or ground waters of the
State at concentrations that violate any federal water quality
standard or water quality objective, other known enforceable
standard, water quality control plan performance goal, QRL,
or federal water quality criteria if available, the MAA coordinators
will be contacted as soon as possible. If the pesticide detection
does not violate any federal water quality standard or water
quality objective, other known enforceable standard, water
quality control plan performance goal, QRL, or federal water
quality criteria if available, the results will be made available
officially on a quarterly basis. It is expected that ongoing
communication between staff and the assigned MAA coordinators
will be maintained which will provide access to sampling results
of studies in progress.
C.
Other Information
DPR, Commissioners, and the State and Regional Boards will exchange other information as follows:
1. To the fullest extent possible, DPR, Commissioners, and State and Regional Boards will exchange records, reports, material, and any other information relating to water, water rights, water pollution or quality, or any areas of mutual concern to the end that unnecessary duplication of efforts may be avoided.
2. Written protocols or workplans on monitoring projects addressing nonpoint surface or ground water quality and pesticides prior to monitoring activities.
3. Data from pesticide use reporting as soon as they are available.
4. DPR and State Board will update information used in the Water Quality Assessment.
5. Final reports on projects of mutual interest.
6. On
the local level, information can be shared between DPR, the
Commissioners, and State and Regional Boards through the quarterly
Commissioner's meeting required by the FAC.
As required
by CWC section 13163 (c), any agency shall submit to the State
Board plans for and results of all investigations that relate
to or have an effect upon water quality for review and comment.
D.
Procedures to Protect Proprietary Information
These
procedures are described in DPR's policy document contained
in Appendix VI.
VIII.
DISPUTE AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEDURES
A.
Informal Procedures
It is
the desire of both agencies to establish a speedy, efficient,
and informal method for resolving interagency conflicts. If
a conflict arises at any point in implementing activities
described in the Plan, the party or parties identifying the
conflict will discuss it first with the MAA coordinators.
The MAA coordinators will verbally or in writing discuss and
resolve interagency procedure conflicts by a specified time.
When appropriate, a representative of the Regional Board(s)
and a representative of the Commissioners will participate.
If these
attempts do not successfully resolve the conflict, then formal
procedures will be followed.
B.
Formal Procedures
The MAA
coordinators will provide a description of the conflict simultaneously
to the State Board's Chief of the Division of Water Quality
and to DPR's Assistant Director for the Division of Enforcement,
Environmental Monitoring, and Data Management. If the conflict
cannot be resolved by a specified time, it will be referred
to the State Board's Executive Director and DPR's Director.
Each Director will appoint one staff member to assist in resolving
conflicts. If the conflict cannot be resolved by a specified
time at this level, then it may be referred to the Secretary
of the California Environmental Protection Agency for review.
Such review shall not be a limitation on each agency's statutory
authority.
APPENDIX
I.
Management Agency Agreement between the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the State Water Resources Control Board.
APPENDIX
II.
Reduced-Risk Practices to Minimize the Potential for
Pesticide Off-Site Movement and Transport of Residues to Ground
and Surface Water.
The practices
listed below are intended to be used for reference only. No
comprehensive list of practices or single prescription for
the actions needed to protect water quality from pesticide
residues can be developed that would be applicable to every
site or operation. Flexible, site-specific decision-making
is the key to effective protection. Selection of the most
appropriate reduced-risk practices for each site and situation
will involve local environmental and economic consideration
as well as considerations of effectiveness and acceptability
of practices.
A.
Pest Management Decision Process
Expand
the use of integrated pest management (IPM) strategies. IPM
systems can significantly reduce pesticide inputs to aquatic
systems by all routes. IPM is an information-based systems
approach to preventing unacceptable levels of pest damage.
Pest and environmental information along with available cultural,
biological, physical, mechanical, genetic, and chemical pest
control methods are integrated to provide environmentally
sound and economically viable control of pest problems. The
principles of IPM can be briefly summarized as follows:
1. Use crop rotations and planting schedules that minimize pest infestations.
2. Perform thorough in-field assessments of each pest problem.
3. Establish scouting or inspection procedures to monitor pest population levels and severity of the pest problem.
4. Use economic or other appropriate control action thresholds, if available, for each (combination of) pest problem(s) to determine when corrective action(s) must be implemented.
5. Determine corrective action(s) when a control action threshold is reached. Use the following objectives in the selection of specific reduced-risk practices: least disruptive of natural controls, least hazardous to human health, least toxic to nontarget organisms, least damaging to the environment, most likely to produce a permanent reduction in the supportive environment for the target pest(s), and most cost-effective considering both short- and long-term objectives.
6. Establish and maintain an accurate record-keeping system to catalog monitoring information and document management procedures.
7. Evaluate
the effectiveness of the IPM program and make adjustments
as needed.
B.
Pesticide Selection
Select
active ingredient, product, formulation, additives, placement,
and rate that minimize persistence and biotoxicity and optimize
selectivity. Sources of technical information include the
California Department of Food and Agriculture, Commissioners,
DPR, pest control advisers, Resource Conservation Districts,
University of California Cooperative Extension farm advisors,
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
1. Select pesticides that are not known or suspected to be ground or surface water contaminants, especially when applications are planned for the rainy season.
