United States Office of Pesticides October 1987
Environmental Protection and Toxic Substances
Agency Washington, DC 20460 740oOf 010
Pesticides and Toxic Substances
> ERA Agricultural Chemicals in Ground Water: Summary
Minutes from the 1987 Pesticide Strategy Workshop
-------
i
is UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
T
f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
To The Coolfont Workshop Participants:
On behalf of EPA, let me express how much we appreciate
the time that so many of you have contributed in helping us
sort through the complicated issues associated with the
agricultural chemicals in ground water concern. In developing
an Agency strategy for addressing this concern, we will
continue to deal with the difficult questions as openly and as
fully as possible.
This document contains a summary of the discussions that
occurred this summer at the public workshop held in Coolfont,
West Virginia. These discussions not only heightened our
awareness of the difficult public health, environmental, and
economic issues involved in the agricultural chemicals in
ground water concern, but have further underscored the great
need to strengthen the relationships among federal, state,
and local governments in dealing effectively with the problem.
In the months ahead, EPA intends to broaden the public
review of the draft Agricultural Chemicals in Ground Water
Strategy that was presented at the Coolfont workshop. Our
plans are to develop a final strategy early next year and
begin to address some of the key implementation issues raised
at the workshop. I feel certain that with the continued
support of people like yourself, we will be able to meet our
goal of protecting the ground-water resource.
Sincerely,
Johrf/A. Moore
Assistant Administrator
for Pesticides
and Toxic Substances
-------
AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS IN GROUND WATER:
SUMMARY MINUTES FROM THE
1987 PESTICIDE STRATEGY WORKSHOP
JULY 23 and 24, 1987
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 1: ENVIRONMENTAL GOAL
EPA Proposal 3
Discussion Questions 3
Discussion 4
1. Appropriateness of the Goal and EPA's Focus
on Preventing Unacceptable Contamination 4
2. Use of Health-Based Reference Points to
Determine Unacceptable Contamination 8
3. The MCL as the General Reference Point 10
4. Differential Protection of Ground Water 12
CHAPTER 2: PREVENTION
EPA Proposal 19
Discussion Questions 20
Discussion 22
1. Balance Between National Consistency and
Local Flexibility 22
-------
2. EPA-Directed Measures 23
3. State Management PIans 27
4. Increasing User Knowledge 34
5. Role of Monitoring 35
6. Next Steps 41
CHAPTER 3: RESPONSE
EPA Proposal 43
Discussion Questions 44
Discussion 45
1. EPA Registration Response Actions 45
2. Liability 45
APPENDIX A: 1987 WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS A-l
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
This document is a summary of the minutes from the EPA Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPTS) 1987 Agricultural Chemicals in Ground
Water Workshop. Workshop participants were asked to comment on the Agency's
proposed pesticide strategy and a number of associated implementation issues.
The July 1987 workshop was the second of two public workshops held by
OPTS to solicit input from a wide range of ground-water experts, including
Federal and state managers and staff, scientists, agricultural specialists,
environmental groups and industry representatives. Input from the first
workshop, held in June 1986, formed the basis for the proposed strategy
reviewed at the 1987 workshop. Participants at the 1986 workshop were asked to
review an assessment of the problem and recommend key issues to be addressed
in the plan. Minutes from the first meeting were prepared and distributed to
participants and other interested parties.
Following the format of the pesticides strategy, the minutes are divided
into three chapters: 1) the Agency's environmental goal; 2) the proposed
prevention program; and 3) the proposed response program.
EPA is considering the viewpoints and recommendations expressed at the
workshops. These, along with the comment received from formal public review
of the proposed strategy, will be taken into account as the Agency develops
its final strategy.
Goal
A number of environmentalists and some state officials preferred a
ground-water goal of non-degradation. Although these participants generally
recognized that there was little likelihood of attaining such a goal, they
believed it should nevertheless be the target. A number of state officials
suggested a goal that would tolerate some contamination, but not to the extent
-------
that it would impair ground-water use. Under this goal, efforts would focus
on preventing pesticide contamination of ground water that is a current or
potential drinking water source from reaching drinking water standards or
health advisories. Finally, a number of farm interests wanted a goal that
would explicitly recognize agricultural productivity and take into account the
benefits of pesticide use; a "practicable goal that would be within FIFRA's
mandate of weighting the benefits and risks of pesticide use".
Many of the participants thought that health-based reference points
should be used to help determine what levels of ground-water contamination is
unacceptable. There was disagreement on what these reference points should be
and how they should be used. Suggestions for proper reference points ranged
from negligible risk to Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), which are defined
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Some wanted these reference points to be
considered absolute limits to acceptable ground-water contamination. Others
thought the reference point should only serve as a benchmark that would help
define the risk side of pesticide use, but the benefits of a pesticide's use
would also have to be considered before any regulatory control action was
taken.
There was also extensive discussion on the definition of ground water and
the use of classification schemes to differentially protect ground water based
on its use and value. Some participants felt that all ground water should be
protected and that the water in the unsaturated zone should be included in the
definition of ground water. Other participants thought that each body of
ground water should be protected based on its current or potential use and
value. Of particular concern to some of these participants was
differentiating potential drinking water sources from ground water that, for a
number of practical reasons, would not be used as a drinking water source.
There were a number of participants who suggested that continued agricultural
productivity in some farming areas may be much more valuable than underlying
ground water and that pesticide contamination of such water may have to be
tolerated.
-------
Prevention Policy and Program
Most participants felt that the strategy struck a proper balance between
national consistency and local flexibility. In general, state participants
wanted EPA to define unacceptable ground-water contamination and establish
minimum environmental protection requirements that all state pesticide
management programs must strive to meet. At the same time, these participants
wanted the states to have the flexibility to tailor the management of
pesticide use to specific local conditions. Environmental representatives
generally thought that the strategy appropriately stressed the need for shared
responsibility, but were concern that there could be too much flexibility
given to states in defining what ground waters will be protected and what
management measures will be employed.
While most participants thought that there would still be the need for
certain EPA prevention measures that would be uniformly required across all
areas of the country, there was disagreement on the feasibility of EPA
establishing prevention measures that would be geographically differentiated.
There were particular labelling and compliance questions raised concerning
EPA's proposed establishment of county- or state-wide prevention measures.
Some participants felt EPA should not attempt to "go below" the state level in
establishing differential measures. Other participants thought that the
problems with a differential approach are surmountable and that these measures
would be needed as an alternative if there is no state management plan; in
fact, the threat of these alternative measures would be a motivating factor
for parties on each side of the issue to support the development of a state
management plan.
Some participants questioned EPA's authority to require a state to
develop a management plan. Others thought that the state management plan
should be considered as an opportunity that EPA would provide to the states.
These latter participants noted that in the absence of an adequate state plan,
EPA may have to cancel or radically change the registration of important
pesticides within a state. A number of state representatives believed that
the development and implementation of state pesticide management plans would
take substantial time and resources. Some suggested that registrants should
m
-------
help support the development of such plans. Others suggested that the concept
of state plans should be phased-in over a number of years and certain interim
pesticide management measures be established. Environmental participants,
however, thought that stringent control measures were needed immediately to
address obvious threats to ground water posed by certain pesticide uses and
that these measures should not be delayed in anticipation of the development
of state plans. Futhermore, environmentalists felt that to be effective,
these measures would have to specify the exact locations (i.e. state, county,
or other area) where a pesticide cannot be used.
There was considerable discussion on the possible elements of a state
plan and the need for EPA to develop criteria. Also discussed was the extent
these criteria should be considered guidelines or requirements and whether
state plans should be established for specific pesticides or developed as a
generic management approach for all pesticides. Some participants felt that
state plans should be evaluated in terms of environmental results, i.e.
prevention of ground-water contamination. Others were concerned that the
"lag-time" in ground-water contamination and detection would make it difficult
to judge the environmental success of prevention measures on a "real-time
basis". These latter participants suggested the use of administrative
criteria to evaluate state plans (e.g., legislative authority, sufficient
resources, etc.).
A number of participants believed that coordination of a number of
programs at both the federal and state level would be a major difficulty in
the successful implementation of the concept of the state management plan.
Some suggested that EPA request each governor's office to establish the lead
state agency and that EPA take a number of measures to help ensure
coordination both at the federal and state levels. Another stumbling block
identified by several participants was the extensive labelling needed to
support the state management approach. Others suggested that the actual
product label could be a simple, but Federally-required, referral to
supplemental labelling materials provided under a state plan, such as
bulletins or a user manual.
IV
-------
Most all participants agreed on the critical role of the user and the
need to better support his decision-making in the field. Some thought that
agricultural extension agents could be the critical link to users. Others
were concerned about the possible liability risk this could pose for extension
agents. Some suggested that extension agents could still have a critical
role, but one that was limited in such a way to avoid liability or the
perception of being "enforcers".
Participants identified three basic purposes for monitoring in support of
the proposed strategy: (1) monitoring to support registration; (2) monitoring
to establish trends and identify emerging problems; and (3) site-specific
monitoring to characterize a specific contamination problem. Monitoring to
support pesticide registration was generally considered the responsibility of
registrants. Some suggested that such monitoring should be designed to look
at the most sensitive areas or worst case situations and have definite limits.
Others thought that some small percentage of samples should be randomly
selected from sites not considered worst case as a precaution against faulty
predictions. Others wanted certain measures taken to assure the quality of
registrant monitoring efforts.
Monitoring to assess general trends and to identify emerging problems was
generally seen by the participants as an EPA or other federal agency
responsibility, when done at the national level, and a state function, when
done within a state's own boundaries. A number of participants thought
registrants should also help support such efforts. Some suggested that EPA or
a state could "piggyback" onto the monitoring efforts of a registrant or onto
each others' efforts. There was discussion among the participants on how such
monitoring should be focused and how to avoid unnecessary duplication.
