United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/625/R-93/009
July 1993
vvEPA
Guides to Pollution
Prevention
Non-Agricultural
Pesticide Users
-------
EPA/625/R-93/009
July 1993
GUIDES TO POLLUTION PREVENTION:
Non-Agricultural Pesticide Users
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
AND
CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INFORMATION
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
NOTICE
This guide has been subjected to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
peer and administrative review and approved for publication. Approval does
not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is intended as advisory guidance only to non-agricultural
pesticide users in developing approaches for pollution prevention. Com-
pliance with environmental and occupational safety and health laws is the
responsibility of each individual business and is not the focus of this
document.
Worksheets are provided for conducting waste minimization assessments
of non-agricultural pesticide firms. Users are encouraged to duplicate portions
of this publication as needed to implement a waste minimization program.
-------
FOREWORD
This guide provides an overview of non-agricultural pesticide use and
presents options for minimizing waste generation through source reduction
and recycling. Non-agricultural pesticide users are defined, for the purposes
of this manual, as lawn and garden; forestry, tree and shrub; sanitary; struc-
tural; nursery; and greenhouse pest control services. The industry is made up
mostly of small businesses or franchises; and, as a result, individual locations
do not generate large quantities of waste, although some of the waste can be
acutely toxic.
Waste generated by non-agricultural pesticide users is a result of pesticide
storage, distribution, and mixing and equipment cleaning. The major waste
streams are used protective clothing, empty pesticide containers, rinsate from
cleaning containers and equipment, surplus inventory, and pesticide dust and
water droplets, as well as waste resulting from unnecessary application of
pesticides to non-targeted areas or at excessive rates to targeted areas. (Pesti-
cide application sites and rates must comply with label directions.) Reducing
the amount of this waste will benefit both the non-agricultural pesticide appli-
cation industry and the environment.
111
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This guide is based in part on waste minimization assessments (Waste
Audit Study: Non-agricultural Pesticide Application Industry) conducted by
Tetra Tech, Inc., San Francisco, California, for the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Battelle Memorial Institute edited and expanded the California waste
minimization assessment report under subcontract to EPA (USEPA Contract
68-CO-0003). Battelle personnel contributing to this guide include Bob
Olfenbuttel, work assignment manager; Leslie Hughes, task leader; Larry
Smith, Ilia Amerson, Jody Jones, and Tom McClure, technical engineers; and
Bea Weaver, production editor. Other contributors include Teresa Harten
(EPA), Christine Rugen (Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas),
and Matthew F. Holmes (Consultant).
Teresa Harten of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, was the
project officer responsible for the preparation and review of this guide. Other
reviewers include
Sheila Daar
Bio-Integral Resource Center
P.O. Box 7414
Berkeley, CA 94707
Tom Delaney
Professional Lawn Care
Association of America
1000 Johnson Ferry Road, N.E.
Suite C-135
Marietta, GA 30068
Nancy Fitz
EPA/OPP (H 7507-C)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Joanne Kick-Raack
Assistant Coordinator for Pesticide
Training
1991 Kenny Road
Columbus, OH 43210
Anne Leslie
EPA/OPP (H 7506-C)
401 M St. S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Larry Palmer
Minnesota Department of
Agriculture
90 West Plato Boulevard
Saint Paul, MN 55107-2094
Noah Poritz
Biological Control of Weeds
1418 Maple Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
Brian O'Neal, Mark Matyjas,
Gerald Portele, and John King
Tetra Tech
120 Howard Street
Suite 475
San Francisco, CA 94105
Benjamin Fries
California Department of Toxic
Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Acknowledgments iv
1. Introduction 1
Overview of Waste Minimization 1
Facility Planning for Pollution Prevention 1
Planning and Organization Phase 2
Assessment Phase 2
Feasibility Analysis Phase 4
Implementation Phase 4
References
2. Profile of the Non-Agricultural Pesticide Application Industry
Industry Description 5
Process Description 5
Waste Description 5
Lawn and Garden Services 6
Forestry and Tree and Shrub Services 7
Sanitary Services 7
Disinfecting and Structural Pest Control Services 7
Ornamental Floriculture and Nursery Products 8
Reference 8
3. Waste Minimization Options for Non-Agricultural Pesticide Application 9
Introduction 9
Source Reduction and Recycling Options 9
Integrated Pest Management 9
Inventory Management 14
Proper Mixing 15
Product Substitution 15
Container Waste Minimization 18
Efficient Application 19
Good Housekeeping Practices 21
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Section Page
Economics 22
Integrated Pest Management 23
Inventory Management 23
Proper Mixing and Product Substitution 23
Container Waste Minimization 23
Efficient Application 24
Good Housekeeping Practices 24
References 24
4. Guidelines for Using the Waste Minimization
Assessment Worksheets 28
APPENDIX A:
Non-Agricultural Pesticide Industry
Field Assessments: Case Studies 41
APPENDIX B:
Where to Get Help: Further Information on
Pollution Prevention 48
VI
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This guide is designed to provide non-agricultural
pesticide users with waste minimization options. It
also provides worksheets for carrying out waste mini-
mization assessments. The guide is intended for use
by the non-agricultural pesticide industry and regula-
tory agency representatives, industry suppliers, and
consultants.
