JOINT MEETING OF THE PESTICIDE OPERATIONS & MANAGEMENT (POM) AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ISSUES (EQI) WORKING COMMITTEES

That brought in Safer Choice….they prefer that, although it is prohibited for pesticides. So the pesticide program is continuing the DfE logo effort, and feels strongly that it is advantageous to differentiate between pesticide product ingredients. They will extend the program through next May at least, and are looking to change regulations to allow the use of comparative language to differentiate between a.i.s.

Region 6 asked how the a.i.s were determined, and McLain responded that they use the screen.

Kachadoorian followed up on the idea of changing regulations to allow comparative statements, and wondered how broad that may be? Conventional labels? Monell replied that it is mostly AM and Biopesticides, but that it should be legally defensible and therefore some others could also go through.

Hicks remarked that changing federal regulations doesn’t change state regulations…Monell replied that she recognizes that. And added that it would be helpful if EPA had some experience in the market with state labels. Monell added that the Office of General Counsel (OGC) opinion relied heavily on the education-website for information. That was half of the legal finding, and the fact that the program is run by EPA, which leant credibility.

Diane Boesenberg from RB (previously known as Reckitt Benckiser) noted that her company has a lot of experience with the DfE program, and have 22 products that have gone through the program. Eight pesticide products have gone through, but they can’t use the logo because of the states. They have done internal research and have had no complaints on the use of the word safe. Looking for baby steps. Consumers don’t confuse the logo with personal safety. RB really wants to put it on pesticide labels. There is a group of registants who are willing to come out to the states and visit.

Nina Wilson, with Gowan’s biopesticides products, contrasted DfE with other products that have exemptions from tolerances, have two products, organic labeling gets confused for consumers, and the public thinks these are safer, but they aren’t necessarily. They want to use this for safety.  Hicks responded that if states say no to ‘safe’ in pesticide programs, they won’t register the products.

Schoen-Nessa from WA reiterated that this isn’t popular, and state registration specialists aren’t supportive. This program got forwarded to the states after the fact, and that isn’t a good way to have approached it.  For the larger CSPA products, is the DfE or Safter Choice program OSHA approved? Monell replied yes, the cleaners that aren’t pesticides still go through the screen, but it isn’t regulated, its voluntary. Schoen-Nessa followed up, asking if it isn’t regulated, what are they looking at? Respiratory issues, etc?  Monell stated that EPA clearly needs to do a better job educating SFIREG on the difference between Safer Choice and DfE…the screen is a general hazard based screen, which is partly why so many chemicals don’t make it through. But it isn’t risk based. Jennifer did add that it isn’t just acute, they look at various endpoints, etc. and it is stringent screening.

Scott added that EPA needs to overcome the 25b history, and the apparent lack of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) resource or priority related to 25b (this is very similar)….”As a state why would I allow another variable into the state that isn’t an enforcement priority for EPA. We are much further ahead if we stop it before it gets into the state.  This is a consideration, aside from state laws which prohibit the use of the word safe.”

Rabe agreed that enforcement is key, and it would be great to have feedback from OECA, where this might fall in priority.  For instance, how would this compare with distributor labels.

Rabe broached the idea of a subcommittee, perhaps include Hicks and Schoen-Nessa from POM.

Dwinell asked if SFIREG has weighed in with an issue paper? Jeff Rogers and Dave Scott put together an discussion of the issue in November 2014 as a result of the state acceptance survey.

Clark asked what is the goal of a subcommittee? Rabe responded it would basically be for a better understanding.

Giguere asked if the WOTUS definition changing will create additional use patterns that need to be covered? Weideman responded that there is lots of communication with AQWA and at this time they don’t anticipate additional use patterns. Scott asked if there had been any Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviews? Weideman responded no.

Daiker questioned the criteria used to say that the federal permit is working…why do you say that? Improvement in water quality? No complaints? Other rationale?  Weideman answered that the permit doesn’t interfere with applications, emergency situations, and Endangered Species Act (ESA) seems fine (no denials) so from an industry perspective it hasn’t interrupted processes. NOIs have come in fine. Annual reports have come in.

Wade asserted that the main complaints he hears are related to permit fees.  Also, the permit doesn’t result in significant water quality changes.  Weideman answered that EPA tried to be as low impact as possible and meet the courts decision.