The third purpose of monitoring was site-specific assessments, which
participants thought could be initiated as a result of findings by either
registrant monitoring or monitoring conducted by EPA or a state to identify
general trends. Some participants thought that more intensive monitoring at a
specific site should be conducted when there has been "one-hit" or detection
of ground-water contamination at or above the MCL. Others suggested that
there be an initial assessment of the site before additional monitoring is
-------
considered. Some participants wanted additional monitoring conducted at a
specific site when there is any detection. Others suggested the establishment
of an "action level" which, if found, would trigger additional monitoring and
site-specific control measures. Most agreed that a state should have the lead
in addressing a specific site concern, but EPA and/or a registrant may also
have to have roles depending on the situation.
Workshop participants suggested a number of activities EPA should
undertake in the near future to help implement the proposed strategy. Much of
the suggestions centered on furthering the development of the state pesticide
management plan concept.
Response Policy and Program
There was major disagreement on what EPA should do if there is no
adequate state plan to respond to ground-water contamination at specific
sites. Some wanted EPA to ban the use of pesticides at specific sites.
Others thought EPA should ban the use of a pesticide in an entire county or
state where a pesticide is detected in ground water at or above an MCL or
other unacceptable level and the state does not take adequate action to
prevent further contamination from occurring.
There was also major disagreement on who should be "liable for ground-
water contamination resulting from pesticide use. Some thought that the user
should be responsible for contamination resulting from normal, registered use
of a pesticide as well as any misuse or accidental spill by the user. Others
thought that the registrant is in a better position to understand the inherent
risks of pesticide use and the uncertainties of predicting contamination and,
therefore, should be held liable when the normal use of his product results in
ground-water contamination. Still others took the position that our society
has accepted that the benefits of pesticide use carry some risks and, thus,
the public should bear the burden of correcting unforeseen contamination. One
mechanism for public support of response actions included direct expenditures
by owners or users of wells contaminated by pesticides. Other participants
thought that public support should be broader and suggested either a tax on
pesticide products or the use of general tax revenue at either the state or
federal level.
-------
SUMMARY MINUTES
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPTS) has developed a
proposed long-term strategic plan for protecting ground water from
contamination by pesticides. As part of this effort, OPTS has held two public
workshops to solicit input from a wide range of ground-water experts,
including federal and state managers and staff, scientists, agricultural
specialists, environmental groups and industry representatives. Last year, on
June 26 and 27, 1986, the workshop participants were asked to review an
assessment of the problem and provide recommendations on key issues for
addressing the agricultural chemicals in ground water concern. Summary
minutes from this workshop were developed and mailed to participants and other
interested parties.
This year, on July 25 and 26, 1987, workshop participants were asked to
comment on the Agency's proposed pesticide strategy and a number of
implementation issues associated with the strategy. The purpose of this
document is to provide a summary of the minutes from this second agricultural
chemicals in ground water workshop. Following the format of the pesticides
strategy, the summary minutes are divided into three chapters: 1) the
Agency's environmental goal, 2) the proposed prevention program, and 3) the
proposed response program. For each of these chapters, the document presents
EPA's proposed strategy, the workshop discussion questions, and a summary of
the discussion. In addition, a list of all workshop participants is included
in the Appendix at the end of the document.
The viewpoints and recommendations expressed at the workshops, along with
any comments received from formal public review of the proposed strategy, will
be taken into account as the Agency develops its final strategy. Such input
will also prove valuable in EPA's development of an implementation plan for
the strategy and the establishment of guidelines for state pesticide
management plans; both of these efforts are to be initiated in 1988.
-------
CHAPTER 1: ENVIRONMENTAL GOAL
EPA Draft Proposal
EPA's goal will be to manage the use of pesticides to protect the ground-
water resource. The Agency will give specific attention to preventing
unacceptable contamination of ground water that is a current or potential
drinking water source or of ecological importance. Additional preventative
measures may be taken to ensure protection of "high-priority ground waters".
For ground water that is a current or potential drinking water source,
EPA will use the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) as its general benchmark or
"reference point" for helping to determine what contamination levels are
unacceptable. If an MCL is not available, EPA will establish an interim
reference point equivalent to a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for a
noncarcinogen and a negligible risk level for a carcinogen.
Discussion Questions;
1. Is EPA's proposed goal appropriate? Is it appropriate for the Agency to
focus on preventing unacceptable contamination?
2. How should EPA use health-based reference points? Under what conditions
should contamination below a reference point be considered unacceptable?
Conversely, under what conditions should contamination above a reference
point be considered acceptable?
3. Is the MCL the appropriate general reference point?
4. Is differential protection of ground water based on its use and value
appropriate? How should "high-priority ground water" be defined? Should
there be more than one class for ground water that is a potential drinking
water source and should these classes be differentially protected? What
-------
should be the roles and responsibilities of the EPA and the States in
implementing a differential protection scheme?
Discussion:
1. Appropriateness of the Goal and EPA's Focus on
Preventing Unacceptable Contamination
NON-DEGRADATION
AS A GOAL
There was considerable discussion about what EPA's goal
should be. A number of environmentalists and some state
representatives took issue with EPA's focus on preventing
unacceptable contamination because it implies that some
level of contamination is acceptable. These participants
wanted a goal of nondegradation, i.e., no contamination of
ground water. They believed that the strategic goal should
be a broad, long-term target that is "reached for, even if
it perhaps can never be attained".
AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTION
AND
NON-DEGRADATION
AS A COMBINED
GOAL
Other participants agreed that a long-term goal of
non-degradation had appeal, but only if combined with a
goal of protecting farmland resources and continued
agricultural production. One participant noted that food
as well as water is essential to life and that pesticides
are currently vital to food production in this country.
In response to this statement, another participant argued
that a combined goal of non-Hegradation of ground water
and continued agricultural production was possible, but
should be based on "appropriate" agricultural productivity
and essential uses of pesticides. It was further suggested
that while some pesticides are currently essential to food
production, pesticide residues in ground water represent
inefficiencies and indirect costs to growers; eliminating
ground-water contamination could, therefore, improve
agricultural productivity.
-------
STEPS TO
ACHIEVE A
COMBINED
GOAL
There were discussions as to how and when a combined
goal of non-degradation and continued farm productivity
could be attained. Some participants noted that this
goal would require major changes in basic farm policies,
including paying farmers to take cropland out of production
in areas with vulnerable ground water and possibly moving
toward a bushel-based compensation system. It was also
mentioned that a combined goal would require extensive
research into alternative pest control practices including
integrated pest management as well as the development of
new pesticides that are more highly selective and less
toxic and mobile.
OPPOSITION
TO NON-
DEGRADATION
GOAL
Other state participants, along with most industry and
agricultural representatives, did not support non-degrada-
tion as a goal and thought that the Agency should establish
a goal that is attainable within the context of EPA's
legislative mandates. A number of these participants
stated that a non-degradation goal would be outside EPA's
EPA's authorities. Such a goal would require extensive
policy changes and massive, long-term efforts by numerous
agencies at each level of government, as well as efforts
that could only be initiated by the private sector.
Futhermore, to move toward a non-degradation goal would
require changes in social values (e.g., landowner rights)
and personal preferences (e.g., "defect-free" and "insect-
free" grains, fruits and vegetables). Finally, these
participants believed that radical changes in basic
agricultural practices and major dislocations of farming
would have to occur to meet a goal of non-degradation.
These participants concluded that the costs to society of a
non-degradation goal would be too high without justifiable
increases in public health or environmental protection.
They argued that a goal of non-degradation could not be
-------
attained and that it would be misleading to the public to
suggest otherwise.
NEED FOR A
PRACTICABLE
GOAL WITHIN
EPA AUTHORITY
Many of the participants were concerned about pesticide
contamination of ground water that is occurring now or in
the near future, and what EPA, specifically, will do about
it under the Agency's existing legal authorities and
programs. One of these participants stated that while
a combined target of non-degradation and continued farm
productivity is "a nice thing to talk about", it does not
reflect the practical world as it exists for the foresee-
able future and ignored the fact that difficult trade-offs
between these two objectives will often be unavoidable. It
was further argued that these trade-offs are considered for
other pesticide concerns and are the basis of the basic
pesticide law, FIFRA.
NET RISK
REDUCTION AS
A GOAL
SOME
CONTAMINATION
ACCEPTABLE
Some of the above participants were also concerned that
the risks of ground-water contamination must be considered
in the context of the potential risks that may result from
substituted pesticides particularly through other exposure
routes (e.g., dietary). These participants suggested that
the goal should be "net pesticide risk reduction", i.e.,
the Agency should attempt to reduce pesticides risks from a
perspective that includes all possible exposure routes
including drinking water, dietary, applicator and farm
worker exposures.
A number of participants felt that some level of ground-
water contamination by pesticides would have to be
tolerated or accepted in order to continue agricultural
production in this country. These participants felt that
the risks of ground-water contamination by pesticides
would have to be weighed against the benefits of their use;
in some cases, the risk would be considered reasonable
given the benefits of pesticide use. The level of a
-------
DETERMINATION
OF
UNACCEPTABLE
CONTAMINATION
GENERIC
APPROACH
- USE OF
REFERENCE
POINTS
ALLOWS FOR
CONSISTENCY
pesticide in ground water that poses a reasonable risk
should be considered acceptable contamination, while
contamination above such a level would pose unreasonable
risks and thus, would be unacceptable.
A few participants suggested that unacceptable
contamination would have to be determined for each
individual pesticide and for each site where it is used.
These participants explained that the risks and benefits
would differ for each pesticide at each usage site. The
risk that a pesticide poses depends on its toxicity, which
differs with each chemical, and the extent of potential
exposure, which would differ with each usage site.