In the following sections of this manual you will
find:
• A profile of the non-agricultural pesticide appli-
cation industry and the processes used in it
(Section 2)
• Waste minimization options for the industry
(Section 3)
• Waste minimization assessment guidelines and
worksheets (Section 4)
• Appendices, containing
— Case studies of waste generation and waste
minimization practices in the industry
— Where to get help: additional sources of
information.
The worksheets are the result of updating and
expanding assessments of non-agricultural pesticide
application services in California (DHS 1991). Waste
generation and management practices were surveyed,
and potential waste minimization options were
identified.
Overview of Waste Minimization
Waste minimization is a policy specifically man-
dated by the U.S. Congress in the 1984 Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA). As the federal
agency responsible for writing regulations under
RCRA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has an interest in ensuring that new methods
and approaches are developed for minimizing hazard-
ous waste and that such information is made available
to the industries concerned. This guide is one of the
approaches EPA is using to provide industry-specific
information about hazardous waste minimization. The
options and procedures outlined can also be used in
efforts to minimize other wastes generated in a
business.
In the working definition used by EPA, waste min-
imization consists of source reduction and recycling.
Of the two approaches, source reduction is usually
considered preferable to recycling. While a few states
consider treatment of waste an approach to waste min-
imization, EPA does not, and thus treatment is not
addressed in this guide.
Facility Planning for
Pollution Prevention
With the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, the
U.S. Congress established pollution prevention as a
"national objective." To encourage the adoption of
pollution prevention activities in industry, EPA pub-
lished the Facility Pollution Prevention Guide
(USEPA 1992) as a successor to the Waste Minimiza-
tion Opportunity Assessment Manual (USEPA 1988),
which was a general manual for waste minimization in
industry. The Waste Minimization Opportunity
Assessment Manual described how to conduct a waste
minimization assessment and develop options for
reducing hazardous waste generation at a facility.
The Facility Pollution Prevention Guide expands
the scope of the Waste Minimization Opportunity
Assessment Manual to emphasize "multimedia" pollu-
tion prevention. It explains the management strategies
needed to incorporate pollution prevention into com-
pany policies and how to establish a company-wide
pollution prevention program, conduct assessments,
implement options, and make the program an ongoing
one. It is intended to help small- to medium-sized
production facilities develop broad-based, multi-
media pollution prevention programs. Methods of
-------
evaluating, adjusting, and maintaining the program are
described. Later chapters deal with cost analysis for
pollution prevention projects and with the roles of
product design and energy conservation in pollution
prevention. Appendices consist of materials that will
support the pollution prevention effort such as assess-
ment worksheets and sources of additional
information.
The method described in the Waste Minimization
Opportunity Assessment (WMOA) Manual is generally
the same as the method for carrying out facility pollu-
tion prevention planning. It is a systematic procedure
for identifying ways to reduce or eliminate waste.
The four phases of a waste minimization opportunity
assessment are planning and organization, assessment,
feasibility analysis, and implementation. The steps
involved in conducting a waste minimization assess-
ment are outlined in Figure 1 and presented in more
detail below. Briefly, the assessment consists of a
careful review of a facility's operations and waste
streams and the selection of specific areas to assess.
After a particular waste stream or area is established
as the WMOA focus, a number of options with the
potential to minimize waste are developed and
screened. The technical and economic feasibility of
the selected options are then evaluated. Finally, the
most promising options are selected for
implementation.
PLANNING AND ORGANIZATION PHASE
Essential elements of planning and organization for
a waste minimization program are getting management
commitment for the program, setting waste minimiza-
tion goals, and organizing an assessment program task
force.
ASSESSMENT PHASE
The assessment phase involves a number of steps:
• Collect process and facility data
• Prioritize and select assessment targets
• Select assessment team
• Review data and inspect site
• Generate options
• Screen and select options for feasibility study.
Collect Process Data
The waste streams at a facility or in a service's
operations should be identified and characterized.
Information about waste streams may be available in
hazardous waste manifests, National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) reports, routine
sampling programs, and other sources.
Developing a basic understanding of the processes
that generate waste is essential to the WMOA process.
Flow diagrams should be prepared to identify the
quantity, types, and rates of waste generating process-
es. Also, preparing material balances for the different
processes can be useful in tracking various process
components and identifying losses or emissions that
may have been unaccounted for previously.
Prioritize and Select Assessment Targets
Ideally, all waste streams hi an operation or at a
facility should be evaluated for potential waste min-
imization opportunities. With limited resources, how-
ever, the operations manager may need to concentrate
waste minimization efforts for a specific operation.
Such considerations as quantity of waste, hazardous
properties of the waste, regulations, safety of employ-
ees, economics, and other characteristics need to be
evaluated in selecting target streams or operations.
Select Assessment Team
The team should include people with direct respon-
sibility for and knowledge of the particular waste
stream or operation being assessed. Equipment opera-
tors and people involved in routine waste management
should not be ignored.
