EPA
HQ/Regional
Review Team Meeting
On Generic
State Management Plan
Adequacy
July 19-20,1993
Chicago, Illinois
MEETING FINDINGS
&EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
' Page
s^eฎ1
^ ****
I.	INTRODUCTION	G	1
A.	HQ/Regional Review Team Meeting Concept	1
B.	HQ/Regional Review Team Process	2
II.	SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF REVIEW TEAM MEETING	5
A.	Weaknesses Preventing Concurrence on a
Generic State Management Plan	5
B.	Other Key Policy Decisions	8
C.	Examples of Good State Approaches	11
III.	FURTHER MEETING DISCUSSION OF WEAKNESSES AND
KEY POLICY DECISIONS	17
IV.	NEXT STEPS	33
ATTACHMENTS - MEETING AGENDA	A-1
- LIST OF TEAM MEMBERS	A-2
"State" denotes the 50 States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the District of
Columbia, Guam, America Samoa and other Pacific Island Territories of the United
States, as well as Indian Lands under Tribal jurisdiction.

-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In October 1991, EPA released the "Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy"
which described a new approach to preventing risks to human health and the
environment posed by pesticide contamination of the ground water resource. Under
this approach, certain pesticides that EPA determines will leach into ground water, will
be permitted to remain registered only when used under EPA-approved Pesticide-
Specific State Management Plan (SMP). Pesticide-Specific SMPs will prevent
contamination by placing restrictions on a pesticide's use in geographic areas that
contain vulnerable and/or valuable ground water. Over the next year EPA will be
SMPs9 3 PrฐP0Sed re9ulation under F,FRA that designates certain chemicals requiring
PA haS been encoura9in9 States to develop voluntary
Generic SMPs prior to identification of specific pesticides of concern to facilitate the
development and approval of Pesticide-Specific SMPs. Serving as a "blueprint" for all
future Pesticide-Specific SMPs, Generic SMPs will need to address the same SMP
SMPS' however with 'ess detail. The Pesticides
Guidance for Ground Water Protection contains more
inฐ;comPฐnents of SMPs. Currently, the majority of States
and some territories and tribes are developing Generic SMPs. Approximately 20
States have subm,tted draft Generic SMPs to the EPA Regional Offices for initial
comment.
A. HQ/Regional Review Team Meeting Concept
ฆ ,v 19^9TS69IOnal IT™ Team MeetinS was held at EPA Region V on
July 19-20, 1993. The purpose of the meeting was to bring together a cross-program
team of sernor managers to share experiences and perspectives in reviewing draft
plans, come to a common understanding of EPA's definition of an "adequate" Generic
SMP, and to resolve issues regarding plan adequacy..	generic
A|l n?Hp^nri wp^n9re revjff d a?d compared plan approaches, identified good
plan ideas and weaknesses that would prevent Regional concurrence and resolved
policy issues regarding SMP adequacy.	concurrence, and resolved
n cmm83? CฐnCnPt conceived at EPA joint Water and Pesticides
Division Director s Meeting in Des Moines, Iowa, 1991. The issue was raised of how
Regional SMP reviews will ensure 1) national consistency in ground water protection
without restricting State and Regional flexibility and 2) all States are treated in a
equitable manner in the review process.
1

-------
Specifically, the overall goals of the meeting were to:
•	Facilitate the development and approval of consistently high quality
Generic SMPs;
•	Develop a common understanding of adequacy regarding Generic
SMPs;
•	Evaluate the effectiveness of SMP guidance documents;
•	Identify and resolve unforeseen policy issues regarding the adequacy of
Generic SMPs; and
•	Promote information transfer among Regions and States.
B. HQ/Regional Review Team Process
To ensure that the Review Team meeting in Chicago would achieve the above
goals, before the meeting, Team members and their staffs developed "observations"
on the adequacy of 10 draft plans submitted to the Regions. The following is a
description of the process to select, review, and evaluate the adequacy of those draft
plans prior to the meeting:
Headquarters chose 10 draft Generic SMPs to be reviewed at the meeting
based on Regional recommendations of the most complete plans To ensure that the
majority of Regions could participate with and get feedback from the Team
Headquarters chose at least one plan from each Region that has received plans.
To facilitate the review of the plans, 6-10 page synopses were developed for
each of the plans. The purpose of the synopses was to easily present the different
plan's ground water protection approaches to Team members However full Generic
SMPs were also provided for a more detailed review, if necessary The synopses
focused on the conceptual approaches of the SMPs' protection program (e a basis
for assessment and planning, monitoring, prevention, and response components} and
not on all aspects of the SMPs. The administrative aspects selected fT review (e g
roles, responsibilities, coordination mechanisms; public awareness and participation
information dissemination; and legal authority) were thought to be critical for the eariv
stages of plan development and implementation.
Also prior to the team meeting, members were divided into five "Small Groups"
of three members, each for the purpose of developing observabUtoSl^
adequacy for three (3) assigned Generic SMPs. In making these group assiqnments
the following criteria were used; 1) mixture of Headquarters, Regional, and pesticide
2

-------
and water offices management; 2) geographic distribution of State plans; and 3) some
overlapping of plans between groups. After reviewing the synopses, via conference
call, "Small Group" members and their staff discussed their comments on the plans
and developed group observations on adequacy. These observations addressed the
following:
•	Highlights and strengths of the Generic SMP;
•	Perceived weaknesses of the plan;
•	Factors the "Small Group" considered in evaluating the plan; and
•	Identification of policy issues resulting from the review, including
inadequacies of the SMP guidance documents.
As with the plan synopses, the "Small Group" observations focussed on the
conceptual approaches of the Generic SMP's protection program. The "Small
Groups" considered whether the approach would provide an adequate level of
protection to meet the Pesticides and Ground Water Goal, assuming the State has
adequate resources, authority, and coordination mechanisms to fully implement the
approach. The "Small Groups" did not make recommendations on concurrence or
a judgment on the specific Generic SMPs; rather, they considered the approaches
presented in the Generic SMPs as examples.
This process culminated in the two-day Team meeting in Chicago, in which the
15-member Team presented the above observations on adequacy or each plan,
identified good plan strategies, as well as weaknesses that would prevent Regional
concurrence on the plan, and resolved policy issues regarding SMP adequacy. This
document summarizes the discussion findings of the Chicago meeting.
3

