S-EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Pesticides And
Toxic Substances
(H7501C)
21T-1022
October 1991
Pesticides And
Ground-Water Strategy
•*j j
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Dear Friends:
Ground water resources are of vital importance to this country — to the health of our citizens, the
integrity of many of our ecosystems, and the vigor of our economy. We must make every effort to protect
the quality of these resources, which are increasingly threatened by a variety of human activities. Among
the activities of concern is the use of pesticides and agricultural chemicals.
Since 1986, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has conducted an extraordinary effort to
develop a strategic framework to address the problem of ground-water contamination by pesticides and
other agricultural chemicals. Starting with major public workshops, this Pesticides and Ground Water
Strategy is the end result of an interactive process between EPA and other federal agencies, state
agricultural, environmental and public health agencies, the private sector, environmentalists, farmers and
other chemical users and ground water experts. During this period, the states in particular have taken an
active and constructive role in addressing pesticides and ground-water issues, moving ahead with many
of the management approaches endorsed by the Strategy.
The Strategy describes how EPA currently uses and intends to use its pesticide regulatory
authorities under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to achieve the Agency's
overall goals for ground-water protection. It also describes a new federal-state partnership approach for
addressing unreasonable risks from ground-water contamination by the use of pesticides. The Strategy
is the first embodiment of the Agency's Ground-Water Protection Strategy of the 1990's, published in July
1991. It is important to recognize that this Strategy for pesticides in ground water reflects the Agency's
broad policy directions as expressed by the Agency's new ground-water protection philosophy of pollution
prevention, the coordinated use of all available risk-reduction tools, and a new federal-state relationship
to better address the important problem of focalized and diffuse small-scale pollution sources.
Implementing this Strategy will require considerable effort and extensive cooperation between the
states and EPA, as well as other federal agencies. There will be a substantial learning period involved for
all parties as the details of integrated federal, state and private-sector action are worked out. In fact, this
process has already begun through the development of this Strategy and also through grants to the states
aimed at developing improved capacity for coordinated ground-water protection programs. The Agency's
Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy is part of a larger movement or evolution of policies to protect the
Nation's ground-water resources, and to do so in a comprehensive manner.
The Agency gratefully acknowledges the thoughtful and constructive participation of the many
individuals who represented their agencies and organizations at the workshops that laid the groundwork
for this Strategy. The Agency also wishes to thank the people, including private citizens, who provided
written comments on the Proposed Strategy in 1988.
Sincerely
*nry Habicht II
Deputy Administrator
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
PART I PROBLEM ASSESSMENT 1
PART H EPA'S PESTICIDES AND GROUND-WATER STRATEGY 7
CHAPTER 1 Environmental Goal 9
CHAPTER 2 Prevention Policy and Program 21
CHAPTER 3 Response Policy and Program 49
PART m PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 57
PART IV CONCLUSION 77
-------
PREFACE
1 he purpose of EPA's Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy is to
describe the policy framework in which the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) intends to address risks of ground-water contamina-
tion by pesticide chemicals. This Strategy is designed in accordance
with the overall policies and principles articulated in Protecting the
Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strategy for the 1990's. the final
report of the EPA Ground-Water Task Force, released in May 1991,
which guides all of EPA's programs relating to ground water.
Five different statutes administered by EPA include some pro-
visions for the protection of ground water, including the Clean Water
Act (CWA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation andLiability Act (CERCLA,
also known as "Superfund"). However, the primary legislation which
deals with the regulation of pesticides is the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Strategy focuses on the
use of FIFRA authorities and also addresses the coordination of these
activities with other relevant programs at EPA and other federal
agencies to achieve the Agency's goals for the protection of ground
water.
The need for a strategic policy initiative specifically to address
pesticide contamination of ground water arises from mounting evi-
dence that pesticide use can lead to contamination of ground water
resulting in significant risks to health and the environment in areas
where drinking water wells are contaminated. Moreover, once
ground water is contaminated, it can be difficult and expensive to
rectify.
In recent years, the detection of pesticides in ground water has
been reported with increasing frequency around the country. Al-
though no one at this time can definitively describe the extent or
severity of pesticidal contamination of ground water, EPA, in coop-
eration with other federal agencies, is continuing its efforts to define
the scope of this environmental concern. However, the Agency
believes that the currently available evidence of pesticides' potential
threats to ground water warrants the development of a strategy to
coordinate federal, state, and private sector roles in addressing this
problem. This strategy consists of educational, regulatory, and
research components. At this time there is still the opportunity to
develop a coordinated approach focused on preventing problems
which are clearly emerging but not out of hand on a nationaHevel. The
-------
Agency is working to achieve a spirit of cooperation between federal
and state authorities through development of its overall ground-water
protection policies, of which this Strategy is a part.
History of the Strategy
1 his Strategy has been under development for several years, and
many interested parties have been actively involved in this process.
Recognizing the emerging concerns about pesticides in ground water,
EPA began the process with a major public workshop held in 1986,
in Coolfont, West Virginia, with representatives from federal agen-
cies, state agencies of agriculture, environment and health, industry
groups, environmental groups, farmers and representatives of grower
groups, ground-water experts, and Congressional staff. The work-
shop identified a need for an overall plan to coordinate federal and
state efforts and to establish a common goal for ground-water
protection. Also identified was the need for a balance of national
consistency in environmental and public health protection with
flexibility in tailoring management measures to local conditions.
A second public workshop was held at Coolfont during the
Summer of 1987, also with broad participation. Among other things,
it was decided at that time that the scope of the Strategy would not
include fertilizer use. Regarding fertilizer use, the Agency believes
it has both a greater understanding of and ability to address agricul-
tural pesticides under FIFRA, as opposed to several other statutes
available and better suited to addressing fertilizer use. (More
recently, the Agency has initiated an effort to develop a strategic
approach for the problem of nitrate contamination of ground water,
of which fertilizers are one of the important sources).
In February 1988, the Agency released for public comment the
Proposed Strategy entitled, "Agricultural Chemicals in Ground Wa-
ter: ProposedPesticide Strategy" and distributed the document widely
to Congressional representatives, governors, federal and state agency
officials, members of the agricultural and environmental communi-
ties, and many other interested parties. The Agency received exten-
sive and thoughtful comments on the Strategy, most of which were
very supportive of the Agency's efforts. The Agency has summarized
and responded to these comments in a separate document filed with
the Public Docket for the Strategy (OPP-00256).
ii
-------
This final Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy reflects many
of the comments received. Some comments, which deal with details
of implementing the Strategy, have been identified for future consid-
eration in developing implementation documents, which will be
published at a later date.
During this period, EPA has undertaken a high-level, compre-
hensive review of its overall ground- water protection policies. In July
1989, EPA Administrator William K. Reilly established the EPA
Ground Water Task Force made up of senior Agency officials and
chaired by the Agency's Deputy Administrator, F. Henry Habicht II,
to develop principles and policies to ensure effective and consistent
Agency decision-making that may affect ground-water resources.
The outcome of this effort, released in May 1991, is Protecting the
Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strategy for the 1990's. which
includes a statement of principles to define the goals and to provide
policy guidance for all EPA programs dealing with the protection of
ground water. This final Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy
adopts these principles as its environmental goal. The statement of
EPA's Ground-Water Protection Principles is included in the "Envi-
ronmental Goal" chapter of this Strategy (Part II, Chapter One).
The Agency gratefully acknowledges the thoughtful and con-
structive participation of the many individuals who represented their
agencies and organizations at the workshops that laid the groundwork
for this Strategy. The Agency also wishes to thank the people,
including private citizens, who provided written comments on the
Proposed Strategy in 1988.
The Agency wishes to acknowledge the efforts and achieve-
ments of those state governments that have taken an active and
constructive role in addressing pesticides and ground-water issues.
These states are, in effect, ahead of this Strategy, and are already
employing many of the management techniques envisioned in this
document, and demonstrating that they can work in the real world to
protect ground water. This Strategy is intended, among other things,
to support the efforts of the most active states, and to encourage others
to take on pesticide and ground-water contamination issues in a
similar spirit of innovation. EPA also wishes to thank the U.S.
Department of Agriculture for its many helpful suggestions in devel-
oping this Strategy.
Finally, the Strategy is also intended to stimulate progress
toward the development of State Ground-Water Protection Programs
-- which is the long-term goal of the Agency's ground-water policies.
iii
-------
EPA recognizes that pesticides are only one among many potential
threats to ground water, and consequently, protection of this resource
must head in the direction of comprehensive programs that adequately
address the many diverse sources of potential contamination. This
Strategy embodies the Agency's overall principles for protection of
ground water, and reflects the cooperative federal-state partnership
approach envisioned for future, integrated programs. Thus, it is
EPA's hope that this Strategy for pesticides will put wind in the sails
of the state and federal efforts already underway to make effective,
integrated State Ground-Water Protection Programs a reality.
iv
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
's Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy describes the policies,
management programs, and regulatory approaches that the Agency
will use in order to protect the Nation's ground-water resources from
risks of contamination by pesticides. The Strategy reflects the
Agency's overall goals and principles for the protection of ground
water. Thus, the general goal of this Strategy is to manage the use of
pesticides in order to prevent adverse effects to human health and the
environment and to protect the environmental integrity of the nation' s
ground-water resources; in determining appropriate prevention and
protection strategies, EPA will also consider the use, value, and
vulnerability of the resource, as well as social and economic values.
In pursuing this goal, the Agency will look for solutions that sustain
the productivity and economic viability of American agriculture. In
line with the Agency's principles for all of its ground-water related
programs, the emphasis of the strategic approach toward pesticides is
on the prevention of unreasonable risks of contamination, priorities
are focused on current or reasonably expected sources of drinking
water, and a substantial role for the states in the
protection of their own ground-water resources is
recognized in the Strategy. Sound science and
assessment methods will be used to establish priori-
ties for prevention of ground-water contamination
to choose the most effective ways to reduce risks.
It is important to recognize that this Strategy
for pesticides in ground water is not an isolated
development in terms of EPA's policies for ground-
water. This Strategy explicitly reflects the policy
directions expressed in "EP A's Ground-Water Pro-
tection Principles", a statement of policy developed by a task force of
the Agency's senior officials, and included in Protecting the Nation's
GroundWater: EPA's Strategy forthe 1990's. released in May 1991.
The Ground-Water Protection Principles define for all of EPA's
programs which affect ground water, the goals of increased emphasis
on pollution prevention, a strong state role in ground-water protec-
tion, and the need to adopt a comprehensive approach to address the
many sources of contamination threats to ground-water resources.
The Agency's Ground-Water Task Force is pursuing the long-term
implementation of these Principles in the form of State Ground-Water
Protection Programs.
"...The general goal of EPA's Strategy is
to manage the use of pesticides in order
to prevent adverse effects on human health
and the environment and to protect the
environmental integrity of the nation's
ground-water resources."
ES-1
-------
Wellhead
Protection
Pesticides and
Groundwater Strategy
USDA Water
Quality
Initiative
Nonpoint
Source
Management
Drinking
Water
Regulations
State Ground-Water
Protection Programs
Through the Ground-Water Protection Principles the Strategy
is linked to and can be integrated with other evolving EPA programs
in order to avoid duplication of effort while promoting related
activities, for example, state-level assessments of various threats to
ground water. Thus, state efforts (often supported by EPA grants) to
implement this Strategy or the other Agency ground-water related
programs listed below should be mutually reinforcing and pay
dividends in terms of targeting assessment and risk reduction efforts
and for the development of S tate Ground-Water Protection Programs.
These links to other EPA activities include:
Nonpoint Source (NFS) Programs under section 319 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA); under NPS programs states de-
velop management plans to protect surface waters from all
types of nonpoint source pollution. The Pesticide Strategy
complements this effort by promoting assessments of pesti-
cide usage as well as ground-water vulnerability, and the
development of management plans in agricultural areas
vulnerable to ground-water contamination.
State Ground-Water Strategies under section 106 of the
CWA; promotes state inter-agency coordination for the
assessment, classification, and protection of ground-water
resources. Under EPAs Strategy for the 1990s these pro-
grams will be the foundation for comprehensive protection of
the ground water resource.
Wellhead Protection Programs under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA); among other elements, Wellhead Pro-
tection Programs includes assessment of hydrologic data and
sources of contamination, primarily for public water supply
wells.
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations under SDWA
EPA has developed Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
for 18 pesticides (and42 other pollutants), which are enforce-
able for public drinking water supply systems. Public water
systems responsible for monitoring and reduction of con-
tamination risks are likely to benefit from both ground-water
vulnerability assessments and pollution prevention measures
(e.g., reduced pesticide use) resulting from this Strategy.
Similarly, assessments and monitoring conducted by public
water systems can be useful inputs for planning other ground-
water protection programs.
ES-2
-------
Ground-water protection is a matter of such complexity and
increasing concern to American society that no single regulatory or
non-regulatory strategy or approach would be adequate to deal with
the many issues and interests involved. Thus, it is appropriate that
ground-water protection, as well as related pesticide issues, are also
being addressed through a variety of initiatives involving agencies in
addition to EPA. For example, water quality programs in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) are part of a coordinated govern-
ment-wide initiative. Much of the initiative is being targeted to
nonpoint source pollution identified in plans developed by the states
under requirements of Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. A major
objective of the USDA water quality initiative is to provide farmers,
ranchers and other land managers with information necessary to
voluntarily adopt improved, environmentally sound management
practices which do not sacrifice profitability. These efforts include:
• The President's Water Quality Initiative, which coordinates
federal research and demonstration projects to determine the
impacts of agricultural practices on water quality, and meth-
ods for minimizing adverse impacts. This initiative is under
the leadership of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
and includes EPA, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and
the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion (NOAA);
• The USDA programs devoted to sustainable agriculture.
integrated pest management, and integrated crop manage-
ment, which strive to reduce the use of agrichemicals through
judiciously targeted applications as part of a systems ap-
proach to pest control and related crop management deci-
sions at the grower level;
• The 1990 Farm Bill, which includes support for research on
sustainable agriculture (reducing pesticide/fertilizer use),
incentives for enrolling areas including vulnerable ground
(and surface) waters into conservation reserve programs, and
other provisions which may lead to reductions in pesticide
usage, thus reducing potential contaminant loading of the
environment;
• Both USDA and EPA will assist states in developing state
programs devoted to protection of ground-water resources
from a variety of contamination sources. Some states have
made substantial progress with such programs; EPA is
continuing to provide support for further development of
state capacity to plan and implement such programs.
ES-3
-------
"...The Pesticides and Ground-Water
Strategy should be viewed as a piece of a
larger mosaic which includes regulatory,
research, and legislative initiatives in
which agricultural and environmental
Thus, the Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy should be
viewed as a piece of a larger mosaic which includes regulatory,
research and legislative initiatives in which agricultural and environ-
mental policy issues converge. This is the context
in which the Agency and the states will use existing
authorities to meet the objectives of promoting
both a healthy agricultural economy and respon-
sible environmental policies.
The primary statute for the regulation of pes-
ticides is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
,. . „ Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Thus, this Strategy
policy issues converge. outlines both the use of FIFRA to regulate the use
of pesticides, as well as the Agency's coordination
of these activities with other relevant programs at
EPA and other federal agencies to accomplish the Agency's goals for
ground-water protection.
The Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy is divided into three
parts. Part I is a summary assessment of the extent of problems
associated with pesticides in ground water. Part II is the description
of the Strategy itself. Part III is a discussion of implementation issues.
Summary Problem Assessment
Cjround water is a valuable national resource that can be vulnerable
to contamination by pesticides from normal agricultural use as well
as from point sources such as leaks, spills, and improper disposal of
pesticides. Although the full extent of the problem is not known,
enough information has been reported to indicate that problems have
occurred in certain areas of the country. A 1988 EPA report,
Pesticides in Ground Water Data Base: Interim Report, indicated that
normal field applications had resulted in the detection of 46 separate
pesticides in the ground water of 26 states; point source problems have
resulted in the detection of 32 separate pesticides in the ground water
of 12 states. Subsequently, EPA has carried out the National Pesticide
Survey of Drinking Water Wells which provides for the first time a
statistically accurate assessment of the prevailing frequency and
concentration of pesticide contamination of drinking water wells
across the entire country. The Survey results likely reflect both point
and non-point sources of contamination for the chemicals detected.
ES-4
-------
On November 13,1990, EPA reported the results of sampling as
the Survey's Phase I report, showing that 10.4% of community
drinking water wells sampled, and 4.2% of the domestic wells, have
detectable residues of at least one pesticide. From these occurrence
rates, the Survey infers that nearly 10,000 community drinking water
wells, and about 446,000 domestic water wells, have some detectable
level of pesticide contamination. A total of 16 pesticide ingredients/
metabolites were detected at least once.
Contamination at levels of health concern (that is, at or above an
EPA Maximum Contaminant Level or interim Health Advisory
Level) are rare. However, no such contamination was found in
community drinking water wells, and less than 1% of domestic wells
(or less than 80,000) are likely to have such levels. This comports with
the results of earlier studies in EPA's Data Base. The majority of
findings of pesticides in ground water have been at relatively low
levels, although levels exceeding health-based criteria have been
reported in some areas, resulting in numerous well closings. The
National Survey provides an assessment of the prevailing occurrence
rates of pesticide contamination in drinking water wells nationwide.
However, the Survey was not designed to provide a degree of
geographic resolution sufficient to characterize specific pesticide
contamination problems down to the local, county, or even state level.
In other words, the Survey was not intended to detect all of the possible
"hot spots" of local contamination that may exist. Also, the Survey
did not attempt to examine all ground water, but only current drinking
water sources. EPA has completed the Phase II Report of the Survey
and is releasing it simultaneously with this Strategy. In Phase II, EPA
carried out statistical analyses of the Survey data and other pertinent
data to improve our understanding of how the presence of pesticides
and nitrate in drinking water wells is associated with patterns of
chemical use and the vulnerability of ground water to contamination.
In summary, at this point we are not seeing evidence of signifi-
cant, widespread threats to public health. On the other hand, these data
do show that our ground-water resources are contaminated in various
locations across the country. Furthermore, once contamination of
ground water has occurred, it may not be economically or technically
feasible to restore the resource. For these reasons, prevention is the
primary focus of EPA's protection efforts.
The potential vulnerability of ground water to pesticide contami-
nation is influenced by a complex set of factors that vary significantly
from area to area. Furthermore, the use and value or quality of ground
water varies considerably across the country. In some areas, ground
water provides an irreplaceable source of drinking water for large
ES-5
-------
populations, while in other areas, ground water is essentially unus-
able. Ground water may also affect associated ecosystems. For
example, ground waters hydrologically connected with surface
waters may be critical to a sensitive aquatic habitat. These variations
in the use, value, and vulnerability of ground water suggest the need
for a localized approach to protection, as well as the need for
coordinated federal and state efforts to address these problems.
Pesticides Strategy
1 he purpose of the Strategy is to articulate EPA's approach for
managing pesticide use both to protect ground water and to respond
to contamination incidents where they occur. The Strategy is orga-
nized into three chapters that address three key areas of policy: the
Agency's environmental goal; the strategy for prevention; and the
strategy for response to contamination. The Agency's policy choices
reflect consideration of its statutory authority and overall Agency
policies for ground-water protection, as well as comments receivedon
the version of the Strategy proposed in 1988.
Environmental Goal he environmental goal of the Strategy is established by the Agency's
Ground-Water Protection Principles for all of its programs relating to
ground water: the overall goal of EPA's Ground-Water Policy is to
prevent adverse effects to human health and the environment and to
protect the environmental integrity of the nation's ground-water
resources; in determining appropriate prevention and protection
strategies, EPA will also consider the use, value, and vulnerability of
the resource, as well as social and economic values. Adverse effects
means those risks that are significant to affected populations and
determined to be unreasonable where appropriate under relevant
statutes. EPA's fundamental premise is that attainment of this goal is
necessary to achieve the sustainability of the resource and closely
hydrologically connected surface water systems, not just for the near
term but for the future as well. In addition, because ground-water
cleanup is extremely costly, usually difficult, and in some cases
impossible to achieve and demonstrate, EPA's goal is to emphasize
prevention of pollution where appropriate.
Reflecting the overall Agency goal, the goal of the Pesticide
Strategy is to prevent contamination of ground water resources that
would cause unreasonable risks to human health and the environment
resulting from the normal, registered use of pesticides, by taking
ES-6
-------
appropriate actions where such risks may occur.