Review Data and Inspect Site
The assessment team evaluates process data in
advance of the inspection. The inspection should fol-
low the target process from the point where raw mate-
rials enter to the point where products and wastes
leave. The team should identify the suspected sources
of waste. This may include the production process,
maintenance, operations, and storage areas. The
inspection may result in the formation of preliminary
conclusions about waste minimization opportunities.
-------
The Recognized Need to Minimize Waste
i
PLANNING AND ORGANIZATION
> Get management commitment
• Set overall assessment program goals
• Organize assessment program task force
Assessment Organization &
Commitment to Proceed
ASSESSMENT
• Collect process and facility data
• Prioritize and select assessment targets
• Select people for assessment teams
• Review data and inspect site
• Generate options
• Screen and select options for further study
Select New Assessment
Targets and Reevaluate
Previous Options
Assessment Report of
Selected Options
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
• Technical evaluation
• Economic evaluation
• Select options for implementation
Final Report, Including
Recommended Options
IMPLEMENTATION
1 Justify projects and obtain funding
1 Installation (equipment)
1 Implementation (procedure)
> Evaluate performance
Repeat the
Process
Successfully Implemented
Waste Minimization Projects
Figure 1. The Waste Minimization Assessment Procedure
-------
Full confirmation of these conclusions may require
additional data collection, analysis, and/or site visits.
Generate Options
The objective of this step is to generate a compre-
hensive set of waste minimization options for further
consideration. Since technical and economic concerns
will be considered in the later feasibility step, no
options are ruled out at this time. Information from
the site inspection, as well as trade associations, gov-
ernment agencies, technical and trade reports, equip-
ment vendors, consultants, and plant engineers and
operators may serve as sources of ideas for waste
minimization options.
Both source reduction and recycling options should
be considered. Source reduction may be accom-
plished through good operating practices, technology
changes, input material changes, and product changes.
Recycling includes use and reuse of water, solvents,
rinsates, and other recyclable materials, where
appropriate.
Screen and Select Options for Feasibility Study
This screening process is intended to select the
most promising options for a full technical and eco-
nomic feasibility study. Through either an informal
review or a quantitative decision-making process,
options that appear marginal, impractical, or inferior
are eliminated from consideration.
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS PHASE
An option must be shown to be technically and
economically feasible to merit serious consideration
for adoption at a facility. A technical evaluation
determines whether a proposed option will work in a
specific application. Both process and equipment
changes need to be assessed for their overall effects
on waste quantity and product quality. A major con-
cern is the impact of any proposed changes on the
product license. Minor changes may be implemented
rather easily, but major changes may require review
and approval of the revised process. The time
required for this activity may make some options
impossible. Further, many pesticide users are provid-
ing services to property owners who may need to be
educated before a new technique can be adopted.
An economic evaluation is carried out using stan-
dard measures of profitability, such as payback period,
return on investment, and net present value. As in
any project, the cost elements of a waste minimization
project can be broken down into capital costs and
operating costs. Savings and changes in revenue and
waste disposal costs also need to be considered, as do
present and future cost avoidances. In cases of
increasingly stringent government requirements,
actions that increase the cost of production may be
necessary.
IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
An option that passes both technical and economic
feasibility reviews should be implemented. The proj-
ect can be turned over to the appropriate group for
execution while the WMOA team, with management
support, continues the process of tracking wastes and
identifying other opportunities for waste minimization.
Periodic reassessments may be conducted to see if the
anticipated waste reductions were achieved. Data can
be tracked and reported for each implemented idea in
terms such as pounds of waste per production unit.
Either initial investigations of waste minimization
opportunities or the reassessments can be conducted
using the worksheets in this manual.
References
DHS. 1991. Waste Audit Study: Non-Agriculural
Pesticide Application Industry. Prepared by Tetra
Tech, Inc. for Alternative Technology Section,
Toxic Substances Control Division, California
Department of Health Services.
USEPA. 1992. Facility Pollution Prevention Guide.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-92/088.
USEPA. 1988. Waste Minimization Opportunity
Assessment Manual. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,
EPA/625/7-88/003.
-------
SECTION 2
PROFILE OF THE NON-AGRICULTURAL
PESTICIDE APPLICATION INDUSTRY
Industry Description
The non-agricultural pesticide application industry
is defined for the purposes of this manual as lawn and
garden services (Standard Industrial Classification
0782), ornamental shrub and tree services (SIC 0783),
forestry services (SIC 0851), sanitary services (SIC
4959), disinfecting and pest control services (SIC
7342), and ornamental floriculture and nursery prod-
ucts (SIC 0181). Firms providing these services
include landscape maintenance firms, commercial
nurseries, and structural pest control firms, as well as
government agencies. Many of these firms specialize
in the application of pesticides (e.g., pest control
services), while for others pesticide application is
secondary. Application of pesticides to field crops is
not considered in this manual. Further, this manual is
not intended as a comprehensive guide to pollution
prevention in the non-agricultural pesticide industry.