2. Select herbicides not listed in Title 3, California Code of Regulations (3 CCR), section 6800(a) for soil applications in areas of shallow ground water. This practice is especially important in areas of high rainfall or where the soil has low organic matter content. Indications of shallow ground water include riparian vegetation; persistently green, unirrigated grass or herbaceous vegetation; springs; evidence of seasonal flooding; or low topographic position in relation to nearby surface water, springs, and riparian vegetation.
3. Use
pesticides most selective for the target pest species to enhance
natural population control mechanisms and reduce pesticide
need.
C.
Pesticide Application and Handling
Increase
the effectiveness, efficiency, and environmental safety of
pesticide application (method, equipment, technique, calibration,
rate, timing, and placement), and handling (mixing, loading,
storage, transportation, rinsing, and disposal).
1. Use the lowest pesticide application rate and application frequency proven effective.
2. Recalibrate spray equipment frequently to insure accuracy of application rate.
3. Use strategies that avoid long-term, repeated use of a single pesticide. This reduces potential problems with pest resistance or tolerance and the corresponding need for increased application rate and/or frequency.
4. Match pesticide application timing to the most susceptible growth stage of the target pest.
5. Where appropriate, use surface or subsurface band application of pesticides (in or along a crop row rather than over the entire field) to reduce the total amount of pesticide applied.
6. Incorporate weather conditions and irrigation scheduling into the planning of pesticide application timing and placement to minimize the potential for pesticide off-site movement by the water-driven forces of leaching and runoff, e.g., schedule soil applications after large irrigations for frost protection, leaching of salts, or replenishing deep soil moisture. Allow at least a 12-hour time interval between pesticide application and predicted runoff events.
7. Reduce
drift:
a. Apply pesticides only when wind speed is less likely to result in drift.
b. Use low delivery pressure and nozzles that do not create ultra-small droplets that can easily drift off-target.
c. Use
spray adjuvants that enhance penetration of leaf and soil
surfaces.
8. Equip each service rig and piece of application equipment that handles pesticides and draws water from an outside source with an air-gap separation, a reduced pressure principle backflow prevention device, or a double check valve assembly. Backflow protection must be acceptable to both the water purveyor and the local health department (3 CCR, section 6610).
9. Mix, load, and store pesticides at least 100 feet away from water sources, pumps, well heads and sink holes. Store pesticides in a secure and dry site.
10. Properly rinse spray equipment and use closed mixing systems in compliance with 3 CCR, section 6746 to facilitate a triple rinse of the empty pesticide container in compliance with 3 CCR, section 6684 and safely apply the rinsate to the target field or dispose of safely.
11. Use returnable, refillable liquid pesticide containers when available. Properly dispose of pesticide containers in compliance with 3 CCR, sections 6670-6686.
12.
Prepare an emergency spill and response plan for each chemical
tank truck.
D.
Water and Soil Conservation
Minimize water, soil, and sediment losses from treated sites.
1. Improve irrigation system uniformity, and manage irrigation timing and amount to minimize deep percolation and surface runoff losses.
2. Use crop rotations, crop residue management, cover crops, conservation tillage, vegetative filter strips, grade stabilization structures, or sediment basins to minimize soil erosion and runoff velocity from rainfall and irrigation and allow sediment deposition.
3. Install irrigation tailwater return systems to reduce runoff, allowing more time for pesticide dissipation and degradation.
4. For
control of urban runoff from new development and construction,
avoid conversions of areas particularly susceptible to erosion
and sediment loss and/or establish development guidance that
identifies these areas and protects them from erosion and
sediment loss. These areas are characterized by steep slopes,
highly erodible soils, periods of intense rainfall, and inability
to revegetate once disturbed.
E.
Drainage and Disposal of Surface Water Runoff
Prevent the transport of runoff from treated areas to surface waters and wetlands and to sites that may serve as pathways for ground water contamination, including production water wells, dry wells, and infiltration basins.
1. Surface
waters and wetlands.
Surface
waters include all reservoirs, lakes, streams, springs, ponds,
marshes, and other features where open water surface is discernable
other than immediately after rainfall. Wetlands are those
areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency or duration sufficient to support, and
under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
a. In situations where there is direct surface water runoff from treatment sites to surface water bodies or wetlands, apply only those chemicals formulated for aquatic or wetland use.
b. Wherever possible, establish noncropland sites adjacent to surface water features as application exclusion zones to reduce the potential for surface water contamination by the transport of residues in storm water runoff.
c. Urban
runoff from new development and construction.
(1) To the extent feasible, preserve and, where possible, create or restore areas that provide water quality benefits, such as riparian corridors and wetlands, and promote the design of new development so that it protects the natural integrity of drainage systems and water bodies.
(2) Integrate storm water quality protection into construction and postconstruction activities at all development sites. This should include minimizing the use of toxic materials and their proper containment on-site.