 Oregon OSHA Presentation

Dawson said he is working one on one with labels right now, maybe will do the PR notice, and has worked with academics about how to combine this effort with the WPS changes. Trying to form a team internally to work on it.

Lewis said that the reregistration option is gone. Now EPA is using registration review, but only for technical products. Registration Division (RD) also wanted to address the glove statements. There is some confusion out in the field about what should be used for the gloves, and they are considering taking off the choose selection category ABS, and instead saying the more specific ‘choose chemical resistant gloves’.

Its possible EPA could do what they did with the storage and disposal statements. Just have the registrants come in and update their labels

Kachadoorian wondered about asking NIOSH not to recycle the numbers going forward. Cook and Dawson will check on that.

Rowe asked if the respirator supply folks are using the right numbers? Cooke says yes. In order to sell the wares they have to be approved by NIOSH as using the correct numbers.

OECA hasn’t put any work into making the toolbox. Havinga wants the states feedback on how to approach. Some options:

1   FIFRA inspection manual….we could revise that with a checklist?

2   Guidance, work with OPP and some of the states….

3   Education and training….e-learning modules that are part of the inspection processes

4   PIRT training? Take a morning or afternoon to go out in the field….and then take that learning and make a checklist or inspection guidance.

Other ideas?

1   Rabe said that a checklist would be great for inspectors. For some states this isn’t something they do everyday, so that would be helpful. They will need something to refer to.

2   PIRT—yes. Do it as a train the trainer, so the attendees can take it back to their states.

3   Regional inspector trainings

4   Giguere asked if there is a way to require the documentation to allow for field verification? Havinga isn’t sure what OPP will require regarding documentation. But he understands that is really essential for inspectors.

5   Scott likes the PIRT option as an exploratory thing….need some real life examples, and time to see real life applicators and see how they use the labels.

6   Schoen-Nessa suggested that then there be follow up with regional trainings, once things are better defined.

 Russel Jones Biostimulant Presentation

The market seems to be increasing with products that affect plant growth, and a lot go over the line regarding pesticide claims. AAPFCO are talking about this as well.

The topic is on the 2016 AAPCO annual meeting agenda.

 Emily Mitchell Disinfection Hierarchy Presentation                                    

Washington State Presentation

Colorado’s John Scott and Matt Lopez then described their experience and lessons learned thus far.

A couple of issues states need to be prepared for:

-Outcry from industry saying they can’t meet the mold, etc. health department requirements.

-Other regulatory issues such as fire departments and first responders. Concerns related to going into unknown indoor grow operations, use of pesticides, etc.

Right now CO has 19 active investigations. In all cases they find one to multiple product residues on cannabis. How about FDA referrals? Doesn’t work…The City of Denver felt they had the authority to go in and seize crops for illegal residues, and they took $250,000 worth of crops from one grower. As fast as the crops were seized, everyone was sued.

To other states, make sure there is a lot of clarity regarding state uniformity issues/regulations. Regarding public health concerns, as Denver stepped in, industry said that DoAg wasn’t making determinations based on science, and Ag agreed-saying it is based on labels. And that the city was regulating pesticides, which they weren’t…they were regulating public health. Denver and the DoAg won the suit.

There has been increased workload—its pretty huge. CO has just about tripled the number of entities for WPS and use inspections. About 1200 entities. It is a unique industry-in normal situations a misuse may get self corrected easily, but not really in this industry. About $1-4,000 per plant. DofAg maxes out at 1k per violation. So now, it is becoming the cost of doing business for the industry.

Co DoAg is rewriting two rules: one is the list of products that would be a violation if found, and they are making a list of approved products, for retail sales. They will also do a rule for the pesticide applicators act that will mirror the other rule.

If an a.i. and inerts are tolerance exempt, and don’t prohibit use, CO is still looking for an allowance for the products on cannabis.

Beyond Pesticides is considering suing CO because they do not believe tolerance exempt products should be allowed. They are ok with 24c and 25b products.

When pursuing 24c products, the assessor must look at the risk cup; this use could be extensive and could result in exceeding the risk cup.

Rates of application, growth stage, residue levels at harvest, media grown in (soil, water, coconut fiber), at least a 10x safety factor for the extracts and oils and edibles. They are seeing in the samples that the extracts are coming back considerably higher.