It is an introduction designed to assist pesticide users
who want to begin to assess opportunities for waste
minimization.
Non-agricultural application of pesticides represents
a sizable portion of the demand for and use of pesti-
cides nationwide. Private companies or local,
regional, and state agencies either perform their own
pest control activities or contract pest control services
to others. Industry data indicate that $853,593,000
was spent on non-crop pesticides in 1989. This was
16 percent of the total U.S. sales of pesticides in 1989
(Ernst and Young 1989). An analysis of 1989 pesti-
cide sales in the United States by type and end use is
provided in Table 1.
Process Description
The non-agricultural pesticide application industry
must safely and efficiently control a variety of pests in
many environments. As a result, the industry has
evolved a broad range of formulations and application
techniques to serve customer needs.
Typical pesticide application activities include
• Storing and distributing pesticide products
• Mixing and formulating pesticides
• Applying pesticides
• Cleaning equipment
• Managing waste.
Formulation types and handling procedures for
conventional pesticides are given in Table 2.
Chemical pesticides may be formulated as dusts,
emulsifiable concentrates, granules, solutions, or wet-
table powders. Emulsifiable concentrates are pro-
duced by dissolving the pesticide in a solvent and
adding emulsifiers. Granules are produced by diluting
the pesticide with inert and functional ingredients.
Wettable powders are produced by applying pesticides
to clay particles with a wetting agent. Dusts are fre-
quently used to apply insecticides and fungicides, but
surfactants are usually used to apply herbicides.
Surfactants are produced as detergents, dispersants,
emulsifiers, spreading agents, or wetting agents.
While many pesticides cannot be easily mixed in
water, surfactants make pesticides highly water
soluble.
Because pesticides are frequently obtained as
concentrates, the user is responsible for safely
(1) storing the material; (2) transferring, mixing, and
applying the material; and (3) recycling or disposing
of excess concentrate, mixtures, rinsate, and
containers. The user is also responsible for preventing
pesticide drift.
Waste Description
Major waste streams within this industry include
used protective clothing, empty pesticide containers,
-------
Table 1. 1989 U.S. Pesticide Sales by Type and End Use
Composite Analysis of AH Reporting Companies
(in thousands)
CROP USE
NON-CROP USE
Forestry
Industrial
Weed Control
Brush Management
Turf, Nursery
Ornamentals
Home & Garden
Pesticide Contract
Operators
Public Health
Other Non-crop
Categories Not Shown
Above(b)
Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL
Herbicides
$3,043,700
46,843
107,325
43,451
94,680
75,557
0
0
67,834
0
$435,690
$3,479,390
Insecticides
$897,692
4,549
0
0
52,926
59,537
127,429
(D)
(D)
21,160
$265,601
$1,163,293
Fungicides
$315,832
0
(D)
0
65,439
ff>)
0
0
(D)
13,587
$79,026
$394,858
Other
$213,605
0
(D)
0
15,303
(D)
27,634
(D)
(D)
30.339
$73,276
$286,881
Total(a)
$4,470,829
51,392
128,837
43,451
228,348
137,090
155.063
12,394
97,018
$853.593
$5,324.422
Percent of
U.S. Sales
83.97
0.97
2.42
0.82
4.29
2.57
2.91
0.23
1.82
N/A
16.03
100.00
(D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
(a) Total U.S. pesticide sales by end use.
(b) Total of categories shown as (D) value is included in total by end use.
Source: Ernst and Young 1989.
rinsate from cleaning containers and equipment, sur-
plus inventory, surplus field mixtures, plastic tarps
used in structural fumigation, pesticide dust and water
droplets, and pesticide residues in soil. In a broader
sense, pesticide wastes also include those pesticides
unnecessarily or over-applied to targeted areas and
pesticides mistakenly or inadvertently applied to non-
targeted areas, which is illegal. The activities and
types of waste generated by individual segments of
the non-agricultural pesticide application industry are
discussed below.
LAWN AND GARDEN SERVICES
Lawn and garden services include lawn care,
cemetery upkeep, roadside right-of-way, and golf
course care. This is probably the largest of the seg-
ments of the non-agricultural pesticide application
industry addressed in this guide, with most of the
firms involved in landscaping and lawn maintenance.
A wide variety of liquid, powder, and granular pesti-
cides are used by lawn services. Liquids and wettable
powders are applied using wick applicators, knapsack
-------
Table 2. Common Pesticide Formulation Types and Handling Procedures
Formulation
Type
Oil sprays and
liquids
Wettable powders
Dusts
Granulars
Aerosols
Emulsifiable
concentrates
Special Handling or
Storage Procedures
Avoid storing in extreme
temperature conditions
Avoid high humidity or
contact with ground
Avoid using during windy
conditions
Store in dry areas
Avoid using during windy
conditions
Store in dry areas
Signs of Deterioration
Milky coloration does not
occur when water is added
Lumping occurs and powder
will not suspend in water
Excessive lumping
Excessive lumping
Aerosol nozzle becomes
obstructed
Milky coloration does not
occur when water is added;
sludge formation
Application Procedures
Sprayers
Sprayers
Dust fogs using hand- or
power-operated blowers
Manually or using mechan-
ical spreaders
Pressurized sprayers
Sprayers
sprayers or truck-mounted spraying equipment, pow-
ders and dusts are applied by hand or with powered
blowers, and granules are applied by hand or with
mechanical spreaders. Wastes include pesticide dust
and droplets, used pesticide containers, outdated or
canceled products, protective clothing, rinse water,
spills, and unused or deteriorated pesticide.
