2014

IntroductioIntroductionn

The standard on which county PUE programs are evaluated.

A CAC may deviate from these procedures provided the deviation does not impact:

1. The CAC PUE Program, or2. DPR’s statewide Enforcement Program

Oversight

2

Did you ever consider?: Anything can get dirty without something else getting clean. Nothing can get clean without something else getting dirty.

Did you ever consider?: Anything can get dirty without something else getting clean. Nothing can get clean without something else getting dirty.

Vol. 3 DisclaimerVol. 3 Disclaimer

The contents of the Pesticide Use Enforcement Program Standards Compendium supersedes any previous policy or direction on this subject.

3

Volume 3 ChaptersVolume 3 Chapters1. California’s Restricted Materials Permitting

Program2. Restricted Use Pesticides and Restricted

Materials3. Environmental Impact Report Functional

Equivalency4. Private Applicator Certification5. Permits and Exemptions6. Permit Requirements7. Permit Evaluations8. (Pre-Application) Site Evaluations9. Grounds for Refusal, Revocation, and Suspension10. Due Process Related To Permits11. “Interested Party” Permit Review12. Appeals to the Director for Additional Review

4

Volume 3 AppendicesVolume 3 Appendices

A. GlossaryB. California Restricted Materials

Requirements (DPR-ENF-013A)C. Recommended Permit ConditionsD. Environmental Impact Report

Functional EquivalencyE. (reserved for future use)F. Additional Web ResourcesG. Volatile Organic Compounds

5

Why?Why?(a.k.a. Course Objectives)(a.k.a. Course Objectives)

I. What is a Restricted Materials Permit (RMP)?

II. Why require a RMP?

III. Why must a RMP be issued thusly? . . . and

IV. What if RMP procedures are not consistently followed?

6

Today’s History Lesson: Today’s History Lesson: Restricted Materials Permit ProgramRestricted Materials Permit Program

1970 – CEQA enacted (California Environmental Quality Act)

1976 – Attorney General Decision: County Restricted Materials Permitting

(RMP) falls under CEQA

1979 – EIR Functional equivalency

2001 – (Challenged). 2005(Resolved)

7

Volume 3, Appendix D Volume 3, Appendix D

Restricted Materials – Then (When?)Restricted Materials – Then (When?)

8

P E R M I T C E R T I F I C A T E

INJURIOUS MATERIALS AND INJURIOUS HERBICIDES

A valid permit, No. ___________, issued by the Agricultural Commissioner of ___________________________ County, to use the kind and quantity of injurious material or injurious herbicide, containing materials indi-cated below, is held by the person whose name is subscribed, to whom delivery of said injurious material or injurious herbicide is made. Check appropriate items(s):

( ) Calcium Arsenate

( ) Standard Lead Arsenate

( ) Paris Green (Copper acetoarsenite)

( ) TEPP – all formulations (tetraethyl pyrophosphate)

( ) Parathion (O,O-diethyl-O-p-nitrophenyl thiophosphate)

( ) Methyl Parathion (O,O-dimethyl-O-p-nitrophenyl thiophosphate)

( ) EPN (O-ethyl-O-nitrophenylthiobenzenephosphate)

( ) OMPA – (octamethyl pyrophosphoramide)

( ) Systox or Demeton (O,O-(ethylmercapto)-diethyl thiophosphate)

( ) 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid)

( ) 2,4,5-T (2,4,5-trichlorphenoxyacetic acid)

( ) MCP (2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid)

( ) 2,4-DP (2,4-dichlorophenoxypropionic acid)

( ) Silvex or Stikcol (2,4,5-trichlorphenoxypropionic acid)

( ) ___________________________________________

________________________________________ (PERMITTEE)

_____________________________________ By ________________________________________

(DATE) (AGENT) DEALER’S COPY

CEQA SCOPECEQA SCOPEDoes not cover private

projects

Covers government (public) projects:◦Undertaken/”Sponsored”◦Financed◦Approved (“permitted”)

What is a project?