The Agency believes that the risk-benefit balancing
mandates of FIFRA are compatible with the
Agency's overall goal. All regulatory decisions
concerning pesticide registrations under FIFRA
entail risk-benefit balancing decisions pursuant to
the FIFRA standard of "unreasonable risk to man or
the environment", which includes consideration of
economic and social costs and benefits.
Priority for protection will be on: 1) the nation's
currently used and reasonably expected drinking
water supplies, both public and private, to ensure these do notpresent
adverse health risks and are preserved for present and future genera-
tions; and 2) ground water that is closely hydrologically connected to
surface waters, to ensure the attainment of surface water quality
standards which are necessary to protect the integrity of associated
ecosystems.
Another Agency principle will be that the primary responsibility
for coordinating and implementing comprehensive ground water
protection programs has always been and should continue to be vested
with the states. An effective ground-water protection program should
link federal, state and local activities into a coherent and coordinated
plan of action.
To help determine when and where attainment of the Ground-
Water Protection Principles may be in jeopardy, the Agency will use
health- or ecologically-based reference points to guide program deci-
sions. The final report of the Agency's Ground-Water Task Force
(Protecting the Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strategy for the I990's)
explains that it is EPA's policy that in carrying out its programs, the
Agency will use Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) under the S afe
Drinking Water Act as "reference points" for water resource protection
efforts when the ground water in question is a current or reasonably
expected source of drinking water. Water Quality Standards under the
Clean Water Act will be used as reference points when ground water is
closely hydrologically connected to surface water ecological systems.
Where MCLs are not available, EPA Health Advisory Levels or other
approvedhealth-basedlevels are recommended as the point of reference.
If such numbers are not available, reference points may be derived from
the health-effects literature where appropriate. In certain cases, Maxi-
mum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) under the Safe Drinking
Water Act or background levels may be used in order to comply with
federal statutory requirements. Reference points are to be applied
differently for prevention and cleanup purposes.
"...The goal of the Pesticide Strategy is to
prevent contamination of ground-water
resources that would cause unreasonable
risk to human health and the environment
resulting from the normal, registered use
ofpesticides, by taking appropriate actions
where such risks may occur."
ES-7
-------
The use of reference points to establish levels of regulatory
concern or interest will facilitate EPA/state decision-making under
this Strategy. With respect to EPA determinations pursuant to FIFRA,
detections of pesticide residues in ground water are approached as part
of a general weight-of-evidence assessment. Detection at or above
such health-based reference points constitutes a potential risk to
health where it occurs. EPA anticipates that the risks posed by
pesticide contamination of a local underground source of drinking
water, at or above the MCL or other "interim" reference point, will
generally deserve a careful assessment of continued pesticide use in
that area. Any geographical pattern of detections that suggests the
likelihood of exceedences will trigger a national reassessment of the
risks and benefits of the continued use of the pesticide. As stated in
Protectingthe Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strategy forthel990's.
"reaching the MCL or other appropriate reference point would be
considered a failure of prevention." However, the fact that residues
of apesticide in ground waterexceedareference point does notrelieve
EPA of its obligation under FIFRA to weigh the benefits as well as the
risks in deciding whether to restrict or prohibit use of a pesticide.
In summary, EPA's Ground- Water Protection Principles and the
policies they inspire emphasize the need: 1) to place an increased
emphasis on prevention of ground-water contamination, and strive to
achieve greater balance between prevention and remediation activi-
ties 2) to actively promote the development of State Ground-Water
Protection Programs by the states; and 3) to evolve a new, more
comprehensive and flexible approach toward the integration of
federal, state and local resources to make responsible decisions for the
protection of the environment. The Pesticides and Ground-Water
Strategy will be a driving force in implementing the Agency's
Principles in that it:
• Places increased emphasis on prevention and resource pro-
tection versus remedial treatment;
• Envisions a variety of means to protect the resource, and
provides the flexibility for decisions to be made on a geo-
graphic basis-taking into account use, value and vulnerabil-
ity, as well as social and economic values. While at the same
time ensuring a national baseline of protection through the
use of reference points; and
• Encourages the development of voluntary State Manage-
ment Plans forpesticides, which support the further develop-
ment of, and can subsequently be integrated with, overall
State Ground-Water Protection Programs.
ES-8
-------
x revention is the central principle of EPA's approach to managing Prevention PollCV
pesticide use in orderto protect ground-waterresources. Specifically, Prooram
the Strategy emphasizes prevention of ground-water risks by manag- **
ing pesticide use in a way that reduces or eliminates the leaching of
pesticides to ground water particularly in vulnerable areas.
The centerpiece of this Pesticides Strategy is the development
and implementation of State Management Plans (SMPs) for specific
pesticides of concern that will ultimately form an integrated part of
State Ground-Water Protection Programs.
EPA's prevention strategy will consist of the following policies:
1. In the context of the Agency's overall strategic approach of
promoting pollution prevention, EPA will be actively en-
couraging the adoption of less environmentally burdensome
practices in agriculture and other sectors
where pesticides are used, to reduce the
general risk of ground-water contamina-
tion. Even where restricting or eliminat-
ing the use of a pesticide may not be
warranted, it is nevertheless advantageous
to reduce unnecessary risks through voluntary action. EPA's
policy is to promote long-term solutions to pesticide ground-
water contamination, such as the development of safer
chemical and non-chemical pest control alternatives and the
adoption of environmentally sound agricultural practices.
2. Under FIFRA, EPA's role is determining the appropriate
regulatory approach for individual chemicals that may threaten
ground water. This entails:
• Determining the chemical's potential for leaching into
ground waters;
• Determining whether national label restrictions will
adequately address leaching concerns;
• Insettingnationalrestrictionsforchemicalsfoundleach-
ing into ground water, the Agency will take into account
appropriate state and local measures to limit leaching;
• Determining whether additional training required by
restricted use classification for the pesticide will provide
adequate protection; and if not,
"...Prevention is the central principle of
EPA's approach to managing pesticide use
inordertoprotectground-waterresources."
ES-9
-------
"The centerpiece of this Pesticides Strategy
is the development and implementation of
State Management Plans (SMPs) for
specific pesticides of concern that will
ultimately form an integrated part of State
Ground-Water Protection Programs."
• Determining whether providing states with the opportu-
nity to develop a State Management Plan (SMP) for the
chemical will effectively address the contamination risk.
Although it is unlikely, there may be some pesticides which
pose such significant risks to health or the environment due
to ground-water leaching, that State Management Plans will
not be adequate to prevent risks. In these cases, EPA would
resort to national cancellation. As previously noted, all of the
regulatory decisions cited above, including SMPs, entail a
risk-benefit determination, pursuant to the FIFRA definition
of "unreasonable risk to man and the environment."
3. In the event EPA determines that the SMP requirement is
necessary for a chemical, its legal sale and use would be
confined to states with an acceptable SMP approved by EPA.
EPA will be applying SMPs as a label requirement, so that the
product can be legally used only in states with an approved
SMP. EPA's decision that SMPs are necessary to protect
ground water would provide states the opportunity
to respond with a plan if they wish to continue the
use of the product in their jurisdiction. Since
pesticide usage and ground-water vulnerability will
vary from state to state, the requirements of the
SMPs will vary, reflecting the degree of risk repre-
sented by the differences in pesticide usage and
ground-water vulnerability from state to state. The
states would have flexibility to tailor management
programs to local conditions, following guidance
provided by EPA on the elements of an acceptable
SMP. In approving such programs, EPA will also determine
that they are consistent with the Conservation Compliance
Plans under the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, as
well as with any other relevant program, such as a State
Ground Water Protection Program. In making its determina-
tion, EPA will consult with USDA, and provide USDA an
opportunity to elevate disputes to the Administrator.
4. Research and technical assistance provided by USDA and
USGS will play a big role in the assessment of ground-water
problems and the choice of management measures to address
pesticide contamination risks. A major function of manage-
ment plans will be the coordination of the numerous federal,
state and local authorities whose activities can help protect
the ground-water resource.
ES-10
-------
5. Whether or not a pesticide is managed under a State Manage-
ment Plan, the user will continue to be responsible for directly
controlling the use of pesticides in the field. Working with
the states and USDA's Cooperative Extension Service, EPA
is improving training and certification programs so that more
users are aware of issues related to ground water and mea-
sures to protect this resource. As the SMP approach is
implemented for pesticides of concern, support for the pes-
ticide user in the form of education and decision aids will be
increasingly important, and need to be incorporated into the
SMPs themselves as key components of such plans.
6. Pesticide registrants will need to play a greater role in
assisting the user in the proper, environmentally sound use of
their products. EPA believes that registrants should assume
a greater commitment to "product stewardship" by informing
distributors and applicators how their products should be
managed to prevent degradation of ground-water quality. In
the future, registrants will also be expected to conduct more
representative monitoring of ground water where pesticide
use occurs in areas that may be susceptible to contamination.
These studies will be critical to ensure that protection efforts
are working. Finally, in response to concerns about ground-
water quality and changes in the availability of pesticides
posing such concerns, the Agency expects that registrants
will find it in their best interests to develop safer alternative
pesticides in order to capture new market opportunities.
The focus of the Strategy is on normal pesticide application
practices. EPA recognizes, however, that ground-water contamina-
tion by pesticides can also result from leaks or spills associated with
storage, mixing and loading or disposal of these chemicals. To
address such "point source" causes of contamination, EPA is devel-
oping new regulations under FEFRA to deal with practices associated
with storage, mixing and loading, and disposal of pesticide products,
as well as with the design of pesticide product containers.
ES-11
-------
RGSPODSG Policy and •*• ^e Agency's policy for responding to pesticide contamination of
Proaram ground water emphasizes federal-state coordination and statutory
^ enforcement activities. More specifically:
1. EPA expects the states to take the primary responsibility for
responding to contamination. Although EPA will not dictate
how a state must respond, it will require a state's pesticide
management plan to identify how it will respond to contami-
nation of drinking water exceeding MCLs, whether in public
or private wells. In particular, an SMP must describe how it
will deal with the well owners, including the state' s policy on
what to do about consumption of the water.
2. Where a pesticide has or is expected to exceed reference
points in ground water, EPA expects the state to take strong
actions to stop further contamination. These actions can
range from enforcement measures to modification of the way
a pesticide is managed, including geographic restrictions on
the pesticide's use.
3. EPA will continue to develop and enforce MCLs to protect
users of public drinking water systems. Although SDWA
regulations do not apply to private wells, most
states use these or similar standards of their own as
a basis for informing well owners of possible health
risks. In some cases state laws may require closure
of private wells that do not meet drinking water
standards. Under SDWA's emergency powers,
EPA will consider issuing orders requiring respon-
sible parties to provide alternative water supplies or
take other appropriate actions when levels of pesti-
cides present an imminent and substantial endangerment to
the health of persons.
4. EPA and the states will place greater emphasis on coordinat-
ing FIFRA, SDWA, RCRA and CERCLA enforcement
activities to identify parties responsible for ground-water
contamination as a result of the misuse of pesticides, includ-
ing illegal disposal or leaks and spills.
5. On a case-by-case basis, EPA may assist states by undertak-
ing CERCLA Fund financed removal actions to provide
alternative drinking water supplies where there is an immi-
nent human health threat.
6. The question of who should pay for corrective actions at sites
contaminated by the approved use of a pesticide is a legisla-
tive question that can not be dealt with fully under FIFRA.
"...The Agency's policy for responding to
pesticide contamination of ground water
emphasizesfederal-state coordination and
statutory enforcement activities."
ES-12
-------
Implementation
1 he Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy establishes a general
framework to achieve the overall goals of EPA's Agency-wide
Ground-Water Protection Principles in relation to pesticides. A
Strategy is needed to define goals, promote a consistent approach to
ground-water protection, and to provide a policy structure for future
federal and state efforts toward the goal of protecting ground water
from pesticides, while allowing for flexibility to respond to local
differences and a dynamic knowledge base. As such, the Strategy is
not an end in and of itself, but rather one of a multitude of tasks
necessary to fulfill the Agency's overall ground-water protection
goals with respect to pesticides: that is, to prevent adverse effects to
human health and the environment and to protect the environmental
integrity of the nation's ground-water resources. It is important to
emphasize that since the objective of ground-water protection in-
volves many factors and responsible parties, it must be achieved
through a variety of means, effectively organized in a coherent
manner so that they may work in concert, not in conflict.
EPA's approach to ground-waterprotection reflects a new, more
flexible policy for environmental problem-solving, promoting a
blend of regulatory, management and educational approaches. In
particular, EPA's ground-water policy pioneers a new mode of
interaction with states, localities and other federal
agencies, that of developing a genuine partnership
with shared goals and responsibilities. Part of the
new approach entails the concept of pollution pre-
vention — seeking practical management and regu-
latory means to reduce risks in advance of their
realization and to address voluntarily the root sources
of risk as a long-term remedy to environmental
problems. Part III of this Strategy outlines the many
specific tasks and activities EPA, the states and
other federal agencies will be pursuing in the next few years to achieve
the goal of ground-water protection. The accompanying table sum-
marizes EPA's implementation action plan.
Providing the states with the opportunity to manage the use of
pesticides so as to protect the ground-water resource is the major
policy innovation of the Strategy. While EPA can only require SMPs
through a chemical-specific regulatory action, it is nevertheless
"...EPA's Strategy is not an end in and of
itself, but rather one of a multitude of tasks
necessary to fulfill the Agency's overall
ground-water protection goals with respect
to pesticides."
ES-13
-------
GROUND WATER STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY
1991 1992 1993
FEDERAL
• EPA Ground Water Task Force Documents
- Principles
- Federal/State Relationship
- EPA's Approach to Implementation
« Final Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy,
State Management Plan Guidance
• Proposed Mixing/Loading, Storage,
Disposal Rules
« Proposed Restricted-use Rules for Pesticides with
Potential to Leach
• 18 Final Pesticide MCLs
• 61 State* Pesticide Ground Water Grants Awarded
• Final Phase II Report of the National Pesticides
Survey
• State Pesticide Management Plan Support
Documents
• Aquifer Sensitivity Assessment Technical
Support Document
• Reregistration Continues
STATES*
• 6 First-draft Generic State Management Plans
for EPA Review
• State Ground Water Protection Program Profiles
RESEARCH
• USDA: President's Water Quality Initiative
(research, usage data, demonstration & education
projects, multi-agency participation)
• USGS: Basic Hydrogeology Research and
Data-gathering
• EPA: Models, New Tools to Track Contamination
FEDERAL
• EPA's Strategic Management Systems Modified
to foster support of State Ground Water Protection
Programs
• 9 Final Pesticide MCLs
• 65 State* Pesticide Ground Water Grants Awarded
• Final Restricted-use Rule for Pesticides with
Potential to Leach
• Reregistration Continues
• Final Procedural Rules on Storage and Disposal
for Cancelled and Suspended Pesticides
• Proposed Rule for Classifying some Pesticides
for SMPs
STATES*
• 26 First-draft Generic State Management Plans
for EPA Review
• 13 Final Generic State Management Plans
for EPA Approval
RESEARCH
• USDA: IPM, LISA Research Initiatives
(per 1990 Farm Bill)
• EPA & USGS: Research Ongoing
FEDERAL
• Grant Allocations per States' Comprehensive
Ground Water Protection Programs Status
• Final Mixing/Loading, Disposal Rules
• Final Rule for SMP Approach for Some
Pesticides (possible)
• Additional Final Pesticide MCLs
• Proposed/Final Pesticide Specific State
Management Plan Requirements
• Reregistration Continues
STATES*
• 59 Final Generic State Management Plans
for EPA Approval
• 40 Proposed Pesticide Specific State
Management Plans for EPA Approval
RESEARCH
• USDA, EPA, USGS: Research Ongoing
* "States" includes territories and Indian tribal authorities
-------
strongly encouraging states to take the initiative, voluntarily, to
develop "Generic" management plans which would then form the
basis of the state's chemical-specific management plans. In practice,
it may be several years before designated pesticides will be subject to
use only under the provisions of approved State Management Plans.
However, many of the components of an acceptable SMP would be
essentially the same within a state regardless of the specific pesticide
in question. Also, EPA recognizes that development of a full-scale,
pesticide-specific SMP will be time- and resource-intensive. There-
fore, EPA is linking state grants available under FIFRA and other
Agency programs to the development of Generic State Management
Plans prior to the identification of specific pesticides of concern.
EPA will review "Generic" State Management Plans focusing on
adequacy. The Agency, in collaboration with the states, will define
a range of ways to achieve "adequacy" rather than one prescriptive
definition. EPA's review of State Plans will be
flexible and take into account the unique character-
istics of each state, as well as the different stages of <^ .Providing the States with the
development of each state program. The process , ., , ,, f ,. .,
.11U . . ., , ,n-nA i • opportunity to manage the use of pesticides
will be interactive, with the states and EPA working *^ J 6 J ^
together. It will focus on assessing programs to
identify gaps, and providing EPA technical and
financial assistance to states to build their overall
capacity to address ground-water problems result-
ing from pesticide use. The Agency recognizes that
efforts to manage pesticide risks to ground water need to take into
account and be compatible with other federal and state environmental
management measures designed to address problems such as soil
erosion and surface water quality.
The detailed procedures for development, approval, and subse-
quent oversight of both Generic Management Plans and chemical-
specific State Management Plans are under development. EPA,
working in consultation with USDA and other federal and state
agencies, is developing a series of guidance documents relating to
SMP implementation and will issue them for public comment. The
guidance documents include:
A. "Guidance for State Pesticide Management Plans", which
will discuss in detail the appropriate components of a state
pesticide management plan. EPA proposed this guidance for
comment in 1988 in connection with the proposed decision
on aldicarb, and received extensive comments. For the
so as to protect the ground-water resource
is the major policy innovation of EPA's
Strategy."
ES-15
-------
essential SMP components the Agency has tried to reach a
balance between national consistency in protection and flex-
ibility for states' needs.
B. Additional Technical Support Documents that will provide
guidance to assist states in developing and implementing
some of the more detailed and technical aspects of SMP's.
For example, these will include guidelines for monitoring
programs, response programs, the procedures for approval of
SMPs, and the process for evaluating the effectiveness of
SMPs. These guidance documents will be published as
appendices to the Guidance described above for public
comment in the near future. A Technical Assistance Docu-
ment on aquifer sensitivity/vulnerability assessment is also
being developed by EPA in collaboration with USDA,
USGS, and various state agencies, and should be available in
1991.
Implementation of the Strategy will require a great deal of
cooperative effort and coordination of activities during the next few
years, particularly among state agencies in the development of
pesticide management plans, and for federal agencies performing
oversight responsibilities of the program as well as the development
of standards, carrying out research and development, and providing
technical guidance to assist states with their ground-water protection
programs. The Agency will continue to support states in building
capacity for implementing State Ground-Water Protection Programs.
In support of the implementation of the Strategy, the existing research
and technical assistance programs of the Department of Agriculture
will provide a valuable source of information for the states in the
development of their management plans. This assistance includes
assessing the sensitivity and vulnerability of aquifers to pesticide
contamination, and identifying relevant farm-level pesticide manage-
ment practices.
It is the Agency's intention that this Strategy will complement
EPA's overall Ground-Water Protection Principles and the objective
of stimulating the development of State Ground-Water Protection
Programs. It also complements the more fundamental objective of
reducing the environmental burden of potential chemical pollutants
and seeking ways to bring agriculture and environmental policies into
harmony.
ES-16
-------
PARTI
PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
1 he purpose of Part I is to provide a brief qualitative overview of the
pesticides in ground-water concern which led EPA to develop a
Strategy specific to pesticides. Ground water is a critical national
resource that provides about one-fourth of all the water used in the
United States. It is the source of drinking water for nearly half of the
total U.S. population; in rural areas ground water may be the only, or
at least the dominant, source of drinking water. In eight states, 90%
or more of the entire state population depends on ground water for
their domestic water supply. Ground water also provides a high
proportion of the nation's irrigation water.
In addition to meeting the nation's demand for drinking and
irrigation water, ground water is an integral part of the environment.
For example, ground water discharges into bodies of surface water
that sustain fish, wildlife, commerce, aquatic wetlands and terrestrial
ecosystems. It has been estimated that about 30% of the flow in
streams and rivers during an average year is provided by ground-water
discharge.
Ground water is more than just a valuable source of drinking water. It is also used for irrigation and sustains
sensitive aquatic and terrestial ecosystems. About 30% of the flow in rivers and streams comes from groundwater.
-------
"...Ground water is a critical national
resource that provides about one-fourth of
all the water used in the United States."