Lopez then asked for questions.

Rowe asked if CO or WA have done any marketplace inspections? Co-yes. One of first investigations was on plant amendments; Mighty Wash contains pyrethrins, then they pulled 26 separate products and they are testing now.

Johansen said their fertilizer specialists did sampling at grow shops, and found that fertilizers are being contaminated deliberately.   Lab found a number of the products.  Red flags include low guaranteeds and high prices.

Schoen-Nessa said they have referred all misbranded fertilizers containing PGR’s or leaf polishes/washes with pyrethrins found in the field to EPA Region 10 and would like to get OECA’s response. And some kind of letter from OECA to shut them down. Would like to stop sale at the point of production.

Then Marion Johnson, Minor Use and Response Branch Chief, asked to discuss the May 19, 2015 letter to Colorado regarding the use of Section 24c for pesticides used on cannabis.  He especially wants to ensure that use patterns are very similar to make sure that the overall risk exposure and profile are not expanded thorugh this new use…similar concern for ecofate.

3 take home considerations for Special Registrations:

-this is a federally controlled substance

-states are encouraged to work with each other and with pesticide manufacturers

-ambiguity around labels….please contact the agency to discuss if if feels very tricky.

Regarding overall risk concerns, there are certain subpopulations such as kids, elderly, medically compromised, reentry for workers, etc. that should be addressed 24c submissions.

No 24c products have been submitted.

Tolerances: interagency discussions are happening with FDA right now or still need to transpire.

How about consumption data? Average use? They need a quantity to use to assess risk.

Cook will be working in Oregon with the Pesticide Stewardship Program starting November 2, 2015. Natural Resources Assessment Section in WA is now managed by Kelly McLain.

Paluch, Iowa

Paluch introduced herself and her described her background.  Cover crops and rotational crops are issues of interest for Region 7 states.   Resistance issues are shaping availability for applicators too.  Pollinators are of interest, and monarchs.  Water quality is of interest. Nutrient reduction. Recent lawsuit related to point source contamination.

Wade, North Carolina

This season they had a significant uptick in beekill complaints, (11 this year, 2 last year), maybe related to MP3. 3/11 cases are still pending but pesticides have been detected. 3/11 had no pesticides. Black queen cell and dwarf wing and sac brood virus’ have been found. MP3 isn’t final, but a lot of meetings have been held in the counties, lots of participation, lots of input about what should be in the MP3. Surveys of beekeepers and farmers have been interesting as they have their own ideas about pesticide application notification. The farmers want to talk in person or call. Beekeepers want text or email. So, preferred communication should be an initial question. Other issue is ROW spraying. Lots of complaints this year. Coming from different areas in the state, seeing property damage/drift/runoff. NC has brochures for beekeepers for how to communicate.

Regarding industrial hemp, NC and KY would be very interested in 24c product labels for herbicides. Could pursue as research and keep under 10 acres for a non-food use. Or non food for a fairly easy 24c.

*The state updates were halted until the end of the afternoon to allow the next presentation to stay on schedule.

Wijnja, Massachusettes

A key study on neonicotenoids just out in September 2015. ROW applications, esp on Cape Cod, are still an issue. There had been a moratorium on spraying to address the public’s concern, but no real conclusion had been reached. The regulations say that an applicator needs to submit a plan to the department and then notify the community prior to the application. This happened this year and the community was not happy.

MP3 is in the early stages of outreach and development. Farm Bureau is quite involved in the early stages of the development.

Daiker, Florida

Regarding pollinator protection, FL only had about two reports of beekills this year.   They now have a pollinator protection specialist who does outreach to various interest groups, increase stakeholder involvement with MP3, and their federal collaborations as well. First draft of the plan has been through review, and it is centered on fostering communication.

Soil Fumigants are still an issue which came to light in 2013.  One in particular has a strong odor and bothers surrounding communities.

Citrus greening continues to be a concern.  They have been working for about 2 years to control the psillad vector. Now they are trying to consider options to control the bacterium or grow a resistant culivar. FL has added some of the vector control products to the groundwater sampling, and have seen some of the compounds at trace levels .

Oriental fruit fly, a quarantine pest, has shown up and eradication efforts are taking place.

Hicks, Maine

They have spent most of the time since the last meeting on cover crop issues.  The water quality program has been focused on bifenthrin and other pyrethroids in sediment and surface water monitoring.