(3)
Wherever practicable, maintain peak runoff rates at predevelopment
levels.
2. Sites
that may serve as pathways for ground water contamination.
a. Production
water wells.
(1) Divert the flow of runoff from treated areas to bypass entirely the area where a production water wellhead is located. Where this is not possible, protect the well by sealing or repairing the wellhead or constructing berms.
(2)
Properly seal new wells, add safeguards to old wells, and
properly destroy abandoned wells.
b. Infiltration
drainage structures and sites.
(1) Alter drainage design where necessary to divert runoff from treated areas away from dry wells, infiltration basins, and other infiltration sites.
(2)
Properly destroy unused, nonfunctional, improperly constructed
or improperly located dry wells and infiltration basins. Dry
wells and infiltration basins that are not constructed with
the proper setback distance from the water table (in compliance
with local ordinances) or are located in areas of shallow
ground water may present a pathway for ground water contamination.
APPENDIX
III.
Federal and State Authority for the Department of
Pesticide Regulation, the County Agricultural Commissioners,
the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Regional
Water Quality Control Boards.
A.
Department of Pesticide Regulation
1.
Federal Authority: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)-- Amendments of 1972 and 1988
and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 40)
Pesticide products must be registered federally before distribution or sale to any person. Registration includes submission of required data by the person seeking the registration, evaluation and acceptance of these data by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
(U.S. EPA), submission of a proposed label by the registrant,
review and acceptance of the final labeling by U.S. EPA, establishment
of a tolerance (maximum residue level) for pesticides used
on food or feed commodities, and the classification by U.S.
EPA of the pesticide product for restricted use or general
use as appropriate. The federal authority for the routine
registration of pesticide products is under FIFRA section
3.
Other
types of federal registration and exemption from registration
are allowed. FIFRA section 5 allows the registrant to acquire
a use permit, under certain conditions, in order to accumulate
information necessary to register a pesticide under FIFRA
section 3. Under FIFRA section 18, a federal or state agency
may be exempted from the requirements of registration prior
to the use of a product if emergency conditions exist that
require such exemption.
Once
a pesticide product is registered federally, FIFRA section
24(a) authorizes a state to regulate the sale or use with
the restriction that any sale or use prohibited federally
is not permitted by the state. Section 24(b) requires uniformity
of pesticide labeling and restricts a state from requiring
changes to the federally accepted pesticide label. A state
may register a pesticide product for additional uses of a
federally registered pesticide to meet a special local need
within the state in accord with FIFRA section 24(c).
FIFRA
section 26(a) authorizes a state to have primary enforcement
responsibility for federal use violations of the pesticide
if the state:
1. Has adopted adequate pesticide use laws and regulations.
2. Has adopted and is implementing adequate procedures for the enforcement of such laws and regulations.
3. Will
keep the records and make reports showing compliance with
1 and 2 above.
U.S.
EPA has determined that DPR qualifies under these standards
and has primary enforcement responsibility for pesticide use
violations in California.
FIFRA
section 11(2) authorizes states to certify applicators of
federal restricted use pesticides if states submit a plan
for U.S. EPA approval. DPR has submitted a plan and is authorized
by U.S. EPA to certify applicators.
2.
State Authority: Food and Agricultural Code (FAC),
and Title 3, CCR
The State
of California has an extensive pesticide program that enables
DPR to evaluate and register pesticide products before their
use in the State, monitor the sales within the State, regulate
and record the use, protect workers who might come in contact
with pesticides, identify pesticides with high risk to human
health or the environment and regulate these in special manners;
and, through the Commissioners' system, enforce the laws and
regulations and take appropriate enforcement action when necessary.
The purposes
of the FAC Division 6 and Division 7 and listed in section
11501 are as follows:
1. To provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for production of food and fiber and for protection of the public health and safety.
2. To protect the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides by prohibiting, regulating, or controlling uses of such pesticides.
3. To assure the agricultural and pest control workers of safe working conditions where pesticides are present.
4. To permit agricultural pest control by competent and responsible licensees and permittees under strict control of the Director and Commissioners.
5. To assure the users that economic poisons are properly labeled and are appropriate for the use designated by the label.
6. To
encourage the development and implementation of pest management
systems, stressing application of biological and cultural
pest control techniques with selective pesticides when necessary
to achieve acceptable levels of control with the least possible
harm to nontarget organisms and the environment.
FAC section
12753 defines "economic poison" as any of the following:
1. Any spray adjuvant.
2. Any
substance, or mixture of substances that is intended to be
used for defoliating plants, regulating plant growth, or for
preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest,
as defined in section 12754.5, which may infest or be detrimental
to vegetation, man, animals, or households, or be present
in any agricultural or nonagricultural environment whatsoever.
As defined
in section 12754.5, "pest" means any of the following that
is, or is liable to become, dangerous or detrimental to the
agricultural or nonagricultural environment of the state:
1. Any insect, predatory animal, rodent, nematode, or weed.
2. Any form of terrestrial, aquatic, or aerial plant or animal, virus, fungus, bacteria, or other microorganism (except viruses, fungi, bacteria, or other microorganisms on or in living man or other living animals).
