Meeting
Summary
July
19,
2004
Subject:
Container­
Containment
Rule,
reopening
of
the
comment
period.

Requested
by:
Agriculture
Retailers
Association
and
State
Retailer
Associations
Attendees:

Name
Affiliation
Phone
E­
mail
Larry
Shivers
KARA/
Van
Dist.
Supply
Co.
785
221
4244
JandLFarms@
aol.
com
Laura
Pearl
KARA/
JB
Pearl
Sales
&
Service
785
437
2772
laura@
jbpearl.
com
Bill
Hocraffer
KARA/
Syngenta
CP/
Hays
KS
785
623
7875
william.
hocraffer@
syngenta.
com
Mike
King
MT
ABA
406
698
6073
michael.
g.
king@
usa.
dupont.
com
Mary
Jane
Stankiewicz
KARA
785
234
0461
maryjane@
kansasag.
org
Mike
Pierson
Aide
to
Larry
Shivers
317
267
9513
­

Don
Engel
NE
ABA
308
234
2572
done42@
kdsi.
net
Gene
Liebig
NE
ABA
308
237
7349
geneliebig.
us@
charter.
net
Gary
Knutson
ND
Ag
Association
701
282
9432
gary@
ndag.
org
Duane
Poynter
ND
Ag
Association
701
624
5315
dsprayer@
minot.
com
Dean
Weldert
WY
ABA
307
754
4833
dweldert@
simplot.
com
Clark
Schmidt
WY
ABA
406
248
7627
schmidc1@
basf­
coop.
com
Jim
Thrift
ARA
202
457
0825
jthrift@
aradc.
org
Ryan
Hardy
ND
605
229
4973
ryan.
hardy@
agcocorp.
com
Bob
Anderson
NE
ABA
402
476
1528
info@
na­
ba.
com
Alice
Licht
NE
ABA
402
476
1508
info@
na­
ba.
com
Reed
J.
Nelson
NE
ABA
402
476
1508
info@
na­
ba.
com
Nancy
Fitz
EPA
­
OPP­
FEAD
703
305
7385
fitz.
nancy@
epa.
gov
Jude
Andreasen
EPA
­
OPP
­
FEAD
703
308
9342
andreasen.
jude@
epa.
gov
KARA
=
Kansas
Agricultural
Retailers
Association
ABA
=
Agribusiness
Association
ARA
=
Agriculture
Retailers
Association
The
purpose
of
the
meeting
was
information
exchange
regarding
the
Federal
Register
Notice
(
69
FR
39392)
published
June
30,
2004
reopening
the
comment
period
on
the
Container
­
Containment
Rule.
There
were
2
EPA
representatives,
one
representative
from
the
national
Agriculture
Retailers
Association,
and
16
representatives
from
retailers
and
state
association
staff
from
Kansas,
Nebraska,
North
Dakota,
Wyoming
and
Montana.

Nancy
Fitz
and
Jude
Andreasen
provided
a
summary
of
the
goals
and
history
of
the
rule
and
the
major
requirements,
particularly
for
refillable
containers,
repackaging
and
containment,
the
topics
of
most
interest
to
the
stakeholders
present.
(
See
attached
handout).

There
were
questions
on
the
cross­
contamination
policy,
the
type
of
data
being
solicited
which
would
have
an
impact
on
the
final
rule,
and
the
impact
of
the
federal
regulations
on
states
that
already
have
containment
regulations.
The
stakeholders'
primary
concern
was
ensuring
a
level
playing
field
in
that
all
pesticide
bulk
tanks
would
be
required
to
have
containment.

The
retailers
association
representatives
were
concerned
that
no
one
is
monitoring
onfarm
bulk
storage
and
that
there
is
an
environmental
risk
that
is
not
being
addressed.
They
stated
that
farmers
are
not
required
to
report
spills,
so
there
are
no
incident
data
available.
There
was
a
suggestion
that
farm
equipment
vendors
could
supply
data
on
the
number
of
farmers
buying
large
spray
rigs,
equipment
which
would,
according
to
the
stakeholders,
necessitate
bulk
tank
storage
in
most
cases.
Several
representatives
cited
a
growing
problem
of
"
cash
and
carry"
dealers,
who
store
products
in
bulk
on
farms,
repackage
the
product
for
sale
in
minibulks
without
a
license,
and
then
move
on
to
another
location.
A
Nebraska
retail
association
representative
asked
why
the
proposed
rule
defined
a
liquid
bulk
as
having
793
gallon
capacity,
and
stated
that
when
Nebraska
defined
bulk,
the
market
changed
immediately
and
containers
one
gallon
smaller
than
the
bulk
definition
proliferated.
A
Kansas
retailer
association
representative
suggested
focusing
on
the
protecting
and
tracking
the
product
rather
than
on
whether
the
owner
is
a
retailer,
farmer
or
commercial
applicator.
The
ARA
representative
suggested
that
the
EPA
SPCC
rule
provides
a
model
of
such
a
regulation.
The
SPCC
defines
the
chemicals
subject
to
the
rule
and
requires
a
permit
and
environmental
plan
for
any
facility
storing
a
subject
chemical
at
a
defined
quantity.
The
ARA
representative
also
made
the
following
points:
­
they
are
not
saying
that
farmers
are
poor
stewards
of
pesticides
and
the
environment;
­
however,
regulations
help
improve
stewardship.

EPA
staff
emphasized
that
no
decision
has
been
made
about
on­
farm
bulk
storage
and
that
we
would
carefully
review
and
consider
all
comments.
They
also
stated
that
EPA
management
was
aware
of
and
interested
in
this
issue.

There
was
concern
that
state
regulations
which
have
been
in
place
for
years
would
be
superceded
by
the
federal
regulations.
Nancy
and
Jude
explained
that,
as
a
result
of
comments
on
the
1994
proposed
rule,
options
have
been
discussed
in
the
work
group,
such
as
having
states
with
containment
regulations
request
authorization
to
continue
implementing
their
program
in
lieu
of
the
federal
regulations,
provided
they
assure
equivalent
environmental
protection.

Stakeholders
were
also
concerned
that
the
regulated
community
(
dealers
and
distributors)
should
not
be
penalized
if
the
tank
owner
breaks
the
law
by
accepting
delivery
in
a
tank
that
is
not
in
compliance.
Participants
also
expressed
concern
about
a
general
lack
of
strong
enforcement
at
the
local
level.

One
representative
suggested
that
containment
be
required
at
a
specific
aggregate
volume
of
stored
pesticide
(
e.
g.,
500
gallons)
and
for
a
specific
tank
size
tank
(
e.
g.,
275
gallon
tanks).
This
would
prevent
farmers
who
use
only
smaller
jugs
from
having
to
install
containment
while
also
ensuring
that
any
container
holding
275
gallons
would
have
containment.

Stakeholders
commented
that
when
estimating
the
cost
of
the
rule
to
farmers,
there
could
be
an
assumption,
in
the
absence
of
data,
that
farmers
do
not
store
pesticides
in
bulk
and
therefore
will
have
no
cost.
