Restricted Materials and Permitting
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 36

Restricted Materials and Permitting Training PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Restricted Materials and Permitting Training. 2006-2007. Introduction. Volume #3 of the Pesticide Use Enforcement Program Standards Compendium The content of this volume supersedes any previous policy or direction on this subject

Download Presentation

Restricted Materials and Permitting Training

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Restricted Materials and Permitting





  • Volume #3 of the Pesticide Use Enforcement Program Standards Compendium

  • The content of this volume supersedes any previous policy or direction on this subject

  • Will be the standard against which county programs are evaluated

  • CAC may deviate from these procedures provided the deviation doesn’t impact CAC PUE Program or DPR statewide Enforcement Program Oversight

Manual chapters

Manual Chapters

  • California’s Restricted Materials Permitting Program

  • Restricted Use Pesticides and Restricted Materials

  • Environmental Impact Report Functional Equivalency

  • Private Applicator Certification

  • Permits and Exemptions

  • Permit Requirements

  • Permit Evaluations

  • (Pre-Application) Site Evaluations

  • Grounds for Refusal, Revocation, and Suspension

  • Due Process Related To Permits

  • County Agricultural Commissioner’s Permit Review

  • Appeals to the Director for Additional Review

Changes to restricted materials permitting policy

Changes to Restricted Materials Permitting Policy

  • Chapter 6—Permit Requirements (also see Appendix subsection C.6.1 on commodity fumigation)

  • Chapter 7—Permit Evaluations

  • Chapter 10—Due Process Related to Permits

  • Appendix C—Recommended Permit Conditions

History and background leading to the restricted materials permit program

History and Background Leading to the Restricted Materials Permit Program

  • 1970 - CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)

  • 1976 - Attorney General Decision: County Restricted Materials Permitting (RMP) falls under CEQA

  • 1979 - Functional equivalency

  • 2001 - Challenged

  • 2005 - Resolved

RMP manual page 1-1

Ceqa scope


  • Does not cover private projects

  • Covers:

    • Government projects

    • Government financed projects

    • Government approved projects

Functional equivalency

Functional Equivalency

  • Part of CEQA from the start

  • Amended by Chap 308 statute of 1978 (AB 3765)

  • 3 key points of program:

    • Document local environmental impacts

    • Consider mitigation or alternatives

    • Consult with local agencies


NOT: CEQA Functional Equivalency

BUT: EIR Functional Equivalency

5 & 7 Chapters do apply to permits

(Note Chapter 5, authority to require information)

Definition of non agricultural use

Definition of Non-Agricultural Use

  • Non-agricultural use: Includes the sale or use of pesticides in properly labeled packages or containers which are intended for any of the following:

    • Home use (includes residential) labels with directions in “per square feet”

    • Use in structural pest control (no agricultural commodity involved)

    • Industrial or institutional use

    • The control of an animal pest under the written prescription of a veterinarian

    • Local districts or other public agencies which have entered into and operate under a DHS cooperative agreement

Definition of agricultural use

Definition of Agricultural Use

  • Production Ag. Use: Any use to produce a plant or animal agricultural product (food, feed, ornamental, or forest) that will be distributed in the channels of trade

Examples of variable use classification

Examples of Variable Use Classification

  • A tree

  • Milk handling equipment

  • Ag product fumigation

  • Swimming pool

Classify the following production ag or non production ag

Classify the Following: Production Ag or Non-Production Ag

  • Apiaries

  • Cemeteries

  • Aquaculture

  • Field packing

  • Ditch banks

  • Farm roads

  • Christmas trees

  • Lakes, rivers, and streams

Rups and rms

RUPs and RMs

  • RUP=Restricted Use Pesticides (Federal)

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

  • 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)

RMP manual page 2-1

Pesticides exempt from permit

Pesticides Exempt from Permit

  • Exempt materials (FAC 14006.7)

  • RUPs—unless listed in 6400(e)

  • Antifouling and tributyltin paints

  • Research authorizations

  • Certain ground water protection pesticides

RMP manual page 5-1

Persons exempt from permit

Persons Exempt From Permit

  • Registrants and manufacturers

  • Dealers

  • Structural businesses

  • Commercial warehouses

  • Common carriers

Permits for rups and non restricted pesticides

Permits for RUPs and Non-Restricted Pesticides

  • CAC has authority to require permit for any use of a RUP or agricultural use of a non-restricted pesticide (FAC 14006.6)