Thus, ground water is important both as a source of drinking
water and irrigation, and as a natural resource sustaining ecosystems
throughout the environment.
Until just a decade ago, the conventional wisdom was that
pesticides would fully degrade in the soil, and ground water would
therefore rarely, if ever, be threatened with contamination caused by
the use of those chemicals. This general belief
began to change in the late 1970's with the findings
of pesticides in a number of wells across the
country. In 1979, two pesticides were discovered
in ground water: dibromochloropropane (DBCP)
in California, and aldicarb (Temik) in Long Island,
New York. Additional monitoring in other States
thereafter showed DBCP, EDB and aldicarb in numerous locations.
DBCP and EDB were suspended by the Agency in 1979 and 1983,
respectively, largely due to the health concerns associated with
drinking water contamination.
These findings stimulated a number of monitoring activities by
federal and state agencies as well as academic researchers to investi-
gate the extent of the problem. EPA recognized the need to collect this
diverse information, and established a Pesticides in Ground-Water
Data Base to collate monitoring studies from all available sources. In
December 1988, EPA published an Interim Ground-Water Data Base
Report, after making an extensive effort to evaluate the quality and
validity of the approximately 150 different monitoring studies com-
piled at that time. The Agency's report showed that 46 different
pesticides had been detected in samples of ground water from 26 states
whose origin could reasonably be attributed to normal field applica-
tions; in addition, 32 pesticides had been detected in samples of
ground water from 12 states whose origin was believed to be a point
source (e.g. spills, poor handling at mixing/loading sites, and
improper disposal of containers).
Another compilation by researchers at Oregon State University
reported that 36 chemicals have been detected in more than one State,
at multiple sites, at levels above the quantitation limits for applicable
analytic methods. Seven of these occurred above health-based
reference points in multiple sites in more than one State. Thirteen of
the chemicals have had uses canceled or severely curtailed (Parsons
and Witt, 1988).
While the various state and academic surveys have expanded our
knowledge of pesticide contamination of ground water, they cannot
be assembled into a valid national estimate of the extent of ground-
-------
water contamination. Many of these studies have been conducted in
areas where contamination was already known to exist and have been
conducted for different purposes and according to different design
strategies.
In order to get a "baseline" assessment of the extent of pesticides
contaminating drinking water nationwide, EPA has carried out the
National Pesticide Survey of Drinking Water Wells. The Survey was
designed to estimate the frequency and concentration of the presence
of pesticides (and nitrates) in drinking water wells with a statistically
representative sample of both public and private wells. The Survey
sampled and analyzed 1349 drinking water wells for 127 pesticides,
pesticide metabolites and nitrates. 586 of the wells sampled repre-
sented wells of the 38,300public, community water systems (systems
serving at least 15 service connections and/or 25 people); the other 783
samples represent over 10.5 millions private, domestic water wells
across the U. S. The Survey provides, for the first time, a statistically
accurate assessment of the prevailing frequency of pesticide detec-
tions in drinking water wells across the entire country. The focus of
the Survey is on the quality of drinking water in wells rather than on
the quality of ground water in general, or drinking water at the tap. The
Survey results likely reflect both point and non-point sources of
contamination for the chemicals detected.
On November 13,1990, EPA reported the results of sampling as
the Survey's Phase I report. About 10.4% of community drinking
water wells sampled, and about 4.2% of the domestic wells, have
detectable residues of at least one pesticide. From these occurrence
rates, the Survey infers that nearly 10,000 community drinking water
wells, and about 446,000 domestic water wells, have some detectable
level of pesticide contamination. A total of 16 pesticide ingredients/
metabolites were detected at least once. The Phase II report evaluates
a variety of factors associated with the positive detections found in the
Survey. The Phase II report, however, is a statistical analysis of the
Survey results, and not an investigation of the causes of specific
contamination events. The Phase II report is being released simulta-
neously with this Strategy.
Contamination at levels posing health concerns (that is, at or
above a Maximum Contaminant Level or interim Health Advisory
Level) are relatively rare. No such contamination was found in
community drinking water wells, and less than 1 % of domestic wells
(or less than 80,000) are likely to have such levels. Six pesticide
ingredients/metabolites were involved in domestic-well contamina-
tions at levels posing health concerns.
-------
The low frequency of pesticide detections above levels of health
concern in the Survey indicates that there is not widespread risk to
public health. However, when all the evidence is weighed, if it is
found that there are regional and local areas where potential health and
environmental risks are a concern, these risks should be addressed
through a concerted effort by federal agencies and the states. Further-
more, low level pesticide concentrations are a cause for concern about
the long-term deterioration of ground-water resources. Where there
is evidence of unreasonable risks of pesticide contamination of
ground water, pest management practices and, if necessary, other
appropriate regulatory and non-regulatory actions should be imple-
mented to prevent such risks. All regulatory decisions concerning
pesticide registrations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) entail a risk/benefit determination.
EPA designed the Survey to provide data on how pesticide
concentrations found in drinking water wells may be associated with
patterns of pesticide usage and ground-water sensitivity. As an
assessment of the prevailing occurrence rates of pesticide contamina-
tion nationwide, the Survey was not designed to provide a degree of
geographic resolution sufficient to characterize specific, localized
pesticide contamination problems down to the local, county, or even
state level. In other words, the Survey was not intended to detect "hot
spots" of local contamination that may exist.
A similar, statistically representative survey of drinking water
well contamination from the herbicide alachlor has been conducted by
the registrant of alachlor as a condition of its continued registration.
The registrant chose to include several herbicides in addition to
alachlor in this survey. At this time the results of this survey are being
reviewed by EPA's Office of Pesticides Programs (OPP) for its
regulatory implications.
"..At this point we are not seeing evidence
of significant widespread threats to human
health. On the other hand, even with
incomplete information, there is data that
pesticide chemicals with both acute and
chronic human health concerns are
contaminating American ground-water
resources in various locations across the
country."
Although the large majority of findings of
pesticides in ground water are at relatively low
concentration levels, some cases have involved
contamination exceeding federal or state health-
based reference points, and resulted in well-clo-
sures and other regulatory actions at the state or
county level affecting many thousands of people.
Since concentrations of pesticides in ground
water have usually been found at low levels, most of
the risk concern has been focused on the potential for
chronic rather than acute health effects of people who
might be exposed through drinking water.
-------
In view of the irregularity of known pesticide contamination
occurrence (i.e., occasional local contamination at concentrations of
health concern), as well as the fact that not all of the known
contaminants have been completely tested for potential health effects,
it is not possible to offer a comprehensive assessment at this time of
the degree to which pesticide contamination of ground water poses
risks to human health. However, of the 54 pesticides known to have
contaminated ground water (from either point or non-point sources),
nine exhibit carcinogenic potential to the extent they are classified as
"probable" (or Category "B") human carcinogens by EPA. Six more
evaluated for carcinogenicity display effects that warrant classifica-
tion as "possible" (or Category "C") human carcinogens. Seven more
of these 54 pesticides are associated with potential for other adverse
health effects; for example, aldicarb, the most widely documented
ground-water contaminatingpesticide, is also among the mostacutely
toxic pesticides registered by EPA. At this point we are not seeing
evidence of significant widespread threats to human health. On the
other hand,even with incomplete information, there
is data that pesticide chemicals with both acute and
chronic human health concerns are contaminating
American ground-water resources in various loca-
tions across the country.
In addition to human health concerns, con-
tamination of natural ecosystems by pesticide chemi-
cals may cause direct mortality in exposed animal populations and
sublethal effects such as slowing the rate of growth of individual
exposed animals or reducing the rate of reproduction of the overall
population. Some endangered and threatened species are intimately
associated with ground water and potentially could be harmed by
pesticide residues occurring in ground water. For example, cave
organisms such as the Alabama cavefish and Kentucky cave shrimp
may rely exclusively on ground water, while other aquatic animals
such as the Comanche Springs pupfish may live in springs fed by
ground water. Pesticides in ground water may affect these types of
organisms either directly or through impacts on their food supply or
habitat. An important aspect of the problem facing endangered
species is that loss of one or a few individuals may pose a serious threat
to their continued existence.
Ground-water discharges to wetlands or other bodies of surface
water can have a significant impact on the quality of such surface
waters. Thus, the Agency also has concerns which are not limited to
threatened or endangered species regarding potential impacts on those
ecosystems from contaminated ground water.
"...Adding to the complexity of the ground-
water problem is the fact that ground water,
once contaminated, is costly and difficult
to clean up."
-------
"...EPA does not believe that there is an
imminent health crisis arising from
pesticide contamination of ground water,
but rather that there is a substantial basis
for prudent concern. EPA also believes
Contamination of ground water used for irrigation purposes may
also pose certain problems for the agricultural community. For
example, contamination of irrigation water with a herbicide might
damage the irrigated crop, or contribute an illegal residue of pesticide
(i.e., a residue for which there is no EPA tolerance level) for that crop.
Although this type of problem is not known to have occurred to a
significant degree, there is some evidence that crop damage can occur
in this fashion.
Adding to the complexity of the ground water problem is the fact
that ground water, once contaminated, is costly and difficult to clean
up. Many of the natural degradation processes which occur in the
surface environment are not available underground, and pesticide
residues can remain for extended periods of time,
even decades. Treatment of a contaminated ground
water aquifer is very expensive under any circum-
stances; in cases of widespread low-level contami-
nation, treatment may be a practical impossibility.
before the onset of more serious
environmental problems in the future."
In summary, EPA has collected a significant
amount of information on ground-water contami-
,, „ , . . ... . nation involving pesticides, and also sponsored a
that we have a unique opportunity to act majornationwidesurveytohelpclarify ^ scope of
well-water contamination by pesticide chemicals.
EPA is continuing to add to its Ground-Water Data
Base, and plans regular updates. A considerable
amount of federal, state, and academic research is
underway to further improve our understanding of the extent and
causes of ground-water contamination. However, the Agency be-
lieves that there is ample evidence available to show that pesticide use
can lead to localized ground-water contamination at levels which pose
potentially significant risks to public health and the environment.
EPA does not believe that there is an imminent health crisis arising
from pesticide contamination of ground water, but rather that there is
a basis for prudent concern. EPA also believes that we have a unique
opportunity to act before the onset of more serious environmental
problems in the future. Thus, it is appropriate for the Agency to
develop a strategy to define its goals and policies for protecting
ground-water from unreasonable risks of pesticide contamination,
define the appropriate roles of federal and state authorities, and set
out a framework for decision-making for addressing this type of
problem.
-------
PART II
ERA'S PESTICIDES AND
GROUND-WATER STRATEGY
1 he purpose of Part II is to present EPA's strategic plan to protect
ground water from contamination arising from pesticide use in a manner
consistent with the Agency's Ground-Water Protection Principles.
EPA's activities (including this Strategy) should be seen as part of
a broader spectrum of Administration initiatives to protect ground water,
which will be described later in this Part. In short, there are a great many
programs and activities aimed at ground-water protection; this Strategy
describes how the tools under FIFRA will be employed to help achieve
the Agency's and the Administration's ground-water protection goals
and how these activities will be coordinated with other relevant pro-
grams at EPA and other federal agencies.
Environmental
Goal
Response
Policy &
Program
Prevention
Policy
Program
The Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy consists of three interdependent parts: an Environmental Goal, a
Prevention Policy and Program, and a Response Policy and Program.
-------
The presentation of this Strategy is divided into three chapters:
• Environmental Goal
• Prevention Policy and Program
• Response Policy and Program
The first chapter describes how the goals set forth in the
Agency's Ground-Water Protection Principles relate to this Strategy
for pesticides. The second chapter presents the Agency's strategy for
preventing contamination of ground water primarily through the
regulation of pesticide uses under FIFRA. Chapter two focuses on the
key issues of how to apply the criteria that define EPA's ground-water
protection goals in apreventive manner, how to address local variabil-
ity in risks to ground water, and the appropriate federal/state roles and
responsibilities in managing the problem.
The third chapter describes the strategic framework forrespond-
ing to ground-water contamination that has already occurred.
8
-------
Chapter 1
Environmental Goal
Jr rotecting ground water is one of EPA's fundamental responsibili-
ties, required by a number of national environmental protection
statutes. In the report entitled Protecting the Nations's Ground Water:
EPA's Strategy for the 1990's (May 1991), EPA has developed a
statement of Ground-Water Protection Principles to guide all Agency
program offices in implementation of their various statutory man-
dates with respect to ground water.
The Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy establishes the policy
framework for using the regulatory authorities available under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to carry
out these ground-water protection principles, as well as coordinating
these activities with other relevant programs at EPA and other federal
agencies. In practical terms, the objective of this strategy is to prevent
contamination of ground water resources resulting from the normal,
registered use of pesticides that would cause unreasonable risks to
human health and the environment by taking appropriate actions
where such risks may occur.
EPA's Ground-Water Protection Principles
and Pesticides
rLPA's Ground-Water Protection Principles state that "the overall
goal of EPA's Ground-Water Policy is to prevent adverse effects
to human health and the environment and to protect the environ-
mental integrity of the nation's ground-water resources; in
determining appropriate prevention and protection strategies,
EPA will also consider the use, value and vulnerability of the
resource, as well as social and economic values." The terms of this
compound goal are mutually reinforcing: prevention of ground-water
contamination that may present adverse effects to human health and
the environment serves to sustain the environmental integrity of
ground water; likewise, ground water with environmental integrity
will not pose adverse effects to human health and the environment.
In elaborating this overall goal, the EPA Ground-Water Protec-
tion Principles state: "In all events, EPA will execute this goal and
the principles below in accordance with Federal law." Reflecting
the overall Agency goal, the goal of the Pesticide Strategy is to prevent
contamination of ground-water resources that presents an unreason-
able risk of adverse effects to human health and the environment
Prevention
Policy &
Program
Response
Policy &
Program
"ft
Goal
Prevent adverse effects to
human health and the
environment
Protect the environmental
integrity of the nation's
ground-water resources
Consider use, value, and
vulnerability of the resource \
-------
resulting from the normal, registered use of pesticides, by taking
appropriate actions in vulnerable areas where such risks may occur.
The Agency believes the risk-benefit balancing mandates of FIFRA
are compatible with the Agency's Ground-Water Principles since
they acknowledge the need to take into account social and economic
considerations as well as the need to set priorities for risk reduction.
Also, with respect to this overall goal, "Adverse effects means
those risks which are significant to affected populations and
determined to be unreasonable where appropriate under rel-
evant statutes." Under FIFRA, the general standard for licensing
(that is, registering) a pesticide use is an Agency determination that
the use will not cause "unreasonable risk to man or the environment,
taking into account the economic, social and environmental costs and
benefits of [that] use ..." [FIFRA, §2(bb)].
The Agency's Ground-Water Protection Principles further state
that: "EPA's fundamental premise is that the attainment of this
goal is necessary to achieve the sustainability of the resource and
closely hydrologically connected surface water systems, not just
for the near-term but for the future as well.
"In addition, because ground-water cleanup is extremely
costly, and usually difficult and in some cases impossible to
achieve and demonstrate, EPA's goal is to emphasize prevention
of pollution where appropriate.
Principle 3:
Employ a Variety
Prioritize
Remediation
Activities
of Protection
States have
Primary
Responsibility
Protect
Connected
Surface Waters
Improve
Federal Agency
Coordination
Protect
Drinking
Water
The Agency's Ground-Water Protection Principles build upon each other and help to ensure a solid and effective
Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy.
10
-------
The Agency's Strategy for the 1990's document sets forth six
principles for achieving its overall goal. The first three principles
concern the emphasis on prevention (that is, "prevention of adverse
effects to human health and the environment").
Principle 1:
Ground water should be pro-
tected to ensure that the
nation's currently used and
reasonably expected drinking
water supplies, both public and
private, do not present adverse
health risks and are preserved
for present and future
generations.
Principle 2:
Ground water should
also be protected to ensure
that ground water that is closely^
hydrologically connected to surface
waters does not interfere with the
attainment of surface water quality
' standards, which are designed to
protect the integrity of associated^
ecosystems.
These first two principles highlight an important feature of this
Strategy: EPA's goal of protecting ground water extends to the
resource in the broad sense. Protection is not limited solely to ground
water which is acurrent source of drinking water; reasonably expected
sources must also be protected, as well as ground water that may affect
the quality of surface waters and their associated ecosystems. The
statement of principles explains the emphasis on prevention by
observing that "[g]round water is a uniquely local resource due to the
ease with which small sources can affect it, and the impact that use and
hydrologic characteristics can have on its quality."
The term "reasonably expected sources of
drinking water" is not defined in a statute or regu-
lation. EPA's Strategy for the 1990's identifies
factors for states to consider when designating
ground waters for protection as "reasonably ex-
pected sources of drinking water." These include
remoteness, quality, cost of protection, future growth
and population patterns, and the availability and
"...Reflecting the overall Agency goal, the
goal of the Pesticide Strategy is to prevent
contamination of ground-water re so urces
that presents an unreasonable risk of
adverse effects to human health and the
environment resulting from the normal,
registered use of pesticides."
11
-------
cost of alternative water supplies. The term also invokes the concept
of "differential protection," indicating that identifying priority
ground waters is not a theoretical exercise, but involves evaluation
and judgment performed by an appropriate authority about the likely
future value of specific ground-water resources.
In practice, making site-specific determinations on ground-
water use, value, and vulnerability involves combining information
on site-specific hydrological conditions (influenced by a multitude of
factors, collectively denoted by the term, "sensitivity") with current
information on the use of ground water and the ongoing land use
practices that might affect ground-water quality. Beyond that, the
future use of the land and its water resources must be considered so
that a "reasonably expected source of drinking water" can be recog-
nized, which involves assessing the population dynamics of the local
area. The Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy presumes that both
current and reasonably expected drinking water supplies will be
targeted for protection, and that states are in an appropriate position
to make the judgments necessary to determine the future use of ground
waters.
Principle 3:
Ground-water protection
should be achieved through a
variety of means including: pollution
prevention programs ; source controls;
siting controls; the designation of
wellhead protection areas and future
public water supply areas; and the
protection of aquifer recharge
areas. Efforts to protect ground
water must also consider the
use, value, and vulnerability
of the resource, as well as
social and economic
values.
Appropriate prevention is emphasized in EPA's Strategy for
protecting ground-water resources from pesticides. EPA's statutory
authority to regulate pesticide chemicals under FIFR A offers a variety
of means to modify both the application practices (e.g., amount per
acre, timing, number and methods of application) and the geographic
sites of legal application in order to achieve contaminant-source
12
-------
reduction in advance of manifest harm to human health and the
environment. Given the local variability of ground-water resources
(compounded by the complexities and uncertainties involved in
predicting ground-water contamination), no single approach can fit
all situations. Thus, this Strategy seeks to utilize a variety of tools for
addressing the problem, as envisioned in the Agency Principles.
EPA's policy WITH RESPECT TO REMEDIATION is:
Principle 4:
Ground-water remediation
activities must be prioritized to
limit the risk of adverse effects to
human health first and then to restore
currently used and reasonably
expected sources of drinking water
and ground water closely
hydrologically connected to
surface waters, whenever such f
restorations are practicable
and attainable.
Remediation has less relevance to pesticides and ground water
than does prevention, and not simply because prevention is EPA's
preferred approach. As noted above, FIFRA is more conducive to a
preventive strategy, since registration and other regulatory measures
entail control of the source of ground-water contamination, namely
the application of pesticide products. As Chapter Three explains in
more detail, EPA will rely more on statutes other than FIFRA (in
particular, the Safe Drinking Water and Superfund Acts) to remediate
pesticide contamination. Where remediation becomes necessary,
however, it is EPA's intent that it should proceed by a framework that
ensures that the environmental and public health benefit of each dollar
spent is maximized, given the costs and technical limitations involved
with ground-water cleanup. Moreover, it is EPA's intent to empha-
size early detection and early response, to minimize the costs and
technical impediments.
13
-------
Finally, with respect to FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL
RESPONSIBILITIES:
Principle 5:
The primary respon-
sibility for coordinating
and implementing ground-water
protection programs has always
been and continues to be vested with the
states. An effective ground-water protection
program should link federal, state, and local
activities into a coherent and coordinated
plan of action.
"...A cornerstone of the Pesticides and
Ground-Water Strategy is the introduction
of a significant new role for the states,
offering them the opportunity to exercise
primary responsibility for reducing the
risks of pesticide contamination by means
of State Management Plans (SMPs) for
pesticides of concern."
