Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Environmental Quality
 
Board
State Water Control Board
 
chapter
Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) General Permit Regulation for Discharges Resulting from the Application of Pesticides to Surface Waters [9 VAC 25 ‑ 800]
Chapter is Exempt from Article 2 of the Administrative Process Act
Action General VPDES Permit for Pesticide Discharges
Stage Proposed
Comment Period Ended on 12/27/2010
spacer

4 comments

All comments for this forum
Back to List of Comments
10/27/10  11:06 am
Commenter: Tom Warmuth, Cygnet Enterprises, Inc.

Making the best out of the EPA/NPDES situation....
 

It is good to see that VA DEQ has proposed a state permit that is able to acknowledge and observe the new NPDES regulations from the EPA and still address parts of the new regulations that are easily found to be duplicative, costly, and unnecessary. Having the first "run" of this permit be for two years is a good idea. This keeps the commitment time to that permit fairly short while allowing regulators enough time to regroup (if desired) to begin drafting a new general permit. By eliminating registration statements, fee requirements, and minimizing reporting of private records and proprietary information, the proposed permit may prove to be of minimal cost to those involved (agency and applicators) in both time and money.

However, the VA version of the NPDES permit cannot begin to address other issues that will arise once the regulatory wheel is in motion. Just one to consider... the possible future litigations that will arise and now be held to the light of the Clean Water Act.  Companies who are trying to keep our aquatic habitats and resources clean, preserved, and maintained to ensure continuity of those environments, could be greatly impacted by imposed legal costs under that type of legislation. 

 

CommentID: 14510
 

12/13/10  8:55 am
Commenter: Sarah C. Tarallo, City of Manassas

VPDES for Pesticides
 

The City of Manassas would like to make these following comments:

1)      It is the City’s request that municipalities that are already regulated under the Department of Conservation (DCR) MS4 storm water program be exempt from this regulation. This would be effectively layering the regulatory process, which is not beneficial and would only result in additional paperwork and permitting costs that are unnecessary for cities/counties in the Commonwealth.
2)      The City would request an exemption for jurisdictions within the Commonwealth that own, maintain, and operate their own water supply reservoirs for drinking water purposes. These water supplies have historically been responsible for treating aquatic weeds and algae for water quality control purposes for the control of organics entering the Water Treatment facility. These Water Treatment Plant’s (WTPs) are permitted and regulated by the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) and as such should not fall under a separate VPDES permit.
3)      Currently, the City is monitoring and reporting under the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Individual VPDES permit for discharges that occur at an outfall into Broad Run. Since the Algaecide applied at the Lake is housed on the Water Plant property, this chemical is reported in our current VPDES permit as a method of algae removal from our Lake
4)      The City requests an exemption for municipalities currently under water quality monitoring programs to maintain water quality issues as they arise. The City’s main water supply, Lake Manassas, has been continuously monitored for various water quality indicators through the Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory (OWML) through Virginia Tech., since the 1970’s. Additional monitoring and testing is redundant.
CommentID: 14743
 

12/20/10  4:57 am
Commenter: SD, Water Ltd

Solutions
 

The earliest precursor of pollution generated by life forms would have been a natural function of their existence. The attendant consequences on viability and population levels fell within the sphere of natural selection. These would have included the demise of a population locally or ultimately, species extinction. Processes that were untenable would have resulted in a new balance brought about by changes and adaptations. At the extremes, for any form of life, consideration of pollution is superseded by that of survival.

For humankind, the factor of technology is a distinguishing and critical consideration, both as an enabler and an additional source of byproducts. Short of survival, human concerns include the range from quality of life to health hazards. Since science holds experimental demonstration to be definitive, modern treatment of toxicity or environmental harm involves defining a level at which an effect is observable. Common examples of fields where practical measurement is crucial include automobile emissions control, industrial exposure (e.g. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) PELs), toxicology (e.g. LD50), and medicine (e.g. medication and radiation doses).

"The solution to pollution is dilution", is a dictum which summarizes a traditional approach to pollution management whereby sufficiently diluted pollution is not harmful.[35][36] It is well-suited to some other modern, locally scoped applications such as laboratory safety procedure and hazardous material release emergency management. But it assumes that the dilutant is in virtually unlimited supply for the application or that resulting dilutions are acceptable in all cases.

Such simple treatment for environmental pollution on a wider scale might have had greater merit in earlier centuries when physical survival was often the highest imperative, human population and densities were lower, technologies were simpler and their byproducts more benign. But these are often no longer the case. Furthermore, advances have enabled measurement of concentrations not possible before. The use of statistical methods in evaluating outcomes has given currency to the principle of probable harm in cases where assessment is warranted but resorting to deterministic models is impractical or unfeasible. In addition, consideration of the environment beyond direct impact on human beings has gained prominence.

Yet in the absence of a superseding principle, this older approach predominates practices throughout the world. It is the basis by which to gauge concentrations of effluent for legal release, exceeding which penalties are assessed or restrictions applied. The regressive cases are those where a controlled level of release is too high or, if enforceable, is neglected. Migration from pollution dilution to elimination in many cases is confronted by challenging economical and technological barriers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution http://www.private-medical-insurances.co.uk/ http://www.car-tinted.com

 

CommentID: 14801
 

12/27/10  4:50 pm
Commenter: Matthew J. Lohr, Commissioner, VA Dept of Agriculture and Consumer Services

9VAC 25-800 - General VPDES Permit for Pesticide Discharges
 
The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) administers the provisions of Virginia's pesticide statute, Chapter 39 of Title 3.2 of the Code of Virginia, as well as the regulations promulgated by the Virginia Pesticide Control Board. VDACS also has delegated authority to enforce the provisions of FIFRA (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act). As such, VDACS is the primary agency for the regulatory oversight of pesticides in the Commonwealth. 
 
VDACS and other members of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) have voiced concerns about the 2009 ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in National Cotton Council v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that considered pesticide applications "in, over, or near" waters of the U.S. subject to permits under the Clean Water Act, rather than FIFRA.  VDACS believes that the Court's decision failed to consider existing pesticide-related regulations under FIFRA while simultaneously expanding the scope of the Clean Water Act.  We also believe that pesticide applications made in accordance with FIFRA adequately provide for human health and environmental protections and should therefore not be further regulated under the Clean Water Act. Nonetheless, we recognize that this particular regulatory action by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) emanates from the Court's decision.
 
VDACS believes that the proposed regulation needs (i) to adequately reflect VDACS authority to administer the pesticide statute, (ii) to be compatible with the regulations promulgated by the Virginia Pesticide Control Board, and (iii) to impose on the regulated community only the administrative and financial burdens essential to complying with the Court's decision. 
 
VDACS offers the following specific comments:
 
·        As currently defined, the term "Operator" could lead to confusion because it provides that more than one person could be responsible for the same discharge resulting from a pesticide application.  VDACS recommends that responsibility for compliance with the requirements of the general permit be assigned to the person who actually makes the decision to apply a pesticide that results in a discharge.
   
·        The current thresholds in the general permit above which an operator must meet the requirements of the permit, including development of a pesticide discharge management plan, were not determined based upon actual data collected but rather were incorporated directly from the thresholds established in the draft federal permit. VDACS recommends that DEQ work with relevant Virginia stakeholders to determine appropriate thresholds in the Commonwealth.
 
Finally, VDACS recognizes the magnitude of the outreach efforts that will be necessary to ensure compliance by licensed pesticide businesses and certified pesticide applicators. VDACS stands ready to assist DEQ in these efforts.
CommentID: 14823