-------
II. FINDINGS OF REVIEW TEAM MEETING
A. Weaknesses Preventing Concurrence on a Generic SMP
During the meeting, the Team discussed the level of adequacy required for the
Protection Components (Goal, Basis for Assessment and Planning, Monitoring,
Prevention, and Response) and, to some extent, the listed Administrative Components
(Roles and Responsibilities, Legal Authority, Public Awareness and Participation).
Rather than define the elements of an "adequate" Generic SMP, the Team developed
omissions and weaknesses that would prevent concurrence on a Generic SMP. The
"Meeting Discussion" section of this document provides additional detail on how the
Team arrived at the weaknesses.
Before concurring on a Generic SMP, a Region must ensure that the plan does
not contain the following weaknesses:
Goal Component:
• In the goal component, no discussion of protection of ground
water connected to surface water ecosystems.
Basis for Assessment and Planning Component:
• Does not describe in sufficient detail the process that will be used
to set priorities for monitoring and protection activities. Process
does not address use and value of the resource, or the
methodology for determining vulnerability, use, and value, or uses
and relationships of modelling and environmental data.
(Consideration of use and value does not preclude statewide
protection of ground water to the highest level.) State does not
provide the State's definition of vulnerability.
5

-------
Monitoring Component:
No discussion of criteria/design for locating wells (e.g., basic
protocol, rough number of wells).
Sampling only at existing wells if spatial distribution is
inappropriate (i.e., not focused in medium and high vulnerability
areas or not located near enough to usage areas to be able to
effectively evaluate prevention or response measures.)
Not stating how the monitoring plan relates to Generic SMP's
goals and objectives.
Prevention Component:
•	Failure to discuss prevention measures (e.g., education, BMPs
(Best Management Practices), outreach, and other voluntary
measures) that will be implemented in the absence of detects.
Some level of detail is needed.
Response Component:
•	Failure to set triggers for response, to list potential response
actions, and to discuss the rationale for triggers and associated
response actions, including timeliness of response actions.
•	Failure to indicate clearly which agencies will respond, what
actions will be taken, and who is in charge for the various
activities.
•	Failure to state what action will be taken when a detection of a
pesticide is found. (For a Pesticide-Specific plan, the State will
need to take appropriate action in some way to every detection of
a pesticide.)
Roles, Responsibilities, Coordination Mechanisms Component:
• No discussion of mechanisms for coordination of key agencies,
description of the roles various agencies play, and official
concurrences of the key agencies responsible for implementing
the SMP.
6

-------
Public Awareness and Participation Component:
No public participation. Must include effected parties, such as
water users (consumers), pesticide users, public water suppliers,
and others.
No discussion of how a State will notify public of detections in
drinking water.
Information Dissemination Component:
•	No discussion of how a State will educate and get information to
the pesticide user.
Legal Authority Component:
•	Insufficient legal authority or plans (with projected milestones) to
obtain the legal authority to carry out the provisions of the plan.
7

-------
B. Other Key Policy Decisions
In discussing the level of adequacy required for specific SMP components, a
number of policy issues were raised and resolved. The following are some of the key
policy decisions made at the meeting. Again, for more explanation about these and
other policy decisions made, refer to the "Meeting Discussion" section of this
document.
Basis for Assessment and Planning Component:
Level of Detail Required for Generic SMP
States may be able to defer full development of the Basis for
Assessment and Planning component and other components to the Pesticide-
Specific SMP, if progress is being made on component development.
However, if a State defers these efforts to the Pesticide-Specific SMP, they are
at risk of losing the pesticide because there will be little time to fully develop the
plan's components after the EPA rule requiring Pesticide-Specific SMPs. If a
State defers to the Pesticide-Specific SMP, the Region must clearly
communicate the Agency's expected level of detail for a Pesticide-Specific SMP.
Ground Water Supporting Surface Water Ecosystems
Because the ability to identify ground water discharge to surface water is
limited by resources, and the current state of knowledge, EPA will concur on
Generic SMPs that do not address ground water supporting surface water
ecosystems in the basis for assessment and planning, monitoring, prevention,
and response components. However, States that are aware that a large
percentage of surface water is discharged from ground water are strongly
encouraged to attempt to take this fact into account in protection activities.
Future approval of Pesticide-Specific SMPs may depend on addressing ground
water supporting surface water ecosystems.
Sub-County Level Vulnerability Assessments
Because of limited resources, sub-county level vulnerability assessments
may not be required for every county in the State. States should prioritize
efforts by performing sub-county level assessments first in areas where
detections have been found and where ground water is thought to be
vulnerable.
8

-------
Consideration of the Benefits of SMP Pesticides
States do not have to consider the benefits of SMP pesticides in
designing their SMPs. In determining which pesticides require SMPs, EPA will
consider the risks and benefits of pesticides on a national level. SMPs will be
geared to achieve a performance standard (e.g., Maximum Contaminant Level)
set in the SMP regulation. Plans should ensure that a current or reasonably
expected source of drinking water is not contaminated above this performance
standard, even if the value of an agricultural activity in an area is high. States
do have latitude, however, in determining what areas are used for current and
reasonably expected sources of drinking water and the use and value of
ground water.
Monitoring Component:
Trade-Offs Between Assessment and Monitoring
For directing a response program, an extensive and well-placed state-
wide monitoring program may compensate for the fact that a State has limited
vulnerability assessment information. However, the monitoring program would
not compensate for limited vulnerability assessment information when that
information is to be used to direct pre-detection prevention activities. At the
same time, if a State has a limited monitoring program, it may need to define
vulnerability at a higher resolution.
Prevention/Response Components:
Commitment in Generic SMP to Future Action
In Generic SMPs, States will need to commit to the future approaches
and actions to be taken for pesticides to be identified by EPA's SMP regulation.
Regions should not assume actions performed in the past by a State will
continue to be implemented for SMP pesticides, without a commitment in the
SMP.
9