FORESTRY AND TREE AND
SHRUB SERVICES
A variety of chemical pest control techniques are
used to provide ornamental tree and shrub and forestry
services. Tree protection chemicals are generally
formulated as liquid concentrates, solutions, and
emulsifiable concentrates or powders that are sprayed
on trees when maintenance practices do not suffi-
ciently control pests. Spreaders, stickers, and surfac-
tant additives keep chemicals in suspension and
improve their ability to stick to and wet foliage. The
wastes from these activities include airborne droplets,
used pesticide containers, outdated or canceled prod-
ucts, protective clothing, rinse water, spills, and
unused or deteriorated pesticide.
SANITARY SERVICES
Sanitary services relevant to the non-agricultural
pesticide industry include mosquito eradication and
malaria control. Mosquito eradication frequently is
coordinated through mosquito abatement districts,
vector control districts and programs, and pest abate-
ment districts. If mosquitoes are allowed to become
adults, wide areas must be sprayed. Therefore, an
increasing number of mosquito control agencies con-
centrate their efforts on the aquatic mosquito larvae
and pupae. Wastes generated in this segment of the
industry include airborne droplets, used pesticide
containers, outdated or canceled products, protective
clothing, rinse water, and unused pesticide.
DISINFECTING AND STRUCTURAL
PEST CONTROL SERVICES
Firms that provide disinfecting, exterminating, and
fumigating services rid buildings of moths, cock-
roaches, termites, other insects, rodents, wood-
decaying fungi, and other pests. Structural pest
control services use a variety of synthetic pyrethroid,
-------
organophosphate, and methylcarbamate insecticides
and bait to control pests that attack and destroy build-
ings, clothing, stored food, and manufactured and
processed goods. Bait containing diphacinone as an
active ingredient is commonly used for rat and mouse
eradication. Wastes generated in this segment of the
industry include pesticide residues, outdated products,
uneaten bait, canceled products, unused or deteriorated
pesticide, spills, and empty containers.
ORNAMENTAL FLORICULTURE
AND NURSERY PRODUCTS
The ornamental floriculture and nursery products
segment of the industry is engaged primarily in pro-
ducing ornamental plants and other nursery products,
such as bulbs, florists' greens, flowers, shrubbery,
flower and vegetable seeds and plants, and sod.
These products may be grown under cover (green-
house, frame, cloth house, lath house) or outdoors.
Pests include aphids, scales, beetles, mites, rats,
squirrels, birds, snakes, fungi, bacteria, viruses, and
weeds. Wastes generated include used pesticide con-
tainers, outdated or canceled products, protective
clothing, rinse water, spills, and unused or deteriorated
pesticide.
Reference
Ernst and Young. 1989. National Agricultural Chem-
icals Association Industry Profile, Washington, DC,
p. 7.
-------
SECTION 3
WASTE MINIMIZATION OPTIONS FOR
NON-AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE APPLICATION
Introduction
Several source reduction and recycling options are
available to minimize waste from non-agricultural
pesticide use. If waste cannot be reduced or elimi-
nated through source reduction practices, recycling is
the next best solution. One of the best ways of mini-
mizing pesticide waste is to follow pesticide label
instructions, hi addition, it may be possible to
minimize pesticide use through integrated pest
management.
In many operations, the quantity or toxicity of the
hazardous waste can be significantly reduced through
relatively simple changes in process management In
contrast to agricultural and manufacturing industries,
non-agricultural pesticide services frequently do not
have control over the property to which they apply
pesticides. However, the options suggested in this
manual may be offered as recommendations to
property owners if they cannot be implemented
directly.
Non-agricultural pesticide users should keep abreast
of improved technology in hazardous waste reduction
and management. Information sources include trade
journals, chemical and equipment suppliers, equipment
expositions, conferences, and industry association
newsletters. Advancing technology can provide eco-
nomical alternatives that can lead to reduced waste
generation and a more cost-efficient operation.
Hazardous waste, worker health and safety, and
other environmental and safety requirements change
continually at the federal, state, and local levels.
Non-agricultural pesticide users must keep up to date
on these changes and maintain flexibility regarding
waste management options.
Waste Minimization Options
• Integrated Pest Management
• Inventory Management
• Proper Mixing
• Product Substitution
• Container Waste Minimization
• Efficient Application
• Good Housekeeping Practices
Source Reduction and
Recycling Options
Integrated pest management should be the guiding
principle for implementing waste reduction techniques.
In addition to integrated pest management, inventory
control, proper pesticide mixing, product substitution,
container waste minimization, efficient application of
pesticides, and good housekeeping practices will
reduce waste.
