|
****JavaScript based drop down DHTML menu generated by NavStudio. (OpenCube Inc. - http://www.opencube.com)****
|
| |
July 20, 2010
KARA submitted the following comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on its concerns with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program in the Clean Water Act:
Timeline
KARA echoes the concerns of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment request that EPA seek an extension of the deadline so that states are able to develop their own Pesticide General Permit (PGP). Currently, EPA is proposing to issue the final permit in December of 2010, which only gives the states 3-4 months to draft, receive feedback from the regulated community and other interested parties plus go through the public notice requirements. It is not a sufficient amount of time to review the final draft of EPA and react accordingly. We strongly urge EPA to seek an extension of the timeline from the court.
Operator
As written now, there is no clear understanding of who is actually an operator and who is responsible for complying with the PGP. Under the draft permit, the applicator, the person that hired the applicator, and even the bank that financed the operation could be responsible for complying with the PGP. This issue gets even more complicated by EPA’s statement that all operators will be jointly and severally responsible for any violations of the PGP. It appears this section will only lead to greater confusion and litigation since such broad and sweeping language is arbitrary and capricious. Clarity is desperately needed so that these terms do not have to be litigated to be clearly defined.
Waters of the US
The issue of what constitutes “waters of the US” has been addressed at 40 C.R.R. 122.2 and EPA should not redefine or cause more controversy than this term is already undergoing. The PGP should restrict the coverage of this issue to merely state that the permit only covers the existing regulatory definition of waters of the United States.
Impractical Standards
EPA requires equipment to be calibrated so that the application “delivers the precise quantity of pesticide needed to achieve greatest efficacy against the target pest.” The use of the terms “precise” and “greatest efficacy” make this an impractical standard in which an appropriate application could be deemed to be in violation because it was not precise enough or did not achieve the “greatest efficacy”. Once again we urge EPA to establish standards that are achievable and understandable.
FIFRA Label Rates
KARA is concerned that the current language that requires applicators to “minimize the discharge of pollutants resulting from the application of pesticides” is in direct conflict with the FIFRA approved label rates. Applicators have always been able to apply chemicals in a manner that is effective and reasonable as long as they did not violate or exceed the rate of application stated on the label. Now EPA is creating another standard of what is the appropriate rate of application by stating that an applicator must minimize the amount of pesticides applied. When an applicator applies at or below the label rate, he/she could still be determined to have violated the PGP and this seems illogical and unreasonable.
Adverse Incident Documentation
KARA supports the concerns raised by KDHE that the current draft defines adverse incident includes a “person or non-target organism may have been exposed to a pesticide residue” creates a situation where KDHE would be required to investigate a lot of alleged incidents that may not be supported by any evidence. A better definition would be “an adverse inci-dent is one where there is evidence that a person or non-target organism was likely exposed to a pesticide residue.”
Recordkeeping and Annual Reporting
It appears there will be greater recordkeeping requirements which in turn will cost our members significantly more to comply without any more environmental benefit.
July 20, 2010
With the Legislature’s passage of the Kansas Department of Transportation's (KDOT) 10-year comprehensive transportation plan or otherwise known as "T-WORKS", KDOT will host four workshops to provide information about T-WORKS and to help communities and individuals get organized for the local consult meetings, which will be held in each KDOT district this fall. They will also host a webinar on September 7 for those who are not able to attend any of the workshops. The dates and locations are:
* August 23 Wichita Holiday Inn Rock Rd. (549 Rock Rd.) 1:30-4:30 p.m.
* August 24 Dodge City Dodge House Hotel & Convention Center (2408 W. Wyatt Earp Blvd) 9:00 a.m.-noon
* September 1 Olathe Holiday Inn, (101-West 151st St.) 1:30-4:30 p.m.
* September 2 Pittsburg Lamplighter Inn, (4020 Parkview Dr.) 1:30-4:30 p.m.
* September 7 Webinar ------------------------------- TBD
The same information will be presented at each workshop so you may choose the date and location that will work best for you should you wish to learn about the program and provide input. The workshop information will also be made available at www.ktoc.net. KDOT reports the transportation revenue provided by T-WORKS will fully fund the state's highway preservation needs and will provide an additional $1.7 billion of revenue for highway modernization and expansion projects, along with increased funding for transit, aviation and short-line rail programs. According to KDOT, using information from the workshop, attendees will be asked to go back to their communities and regions to discuss project options and phasing. For example, are there greater regional benefits associated with building more miles of passing lanes rather than building fewer miles of a 4-lane? Can building a phase or two of a large project provide enough benefit to the region so that money from the other phases could be applied to other projects? What is the best use of funds for short-line programs?
July 20, 2010
The Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) is currently accepting nominations for the Agricultural Retailer of the Year Award. This award is sponsored by Monsanto Company, ARA and AgProfessional magazine and honors retailers who consistently exceed their customer’s expectations and serve as a positive example for other retailers through their outstanding and innovative business practices.