-------
Public Awareness and Participation Component:
Previous Public Participation
The degree to which public participation is required for the Generic and
Pesticide-Specific SMPs depends on the public participation process the State
has already been through with other ground water rules or laws. States that
have already received public input on pesticide-specific rules or ground water
laws that duplicate some aspects of the SMP may not have to duplicate those
public participation efforts on those aspects of the SMP.
Information Dissemination Component:
Use of FIFRA Section 24 (c)
EPA will accept the use of FIFRA ง24(c) to impose regulatory measures
to protect ground water from States that choose to use this mechanism, but will
not encourage its use by other States because of the following limitations: 1)
ง24(c) registrations must be renewed every five years and must be agreed
upon by all product registrants, (therefore, they may tend to be "clumsier" than
State rulemaking), and 2) ง24(c) actions do not include public participation, and
therefore States choosing this approach, will need to ensure adequate public
notice and comment of the restrictions. If a State chooses this approach, the
Generic SMP should describe how it will use this mechanism; in the Pesticide-
Specific SMP, a State may need to provide additional detail.
Resources Component:
Lack of Resources
The lack of resources to implement the activities described in the
Generic SMP would not prevent concurrence on a Generic SMP. However, this
would prevent approval of a Pesticide-Specific SMP. The measures described
in the Pesticide-Specific SMP must translate into activities implemented to
adequately protect ground water from pesticides.
10

-------
C. Examples of Good State Approaches
The Team noted many "good" approaches and ideas for developing the SMP
components, including the following examples:
Basis for Assessment and Planning Component
Hawaii's Assessment of its Ground Water Resources
Hawaii has developed a system to assess the contamination potential of
pesticides in the State. The system uses pesticide chemical properties,
soils data, and climatic data which are incorporated into a GIS. The
State has also developed a ground water classification system which is
based on factors such as hydrology, geology, aquifer use, vulnerability
to contamination, and other factors. This classification will be used to
designate areas in need of protection and regulation.
• Georgia's Description of the History of Data Collection and GIS
State maps will be developed using GIS technology. Databases are
available to describe soils, slope, and geology. This system, using
ARC/INFO software on a PRIME minicomputer, is capable of targeting
and integrating a wide variety of environmental data bases.
• Minnesota's Assessment of High Risk Areas
Vulnerability will be assessed and pesticides managed on a sub-county
level. The State will treat the entire county as vulnerable if 75% or more
of the area is designated as high risk. Management will occur at the
township level in counties mapped as having a 50-75% high risk
designation and at the soil type level for counties with less than 50%
High Risk. Mapping or monitoring may result in Special BMP Promotion
Areas. The State's geologic sensitivity approach was developed with the
participation of many State groups.
11

-------
Monitoring Component
• Wisconsin's Existing Monitoring Program
Monitoring is targeted to most of the susceptible areas with known or
past pesticide use. Various monitoring projects serve to 1) identify
problems, 2) characterize and track existing problems, and 3) evaluate
the success of protection measures.
• Iowa Trend Monitoring Program
Iowa has a trend monitoring program with the potential to serve a
number of purposes for SMP implementation. Further, it appears that
Iowa has done extensive monitoring in the past, the results of which can
be very useful to support SMP activities. In addition, a pesticide ground
water monitoring database is being developed, which could prove to be
a valuable tool for prioritizing and evaluating SMP activities.
• Minnesota's "Common Detection" Status
If Minnesota finds multiple detections, in multiple wells, in multiple years,
the State will develop BMPs for the areas, establish Special BMP
Promotion Areas, establish Pesticide Management Zones, or cancel the
product. If users do not comply with voluntary measures, a regulation
makes the above voluntary actions mandatory.
Prevention Component
• Maine's Description of Voluntary Prevention Measures
The description of voluntary prevention measures includes adequate
detail about how these measures will be implemented and the
organizations that are responsible for carrying them out. Voluntary
prevention measures addressed include the ground water certification
and training course, outreach efforts (newsletters, talks to civic and
grower groups, media), classroom education, brochures and
publications, use of Cooperative Extension Weed and Pest Control
Guides, and other technical assistance.
12

-------
Arizona's Early Involvement of the Registrant/Prevention Approach
If a pesticide detected is a known carcinogen, mutagen, teratogen or is
toxic to humans at the concentration detected and its presence is the
result of normal agricultural use, the State will proceed to cancel the
State registration. If the pesticide does not have the above risks, the
registrant is notified and must demonstrate in a formal hearing that the
presence of the pesticide does not pose a threat.
Wisconsin's Prevention/Response Approach:
Regulatory measures that are applied to an area where detections have
been found are also applied to areas where there are similar geology,
soils, and pesticide use. The following are the steps involved in doing
this:
(1)	A protection boundary is drawn from pesticide detections;
(2)	Sub-county soils and hydrogeologic information is collected and
used to extend delineated protection boundaries beyond where
empirical date exists; and
(3)	Areas with similar soils, pesticide usage, etc. in the State as those
areas where detections were found will receive similar regulatory
restrictions.
Hawaii's Prevention and Response Plan
An important aspect of the Hawaii plan is its emphasis on prevention of
ground water contamination. The plan stresses education of pesticide
users, and a system of preventative measures that target pesticides
before they appear in Hawaii's ground water. A comprehensive set of
triggers is established for the initiation or increase in preventative
measures and regulatory options. The State evaluates a pesticide before
it appears in ground water, when it is initially detected, and again if it
reaches 20% of the MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) or health
advisory. If mandatory measures that are imposed do not stop the
increase in contamination, State cancellation procedures will be initiated.
13

