Groundwater & Pesticides -- Section 6.2 Another Point of Leverage

Working on pesticide management planning can pay large dividends in improved water quality, but your interest in pesticides and groundwater doesn't have to stop at state or tribal boundaries. Involving yourself in another venue -- that of federal regulatory programs -- may also be well worth the effort.

New Notions of Safety

As noted earlier, the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act changed the rules of the game for pesticide regulation in significant ways -- including ways that could bring new protections to water supplies.

...traditionally EPA has assessed pesticide exposures separately by source and has not combined risks. Developing methodologies to address these issues requires a new way of approaching risk assessment and risk management.

US EPA ¹

Prior to FQPA's passage, federal regulators frequently worked with the handicap of tunnel vision. Different programs and different offices dealt with different aspects of pesticide risk -- occupational exposure risks, drinking water risks, risks associated with pesticide residues in raw food versus processed food, and so on. Coordination, to the extent that it existed, was often less than rigorous.

FQPA calls for a more coordinated and comprehensive regulatory approach. Under FQPA a single health-based standard for pesticide residues replaces two different standards -- one for raw foods and another for processed foods. What's more, EPA is now directed to consider "aggregate risk" from dietary exposures to pesticides as well as other non-occupational sources of exposure, such as home pesticide use and drinking water contamination. The law also recognizes the diversity of pesticides in use and the likelihood of exposure to numerous chemicals. It requires the Agency to look at the combined effects of exposure to pesticides that act on the body in similar ways. In addition, tolerances must now be set to assure "reasonable certainty of no harm." This new standard of safety replaces the law's previous standard of no "unreasonable adverse effects."

What is a Tolerance?

Many pesticides may leave residues in or on treated fruits, vegetables, grains, and other foods. Pesticide residues often decrease over time as food crops are washed, stored, processed, and prepared. However, some residues may remain in both fresh produce (such as apples or tomatoes) and processed foods (such as applesauce or tomato catsup).

To ensure the safety of the U.S. food supply, EPA sets a tolerance, or maximum residue limit, which is the amount of pesticide residue that may lawfully remain in each food commodity that has been treated with a pesticide. In establishing tolerances, EPA considers the toxicity of the
pesticide, how much of the pesticide is applied and how often, and how much of the pesticide (i.e., the residue) typically remains in food and ensures that this level will be safe.

US EPA ²

By 2006, EPA is required to re-review all previously registered pesticides to make sure that they conform to the law's new standards. This look back at existing "tolerances" or " maximum residue limits" on how much pesticide can legally remain in a food or feed, then, involves a broad look at pesticide impacts. EPA will have to consider not just how much residue of a given pesticide will remain on a crop, but also how a given pesticide moves through the environment.

EPA is also required to take off the blinders that force it to look at pesticide risk one fraction at a time. Now it must consider how people may be adversely affected by groups of pesticides that share "common mechanisms of toxicity," that is, act on the body in similar way and cause similar problems.

If, in taking this broader look, the Agency finds that cumulative risk from aggregate sources is unacceptably high, new uses of the pesticide will not be approved and existing tolerances may have to be lowered. For some pesticides that could mean canceling some or all uses to the point that the total burden of risk imposed by the chemical is lowered sufficiently.

Essentially, this "tolerance reassessment" involves "risk assessment" -- in this case, a process of making a best judgment about the degree of risk involved in the use of a given pesticide-- with specific attention to particular, specified factors. (See EPA's factsheet on "Assessing Health Risks form Pesticides," available on the Internet at <www.epa.gov/opp00001/citizens/riskasses.htm>.

During this process -- which can extend for many months -- there will be opportunities for members of the general public to ask questions and provide input. Without being a scientist or regulatory expert, you can still take advantage of these opportunities and help to assure that EPA ultimately makes decisions that are adequately protective.