  • Must make determination that pesticide cannot be used under local conditions without presenting an undue hazard

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


Step # 1

Step # 2

Step # 3

Step # 4

Step # 5

Step # 6

Step # 7

Step 1 hazard identification

More than one hazard per pesticide

Tools available:

Pesticide labeling

DPR Risk Characterization

3 CCR section 6432

DPR recommended permit conditions

Step #1: Hazard Identification

RMP manual page 7-2

Step 2 sensitive sites identification

Can people or the environment be adversely impacted from the pesticide application runoff, leaching and off-site movement?

Sensitive site may vary based on the specific hazard of the particular pesticide

3 CCR 6438 requires permit applicant must include sensitive sites in the permit application

Step #2: Sensitive Sites Identification

Step 2 fac section 14006 5 requirements

Step #2: FAC Section 14006.5 Requirements

  • CAC staff to consider

    • Sensitive areas: schools, dwelling etc….

    • Heterogeneous crops

    • Resurgence of secondary pest problems

    • Weather

    • Bees

    • Storage and disposal

Step 3 likelihood of adverse impact

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

Step #3: Likelihood of Adverse Impact

RMP manual page 7-3

Step 4 existing mitigation

Do regulations or label adequately mitigate the hazard?

Specific buffer distances may be cited in the regulations

If not, judgment must be used

Step #4: Existing Mitigation

Step 5a additional mitigation

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

Step #5A: Additional Mitigation

Step 5b additional mitigation

Step #5B: Additional Mitigation

  • If unmitigated hazards remain:

    • DPR recommended permit conditions

    • County permit conditions

  • 3 CCR section 6432

Step 5 permit conditions

Step #5: Permit Conditions

  • Appendix C

    • General Drift Minimization

    • 1,3-Dichloropropene

    • Carbofuran

    • Ground Water Protection Alternatives

    • Metam Products

    • MeBr & Sulfuryl Fluoride

    • Rice Pesticides

    • DEF, tribufos

RMP manual page C.1

Step 6a alternatives

Permit applicant/PCA must consider alternatives

Ask applicant to identify alternatives and document response

If applicant did not consider alternatives, refuse to issue permit

3 CCR section 6426

Step #6A: Alternatives

RMP manual page 7-4

Step 6b alternatives

If hazards cannot be mitigated:

CAC must consider alternatives

If feasible alternatives exist, deny permit

3 CCR section 6432

Step #6B: Alternatives

RMP manual page 7-4

Step 7 benefit analysis

Step #7: Benefit Analysis

  • 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

RMP manual page 7-5

Permit evaluation

Permit Evaluation

  • Initiated with the RMP application

  • Continues with the CAC’s review of each NOI

  • CAC’s NOI review and acceptance or denial signals the completion of the evaluation process

  • CAC is responsible for knowing local conditions and utilizing that knowledge

Reviewing and evaluating the noi

Reviewing and Evaluating the NOI

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

  • The property operator is responsible for assuring the NOI is submitted

  • NOI is part of the permit

RMP manual page 7-12

Reviewing the noi

Reviewing the NOI

  • CAC will review NOI and make sure:

    • Location matches permit locations

    • Permit requirements from 3 CCR 6428 (g-i) are included

    • Environmental conditions have not changed

Evaluating the noi

Evaluating the NOI

  • CAC must review all NOI’s prior to the application:

    • Compare the NOI against the permit

    • Review proposed application

    • Review maps for accuracy

Handling permit refusal

Handling Permit Refusal

  • Grounds and time frames:

    • Based upon violations

      • Outstanding fines

    • Based upon permit evaluation

    • Based upon FAC section 14006.5

    • Pesticide is not registered for the site

    • Label and regulatoryrequirements cannotbe met

RMP manual page 9-1

Handling permit refusal due process

Handling Permit Refusal: Due Process

  • CAC shall inform the permittee in writing

  • Written Notice of Proposed Action (NOPA) : “Notice and hearing”

  • If a hearing is set, it must be within 7 days

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

  • All permit refusals must be documented

Class exercise

Class Exercise


Questions and Answers

  • Login