While the federal government will continue to exercise its
statutory responsibilities for addressing various sources of contami-
nation, the states (and Indian Tribes) should have the primary
responsibility for the management and protection of the ground-water
resource and in addressing diffuse sources of pollution.
EPA believes that a natural division of labor exists between the
federal and state levels with respect to ground water, which arises
from the uniquely local character of ground-water resources. As a
practical matter, states are typically in a good position to make the
detailed local assessments involved in making de-
terminations on use, value, and vulnerability. The
diversity of the ground-water resource is conducive
to a decentralized approach to resource manage-
ment. This division of labor dovetails with the need
to take an integrated approach to protecting ground
water as aresource. Maintaining the environmental
integrity of ground water requires examining the
entire resource and all sources of contamination
that might affect it. The states are in a natural
position to fulfill this responsibility, and it is EPA's
policy to encourage and support the development of
14
-------
State Ground-Water Protection Programs which take an integrated
approach to sources of contamination. This policy is discussed in
greater detail in the section of the Strategy for the 1990s entitled "The
Federal/State Relationship in Ground-Water Protection."
Thus, a cornerstone of the Pesticides and Ground-Water
Strategy is the introduction of a significant new role for the states,
offering them the opportunity to exercise primary responsibility for
reducing the risks of pesticide contamination by means of State
Management Plans (SMPs) for pesticides of concern. This approach,
a major departure from the prevailing centralized decision-making of
the past, will provide a more precise and flexible approach to
preventing contamination than a uniform national regulatory ap-
proach. The role of State Pesticide Management Plans is discussed in
detail in Chapter Two.
Principle 6:
EPA should continue to
improve coordination of
ground-water protection efforts
within the Agency and with other
federal agencies with ground-
water responsibilities.
To assure coordination of its policies with other government
entities, EPA has worked extensively with states and other federal
agencies in the development of this Strategy, and intends to continue
a high level of effort during the implementation of this Strategy.
Within EPA, the efforts to promote State Ground-Water Protection
Programs will intensify over the next two years, andinclude increased
coordination of grant funding available under different statutes
(primarily FIFRA and the CWA) in order to support coordinated
Pesticide Management Plan development at the state level. In general,
EPA will step up its efforts to more fully coordinate federal ground-
water related programs and authorities at all levels and to provide a
15
-------
framework for coordinating multiple federal programs and activities
at the state level. Part III of the Strategy discusses steps toward
implementation in more detail.
The Use of Reference Points: "What
Level of Protection"
1 he Agency Ground-Water Task Force also established a uniform
"Policy on EPA's use of Quality Standards in Ground-Water Preven-
tion and Remediation Activities", as follows:
When EPA is carrying out its programs, the Agency will
use Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) under the
Safe Drinking Water Act as "reference points" for water
resource protection efforts when the ground water in
question is a current or reasonably expected source of
drinking water. Water Quality Standards under the
Clean Water Act will be used as reference points when
ground water is closely hydrologically connected to sur-
face water ecological systems. Where MCLs are not
available, EPA Health Advisory numbers or other ap-
proved health-based levels are recommended as the point
of reference. If such numbers are not available, reference
points may be derived from the health-effects literature
where appropriate. In certain cases, Maximum Con-
taminant Level Goals (MCLGs) under the Safe Drinking
Water Act or background levels may be used in order to
comply with federal statutory requirements. Reference
points are to be applied differently for prevention and
cleanup purposes.
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) are enforceable health-protection
standards for American public water systems. Set at, or "as close ...
as feasible17" to, "the level at which no known or anticipated adverse
effects on the health of persons occur and which allows an adequate
" "Feasible" is defined by the SDWA as "feasible with the use of the best
technology, treatment techniques, ...which the Administrator finds ..., are
available (taking cost into consideration)." [SDWA, §1412 (b)(5)].
16
-------
p
R
E
V
E
N
T
I
O
N
margin of safety," the MCL marks
the level of contamination above
which human consumption2/should
be avoided.
MCLs, while federally en-
forceable under the SDWA only for
public drinking water systems, are
widely used (where they exist) as
reference points by the states and
also by EPA in a number of its
ground-waterrelatedprograms. The
Agency has been moving toward an
approach that provides consistency
in the use of these standards as
reference points. These standards
have been applied as the basic crite-
ria for protecting public health from
exposure to contaminants in drink-
ing water. MCLs are used in this
way by the RCRA and CERCLA
(Superfund) programs.
The use of reference points to
establish levels of regulatory con-
cern or interest will facilitate EPA/
state decision-making under this
Strategy. With respect to EPA de-
terminations pursuant to FIFRA,
detections of pesticide residues in
ground water are approached as part of a general weight-of-evidence
assessment. Contamination at or above such health-based reference
points constitutes a potential risk to health where it occurs. EPA
anticipates that the risks posed by pesticide contamination of a local
underground source of drinking water, at or above the MCL or other
"interim" reference point, will generally deserve a careful assessment
of continued pesticide use in that area. Any geographical pattern of
detections that suggests the likelihood of exceedences will trigger a
national assessment of the risks and benefits of the continued use of
the pesticide. However, the fact that concentrations of a pesticide in
'What Level of Protection"
C
L
E
A
N
U
P
Best technologies and management practices should be
relied on to protect ground water to the maximum extent
practicable, DETECTION OF A PERCENTAGE OF
THE REFERENCE POINT AT AN APPROPRIATE
MOMTORINGLOCATIONWOULDTHENBEUSED
TO TRIGGER CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL
ACTION (E.G., ADDITIONAL MONITORING; RE-
STRICTING, LIMITING USE 0RBANNING USE OF
A PESTICIDE). Reaching the MCL or other appropri-
ate reference point would be considered a failure of
prevention.
— U.S. EPA Task Force Report
Remediation will generally attempt to achieve a total
lifetime cancer risk level in the range of Ifr4 to 10'*, and
exposures to non-carcinogens below appropriate refer-
ence doses. More stringent measures than the reference
point may be selected based on such factors as the
cumulative effect of multiple contaminants, exposure
from other pathways, and unusual population sensi-
tivities. Less stringent measures than the reference
point may be selected where authorized by law, based
on such factors as technological practicality, adverse
environmental impacts of remediation measures, cost
and the low likelihood of potential use.
— U.S, EPA Task Force Report
"Consumption" may include other forms of exposure than direct ingestion,
such as bathing, cookingor food processing that may also contribute to human
risk.
17
-------
ground water exceed a reference point does not relieve EPA of its
obligation under FIFRA to weigh the benefits as well as the risks in
deciding whether to restrict or prohibit use of a pesticide. There may
also be risk/risk trade-off considerations; for example, the lack of the
pesticide might result in greater risks than those posed by residues
exceeding the MCL, because of increased use of other pest control
chemicals or the lack of adequate control of a pest which itself poses
serious health or environmental risks.
Under the 1986 SDWA Amendments, EPA is proceeding to
promulgate new MCLs for potential drinking water contaminants,
including a number of pesticides. In January 1991, EPA promulgated
MCLs for 14 chemicals now or previously registered as pesticides (or
their metabolites) and re-proposed MCLs for another four. By July
1992, EPA will have promulgated 9 more pesticide MCLs. The
Agency has also updated its list of priority drinking water contami-
nants37. In addition, Health Advisories have been prepared for these
and about 50 additional pesticide chemicals: these will serve as
interim reference points for these chemicals. EPA is proceeding to
prepare additional Health Advisories for all currently registered
pesticide active ingredients that may have the potential for ground-
water contamination, under the accelerated review of registered
pesticides required by the FIFRA Amendments of 1988.
Drinking water regulations and the Pesticides and Ground-
Water Strategy work hand in hand, beyond the use of MCLs as
reference points. The principal function of MCLs is to limit public
exposure to harmful contamination of drinking water "at the tap." To
the extent that public water systems have the responsibility to reduce
direct human exposure, they will be direct beneficiaries of the
Strategy. In fact, the extent to which water systems can avoid
extraordinary monitoring and treatment to counteract the presence of
unreasonable pesticide contamination will represent one long-term
measure of the Strategy's success.
The systems' protective efforts — monitoring and/or vulnerabil-
ity assessments - pursuant to the new pesticide MCLs cited above,
represent another point of intersection with the Strategy. Systems
may forego expensive monitoring for the presence of pesticides in
drinking water if they perform a vulnerability assessment that dem-
This priority list establishes the Agency's regulatory agenda beyond the
contaminants specified for regulation by the 1986 SDWA Amendments.
Pursuant to the Amendments, EPA must propose, then promulgate MCLs for
at least 25 contaminants on the list (and simultaneously update the list) within
a three-year cycle.
18
-------
onstrates the absence of pesticide use in the vicinity or the unlikeli-
hood of contamination because of source-protection safeguards (for
instance, Wellhead Protection measures), hydrological factors or
other circumstances. In either event, the monitoring and/or site-
specific data that the system collects will be a valuable input to any
larger-scale effort (fostered by pesticide management plans or other
federal ground-water activities) to assess local
ground-water use, value, and vulnerability. Like-
wise, the results of these broader assessment efforts "...EPA anticipates that the risks posed by
will be valuable to the systems who wish to conduct pesticide contamination of a local
assessments and the state drinking water officials _, , * , . ,. .
, , . . . underground source of drinking water, at
who must review them to grant monitoring waivers. 6 J * '
With regard to protection of ground waters
or above the MCL or other 'interim'
reference point, will generally deserve a
use
that are closely hydrologically connected to surf ace ,. , , ,. .. , ^ .,
waters, the appropriate reference point is the appli- careful assessment of continued pesticides
cable state Water Quality Criteria for the surface
water in question. These criteria, established pur-
suant to Section 303 of the Clean Water Act, are
specified by the state (and reviewed by EPA) for specific surface
waters at levels that sustain a specific designated use (i.e., the
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife). Where
states have pesticide contamination of ground water that jeopardizes
the attainment of their criteria, they will be able to apply these criteria
as reference points in their Pesticide Management Plans (See Chapter
Two).
In reaching the reference point policy, EPA specifically consid-
ered, solicited public comment on, and ultimately rejected the concept
that reaching the reference point would be the trigger for preventive
action. EPA itself takes a variety of actions to reduce risks to ground
water on the basis of early indications of a pesticide's potential to
leach. USDA also identifies pesticides with leaching potential and
develops alternative farm-level practices to protect ground water.
This Strategy envisions that State Management Plans will also include
preventive measures prior to detections exceeding MCLs. Thus, the
use of reference points is explicitly not a "license to pollute." Rather,
reference points will serve as a means to define failure of a prevention
program.
In summary, EPA 's Ground- Water Protection Principles and the
policies they inspire emphasize the need: 1) to achieve a greater
balance between prevention and remediation activities; 2) to actively
promote the development of ground- water protection programs by the
states; and 3) to evolve anew, more cooperative and flexible approach
toward the integration of federal, state, and local resources to make
19
-------
responsible decisions and choices for protection of the environment.
The Pesticides and Ground-water Strategy will be a driving force in
implementing the Agency's Principles in that it:
• Places increased emphasis on prevention and resource pro-
tection versus remedial treatment;
• Envisions a variety of means to protect the resource, and
provides the flexibility for decisions to be made on a geo-
graphic basis - taking into account use, value, and vulnerabil-
ity, as well as social and economic values - while at the same
time ensuring a national baseline of protection through the
use of reference points; and,
• Encourages the development of voluntary State Manage-
ment Plans, which support the further development of, and
can subsequently be integrated with, State Ground-Water
Protection Programs.
MCL
Drinking water
Water Quality Criteria
Ground-water connected to surface water
REFERENCE
POINT
Health Advisory/
Health-Based Standards
Drinking Water
(MCL not Available)
MCLG or Background
As required by Federal Statutes
Reference points will generally be the applicable MCL, though Water Quality Criteria, MCLGs, background
concentrations, or health-based standards may be appropriate reference points in some situations.
20
-------
Chapter 2
Prevention Policy And Program
i revention is the central principle of EPA's approach to managing
pesticide use in order to protect the ground water resource. Under the
Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy, EPA will place increased
emphasis on prevention of ground water contamination and strive to
achieve a greater balance between prevention and remediation activi-
ties. In addition, it is EPA's mandate under FIFRA to regulate
pesticide use in such a manner as to avoid causing "unreasonable
adverse effects on the environment." Thus, FIFRA is a statute aimed
at regulating the use of beneficial but potentially hazardous com-
pounds before the onset of adverse effects, rather than a mechanism
for cleaning up pollution which already presents adverse effects to
human health and the environment. A prevention strategy involves
the use of effective pesticide management practices that reduce
leaching of pesticides particularly in vulnerable areas, and minimize
or eliminate unreasonable risks from ground-water contamination.
As a practical matter, the Strategy envisions a variety of means to
protect the resource, and provides the flexibility for decisions to be
made on a geographic basis - taking into account use, value and
vulnerability, as well as social and economic values - while at the same
time ensuring a national baseline of protection through the use of
reference points. Based on accurate assessments, sound science and
proven practices, pesticide management measures and appropriate
regulatory measures are both necessary components that must work
together for a successful strategy - one that prevents contamination
of ground-water resources by pesticides that would cause unreason-
able adverse effects to health or the environment.
Prevention Approaches to Ground-Water
Protection
Response
Policy &
Program
.Before addressing the specifics of EPA's strategy
for pesticides using approaches under FIFRA, it
should be noted that EPA as a whole is pursuing a
policy of pollution prevention across all of its
programs. This involves seeking practical means
to reduce the release of potential contaminants to
any environmental medium from all sectors of
society (e.g. industrial, municipal, residential, or
"...In general, the Agency believes it is
more protective of the public interest, and
usually more cost-effective, to prevent
pollution than to clean up after it has
occurred."
21
-------
agricultural) as a long-term environmental protection strategy. In
general, the Agency believes it is more protective of the public
interest, and usually more cost-effective, to prevent pollution than to
clean up after it has occurred. Even in cases where restricting or
eliminating the use of a pesticide may not be warranted, it is still
desirable to reduce risks through non-regulatory approaches, such as
encouraging the voluntary adoption of sound management practices
for pesticide use in vulnerable areas. Given the potential for long-term
risks and very high economic costs associated with ground-water
contamination, pollution prevention is emphasized in all of EPA's
ground-water protection programs.
Pollution prevention is a preference shared by many pesticide
users as well as regulatory agencies. For example, farmers are
concerned about preventing ground-water contamination for several
reasons. Farmers and their families are the people most likely to face
health risks if pesticides contaminate ground water. Furthermore,
pesticides which migrate away from the area of application may
produce off-site detrimental effects to the environment. Thus, in
terms of immediate personal risk, economic efficiency, as well as
potential adverse effects on land values and the quality of the
environment that may be passed on to future generations, farmers
have a very immediate stake in the success of ground-water protection
efforts.
The Agency's overall policy direction for ground-water protec-
tion is to promote the development and implementation of state
ground-water protection programs designed to provide comprehen-
sive protection of the resource and provide the framework to coordi-
nate activities under federal, state, and local authorities. A core
premise of this policy is recognition of the primary state role in
protecting the resource, and the states' need to design and implement
programs consistent with distinctive local needs and conditions.
EPA has long recognized the important role of states in ground-
water protection. Since the release of EPA's Ground-Water Protec-
tion Strategy in 1984, the Agency has used grant funds to support
states in developing their capabilities to characterize their ground-
water resources, to increase technical expertise, to identify data
resources, and to develop new relationships between state agencies,
(i.e., the infrastructure needed for coordinated planning and imple-
mentation of ground-water protection programs). EPA is continuing
to support states' efforts to build capacity to protect their ground-
water resources from many contaminants. For example, EPA pro-
vides grants to assist states in developing a number of programs which
include:
22
-------
Wellhead
Protection
Pesticides and
Groundwater Strategy
n
Drinking
Water
Regulations
Nonpomt
Source
Management
State Ground-Water
Protection Programs
The Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy is a vital part of comprehensive ground-water protection.
• State Ground-Water Strategies/Programs. Under section
106 of the Clean Water Act states are developing strategies
that provide a framework for consistent ground-water pro-
tection efforts across program lines. The strategies often
provide an overall state philosophy for protection, as well as
specific mechanisms for ground-water classification/map-
ping, ground-water monitoring, data management, intra- and
inter-agency coordination, and public participation. Many
states have prioritized certain ground waters for special
management of the resource. Under EPA's Strategy for the
1990's these programs will be the foundation for comprehen-
sive protection of the ground-ware resource and the frame-
work to coordinate federal, state, and local activities and
authorities.
• Wellhead Protection Program. Authorized by Congress with
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1986, this
program focuses on protecting ground water used for public
water supply wells. State wellhead protection programs
23
-------
include, among other elements, delineation of wellhead
protection areas on the basis of hydrogeologic data and other
information, identification of the sources of contaminants
used in these areas, and management approaches to protect
these areas of vulnerable ground water.
• Nonpoint Source (NFS) Programs. Section 319 of the Clean
Water Act requires states to develop a NFS Assessment
Report and a NFS Management Program. The Reports
describe the nature, extent, and causes of NFS pollution and
the state programs for controlling this pollution. NFS
Management Programs identify best management practices,
and plans for their adoption including priorities and funding
sources.
• Sole Source Aquifer Program. The SDWA allows EPA to
designate an aquifer as a sole or principle source of drinking
water. Designation requires an EPA review of federal
financially assisted projects to assure that ground water is
protected.
• Public Water System Supervision. States are the primary
agents to supervise Public Water System (PWS) compliance
with Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) under the
SDWA. PWSs have the responsibility to prevent direct
human exposure to harmful waterborne contamination, and
must institute monitoring, treatment (as necessary), and other
protective measures.
The Agency is also providing grants under FIFRA to develop
state capacity to protect ground water from pesticide contamination
in implementing this Strategy. EPA has added staff at its ten Regional
Offices to provide continuing support as the Pesticides and Ground-
Water Strategy moves closer to actual implementation.
Over the next few years, EPA intends to emphasize the coordi-
nated use of the grant funds available to the states under different
statutes in order to encourage integration of these various ground-
water related activities into comprehensive programs which protect
ground water as a resource by addressing the full spectrum of potential
contaminants. On the state level, developing or improving a state's
institutional framework for coordination between agencies, program
enforcement, ground-water classification/mapping, monitoring, and
other capabilities will be useful for wellhead protection andnonpoint
source programs as well as implementation of the Pesticides and
24
-------
Ground-Water Strategy, and ultimately for state
Ground-Water Protection Programs (SGWPPs).
Thus, the Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy
represents only one component of the Agency's over-
all effort to protect the ground-water resource. The
Strategy fits into the larger federal effort to achieve
ground-water protection, and also into the Agency's
overall goals outlined in the statement of ground-
water protection principles. The Strategy allows for
a variety of approaches and methods to protect ground
water, some of these will be taken by EPA on the
national level, while others will be carried out by
individual states. While specific to pesticides as a
ground-water contaminant, the Strategy employs the
same approach of building a federal-state partnership
in managing potential risks as the other federal pro-
grams that will eventually be brought together into state Ground-
Water Protection Programs. Thus, the Strategy for pesticides both
builds on development work that has already been done, and will
stimulate the further development of federal-state coordination in
ground-water protection.
In addition to coordinating its regulatory programs, EPA will
encourage non-regulatory approaches to ground-water protection
such as the development of safer chemical and nonchemical pest
control alternatives, the adoption of integrated pest management
strategies, and other practices that reduce the potential for pesticide
residues to be introduced into ground water. Partnerships with other
federal and state agencies in both research and transfer of new
technologies to the pesticide user community are essential to ihese
efforts.
EPA has joined with other federal agencies in supporting and
directing research efforts that address ground-water protection. For
example, under the President's Water Quality Initiative, USDA has
the lead for performing research and demonstration projects and
delivering technical assistance relating to ground-water protection.
Over ninety different water-quality and demonstration projects are
being coordinated under this initiative, with objectives that include:
determining the extent and seriousness of agricultural chemicals'
contribution to nonpoint source pollution; developing improved farm
and ranch production systems to maintain and improve water quality,
without sacrificing profitability; improving the understanding of fate
and transport of agricultural chemicals in soil and water; and devel-
Pesticides and
Ground-Water Strategy
25
-------
oping less costly ground-water sampling techniques. EPA also
supports USDA's Sustainable Agriculture Research Programs (over
75 projects) which focus primarily on farming techniques which in
many cases involve reduced reliance on chemical inputs. EPA's and
USDA's research efforts include developing modeling systems to
identify areas of ground-water vulnerability, improving Geographic
Information Systems, and improving analytical techniques to detect
contaminants in ground water.