Getting Involved in Tolerance Reassessment

Participation in the tolerance reassessment debates does mean you have to submit detailed technical information dealing with the chemistry or toxicology of a substance. You don't have to review complex predictive models, commenting on the validity of assumptions or the "fit" of the model to particular situations. Many commenters will do precisely that, but EPA also needs to hear broadly about people's concerns and their interest in strong public health protections.

Don't be fooled into thinking that debates on risk assessment should remain the private purview of scientists and regulators. As risk assessors wade their way through information on each pesticide and how it behaves in the laboratory, the environment and the human body, they will have to rely not only on highly technical information but also on good old common sense and good judgment.

Your voice -- simply alerting regulators to your fervent interest in protecting the quality of your water supply and the health of your family -- can be a powerful reminder of the law's mandates to look comprehensively and to pay special attention to children and others who are most vulnerable to adverse health effects.

Significant Groundwater Contaminants Likely to Undergo Reassessment in 2000

Aldicarb
Atrazine
Carbofuran
Diazinon

You can participate in person or in writing by asking raising concerns or asking tough questions, such as,

In addition to your general concerns with water quality, you may have information about local contamination cases, particularly valuable or vulnerable local resources, individuals or groups of people who are highly sensitive or likely to suffer higher than average exposures. Feel free to share such information with the Agency -- even if it is incomplete. If you know of weaknesses in your state or tribal pesticide management plan, you may also want to point those out to the EPA staff working on reassessment. Entering this information into the "public record" or "docket," in essence, compels the Agency to at least consider these points.

If the Agency's informational materials -- written or oral -- are not understandable, ask for a clear, plain English explanation. The burden should not be on you to decipher obtuse technical information; it should rest on the regulators to explain their logic in layperson's terms.

Remember, the Agency frequently has to defend its decisions in a courtroom setting. The judge, like yourself, may be thoughtful and interested but without formal training in the scientific detail. EPA staff will have to offer an understandable and defensible explanation to a judge, and they should be offering such an explanation to you as well.

The Process, the Schedule

In order to complete the large number of reassessments required by the new law, EPA has divided the various pesticide ingredients into three categories, with priorities generally placed on assessing the riskiest pesticides first. (See table.)

Tolerance Reassessment Priority Groups
Group 1 (228 pesticides)	Group 2 (93 pesticides)	Group 3 (148 pesticides)
Organophosphates	Possible carcinogens	Remaining pre-FQPA pesticides with reregistration eligibility decisions
Carbamates	All remaining reregistration chemicals (those that were first registered before 1984)	Remaining post-1984 pesticides
Probable carcinogens		Biological pesticides
Reference dose exceeders (tolerances that are at levels above the amount that is believed to be safe for life-long, daily consumption)		Remaining inerts
High-hazard inerts
Taken from EPA²

As can be seen from the table, one of the top priorities will be the organophosphate or OP group of pesticides, which have a common mechanism of toxicity. (See box.) The OPs are used on many food crops; they are used in residential and commercial buildings and for ornamental plants and lawn care. According to EPA, they account for about half of the total amount of insecticides sold in the United States. Some of the OPs are found in water supplies, with diazinon standing out as a chemical that has frequently contaminated groundwater.²

Following this "worst first" policy, the Agency has embarked on the reassessment of the OPs, and in doing so has laid out a process that will likely be followed in other reassessments. EPA is reviewing each of the OP pesticides individually and will ultimately conduct a cumulative assessment of all of the OP pesticides taken together.

The OPs affect cholinesterase, a critical enzyme, in a way that allows nerve impulses to remain active longer than they should be, thereby causing overstimulation of the nervous system. This overstimulation may, in turn, cause acute effects such as headaches, nausea, dizziness, anxiety, and restlessness. Increasing or repeated exposures may result in muscle twitching, weakness, tremor, incoordination, vomiting, diarrhea, convulsions, respiratory paralysis, or even death. Repeated exposures at lower levels may cause anorexia, weakness, and malaise, says EPA.

Taken from US EPA³

The review for each pesticide will consist of six phases. In Phase 1, EPA will be communicating with producers or registrants of the pesticide and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). These reviewers will be provided with preliminary human health and ecological risk assessments, and at this stage they are asked to review for "error only."