9

CEQA RequirementsCEQA RequirementsLead agency prepares (or causes)

and certifies completion of EIRAddress significant environmental

effects:◦Cannot be avoided or would be

irreversible

◦Mitigation measures to minimize those effects.

◦Alternatives to the proposed project.

10

DPR’s Functional DPR’s Functional EquivalencyEquivalency

FAC amended in1978 (AB 3765 )◦3 key points of program:1.Document local environmental

impacts2.Consider mitigation or alternatives3.Consult with local agencies

11

Volume 3, Appendix D Volume 3, Appendix D

CEQA Functional Equivalency?

12

Functional Equivalency: Yes Functional Equivalency: Yes or No?or No?

Volume 3 Appendix DPages D-3, D-15

Volume 3 Appendix DPages D-3, D-15

NO!NO!

YES!YES!Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21080.5

EIR Functional Equivalency?

DPR and CACs have authority to require information

13

EIR Functional EquivalencyEIR Functional Equivalency(As allowed in PRC 21080.5)(As allowed in PRC 21080.5)

14 CCR 15251(i) [Certification of Regulatory Program]

•Registration, evaluation and classification of pesticides.

•“Standards” (Laws/Regulations) for licensing/regulating:

• Dealers, PCBs and PCAs.

•Standards for monitoring use of pesticides to protect human health and environmental effects.

•Regulate use of pesticides through the permit system administered by CACs

14

Certification of the pesticide regulatory Certification of the pesticide regulatory program program ConceptsConcepts

3 CCR 6100

•Agriculture is an essential part of California’s

economy.

•Proper, safe and efficient use of pesticides is

essential.

•Timeliness in the application of pesticides is

paramount.

•Reasonable environmental review of pesticide use is prudent.

15

Certification of the pesticide regulatory Certification of the pesticide regulatory programprogram

Concepts Concepts

3 CCR 6100 (Cont.)

•Preparation of an EIR or a negative declaration is not practicable*.

•EIRs are an unreasonable and expensive burden.

•CACs are considered a state agency for PUE program.

[Ref PRC 21080.5(i)]

•Governmental review cannot unnecessarily burden applicants or require them to furnish unnecessary information.

*How so?

RUPs and RMsRUPs and RMsRUP = Restricted Use Pesticides (Federal)

◦ Potential to cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment

How do you know if it’s a RUP?

16

Volume 3, pages 2-1 to 2-3Volume 3, pages 2-1 to 2-3

RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDEDUE TO ACUTE TOXICITY

FOR RETAIL SALE TO AND USE ONLY BY CERTIFIED APPLICATORS OR PERSONS UNDER THEIR DIRECT SUPERVISION

AND ONLY FOR THOSE USES COVERED BY THE CERTIFIED APPLICATOR’S CERTIFICATION.

EXAMPLEEXAMPLE

RUPs and RMs RUPs and RMs RM = Restricted Material (California)

◦ Can impair human health or pose hazards to the environment

◦ Includes all RUPs, Section 18s, dusts* (>25 pound containers), section 6800(a) listed (ground water protection), section 6400(e)

*Except: exempt materials (section 6402), certain non-ag and vector control

17

Volume 3, pages 2-1 to 2-3Volume 3, pages 2-1 to 2-3

Pesticides Exempt from Pesticides Exempt from PermitPermitExempt materials (FAC 14006.7)*Federal RUPs - unless listed in

6400(e)Antifouling and tributyltin paintsResearch authorizations Certain ground water protection

pesticides

*Exempt from what?18

Volume 3, pages 5-1 to 5-3Volume 3, pages 5-1 to 5-3

Persons Exempt From Persons Exempt From PermitPermitRegistrants and manufacturersDealersStructural pest control businesses*Commercial warehousesCommon carriers

*Why are SPCBs exempted?