-------
• Maine's Flow Chart of Prevention/Response Measures:
A flow chart (Table 1) clearly shows the graduated measures in response
to increasing levels of contamination.
Information Dissemination Component
• Maine's Ground Water Certification and Training Course:
Pesticides applicators who wish to use products requiring a Pesticide-
Specific SMP would have to attend a certification and training course in
ground water. This course would ensure that users understand the
requirements of the State's SMP(s). In addition, the State would require
two additional hours of recertification training over the duration of the
certification period to provide assurances that applicators remain up-to-
date on ground water issues.
• Texas' Vehicles for Information Dissemination
Texas has many vehicles in place that may be used for disseminating
information about specific measures in a Pesticide-Specific SMP. These
communication vehicles include local Soil and Water Conservation
Districts, Underground Water Districts, Agricultural Extension Agents,
Certification and Training programs, and seminars and training on
ground water protection.
14

-------
TABLE 1
MAINE GENERIC SMP
Prevention Strategies:
Pesticide Control Measures
State Cancellation of Registration
BPC would cancel registration of product in Maine and
future use would be prohibited.
Pesticide Critical Control Areas
Pesticide use would be restricted in designated critical
control areas.
State Limited Use Classification
Designated pesticide could only be sold to and used by
persons hold a special permit granted by the BPC.
Ground water protection measures beyond
existing labeled use practices may be imposed.

Certification in Ground Water Category
Applicators wishing to use pesticides requiring a PSMP
would have to cany certification in a special category.
State Restricted Use Classification
Designated pesticides could only be sold to and
used by certified and licensed applicators.
15

-------
III. FURTHER DISCUSSION OF WEAKNESSES AND KEY
POLICY DECISIONS
The focus of the Team discussion was determining the level of adequacy
required for the Protection Components (Goal, Basis for Assessment and Planning,
Monitoring, Prevention, and Response) and, to some extent, the listed Administrative
Components (Roles and Responsibilities, Legal Authority, Public Awareness and
Participation). Rather than define the elements of an "adequate" Generic SMP, the
Team came up with specific weaknesses that would prevent concurrence on a
Generic SMP. The weaknesses, Team discussions that led to identifying these
weaknesses, and a discussion of related policy issues are presented for each
component.
Goal Component
A. Weakness and Team Discussion
The Team identified the following omission or weakness in the Goal component
that would prevent concurrence a Generic SMP:
• In the goal component, no discussion of protection of ground water
connected to surface water ecosystems.
The Team believed that the goal of an SMP should include protection of ground
water supporting surface water ecosystems, since these waters are included in EPA's
ground water protection goal and will need to be addressed in the future. However,
because the ability to identify this water is currently limited by resources and the
current state of knowledge, the members thought that EPA should not require
protection of ground water supporting surface water ecosystems to be addressed in
other components (e.g., Basis for Assessment and Planning, Monitoring,
Prevention/Response) of a Generic plan. The Team recognized that ground water
goals are driven by priorities, and that it is reasonable that the first priority should be
the protection of human health, i.e., current and potential sources of drinking water.
(This issue is discussed further in the Monitoring Section, "Addressing Ground Water
Supporting Surface Water Ecosystems.")
17

-------
Basis for Assessment and Planning Component
A. Weaknesses and Team Discussion
The Team identified the following omissions or weaknesses in the Basis for
Assessment and Planning component that would prevent plan concurrence:
• Does not describe in sufficient detail the process that will be used to set
priorities for monitoring and protection activities. Process does not
address use and value of the resource, or the methodology for
determining vulnerability, or uses and relationships of modelling and
environmental data. (Consideration of use and value does not preclude
statewide protection of ground water to the highest level.) State does
not provide the State's definition of vulnerability.
Although several plans the Team reviewed gave descriptions of excellent
assessment activities performed in the State, some of the plans did not present an
overall methodology to be used for vulnerability assessments. Team members felt
that a description of the methodology was important to set a basis for how the State
will assess vulnerability for any given pesticide EPA identifies by regulation in the
future. This methodology would serve as a blueprint to guide current and future
assessment activities. In describing this methodology, States should discuss how
various vulnerability factors (e.g. soil type, recharge areas, areas where detections
have been found) were used to define the priority setting process (i.e., what weight is
placed on each one). In a sense, States will be providing their own State definition for
what is considered "vulnerable" in the State. Also, it was noted that in the Generic
SMP, States should, in general terms, identify where and in what cases certain
assessment activities will be conducted. The State does not have to have a map
delineating levels of vulnerability, however.
For completed assessments in the Pesticide-Specific SMPs, the Region will
need to check that "vulnerable" geographic areas are defined so that the State will
take action where ground water is both vulnerable and valuable and that the State is
using credible tools.
The Team stated that this component should also address how the State is
considering ground water use and value to incorporate the differential protection
approach. However, this consideration should not preclude statewide protection of
ground water to the highest level (i.e, the determination that all ground is high use and
value.)
18

-------
B. Key Policy Decisions
Sub-County Level Assessments
The Team agreed that because of limited State resources, sub-county level
vulnerability assessments may not be required for every county in the State. States
should continue to make progress and prioritize efforts by performing sub-county level
assessments first in areas where detections have been found and where ground water
is thought to be vulnerable. At the same time, if a given county's ground water is
thought not to be vulnerable, this county should be last on the State's priority list for
performing sub-county level assessments. It was noted that county-level DRASTIC
scoring, by itself, would not be sufficient, based on the above discussion and on the
results of the National Pesticide Survey. EPA, will however, accept use of sub-county
level DRASTIC information.
NPURG
One draft Generic plan reviewed reported that the State is using the
soil/pesticide leaching model, NPURG, to perform its vulnerability assessment. EPA
representatives at the meeting were not fully knowledgeable about this model and its
scientific defensibility. It was noted, however, that relying solely on this model for a
State's assessment may not be acceptable because it does not also incorporate
hydrogeological factors.
Consideration of Benefits of the SMP Pesticide
While the use, value, and vulnerability of ground water must be accounted for in
selecting and placing pesticide measures, States do not have to consider the benefits
of SMP pesticides in designing SMPs. In determining which pesticides require SMPs,
EPA will consider the risks and benefits of pesticides on a national level. SMPs will be
geared to achieve a performance standard (e.g. Maximum Contaminant Level) set in
the SMP regulation. Plans should ensure that a current or reasonably expected
source of drinking water is not contaminated above this performance standard, even if
the value of an agricultural activity in an area is high. States do have latitude,
however, in determining what areas are used for current and reasonably expected
sources of drinking water and the use and value of ground water.
19