Kelly McLain’s presentation

Kovatch WQX presentation

Cook’s Proposed Benchmark Page Language

Hicks’ Presentation

Hicks’ acronym list

Stewardship ideas from POM include Spray Smart cards for homeowners, and to increase the availability of disposal options for homeowners.  Informal input by the states regarding the process is encouraged at any time.

Paula Brody with Cheminova provided the following information from the Pyrethroid Working Group:

The PWG outreach to pest management professionals (PWG2PMP outreach) has been and continues to be on a national level,  and the links I mentioned at SFIREG are provided below.

https://www.youtube.com/user/PWG2PMP?feature=mhee

The Pyrethroid Best Practices video produced in conjunction with Cal DPR is here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ5yZT0T9nI

We also have a continuing education course we are providing for FREE to PMPs this year- we have a sign up link on our website, http://pwg2pmp.com/ .

• SLN Guidance – Kachadoorian requested new contact information and addressing allowance for electronic and emailed submissions.
• WOTUS – other issues related to pesticides
  • Use of NRCS good ag practices could exempt farmers but not all participate in the program
  • Definition of neighboring water is an issue when it may tie to a pesticide label with certain language, such as references to drain tiles.
• Sulfloxaflor – concerns over the recent action by the court and the precedent this sets, as well as the need of the product for some emerging pests.  

The overall response was positive from the committee and thanks was provided to OECA for their actions.

C&T Presentation

The dashboard will eventually be housed on EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) site. Further additions and changes are ongoing to finalize the site.

The original pilot project included registrants, who varied in type and company size. Feedback was incorporated to include a use index, updated user guide and vocabulary, and definitions.

A second pilot project is being developed. It will include a more user friendly data model, identification of elements from the data user guide, and will incorporate feedback from states, industry and FDA.

States want to be able to provide information and feedback regarding vocabulary. For example, ‘groundwater’, ‘conifer plantation’, ‘sensitive areas’, and ‘non-crop’ are terms that have been debated through time and must be defined in a way that does not continue confusion moving forward.

Directions for use are not data elements, but states are concerned that some terms may be defined differently than their state law or policies indicate.

PPDC has developed a workgroup to consider possible guidance, data requirements, how to handle the issue of ‘false and misleading’ if two claims are in contradiction to one another, and who will review the efficacy data?

A main concern is how to manage conflicting claims?

Since this was a PRIA action, what sort of timeline are we looking at for the registration? Davis said that he can’t speak specifically to that, but there are other hurdles with the packet. The PRIA action cannot be held up by the PPDC timeline though…the PPDC product does not have a definite timeline and may take considerably longer than PRIA allows.

Lott offered that right now OECA is dealing with some efficacy claims. The only way it is a violation is if the claim is found to be false and misleading.   This may be difficult to prove.   OECA is working with OIG on the issue.

Rabe asked about a company that wanted to add a claim?   Davis replied that would require a PRIA action with submitted data; a notification would not be sufficient.

Hicks commented that efficacy isn’t the whole picture. If toxicity increases as efficacy increases, there is another potential issue.   Davis responded that the agency doesn’t want to begin a risk/benefit analysis in response to efficacy claims.

Scott asked if state definitions were relevant? WA may have restrictions. Schoen-Nessa added that reviewing efficacy data is not appropriate work for her registration staff, and that she expects the state would pursue rule-making to prevent the claims on labels in Washington State.

Echeverria continued that it has not been addressed in the acute risk policy proposal, but if included in the comments it may be addressed. States need to use enforcement discretion.

See Housenger letter of 6-27-14 and Issue Paper.   This contains suggested replacement language.

EPA acknowledges mitigation language should not be in the environmental hazards statement of the label and they know it is unenforceable.

In the future EPA is moving away from generic language and that direction will be included in the Label Review Manual.

The ECHO site contains geo-referenced data and incident information, but they don’t have that type of information for FIFRA.

Rabe clarified that SFIREG wants to understand how EPA is using beekill@epa.gov, which accepts reports of incidents.

Tom Steeger, EPA/OPP/EFED responded that he reviews all of the reports. Kachadoorian asked if SLAs are contacted? Steeger said he asks the respondee if the information is anonymous?   If not, he refers the incident to the EPA Region for them to let states know of the incident.