3. Anything
that the Director, by regulation, declares to be a pest.
The Director
controls the registration of pesticides in the State under
FAC section 12811, which requires every manufacturer, importer,
or dealer of any economic poison to obtain a certificate of
registration from DPR before offering the economic poison
for sale in the State.
FAC section
12824 provides the process to eliminate from use in the State
any pesticide product that endangers the agricultural or nonagricultural
environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which
it is sold, or is misrepresented. To accomplish this, an orderly
program for the continuous evaluation of all pesticide products
currently registered will be developed.
Before
a substance is registered as a pesticide product for the first
time, a thorough evaluation will occur and appropriate restrictions
may be placed on the product's use including, but not limited
to, limitations on quantity, area, and manner of application.
The Birth
Defect Prevention Act (FAC section 13121) requires certain
toxicological data for both new active ingredients and currently
registered pesticides.
The PCPA
of 1985 (FAC section 13141) requires DPR to call in environmental
fate data for agricultural use pesticides, use these data
to identify pesticides with the potential to pollute ground
water, monitor for those pesticides in ground water, review
and modify, if appropriate, the use of pesticides found in
soil under certain conditions or in ground water due to agricultural
use, and maintain a database of wells sampled in the state
for pesticides.
B.
State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality
Control Boards
The State
Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and the nine Regional
Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards) are the principal
State agencies with primary responsibility for water quality
control. The following is a brief discussion of their general
mandates:
1. Legal authority and regulations: The Porter-Cologne
Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act), California
Water Code, Divisions 2 and 7; Public Resources Code, Division
10; Title 23, California Code of Regulations Divisions 3 and
4. Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
General
mandate
The State
Board and Regional Boards regulate factors and activities
that may affect the quality of the waters of the State to
attain the highest water quality which is reasonable considering
all demands being made and to be made on those waters and
the total values involved--beneficial and detrimental, economic
and social, tangible and intangible.
Division
7 of the Porter-Cologne Act assigns overall responsibility
for water quality protection to the State Board and directs
the Regional Boards to establish and enforce water quality
standards within their individual regions. The Porter-Cologne
Act applies to both surface and ground waters, point and nonpoint
sources, and waste discharges to land.
It is
the intent of the Porter-Cologne Act to create a water quality
control program administered regionally within a framework
of statewide coordination and policy. The State Board provides
program guidance and oversight to the Regional Boards through
adoption of statewide regulations, plans, policies, and administrative
procedures. The State Board and Regional Boards carry out
their water protection authority through specific "Water Quality
Control Plans" which (1) designate beneficial uses, (2) set
water quality objectives to protect beneficial uses, and (3)
establish programs to achieve these objectives. Such plans
may include prohibitions against the discharge of waste, or
certain types of waste, in specified areas under specified
conditions. Discharge prohibitions may be adopted for nonpoint
sources, such as surface runoff or waste discharge to land,
or for direct discharges to surface or ground water. The Porter-Cologne
Act also requires the State Board to adopt "State Policy for
Water Quality Control," including water quality objectives
directly affecting water projects.
The principal
means of regulating activities that affect water quality and
of implementing water quality control plans is by issuing
waste discharge requirements (WDRs). Any person discharging
waste or proposing to discharge waste that could affect the
quality of waters of the State, other than discharge into
a community sewer system, must submit a report of waste discharge
to the Regional Boards unless the Regional Boards waive the
filing of a report.
The Porter-Cologne Act provides Regional Boards with additional enforcement powers to address unauthorized discharges, discharges violating WDRs or prohibitions of discharge,
violations
of reporting or monitoring requirements, or other activities
that threaten water quality. The State Board may use its water
rights authority to enforce requirements for the protection
of water quality.
The State
Board has authority to administer all financial assistance
programs administered by the State pursuant to the CWA. Additional
water quality authority provided by the Porter-Cologne Act
includes provisions for grants and loans for waste water treatment
facilities, a State water pollution cleanup and abatement
account, regulation of reclaimed water use, sewage treatment
plant operator certification, regulation of water wells, monitoring
wells and cathodic protection wells, and regulation of waste
discharges from houseboats.
Chapter
5.5 of the Porter-Cologne Act authorizes regulation of point
source discharge of pollutants to surface waters through WDRs,
which also serve as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits required under the federal CWA. Chapter
5.5 also authorizes regulation of sewage sludge use and disposal,
disposal of pollutants into wells, and pretreatment of waste.
In addressing
nonpoint source problems, the State Board and Regional Boards
generally use three management approaches: (1) voluntary
implementation of best management practices (BMPs),
(2) regulatory-based encouragement of BMPs implementation,
and (3) effluent requirements. It will generally
be up to the Regional Boards to decide which option(s) to
use to address particular problems. The Regional Boards generally
refrain from imposing effluent requirements on dischargers
who implement BMPs in accordance with a State Board or Regional
Board's formal action.