In Phase 2, EPA summarizes the comments received, incorporates any necessary changes and opens a "public docket" or record to hold information on the pesticide. At this point, Phase 3, the broader public is invited to review the preliminary assessments and submit new data on the pesticide or comment on risk assessment methods and assumptions. The public may also begin offering suggestions for how to manage any risks found, e.g., requiring particular best management practices, geographically restricting the use of the pesticide or canceling some or all uses of the pesticide. Comments for the organophosphates can be mailed to EPA at

They may also be submitted in person at the Virginia address below or provided electronically by sending an e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov.

Organizations, groups and individuals may request meetings with the Agency to discuss the issues, and notes on those meetings as well as other comments received are entered into the docket. Reviewers may review materials in the docket on the EPA web site or in person at

In Phase 4, EPA will summarize and consider comments received thus far and develop a revised risk assessment. After the revised assessment is sent toUSDA for review, EPA and USDA will host public meetings or technical briefings to share the revised risk assessment with interested parties. In Phase 5, EPA publishes a "Notice of Availability" of the revised risk assessment in the Federal Register, places the revision in the public docket and opens up a final comment period of 60 days. Stakeholders may continue to meet with EPA and USDA, and summaries of such meetings are placed in the public docket. Finally in Phase 6 EPA considers all the proposals received on how to manage the risks associated with the pesticides and develops a strategy for the particular pesticide.

Obviously, few individuals or local groups will be able to or interested in following the complete process blow by blow. Selected involvement at critical times, however, may be relatively "doable" and useful. The comments that EPA receives are likely to be heavily tilted to continued use of a pesticide, so any written comments urging caution and conservative risk management approaches may be helpful. In addition, participation in the technical briefing for a given chemical may be useful -- not only in influencing EPA but also in helping you to better understand the risks and problems associated with a given chemical.

These public forums will involve plain English explanations of the information EPA has collected to date, including an explanation of the data describing the pesticide's health risks and information on the occurrence of the pesticide in drinking water. Each briefing will also include a question and answer period. While a number of these have been and will be scheduled to take place in Washington, D.C., briefings may also take place beyond the Washington area. If you have interest, place a request in the docket early on asking for a briefing in your area.

While you are not likely to hear of upcoming decisions and meetings on the local or national news, there are several ways to find out about what is going on with chemicals of concern to you. First, you can check in on EPA's web site for the Office of Pesticides at <http://www.epa.gov/pesticides>. You can also sign up for e-mail notification about activities in the Office of Pesticides. To receive these updates, provide your e-mail information to the Agency at <http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/form/form.html>. If you choose this option, be forewarned that you will receive frequent but brief update notices.

We also suggest that you speak to your EPA regional contact person for pesticide management planning. Tell them of your interest in the reassessment process for particular chemicals or groups of chemicals and ask them to suggest ways that you can receive adequate notice of upcoming actions and meetings. They can help put you in touch with the EPA staff member managing data for the chemical of concern.

As this reassessment of chemicals takes place, Friends of the Earth will use its own web page to alert activists to key decision-making milestones. Visit <www.foe.org> to find selected news of EPA schedules and meetings on particular chemicals that pose groundwater problems.

In addition, our colleagues at the Environmental Working Group (EWG) <http://www.ewg.org> and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) <http://www.nrdc.org/> are good sources of information on pesticide regulatory activities. You can visit their web sites on a periodic basis to look for notices of activity. Note that EWG, in addition to working on issues of FQPA implementation, has a long history of activism on the weedkiller atrazine. They have produced a number of reports specific to atrazine, and they will likely have useful information on their site as atrazine goes through the EPA tolerance reassessment process. Check out some of their pesticides in water information at <http://www.ewg.org/pub/home/pesticides/pest_water.html>.

2. US EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs, "Organophosphate Pesticides in Food A Primer on Reassessment of Residue Limits," 1999 at <http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/op/primer.htm>.