EPA recognizes that farm policy can contribute as much as, or
in some cases, even more impetus to protecting ground water than
EPA programs, both directly and indirectly. EPA has, therefore,
participated in the development of the 1990 Farm Bill in an effort to
encourage farm policies that will tend to provide incentives, or
remove disincentives, for farming techniques that are less dependent
on agricultural chemicals that may threaten ground-water quality.
Changes in the federal farm price and income support programs
are considered likely to have some effect on pesticide and fertilizer
use. For example, greater flexibility in cropping patterns will allow
farmers to rotate crops and plant a greater variety of crops and remain
eligible for farm supportprograms. Such a change is expected to lead
to reduced pesticide and fertilizer use, since crop rotation, especially
with nitrogen-fixing legumes, isarecognizedmeans for both reducing
the need for artificial fertilizer and for breaking the pest infestation
cycles that affect repeated plantings of the same crop. Other provi-
sions of the 1990 Farm Bill include expanding the scope of the
Conservation Reserve Program in ways that may lead to enrolling
increased acreage sensitive to contamination and to the use of
practices to enhance water quality.
Although it is premature to predict the overall impact of such
farm policy changes, it is clear that environmental concerns are
increasingly being brought to bear on the development of agricultural
policy. In the long run, the results of increased research on farming
methods, coupled with policies that encourage the adoption of more
environmentally sensitive practices should complement regulatory
programs by reducing or eliminating at least some of the pesticide use
practices that are most likely to lead to contamination of ground (and
surface) water.
Turning to this Strategy for pesticides, its main purpose is to
describe the manner in which FIFRA authorities will be exercised to
fulfill both the Agency's overall goal for ground-water protection and
the particular risk/benefit mandate of FIFRA to regulate individual
pesticides to prevent "unreasonable adverse effects to the environ-
ment," taking into account the economic and social costs and benefits
26
-------
of their use. While the focus of the Strategy is on normal pesticide
application practices, ground-water contamination by pesticides can
also result from leaks or spills associated with storage, mixing and
loading, or disposal of these chemicals. EPA is now in the process of
addressing these "point source" contamination risks primarily through
the development of new regulations under FIFRA which directly
address each of these areas of concern, and will include provisions on
pesticide container design. These regulations will be uniform national
requirements incorporated into Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 165.
EPA's prevention policy and program for pesticides takes a
multi-lateral approach, enlisting the active participation of many
parties beyond EPA. The remainder of this chapter discusses the
specific roles of EPA, the states, other federal Agencies, pesticide
registrants, and users in preventing ground-water contamination in
the FIFRA context.
EPA'S Role: Determining the Regulatory
Approach
1 he primary concern of this Strategy is with the potential for ground-
water contamination associated with registered pesticides that would
cause unreasonable risks when used in accordance with EPA-ap-
proved labeling, and the need to take this potential into account when
taking appropriate regulatory actions for both new and existing
pesticides under FIFRA.
There are several factors which influence whether pesticides will
contaminate ground water: 1) the properties of the chemical itself
(e.g., solubility in water, persistence and mobility in the subsurface
environment); 2) the characteristics of the site of use (e.g., soil type,
depth to ground water, temperature, rainfall, etc.); 3) application
practices, including the amount of pesticide per application, and the
frequency and method of applications; and 4) other agronomic
practices associated with the pesticide use. The complex interaction
of these factors suggests a different approach from the way pesticides
are typically regulated under FIFRA, that is, national regulation
through pesticide labels. In the case of ground water, no single
approach readily fits all situations. Thus, this Strategy envisions a
series of decisions made by EPA, the states and pesticide users that,
taken together, will effectively protect against unreasonable risks of
ground water contamination with a combination of measures as
different local conditions dictate.
27
-------
Step 1. Determine
Whether There is a
Likelihood of Pesticide
Leaching (EPA)
1 he most basic of EPA's authorities under FIFRA is the authority to
require testing data necessary to support product registration or there-
registration of products already on the market. In recent years, EPA
has required environmental fate data on numerous old and new
pesticides to identify those with the physical/chemical characteristics
indicating the potential for leaching to ground water. The Agency has
also required field monitoring studies for a number of both new and
already registered pesticides suspected of posing risks to ground
water.
Assess Leaching
Potential
"...The Strategy envisions a series of
decisions made by EPA, the states and
pesticide users that, taken together will
effectively protect against unreasonable
risks of ground water contamination with
a combination of measures as different
local conditions dictate."
Step 2. Determine
Whether Leaching
Potential Can Be
Addressed on National
Label (EPA)
Establish National
Label/Restricted Use
1 he results of testing are generally used to determine whether to
register a chemical and the appropriate labeling precautions and use
directions for pesticide products. It is important to note that under
FIFRA, labeling requirements are legally enforceable, as well as
being the primary vehicle for conveying precautionary information to
the pesticide user. In relation to ground-water concerns, the label
directions and precautions on probable leachers are intended to
minimize the likelihood of contaminating ground water. Based on the
environmental fate data, EPA will determine appropriate label con-
ditions, including: maximum rate of application, seasonal timing of
application, and uniform requirements such as well set-backs or anti-
back-siphoning requirements.
FIFRA also contains authority to classify a pesticide for re-
stricted use - only a trained and certified applicator or persons
under their direct supervision can apply such products. Other
detailed aspects of application practices can also be specified by
regulation as part of the conditions of restricted use. EPA is
developing a Restricted Use Rule aimed specifically at
s^ pesticides likely to contaminate ground water based on
their chemical characteristics, or on actual detections.
Historically, restricted use classification was primarily a
28
-------
Does
Pesticide
Have High
Leaching
Potential?
Use Pesticide According to
Non-Ground-Water Label
Requirements
Consider
Establishing
National Label
Or Restricted Use
Requirements
Will
Label/
Restricted Use
Ensure Adequate
protection of
ground
water?
Cancel Nationally
Develop State
Management Plans
Allow Use According to
Label/Restricted Use
EPA will use a step-by-step process to determine the appropriate regulatory approach (e.g., national label
requirements, restricted use, State Management Plans, or cancellation) for addressing a given pesticide.
29
-------
Step 3. Determine if
National Measures on
Label Will Provide
Adequate Protection
(EPA)
Assess Adequacy of
LabeliRestricted Use
means of providing applicators with extra training for handling highly
toxic pesticides, thereby minimizing risks of acute poisoning. In
recent years the Agency has increasingly employed restricted use
classification as a way of reducing other types of health and environ-
mental risks, since it offers a means other than total cancellation of use
for addressing risk concerns. Thus, in some cases, the training and
label requirements associated with restricted use classification reduce
risks to a reasonable level.
As preventive measures, these national-level actions offer a first
line of defense against potential leaching, by making the user aware
of the risks, identifying some specific techniques for avoiding it, and
making these application practices enforceable requirements of use.
If EPA has reasonable assurance from the evidence of a particular
chemical's contamination potential that it would not cause "unrea-
sonable adverse effects on the environment" if used in accordance
with the requirements of the label or underthe conditions of restricted
use, then EPA would register or reregister that chemical with those
national-level management measures as the only measures necessary.
However, if EPA cannot conclude from the available evidence
that these measures would sufficiently reduce the risk of ground-water
contamination, it could pursue either continued registered use only
under an approved STATE MANAGEMENT PLAN, (described
below, STEP 4) or national cancellation if State Management Plans
would not be adequate to prevent risks. Appropriate state and local
measures to limit exposure to chemicals found leaching into
ground water will be taken into account in making National
regulatory decisions.
Under FIFRA, EPA may cancel the registration of a
pesticide if it is found to pose risks which outweigh its
benefits. The most extreme preventive measure in
EPA's arsenal, cancellation (and its counterpart in
regulating new pesticides, denial of a registration)
would be most appropriate when EPA can determine
that the pesticide generally causes unreasonable risks
whenever or wherever it is used. Thus, while EPA
must make each cancellation decision on a case-by-
case basis, cancellation as a response to potential risks
of ground-water contamination by a pesticide would generally be
most appropriate where there is persuasive evidence of serious and
widespread risk to ground water. It should be noted that FIFRA
provides that proposed cancellation decisions are independently
30
-------
reviewed. Risk issues are reviewed by the FEFRA Scientific Advisory
Panel and benefits information is evaluated by USDA.
The Agency's risk/benefit assessments for the concerns raised by
ground-water contamination require special care because of the degree
of local variability. Unlike dietary and applicator exposures, the
potential for exposure through ground-water contamination can vary
widely from site to site. From a national viewpoint, the aggregate risk
(in terms of the number of people exposed) posed by pesticide contami-
nation of ground water is liable to be far less than that which prompts
national concern such as a nationwide dietary exposure. Yet the local
adverse health and economic consequences of such degradation of
ground water can be severe.
The Agency believes that the best method for addressing differ-
ences in sensitivity/vulnerability throughout the country is to tailor
prevention measures in a given area to reflect the sensitivity of local
ground water to contamination. This differential approach minimizes
National Label
Restricted Use
Cancellation
Tailored SMP
Pesticides
and
Ground-Water
Strategy
State by State
Approach
National
Approach
This Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy allows a balance between non-discriminating National-level
regulation and State regulation that is tailored to local hydrogeologic settings and water needs.
31
-------
Step 4. State
Management Plans
(EPA and States)
Establish SMPs or
Cancel
the complementary risks of over-regulation for areas where ground
water is not particularly vulnerable to contamination or under-
protection of highly vulnerable areas which might result from sole
reliance on a "national" regulatory approach. This approach is
reflected in the Agency's statement of Ground-Water Protection
Principles which includes the principle that differential protection
based on the use, value, and vulnerability of specific ground waters,
taking into account economic and social values, is the appropriate
means of addressing local variability.
Although it is unlikely, there may be some pesticides which pose
such significant risks to health or the environment due to ground-
water leaching that State Management Plans will not be adequate to
prevent risks. In these cases, EPA would resort to national cancella-
tion. In evaluating the risks posed by a pesticide, EPA will take into
account existing state and local measures to limit leaching and
determine the extent of exposure to chemicals found leaching into
ground water. However, if the Agency makes the determination
that the pesticide generally poses unreasonable effects to the
environment, then it will provide the states the opportunity to
develop individual State Management Plans (SMPs) for that
chemical. EPA would confine registered use of the product
in question to states with an acceptable SMP approved by
EPA. EPA would invoke SMPs if: 1) the Agency
concludes from the evidence of a chemical's contami-
nation potential that the pesticide "may cause unrea-
v^ sonable adverse effects on the environment," and 2)
the Agency determines, that although labeling and
restricted use classification measures are not enough
to assure adequate protection of ground water, na-
tional cancellation would not be necessary if states or
localities take on the management of the pesticide in sensitive areas
to effectively address the contamination risk. State-developed Plans
would then focus on the vulnerable areas of the state and may choose
from a wide variety of measures including user education, modified
application practices, use restrictions or prohibitions and agricultural
best management practices to address the risks posed by a particular
pesticide.
The SMP approach utilizes the authority of FIFRA to govern the
conditions and terms of pesticide registrations. In other words, use in
accordance with an EPA-approved SMP becomes a condition of the
pesticide's registration, either through a rulemaking or cancellation
action under FIFRA. The practical effect is that absent an approved
32
-------
Establish SMPs or
Cancel
SMP, the pesticide would not be avail-
able for legal sale and use in a state.
Every state in which a pesticide in
question is used will have an opportu-
nity to respond to an EPA determina-
tion that State Management Plans
(SMPs) are needed for a particular
pesticide. Thus, the decision that the
SMP approach is needed for aparticular
pesticide is a national determination.
It is consistent with the Agency's
Ground-Water Protection Principles
that for some pesticides it will be
appropriate for the states to take the
lead role in protecting ground water
through the management of pesticide
use, based on local conditions of
ground-water use, value, and vulner-
ability. The Agency believes that a
lead role for the states is justified due
to the expertise at the state level on
local hydrogeology, soils, agronomic practices, climate, and pesticide
use. The state and local authorities also understand the population and
land use trends in their areas that help to define the future use of
ground-water resources, and thus, the "reasonably expected" sources
of drinking water that should also receive priority protection.
The effectiveness of any plan for managing risks to ground water
depends on the degree to which vulnerable areas in need of protective
measures can be accurately identified. Accurate identification means
essentially the degree of resolution (i.e., county, sub-county, farm, or
acre) which can be achieved in assessing local vulnerability. At one
end of the spectrum is resolution at the national level, which is
typically the Agency's basis for addressing dietary and applicator
exposure concerns. At the other end of the spectrum is resolution at
the level of individual acres.
Although making determinations of vulnerability at the greatest
degree of resolution would be the preferred technical basis for
management, the sheer number of decisions required by such an
approach would be overwhelming. The Agency believes that the
states can be successful in conducting assessments at a high degree of
resolution, for example at the sub-county level, or in some cases, even
farm level. A state is also in a good position to assess the current use
Assess Adequacy of
Label/Restricted Use
Establish National
Label/Restricted Use
Assess Leaching
Potential
The Pesticide and Ground-Water Strategy's regulatory approach
includes four principal steps.
33
-------
No two State Management Plans will be exactly alike. States will tailor their Management Plans according to
aquifer sensitivity, pesticide use, and ground-water value.
"...EPA intends that states should have a
substantial range of flexibility in the form
and manner of their preventive measures,
reflecting specific state values and differing
regu latory approach es."
and value of ground water, as well as the future trends for various
locations. Finally the states are better situated to consider social and
economic values of alternative preventive strategies. The data bases,
research, and technical assistance programs of USDA are a valuable
source of information for the states in making these assessments.
The requirements of individual state plans will vary, depending
on the relative risk of ground-water contamination from that chemical
in that state as well as social and economic values. EPA intends that
states should have a substantial range of flexibility in the form and
manner of their preventive measures, reflecting specific state values
and differing regulatory approaches. An advantage to this approach
is that a state can closely tie user training and
enforcement efforts to its own differential ap-
proach.
EPA will continue to have significant respon-
sibilities to oversee and support the states in their
implementation of Management Plans. The large
majority of states do not have integrated programs
in place to manage the use of pesticides to protect
34
-------
ground water and will require a great deal of technical information to
support the development and implementation of SMP's. EPA, USDA
and USGS all plan to take an active role in supplying states with
technical assistance and guidance on activities such as data interpre-
tation, monitoring, ground-water vulnerability mapping, and em-
ploying best management practices (BMP's). Although current
knowledge about some of these management activities does not have
the benefit of long-term research efforts, EPA will attempt to provide
the most current and readily usable technical information to states.
The States' Role: Developing and
Implementing Pesticide Management
Plans
1 he primary policy innovation in the Agency's Pesticides and
Ground-water Strategy is to give the states the option to develop
individual State Management Plans, representing a new attempt at
forming a federal-state partnership to address a complex environmen-
tal and regulatory issue. However, implementing a differential
prevention program is a complex task. For example, it involves the
assessment of aquifer sensitivity, and overlaying that information
with data on the current usage of the pesticide in question to determine
specific site vulnerability. In addition, there must be an assessment
of the relative value of the ground-water aquifers as current or
reasonably expected sources of drinking water or in terms of critical
interaction with surface water ecosystems. Finally, it includes
consideration of social and economic costs of any prevention pro-
gram. This complexity makes it essential to resolve the apportion-
ment of federal and state responsibilities.
H/PA intends to provide considerable guidance to assist states in the
development of SMPs. For example, in conjunction with this Strategy
the Agency is issuing a guidance document describing the essential
components of SMPs, and will issue additional technical support
documents in the future.
The contents of approved State Management Plans will vary in
their extent (i.e., in the level of detail addressing the EPA-required
program elements), according to the estimated magnitude of the
ground-water contamination threat, among other factors. It is antici-
pated that SMPs will have a natural tendency to fall into one of three
categories, although EPA recognizes and accepts that there could be
Summary of State
Management Plan
Contents
35
-------
as much variation among the particulars of SMPs as there are states
with plans. EPA will be flexible in its review of SMPs, accepting that
different approaches and philosophies can obtain the same general
environmental goals. In approving such programs, EPA will also
determine that they are consistent with the Conservation Compliance
Plans under the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, as well as with
any other relevant program, such as a State Ground-Water Protection
Program. In making its determination, EPA will consult with USDA,
and provide USDA an opportunity to elevate disputes to the Admin-
istrator.
The three general SMP categories that EPA envisions are
primarily distinguished by their level of detail and specificity in
addressing the various components of an acceptable SMP. The most
thorough and complete State Management Plan will entail addressing
the required program components in sufficient detail so as to attain the
ultimate objective, that is, preventing ground-water contamination
§
to
I
Assumes that pesticide
useage poses a minimal risk
of contamination throughout
the state.
Acknowledges potential for
ground-water contamination
from pesticides and the state's
commitment to characterizing
the problem and responding
appropriately.
"Baseline"
SMP
"Moderate"
SMP
"Full Scale"
SMP
Realizes the need for
implementing all required
components due to significant
level of risk posed by chemical
use within the state.
EPA envisions three general categories of State Management Plans, distinguished by their level of detail and
specificity in addressing the various components of an acceptable SMP.
36
-------
that may present adverse effects to human health and the environment.
Such a Full Scale Plan will be appropriate for a state with a significant
level of risk, as indicated by all relevant factors, including site-
specific hydrologic characteristics and patterns of chemical use
within a state. A Moderate Plan would represent a state's
acknowledgement of the potential for ground-water contamination by
the pesticide in question, and the state's commitment to characterize
the problem more fully and to respond appropriately. A moderate-
level plan would be initially appropriate in those states where the
chemical's use is confined to areas of low and moderate aquifer
sensitivity. A Baseline SMP would reflect a determination that the
pesticide's use poses a minimal risk of contamination throughout the
state (because of the lack of use or low aquifer sensitivity), butthe state
would commit to move to a higher level of management plan if the
situation changes or new evidence warrants. This would be appropri-
ate for states which show outdoor uses of the chemical only in areas
of low sensitivity (or no outdoor use). The ultimate characteristics of
any state's SMP will hinge on the pesticide usage and ground-water
vulnerability data the state assembles in its application to EPA.
As part of the prevention principle of this Strategy, EPA will expect Emphasis OH Prevention
states which have highly sensitive ground water to include appropriate : QMDe
management practices in their SMPs in such areas, even in the absence
of actual detections in ground water. While EPA will generally
identify some of the conditions of high vulnerability in generic terms
which can be usefully referenced in labeling, local areas of high
aquifer sensitivity which the state can identify may depend for
adequate protection on the state taking proactive measures which go
beyond EPA precautionary labeling as part of their SMP.
Fora plan to be truly preventive in its approach, efforts to manage
a pesticide's use should begin with early indications of its potential to
contaminate groundwater. These early indications can be based on
information about the physical and chemical properties of the pesti-
cide, how and where it may be used, and predictions of its fate in
certain usage areas, or evidence of contamination in similar areas.
EPA will support such a proactive approach in SMPs.
For example, reducing use in sensitive areas might be appropri-
ate in the case of a new pesticide with potential for adverse effects and
physical/chemical characteristics showing leaching potential coupled
with predicted usage in areas of high or moderate sensitivity or for an
37
-------
Prevention Strategy
State Management Plan Menu
Moratorium Areas Monitoring Requirements
Enforcement Actions IPM/Ag Practices
BMPs
Well C&nstntctiontSiting Codes Education of Users
Wellhead Protection Certification
Well SetbackstBuffers
Application Controls
(Rate, Time, Method)
States can choose from a wide-variety of management tools in developing their State Management Plans.
old pesticide being used in areas similar to sites which have been found
by monitoring to be contaminated. The Agency would support and
encourage SMPs which include preventive measures on the basis of
such predictive evidence.
In relation to taking measures beyond EPA requirements, the
overall goal established by any state for its SMP may be more, but not
less, stringent than the Agency's goal of preventing unreasonable
adverse effects to human health or the environment. For example, a
state could elect to pursue a goal of non-degradation, or to protect all
ground water as if it were a current source of drinking water. This
approach of establishing minimum requirements for environmental
protection is generally consistent with the principles of FIFRA and
other environmental statutes, but do not preclude more stringent state
programs or standards.
It is also important to emphasize that the Agency considers that
a critical component of any acceptable SMP will be the component
describing the state's prevention measures. This should include
contingency elements to provide for escalating controls on pesticide
use where there is evidence that initial prevention measures have
failed or are likely to fail to protect ground water to the extent and level
38
-------
defined in EPA's Ground-Water Protection Principles, or to the extent
andlevel specified by the state (if the state standard is more stringent).