In some
cases, BMPs developed through a nonpoint source management
program may be implemented through the NPDES program. Activities
commonly thought of as nonpoint sources may result in point
source discharges in specific cases where the discharge happens
to occur through a pipe, ditch, or other confined and discrete
conveyance. Moreover, an NPDES permit may impose BMPs on an
industrial facility to control nonpoint sources of discharge
of toxic or hazardous pollutants from ancillary industrial
activities.
2.
Specific Programs
a.
Aboveground Petroleum Storage
Legal Authority: Clean Water Act; Federal Regulations
40 CFR, Part 112 Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act, Health
and Safety Code, Chapter 6.67
In accordance
with the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act, every two years
owners and operators of aboveground storage tanks facilities
with a single tank capacity greater than 660 gallons
or cumulative tank capacity greater than 1,320 gallons
must file a storage statement and pay a fee to the State Board.
In addition, most owner/operators must prepare a Spill Prevention
Control and Containment Plan in accordance with federal oil
pollution prevention regulations.
b.
Regulation of Dischargers of Solid Waste to Land
Legal Authority: Clean Water Act; Water Code,
Sections 13172, 13263, 13267, and 13304. California Code of
Regulations (CCR) Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 15.
The
State Board shall develop standards for discharges of solid
waste to land. Chapter 15 (CCR, Title 23, Division 3) establishes
a classification system for waste and waste management units.
Waste classifications include hazardous, designated, solid
nonhazardous, and inert. Each waste type has its own requirements.
These regulations govern siting, construction, operation,
closure, monitoring and response to leaks, including cleanup
standards. The State Board and Regional Boards regulate some
of the same dischargers as the Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) and the Integrated Waste Management Board (IWMB).
DTSC is the lead agency for Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Subtitle C and IWMB is the lead for
RCRA Subtitle D.
c.
Solid Waste Assessment Tests (SWAT) to Protect Water Quality
Legal Authority: Public Resources Code, Section
45700; Water Code, Sections 13273-13273.3
The
State Board ranked all solid waste disposal sites in groups
of 150 based on their potential threat to water quality. SWAT
reports from Rank 1 sites were due July 1, 1987, from rank
2 sites July 1, 1988, and from rank 3 sites July 1,
1989, etc. Each succeeding year, 150 sites from
the next rank must submit SWAT Reports.
Each
SWAT report must contain the following: (1) an
analysis of the surface and ground water on, under, and within
one mile of the solid waste disposal site to provide a reliable
indication of whether there is any leakage of hazardous waste;
and (2) a chemical characterization of the soil-pore liquid
in those areas likely to be affected from the leaking solid
waste disposal site, as compared with geologically similar
areas near the solid waste disposal site not affected by leakage
or waste discharge.
d.
Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (TCPA)
Legal Authority: Health and Safety Code, Article
9.5, Section 25208 et seq.
The
TCPA prohibits storage or disposal of hazardous liquids in
surface impoundments unless they are constructed with a double-liner
and leachate collection system, and requires closure of all
nonexempt sites. TPCA construction standards essentially mirror
existing prescriptive standards for Class I surface impoundments
in Chapter 15 (CCR Title 23, Division 3), regulations
for discharge of waste to land. The TPCA also requires the
facility owner or operator to submit a hydrogeological assessment
report to the Regional Boards for review.
The
TPCA also restricts the siting of hazardous waste impoundments
to areas that are not within 1/2 mile upgradient of a potential
source of drinking water (a requirement that has no Chapter
15 equivalent), and specifies requirements for facility design
and construction, facility monitoring, corrective action upon
detected releases, closure and postclosure activities, and
various types of disposal operations.
e.
Underground Storage Tanks
Legal Authority: Health and Safety Code, Chapters
6.65 and 6.67, CCR Title 23, Division 3, Chapters 16, 17,
and 18
The
regulations establish construction standards for new underground
storage tanks; separate monitoring standards for new and existing
underground storage tanks; uniform standards for unauthorized
release reporting, repair, upgrade, and closure of underground
storage tanks; and specific variance request procedures.
Most
aspects of this program, e.g., permitting, tank system inspections,
underground storage tank testing and record-keeping, closure
requirements removal and/or installation, plus site-specific
inquiries, are administered locally by cities or counties.
APPENDIX
IV.
Glossary.
Basin Plans
Water
Quality Control Plans that identify existing and potential
beneficial uses of marine, ground, and surface waters; establish
water quality objectives to protect the beneficial uses; describe
implementation programs to achieve these objectives; and describe
surveillance and monitoring activities to evaluate the effectiveness
of the water quality control program (CWC
sections 13050[j]; 13242).
Beneficial uses
Uses
of the waters of the State (any water, surface or underground
within the boundaries of the State) that may be protected
against quality degradation include, but are not limited to,
domestic, municipal, agricultural, and industrial supply;
power generation; recreation; esthetic enjoyment; navigation;
and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other
aquatic resources or preserves.
Best Management Practices
Methods,
measures, and practices selected by an agency to meet its
nonpoint source pollution control needs. These include schedules
of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures,
and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution
of water.