Most other participants thought that a site-specific
approach was infeasible and that a more generic approach
was needed. Some suggested that unacceptable contamination
should be established by using a health-based standard or
other "reference point" such as a drinking water standard
or health advisory level. These reference points would be
used to define unacceptable contamination for ground water
classified as a current or potential drinking water source.
Ecological criteria or reference points would be used for
ground water classified as having significant ecological
value. [Note - A summary of the discussions on the issues
of ground-water classification is presented later].
A number of participants stressed that the above generic
approach for determining unacceptable contamination would
allow for consistency between FIFRA decisions and other EPA
statutes addressing ground-water concerns. Some partici-
pants suggested that this approach would also provide
national consistency if used as a minimum standard, i.e.,
states could establish a more stringent definition of
-------
unacceptable contamination, but could not establish a less
stringent definition.
2. Use of Health-Based Reference Points to Determine
Unacceptable Contamination
REFERENCE
POINT
- ACCEPTABLE
TO EXCEED
- OUTER LIMIT
TO REASONABLE
RISK
There was considerable debate among the participants on
how a reference point should be used. Some of the partici-
pants suggested that there may be cases where the benefits
of a pesticide use are minimal and contamination of ground
water by such a pesticide below a reference point would be
unacceptable. Conversely, others felt that there may be
cases where a pesticide with critical and significant
benefits should be allowed at levels above a reference
point. While the former statement was generally accepted
as a possibility, there was general disagreement on the
latter statement, particularly if the reference point is
the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL).
Some participants felt that the reference point should
always be considered as an "outer limit to reasonable
risk". In other words, once it was shown that the use of a
pesticide has the potential to contaminate ground water at
or above the level of a reference point, control measures
would have to be imposed to reduce contamination below that
level regardless of the implications for the benefits
derived from the pesticide's use. Other participants
disagreed and argued that the economic benefits of a
pesticide's use could be so significant that they would
outweigh the costs of alternative measures such as treating
the contaminated water before it is used or providing new
sources of water. Furthermore, there may be areas where
ground-water contamination is quickly diluted by natural
processes and levels above a reference point could be
temporarily tolerated. These participants thought that the
8
-------
"LICENSE TO
POLLUTE"
strategy should allow for the possibility of acceptable
contamination above a reference point including the MCL.
A number of other participants were concerned that EPA
might not take action until a reference point was reached
or exceeded; they felt that the Agency may be establishing
a "tolerance level" or a "license to pollute" up to the
reference point. For a goal of prevention, it was
suggested that ground-water contamination below a reference
point should trigger action to prevent contamination from
ever reaching unacceptable levels. These participants
recommended that a number of trigger levels be established
from the level-of-detection up to the reference point and
that increasingly more stringent preventative measures be
established for each higher trigger level. Some partici-
pants also felt that the root zone or the unsaturated zone
should be monitored for pesticide residues, and triggers
should be established for these zones as part of a
prevention approach.
TRIGGERS/
MENU OF
PREVENTION
MEASURES
Participants talked of the menu of control measures that
could be established for each trigger level. Some
measures, such as requiring monitoring studies by the
registrant, could be ta;
-------
3. The MCL as the General Reference Point
MCLG MORE
APPROPRIATE
There was considerable discussion about what the general
reference point should be. A number of participants felt
that the MCL, as a reference point for unacceptable contam-
ination, would be inappropriate because it is not solely
health-based. This group was concerned that an MCL could
be set significantly higher than an MCLG or negligible risk
level because the Safe Drinkinig Water Act (SDWA) requires
that the EPA establish an MCL only after considering the
technological limits of public water utilities to treat
such contamination; a factor that should not be considered
when determining needed prevention measures. These
participants felt that an MCLG would be a more appropriate
goal. They argued that because neither the MCLG nor the
MCL takes into account the possibility of the presence of
several drinking water contaminants and their possible
combined effects, the more conservative of the two levels
should be the reference point.
MCL IS
APPROPRIATE
A number of participants disagreed with the arguments
for using the MCLG and instead, supported the MCL as
the general reference point for determining unacceptable
contamination. These participants noted that, in most
cases, MCLs have been set at, or are very near to, the
MCLGs. When there is a difference, it is usually a result
of limits to practical analytical capability, i.e., an MCLG
is below the level of detection and thus, the MCL was set
at the level of detection. These participants felt that
since MCLGs are based on highly-conservative risk
estimates, derived MCLs will also be very protective
regardless of the other considerations taken into account.
Furthermore, the MCL has been used to establish the
adequacy of drinking water for millions of Americans
relying on public water systems, and a more stringent level
for ground water would be confusing to the public.
10
-------
NEGLIGIBLE
RISK AS
REFERENCE
POINT
HEALTH
ADVISORIES
ARE KEY FOR
THE NEAR TERM
A few participants felt that the reference point should
be the level that poses a "negligible" risk, and that any
level that poses a risk considered greater than negligible
would be unacceptable. Other participants claimed that
this would limit the utility of the reference point because
FIFRA recognizes that some 'non-negligible' risks may be
reasonable given the benefits of pesticide use.
A number of participants suggested that in most cases,
the MCLs for pesticides would be set at the MCLG for
noncarcinogens and a negligible risk level for carcinogens
or, if necessary, at the limit of detection. Furthermore,
the Agency's proposed strategy is to use these criteria to
develop interim reference points when no MCL is available,
which may be the case for some time. Thus, the interim
reference points, currently being developed as Health
Advisories, would likely drive prevention efforts for some
time to come.
ECOLOGICAL
REFERENCE
POINTS
There was also a discussion on the development of
reference point levels for ecological impacts resulting
from pesticide contamination of ground water. A number of
participants mentioned that some ecosystems or species can
be more sensitive than humans to toxic substances and that
the MCL or other human health-based criteria may not always
be ecologically protective. There was general agreement
among participants that ecological reference points should
be developed, but many felt that it would be very difficult
to determine which would be applicable to specific
situations. It was mentioned that ecosystems vary too
greatly in their sensitivity to toxic chemicals for
national reference points to be useful. Some suggested
that ecological concerns could be addressed under the Clean
Water Act in which EPA would continue to establish
ecological criteria and the states would develop specific
water quality standards. In this situation, the states
11
-------
would determine the applicability of ecological standards
to any given ground-water resource.
4. Differential Protection of Ground Water
THE ROLE OF
GROUND-WATER
CLASSIFICATION
IN DETERMINING
UNACCEPTABLE
CONTAMINATION
DEFINITION
OF GROUND
WATER
As mentioned above, participants discussed a possible
generic approach to establishing unacceptable contami-
nation. Such an approach would use a standardized
reference point, such as the MCL, to designate unaccept-
able contamination levels for certain classes of ground
water. Classifications would be based on whether a ground-
water resource is or could be used as a drinking water
source or on its ecological value. Use of such a classifi-
cation scheme would provide a surrogate for exposure and
thus, coupled with a health-based reference level, a
measure of the potential risk resulting from pesticide
contamination of ground water. This approach would avoid
having to determine potential exposures for each local
ground-water/pesticide use setting — a task that was
considered infeasible by many participants.
The workshop participants discussed a number of issues
involving this approach including: the definition of ground
water, the appropriateness of differentiating ground water
for protection purposes and the appropriate
classification scheme. Some participants mentioned
that the Strategy did not d°fine ground water or provide
options for its definition. One possible option would be
to define ground water as the water in the saturated zone.
A second option would be to define ground water as the the
water from the root zone on down. Some participants
replied that the Strategy uses the same definition of
ground water that is found in EPA's general Ground-Water
Protection Strategy (1984), which focuses EPA's protection
efforts on ground water in the saturated zone.
12
-------
PROTECTION OF
UNSATURATED
ZONE
Some participants felt that it would be more consistent
with a prevention goal to include the water in the root
zone or the unsaturated zone in the definition of ground
water. They argued that the saturated zone is the
"destination" of water of concern and the root zone is the
"transport system" for the water of concern. Other
participants thought that the goal should be protection of
the water in the saturated zone, but preventative
management actions could be based on monitoring of
pesticide residues in the unsaturated zone. One partici-
pant suggested that either approach would have the added
benefit of helping to protect surface water as well as
ground water.
NO DIFFER-
ENTIATION
There was considerable discussion on whether and how
ground water should be differentiated. A number of
participants felt that you could not differentiate
ground water; that all ground water needed protection
because we do not know enough about the interconnection of
ground waters and could not accurately predict what waters
may be used in the future for drinking water.
DIFFERENTIA-
TION BASED
ON VULNER-
ABILITY
Other participants thought that ground water could be
differentiated by relative vulnerability and that in highly
vulnerable areas, little or no pesticide use of any kind
should be allowed. Some participants stated that differ-
entiation of ground water by vulnerability was generally
accepted and that ground-water differentiation based on its
use for human consumption or ecological value was the real
issue.
ZONES OF
ATTENUATION
In one work group, the concept of "zones of attenuation"
was suggested as a possible approach for a differential
protection scheme. Such an approach would allow for a
lesser degree of protection as one goes further away from
13
-------
the point where the water is actually withdrawn by a
drinking water well or recharges an area of ecological
importance.
AGRICULTURAL
It was mentioned that some crops require saturated soil
conditions. Also, large agricultural areas may overlie
areas of "useless" shallow ground water. Continued
agricultural production could be more valuable in some of
these areas than protecting ground water that has little
likelihood of being used as drinking water and little
economic or environmental value. These participants
suggested that certain areas be classified as agricultural
zones where ground-water protection would be reduced or
deemed unnecessary. In some of these areas, the agricul-
tural activities may be so intense that ground-water
contamination above a reference point, including an MCL,
may have to be tolerated.