19

Volume 3, page 5-1Volume 3, page 5-1

Definition of Non-Agricultural Definition of Non-Agricultural UseUse

Sale or use of pesticides in properly labeled packages or containers intended for:

◦ Home use

◦ Structural pest control (no ag. commodity involved)

◦ Industrial or institutional use

◦ Control of an animal pest under the written prescription of a veterinarian

◦ Local districts/public agencies that operate under a DPH cooperative agreement (e.g.,Vector Control)

20Food & Agricultural Code

section 11408Food & Agricultural Code

section 11408

Definition: Definition: Agricultural UseAgricultural Use

21

• That what is left (from Non-Ag Use definition)

• Categorized in what two(2) ways?

• Production Agriculture

• Non-production Agriculture

Ag Use or Non-Ag Use: So Ag Use or Non-Ag Use: So what?what?Different RMP Requirements

◦Who may be issued an RMP◦Information to be included◦Notice to CAC Prior to Application

Site and Time Specific (by what authority?)

◦Ref.: 3CCR 6422(a)

Certification (private applicator?)

22

Production Production Agricultural UseAgricultural UseAny use to produce a plant or

animal agricultural product (food, feed, ornamental, or forest) that will be distributed in the channels of trade.*

And Non-production Agriculture?

*Why is this important?

23

Examples of Variable Use Examples of Variable Use Classification Classification

A tree

Milk handling equipment

Ag product fumigation

Swimming pool

24

Volume 8, Page 1-5Volume 8, Page 1-5

Use Classification: A Tree Use Classification: A Tree

25

Orchard

Park

Residence

FactorySchool

Examples of Variable Use Examples of Variable Use Classification Classification

Fumigation of an agricultural commodity:

On farm

26

Off farm

Examples of Variable Use Examples of Variable Use Classification Classification

Milk handling equipment

Swimming pool

27

Retention CheckRetention Check - Classify the - Classify the Following: Following:

Production Ag or Non-Production Production Ag or Non-Production AgAgApiaries

CemeteriesAquacultureField packingDitch banksFarm roadsChristmas treesLakes, rivers and streams

28

Permits for RUPs and Permits for RUPs and Non-Restricted PesticidesNon-Restricted Pesticides

Agricultural use of a non-restricted pesticide (ref. FAC 14006.6).

CAC must “determine” pesticide cannot be used under local conditions without presenting an undue hazard.

Determination is permanent until cancelled, unless limited by sunset clause.

Use of RUP (ref. 3CCR 6414 – there is no need for a “determination” as required in FAC 14006.6.)

29

Permit ProcessPermit Process

Receive the application (request

for RMP)

Review (Evaluate) the request.

Approve/Deny* the request.*Are there any issues (e.g., CAC liability) in

issuing or denying a permit?30

31

Step 1

Yes

Overview of the Pesticide Permit Evaluation Overview of the Pesticide Permit Evaluation Process Under Functional Equivalency Process Under Functional Equivalency

Certification*Certification*

DeterminePotentialHazards

MayIssuePermit

Step 2Determine if

SensitiveSite Exists

MayIssuePermit

Step 3Determine

Likelihood ofSubstantial

Effects

MayIssuePermit

No

NoDetermine

if Addressedby Regulation

or Label

MayIssuePermit

Yes

Step 4

Step 5

If none feasibleDetermine

Existence of MitigationMeasures

May IssuePermit w/Conditions

Step 6Determine

Existence ofAlternatives

MustDenyPermit

Step 7

Does BenefitOutweigh

Risk?

If feasible

MayIssue

Permit

If none feasible

MustDenyPermit

Yes Yes

If feasible

No No

No

Yes

*Re-formatted to fit slide.

Step 1: Hazard Step 1: Hazard IdentificationIdentification

More than one hazard per pesticide

Tools available:◦ Pesticide labeling

◦ DPR Risk Characterization

◦ 3CCR section 6432*

◦ DPR recommended permit conditions

*How so

32

Volume 3, page 7-2 Volume 3, page 7-2

DeterminePotentialHazards

NoMayIssuePermit

Yes Go toStep 2

Step 1

Step 2: Sensitive Sites Step 2: Sensitive Sites IdentificationIdentificationWhat are the

potential adverse effects?