This year beekeeper reporting has dropped significantly. Initially they were getting about 10 incidents per year. Now they aren’t getting any reports. He also coordinates with NPIC. Steeger maintains the databases to capture as much information as possible.   Both pesticide and non-pesticide incidents are captured.

Also: See the current National Program Managers Guidance.

Zinn let folks know that Ch 17 of the Label Review Manual has been updated regarding bag on valve containers, which also includes a Q&A document. Right now EPA is updating webpages. During that process it has become apparent that it can be difficult to find Q&As, so they will be incorporated into the LRM moving forward, and the site will be more searchable. There will also be a new container/containment webpage.

Regarding sulfoxaflor, Zinn says that the court decision vacated the registration, although that will not be in effect until at least November 1, 2015, when the legal mandate is issued. All uses are legal until then.

The PPDC will be meeting at EPA on October 21-22, 2015; workgroups meet the day before.   Contact Dea Zimmerman for more information.

Three PREP courses have been completed this year. The WPS PREP has been moved to December 1, 2015 in San Diego, to accommodate the release of the rule change. For FY16 PREP courses are scheduled to be on pesticide management and emerging issues, comprehensive combo (including the modified project officer training for SLAs), compliance and enforcement, and WPS.

FEAD will now be facilitating the Regulator in Residence Program. Schoen-Nessa offered that WA State was interested in supporting a chemigation specialist to visit with RD, maybe over the winter.   Rabe added that it sounds like a good idea to support specific topics, such as WA is suggesting, as well as overall RIR participation.

The Ag Center webpage is being redeveloped. They are trying to go live by October 1, 2015.

Performance Measures are on hold due to be tied up with the new reporting template at OMB. Comment period ended and there were no comments submitted. Look for the measures by the end of the year.   2016 will require measures reporting, and EPA expects some transition time.

Credentials training: Health and safety training has been taken apart and redone. This seems to have resolved the issues with it. Rowe said he is still having inspector wiki issues. Al responded that that is an agency wide issue. There are new refresher courses available too.

A preliminary OIG investigation looked at the grant negotiations in Regions 6 and 9, and in Texas and California. Now they will do a full blown study. Whole program reporting has come up as an issue (rather than just reporting on grant funded outcomes). The issue of primacy has come up as well, and there are a lot of questions surrounding that.

PIRT Steering Committee is accepting nominations.   For 2016 PIRT wants to do a WPS course in the spring and a Pollinator Protection course in Florida in the fall.

Some observations thus far:

In the ‘too restrictive’ arena, there are specific comments regarding crop-pest combinations, toxicity thresholds, use of a risk-based analysis was questioned, low RT25 and request for more flexibility. In the ‘not enough’ category they have seen comments saying the policy should extend beyond contracted bees, and that native pollinators should be included.

Regarding MP3s they have mostly seen a lot of support.   There are concerns about variability among the states. The regional offices have conveyed that the states are working diligently on the MP3s.   Echeverria and Goodis emphasized their appreciation for the state’s involvement.

Draft MP3 Measures prior to discussion
Draft MP3 Measures after discussion

Rabe led the review of the measures document, accepting modifications from the committees to mostly address redundancies and logic issues. The first attachment is what the committee started with, and the second attachment is what the committee finished with after the discussion.

2.     Ask EPA to review the DfE website, which appears to currently connect to the Safer Choice website.

3.     Look for the PGP revision in December

4.     PPE and NIOSH label language issues. We need to see a mechanism to address the contradictions and confusing language recommendations.

5.     DRT toolbox, PIRT will work on the toolbox via Shirley Fan

6.     Biostimulants: If states have issues, please send them to the Regional Offices.

7.     Disinfection Hierarchy meeting October 7; EPA will send out an announcement.

8.     Pyrethroid reevaluation: for stewardship and outreach the states would like links, and to be able to continue to provide input.

9.     WPS dashboard should include %compliance, or something positive to show success of the programs

10.  WPS implementation ideas as the rule change moves forward

11.  Send WQX information to the states for their consideration

12.  Cover crop workgroup to include Hicks, Paluch, Comstock, and Cook

13.  Submit POINTS document to EPA

14.  Finalize aquatic life benchmarks page language changes

 The meeting adjourned at 3:00pm.