-------
Level of Detail Required
After discussion, the Team decided that States may be able to defer full
development of the Basis for Assessment and Planning component and other
components to the Pesticide-Specific SMP, if progress is being made on component
development. However, if a State defers these efforts to the Pesticide-Specific SMP,
they are at risk of losing the pesticide because there will be little time to fully develop
the plan's components after the EPA rule requiring Pesticide-Specific SMPs.
Therefore, EPA still encourages States to fully develop the components in order to
facilitate the development and approval of Pesticide-Specific SMPs.
It was noted that a Generic SMP should establish a foundation for a Pesticide-
Specific SMP. After EPA's final rule specifying pesticides is issued, a State will have a
limited timeframe (perhaps a year) to complete an assessment. Therefore, the Team
agreed that it is desirable for States to have as much specificity as possible in the
Generic SMP. This will make approval of Pesticide-Specific SMPs easier and faster.
When the specific pesticides are provided in the proposed rule, the State would only
need to collect and factor into its assessment pesticide usage information. (In fact,
some States, such as Texas, are currently planning to factor into their assessments
usage information for specific pesticides.)
However, although the Team did not at first anticipate concurrence of a Generic
SMP that did not have fully developed components, after further discussion, it was
decided that Generic concurrence would be possible when States have demonstrated
progress on component development. In other words, States may be able provide
the details in the Generic SMP now, or choose to defer full development of these
components to the Pesticide-Specific SMP. In this regard, the Generic SMP could be
viewed as a planning tool and a starting place in which to build. If a State takes this
approach, the Region should clearly communicate in written correspondence to a
State the expected level of detail for a Pesticide-Specific SMP.
Another issue raised during the discussion was how EPA will ensure that States
have credible programs and not just a paper document. It was suggested that the
Regions should tie their evaluations of States' efforts into the State grants process.
When EPA Regions are reviewing how grant monies were spent by the States, the
Regions should assess progress of component development (e.g., sub-county data
collection for the vulnerability assessment).
20

-------
Addressing Ground Water Supporting Surface Water Ecosystems
Because the ability to identify ground water discharge to surface water is limited
by resources and the current state of knowledge, EPA will concur on Generic SMPs
that do not address ground water supporting surface water ecosystems in the basis
for assessment and planning, monitoring, prevention, and response components.
However, States that are aware that a large percentage of surface water is discharged
from ground water are strongly encouraged to attempt to take this fact into account in
protection activities. Future approval of Pesticide-Specific SMPs may depend on
addressing ground water supporting surface water ecosystems.
It was noted that many States did not address, in the monitoring and
assessment components, ground water supporting surface water ecosystems. The
question was raised whether this was an omission preventing Generic plan
concurrence.
Several team members noted that ground water and surface water connections
are significant in some regions of the country. For example, ground water discharge
provides an average of 40 percent of the streamflow in surface water bodies across
the country. In areas in New England that number may be as high as 80 percent.
However, the Team recognized that the ability to identify areas of ground water
discharge to surface water is limited by resources and the current state of knowledge.
In fact, EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water is presently in the early
stages of developing a Technical Assistance Document on this topic.
Thus, the Team concluded that, although it should be a future target, Regions should
still concur on plans where the States' monitoring and assessment components do
not address ground water supporting surface water ecosystems.
The goal of the Generic and Pesticide-Specific SMP, however, should continue
to include these waters because this is included in EPA's ground water protection
goal and should be a future goal. It was, therefore, recognized that the goal of the
plan is driven by priorities, and that it is reasonable that the first priority should be
protection of human health (current and potential sources of drinking water). As the
state of knowledge improves, States can address, or further address these areas in
assessment, monitoring, prevention/response activities, in concert with Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection Programs. In addition, it should be noted that future
approval of Pesticide-Specific SMPs may depend on addressing ground water that
supports surface water ecosystems.
21

-------
Monitoring Component
A. Weaknesses and Team Discussion
The Team identified the following omissions or weaknesses in the Monitoring
component that would prevent concurrence on the Generic SMP:
•	No discussion of criteria/design for locating wells (e.g., basic protocol,
rough number of wells).
•	Sampling only at existing wells if spatial distribution is inappropriate (i.e.,
not focused in medium or high vulnerability areas) or response
mechanisms are not going to be effectively evaluated based on the types
of wells monitored.
•	Not stating how the monitoring plan relates to the Generic SMP's goals
and objectives.
The Team believed that, in much the same way a description of the
"methodology" is needed in the previously discussed Basis for Assessment
component, a discussion of the "criteria/design" for locating wells (both existing and
new) is needed in the Monitoring component. This discussion in a Generic SMP is
important to develop a framework for State monitoring for any given pesticide EPA
identifies by regulation in the future. The Teaim also believed a State should provide a
rough number of wells envisioned for the monitoring program so that the Regional
office can get a sense of the size of the monitoring effort.
The Team emphasized that the review of Generic SMPs should ensure that
States include "ground water monitoring" as defined in the SMP Guidance. The
Guidance defines this as, "the set of activities that provide chemical, physical,
geological, biological, and other environmental data needed by environmental
managers/decision-makers to assist in developing and implementing ground water
protection policies and programs."
22