Having contingency provisions is critical to the concept of State
Management Plans. It will be a fairly lengthy and complex process
to reach the determination that a particular pesticide should be
managed through the vehicle of SMPs. Moreover, ____________
EPA and the individual states will then need to work
together in the process of getting individual SMPs
approved. Thus, as a practical matter, it would be
both inefficient and irresponsible in terms of public
health protection to have to revisit the process of
plan approval if a specific set of management
measures failed to prevent contamination or new evidence of risk
arises. Thus, a management plan cannot be considered adequate
unless it is to a large degree self-adjusting through contingency
elements calling for additional actions triggered by appropriate
evidence that its first line of approach is failing or inadequate.
"...A critical component of any acceptable
SMP will be the component describing the
state's prevention measures."
JVeference points are applied differently, according to whether the
context is prevention or remediation. The use of these reference points
with respect to remediation of existing ground-water contamination
by pesticides is discussed in the next Chapter.
The use of reference points to establish levels of regulatory
concern or interest will facilitate EPA/state decision-making under
this S trategy. With respect to EPA determinations pursuant to FIFRA,
detections of pe sticide residues in ground water are approached as part
of a general weight-of-evidence assessment. Detection at or above
such health-based reference points constitutes a potential risk to
health where it occurs. EPA anticipates that the risks posed by
pesticide contamination of a local underground source of drinking
water, at or above the MCL or other "interim" reference point, will
generally deserve a careful assessment of continued pesticide use in
that area. Any geographical pattern of detections that suggests the
likelihood of exceedences will trigger a national reassessment of the
risks and benefits of the continued use of the pesticide. As stated in
Protectingthe Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strategy forthe 1990's.
"reaching the MCL or other appropriate reference point would be
considered a failure of prevention."
Detections below MCL's should also trigger examination under
the SMP. At a minimum, confirmed detections of a pesticide in
ground water will be treated as a cause for concern and should trigger
some action to diagnose the cause of the particular detection and
Role of reference points
in State Management
Plans
39
-------
determine whether any further regulatory/management approaches
are needed. Whenever monitoring data or other information indicates
a reasonable likelihood that ground-water contamination may reach
or exceed the MCL or other benchmark level, the states will be
expected to assess potential risks and consider additional actions.
These could include a wide variety of measures, including education
of users, additional monitoring requirements, management practices
such as changing application rates, number and timing of applications,
changing agronomic practices, or use moratoria, to the point of
prohibiting use if necessary and appropriate. In effect, EPA supports
a graduated approach whereby increasingly stringent control mea-
sures will be applied in response to increasing evidence that apesticide
is posing an unreasonable risk.
It should be recognized that there are scientific limitations at this
time in the state of the art of both monitoring and mathematical
modeling to predict the behavior of pesticide residues in the subsur-
face environment. Consequently, a graduated approach to pesticide
management may not always be a practical possibility. The use to
which reference points are put in relation to regulatory decisions and
management plans must be specific and appropriate
to the individual pesticide chemical involved. Pes-
-------
Since both rulemaking and cancellation actions can be lengthy
public notice and comment procedures, as a practical matter, it may
be several years before designated pesticides will be subject to use
only under the provisions of approved State Management Plans. Also,
EPA recognizes that development of a full-scale, pesticide-specific
SMP will be time- and resource-intensive. Thus, EPA has encouraged
states to develop Generic SMPs as a means of planning and prepara-
tion for the eventuality that specific pesticides will be regulated in this
fashion.
Many of the components of an acceptable SMP would be
essentially the same within a given state regardless of the specific
pesticide in question. A Generic Plan would address all the
components of a "full scale" SMP, but would cover those elements
most pertinent to chemical-specific factors (for example, preventive
program measures and monitoring plans) in generalized terms. For
example, any SMP needs to describe a state's general philosophy and
goals, its legal authorities, resources both technical and financial, and
other "generic" elements.
EPA will review "Generic" State Management Plans focusing on
adequacy. The Agency, in collaboration with the states, will define
a range of ways to achieve "adequacy" rather than one prescriptive
definition. EPA's review of State Plans will be flexible and take into
account the unique characteristics of each state, as well as the different
stages of development of each state program. The process will be
interactive, with the states and EPA working together. It will focus
on assessing programs to identify gaps, and providing EPA technical
and financial assistance to states to build their overall capacity to
address ground-water problems resulting from pesticide use. The
Agency recognizes that efforts to manage pesticide risks to ground
water need to take into account and be compatible with other federal
and state environmental management measures designed to address
problems such as soil erosion and surface water quality. EPA's
guidance document for SMPs will discuss the distinction between
generic versus pesticide-specific plans.
The design of Generic State Management Plans should reflect
the need to manage a pesticide's use based on indications of its
potential to cause unreasonable risk of ground water contamination.
In this respect, EPA will encourage state emphasis on information
dissemination to educate users, and to promote pesticide application
and related agronomic practices that will minimize the contamination
potential of pesticide use.
41
-------
Pesticide X
SMP
Voluntary Generic SMP
Blue Print
Pesticide 7
SMP
By designing a voluntary generic SMP, the State can facilitate the timely and cost-effective development of
pesticide-specific SMPs as the need arises.
It is also important to note the relationship between Pesticide
Management Plans (either pesticide-specific or generic) and the
broader cooperative federal-state effort to develop comprehensive,
resource-oriented state ground-water protection programs, cited at
the outset of this Chapter. Protecting the Nation's Ground Water:
EPA's Strategy for the 1990s, which contains the statement of policy
and principles that forms the basis of Agency policy described in
Chapter 1, also includes a section entitled, "The Federal/State Rela-
tionship in Ground-Water Protection." This document describes both
EPA's new approach to the federal-state partnership with respect to
ground water and describes the components expected in a State
Ground-Water Protection Program. With respect to pesticides and
ground water, this Strategy conceives of State Pesticide Management
Plans as an integral part of any integrated state programs that may be
developed in the future, reflecting the same basic philosophy and
management approach, and a consistent set of program components.
42
-------
As noted earlier, EPA has taken steps to help develop state
capacity to conduct such coordinated ground-water programs by
providing grants under existing Agency programs to begin establish-
ing the infrastructure needed for these integrated
state programs. The Pesticides and Ground-water
Strategy is only one of the Agency's programs
involving these new efforts at federal-state partner-
ship approaches to ground-water protection; others
include the Wellhead Protection and Non-point
Source Programs, The efforts put forth under each
program are complementary, since the states that
have performed extensive planning under one or
more of the above programs can draw upon the
useful information and experience they have developed to support
further ground-water protection efforts. The Agency encourages
states to coordinate and integrate these program efforts with the
planning and implementation of SMPs for pesticides.
In recent years, many states have taken measures to better
understand and address the problems of ground-water protection.
Some of these measures include conducting monitoring programs,
developing ground-water protection strategies, setting water quality
standards, and establishing regulatory and non-regulatory manage-
ment approaches to various contaminants, including pesticides. Some
states have, in effect, anticipated this Strategy, and are already
conducting programs to manage pesticides in ground water, since they
have had to respond to significant pesticide contamination problems.
The scientific understanding of ground-water contamination is
in a very dynamic state at the present time. The increasing concern
for ground-water quality in recent years has led to the recognition of
many gaps in our understanding of the causes of contamination and
the best means for addressing the problem. As more research is
directed to these areas, it is reasonable to expect that our ability both
to predict contamination problems and to adopt appropriate measures
to avoid it will improve. However, the imperfect state of current
knowledge should not be viewed as a reason for inaction. There is,
in fact, a great deal of technical information currently available from
the federal government, states, and other organizations that can be
integrated and distributed widely to state agencies and other organi-
zations having roles in developing and implementing ground-water
protection programs.
"...This Strategy conceives of State
Pesticide Management Plans as an integral
part of any broader comprehensive
programs that may be developed in the
future."
43
-------
The Role of Other Federal Agencies
1 he Agency has recognized for some time that this Strategy, in
common with the Agency's other developing programs for ground-
water protection, will require new working relationships to be devel-
oped among agencies at the state level, as well as between state and
federal government agencies. For example, in most states, the lead
agency for pesticide regulatory matters is the state Department of
Agriculture. However, in relation to ground-water concerns, other
agencies with responsibilities for drinking water quality, ecological
concerns and public health are all likely to have significant roles to
play in the assessment of ground-water problems and the choice of
management measures to address risks. Local water conservation
districts and other levels of local government may also be appropri-
ately involved in various aspects of SMP development and implemen-
tation. In short, effective coordination among diverse agencies will be
important to the success of the SMP approach.
As discussed earlier in this Chapter, there is a substantial
commitment at the federal level, coordinated through the President's
Water Quality Initiative, to pursue solutions to water-quality prob-
lems through federal research. These research efforts should comple-
ment implementation of this Strategy by developing practical meth-
ods for minimizing adverse impacts on ground water associated with
agricultural practices.
Aside from coordinating research, federal agencies will need to
work together closely to produce and broadly distribute the practical
results of research in the form of technical assistance to states and to
the agricultural community. While some technical information will
be of value primarily to state agencies, such as monitoring or modeling
techniques for predicting ground-water contamination problems,
pesticide users are also critical to the success of any risk management
measures. The pesticide user is in the unique position of directly
controlling the use of apesticide in the field. For this reason, users are
the ultimate target for efforts to communicate the requirements of
SMPs, and also for any new agricultural practices or technology that
will help to prevent ground-water contamination. The appropriate use
of a pesticide in the context of special concerns about ground water
will depend largely on the user's understanding and ability to carry out
directions specified on the label or provided by other means.
In addition to labeling developed by the Agency, EPA looks
to the extensive field presence represented by the USDA Cooperative
44
-------
Extension System and its state counterparts, as well as other USDA
agencies such as the Soil Conservation Service, to be important
sources of education and technical assistance to pesticide users in
dealing with ground-water protection in general,
and with the requirements of individual SMPs as
they are implemented in the future. The numerous
research and demonstration projects underUSDA's
Water Quality Initiative and Sustainable Agricul-
ture Programs, for example, will yield specific
agronomic practices related to waterquality protec-
tion that USDA's field agencies will convey to the
farming community. By participating with USDA
in the planning of these projects, EPA will be able to point out those
developments most useful for widespread dissemination in order to
achieve ground-water protection goals.
Another valuable federal-level source of information will be the
United States Geological Survey (USGS), which has the primary
scientific expertise in the assessment of water and geological re-
sources. USGS also participates in the coordinated federal research
efforts of the Water Quality Initiative. USGS can provide states with
valuable information and experience in delineating and assessing
hydrogeologic characteristics of specific localities.
As an example of a recent joint federal effort which will help to
support this Strategy, EPA and USDA Extension Service have
developed an educational package, "Protecting Groundwater: A
Guide for the Pesticide User," which was designed for use in state
certification and training programs. In developing SMPs, states can
adapt the module to better fit local conditions and individual state
certification and training programs. The Agency will seek similar
opportunities to assist in the development of supporting materials and
decision aids for pesticide users. Certainly, there is a need to provide
up-to-date information to farmers and to explore new channels of
communicating this information on a continuing basis.
The Role of Pesticide Users and
Registrants
"...Federal agencies will need to work
together closely to produce and broadly
distribute the practical results of research
in the form oftechnicalassistance to states
and to the agricultural community."
Whether or not there is a State Management Plan for a pesticide Pesticide Users
posing unreasonable risks of ground-water contamination , the user
will continue to be responsible for directly controlling the use of
pesticides in the field. Thus, users will need to have a better
45
-------
"...Whether or not there is a State
Management Plan for a pesticide posing
unreasonable risks of ground-water
contamination, the user will continue to be
responsible for directly controlling the use
of pesticides in the field."
understanding of the problem of pesticides contaminating ground
water. At a minimum, a user must follow the instructions found on
the label of each pesticide product and when required, be trained and
certified in the proper use of the pesticide.
However, the Agency does not expect the pesticide user to make
highly technical decisions on his own. The best approach is to provide
the user with clear instructions either not to use a pesticide or to use
it in a certain manner in clearly specified circumstances. To some
degree, a pesticide management plan should have the capability to
provide such specificity.
In practice, the site-specific nature of ground water could still
require the user to have adequate information to identify vulnerable
hydrogeologic environments in the area where a pesticide of concern
is being applied to determine if special prevention measures are
needed or required. Even a very detailed SMP is likely to rely to some
extent on labeling or supplementary written information that users
will need to interpret. There are no easy formulas
to provide exact answers to the user through label-
ing instructions alone. USDA agencies providing
education and technical assistance, working with
the states, will be critical in providing improved
support to pesticide users for making application
decisions.
A major vehicle for improving user decisions
is applicator training and certification. As noted
above, EPA is developing a rule establishing evi-
dence of leaching potential as criteria for considering restricted use
classification. This would help to ensure that pesticides identified as
potential leachers, but which have not necessarily triggered concerns
warranting SMPs or cancellation, would nevertheless be restricted to
trained and certified applicators. Working with the states and
USDA's Cooperative Extension Service, EPA is improving training
and certification programs so that more users are aware of issues
related to ground water and measures to protect this resource.
Pesticide Registrants
While there are state and federal programs that can shoulder some
of the need, registrants will also need to play a greater role in assisting
the user in the proper, environmentally sound application of their
products. EPA believes that registrants should assume a greater
commitment to "product stewardship" by informing distributors and
applicators how their products should be managed to prevent degra-
dation of ground-water quality.
46
-------
In the future, registrants will also be expected to conduct more
representative monitoring of ground water where pesticide use occurs
in areas that may be susceptible to contamination. These studies will
be critical to ensure that protection efforts are
working. Where there is a potential ground-water
contamination concern, certain new registrations
may be granted on the condition that the registrant
conduct monitoring studies. Continued registration
of certain pesticides under SMPs, may also hinge on
monitoring data to indicate the environmental ad-
equacy of those management efforts. Registrants
may find it beneficial to pool their efforts to estab-
lish a joint and effective monitoring capability.
"...EPA believes that registrants should
assume a greater commitment to 'product
stewardship* by informing distributors and
applicators how their products should be
managedto prevent degradation of ground-
water quality."
Finally, in response to concerns about ground-water quality and
changes in the availability of pesticides posing such concerns, the
Agency expects that registrants will find it in their best interests to
develop safer alternative pesticides in order to capture new market
opportunities.
47
-------
Chapter 3
Response Policy and Program
One of the most challenging tasks facing the Agency and the states
is developing a strategy for responding to ground-water contamina-
tion which may adversely affect human health and the environment,
particularly when the contamination results from normal use of
pesticides. Adverse effects mean those risks that are significant to the
affected population and determined to be unreasonable where appro-
priate under relevant statute (in this case, FIFRA). The essence of
EPA's approach is to emphasize early detection and monitoring so
that it can address the appropriate steps to control and remediate the
risk of adverse effects to human health and the environment. In the
event of contamination, particularly of a current source of drinking
water, EPA will work closely with the states in their efforts to control
such risks, but not dictate how a state must respond. Where apesticide
has reached the MCL or other benchmark level, EPA expects states
not only to take strong action to protect persons who may be drinking
the contaminated water, closely hydrologically connected surface
waters and the associated ecosystems they sustain, but also to stop
further contamination.
The Agency will continue to emphasize the development and
enforcement of MCLs to ensure the adequacy of drinking water from
public water systems. In addition, since FIFRA provides limited
means for responding to contamination, the Agency will also increase
efforts to coordinate enforcement and other response activities under
a number of federal authorities so that responsible parties can be
identified and required to take the actions necessary to reduce or
eliminate imminent health threats. On a case-by-case basis, EPA will
assist the states by providing funds for removal actions, including
provision of alternative drinking water, when there is an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health.
Factors Considered
1 hree basic questions arise in considering a strategy for responding
to contamination incidents which may adversely affect human health
and the environment: 1) what are the appropriate federal/state roles;
2) what are the available legal authorities and actions for different
types of contamination incidents; and 3) who is liable for contamina-
tion. To address these questions, several site-specific conditions must
Prevention
Policy &
Program
49
-------
be considered, including: the use and value of ground water affected,
the source or circumstances that resulted in contamination, and the
appropriate type and degree of response needed, after considering
social and economic values.
Response Strategy
Considerations
Type of Response
Ground Water Use
Source of Contamination
What are the
available legal
authorities and
actions?
Who is liable
for the
contamination?
An appropriate Response Strategy is built on the foundation of three important questions. Answering these
questions requires consideration of three factors.
Type of Response
With respect to pesticides in ground water, there are a number of
response mechanisms (that might be characterized as "containment")
available under FIFRA and other statutes that are most appropriate
when the object is to curtail the source of ongoing contamination to
prevent an imminent human health threat. Typically, these response
authorities are designed to address a particular kind of contamination
incident, one with a clear, direct source and a very limited scope.
However, the case of full scale remediation, involving positive
restoration of the ground water resource or redress of the harm of
pesticide contamination, poses difficult questions, some of which
remain unanswered.
50
-------
1 he use and value of the ground water that has been contaminated
is a critical consideration in determining both the level of concern and
the authorities available to conduct or require a response action. For
instance, ground water serving as a source to public drinking water
systems1' is subject to specific protection under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). Under the SDWA, public water systems are
required to provide water meeting drinking water standards (i.e., no
contamination exceeding MCLs). Although SDWA regulations do
not apply to private wells, most states use these or similar standards
of their own as a basis for informing well owners of possible health
risks. In some cases, state laws may require closure of private wells
that do not meet drinking water standards.
1 he source and circumstances of contamination at a given site is also
an important consideration in determining the appropriate authority
for responding to contamination. Under the Comprehensive Emer-
gency Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, or
"Superfund"), EPA has the authority to clean-up contamination and
recover the cost of these actions from responsible parties. Cost-
recovery, however, is specifically excluded by the CERCLA statute
for contamination "resulting from the application of a pesticide
product registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act" (section 107 (i)). Recovery of costfromresponsible
parties is a possibility, however, when contamination is a result of
either illegal use or disposal, or accidental leaks and spills.
The Agency believes that the type and degree of response must
be a realistic approach based on the specifics of each case, particularly
with respect to: 1) the differential use and value of the ground water
already contaminated; 2) the severity of the contamination, relative to
established "reference points," such as MCLs; and 3) the social and
economic costs of any response strategy.
EPA Response Policy
1 he Agency's priorities for contamination response, laid down in its
Ground-Water Protection Principles, are to limit the risk of adverse
effects to human health first and then to restore currently used and
reasonably expected drinking water supplies and ground water closely
Ground Water Use
Source of
Contamination
" Public Water Systems are defined by the SDWA as those systems providing
drinking water to 15 or more permanent service connections or 25 people a
day for at least 60 days a year.
51
-------
hydrologically connected to surface waters, where such restorations
are practicable and attainable. The concept of a priority framework
for ground water remediation reflects the need to maximize the
environmental and public health benefit of each dollar spent. EPA's
response strategy will be to address the problem of ground water
contamination on a number of fronts. The Agency will exercise its
own authorities but not dictate how a state must respond. EPA will
require a State Management Plan to identify how it will respond to
ground-water contamination exceeding MCLs, whether in public or
private wells. Specifically, the Agency adopts the following policies:
Response Policy
1.
Where a pesticide has or is expected to exceed reference
points m ground water, EPA expects the state to take
strong actions to stop further contamination. These
actions can range from enforcement measures to modi-
fication of the way a pesticide is managed, including
geographic restrictions on the pesticide's use.
"...The Agency's priorities for
contamination response, laid down in its
Ground Water Protection Principles, are
to limit the risk of adverse effects on human
health first and then to restore currently
used and reasonably expected drinking
water supplies and ground water closely
hydrologically connected to surface waters,
whenever such restorations are practicable
and attainable."
An essential part of any response action is eliminating the threat
of further contamination of groundwater. As discussed in the
prevention section, the capacity to respond to evidence of ground-
water contamination must be developed as part of
the State Management Plans for the chemical in
question (assuming the pesticide in question is
subject to the requirement for SMPs). In a case
where EPA has not made SMPs a prerequisite to use
of a registered pesticide being detected in ground
water, such detections will prompt EPA consider-
ation of that pesticide's registration, classification
status, and existing state and local measures to limit
leaching, with a view to possible regulatory action.