PROTECTION
FOR ALL
GROUND WATER
Others suggested that the essentiality of a pesticide to
continued agricultural production should be clearly shown
before contamination of any ground water is considered
acceptable even if the risks are negligible. Some of these
participants thought that there may be areas where ground
water should not receive full protection, but some baseline
protection should be attempted for all ground water.
LESS
PROTECTION
ONLY FOR
CLASS III
Some participants argued t-hat less protection should
only be considered for those waters that would fit EPA's
Class III designation, i.e., high salinity, low yield, etc.
Others, however, believed that little, if any, agricultural
areas would be found to overlie just Class III ground
water, and that exemptions or additional differentiation of
areas with EPA Class II-type of ground waters was needed.
14
-------
DIFFERENTIATION
OF POTENTIAL
DRINKING WATER
SOURCES
Many of the workshop participants felt that there should
be some differentiation within EPA's Class II definition of
potential drinking water. In other words, there should be
differentiation between what is a real potential drinking
water source and what is, for all practical purposes, not
a source for the foreseeable future even though it does not
fall within EPA's Class III definition.
SHALLOW
GROUND WATER
LOCAL
ZONING
FUTURE USE TOO
UNCERTAIN TO
ALLOW
CONTAMINATION
Some participants thought that shallow ground water
could be less protected if deeper aquifers were used as
a drinking water source. Others, however, disagreed and
mentioned that in some areas of the country, shallow ground
water is the preferred source of drinking water. Moreover,
shallow water is also more likely to be associated with
surface water systems that may need protection for either
human health or ecological reasons.
A few of the work groups discussed how local zoning
ordinances could be used to identify agricultural zones and
to prevent any future use of ground water in these areas
as drinking water sources. Some participants thought that
local ordinances could be established in certain agricul-
tural areas that would require any future drinking water
wells to draw water from below a specified depth. This
approach would allow for contamination of shallower ground
waters while protecting deeper, more valuable waters.
Others felt that local zoning and other land use
controls could not assure that ground water in specified
areas would not eventually be used for drinking water or
that contamination at a shallow depth would not eventually
migrate to deeper drinking water supplies. Therefore,
because of the uncertainty in determining future ground-
water use, all ground water should receive baseline
protection with perhaps additional measures taken in areas
where ground water is currently being used as drinking
water.
15
-------
NO "UP-FRONT"
EXEMPTIONS
Some participants noted that there had been several
attempts to more narrowly define underground sources of
drinking water, but each attempt had failed. A number of
participants felt EPA should not make "up-front" exemptions
for ground-water protection. Rather, the issue could be
approached from one of setting priorities for protection
efforts. Such priorities, it was argued, should only be
made by a state or local government, but EPA could develop
the general criteria or approach for establishing
priorities.
A STATE
RESPONSIBILITY
Some participants felt that the states should have the
authority to establish their own classification systems, if
they can generally meet EPA's goal of protecting ground
water. Others felt very uncomfortable with not having
federal consistency and believed that ground-water
protection would become a local political issue. Some
participants suggested that the states should use EPA's
classification scheme and not "reinvent the wheel".
EXTRA-
PROTECTION FOR
"HIGH-PRIORITY
GROUND WATER"
A number of participants believed that some baseline
level of protection should be provided for all ground water
that is a current or potential drinking water source, but
that additional prevention measures should be taken to
assure protection of "high-priority ground waters". Other
participants were concerned that identifying ground waters
for "extra protection" would result in "underprotection"
for other ground waters. More specifically, these
participants felt that such an approach would result in
protection for large community wells at the expense of
protection for private wells, particularly in rural areas.
16
-------
POSSIBLE
"HIGH-PRIORITY
GROUND WATER"
A LOCAL
DECISION
Several participants suggested that high-priority ground
waters should be those waters supplying public drinking
wells that are included in a state's wellhead protection
area program. Another suggestion was that water supplying
private wells should also be included as high-priority
ground water and that well setbacks be established for
areas where pesticides could be stored, mixed or used. It
was mentioned that a national minimum well setback could be
established for all wells with additional setbacks for
areas with more vulnerable or valuable ground waters. Some
participants disagreed with this idea and thought that
owners of private wells should be targeted for education
efforts concerning the vulnerability of well areas rather
than specific regulatory measures.
A final suggestion was to include areas with ground
waters that are likely to supply future public water
systems. Other participants thought that this was a good
idea, but the designation of such areas would have to be
done by local governments. These participants noted that
some states had tried and failed at designating such areas;
now these states are developing criteria and guidelines for
local governments to do such designations. In the future,
farming communities may have to decide whether to "trade-
off" current agricultural production in return for
protecting future drinking water supplies.
17
-------
CHAPTER 2: PREVENTION
EPA Proposal:
EPA prevention strategy will combine three basic pesticide management
approaches:
EPA-directed prevention measures that will be required in all areas
of the country (i.e., "uniform nationwide measures")
EPA-directed, differential prevention measures that will be required
on a county-by-county basis or applicable to entire individual states
(i.e., "area-specified measures").
State-directed measures that will be considered by the Agency as
possible alternatives to the above, EPA-directed measures and the
basis for EPA registration decisions. These state-directed measures
will be described in a "State Pesticide Management Plan". A State
may establish "uniform statewide measures" or use "area-specified
measures" to tailor prevention to local ground-water protection
needs.
All three of the above management approaches can include additional
protective measures for sites where certain special conditions exist (e.g.,
high recharge areas, shallow ground water, "high-priority ground water",
etc.). The pesticide's label would specify what special conditions would
warrant these additional "site-conditional measures". The determination of
the presence of special conditions at a particular site and the applicability
of "site-conditional measures" would be the responsibility of the pesticide
user.
EPA's prevention strategy recognizes the pivotal role of the pesticide
user in protecting the ground-water resource; his decision-making in the field
must be better supported. The strategy also calls for increased responsi-
bilities by registrants in preventing ground-water contamination that
19
-------
includes: a greater role in supporting proper decision-making by the user in
the field; expanded ground-water monitoring efforts; and the development of
safer alternative pesticides.
Under this prevention strategy, monitoring of ground water for pesticides
will be of increased importance for identifying emerging problems and for
evaluating the environmental effectiveness of management efforts.
Discussion Questions;
1. Does the strategy strike an appropriate balance between national
consistency and local flexibility in managing pesticides to protect
the ground-water resource? What aspects of the strategy should be
flexible (e.g., alternative state management measures, definitions of
ground-water classes/subclasses)? What aspects, should be consistent
(e.g., no exceedance of EPA-designated, unacceptable contamination
levels)?
2. What types of prevention measures should EPA impose uniformly to all
areas of the country? Is an EPA-directed differential approach at
the county- or state- level feasible? How should EPA decide what
counties or states need what types of differential protection
measures? What are the implications of EPA differential measures for
labelling and enforcement? Should EPA-directed measures always be
developed for each pesticide as the basis for evaluating the adequacy
of alternative measures proposed by a State Pesticide Management
Plan?
3. What should be the elements of a State Pesticide Management Plan?
What guidance, criteria or standards should EPA develop for state
plans? What should EPA review when deciding on the adequacy of a
state's plan? What are the labelling and enforcement problems of the
state plan approach? What are the other barriers to establishing a
state plan and program? What can EPA do to facilitate the development
of adequate state plans? How much time and resources will be
required to develop and implement state plans?
20
-------
4, How can the federal and state governments increase the knowledge of
users, and introduce this strategic approach in a way that would
encourage users to comply voluntarily? What information needs to be
provided to pesticide users? What are the best mechanisms for
getting such information to the user?
5. Who should be responsible for conducting ground-water monitoring that
is intended for identifying potential contamination trends or
emerging problems? What frequency and level of ground-water
contamination should be considered as an indication that preventative
management actions are needed? Who should conduct site-specific
monitoring when a pesticide contamination problem has been found?
How can EPA or a state better respond to contamination reports?
6. What are the next steps in launching this strategy?
21
-------
Discussion:
1. Balance Between National Consistency and Local
Flexibility
CONSISTENT
GOAL/
FLEXIBLE
MANAGEMENT
Most participants felt that at the conceptual level the
strategy strikes a proper balance between national consis-
tency and local flexibility. Several state participants
emphasized that there needs to be national consistency in
regard to the minimum standard for acceptable ground-
water contamination; a state would have the option of being
more stringent. However, many state representatives wanted
maximum flexibility in applying pesticide management
measures for achieving such protection and for determining
what ground waters should receive protection. They
recognized that there may be inconsistencies between states
in their management approach, but most agreed that more
than one approach could be successful.
ERA'S
ALTERNATIVE
"GORILLA-IN-
THE-CLOSET"
A number of states also liked the idea of EPA having an
alternative management approach that would tend to be less
precise than a state management effort. Such an approach
could provide "the gorilla-in-the-closet" threat that would
"make things happen in a state". In other words, a less
precise EPA-directed management measures could pose
difficulties from both an agricultural and environmental
perspective and thus motivate political support for
alternative state-directed measures.
CONCERN FOR
TOO MUCH
FLEXIBILITY
Most environmentalists thought that the strategy
appropriately stressed the need for a shared responsi-
bility, especially between EPA and the states. However,
some environmental representatives expressed reservations
that the strategy could provide too much flexibility for
the states, particularly in regard to what ground waters
should be protected. Many of these participants felt that
22
-------
NEED SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS
EPA should provide specific criteria for the definition of
what types of ground waters are to be protected.
A few environmentalists also had reservations about
allowing the states to develop their own pesticide
management measures. They felt that national criteria
should be developed for identifying areas vulnerable to
ground-water contamination by specific pesticides and that
prevention measures for these areas should be dictated by
EPA. The role of the states would be limited to assessing
pesticide usage areas using EPA's vulnerability criteria
and enforcing the EPA-required measures for each type of
area identified.