-------
B. Key Policy Decisions
Trade-Offs between Assessment and Monitoring Components
It was suggested that, in determining plan adequacy, the assessment and
monitoring programs should be evaluated together. An extensive and well-designed
statewide monitoring program may compensate for the fact that a State has limited
vulnerability assessment information in directing response programs. In other words,
a State may be able to depend on a good, well-placed monitoring system more.
Haphazard well locations to be sampled infrequently would not be acceptable for
Generic SMP concurrence.
While a good monitoring program may be able to direct response activities, it
can not, however, compensate for limited vulnerability assessment information when
that information is to be used to direct pre-detection prevention activities. Even a
considerable monitoring effort does not replace a State's prevention program. At the
same time, if a State has a limited monitoring program, the State may need to define
vulnerability at a higher resolution.
Trade-Offs between Assessment/Monitoring and Prevention/Response
Components
If a State wishes, it may invoke more conservative or protective measures in lieu
of gathering a more precise resolution of assessment or monitoring data; it was
unclear to the Team, however, if States would choose to do take this approach.
Level of Detail in Monitoring Component
Regarding the level of detail required for the Monitoring Component, the Team
felt that the State should describe how it will determine the location of specific wells
(i.e., based on depth to ground water, soil types, pesticide usage); however, the State
does not have to provide maps and specific locations for monitoring.
Monitoring to Reflect "Basis for Assessment and Planning" Priorities
The Team commented that the design of monitoring efforts should reflect the
goal and the priorities and assessment described in the "Basis for Assessment and
Planning" component. Critical areas should be the first priority for monitoring. A
suggestion was made by one member that if States are knowledgeable about ground
23

-------
water flow directions, they may want to place wells downgradient from pesticide usage
areas as well as upgradient from surface water.
Measures of Success
In addition, the Team discussed the need for States to establish success
measures. The Team agreed that a significant measure of success will be in the
context of the level of pesticides detected in ground water over time — detections at
the MCL will signify failure of the prevention program.
Prevention Component
A. Weaknesses and Team Discussion
For the Prevention component, the Team presented the following weakness or
omission that would prevent plan concurrence:
• Failure to discuss prevention measures (e.g., education, BMPs, outreach,
and other voluntary measures) that will be implemented in the absence
of detects. Some level of detail is needed.
The Team reinforced the principle that States need to take preventive action in
the absence of detections. The actions may include voluntary measures such as
education, outreach, voluntary BMP's, but dp not have to include mandatory
prevention measures.
The Team believed that the State must be specific about how it is using
voluntary prevention programs, such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM), BMPs, or
educational programs, not just give "lip service" to these approaches. In the Generic
SMP, the State will need to state and describe the 'tools in the toolbox." In the
Pesticide-Specific SMP, the State will need to describe more exactly which of these
tools it will use. Also, although EPA will encourage States to begin implementing
prevention activities, this will not be required in the Generic SMP.
24

-------
B. Key Policy Decisions
Prevention Philosophy
The Team reviewed the Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy's prevention and
response philosophy and how this related to the Generic SMP. The Generic SMP
should set up a framework to prevent pesticides from ever reaching the MCL. In the
Pesticide-Specific plan, allowing degradation of ground water quality up to the health
limit will be inconsistent with the EPA's strategy. Therefore, prevention and response
measures must be taken early on, beginning with efforts in the absence of detections
and when the pesticide is first detected, to prevent levels from reaching the MCL
Response Component
A. Weaknesses and Team Discussion
The Team identified the following weaknesses or omissions for the Response
component that would prevent plan concurrence:
•	Failure to set triggers for response, to list potential response actions, and
to discuss the rationale for the triggers and associated response actions,
including timeliness of response actions.
•	Failure to indicate clearly what agencies will do what for response
activities, who is in charge and responsible for the various activities.
•	Failure to evaluate and take appropriate action in some way to every
detection of a pesticide.
Given that many States did not address the various triggers (e.g., percentages
of the MCL) at which action will be taken in Generic SMPs, two questions were raised
by the Team:
*	Must Generic SMPs establish triggers for response actions? and
*	Should the State or EPA determine the appropriate triggers?
The Team agreed that States should identify and define triggers and actions for
responding to pesticide detections. EPA will not dictate to States the specific triggers
25

-------
or response actions. States should also describe the factors that will be considered
to select the actions that will be implemented in response to the triggers and the time
needed to develop and implement the specific actions. Also, finding detections of
pesticides in ground water should trigger some action to diagnose the cause and
determine whether further management approaches are needed.
Team members believed that describing the roles and responsibilities for the
response component was particularly important. States will need to clearly identify
"who's doing what" with regard to carrying out each of the response actions.
B. Key Policy Decisions
Applying Measures to Areas with Similar Factors
A number of State plans described how detections in one area would trigger a
response not only in that area but in other areas of the State with like hydrogeology,
even if monitoring detects are not present in these other areas. The Team believed
this approach to be much more preventative than only responding on a site or area-
specific basis to detections of pesticides. The State of Wisconsin
uses the following step-by-step approach:
(1)	A protection boundary is drawn from pesticide detections;
(2)	Sub-county soils and hydrogeologic information is collected and used to
extend delineated protection boundaries beyond where empirical date
exists; and
(3)	Areas with similar soils, pesticide usage, etc. in the State as those areas
where detections were found will receive similar regulatory restrictions.
26

-------
Commitment in Generic SMP to Future Action
The following question was raised, "Can a Region assume that what has been
done in the past will continue to be done for other pesticides or must there be a
commitment to future action? The Team agreed that States must commit in the
Generic plan to future approaches and actions that will be taken for pesticides to be
identified by EPA regulation in the future.
Roles. Responsibilities, and Coordination Mechanisms
Component
A. Weaknesses and Team Discussion
The Team identified the following weaknesses or omissions for the Roles and
Responsibility Component that would prevent plan concurrence:
• No discussion of mechanisms for coordination, description of the roles
various agencies play, and official concurrences of the key agencies
responsible for implementing the SMP.
The question was raised whether Generic SMPs should describe in detail how
specific agency activities are coordinated such that responsible positions are identified
and written commitments made? The Team believed that Generic SMPs should
generally indicate what role various agencies have in the assessment, monitoring,
prevention/response, and information dissemination; however, specific individuals do
not have to be named. For both Generic and Pesticide-Specific SMPs, official
concurrences are required from the heads of agencies that have roles in implementing
the SMP. This addresses the potential problem of one agency committing another
agency to action without the latter agency's knowledge.
The following additional question was asked, "Are Memorandums of Agreement
(MOUs) required or will committees and task forces suffice?" Team members felt that
the decision of how to coordinate most effectively should be left up to the States.
However, States must describe what coordination mechanisms they are using in their
Generic plans.
27

