Archive for November, 2011
CRE previously published an article on this site which joins several stakeholders who have requested that EPA convene a Science Advisory Panel to review and provide advice on EPA’s regulation of nanotechnology in pesticides. This article is available online at http://www.thecre.com/forum1/?p=2130 .
This article explains that EPA should as soon as practicable convene a FIFRA Science Advisory Panel to review many problems plaguing EPA’s current proposals regarding regulstion of nanotechnology in pesticides. These problems include:
● the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes a pesticide nanoscale material;
On November 28, 2011, the NGO plaintiffs and defendant EPA jointly asked a federal court in Washington State for more time to file a court-ordered status report advising the court of the impact of litigation in another court. The Washington court had previously ordered EPA and the NGOs to file a “status report by December 30, 2011 or within 30 days of a decision in Dow AgroSciences LLC v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., No. 09-cv-00824 (D. Md.), whichever comes first, advising the Court of the ongoing posture of that case.”
The National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council is reviewing federal agency ecological risk assessment practices under FIFRA and the ESA. In a letter dated November 3, 2011, Reps. Hastings and Lucas sent the NAS/NRC review committee five letters. Members of Congress had previously sent these letters to federal agencies. According to Reps. Hastings and Lucas, these letters express “the detailed concerns of 31 members of Congress from across the nation, regarding the scientific basis and lack of consideration of economic impacts of the biological opinions (BiOps) that have been released to date on the impact of certain pesticide products on endangered salmon in the Pacific Northwest.”
The National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council is reviewing federal agency risk assessment practices under FIFRA and the ESA. CRE now has the NAS/NRC record for this review through November 201l. CRE will be writing and posting articles on various documents in this record. The link below goes to an index for this record. If any reader wants one or more of these indexed documents, please contact us through the Submit a Post process on this page, or by email to email@example.com.
The index of NAS/NRC ESA review record is attached below.
EPA Should Ask a SAP to Review the Agency’s Nano Plans, Including EPA’s Collection of Information on Nanoscale Ingredients in Pesticides
EPA wants to collect more information on the use of nanoscale ingredients in pesticide products. EPA’s currently proposed process for collecting and evaluating this information is marred by
- the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes a pesticide nanoscale material;
- the need to determine additional core data requirements (product chemistry, toxicology, environmental fate, ecotoxicology, etc.) and standard testing methodologies based on new information gathered since the 2009 SAP on nanosilver pesticides (http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2009/110309ameeting.html); and
- the need to propose regulatory processes, including the appropriate use of bridging data and identifying chemical classes of concern/triggers.
The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials/State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group’s Full Committee will hold a 2-day meeting, beginning on December 5, 2011, and ending December 6, 2011. The meeting will be held at EPA, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 Crystal Dr., Arlington Virginia, First Floor, South Conference Room. Tentative agenda issues include Endangered Species Act Consultation, and the letter on this issue that SFIREG sent to EPA.
● Click here to read Federal Register notice of meeting
On October 31, 2011, the United States District Court for Maryland rejected industry challenges to a biological opinion issued by NMFS for the pesticides chlorpyrifos, malathion and Diazinon, and their effects on salmon. This BiOp is part of court ordered consultation between EPA and NMFS during EPA’s FIFRA pesticides registration process. Dow AgroSciences, LLC, Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc., and Cheminova, Inc. USA, challenged NMFS’ BiOp, alleging various violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Endangered Species Act.
The Court’s opinion is attached below.
On October 31, 2011, EPA issued its final NPDES Pesticide General Permit for point source discharges from the application of pesticides to waters of the United States. EPA issued this PGP in response to a 2009 decision by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (National Cotton Council, et al. v. EPA). As a result of the court’s decision, NPDES permits are generally required for these types of discharges as of October 31, 2011.