Commissioner
County
Agricultural Commissioner.
Compliance monitoring
Monitoring
of soil conducted to determine whether a pesticide listed
in 3 CCR 6800(a) and banned for use in some or all sites in
pesticide management zones (PMZs) is being used on those sites.
Four-section survey monitoring
This
monitoring survey is conducted by DPR after a pesticide active
ingredient is found in ground water. Wells are sampled in
the four cardinal directions (north, south, east, and west)
from the contaminated well.
Four-stage approach
The philosophy
of the Pesticide Management Plan is that DPR and the State
Board adopt a four-stage approach to minimize the potential
for pesticide movement to ground and surface waters. In Stage
1, prevention of pesticide contamination of ground and surface
water is promoted through education and outreach efforts.
Stage 2 will be initiated following detections of pesticides
that require response. It relies on voluntary or cooperative
efforts to identify and implement the most appropriate site-specific
reduced risk practices. If adequate protection cannot be achieved
by Stage 2, DPR and the county agricultural commissioners
will implement Stage 3. In Stage 3, reduced-risk
practices will be implemented based on restricted material
use permit requirements, regulations, and other regulatory
authority used by DPR and the county agricultural commissioners.
If Stage 4 is necessary, the State and Regional Boards will
use water quality control planning programs or other appropriate
regulatory measures consistent with applicable authorities
and the provisions of the Nonpoint Source Management Plan
approved by the State Board. These four stages may not be
implemented in sequential order, but rather as necessary to
protect beneficial uses.
Ground Water Protection List monitoring
Conducted
to determine whether residues of suspected leachers listed
in 3 CCR 6800(b) occur in ground water under certain conditions.
Management Agency Agreement
Agreements
between government agencies to coordinate water quality issues.
Mitigation
The term
mitigation as used for the MAA and Plan means to moderate
or eliminate an existing condition at a specific site using
such reduced-risk practices as noted in Appendix II of the
Plan. It does not include remediation, provide other water
supplies, or create wetlands.
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Pollution
that originates from diffuse sources.
Nonpoint Source Management Plan
Adopted
by the State Board in 1988, the Plan outlines three management
approaches in addressing nonpoint source problems, including
pesticide runoff:
(a)
Voluntary implementation of best management practices.
(b)
Regulatory-based encouragement of best management practices.
(c)
Waste discharge requirements.
Pesticide Management Plan
California
Pesticide Management Plan for Water Quality.
Quality of the water(s)
Refers
to chemical, physical, biological, bacteriological, radiological,
and other properties and characteristics of water that affect
its use.
Regional Board
California
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Reduced-risk practices
Any pest
management practice that is a cost-effective alternative to
a current practice and judged to be of overall less risk to
human health and the environment.
State Board
State
Water Resources Control Board.
Statewide Plans
Adopted
by the State Board to address water quality concerns for surface
waters that overlap Regional Board boundaries, are statewide
in scope, or are otherwise considered significant.
Water quality objectives
The limit
or level of a water quality constituent or characteristic
established for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses
of the water or the prevention of a nuisance in a specific
area [CWC Section 13050(h)]. Thus, the designated beneficial
uses to be made of the water result in objectives based upon
sound scientific rationale to protect the designated beneficial
uses.
Factors
to be considered in establishing water quality objectives
shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following
(CWA Section 13241):
1. Past,
present, and probable future beneficial uses of water.
2. Environmental
characteristics of the hydrographic unit under consideration,
including the quality of water available.
3. Water
quality conditions that could reasonably be achieved through
the coordinated control of all factors which affect water
quality in the area.
4. Economic
considerations.
5. The
need for developing housing within the region.
6. The
need to develop and use recycled water.
Water
quality objectives can be either numerical values based upon
CWA guidance [section 304(a)] or other scientifically
defensible methods or narrative objectives with which compliance
is evaluated through methods such as biomonitoring methods.
Water quality objectives must support the most sensitive of
the designated beneficial uses (40 CFR 131.11).
Water Quality Standards
Established
through the basin planning process. Water quality standards
consist of the designated beneficial uses and water quality
objectives of the Statewide and Basin Plans. Water quality
standards shall protect the public health or welfare, enhance
the quality of water, and serve the purposes of the CWA. Such
standards must take into consideration the use and value of
water for: (1) public water supplies; (2) the
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife;
(3) recreation in and on the water; and (4) agricultural,
industrial, and other purposes including navigation [CWA section
303(c)].
APPENDIX
V.