2. EPA-Directed Measures
NATIONAL
UNIFORM
MEASURES
NATIONAL
REQUIRED
WELL SET-BACKS
Most participants agreed that there are certain
agricultural practices that should be managed uniformly
across the country. Such practices would include those
that could result in contamination of ground water regard-
less of local hydrogeological conditions. The best example
of this practice is contamination from chemigation tanks
that can result from accidental backsiphoning of pesticide
mixtures into a water supply well. EPA has established a
nationwide requirement that anti-backsiphoning devices be
installed on all chemigation systems.
Another possible national, uniform regulation may be a
minimum well setback for mixing and loading operations; the
intent being to prevent "run-in" of highly contaminated
waters from leaks or spills. Still other participants
thought that a minimum well setback for all pesticide
activities including field applications should be
established as a minimum national requirement. However,
some participants disagreed with this proposal, stating
that the degree to which well setbacks are actually needed
23
-------
requirements would vary too much from area to area and a
uniform, national requirement could be either too stringent
or provide a false sense of security,. Other participants
mentioned that certain measures, including use
cancellations, could be uniformly required for all Wellhead
Protection Areas. It was noted, however, that in many
states wellhead protection was in its infancy and that
imposing federal regulations at this time for those areas
could impede their development.
NATIONAL
RESTRICTED-
USE REQUIREMENT
Another possible national measure could be restricting
pesticides that pose a ground-water threat to certified
applicators. It was argued that if restrictions were
differentiated by area, it would result in confusion and
noncompliance. Also, the certification process could be
used as a primary vehicle for educating users on the
ground-water concern and the more complicated differential
prevention measures required by either EPA or a state.
NEED FOR
NATIONAL
CANCELLATIONS
There was some disagreement on whether or not national
cancellations of pesticides, based on ground-water
concerns, would be appropriate once adequate state plans
are in place. Some participants felt that there will
always be areas where a pesticide can be used without
impacting ground water and if a state can identify these
areas, the use should be allowed. Other participants
thought that EPA should not expend resources to oversee a
state plan that would support the registration of a
nationally-banned pesticide for a small number of sites.
EPA DIFFER-
ENTIAL MEASURES
- NOT FEASIBLE
Most of the workgroups expressed considerable
differences in opinion on the strategy's proposal for
EPA-directed differential measures at the county-
or state- levels. Some participants noted that the
variability of ground-water vulnerability and agri-
cultural practices at the county or state-level of
24
-------
resolution was too great in some areas to serve as a basis
for differential measures. Still others suggested that
national pesticide labels could not carry the amount of
information necessary to support such an approach.
Finally, a number of participants felt that a
county-by-county approach could not be enforced in some
states.
EPA
DIFFERENTIAL
MEASURES
FEASIBLE AND
NEEDED FOR
MOTIVATION
- MOTIVATION
FOR
INDUSTRY
SUPPORT OF
STATE PLAN
- USER AND
Some participants felt that an EPA-directed differential
approach at the state- or county-level was possible and in
fact was the key tactic of the proposed strategy. The
crudeness of a state- or county-level approach would be a
motivating factor for a state to develop the preferred
approach of a state management plan. It would also
motivate industry, user and environmental groups to support
the development of a state plan.
Under an EPA-directed approach, it was noted that EPA's
countywide or statewide measures would tend to be based on
worst case assumptions. For example, the Agency would have
to establish ground-water protection measures for an entire
county based on the assumption that all of the water was a
drinking water source. The use of worst case assumptions
would result in pressure on the states by industry to
develop alternative, more refined management approaches.
The EPA-directed approach would also likely result in areas
within a county that may actually be more vulnerable than
the overall county designation. As a result, EPA would
need to include additional label directions that would
require a user to assess the local vulnerability of his
usage site and take additional protective measures if
applicable. These "site-conditional" measures were not
liked by either the user or environmental groups. It was
clear at the work- shop that users do not want to be
responsible for determining local vulnerability, while
environmentalists are concerned about users' interpretation
25
-------
ENVIRONMENTALIST of the measures and compliance and enforcement
SUPPORT OF difficulties. These considerations would lead to political
STATE PLAN pressure from users and environmentalists for a state to
develop an alternative, more refined approach.
LABELLING
IS FEASIBLE
These participants also suggested that the labelling
problem could be surmounted. Bulletins and other informa-
tional vehicles could be used. Requirements made available
through these other "labelling" mechanisms could be made
enforceable by having a simple and short statement on the
actual product label directing the user to follow those
instructions.
COMPLIANCE
IS FEASIBLE
BUT EDUCATION
IS CRITICAL
Finally, these participants thought that a state that
could not demonstrate its ability to enforce a county-by-
county approach should lose the registration of the
pesticide in the entire state. Some other participants
countered that enforcement should not be expected to assure
complete compliance. User willingness to comply must be
considered and label instructions that would take a pesti
cide's use away from him, but not his neighbors in the next
county, would likely lead to noncompliance, especially if
other crop uses were allowed in his own fields. A number
of farm representatives took issue with this viewpoint.
They suggested that the farmer is very interested in
protecting his and his neighbors' drinking water. If you
can show the farmer that a n^sticide will contaminate his
family's drinking water, he will not use the product
regardless of what his neighbor is doing. A number of
participants agreed that the key to differential measures
is education. Some participants pointed out that if
differential management measures are not possible, the
alternative would be a nationwide approach that would
result in greater measures, including cancellations.
26
-------
STATE - VS
COUNTY- LEVEL
Major disagreement still occurred on whether EPA should
ever attempt differential measures below the state level.
Most environmental representatives and a number of state
representatives thought that EPA should cancel all uses of
a pesticide that pose a ground-water threat in any state
that does not develop an adequate state plan. A number of
other states and most agricultural interests protested that
such an approach would be unfair if EPA's own data shows
that there are agricultural areas in a state where a
pesticide could be used without impacting ground water.
These participants noted that there may be counties within
a state that are vulnerable to ground-water contamination,
but of little agricultural importance. Within that same
state, there may be counties where the farming areas are
not vulnerable and their agricultural production could be
of national if not worldwide significance. They asked how
it could possibly be appropriate to ban the use of
pesticides in that entire state based on ground-water
concerns, particularly if a state could enforce EPA's
county-by-county prevention measures.
3. State Management Plans
OPPORTUNITY
FOR A STATE
There was general agreement among the participants that
the concept of state management plans was appropriate, but
some questioned EPA's authority to provide federal funds
for this activity. In response to these concerns, EPA
participants noted that if a state refuses to develop a
management plan, EPA may have to cancel or radically change
the registration of the pesticide within that state. These
participants suggested that the state management plan
should be viewed as an "opportunity" for the state to
develop alternatives to EPA's measures, and that the state
can better tailor prevention measures to specific local
needs. However, it was noted that if a state is unwilling
27
-------
to develop a management plan, the Agency will have to take
action under its FIFRA responsibilities.
COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE
Some participants expressed concern that development of
a state plan would place them at a disadvantage over those
states that do not take an active role. However, it was
pointed-out by other participants that states that take the
initiative to develop a management plan may, in fact, have
a competitive advantage over states that do not take an
active role. A state that takes an active role may find
that its management plan will allow for the use of
pesticides that would otherwise be cancelled by EPA within
parts or all of the state.
"NOT PREMATURE"
REQUIRES
TIME/MONEY
Several state participants noted that they and a number
of other states were already addressing the pesticides in
ground water concern and, regardless of EPA actions,
additional states would soon have to do the same as a
result of public concern. These participants stated that
in regard to state pesticide management plans, it was "not
premature for EPA to require them". For some states, it
will only be a matter of "repackaging" their plans into a
format appropriate for submission to EPA.
A number of other state representatives felt that the
development and implementation of a state management plan
will be a substantial undertaking requiring from 3 to 5
years to develop and even longer to implement. Significant
resources will be needed for their establishment, and
EPA must provide the major share, at least in the early
stages. Some participants estimated that the cost of
developing a plan could range from 250 to 500 thousand
dollars a year. Other participants estimated that detailed
mapping of ground-water resources and vulnerability could
cost up to 2 million dollars a year for several years in
moderate size states. A number of participants suggested
28
-------
that some state legislatures may not provide the resources
necessary to support a management plan until EPA threatens
to cancel the use of pesticides important to a state's
agricultural productivity. It was further noted that
certain aspects of a management plan could only be
developed by state or local governments.
ASSISTANCE
FROM
REGISTRANTS
Pesticide registrants were mentioned as another possible
source of funding as well as technical assistance for the
development of state management plans. Some state
representatives expressed concern that industry would not
generally support the development of management measures.
Industry representatives countered this by citing a number
of cases of joint cooperation between registrants and
states in addressing potential ground-water problems.
These latter participants suggested that registrants are,
in fact, expecting to shoulder some of the responsibility
for helping states develop plans, except in areas where a
pesticide's use may be marginally profitable.
PHASE-IN
MEASURES
PILOT STATE
PLANS
Some participants thought that a five-year period was
needed to phase-in state management plans. During this
phase-in period, EPA should develop site-conditional label
requirements for the states to implement. For example, EPA
could require a pesticide's label to read: "do not apply
this pesticide in areas with high ground-water recharge".
Each state would then decide to what extent it would assist
pesticide users in complying with the EPA label. During
the phase-in period, EPA should also support a number of
pilot state efforts. Support should be given to both
states that already have fairly-advanced programs and
states that are just beginning to address the problem. The
intent of these pilots would be to develop the criteria and
guidelines or perhaps a model for state plans.
29
-------
NO DELAY
FOR NEEDED
CONTROLS
Environmental representatives felt that EPA should not
delay measures to address pesticides that have clearly been
shown to pose ground-water threats. Furthermore, these
participants doubted that site-conditional measures could
adequately protect ground water. Instead, they preferred
that pesticide uses be specifically cancelled by EPA in
certain counties or states based upon ground-water
concerns.