The winner of the Retailer of the Year Award will receive the following: two round-trip airline tickets and two nights of accommodations at the Westin Mission Hills Resort for the 2010 ARA Conference & Exposition, Nov. 30 - Dec. 2 in Rancho Mirage, California; a round-trip flight to meet with Monsanto representatives and ARA officers for a VIP dinner and tour of Monsanto’s state of the art research facilities in St. Louis, Missouri; a special award presentation at the ARA Conference & Exposition; and a beautiful crystal award to display at retail facility. In addition, AgProfessional magazine will include a two-page article featuring the winning agricultural retailer in their magazine and on the ARA Retailer of the Year Award website.
The process for nominating a company to receive the ARA Retailer of the Year Award is simple. Click here and complete the online entry form by August 13, 2010. Retailers are also welcome to nominate their own operation for the award. A panel of judges will select five finalists and contact these retailers by early September.
June 23, 2010
The Kansas Department of Agriculture recently implemented changes to the anhydrous ammonia regulations that included changes to the marking requirements for mobile anhydrous ammonia containers (nurse tanks). These changes were implemented to ensure that nurse tanks meeting federal marking requirements are also in compliance with Kansas law. Recognizing that it would be economically unfeasible for nurse tanks to be taken out of service until they are properly marked, Secretary Svaty signed off on an enforcement policy statement.
Please note that the policy statement is only applicable to nurse tanks complying with the Kansas marking requirements as they existed prior to March 12, 2010. Tanks that are not in compliance with current law will receive the de minimus enforcement action to allow tank owners sufficient time to transition to the current marking requirements. Also note that this enforcement grace period will expire July 1, 2012.
June 23, 2010
Calling the Friends of the Kaw (FOK) recent notice to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over nutrient runoff groundless, five municipal, agricultural and agribusiness groups filed a letter with EPA last week to intervene in the action. On June 2, FOK filed a notice of intent to sue claiming that EPA has failed to enforce federal water quality standards for nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus in Kansas. KARA, along with the League of Kansas Municipalities, Kansas Corn Growers Association, Kansas Livestock Association, and the Kansas Cooperative Council all signed the letter sent to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson last week that supported the current state program efforts that effectively regulate nutrients when and where problems occur.
The letter provides notice that the groups plan to intervene in the Friends of the Kaw action and be included in any settlement discussions and correspondence; objects to any EPA action that is based on the unsupported position that the Kansas program is in any way insufficient to address nutrient impacts in a sound and scientific manner; and to “place the agency on notice, pursuant to CWA Section 505(a)(2) that if EPA seeks to usurp the authority to set standards from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, we will file a citizen suit action to prevent abuse of authority.”
The municipal, farm, ranch and agribusiness organizations stated in the letter that they are concerned that EPA will use the Friends of the Kaw action to impose extremely restrictive and scientifically unjustified nutrient regulations like the agency did in response to a similar lawsuit filed in Florida.
“EPA’s action in that state (triggered by a similar NOI) has caused great controversy and is widely opposed by both state and local interests. … In Florida, to simplify the process of imposing stringent nutrient limitations, EPA has proposed to adopt standards that (1) are admitted to lack any “cause and effect” relationship, (2) are directly at odds with recommendations on proper criteria derivation issued in April 2010 by EPA’s Science Advisory Board and (3) will impose restrictive requirements even where it is acknowledged that nutrients are not causing adverse impacts. The unnecessary cost impact in Florida will be in the billions of dollars. The citizens and agribusinesses (large and small) of Kansas cannot and will not allow similar arbitrary agency action to be imposed in Kansas. These groups cannot afford to have their resources (public and private) expended in such a cavalier manner,” the letter states.
In last week’s letter to EPA, the groups called the Friends of KAW action groundless.
The Friends of the Kaw asserted that the agency informed states in 1998 that they should have numeric standards for nutrients in place by 2003 because narrative standards used in Kansas are insufficient. The municipal and agricultural groups say that is incorrect.
“Contrary to the claims asserted in the NOI, EPA has never issued a CWA Section 303(c)(3) deficiency notice to Kansas which is a factual prerequisite to any possible finding that a state’s water quality standard program is deficient under the CWA. The issuance of generic reports (1998 and 2008) that generally discuss how EPA would like states to address the adoption of nutrient objectives is not a specific finding that triggers mandatory duties under Section 303 (c)(4)(B) of the Act,” the groups assert in the letter.
The groups said they hope EPA doesn’t try to impose a one size fits all nutrient criteria, which would be indefensible and inappropriate: “Such approaches will squander limited state and local resources and defer other more important habitat restoration/BMP efforts that are more cost effective, sustainable and environmentally beneficial.
June 23, 2010
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a new permit requirement that would decrease the amount of pesticides discharged to our nation's waters and protect human health and the environment. This action is in response to an April 9, 2009 court decision that found that pesticide discharges to U.S. waters were pollutants, thus requiring a permit. Read More.