In any case, when the contamination in question is
detected within a public water supply and exceeds
an MCL (rather than a Health Advisory or other
interim reference point), the contamination consti-
tutes a violation of SDWA regulations for which the
Public Water System is responsible. Enforcement
actions should be taken to prevent further incidents where contami-
nation is found to be a result of misuse. Misuse that is a widespread
or commonly recognized practice, and leads to instances of ground
52
-------
water contamination, can be grounds for cancellation of the registra-
tion. When a pesticide level in ground water has or is expected to
exceed an MCL or other reference point as a result of normal
agricultural use, a strong stance is expected to be taken by a state to
stop further contamination (see Chapter 2). At a minimum, con-
firmed detections of a pesticide in ground water need to be treated as
a cause for prudent concern and should trigger some action to diagnose
the cause of the particular detection, and determine whether any
further regulatory or management approaches are needed. States are
always free to respond more aggressively to any level of detection in
accordance with its ground-water protection policies, and on the basis
of its vulnerability assessments, analysis of pesticide usage data,
determinations of ground water use and value, as well as social and
economic values.
Response Policy
2.
EPA believes a strong and timely response to contami-
nation is essential. A state's pesticide management plan
will include the development of aschemefor res ponding
to contamination of drinking water that exceeds MCLs,
The states will be expected to ensure that appropriate corrective
actions are taken to address threats to its citizens' health posed by
pesticide contamination of ground water, but EPA will not dictate
how states must respond. At a minimum, a state needs to take steps
to identify and track ground-water contamination in order to deter-
mine if current drinking water wells will be affected and to notify users
of the potential health risks. An important source of such data will be
the monitoring and/or vulnerability assessments performed by Public
Water Systems in implementing new pesticide MCLs promulgated by
EPA. State pesticide management programs need to be sure not to
overlook such data. By integrating its federally delegated authorities
and resources with its own authorities and resources, a state can
provide an effective overall scheme for responding to threats to public
health resulting from pesticide contamination of ground water.
A number of states have already adopted or are considering
funding mechanisms for contamination response, such as general
state revenues, a state trust fund generated by a tax on pesticide use,
or a requirement for users or registrants, jointly or alone, to provide
corrective actions. EPA is also considering the development of a
number of assistance measures to support states in their corrective
53
-------
response efforts. These measures range from site-specific and general
technical assistance to providing public information and education.
In summary, a state's contingency plan for a remedial response
to contamination will be a key component of its pesticide management
plan. The presence of such a response scheme does not, however,
change the importance of prevention in a state pesticide management
plan. Recognizing that contamination is still a possibility even under
the best management efforts, states should develop corrective mecha-
nisms to respond effectively.
Response Policy
3.
EPA will continue to develop and stress enforcement of
MCLs for pesticides and other toxic substances under the
SBWAj, and on a case-by-case basis, may use the SBWA's
emergency powers to respond to contamination*
Under the 1986 SDWA Amendments, EPA has been given
expanded authority to respond to contamination of public drinking
water systems and underground sources of drinking water when it may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of
persons. Under this expanded authority, EPA may issue orders
requiring the provision of alternative water supplies by persons who
caused or contributed to the endangerment. EPA may also enforce
against Public Water System (PWS) violations of MCLs when state
or local authorities have not acted to protect public health. EPA is
pursuing the development of MCLs pursuant to the schedules of the
1986 Amendments. Prominent among the chemicals invoked by the
SDWA are current or previously registered pesticides with evidence
of potential to contaminate drinking water supplies. The addition of
these MCLs will help EPA and states (with primacy to enforce these
national standards among Public Water Systems) address contamina-
tion incidents involving these chemicals. Compliance with these
pesticide MCLs will be among EPA's drinking water program
priorities, which the Agency will pursue in concert with the states.
EPA will consider use of SDWA's emergency powers, including the
pursuit of responsible parties, where ground water contaminated with
pesticides poses an imminent and substantial endangerment to the
health of persons.
54
-------
Response Policy
4.
EPA and the states will place greater emphasis on coordi-
natmgFIFR A, S*>WA>RCR AandCERCLA enforcement
activities to identify parties responsible for ground-water
contamination as a result of die misuse of pesticides,
including illegal disposal or leaks and spills.
Under CERCLA, EPA has the authority to require corrective
actions and/or recover the costs of cleaning up a site by parties
responsible for ground water contamination from spills, misuse or
illegal disposal. EPA and the states need to take advantage of the
CERCLA enforcement authorities by closely coordinating their
efforts under FIFRA and the SDWA with those of CERCLA.
Response Policy
5.
On a case-by-case basis, EPA may assist states by
undertaking CERCLA-financed removal actions to
providealternativedrinking water supplieswhere there
is an imminent human health threat.
The Agency may consider on a case-by-case basis providing
CERCLA Fund financing for immediate, short-term response ac-
tions. Actions under CERCLA's Removal Program generally pro-
vide for short-term responses to mitigate or eliminate imminent
human health threats, such as providing alternative drinking water.
The Agency will seek cost recovery when contamination results from
leaks, spills or misuse and a responsible party is identified.
Response Policy
6.
The question of who should pay for long-term remedial
actions at sites previously contaminated by the ap-
proved use of a pesticide is a legislative question, that
cannot be dealt with fully under FIFRA. EPA believes
that several aspects of the problem must be considered
before a decision can be made.
55
-------
When contamination of ground water by a pesticide appears to
be aresult of registered use, and that use was based on the appropriate
data submissions at the time of registration, it is not clear who should
be considered the responsible party. In this situation, several parties
have some involvement, including the user who applied the pesticide,
the registrant who brought the pesticide to market, and EPA and state
agencies who registered the product. The well owner may even bear
some responsibility if he knowingly placed his well in a high-risk
setting. EPA is not in the position to make this type of liability
determination at this time.
56
-------
PART III
IMPLEMENTATION
1 he purpose of the Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy is to
establish a general framework for reducing the unreasonable risks of
pesticide contamination of ground water. Because of the many
significant regulatory and non-regulatory efforts by the federal
government and the states to deal with the problem, a Strategy is
needed to define goals, promote a consistent approach to ground-
water protection, and to provide a policy structure for future federal
and state efforts toward the goal of protecting ground water from
pesticides, while allowing for flexibility to respond to local differ-
ences and a dynamic knowledge base. Part in describes the many
tasks that must be accomplished, under the aegis of the Strategy or in
concert with it, in order to prevent unreasonable adverse effects to
human health and the environment and to protect the environmental
integrity of the nation's ground-water resources.
At the outset, it is important to emphasize that since the
objective of ground-water protection involves many factors and
responsible parties, it must be achieved through a variety of means,
effectively organized in a coherent manner so that they may work in
concert, not in conflict. EPA's approach to ground-water protection
reflects a new, more flexible policy for environmental problem-
solving, promoting a blend of regulatory and non-regulatory ap-
proaches. In particular, EPA's new ground-water policy pioneers a
new mode of interaction with states, localities, and other federal
agencies, that of developing a genuine partnership with shared goals
and responsibilities. Part of the new approach entails the concept of
pollution prevention, of seeking practical means to
reduce risks in advance of their realization and to
address voluntarily the root sources of risk for more
efficient and effective protection, as a long-term
remedy to environmental problems.
In the context of agricultural chemicals and
pesticides, the long-term solution to ground-water
contamination is the development of safer chemical
and non-chemical pest control alternatives (e.g.,
integrated pest management, sustainable agriculture) and the adop-
tion of environmentally sound agricultural practices. The principal
mechanism to implement such innovations is federally-sponsored
research and education efforts, discussed in greater detail below.
"..JEPA's new ground-water policy pioneers
a new mode of interaction with states,
localities, and other federal agencies, that
of developing a genuine partnership with
shared goals and responsibilities."
57
-------
^
The remainder of this Part is an outline of specific tasks and
activities that EPA, other federal agencies, and the states will need to
pursue in the next few years to secure the objectives of this Strategy.
Some of these actions are available now and are already being
implemented; others, in particular, the implementation of State
Pesticide Management Plans (SMPs), are in the early design stage.
Federal Level Implementation Activities
Environmental Protection Agency
\ ^uM&g • Require en vironmentalfate data to identify pesiticides likely to
^ contaminate ground water.
VEHICLE: Registration and Reregistration
STATUS: Ongoing
Registrants for currently marketed products as well as for new
applications are required to supply physical/chemical data to identify
leaching potential. Where indicated, field-studies for persistence and
mobility or retrospective monitoring studies for registered products
may be required.
• Prescribe appropriate labelling for individual pesticides.
VEHICLE: Registration and Reregistration
STATUS: Ongoing
The results of testing are and will be used to determine
appropriate labeling precautions and use directions for pesticide
products that best protect ground water. The label directions and
precautions on probable leachers are intended to adequately address
the likelihood of contaminating ground water. For example, EPA
may prescribe maximum application rates, seasonal timing of appli-
cation, or generic use limitations such as well set-backs. In setting
national restrictions for chemicals found leaching into ground water,
EPA will take into account appropriate state and local measures to
limit leaching.
58
-------
• Establish criteria for identifying chemicals with ground-water
contamination potential as candidates for restricted use.
VEHICLE: Rulemaking
STATUS: Rule proposed in May 1991
EPA is developing a Restricted Use Rule aimed at identifying
pesticides likely to contaminate ground water, and giving these
pesticides priority consideration for restricted use classification.
Those pesticides which are then judged to pose risks of unreasonable
adverse effects due to ground water contamination will be restricted
for use exclusively by applicators trained and certified in the con-
tamination risks. Pesticides will be identified as posing ground water
concerns basedon their chemical characteristics, or on actual detections.
• Train applicators of restricted use pesticides in the prevention
of groun-water contamination.
VEHICLE: Certification training module, jointly developed
by EPA and USDA.
STATUS: Basic module complete and available infield;
supplemental version in development.
Certification and training programs, which are a prerequisite for
the use of pesticides classified by EPA for restricted use, are partly
funded by EPA, but carried out under cooperative agreements with the
states by state and/or USDA Extension Service personnel.
Establish and enforce maximum contaminant level (MCLs)
and health advisories for pesticides with leaching potential.
VEHICLE: Rulemaking (MCLs) or Federal Register Notice
(Health Advisories)
STATUS: Final MCLs for 18 past/present registered pesti-
cides in 1991; final MCLs for another 9 pesticides
in 1992; further MCLs may be established as part
of EPA's triennial new chemical standards list.
Esixting health advisories for about 50 other
pesticides; new HAs willbe developed as pesiticides
are reviewed for registration or reregistration.
59
-------
The MCLs established under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), are enforceable standards for public water systems to limit
direct exposure to harmful contamination. Implementation of these
standards reduce the direct human health risk from ground-water
contamination. To the extent the Pesticides and Ground-Water
S trategy prevents unreasonable ground-water contamination from the
normal use of pesticides, implementation of the Strategy will rein-
force water systems' efforts. Likewise, protective measures of the
systems (i.e., monitoring and/or vulnerability assessments) will be a
valuable input to EPA/state regulatory and management efforts.
MCLs or Health Advisories developed jointly by EPA's pesti-
cide and water program offices, will serve as reference points for
federal-level assessments of risks and benefits of continued use of
pesticides or in State Management Plans, in accordance with the
Agency policy on the use of reference points cited earlier (Part n,
Chapter One).
• Establish procedures governing storage, mixing, loading and
disposal of pesticides to prevent point-source ground-water
contamination.
VEHICLE: Rulemaking
STATUS: Propose rule in 1991
• Actively promote development of State Ground-Water Protec-
tion Programs (SGWPPs) as an overall coordination mecha-
nism for ground-water protection activities (including
pesticides).
VEHICLES: Technical assistance and grant incentives; re-
gional or national workshops with states on major
policy issues.
STATUS: In FY 1991, issuing grant guidance to stress
coordination of state groundwater activities; in-
ventory of state programs; hold workshops on
policy issues.
EPA will use a variety of means to encourage continued devel-
opment of comprehensive, resource-oriented state ground-water pro-
grams. This involves more coordinated use of Agency grant funds
available under the pesticide, water and other Agency programs. It
also involves meeting with states to address policy issues, such as the
60
-------
development of a set of "adequate" program element definitions and
a policy for when EPA will defer to state policies and priorities in
implementation of its ground-water related programs.
• Ensure coordination of EPA ground-water protection
activities.
VEHICLE: Creation of EPA Ground-Water Policy Commit-
tee & Operational Group and Regulatory Cluster.
STATUS: In operation infiscalyear 1991.
Given the number of EPA programs involved in various aspects
of ground-waterprotection, on-going coordination will be essential in
order to accomplish the Agency's goals. Thus, senior level Agency
managers at both Headquarters and the ten EPA Regional Offices will
be responsible for continuing oversight of the various ground-water
initiatives, and maintaining the overall policy direction toward inte-
grated state plans. In addition EPA is establishing a ground-water
"regulatory cluster" to coordinate decisions relating to ground-water
protection across regulations, offices and media. The cluster will help
EPA's new Ground-Water Protection Principles guide all Agency
actions and will provide for integration and consistency in EPA
regulations relating to the resource.
• Conduct basic research on ground-water contamination.
VEHICLE: EPA's Office on Research and Development Ini-
tiative on Ground Water.
STATUS: FY1991 budget initiative
This research includes work to improve Geographic Information
Systems, environmental fate and transport models, and analytical
methods.
U.S.Department of Agriculture
Water quality programs in the Department of Agriculture are
part of a coordinated, government-wide initiative. Much of the
initiative is being targeted to nonpoint source pollution identified in
plans developed by states under requirements of Section 319 of the
Water Quality Act of 1987. A major objective of the USDA water
61
-------
quality initiative is to provide farmers, ranchers, and other land
managers with information necessary to voluntarily adopt improved,
environmentally-sound management practices which do not sacrifice
profitability.
Committees composed of representatives from the USDA, EPA,
and the Departments of Interior and Commerce are established to
assure that planning and implementation of the programs are coordi-
nated and that effective measures are adopted to address the objectives
of the water quality initiative.
The effectiveness of the initiative will be evaluated on the basis
of changes in the use of production inputs, in management practices,
and in crops and livestock grown. The initiative will also be evaluated
on the basis of water quality impacts on production factors, manage-
ment practices, and costs of achieving water quality objectives.
• Conduct basic research
VEHICLE: Federal agencies and universities will continue to
pursue research in support of goals and objectives
outlined in the USDA research plan for the
President's Water Quality Initiative.
STATUS: FY1992 budget initiative
Projects will be continued in the Midwest Corn Belt, where
concentrated corn and soybean production involves widespreaduse of
nitrogen and pesticides in connection with conservation tillage prac-
tices. Research will be expanded to:
• Assess the role of wetlands and stream borders in modifying
the movement of chemicals into the water.
• Develop crop rotation systems and means to use animal
wastes.
• Improve the understanding of transport and deposit of agri-
cultural chemicals in soils and water.
• Improve risk assessment with new techniques to assess
mutagenic compounds in water.
Ongoing related programs will be continued and expanded to
develop more effective biological controls, improve integrated pest
management systems and means to better target pesticide applica-
tions. Long-term benefits will also accrue from germplasm enhance-
ment programs to impart natural resistance to pests and to map plant
genomes to target economically important genes.
62
-------
• Data collection analysis
VEHICLE: USDA's Economic Research Service andNational
Agricultural Statistics Servicewill collect and ana-
lyze data to determine the economic consequences
of adopting new farming systems outlined in the
USDA plan for the President's Water Quality
Initiative.
STATUS: FY1992 budget initiative
Statistically reliable information on pesticide use and farm
practices is needed to assess the impacts of alternative systems and
approaches on producers, consumers, and rural communities. Other
federal agencies will also use the data to better understand patterns of
pesticide use in relation to identified water quality problems. Specific
projects include:
• Collection of pesticide use data for major crops, with state
level statistical reliability, in coordination with other agen-
cies and related programs in food safety.
• Analysis of management practices under development by the
Agricultural Research Service and the universities to assess
the economic consequences of adopting new fanning systems.
• Technology transfer
VEHICLE: USDA's Soil Conservation Service and Extension
Service agencies provide intensive technical assis-
tance and education programs on 74 hydrologic
units and 16 demonstration sites outlined in the
USDA plans for the President's Water Quality
Initiative.
STATUS: FY 1992 budget initiative
Voluntary adoption of environmentally-sound management prac-
tices by farmers and ranchers is the major objective of USDA water
quality programs. Initial training, technical assistance, and education
activities carried out by the Department have focused on training field
employees to improve information delivery capabilities and priority
projects in selected areas identified by state water quality plans. Funds
provided in 1991 will permit operation of intensive technical assistance
and education programs on 74 hydrologic units and 16 demonstration
63
-------
sites. Efforts will continue to improve field staff training and
development of updated technical guides. Information fromresearch,
data collection and analysis, EPA's National Well Water Survey, and
initial technical assistance programs will be used to target future
priorities for education and technical assistance.
• Financial Assistance
VEHICLE: Cost Share Programs
STATUS: FY1992 budget initiative
Cost share programs will be offered to producers in the hydro-
logic unit and demonstration project areas. Financial assistance will
be coupled with intensive education and technical assistance to
encourage adoption of environmentally sensitive practices and the
achievement of area-wide improvement and protection of water
quality. Other financial assistance programs include:
Agricultural Conservation Program, which includes special
water quality projects which focus on problems identified by
state and local water quality planning agencies.
Water Quality Incentives Program, which provides farm
level planning to reduce the use of fertilizer, other crop
nutrients, and pesticides in order to achieve water quality
objectives. Participants receive incentive payments de-
signed to compensate for additional production costs and/or
forgone production values.
The 1990 Farm Bill also provides specific authority to enroll
land in the Conservation Reserve Program under water
quality related criteria. The program will be used to enroll
areas such as newly created sod waterways and filter strips,
wellhead protection areas and other areas that would contrib-
ute to water quality.
U.S. Geological Survey
The USGS undertakes scientific investigations and research in
order to provide a technical basis for evaluating the impacts of
pesticides on ground- and surface-water quality. This is done by
providing scientific information and tools for agricultural and other
land-resource managers to design strategies to control contamination
64
-------
from chemical use and to evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies
over the long term. Two areas of focus are: (a) identification and
quantification of the processes and factors that control the movement,
persistence, and alteration of pesticides and other agricultural chemi-
cals in the environment; and (b) evaluation of the impacts of current
agricultural practices on water quality.
• Research and methods development
VEHICLE: USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program and
National Research Program develop new method-
ology and conduct research into the processes
controlling contaminant transport.
STATUS: Ongoing
The USGS conducts field-orientedresearch to develop an under-
standing of the relations between agricultural land use and ground-
and surface-water quality. A major interagency effort is currently
underway to determine the processes and conditions that control
movement of pesticides in the environment and the relationship
between agricultural practices and the distribution of agricultural
chemicals in water resources. Other studies focus on the processes
that control transport and attenuation of pesticides in the unsaturated
and saturated zones. A goal of this research is to develop an
understanding of contaminant transport that can be used by resource
managers.
Data collection and analysis
VEHICLE: USGS Hydrologic Data Collection Network and
National Water Quality Networks provide infor-
mationaboutthequantityandqualityofthenation's
water resources at regional and national scales.
The National Water Quality Assessment Program
provides a detailed assessment of water quality in
selected study units and integrates information
obtained at several spatial scales to provide peri-
odic national synthesis reports on important wa-
ter-quality issues.
STATUS: Ongoing
65
-------
A nationwide effort to describe the present status and long-term
trends of surface- and ground-water quality has been implemented
through the USGS's National Water Quality Assessment Program.
The program plan includes detailed assessments of water-quality
conditions in 60 study units, encompassing many of the nation's major
aquifer systems and river basins and including important agricultural
areas. This effort will improve understanding of how complex,
interrelated land uses and natural conditions affect ground- and
surface-water quality and will provide a scientific basis for evaluating
the effectiveness of various long-term strategies to protect the Nation's
water resources.
• Federal-State Cooperative Program
VEHICLE: USGS Federal-State Cooperative program con-
ducts applied research on water resource issues
identified as important to state and local agencies.
The cost of projects is shared equally be USGS and
cooperating agencies.
STATUS: Ongoing
The USGS conducts agriculture-related studies under the jointly
funded Federal-State Cooperative program. In FY 1991, more than
50 local and regional studies are underway to address water-quality
aspects of agricultural issues. Many of these studies provide both
critically needed technical information on the local hydrology and
geology of agricultural areas and on nutrient and pesticide presence
and movement into aquifers. Evaluations of best management
practices and their effects on water quality are also being accom-
plished with the aid of this program.