ALTERNATIVE
INTERIM
MEASURE
As an alternative to the above approaches, some
participants suggested that the states be allowed to issue
permits or waivers to farmers for limited use of pesticides
in counties where EPA has cancelled a pesticide's use.
These participants thought that this could also be the
eventual approach taken by a state plan. Other
participants suggested that such an approach could work
only in those states where the demand for permits would be
low.
NEED
GUIDELINES
ELEMENTS
OF
STATE PLANS
In developing guidelines for state plans, it was
suggested that EPA review a number of state programs.
Some of these participants suggested that EPA's strategy
should include a detailed description of the criteria for
an adequate state management plan.
There was considerable discussion on what should be the
basic criteria or elements of a state management plan and
which aspects should be viewed as specific requirements and
which should be thought of as flexible guidelines. A
number of participants had recommendations on the basic
elements of a state plan. These included:
- Description of a state's general ground-water policies
and intent of its management plan
30
-------
- Description of a state's legal authorities that will
support the plan
- Roles/responsibilities of the various state agencies
including the lead agency and mechanisms for coordi-
nation
- Description of the state's definitions and approaches
for classifying areas in regard to ground-water use
and value and vulnerability to contamination by
pesticides
- Maps of agricultural areas that would support determi-
nation of ground-water protection needs
- Description of a state's proposed pesticide management
measures
- Strategy for labelling and other communication/educa-
tion mechanisms
- State's plan for public participation
- Enforcement strategy
- Monitoring strategy
- QA/QC program
Some participants thought that a State should develop a
generic plan that would be applicable to all pesticides and
ENVIRONMENTAL EPA should only establish environmental performance
PERFORMANCE requirements, i.e., a state's plan should provide
confidence that it will prevent ground-water contamination
from reaching unacceptable levels as defined by EPA. Other
participants disagreed with having only environmental
31
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE
PERFORMANCE
performance standards, noting that there may be significant
"lag times" between when a management plan is implemented
and when it can be clearly shown to have succeeded or
failed in measurable reductions in contamination. These
participants suggested that EPA should establish certain
administrative requirements to assess the general
capability of a state plan and program, i.e., sufficient
resources, expertise, legislative authority, etc. It was
further suggested that EPA assess the adequacy of a state's
plan on an annual basis.
DETAILED EPA
REQUIREMENTS
COORDINATION
Some participants wanted EPA to prescribe exact criteria
for nearly all aspects of a state plan and to identify the
specific manner in which individual pesticides would be
managed. Others thought that there would have to be combi-
nations of flexible guidelines and exact criteria for
different elements of a state plan. These latter partici-
pants also suggested that only initially would state plans
need to identify management measures for specific pesti-
cides; eventually, this need would diminish as experience
is gained by both EPA and a state in implementing this
management concept.
Coordination of efforts by different agencies at both
the federal and state level was a key topic. It was noted
at the state level that a number of agencies would have to
be involved in the development of a state plan, including
those responsible for agriculture, water or natural
resources, pollution control, public health, etc. A number
of state representatives indicated that the water agency
would likely be responsible for identifying ground-water
contamination problems, but the agricultural agencies would
be responsible for pesticide management to control the
problem. Furthermore, the state's pesticide management
plan would have to be coordinated with other relevant state
planning efforts, such as any wellhead protection plan,
nonpoint source plan, ground-water plan, or pesticide user
32
-------
GOVERNOR
DESIGNATION
certification and training plan. Who should have the lead
in developing a state's management plan was an issue that
each state would have to decide. In this regard, EPA
should work with each state to determine the appropriate
point of accountability.
Most state participants suggested that EPA request the
governor of a state to designate a lead agency that would
have the responsibility of assuring adequate coordination
among all relevant state agencies. A number of these
representatives noted that it was important for EPA to set
the proper example by coordinating its own efforts with
those of other relevant Federal agencies, such as USDA and
USD I.
LABELLING
TO INCLUDE
STATE MEASURES
The potential problems associated with labelling were
also discussed. Some participants noted that only
instructions on the label are enforceable, but that it
would not be possible for EPA's national label to carry
the prevention requirements of 50 states. Other partici-
pants recommended that the national label direct the user,
as a federal requirement, to follow the instructions of a
state, which the state would provide in bulletins or other
supplemental labelling. Some industry representatives
described a project that is exploring the possibility of a
general pesticide user's manual that would provide detailed
usage instructions and requirements. Such a manual could
include the ground-water protection requirements of
individual states.
TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE
Another key topic discussed was how the federal
government could provide technical assistance to the
states. It was pointed out that the states need to know of
technologies for identifying and mapping their potential
problem areas, such as ground-water modeling and geographic
information system (GIS) technologies developed by EPA or
33
-------
USGS. States also need information on what management
measures are effective in preventing pesticide
contamination. In this regard, the states felt that both
EPA and USDA needed stronger research and development
efforts. Some state representatives suggested that a
national information clearinghouse should also be estab-
lished for states as well as federal agencies to exchange
information on emerging problems and potential solutions.
4. Increasing User Knowledge
KEY TO
PREVENTION
ROLE OF
EXTENSION
SERVICE
As noted earlier, there was general agreement that
a pesticide user's understanding of the ground-water
concern and his compliance with management measures are
both crucial to achieving the goal of the strategy. The
key to protecting the ground-water resource is getting
understandable information to the pesticide user. The
pesticide label is both an enforceable requirement and the
principal vehicle for delivering information on the proper
use of pesticides. However, as noted above, there are
limitations to its capability as an informational vehicle.
Some participants suggested that additional labelling
materials such as bulletins would be needed. These
materials could be distributed at the point-of-sale by
pesticide dealers.
A number of participants suggested that with its
tradition of helping the farmer, the extension service was
in the best position of getting the proper information to
the user. However, others were concerned about the exten-
sion agents' liability in instructing users on proper use
of pesticides to avoid ground-water contamination. These
participants noted that extension agents are rarely
hydrogeologists and many do not understand the ground-water
problem. Finally, these participants did not want
extension agents to be viewed as enforcers.
34
-------
LIMIT ROLE
Some participants suggested that the extension agent
could have a limited but very useful role of just getting
the proper bulletin or other labelling material into the
hands of the user who needs it. Perhaps the agent could
also have a "checkoff list" of the things a user would have
to consider or do before applying certain pesticides that
pose ground-water concerns.
5. Role of Monitoring
PURPOSE OF
MONITORING/
RESPONSIBILITIES
Several participants recommended that the proposed
strategy clarify who would conduct monitoring studies
and the purposes of the studies. It was noted that
there are a number of purposes that monitoring information
can fulfill. The purpose for collecting monitoring infor-
mation would determine who should conduct a study and the
type of information needed. These participants proposed
three general purposes for monitoring:
- Monitoring to support the registration or continued
registration of a pesticide
- Monitoring to assess general trends and to identify
emerging contamination problems; such monitoring
should also be used to evaluate the environmental
effectiveness of EPA or state pesticide management
efforts
- Monitoring to further characterize site-specific
problems
REGISTRANT
MONITORING
Participants thought that a registrant should clearly be
responsible for conducting the monitoring studies necessary
to support the registration of his product. Such
monitoring would include relatively small, controlled field
35
-------
LIMITED/
WORST CASE
studies, but also may include large-scale, regional or
national surveys that sample ground water in areas where
the pesticide is being used. With respect to registrant
monitoring, several industry representatives expressed
concern about being subject to unlimited and infinite
monitoring requirements, particularly for large-scale
surveys. They argued that there must be some consideration
of costs and the possible competitive disadvantage that
monitoring requirements could entail. These participants
thought that registrant monitoring efforts could be
designed to look at areas that are representative of
"worst case" situations (i.e., most sensitive or vulnerable
areas) and that such monitoring should be a one time effort
unless data from the study or another study indicates a
problem.
STATISTICALLY
REPRESENTATIVE
Other participants thought that registrant monitoring
should be statistically representative of the areas where a
pesticide is used, perhaps with a known bias toward over-
sampling of areas considered "worst case". These partici-
pants felt that at least 10% of the areas sampled should be
from locations not considered "worst case" as a precaution
against underestimating the extent of a problem. If a
pesticide is detected in areas considered less sensitive,
then monitoring efforts would need to be expanded. Other
participants warned that the designer of a monitoring
survey must be sure that the oesticide has or is actually
being used in areas designated as representative of the
"worst case" situation.
- QUALITY
Other concerns raised in regard to registrant
monitoring included the quality of such monitoring and the
need for specific EPA requirements and protocols. Some
state representatives felt that registrant monitoring
should always be done with the knowledge of the state in
which it is conducted. Some thought that the registrant
should split samples with either EPA or a state or that the
36
-------
MONITORING
TO ASSESS
TRENDS
registrant should have an independent third party conduct
the effort at "arms length". Industry representatives
noted that nearly all information on a pesticide's
characteristics, toxicology and fate in the environment are
generated by the registrants and that EPA and industry have
worked out mechanisms to assure quality. These
participants also noted that in most cases where
registrants have conducted extensive ground-water studies,
there has been good cooperation between them and state
agencies.
A second purpose given for monitoring was to assess
trends and identify emerging problems. While some
participants thought that ambient monitoring of ground
water was impracticable, others thought that statistically
designed surveys could be used to meet this purpose.
- EPA AND
STATE ROLE
Generally, participants thought that EPA or some
other Federal agency should conduct monitoring to
provide national assessments; the Agency's Pesticides in
Well Water Survey was cited as a prime example of such
efforts. These participants also thought that a state
should conduct such general assessments within its own
borders. EPA should "piggyback" onto these efforts as well
as registrant studies to do national assessments.
- AVOID
DUPLICATION
Some participants noted that a lot of monitoring data is
not being captured and made generally available, leading
to duplication of efforts or less focused monitoring
efforts. Development of a clearinghouse of monitoring
information was suggested as a way to better communicate
and coordinate efforts.