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
Integrated pest management (IPM) is an approach
to waste management that considers the whole eco-
system in determining the best methods for controlling
pests. Factors such as prior pest history, plant growth
and development, and pest monitoring information are
considered when developing a pest management plan.
IPM pest control strategies are designed to require
minimal use of pesticides and emphasize solutions that
will minimize harm to the ecosystem, human health,
and the environment (Brett 1985).
-------
By using a range of approaches (including physi-
cal, biological, and chemical methods) for controlling
pests, IPM commonly reduces the need for chemical
pesticides by between 50 percent and 90 percent. An
added advantage of IPM is that, with decreased expo-
sure to chemical pesticides, pests are less likely to
become resistant. When chemical pesticides must be
used, they are thus more likely to be effective.
Much has been written about various IPM pro-
grams within the non-agricultural sector, including
descriptions of programs used for controlling pests in
forests and parks (Daar 1987, Widin 1987, Nielsen
1989, Ticehurst and Finley 1988, and Collman 1989),
greenhouses (Helyer and Payne 1986), and commer-
cial lawn care (Leslie and Metcalf 1989). The success
of IPM in reducing waste and controlling pest
populations makes it clear that this process should be
a fundamental part of every waste management
program.
The six steps common to all IPM plans (shown in
Figure 2) can be used to determine appropriate treat-
ment methods and time frames (Srinath 1986, Bechtol
1989). Planning for a large project (forest or park
treatment) should include an evaluation of staff
resources and training before beginning Step 1. Staff
must be available and trained to identify critical pests.
After pests have been identified and the ecosystem
defined (Steps 1 and 2), pest populations must be
assessed (Step 3). Pest population survey methods
should be tailored to the size of the operation and the
nature of the pest. In many cases, visual observation
of plant populations or a survey of insect populations
with a hand lens will allow accurate assessment of
pest problems. A sticky trap has also been developed
to monitor greenhouse pests (Larsen 1986). Phero-
mone traps have proven an important tool for insect
population assessment in larger areas. Sex phero-
mones for over 1,000 insects have been identified.
Data from traps can be used to locate sources of
infestation, as well as determine the timing of control
methods. Pheromone traps also serve to identify the
pest and to measure the efficacy of control programs
following pesticide application. As a result, fewer
applications of pesticides are necessary, and the area
requiring treatment is reduced.
Based on the information obtained by monitoring
pest populations, the cost effectiveness of a pest
management program can be determined (Step 4). If
such a program seems necessary, options should be
developed (Step 5) and evaluated (Step 6). These
steps make IPM a practical strategy for alleviating
pest problems with a minimum of pesticide waste.
The goal of pest management is not necessarily to
eliminate pests, but to maintain them at acceptable
levels. By following the six steps of integrated pest
management, pest populations can be brought within
tolerable numbers.
As the integrated pest management approach has
developed, specific methods have been established for
several industries. In the plant care field, the concept
of plant health care (PHC) has been given increased
emphasis. In contrast to IPM, PHC focuses on plant
health rather than pests. A few examples of IPM and
PHC are mentioned below.
Lawn and Garden Services
IPM and PHC methods that can be used by lawn
and garden services include selecting plants resistant
to the pests prevalent in an area, modifying the habitat
to suit the plants by mulching or decreasing plant den-
sity, and continuously evaluating a plant's needs.
Fertilization, pruning, and watering practices can be
changed as needed. Pests can be removed manually;
or traps, baits, and barriers can be used (Helyer and
Payne 1986). Natural enemies can be introduced, or
microbial insecticides can be applied if these measures
do not work. Chemical control methods are used as a
supplement if needed.
Implementing IPM and PHC methods for home
lawns and gardens is relatively simple. However,
because of the extent of the turfgrass in public areas,
planning the appropriate strategy becomes more
complex.
Turfgrass covers more than 25 million acres of the
United States in the form of home lawns, golf courses,
parks, athletic fields, schools, and other areas (Wu and
Harivandi 1988). Interest has been increasing on the
part of the public and the turfgrass industry to manage
turf in a way that requires a minimum of pesticides
and fertilizers (Schultz 1989, Bio-Integral Resource
Center 1987, Bennett and Owens 1986, and Ware
10
-------
Six Steps are Common to Integrated Pest Management Plans
STEP1. IDENTIFY PESTS
Identify the diseases, insects, or weeds that occur with a
frequency and magnitude that qualifies them as pests.
I
STEP 2. DERNE THE ECOSYSTEM
Set the boundaries of the area to be treated. Determine life
cycle and ecological interaction of pests and resource to
be protected.
I
STEP 3. CREATE A MONITORING SYSTEM
Divide the ecosystem into smaller sections that must be
examined regularly to assess pest and natural enemy
populations and activities.
STEP 4. ESTABLISH INJURY AND ACTION THRESHOLDS
Determine the threshold level at which the severity of
damage becomes more costly than the implementation
of a pest management program.
i
STEPS. DEVELOP TREATMENT OPTIONS
Consider habitat modification, modification of cultural
care, physical control, and enhancement or introduction of
natural enemies as options and use chemical pesticides
as a last resort.
i
STEP 6. EVALUATE
Evaluate the successes and failures of each treatment
method.
