Discharge of Pesticides to NYS Waters and Neighborhood Notification
-----Original Message-----
From: cachitter <cachitter@aol.com>
To: pesticide.info <pesticide.info@dec.ny.gov>
Cc: empirestateconsumer <empirestateconsumer@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 10:24 am
Subject: Comments, General Permit for Point Source Discharges to Surface Waters of New York State from Pesticide Applications
Mr. Thomas Boekeloo
NYS DEC - Division of Water
625 Broadway, 4th Floor
Albany, New York 12233-3505
Comments, General Permit for Point Source Discharges to Surface Waters of New York State from Pesticide Applications
Dear Mr. Boekeloo:
Empire State Consumer Project, Inc. (ESCP) is a registered 501c3 Not-for-Profit Organization dedicated to reducing the use of unsafe products, pesticides, and other chemicals toxic to human and environmental health. We accomplish this by educating consumers and industry, conducting product testing and reporting, and by advocating for regulation where needed to protect the public interest.
We are writing to comment on permits to discharge pesticides to surface waters of New York State. After reading the documents posted on your website, we do not see that any type of neighborhood notification is required before discharging pesticides to NYS waters. As a homeowner on Lake Ontario and Sodus Bay, I would like to know if pesticides are discharged in waters where children and pets swim and where we draw water for washing and bathing. Can you please direct me to documents which require notification to occupants of neighboring residences, if there are any?
If there are no notification requirements, we would like added to the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) and General Permit requirements a statewide neighborhood notification component similar to the NYS DEC Neighborhood Notification Law (http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8529.html), where 48 hours notice is given to occupants of areas near affected waters before pesticides are discharged. We would like this requirement to be a mandatory requirement rather than an opt-in notification law.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Carol Chittenden
Empire State Consumer Project
585-831-7124
Empire State Consumer Project and
Proposed New York State Toxic-free Legislation
Empire
State Consumer Project has been a long time leader in consumer advocacy and
testing of toxics in children's products. When ESCP tests products for toxic
chemicals, we file complaints with the CPSC when high levels are found and ask
for product recalls. When standards do not exist, as was the case with arsenic
in apple juice, we petition the appropriate agency for standards. In 2012, we
worked with Food and Water Watch and Consumers Union and met with the FDA and
our scientist and Consumers Union's scientist to ask for a limit on arsenic in
apple juice. After that meeting, the FDA set the standard for arsenic in apple
juice at 10 ppb. Our original testing found 55 ppb.
We have not supported the Albany County and proposed New York State Toxic-free legislation for the following reasons:
1. The
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) already has regulations on the 8
chemicals most likely to cause harm to children. Toys tested for heavy metals
in surface coatings (both ASTM and CPSA/FHSA) do not have an accessibility
requirement. Toy substrate materials tested to the heavy metals (total lead and
the migration of antimony, arsenic, lead, barium, cadmium, chromium, mercury
and selenium) have the accessibility requirements.
www.cpsc.gov/toysafety
2. The New York Attorney General has authority to take action against manufacturers and retailers who sell products containing toxic levels of chemicals in children's products.
http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/2014_11_25_Letter_to_retailers_regarding_toxic_toys-Toys_R_Us.pdf
3. These laws do not specify the use of CPSC registered laboratories for testing. Certified laboratories provide the most accurate results.
4. These
laws do not include any actionable levels, or limits on chemical content upon
which government agencies can take action against a manufacturer or retailer.
Lack of actionable levels can result in ambiguity and lawsuits, which can cost
taxpayers millions of dollars in legal defense.