-------
Public Awareness and Participation Component
A. Weaknesses and Team Discussion
For the Public Awareness and Participation component, the Team identified the
following weaknesses or omissions that would prevent plan concurrence:
•	No public participation. Must include affected parties, such as water
users (consumers), pesticide users, public water suppliers, and others.
•	No discussion of how State will notify public of detections in drinking
water.
Public participation in the process of SMP development was viewed as
important component of the Generic SMP. The Team stressed that the "public" must
include involvement by affected parties -- water users (consumers), pesticide users,
public water suppliers, environmentalists, etc. Generic plans should also state how
the State will ensure public participation for Pesticide-Specific SMPs.
The Maine plan is an good example of participation by many affected parties -- the
State used a committee with broad representation to develop the plan. Several other
state plans, however, did not meet this requirement.
B. Key Policy Decisions
Previous Public Participation
The Team agreed that "adequate" public participation depends on the process
the State has already been through. ft was noted that the public has already
participated in the development of Wisconsin's Generic plan approach by providing
formal public comments and holding advisory committee meetings on Wisconsin's
atrazine rule. In addition, Minnesota had significant public participation in the
approach of its Generic SMP by providing an opportunity for public comment on
Minnesota's Ground Water Protection Act which sets up the process for development
of their Generic SMP.
Holding public meetings and providing an opportunity for notice and comment
is not required for Generic SMPs, since the plan is still very conceptual, but is
encouraged. Some States did have these kinds of public participation in developing
their Generic plans.
28

-------
Notifying Well Owners of Detections in Ground Water
The question was raised whether States must notify private well
owners/neighbors when contamination occurs below health based reference levels.
The Team agreed that States should address how they will notify both the public of
detections of pesticides in drinking water and well owners of any level of detection.
Public Participation in Pesticide-Specific SMPs
It was noted that public participation will be especially important for Pesticide-
Specific SMPs. Regions will need to be informed of how States considered and
incorporated comments. Further, for Pesticide-Specific SMPs, States also may need
to show proof of public participation to ensure the SMP is legally defensible.
Information Dissemination Component
A. Weaknesses and Team Discussion
The Team identified the following omissions or weaknesses in the Information
Dissemination component that would prevent plan concurrence:
• No discussion of how a State will educate and get information to the
pesticide user.
Members felt strongly that information dissemination must be addressed in
Generic SMPs and that communication vehicles can be planned now before Pesticide-
Specific plans are required. Communication to pesticide users and industry groups
will be critical to ensuring compliance with the provisions in the Pesticide-Specific plan
and program success.
29

-------
B. Key Policy Decisions
FIFRA Section 24(c) and Section 18 as Mechanisms to Implement Plan
The question arose as to whether ง24(c) could be used to implement SMP
requirements. In the Arizona plan, detections of a pesticide in ground water may lead
to a requirement that the registrant appear before the State with proposed label
changes to mitigate the risk of contamination. If the State agrees to the changes, they
would be instituted via ง24(c).
EPA will accept the use of FIFRA ง24(c) to impose regulatory measures to
protect ground water from States that choose to use this mechanism, but will not
encourage its use by other States because of the following limitations: 1) ง24(c)'s
must be renewed every five years and must be agreed upon by all product
registrants; therefore, it may tend to be "clumsier" than State rulemaking), and 2)
ง24(c) actions do not include public participation, and therefore States choosing this
approach, will need to ensure adequate public notice and comment of the restrictions.
If a State chooses this approach, the Generic SMP should describe how it will use this
mechanism; in the Pesticide-Specific SMP, a State may need to provide additional
detail.
This is an appropriate use of the ง24(c) mechanism. Although ง24(c) has been
used traditionally to register "additional uses," changes in a pesticide's registration
requirements to protect ground water taken in the context of an SMP can be effected
using ง24(c). EPA must be careful to ensure that States understand exactly how to
employ the ง24(c) mechanism. States must understand that their ง24(c) "special local
need" is on a sounder legal footing if they first ban the use of the federally-registered
pesticide in the State, thereby establishing the basis for a finding of "special local
need."
In addition, the group also noted that FIFRA ง18 is not an acceptable way to
allow use of an SMP pesticide if that pesticide has been prohibited because the State
does not have an approved Pesticide-Specific SMP; however, in this situation, this
statutory provision could potentially be a way to allow use of an alternative pesticide to
the SMP pesticide.
State Information Notices
In discussing information dissemination, the Team noted that if States go
through the proper procedure, they can negotiate changes in the federal label with the
registrant but can not impose additional or different label requirements than those
required under FIFRA or attach information sheets to the label themselves. If States
30

-------
do not seek label changes through the registrant, they can restrict pesticide use in the
State under the authority of ง24(a) and use non-label or labeling vehicles (e.g., bulletin
notices, information cards) in communicating to the pesticide user.
Legal Authority Component
A. Weaknesses and Team Discussion
The Team identified the following omissions or weaknesses in the Legal
Authority component that would prevent plan concurrence:
• Insufficient legal authority or plans (with projected milestones) to obtain
the legal authority to carry out the provisions of the plan.
States should certify in the Generic SMP that they have the legal authority, or
demonstrate that they have the ability, or provide specific plans and projected
milestones to obtain the legal authority. Examples of authorities needed are the
authority to set up prevention programs in the absence of detections, respond to
pesticide contamination below the MCL, and monitor private wells. At the meeting,
there was some discussion about whether EPA should require the Attorney General to
certify that the plan is enforceable, but the Team decided against this.
The question was raised, "Is State rulemaking the only response to finding
contamination?" It was noted that this was not the only response - Provided they
have the legal authority, States can also issue orders to cease the immediate use of a
pesticide, but, depending on their State authorities, may have to show significant
impacts to do this.
Resources Component
Lack of Resources/Tribes
Lack of resources is not a weakness preventing plan concurrence for a Generic
SMP, although it can be for a Pesticide-Specific SMP. In fact, because of the lack of
31