37
-------
FOCUS WITH
MODELING &
OTHER INFO.
PUBLIC WELL
NETWORKS
ROLE OF
REGISTRANTS
A number of participants advocated using modeling
and other predictive tools to the greatest extent
possible to help focus and design monitoring efforts.
The need for and scale of monitoring efforts should be
based on vulnerability of usage areas, relative Teach-
ability of pesticides used, previous findings of pesticides
in similar areas, and pesticide sales information. On this
latter point, some participants noted that sales data may
not truly reflect where pesticides are being used.
Some participants suggested that a monitoring network,
composed of public water systems, could be established to
track pesticide contamination trends. These participants
noted that there will be increased monitoring requirements
placed on public water systems as a result of new
regulations under the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking
Water Act. Others thought that such an approach would be
limited as the basis for early warnings because public
wells are probably less vulnerable to contamination than
private wells. Futhermore, these latter participants noted
that those public wells that may be more vulnerable because
of their location in rural areas often cannot afford to
conduct pesticide residue monitoring studies.
A few participants thought that the registrant should be
responsible for monitoring to assess trends and identify
problems. Others thought that monitoring by a registrant
should be limited to what is needed to support his
registration. At best, EPA may be able to "piggyback" onto
a registrant's efforts to look for other pesticide
residues. One participant noted that a registrant may also
want to look for pesticides of his competitors in order to
dilute his responsibility. Some participants suggested
that EPA or a state could support ground-water monitoring
efforts by establishing fees on the registration of
pesticide that pose potential ground-water threats. Such
38
-------
an approach would have the added advantage of encouraging
the registration of pesticides that do not pose a
ground-water contamination threat.
- ROLE OF USER
A few participants suggested that the user be
responsible for monitoring pesticides with ground-water
concerns or that monitoring be supported by a local tax or
fee on those using pesticides that pose a potential ground-
water threat. Other participants noted that very few
individual farmers could ever come close to affording
ground-water monitoring.
- USE TO
EVALUATE
There was some discussion of using trend data as
a tool for evaluating the effectiveness of state manage-
ment plans. Some thought that such monitoring provides
the ultimate criteria for evaluating pesticide management
efforts. Others thought that such monitoring information
was important, but that there can be considerable "lagtime"
STATE EFFORTS between when a pesticide is applied or when a management
measure is imposed and the resulting change in pesticide
levels in ground water can be noted.
SITE-SPECIFIC
MONITORING
The third purpose of monitoring suggested by workshop
participants concerned site-specific investigations. There
was considerable discussion on what should trigger site-
specific monitoring and who should be responsible for
conducting it. Most participants agreed that such site-
specific efforts could be triggered by findings from either
registrant monitoring or monitoring conducted by EPA or a
state to assess trends.
- TRIGGERS
There was some disagreement on what frequency and
levels of contamination should trigger site-specific
monitoring. In this regard, participants proposed four
different approaches, listed in order of increasing
stringency: 1) "one-hit" or one incident of contamination
39
-------
at or above the MCL (or some other unacceptable level)
would trigger some limited investigation before additional
monitoring would be considered; 2) "one-hit" at or above
the MCL would always trigger additional monitoring; 3)
"one-hit" at or above an "action level", established as a
percentage below the MCL, would trigger additional
monitoring; and 4) "one-hit" at any detection level would
trigger additional monitoring. Some participants felt that
the type of well where contamination is found should be
considered in site-specific decisions, e.g., if the well is
used for drinking water instead of just irrigation, then
action should be taken at the first indication of a
problem.
STATE HAS
PRIMARY
ROLE
OTHER
MONITORING
ISSUES
Most participants felt that a state should be the first
to respond to a site-specific concern. A state should have
the responsibility to make the initial determination of the
seriousness of a contamination situation and the circum-
stances that led to its occurrence. A registrant may want
to work cooperatively with the state at that time. Later,
a state may require a registrant to conduct more monitoring
of the site or request EPA to make such a requirement of
the registrant. In general, a state will have the lead for
a specific site but some participants suggested that if the
scope of the problem becomes too large, EPA may have to
conduct the monitoring.
There was general agreement among participants
that an adequate state management plan needed to
include a monitoring strategy which specified the
purposes and various roles and responsibilities of all
parties in conducting various types of monitoring studies.
There was also agreement that EPA and other key federal
agencies needed to take a number of steps to assure that
useful monitoring efforts will occur. These included
establishment of registrant requirements, analytical
40
-------
standards, monitoring protocols, information exchange
mechanisms between federal and state efforts and between
states, priorities for monitoring, and enforcement
mechanisms.
6. Next Steps
A number of participants outlined what EPA
should do in the next few months. These activities
included the following:
NEXT FEW - Address resource question regarding development of
MONTHS state plans
- Determine coordination schemes
- Develop state plan task force
- Develop first draft of state plan guidelines
- Initiate pilot projects to develop plans
- Require environmental fate data and usage
data for potential Teachers
- Continue the National Well Water Survey
- Develop Health Advisories for potential Teachers
- Review Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques
for applicability
- Develop criteria for restricting pesticides
- Work with USDA on development of ground-water
policies
41
-------
CHAPTER 3: RESPONSE
EPA Proposal;
The Agency's proposed strategy for responding to pesticide contamination
of ground water emphasizes greater Federal/State coordination and statutory
enforcement activities. Specifically, EPA's policy would include the
following:
Where a pesticide has reached unacceptable levels in ground water,
strong actions will be taken to stop further contamination possibly
including enforcement measures, registration amendments, or
geographic cancellations.
EPA will encourage a strong state role in responding to
contamination. A state's pesticide management plan should consider
the development of a valid corrective response scheme.
EPA will continue to develop and emphasize enforcement of MCLs to
protect users of public drinking water systems.
EPA and the states will place greater emphasis on coordinating
FIFRA, SDWA and CERCLA enforcement activities to identify parties
responsible for ground-water contamination as a result of the misuse
of pesticides, including illegal disposal or leaks and spills.
On a case-by-case basis, EPA may assist states by undertaking CERCLA
Fund-financed "removal actions" to provide temporary alternative
drinking water supplies where there is an imminent human health
threat.
The question of who should pay for corrective actions at sites
contaminated by the approved use of a pesticide is a federal or
state legislative question.
43
-------
Discussion Questions;
1. What registration actions should EPA take when there is reported
well contamination and a state does not have a management plan that
will adequately respond to the problem? Should EPA consider not
registering pesticides that pose ground-water concerns in states
that contamination?
2. Where does responsibility lie when contamination of ground water
results from normal registered use of a pesticide?
44
-------
Discussion:
WHEN NO
STATE
PLAN
EXISTS
1. EPA Registration Response Actions
There was major disagreement as to what EPA should do If
there is no state plan or activity to respond to ground-
water contamination. Some participants suggested that EPA
impose a specific site ban on further use of a pesticide in
areas where ground-water contamination has reached or
exceeded unacceptable levels, unless it can be shown
that it was a result of misuse. Other participants thought
such an approach would be administratively impracticable
for EPA and essentially unenforceable. Some suggested that
EPA should ban the use of a pesticide in the entire county
or perhaps in a state where contamination above an
unacceptable level is found and the state does not take
appropriate action. A number of agricultural interests
felt that such an approach would be grossly unfair.
(NOTE: The reader is referred to the earlier Prevention
chapter of this document which contains a discussion of
site-specific actions in regard to monitoring that are
relevant to this topic.)
STATUTORY
AUTHORITIES
2. Liability
There was considerable discussion among the workshop
participants on the issue of who should be held liable for
pesticide contamination of ground water. Several
participants noted that contamination from disposal
leaks or spills were generally covered under other
environmental statutes, particularly RCRA or CERCLA (i.e.
Superfund), and that the real issue is how to deal with
contamination that results from normal, registered use of a
pesticide. Others suggested that the leaks, spills and
45
-------
USER LIABLE
FOR MISUSE
disposal problems found on a farm were currently being
ignored by regulators.
Most participants agreed that any contamination
resulting from misuse of a pesticide should be the
responsibility of the user. A number of participants,
however, suggested that in many cases it would be very
difficult to prove that misuse had occurred and what the
relative impact of misuse had been if the pesticide had
also been extensively used in the area in accordance with
the label.
FOUR PARTIES
WHO COULD BE
LIABLE
Most participants agreed that EPA's proposed strategy
should take a more definitive position on who should be
liable for contamination resulting from approved use.
However, there was little agreement among the participants
on what position EPA should take. It was suggested that
each of the following four parties could be held, in some
way, responsible for ground-water contamination that
resulted from normal, registered use of a pesticide:
- Pesticide user
- Pesticide registrant
- The taxpayer - through a federal or state agency
program
- Well-owner or water users
There was some limited agreement that because all four
of these parties are involved, liability should be limited
to provisions of alternative water or treatment.
46
-------
USER SHOULD
NOT BE LIABLE
A number of participants felt that the user should never
be liable for contamination that results from his use of a
pesticide in accordance with the label. These participants
felt that if the user has followed the label, he has not
been negligent. Furthermore, it would be unfair to hold a
user responsible when he has the least amount of knowledge
of the potential for ground-water problems.
USER SHOULD
BE LIABLE
FOR REGISTERED
USE
Some environmental participants disagreed that a user
should always be excluded from liability when contamination
results from normal, approved use. These participants
thought that the question of liability should be determined
in the courts. Some also suggested that a label advisory
statement on possible ground-water risks posed by a product
would make a user liable for any resulting contamination.
Others felt that these advisory statements were not
informative enough to allow the farmer to make the proper
decision and, therefore, it would be unfair to hold him
responsible.