State Management Plans
JJoth EPA and the numerous state agencies which have been
involved in developing and commenting on this Strategy understand
that the SMP approach envisioned here is an innovation for all parties
concerned. As a result, it will take extensive cooperative efforts
among all the parties involved to work out the detailed procedures and
divisions of responsibility that will be involved in developing,
approving, and implementing SMPs for specific pesticides. In that
regard it is worth pointing out that there is a difference between this
Strategy and its eventual implementation in chemical-specific SMPs.
The Strategy describes the conceptual framework that makes SMP's
66
-------
GROUND WATER STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY
1991 1992 1993
FEDERAL
• EPA Ground Water Task Force Documents
- Principles
- Federal/State Relationship
- EPA's Approach to Implementation
• Final Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy,
State Management Plan Guidance
• Proposed Mixing/Loading, Storage,
Disposal Rules
• Proposed Restricted-use Rules for Pesticides with
Potential to Leach
• 18 Final Pesticide MCLs
• 61 State* Pesticide Ground Water Grants Awarded
• Final Phase II Report of the National Pesticides
Survey
• State Pesticide Management Plan Support
Documents
• Aquifer Sensitivity Assessment Technical
Support Document
• Reregistration Continues
STATES*
• 6 First-draft Generic State Management Plans
for EPA Review
• State Ground Water Protection Program Profiles
RESEARCH
• USDA: President's Water Quality Initiative
(research, usage data, demonstration & education
projects, multi-agency participation)
• USGS: Basic Hydrogeology Research and
Data-gathering
• EPA: Models, New Tools to Track Contamination
FEDERAL
• EPA's Strategic Management Systems Modified
to foster support of State Ground Water Protection
Programs
• 9 Final Pesticide MCLs
• 65 State* Pesticide Ground Water Grants Awarded
• Final Restricted-use Rule for Pesticides with
Potential to Leach
• Reregistration Continues
• Final Procedural Rules on Storage and Disposal
for Cancelled and Suspended Pesticides
• Proposed Rule for Classifying some Pesticides
for SMPs
STATES*
• 26 First-draft Generic State Management Plans
for EPA Review
• 13 Final Generic State Management Plans
for EPA Approval
RESEARCH
• USDA: IPM, LISA Research Initiatives
(per 1990 Farm Bill)
• EPA & USGS: Research Ongoing
FEDERAL
• Grant Allocations per States' Comprehensive
Ground Water Protection Programs Status
• Final Mixing/Loading, Disposal Rules
• Final Rule for SMP Approach for Some
Pesticides (possible)
• Additional Final Pesticide MCLs
• Proposed/Final Pesticide Specific State
Management Plan Requirements
• Reregistration Continues
STATES*
• 59 Final Generic State Management Plans
for EPA Approval
• 40 Proposed Pesticide Specific State
Management Plans for EPA Approval
RESEARCH
« USDA, EPA, USGS: Research Ongoing
* "States" includes territories and Indian tribal authorities
O)
-------
possible; the actual process of state-by-state development, approval
and ultimate implementation of SMPs is a distinct endeavor in and of
itself, to be pursued by EPA at the Headquarters and regional level,
and by each state.17
EPA to Issue SMP Guidance Documents
Several documents are under development by EPA to help the
states implement SMPs:
Guidance for State Management Plans that will discuss in
detail the appropriate components of a State Pesticide Man-
agement Plan. EPA proposed this guidance for comment in
1988 in connection with the proposed decision on aldicarb,
and received extensive comments. For the essential SMP
components the Agency has tried to reach a balance between
national consistency in protection and flexibility for states'
needs.
Additional Technical Support Documents that will provide
guidance to assist states in developing and implementing
some of the more detailed and technical aspects of SMP's.
For example, these will include guidelines for monitoring
programs, response programs, the procedures for approval of
SMPs, and the process for evaluating the effectiveness of
SMPs. These guidance documents will be published as
appendices to the Guidance described above for public
comment in the near future. A Technical Assistance Docu-
ment on aquifer sensitivity/vulnerability assessment is also
being developed by EPA in collaboration with USDA, USGS
and various state agencies, and should be available in 1991.
The Agency's Ground-Water Protection Principles reaffirm a
policy of giving primary responsibility to the states for both the
development and implementation of programs to protect their ground-
water resources. This Strategy reflects those principles, and the
Agency intends that states will have primary responsibility for
classifying the use, value, and vulnerability of their ground-water
resources, considering social and economic values of alternative
"State" connotes the 50 States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the District of
Columbia, Guam and other Pacific Island Territories, as well as Indian lands
under Tribal jurisdiction.
68
-------
strategies, for choosing management measures for pesticide use
practices, for setting priorities for both preventive and remedial
actions, for establishing monitoring programs, and for coordinating
between their own and federal agencies. The federal agencies intend
to devote significant efforts to offering technical support for state
decision making. EPA also plans for its ten Regional Offices to play
a significant role in assisting the states in the development, approval,
and implementation of SMPs, as well as periodic oversight of SMPs.
EPA Determines Whether State
Management Plans are Necessary to
Provide Adequate Ground-Water
Protection
H/PA would invoke the State Management Plan approach for a
chemical if it concludes from the evidence of a chemical's contami-
nation potential that the pesticide "may cause unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment," and it determines, that although label-
ling, restricted use classification measures and existing state and local
measures to limit leaching are insufficient to assure adequate protec-
tion of ground-water resources, national cancellation would not be
necessary if states assume the management of the pesticide in sensitive
areas to effectively address the contamination risk. In the event EPA
invokes the SMP option for a chemical, its legal sale and use would
be confined to states with an acceptable SMP approved by EPA.
EPA may establish SMPs as a condition of continued legal use
of a pesticide in either of two ways. One way is under the authority
of FIFRA Section 3, which includes a provision known as "other
regulatory restrictions" authority. In registering a pesticide for use,
EPA may classify it "for restricted use," if it finds that the pesticide
"may generally cause, without additional regulatory restrictions,
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment" (Sec.3 (d)(l)(C)),
and use of a pesticide so classified may be "subject to such other
restrictions as the Administrator may provide by regulation" (Sec.3
(d)(l)(C)(ii)). Under this vehicle, EPA could undertake a notice and
comment rulemaking to classify one or more pesticides for restricted
use, with SMPs as part of the restrictions required. The rule would
include a risk/benefit analysis, showing that the benefits of avoiding
contamination outweigh the costs of the proposed restrictions. The
rule would specify procedures and deadlines for states in developing
and getting approval for their SMPs.
69
-------
The other way would be through a cancellation action on the
chemical in question, i.e., using FIFRA Section 6(b) authority to
propose cancellation of the pesticide, unless there is an approved SMP
in place. The basis for the action is a determination that as currently
used, risks outweigh benefits, and cancellation is warranted; however,
use under an approved SMP will have an acceptable balance of
benefits over risks.
At the time this Strategy is being issued, EPA has issued a
proposed decision on the pesticide aldicarb under the Section 6
approach; the pesticide would be canceled, absent the adoption of
individual SMPs. However, this decision has not been finalized.
In general, EPA believes the Section 3 procedure will be the
preferred approach, because it offers a number of efficiencies which
cancellation actions do not. The Agency is likely to continue to use
the Section 6 cancellation action approach for pesticides which have
several major risk factors (e.g., dietary, worker or ecological risks in
addition to ground-water concerns); Section 3 rulemaking would
likely be used for groups of pesticides which have leaching potential
as the primary concern.
EPA has taken a National Approach to
SMP Requirements
li/ach state in which there is use of the pesticide in question would
respond to EPA's determination with the development of some type
of SMP.
"...The 'national' approach is a stronger
commitment to the principle that the States
,, . . ^ . i*,i However, the aldicarb proposed decision of June
are the appropriate parties to make the key 19gg which stated that the Agency imended to
assessments of local ground-water use,
value and vulnerability, as well as to
determine the best means for protection of
the resource in a manner suited to local
EPA's 1988 proposed Strategy document did
not specify how SMPs would be implemented.
apply the SMP approach to that pesticide, also
indicated that EPA would make the determination
of the specific states that would need SMP's, based
on the Agency's assessment of ground-water vul-
nerability, monitoring data, and aldicarb usage.
•m *j* » •
conamons. Based on public comment on both the proposed
Agricultural Chemicals in Ground-Water Strategy
and the proposed Aldicarb decision, as well as further Agency policy
deliberations, the alternative procedure of having all states with use
of the pesticide respond to an EPA decision was judged to be superior
70
-------
for a number of reasons. Perhaps the most compelling reason is that
such a procedure reduces the risk that Agency assessments may
overlook a state that actually contains vulnerable ground water.
Moreover, the "national" approach is a stronger commitment to the
principle that the states are the appropriate parties to make the key
assessments of local ground-water use, value and vulnerability, as
well as to determine the best means for protection of the resource in
a manner suited to local conditions.
Since pesticide usage and ground-water vulnerability will vary
from state to state (as well as site to site), the requirements of the SMPs
will vary, reflecting the degree of risk represented by the differences
in pesticide usage and ground-water vulnerability in a particular state.
In addition, states may consider the economic and social values of
alternative strategies in designing their SMPs. The Agency believes
this approach will have a natural tendency to produce SMPs that will
fall into one of three general categories. EPA will be flexible in its
review of SMPs, accepting that different approaches and philosophies
can obtain the same general environmental goals. In approving such
programs, EPA will also determine that they are consistent with the
Conservation Compliance Plans under theFood Security Act of 1985,
as amended, as well as with any otherrelevantprogram, such as a State
Ground Water Protection Program. In making its determination, EPA
will consult with USDA, andprovide USDA an opportunity to elevate
disputes to the Administrator.
Elements of State Management Plans
The three general SMP categories that EPA envisions are distin-
guished by the level of detail and specificity of plan components
within an EPA-approved SMP.
The most thorough and complete State Management Plan will
entail discussion of the requiredprogram components, developed and
implemented in sufficient detail so as to attain the ultimate objective,
that is, preventing ground-water contamination that may present
unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the environment.
Such a Full Scale Plan may be appropriate for a state with a significant
level of risk, as indicated by all relevant factors, including site-
specific hydrologic characteristics and patterns of chemical use
within a state.
A Moderate Plan would represent a state's acknowledgement of
the potential for ground-water contamination by the pesticide in
question, and the state's commitment to characterize more fully the
71
-------
problem and to respond appropriately. A moderate-level Plan would
be initially appropriate in those states where the chemical's use is
confined to areas of low and moderate aquifer sensitivity.
A B aseline S MP would reflect a determination that the pesticide' s
use poses a minimal risk of contamination throughout the state
(because of the lack of use or low aquifer sensitivity), but the state
would commit to move to a higher level of management plan if the
situation changes or new evidence warrants. Such a Plan would be
appropriate for states which show outdoor uses of the chemical only
in areas of low sensitivity (or no outdoor use). An overview of this
strategic approach will be described in the SMP Guidance Document.
EPA Encourages Development of Generic
State Management Plans
While EPA can only require SMPs through a chemical-specific
regulatory action as outlined above, it is nevertheless strongly encour-
aging states to take the initiative voluntarily to develop "Generic"
management plans which would then form the basis of the state's
chemical-specific management plans. In practice, it will be several
years before designated pesticides will be subject to use only under the
provisions of approved State Management Plans. However, the
Agency wants to encourage preparatory action now.
Many of the components of an acceptable SMP would be
essentially the same within a state regardless of the specific pesticide
in question. Also, EPA recognizes that development of a full-scale,
pesticide-specific SMP will be time- and resource-intensive. There-
fore, EPA encourages states to begin developing a Generic State
Management Plan prior to identification of a specific pesticide of
concern. A Generic Plan would address all of the components of a
"full scale" SMP, but would cover in generalized terms those elements
which necessarily involve chemical-specific considerations (for ex-
ample, preventive program measures and monitoring plans). EPA
will review "Generic" State Management Plans focusing on ad-
equacy. The Agency, in collaboration with the states, will define a
range of ways to achieve "adequacy" rather than one prescriptive
definition. EPA's review of state Plans will be flexible and take into
account the unique characteristics of each state, as well as the different
stages of development of each state program. The process will be
interactive, with the states and EPA working together. It will focus
on assessing programs to identify gaps, and providing EPA technical
and financial assistance to states to build their overall capacity to
72
-------
address ground-water problems resulting from pesticide use. The
Agency recognizes that efforts to manage pesticide risks to ground
water need to take into account and be compatible with other federal
and state environmental management measures designed to address
problems such as soil erosion and surface water quality. Generic
SMPs will be discussed in detail in the guidance document for State
Management Plans.
Chemical-specific elements of SMPs would be developed pur-
suant to regulatory action under FIFRA. Under either FIFRA
procedure - section 3 or section 6 - there are extensive opportunities
for interested parties to comment on EPA's determinations concern-
ing the risks and benefits of the pesticide in question before decisions
are finalized. Under either procedure, after EPA's determination,
affected parties have appeal rights for judicial review.
EPA and Other Federal Technical
Assistance
rLPA Regional Offices will have a major role in assisting states to
plan for and develop generic and chemical-specific State Manage-
ment Plans. Other federal agencies will provide critical technical
information and support to the states in developing SMPs.
Both Pesticide and Water program offices in EPA's ten Regional
Offices will work with the states to assist in development of SMP's,
particularly in the early years of the implementation effort. This
assistance will dovetail with the role of the Regional Offices in
supporting development of State Ground-Water Protection Programs
and such complementary programs as Wellhead Protection.
Research, education, and technical assistance programs pro-
vided by USDA will be particularly valuable as a resource for the
development of individual state Plans because of their detailed
regional and state-specific expertise in agricultural pest control as
well as in the assessment of soil and water resources. USGS will also
play a valuable role in the assessment of aquifer sensitivity/vulner-
ability, which is central to designing effective management plans.
EPA Oversight, Evaluation and SMP
Adjustment
EPA Regions will have the lead role in working with the states to
determine what pesticide management techniques are working well
and which are not.
73
-------
SMP implementation will be an evolutionary process, changing
as EPA and the states learn through experience and also as we are able
to incorporate research results to make better assessments or employ
more effective risk management techniques.
EPA intends to exercise oversight of the individual SMPs, which
will involve the development of evaluation procedures, and commit-
ments by the states to report periodically to EPA on its assessment of
the SMP in preventing and responding to contamination of different
uses and values of ground water. It is possible that a state may not
adequately administer its SMP, or that the SMP consistently fails to
prevent unreasonable risks of contamination, as defined by this
Strategy and its associated guidance, despite strong contingency
measures and attempts at modification. In such cases, EPA and the
state will need to re-evaluate the registration status of the pesticide in
question for uses within the state.
Summary of Strategy Implementation
1. The Agency will continue to exercise its current FIFRA
authorities to address unreasonable risks from ground-water
contamination posed by new and old pesticides. These
actions include data gathering, labeling requirements, classi-
fication for restricted use, and cancellation or suspension.
2. New initiatives that have yet to be implemented include a
restricted use rule for potential leachingpesticides, a series of
new pesticide storage, disposal and container regulations to
address point source contamination problems, and the State
Management Plan approach.
3. State Management Plans (SMPs) will be implemented as part
of regulatory decisions to cancel or restrict specific pesti-
cides. All states with use of that pesticide, and that wish to
retain the use in their state, will need to submit SMPs. EPA
is encouraging all states to develop Generic SMPs now,
ahead of future regulatory action and in concert with other
activities to promote State Ground-Water Protection Pro-
grams. It is expected that the level of detail and effort
required in individual SMPs will tend to fall into three
general levels, reflecting the relative ground-water vulner-
ability and pesticide usage for each state.
74
-------
4. The detailed procedures for development, approval and
subsequent oversight of SMPs are under development. EPA
will issue a series of guidance documents relating to SMP
implementation and will consult with the states and the public
about the specific issues involved. It is EPA's intention that
states should have appropriate flexibility in designing indi-
vidual SMPs to reflect local conditions. EPA will consult
with USDA and the states to ensure that SMPs for pesticides
are consistent with other environmental conservation pro-
grams.
5. The Agency will continue to support states in building
capacity for implementing ground-water protection pro-
grams and will continue to provide technical support and
conduct research to improve this support over time.
6. EPA will continue to coordinate with other federal agencies
to conduct research and provide technical assistance that will
lead to more sophisticated tools for the assessment and
prediction of ground-water contamination problems, and to
encourage the development of environmentally protective
agricultural and pest control practices.
This Strategy will complement EPA's overall Ground-Water
Protection Principles and its objective of implementing State Ground-
Water Protection Programs. It also complements the more fundamen-
tal objective of reducing the environmental burden of pesticide
chemicals and seeking ways to bring agriculture and environmental
policies into harmony.
75
-------
PART IV
CONCLUSION
1 his Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy attempts to do two
things. First, it describes how EPA currently uses and intends to use
its pesticide regulatory authorities under FIFRA to achieve the
Agency's overall goals for ground-water protection. Second, it
describes a new federal-state partnership approach for addressing
unreasonable risks from ground-water contamination posed by the
use of pesticides. For some pesticides which EPA has determined
pose risks of adverse effects to public health or the environment when
applied in vulnerable areas after considering label changes, restric-
tions and existing state and local measures to limit leaching, states will
have the option of assuming a primary role in the assessment and
protection of their ground-water resources through the development
of individual State Management Plans. EPA believes that this is an
appropriate strategy for dealing with an environmental problem
characterized by a significant degree of local variability, and affecting
a resource which is also primarily a state and local responsibility.
This Strategy is not a regulatory document, and imposes no
requirements on any party. It is intended to describe Agency policy
and intentions with regard to pesticides posing risks of ground-water
contamination. In addition to describing the Agency's approach to
preventing unreasonable risks from pesticides contaminating ground
waters which are current or reasonably expected
sources of drinking water, or which affect the
quality of surface waters, this Strategy has tried to
highlight the issues that were considered in reaching
these approaches.
In developing the Strategy, EPA has sought
and received extensive comment from a broad spec-
trum of interested parties, including USDA and
other federal agencies, state officials, and represen-
tatives of the agricultural community, the pesticide
industry, environmental and public interest groups,
and academic researchers. The Agency believes
that this high degree of participation and interest has
made it possible to develop a strategic approach to
the management of pesticide risks to ground water
that will be protective of public health and the
environment, and which represents a reasonable and realistic division
of responsibility between state and federal authorities.
",..This Pesticides and Ground-Water
Strategy attempts to do two things. First,
it describes how EPA currently uses and
intends to use its pesticide regulatory
authorities under FIFRA to achieve the
Agency's overall goals for ground-water
protection. Second, it describes a new
federal-state partnership approach for
addressing unreasonable risks from
ground-water contamination posed by the
use of pesticides."
77
-------
Implementing this Strategy with regard to when the State
Management Plan is needed will require considerable effort and
extensive cooperation between the states and EPA, as well as other
federal agencies. There will be a substantial learning period involved
for all parties as the means for developing, approving, implementing
and evaluating chemical-specific SMPs are worked out. In fact, this
process has already begun through the development of this Strategy
and also through grants to the states aimed at developing improved
capacity for coordinated ground-water protection programs. This
learning and consultation process will continue as
the Agency publishes its guidance documents for
'...EPA's Ground-Water Protection
prevention of adverse effects to human
health and the environment."
Strategy implementation.
Principles establish the overall goal as the „ „ . . . .
Finally, it is important to recognize that this
Strategy for pesticides in ground water reflects the
Agency's broad policy directions as expressed by
the Agency's Ground-Water Protection Principles.
Among other things, these Principles establish the
overall goal as the prevention of adverse effects to human health or the
environment, focus prevention efforts on current or reasonably
expected sources of drinking water, support a comprehensive ap-
proach to protection of ground-water resources, and envision a
federal-state partnership approach to the assessment and management
of unreasonable risks posed by contamination of ground water.
Moreover, concern for the protection of ground water is not
limited to EPA policy alone. The Administration as a whole is
committed to addressing water quality issues, as reflected in the
President's Water Quality Initiative. Thus, the Agency's Pesticides
and Ground-Water Strategy is part of a larger movement or evolution
of policies to protect the Nation's ground-water resources, and to do
so in a comprehensive manner through cooperative efforts and sharing
of responsibilities among federal, state and local governments, as well
as the private sector. It is EPA's belief that the experience gained by
federal and state agencies and other parties who participate in the
development and implementation of this Pesticides and Ground-
Water Strategy, will also be a positive contribution to the further
development of federal-state cooperative programs for comprehen-
sive ground-water protection efforts.
78
------- |