Figure 2. Six Steps Common to All IPM Plans
11
-------
1988). The Iowa State University Extension Service
has published several turfgrass management brochures
containing guidelines for maintaining healthy turf
(Iowa State University, 199la, b, and c).
The key to low-input turf management is reducing
plant stress through practices that create healthy turf
that is resistant to disease and insect pressure. Turf
health care is a key element of a successful IPM
program for lawns and gardens. The goal of turf
health is reducing plant stress to help a plant resist
disease, insect, and weed pressures. Providing an
optimum environment for establishing and growing
turfgrass should be the first objective of any lawn care
program. Evaluating and improving the soil condition
and establishing and selecting the proper turfgrass
variety should be the starting point. Having the soil
tested provides important information about the soil's
pH and its level of phosphorus, potassium, and minor
elements. Proper fertilization, aeration, irrigation, and
mowing are also factors that affect turf health and
quality.
For example, it is important to avoid excessive
applications of nitrogen to turf. Too much nitrogen
reduces turf drought tolerance and increases thatch
production, susceptibility to disease, and invasion by
weeds.
Irrigation should be managed closely to reduce dis-
ease, insect, and weed problems. Deep, less frequent
irrigations encourage healthy root systems that are
drought- and pest-resistant. Shallow irrigation results
in shallow root systems and turf that more easily
succumbs to pest problems. Excessive water also
creates areas of stagnant water, promoting conditions
favorable for mosquito growth. In arid areas, select-
ing a turf species that performs well with minimal
water input is important (Wu and Harivandi 1988).
When selecting a turfgrass species, several factors
should be considered. The turfgrass should be adapt-
able to the shade, moisture, and fertility of the loca-
tion. Varieties tolerant to diseases such as leaf spot,
dollar spot, and Fusarium blight should be used if
possible. The turfgrass varieties Allstar and Repell
(both perennial ryes) and some tall fescue varieties
contain a fungus that gives the turf resistance to
surface-feeding insects such as sod webworms and
chinch bugs.
Mowing practices also greatly influence turf health.
Grass that is cut too short is less vigorous, and conse-
quently is more susceptible to disease and insect prob-
lems and to bare spots that allow weed encroachment
(Emmons 1984). In general, temperate turfgrass
should be mowed to a height of two to three inches,
no more than one-third of the surface area should be
cut off at a time, and the clippings should be left on
the lawn to maintain nutrients (Clark 1987).
Subtropical turfgrasses, grown in the Western and
Southern states, should be mowed to a height of
3/4 inch to 1-1/2 inches.
Common turf insect pests include several beetle
species: white grubs (the larval stages of several
beetle species, including the Japanese beetle),
European chafers, Asiatic garden beetles, and green
June beetles. Chinch bugs, sod webworms, and mole
crickets may also cause problems. Practices that
promote healthy turf go a long way toward reducing
these pests. A healthy turf can withstand up to eight
to ten beetle grubs per square foot and is also much
more tolerant of chinch bug damage (Clark 1987).
Several control options exist for managing turf insect
pests. Entomogenous (insect feeding) nematodes have
been used against several beetle species and mole
crickets. Bacillus thuringiensis is used against sod
webworms. Irrigation is used to solve chinch bug
outbreaks. The turfgrass varieties Allstar and Repell
(both perennial ryes) and some tall fescue varieties
contain a fungus that gives the turf resistance to
surface-feeding insects such as sod webworms and
chinch bugs.
Forestry and Tree and Shrub Services
Fully integrated pest control for forestry and tree
and shrub services can include behavioral, physical,
biological, and chemical methods. Bacteria, viruses,
and pheromone mating disruption products have been
demonstrated to control pests such as the codling
moth and oriental fruit moth (Ridgeway et al. 1990).
Population monitoring and biological pesticides
have been used to predict and control pest populations
in forests. Bacillus thuringiensis, toxic to a narrow
range of lepidoptera, has proven effective against the
gypsy moth and spruce budworm in Western forests
(Bernier et al. 1990). New products for pest control
12
-------
include pheromone mating disruption products for
defoliators and semiochemicals that act as growth
regulators to prevent maturation and reproduction.
Mass trapping of bark beetles has also shown some
success.
Often pest outbreaks on a forest-wide scale are
linked to environmental stress from drought and other
factors. Non-chemical strategies to improve stand
resistance to insects include thinning and removal of
diseased and damaged trees. Watering and fertiliza-
tion, when practical, can also improve tree vigor.
Long-term strategies include diversifying the age
classes of forest stands and managing for persistent
species.
Sanitary Services
Mosquito IPM has outpaced many other sectors of
pest control because of the need to prevent outbreaks
of disease (such as encephalitis and malaria) carried
by mosquitoes. Sophisticated operations exist on
small and large scales throughout the country.