Variables include?

Permit applicant must list sensitive sites in the permit application

(ref. 3 CCR 6438)

33

DetermineIf SensitiveSite Exists

No

MayIssuePermit

Yes Go toStep 3

Volume 3, page 7-2 Volume 3, page 7-2

Step 2: FAC Section Step 2: FAC Section 14006.5 Requirements14006.5 Requirements

CAC staff to consider◦Sensitive areas: schools, dwellings, etc.◦Heterogeneous crops◦Resurgence of secondary pest

problems*◦Weather*◦Bees◦Storage and disposal*

*How so?

34

Volume 3, page 7-2 Volume 3, page 7-2

Step 3: Likelihood of Adverse Step 3: Likelihood of Adverse ImpactImpactIf a sensitive

area exists, presume that there is a likelihood of substantial adverse impact on the environment

35

Volume 3, page 7-3 Volume 3, page 7-3

Determine Likelihood of Substantial

Environmental Effects

No

MayIssue

Permit

Yes Go toStep 4

Step 3

Step 4: Existing MitigationStep 4: Existing MitigationDo regulations or

the label mitigate the hazard?◦ Specific buffer

distances may be cited in the regulations

If not, judgment must be used*

*Really - How so?36

Volume 3, page 7-3 Volume 3, page 7-3

Step 4

Determine ifAddressed byRegulation or

Labeling

YesMayIssuePermit

No Go toStep 5

Step 5A: Additional Step 5A: Additional MitigationMitigation

Permit applicant/PCA must consider mitigation measures

Ask applicant to identify the mitigation measures and document response

If applicant did not consider mitigation measures, refuse to issue permit

3 CCR section 6426

37

Step 5A

DetermineExistence of

MitigationMeasures

Yes

MayIssuePermitw/ conditions

No Go toStep 5B

Volume 3, page 7-3 Volume 3, page 7-3

Step 5B: Additional Step 5B: Additional MitigationMitigation

Mitigated measure may include:◦ DPR recommended

permit conditions◦ County permit

conditions3CCR section 6432

◦ If unmitigated hazards remain, must consider alternatives (Step 6)

38

Determine Existence of

MitigationMeasures

YesMayIssuePermitw/ conditions

No Go toStep 6A

Volume 3, pages 7-3 and 7-4 Volume 3, pages 7-3 and 7-4

Step 5B

Step 5: Permit Step 5: Permit ConditionsConditionsAppendix C

1. General Drift Minimization2. Rice Pesticides3. Ground Water Protection

Alternatives4. Place holder (formerly Carbofuran)5. Tribufos (DEF/Folex)6. Commodity fumigations7. Soil fumigations (four subsets)8. Al & Mg Phosphide for Burrowing

Rodent Control

39

Volume 3, pages C-1, C-1.1Volume 3, pages C-1, C-1.1

Step 6A: Step 6A: AlternativesAlternatives

Permit applicant/PCA must consider alternatives

Ask applicant to identify alternatives and document response

If applicant did not consider alternatives, then deny the permit

3 CCR section 6426

40

Volume 3, page 7-4 Volume 3, page 7-4

Determine Existence ofAlternatives

Yes

No Go toStep 6B

MustDeny

Permit

Step 6A

Step 6B: Step 6B: AlternativesAlternatives

If hazards cannot be mitigated:◦ CAC must consider

alternatives◦ If feasible

alternatives exist, deny permit

3 CCR section 6432

41

Volume 3, page 7-4 Volume 3, page 7-4

Step 6B

Determine Existence ofAlternatives

Yes

NoMay

IssuePermit

MustDeny

Permit

Step 7: Benefit Step 7: Benefit AnalysisAnalysis

42

Serious uncontrollable adverse environmental effects with no feasible alternatives:◦ Consult with EBL

◦ May issue permit only if benefit gained from the use is greater than the risk to the public or environment