Abbreviations.
| Abbreviations | Full Form |
| BMP | Best Management Practice |
| CACSA | County Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association |
| Cal/EPA | California Environmental Protection Agency |
| CCR | California Code of Regulations |
| 3 CCR | Title 3, California Code of Regulations |
| CFR | Code of Federal Regulations |
| CWA | Clean Water Act of 1972 |
| DPR | Department of Pesticide Regulation |
| DTSC | Department of Toxic Substances Control |
| EM & PM | Environmental Monitoring and Pest Management |
| FAC | Food and Agriculture Code |
| FIFRA | Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act |
| IPM | Integrated Pest Management |
| IWMB | Integrated Waste Management Board |
| LUSTIS | Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System |
| MAA | Management Agency Agreement |
| MCL | Maximum Contaminant Level |
| MOU | Memorandum of Understanding |
| NOAA | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration |
| NPDES | National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System |
| PCPA | Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act |
| PMZ | Pesticide Management Zone |
| PREC | Pesticide Registration and Evaluation Committee |
| QA/QC | Quality Assurance and Quality Control |
| QRL | Quantitative Response Limit |
| RCD | Resource Conservation District |
| RCRA | Resource Conservation and Recovery Act |
| SDWA | Safe Drinking Water Act |
| SWAT | Solid Waste Assessment Test |
| TIE | Toxicity Identification Evaluation |
| TPCA | Toxic Pits Cleanup Act |
| USDA | United States Department of Agriculture |
| UST | Underground Storage Tank |
| U.S. EPA | United States Environmental Protection Agency |
| WDR | Waste Discharge Requirements |
APPENDIX
VI.
Procedures to Protect Proprietary Information.
Procedures
to Protect Proprietary Information
Guidelines for Maintaining Security of
Registrant-Submitted Data and Related Materials
in the Department of Pesticide Regulation Library
I.
Access for Review Purposes
These
guidelines outline procedures established to control access
to registration support data submitted to the Department of
Pesticide Regulation (DPR) by registrants or applicants and
filed in DPR's library. These procedures apply to the data
volumes and to any reviews of the data generated during the
evaluation process and subsequently filed in the library,
either with the data volumes reviewed or in a separate file.
The library
staff will also apply these procedures to the control of data
packages which have not completed the evaluation process,
when they are made available for review in the library during
that process.
A.
Authorized Review Categories
Individuals
who will be allowed access to registration support data are
the following;
1. DPR
employees who process or review data in the course of their
work.
2. Members
of the Pesticide Registration Evaluation Committee (PREC)
and the Pesticide Advisory Committee (PAC), their alternates,
and staff from their agencies who are assigned and authorized
to review data in connection with the responsibilities of
those committees.
3. Employees
of, and consultants to, other State agencies and the Legislature,
who are authorized by DPR to review data for the purpose of
providing input to the pesticide registration process, for
developing reports and recommendations on legislation or regulations
relative to that process, or for implementing a specific state
government policy in an effective manner.
4. Persons
authorized by DPR to review information in connection with
a public proceeding.
5. Company
representatives who wish to examine data previously submitted
by their company.
6. Any
person with written company authorization may examine data
submitted by the company.
B.
Acknowledgment of Data Confidentiality
Individuals
in categories 1, 2, and 3 will be required to sign an Acknowledgment
of Data Confidentiality which contains notice of potential
personal liabilities.
C.
Affirmation of Status
Individuals
in categories 4 and 6 will be required to sign an Affirmation
of Status when requesting access to registration support data,
as required by section 6254.2 of the Government Code.
D.
Register of Data Access
Individuals
in categories 2 through 6 will be required to sign a register
when they visit the library to review data.
E. Data Reference/Review Request
Authorization
of the Chief of the Pesticide Registration Branch (PRB), a
supervisor of registration, or a designated alternate must
be obtained on the Data Reference/Review Request before library
staff will allow access to data by individuals in categories
2, 3, 4, and 6.
F.
Departmental Staff and Library Staff Responsibilities
1. Branch
Chiefs will be responsible for designating individuals in
their branches who are allowed to have access to pesticide
data.
2. The
Chief of the PRB or a designated alternate will be responsible
for:
a. Approving additions to the list of PREC who are authorized to review data on a continuing basis.
b. Authorizing
individuals in categories 3 through 6 to review designated
items for specific purposes.
3. The
Chief of the Information Services Branch will notify the library
of changes in personnel assigned to the PAC.
4. Library
staff will be responsible for:
a. Providing guidelines and orientation as to the procedures to be followed by individuals in all categories who may require access to pesticide data.
b. Verifying the identity and authorization of all individuals who request access to data.
c. Maintaining a permanent file of individuals in category 1 who are/were authorized to review data and to remove data from the library.
d. Maintaining a record of data circulated to DPR staff.
e. Providing printouts of study titles to individuals in all categories so that the data volumes to be reviewed may be identified.
f. Retrieving requested data volumes for review in the library or other appropriate area.
g. Maintaining a permanent register of individuals in categories 2 through 6 who visit the library to review data (indefinitely), a three-year record of the data volumes reviewed, and a file of the appropriate authorization forms.
h. Providing
a secure means for disposing of duplicate copies of registrant-submitted
data which may contain trade secret information.
5. DPR
employees will check out all data taken from the library and
will be responsible for its security while in their possession.
G.
Company Authorized Review
1. Company
representatives (category 5) will contact their assigned registration
specialist for an appointment to review data, providing adequate
lead time for library staff to assemble the desired material
from their company's files and to arrange for a location at
which the data may be reviewed.