-------
resources, some States may choose not to develop a Pesticide-Specific SMP, thus
allowing the pesticide to be prohibited in the State. The protection measures
described in the Pesticide-Specific SMPs must translate into a protection of ground
water.
It was noted that many tribes have very limited resources to develop and
implement an acceptable Pesticide-Specific SMP. Tribes may adopt more restrictive
prevention measures to make up for the lack of assessment and monitoring data due
to resource constraints. Region 9 is working with Tribes to protect ground water
using Section 319 and Section 106 grant monies and is assisting the Arizona Inter-
Tribal Council in developing a "model" plan that hopefully will assist other tribes.
32

-------
IV. NEXT STEPS
Similar Review Team Process Recommended for Draft Pesticide-
Specific SMPs
The Team concluded that the Review meeting was very productive and that a
similar process should be used to review draft Pesticide-Specific SMPs. Regions felt
strongly that we should review draft, instead of final plans. The reason for this is that
Regions will not have the time to implement this process when they are under a tight
timeframe for approving or disapproving final Pesticide-Specific SMPs.
The Team outlined the timeframe for SMP Rulemaking and when the Review
Team process could be implemented in the schedule. As shown below, the Review
Team process would occur after the Proposed SMP Rule identifying chemicals for
Pesticide-Specific SMPs. The Team would review plans that States submit voluntarily
before they are required to do so under Final SMP Rule. In order to do this, the
Regions will need to encourage States to develop and submit draft Pesticide-Specific
SMPs early on. States may begin developing plans in response to the Proposed rule
and may submit draft Pesticide-Specific SMPs to Regions beginning as early as 1995.
Proposed SMP Rule
January 1994
*** Implement Review Team process here ****
Final SMP Rule
January 1995
Submit Pesticide SMPs to EPA
January 1996
Approval/Disapproval
July 1996
Effective Date
September 1996
33

-------
Options to Ensure National Consistency of Generic SMPs
It was noted that, after the meeting, SMP issues would inevitably arise in the
review of Generic SMPs that were not addressed by the Team and would need to be
resolved. To deal with these issues, EPA Headquarters, Region 10, and other
Regions will explore setting up a process that would involve cross-fertilization of
information between Regions and pesticides and ground water programs. Options
could include a staff workshop in 1994 or a series of staff conference calls to deal with
issues that arise.
34

-------
ATTACHMENT A-1
EPA HEADQUARTERS/REGIONAL REVIEW TEAM MEETING
ON GENERIC STATE MANAGEMENT PLANS
July 19-20, 1993
Chicago, Illinois
Agenda
MEETING GOAL: To develop a common understanding of an "adequate" Generic SMP
and how Regions can review SMP's in a way that ensures:
•	Protection of currently used and reasonably expected sources of drinking water
and ground water that supports surface water ecosystems, without jeopardizing
state flexibility to tailor measures to local conditions and
•	Equitable treatment of states in the review process so that EPA is not more
lenient or strict in some areas of the country.
DAY ONE: MONDAY. JULY 19. 1993
8:00 - 8:30 Meet and Greet Members of Review Team (coffee and donuts
provided).
8:30 - 8:40 Region 5 Gives Welcome
8:40 - 9:00 Co-Chairs Give Welcome and Review Meeting Goals and
Agenda
9:00 - 12:30 Small Groups Make 10-Minute Presentations on Protection
Components of Assigned SMP's (Goal, Basis for Assessment
and Planning, Monitoring, Prevention, and Response).
Presentations are to:
•	Briefly Summarize Protection Components of each plan,
especially unique features
•	Make "Observations" on Strengths, Weaknesses of
Protection Components
• State Policy Issues

-------
DAY ONE: (Continued}
12:30- 1:45 Lunch
1:45 - 2:45 Meet in Break Out Groups to Define Issues and Discuss
Required Level of Adequacy for Protection Components.
(Separate groups to "focus" on Basis for Assessment and
Planning, Monitoring, and Prevention/Response)
2:45 - 5:00 Break Out Groups Present Findings. Team Develops Consensus
on Summarizing Lessons Learned about Determining Adequacy
for the Protection Components:
(1)	Goal
(2)	Basis for Assessment and Planning
(3)	Monitoring
(4)	Prevention
(5)	Response
DAY TWO: TUESDAY. JULY 20. 1993
8:30 - 9:00 Review Progress Made in Day One and Agenda for Day Two.
9:00 - 11:00 Discuss Policy Issues Raised on Previous Day
11:00 -12:00 Small Groups Make 10-minute Presentations on Administrative
Components of Assigned Plans (Coordination Mechanisms,
Legal Authority, Public Participation, Information Dissemination).
Presentations are to:
•	Briefly Summarize Administrative Components of each
plan, especially unique features
•	Make "Observations" on Strengths, Weaknesses of
Administrative Components
•	State Policy Issues

-------
DAY TWO: (Continued)
12:00-1:15 Lunch
1:15 -2:00 Continuation of Small Group Presentations on Administrative
Components of Assigned Plans
2:00 - 3:30 Define Issues, Discuss Required Level of Adequacy, and
Develop Consensus on Summarizing Lessons Learned about the
Administrative Components:
(1)	Coordination Mechanisms
(2)	Legal Authority
(3)	Public Participation
(4)	Information Dissemination.
3:30 - 4:30 Address Next Steps:
•	Identify Any Remaining Issues Related to Protection and
Administrative Components and Decide How to Address
them.
•	Address Long Term Questions:
*	Is there a future role for the Review Team?
*	How can we continue to address issues of
consistency in Regional reviews over the next few
years?
*	How can Headquarters best assist Regions in
reviewing and approving plans, and advancing the
national goals of the program?

-------
ATTACHMENT A-2
LIST OF TEAM MEMBERS
Anne Barton
Leo Alderman
Jim Burke
Jim Dunn
David Fierra
Steve Johnson
Carl Kohnert
Jim McCormick
Stan Meiburg
Paul Molinari
Connie Musgrove
Bill Patton
Phyllis Reed
Ramona Trovato
Susan Wayland

-------