Volume 3, page 7-5 Volume 3, page 7-5

Consider ifOverall Benefit Outweighs Risk

to Public/ Environment

No

YesMay

IssuePermit

MustDeny

Permit

Step 7

Permit Permit EvaluationEvaluation

Initiated with the RMP application

Continues with review of each NOI

NOI review and acceptance (or denial) completes the evaluation process

CAC is responsible for knowing local conditions and utilizing that knowledge

43

Volume 3, pages 7-8 to 7-11 Volume 3, pages 7-8 to 7-11

Reviewing and Evaluating Reviewing and Evaluating the NOIthe NOI

The NOI is part of the permit

NOI provides specific and critical information not available when RMP was issued

The property operator is responsible for assuring the NOI is submitted

44

Volume 3, page 7-12 Volume 3, page 7-12

Reviewing the NOIReviewing the NOI

Review each NOI to assure:◦Location is consistent with permit◦Includes requirements from 3 CCR 6428 (g-I)

(Date, method, rate, dilution/volume, PCB (if any), Certified Applicator)

◦Environmental conditions have not changed*

45

I thought this was a field job!•Volume 3, pages 7-12, 7-13 Volume 3, pages 7-12, 7-13

*What if environmental conditions have changed? How would you know?

Evaluating the Evaluating the NOINOI

Must review all NOIs prior to the application:◦Compare the NOI against the permit◦Review proposed application◦Review maps for accuracy

46

Permit Monitoring Permit Monitoring (3CCR (3CCR 6436):6436):

Agricultural:◦5% NOIs received, or

◦5% of sites permitted each year

Non-agricultural:◦Each permit - once each year

What else?

47

LUNCHLUNCH

48

We are not naturally inclined to see those on the “other side” of the issue as rational beings.

Irrational processes do exist and these processes can ground decisions.

*Paul Bloom

Class Class ExerciseExercise

49

Permit Permit RefusalRefusal(Denial)(Denial)

Basis, grounds and time frames:◦Violations

Unpaid (delinquent) fines

◦Permit evaluation◦FAC section 14006.5 (e.g., sensitive areas/crops,

resurgence, weather)

◦Pesticide is not registered for the site◦Label/regulatory requirements cannot be met

50

Volume 3, Chapter 9 Volume 3, Chapter 9

Handling Permit Refusal: Handling Permit Refusal: Due ProcessDue ProcessNotify the permit applicant in writing

Written Notice of Proposed Action (NOPA) : “Notice and hearing” (must request hearing within 20

days of receipt)

Any hearing set must give at least10 days notice

CAC decision issued within 10 days after the conclusion of the hearing

All permit refusals must be documented

51Volume 3, Chapter 10 Volume 3, Chapter 10

Final Thought:Final Thought:Why is All of This So Important?Why is All of This So Important?

Sections 6100 and 6122, and

Sections 6408, 6410, 6422, 6424, 6426, 6428, 6430, 6432, 6434 and 6436

52

Volume 3, Chapter 10 Volume 3, Chapter 10

If the Pesticide Regulatory Program is not certified pursuant to PRC 21080.5.(Something to consider: What might be a cause for this to happen?)

The following sections of Title 3 would “expire”:

Pesticide Use EnforcementPesticide Use EnforcementProgram Standards Program Standards

CompendiumCompendium

53

Compendium consists of 8 volumes:Vol. 1 – General Administration of the Pesticide Use Enforcement Program (Coming soon to a website near you)

Vol. 2 – Laws and RegulationsVol. 3 – Restricted Materials and PermittingVol. 4 – Inspection ProceduresVol. 5 – Investigation ProceduresVol. 6 – Enforcement Toolbox (Release is pending)

Vol. 7 – Hearings Source Book (Release is pending)

Vol. 8 – Guidelines for Interpreting Pesticide Laws, Regulations, and LabelingAvailable on the DPR web site at:http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/enforce/compend.htm

54

We seem designed to twist moral discourse – whatever language it’s framed in – to selfish or tribal ends, and to remain conveniently unaware of the twisting. (Robert Wright).

Restricted Material Permitting

Questions? (and Answers)