One participant laid out a five step approach that would
motivate users not to risk ground-water contamination from
pesticide use, either registered use or misuse:
- STEPS TO
MOTIVATE
USER
1. User assumes liability if he uses the product;
2. Citizens given explicit right to sue when water is
contaminated;
3. Pesticide users are educated on the danger and
uncertainties;
4. Users are tested on competency before being certified to
use pesticides of ground-water concern; and
47
-------
5. EPA establishes an enforcement approach that includes
random audits to check misuse of pesticides.
Another participant thought that a sixth step of paying
farmers to put land into ground-water conservation reserves
would give users an option of not using pesticides.
EDUCATION OF
USERS
Some thought that if the farmer is educated on
ground-water risks and the uncertainties involved, he
should be held responsible for unforeseen contamination
resulting from registered use. While not agreeing that
education should make the user responsible, a number of
participants thought that user training was lacking. These
participants suggested that state certification and
training programs (C&T) should include information on
drinking water standards and advisories and information on
the availability of non-chemical alternatives for pest
control (several participants thought that EPA and USDA
need a greater commitment to non-chemical alternatives).
Finally, these participants suggested that users be tested
for competency.
FARMERS SHOULD
NOT BE LIABLE
Representatives of agriculture thought that holding the
farmer responsible would bankrupt him without producing
enough funds to address a contamination problem. They
noted that farming is already operating under severe
economic conditions, and that farmers are not given enough
information about the risks to ground water associated with
the use of pesticides. They also mentioned the
difficulties in proving that the contamination resulted
from a particular farmer's use of the pesticide, e.g., an
unknown spill, leak, disposal or misuse in the area by
another party, even several years earlier, could be the
actual source of contamination.
48
-------
COOPERATIVE
FARMS ARE
DIFFERENT
Other participants thought that arguments excluding
farmers from liability did not hold for large cooperative
farms which are financially large and stable. Also any
on-site ground-water contamination by pesticides would
obviously have resulted from activities on these large
farms whether it was registered use, misuse or an accident.
A number of participants thought that the registrant of
a pesticide should bear all or part of the liability for
responding to ground-water contamination that results from
the registered use of his products. These participants
suggested that such liability should be considered as a
cost of doing business that can be passed on to customers
REGISTRANT in the form of more costly products; more costly products
LIABILITY would also have the added benefit of encouraging
non-chemical alternatives. Futhermore, these participants
noted that registrants would be subject to the most
lawsuits anyway because they are perceived as having the
"deep pockets", i.e. the most financial resources.
Finally, these participants thought that the registrant
would have the most knowledge of his product and the risks
and uncertainties in predicting ground-water contamination
of potential pesticide uses.
Some participants suggested that registrants post
"performance bonds" as a condition of registration. These
bonds would be used to finance the response to unforeseen
REGISTRANT ground-water contamination that threatens human health. It
RESPONSIBILITIES was also suggested that the registrant should develop
methods for ground-water clean-up as a condition of
registration.
Other participants disagreed that the registrant should
be held responsible for addressing ground-water contami-
nation that results from the registered use of a product.
If the registrant had submitted all necessary data required
49
-------
- PROBLEMS WITH
HOLDING
REGISTRANT
LIABLE
by EPA for registration, then, it was argued, they should
not be liable for ground-water contamination problems.
This type of "open-ended liability" can result in an
unstable business environment. They also suggested that it
would be difficult to decide which registrant should be
liable when a pesticide having more than one registrant has
created a ground-water problem. Futhermore, they noted
that a number of registrants are already paying into
"Superfund" which should be used to address the problem.
PUBLIC
LIABILITY
- WELL OWNERS
AND USERS
A number of participants suggested that the public
should bear all or part of the cost of having to provide
alternative water or treatment when pesticides contaminate
drinking water supplies. However, there were differences
in opinion on what "public" should bear the cost and the
mechanism to use. Some thought that the well owner should
bear some or all of the cost. If a public well should be
contaminated, the cost should be passed onto the system's
customers through increased water rates. The well owner or
water user should realize that they are in an agricultural
area which carries certain risks and, therefore, they
should accept at least some responsibility for being
exposed to agricultural chemicals. These participants
noted that this approach is already occurring in a number
of areas, if only by default.
- TAX ON
PESTICIDES
Others thought that the public should bear the costs by
taxing the use of either all pesticides or those that are
thought to pose ground-water contamination risks to
establish response funds either at the national or state
level. These participants suggested that the tax would be
hidden in the price of the products and passed onto the
farmer who would then pass the cost onto the general public
through increased food costs. Some participants noted that
the farmer would often not be able to pass the cost on to
50
-------
the consumer because of a variety of competitive
constraints.
GENERAL Finally, some participants thought that the general
TAXPAYERS taxpayer should pay for alternative drinking water or
LIABLE treatment of contaminated water. This could be done either
at the federal, state or local level.
51
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
Appendix A
1987 PESTICIDE STRATEGY WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
Allen Abramson
U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs
Syed All
California State Water Resources Control Board
Patsy Allen
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
Tim Amsden
U.S. EPA - Region VII, Office of Ground-Water Protection
Nancy Andrews
U.S. EPA - Region IX, Pesticides & Toxic Branch
Carl Armstrong, M.D.
Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
Jan Auerbach
U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs
Rod Awe
Idaho Department of Agriculture
Varel Bailey
Bailey Farms, Inc.
David Baker
Friends of the Earth
Fred S. Banach
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Robert Barles
U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Ralph R. Bauer
U.S. EPA - Region X
Harry S. Bell
South Carolina Farm Bureau
Carolyn Brickey
U.S. Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
A-l
-------
Jim Brown
National Cotton Council
Thomas Buchanon
CH2M Hill
Greg Buzicky
University of Minnesota
Judy Campbell Bird
Environmental & Energy Study Institute
Jeff Carlson
Massachusetts Department of Food & Agriculture
Susan Carpenter
Facilitator
Robert Chapin
Texas Water Commission
Brian Choy
Hawaii State Department of Health
Harold Collins
National Agricultural Aviation Association
Jeff Comstock
Vermont Department of Agriculture
Roy Creech
Mississippi State University
J.H. Dawson
U.S. Department of Agriculture - ARS
Rodney DeHan
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Robert Denny
U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Abbey Oil ley
Facilitator
John Ehrmann
Facilitator
Donald Elmore
Maryland Office of Environmental Programs
David Farrell
U.S. Department of Agriculture
A-2
-------
Coolfont Participants
Con't
Jay Feldman
National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides
Donna Fletcher
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground-Water Protection
Thomas Gilding
National Agricultural Chemicals Association
Gary Gingery
Montana Environmental Management Division
Ricardo Gomez
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Extension Service
Penelope Hansen
U.S. EPA, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division
Janet Hathaway
Natural Resources Defense Council
Marilyn Haugen
National Forest Products
Jerome Healey
U.S. EPA - Region I, Water Supply Branch
Maureen Hinkle
National Audubon Society
Patrick Holden
National Academy of Sciences
Water Science and Technology Board
Paul Mac Morton
Clemson University
Department of Entomology
Bernard Hoyer
Iowa Geological Survey
Gale Hutton
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
John Huyler
Facilitator
Wayne Iwaoka
Hawaii Department of Agriculture
William Jordan
U.S. EPA, Office of General Counsel
A-3
-------
Coolfont Participants
Con't
Chuck Kent
U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs
Kevin Kessler
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Vic Kimrn
U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticides & Toxic Substances
Tom Klaseus
Minnesota Department of Health
Gerald Kotas
U.S. EPA, National Pesticide Survey
James Krider
U.S. Department of Agriculture - SCS
Arnold M. Kuzmack
U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water
Esther Lacognata
Maine Department of Agriculture
Mike Lesnick
Facilitator
Richard Long
U.S. EPA - Region VIII
John Longenecker
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
Matt Lorber
U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs
Art Losey
Washington Department of Agriculture
Steve Lovell
Rhone-Poulenc Ag Products
Alan Lumb
U.S. Geological Survey
Darnell Lundstrom
North Dakota State University
Mark Maslyn
American Farm Bureau Federation
Robert McCarty
Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce
A-4
-------
Cool font Participants
Con't
Karen McCormack
U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Dennis McKenna
Illinois State Geological Survey
Jake MacKenzie
U.S. EPA, Region IX
Bobby McKown
Florida Citrus Mutual
Steven R. Meyer
National Association of Conservation Districts
Marian Ml ay
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground-Water Protection
John A. Moore
U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Lawrie Mott
Natural Resources Defense Council
Carl Myers
U.S. EPA, Office of Water
Loy Newby
Ciba-Geigy Corporation
Dan O'Neill
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Erik Olson
National Wildlife federation
Carol Panasewich-Stangel
U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs
J.S. Paulson
Arizona Agriculture Experimental Station
Frank Pelurie
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources
B. Suzi Ruhl
Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc.
Diane Sheridan
Facilitator
Alice Shorett
Facilitator
A-5
-------
Coolfont Participants
Con't
Kenneth Siet
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Tawney Simon
American Soybean Association
Charles Smith
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Skip Stiles
U.S. House of Representatives
Agriculture Committee
Don Strietelmeier
Agricultural Specialist
Fred Swader
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Edith Tanenbaum
Long Island Regional Planning Board
A.G. Taylor
Illinois EPA
Charles R. Terrell
U.S. Department of Agriculture - SCS
James Tripp
Environmental Defense Fund
Donn Viviani
U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Susan Wayland
U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs
Heather Wicke
Environmental Law Institute
Muffett Wilkerson
California Department of Food and Agriculture
Douglas Yoder
Dade County Environmental Resources Management Department
Jackie Zuben
U.S. EPA - Region II, Response and Prevention Branch
Ned Zuelsdorff
Wisconsin Department of Agricultural Trade & Consumer Protection
A-6
------- |