2. When
an individual in category 6 has authorization to see only
certain items in a company's data volumes, copies will be
made of those specific items for the purpose of the review.
These copies will be retained in the library with the company's
written authorization for the review, the approved Data Reference/Review
Request, and the individual's Affirmation of Status.
H.
Notes and Photocopies
Individuals
in categories 2, 3, 4 and 6 may make notes from the data volumes
they are authorized to review, subject to the provisions of
California Government Code, section 6254.2, and the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), section
10.
Photocopies
of data, including evaluation memos which may contain extracts
from data, may be provided on a case-by-case basis with the
authorization of the Chief of the PRB.
Individuals
in category 5, with appropriate authorization, may be provided
with copies from any of their company's data including memos
of evaluation filed with the data; however, they will not
be allowed to remove or alter data previously submitted.
II.
Release of Registration Support Data as a Public Record
Requests
for release of pesticides information under the California
Public Records Act will be filled by a registration specialist
designated by the supervising librarian in consultation with
the Chief of PRB, a staff counsel, and other DPR staff as
required.
A.
General Information
Requests
from the public for general information about pesticide chemicals
may sometimes be filled by providing excerpts from published
sources and may not trigger a formal public records request
procedure. For this reason, the supervising librarian may
review incoming requests to determine the appropriate response,
contacting the requester for clarification as required.
B.
Formal Release Process
When
the request triggers a formal public records request procedure,
these steps are followed:
1. If
a telephone inquiry is received, the requester will be asked
to follow up with a written request for desired data, including
the name of the active ingredient or product and the specific
type of data desired.
2. Upon
receipt of a written request, a letter is sent to the requester
acknowledging receipt of the request. If the request is unclear,
the designated registration specialist will contact the Requester
for clarification before proceeding with a search.
3. A
data search is done which results in a printout of data on
file. A letter of prepayment for the printout is mailed to
the requester.
4. The
printout is sent with copies of Government Code section 6254.2
and the Affirmation of Status form.
5. To
obtain copies of data, the requester must submit a follow-up
request specifying the particular studies wanted. The requester
must also submit the signed Affirmation of Status form as
required by Government Code 6254.2(h). This signed
affirmation is a prerelease requirement for any data
submitted by a registrant, whether it was claimed confidential
or not.
6. a. If the requester does not respond with a specific request within 30 days of the date the printout was mailed, a follow-up letter is sent to inquire whether the material was received. If no response is received within 30 days of the date of this letter, the file is closed.
b. If
a follow-up request is received, the registration specialist
notifies the registrant who submitted the specific items of
data that a request for release has been received. The requester
receives copies of all such correspondence. Copies of title
pages or other appropriate identifying material are supplied
to the registrant to assist in the identification of the specific
studies being requested. The registrant has 30 days from the
date of receipt of this letter, which is sent certified mail/return
receipt requested, to respond.
7. a.
If no response is received from the registrant, the registrant
is considered to have waived any objections to release of
the requested data. A final notice is sent by the registration
specialist indicating that the data will be released. The
data is released 15 days after the receipt date
of the final notice
b. If
the registrant submits a justification for its claim of confidentiality,
that justification is reviewed by the legal staff in consultation
with appropriate division staff and the Chief of PRB. Legal
staff makes the final determination as to trade secret status.
The registration specialist then sends a final notice to the
registrant indicating which, if any, data is exempt from release.
The data are released upon the receipt of a payment for duplication,
with any exempted portions deleted, no sooner that 15 days
after mailing of the final notice.
8. The
requester receives a copy of the final notice sent to the
registrant.
C.
Retention of Library Copies
Once
a study has been released following the trade-secret determination
process, the library retains the record number of the released
study in the database. Such studies may then be released in
response to future requests without repeating the trade-secret
determination process.
An Implementation Plan for the Management Agency Agreement between
The Department of Pesticide Regulation and The State Water Resources Control Board
California Environmental Protection Agency February 1997
California
Environmental Protection Agency Department of Pesticide Regulation
For additional copies of this report please contact:
Department of Pesticide Regulation
Environmental Monitoring & Pest Management Branch
1020 N Street, Room 161
Sacramento, CA 95814-5624
(916) 324-4100
Any portion of this report may be reproduced for any but profit-making purposes.
Prepared
by an interagency workgroup from the Department of Pesticide
Regulation
and the State Water Resources Control Board
Workgroup members: DPR: David Duncan (Chair), Madeline Brattesani,
Pat Dunn,
Marshall Lee, Mark Pepple, Sandy Ratliff, Ralph Shields, Sewell
Simmons; and
SWRCB: Jack Hodges
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The workgroup expresses appreciation for careful review and
thoughtful comments by an advisory committee composed of County
Agricultural Commissioners and Regional Water Quality Control
Board representatives.
DISCLAIMER
The mention of commercial products, their source or their
use in this report is not to be construed as either an actual
or implied endorsement of such product.
Disclaimer and Reproduction Information: Information in NASD does not represent NIOSH policy. Information included in NASD appears by permission of the author and/or copyright holder. More