June 23, 2010
EPA is amending the pesticide container and containment regulations to provide a four month extension of the 40 CFR 156.159 labeling compliance date from August 16, 2010 to December 16, 2010. This change is being made because there is insufficient time for pesticide registrants, EPA and states to complete the label amendments. This change will avoid the temporary removal of a significant number of pesticides from the market while a proposed 1-year extension proceeds through the rulemaking process, and while pesticide registrants, EPA and states work to update the pesticide labels to comply with the label requirements in the container and containment regulations.
May 26, 2010
From the April issue of The KDA Connection:
The Kansas Department of Agriculture laboratory got a much needed boost when the Legislature passed and Governor Mark Parkinson signed Senate Bill 396 creating a laboratory equipment fee fund for acquiring, maintaining and replacing equipment.
Funding will come from existing fees paid by the business entities that benefit from the laboratory’s services. Up to 10 percent of carryover funds collected by the different programs that rely on the analytical services the laboratory provides will transfer to establish the fund up to $500,000.
Lab equipment is used daily in support of the agency’s regulatory programs, whether it’s to detect pesticides on plant or soil samples, to verify Kansas-produced milk meets Grade A standards, or to detect dangerous pathogens on meat samples. If laboratory equipment fails, it could impact a Kansan’s ability to do business.
For example, early in the 2008 wheat harvest, the department learned of late-season fungicide applications that had the potential to disrupt the grain’s marketability. The lab was able to analyze wheat from affected fields to verify that fungicide residue did not exceed allowable federal standards. During the analytical process, the lab instrument (LC/MS/MS) used to measure the fungicide residue quit working. Fortunately, it could be repaired quickly. However, the department’s many requests for state general fund dollars to purchase a new one have been denied in the current climate of scarce resources.
May 26, 2010
The Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) and CropLife America (CLA) have responded to the results of a study that were published last weekend in Pediatrics that link organophosphates to Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children. An article by a health writer for MSNBC.com was also published connecting ADHD to pesticides used on kid-friendly foods.
ARA believes that continued research on issues affecting children’s health is extremely important, and they are closely monitoring and studying this issue and recommends that more research is needed before a conclusion is reached. CLA has also issued an official statement regarding the results of the study.
May 26, 2010
Albaugh, Inc., an agrichemical company based in Ankeny, Iowa, has agreed to pay a $27,360 civil penalty to the United States to settle allegations related to the importation of nearly 1,000 tons of misbranded pesticide from Argentina.
According to a consent agreement and final order filed in Kansas City, Kan., Albaugh violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by importing a total of 1,990,440 pounds of the misbranded pesticide 2,4-D Acid to the Kansas City Port of Entry during March and April.
The six shipments, comprising a total of 1,026 bags of the pesticide, were delivered to Albaugh’s facility at 4900 Stockyards Expressway, in St. Joseph, Mo.
Under FIFRA, the bags were considered to be misbranded because they did not have required labeling that must include directions for the safe and proper use and handling of the pesticide. Albaugh was ordered to hold the material until it was relabeled with the correct information.
May 26, 2010
Kansas farmers have the opportunity to win awards to help community non-profit organizations that are dear to their hearts. The awards are available through Monsanto Fund’s America’s Farmers Grow Communities Project™, a new program being offered in select counties in California, Kansas, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and South Dakota. Through the program, farmers can enter to win the chance to direct $2,500 awards to local non-profit organizations that are important to them and their communities.
The program is intended to benefit non-profit community groups such as ag youth organizations, schools and other civic groups. Farmers can apply online at www.growcommunities.com or by calling 1.877.267.3332 to obtain an application.
“Farmers in Kansas and across America work hard to feed, fuel and clothe our country and the world,” said Brett Begemann, Monsanto Fund Chairman. “But they are passionate about their local communities. That’s why we created the America’s Farmers Grow Communities Project. From local FFA Chapters and 4-H Clubs to fire departments, community centers and schools, we’re proud of the investments farmers are making through this program, and the lives that we will touch together.”
Farmers, age 21 and over, who are actively engaged in farming a minimum of 250 acres of corn, soybeans and/or cotton, or 40 acres of open field vegetables, or at least 10 acres of tomatoes, peppers and/or cucumbers grown in protected culture, are eligible. The application period runs May 1 through July 31, 2010. The program is open to all qualifying farmers, and no purchase is necessary in order to enter or win. In Kansas, one winner will be drawn from each of the state’s 67 participating counties. Monsanto Fund will announce winning farmers and recipient organizations that were chosen in August 2010.
“The America’s Farmers Grow Communities project was originally launched as a pilot program by Monsanto Company in Iowa and select counties in Missouri and Arkansas in January 2010,” said John Raines, Vice President of Customer Advocacy for Monsanto Company. “With more than 7,500 farmers participating and more than $500,000 benefitting non-profit groups in farming communities, we were very pleased with the program.”
Visit www.growcommunities.com to see a complete list of Arkansas, Iowa and Missouri winners. The new project is part of a broad commitment by Monsanto Fund to invest in farm communities, in order to highlight the important contributions farmers make every day to our society. To obtain a copy of the official rules for this program, visit www.growcommunities.com or send a written request to Jane Winburn, 914 Spruce St., St. Louis, MO 63102.
|
|
|
|