A traditional mosquito control approach, which
uses fogging machines to apply oil solutions directly
to marshes and standing water, contributes signifi-
cantly to localized air pollution. As an alternative,
PPM begins by identifying sources of mosquito pro-
duction. Often these sources can be eliminated.
Examples include removing old tires and other objects
that collect water and improving drainage to remove
seasonal breeding sites. Many breeding sites are
wetlands that are important to fish and wildlife.
Because these areas may be protected by state and
federal law, proper land-use authorities should be
consulted prior to any drainage improvement work.
When breeding sites cannot be removed, dip-
netting is used to identify and quantify the pest
population. Biological control methods such as
predatory insects and mosquito fish can be used where
practical. When breeding sites are only present
seasonally, larvicides may be required.
Mosquitoes in the larval stage can be controlled
with Bacillus thuringienis israelensis (Bti) (Knepper et
al. 1991). Bti kills only the larval stage of the
mosquito and does not affect other wildlife or bene-
ficial insects, pets, or people. Bti comes in granular,
powder, and liquid formulations. Methoprene, an
insect growth regulator, mimics a natural insect
hormone and prevents larvae from entering the pupal
stage. Methoprene readily degrades into non-toxic
products. Both of these products are available in
long-lasting formulations allowing for fewer appli-
cations.
Following larvicide application, production sources
should be measured again for larvae or pupae. If
larvae are present, larvicide can be reapplied. If
pupae are present, surface coating surfactants can be
used to inhibit the ability of the adult mosquito to
emerge from the pupal case. Narrow-spectrum surfac-
tants should be used. As a last resort, when adult
mosquitoes are abundant and need to be controlled,
resmethrin, a synthetic pyrethroid, can be sprayed as
an ultrafine fog adulticide. Resmethrin is toxic to
non-target aquatic organisms, but has a relatively short
active lifetime (Holmes 1992).
Disinfecting and Structural
Pest Control Services
Pests in buildings are managed largely through
preventive measures which, if taken, should greatly
reduce the need for actual pest control. Sanitation is
key. Good sanitation involves sealing and storing
food properly, cleaning up crumbs or spills, and dis-
posing garbage properly in a covered and sealed con-
tainer. Structural repairs may also be necessary to
prevent a pest problem. The roof and walls of a
building should be checked for cracks and signs of
water damage or decay and repaired. Cement aprons
and channels can be installed to prevent moisture-
seeking insects from becoming established in water
accumulating near foundations. Cracks around win-
dows, doors, and the foundation should be sealed with
caulking. Screens should be installed or replaced as
necessary. Where preventive measures fail, several
control measures are available. Heat treatments and
sorptive dusts such as silica aerogels blown into wall
voids are sometimes effective. Non-pesticidal controls
such as glue boards, snap and pheromone traps, and
insect electrocutors should be tried before chemical
pesticides are used.
13
-------
Ornamental Floriculture and Nursery Products
Pests of indoor plants can be controlled by care-
fully controlling the environment Care should be
taken not to introduce pests into the indoors. Barriers
can be constructed to exclude crawling pests such as
snails and slugs. Regulating moisture and heat is also
an effective pest control measure. For example, pro-
viding adequate moisture and protecting plants from
heat reduces mite infestations. Predatory mites,
insecticidal soaps, and horticultural oil are also
effective against pest mites. Leaves infested with
aphids can be pruned, and natural enemies such as
green lacewings are commercially available to control
aphids. Moderating the amount of nitrogen in
fertilizer reduces infestations of aphids, scale, and
whiteflies. Hand-held vacuums can be used to suck
up whiteflies.
EPM for plants grown indoors is well established.
Careful integration of pest control strategies must be
based on the number and type of plants grown.
Focusing on one pest can disrupt the environment and
create another pest outbreak. Most operations employ
both biological and chemical control techniques, but
favor introducing natural enemies. For example, red
spider mites and whiteflies are controlled by the
predators Phytoseiulus and Encarsia. Leafminers can
be removed by introducing ecto- and endoparasites
during warm weather. Caterpillars are managed by
applying the HD-1 strain of B. thuringiensis.
Steinernematid and Heterorhabditis, which like dark,
moist conditions, can be used to control mushroom
flies.
The integration of chemicals into control programs
may be necessary because there are some pests for
which biological control options have not been devel-
oped (Steiner and Elliot 1983). When chemical
pesticides must be used, materials should be selected
that are the least harmful to parasites and predators.
Insecticidal soaps, horticultural oils, and botanical
extracts can often be integrated safely into a control
program.
Many fungicides are toxic to beneficial organisms
and should be avoided if possible. It is important to
adopt practices that reduce disease pressure and the
consequent need for fungicides. Examples of such
practices include selecting disease-resistant varieties,
purchasing disease-free seeds and plants, using well-
drained soil, providing good air circulation, eradicat-
ing weeds, and assuring good sanitation.
INVENTORY MANAGEMENT
Proper management of pesticide inventories can
greatly reduce the amount of waste generated as a
result of the need to dispose of out-of-date products
and clean up spills. Whenever possible, pesticide con-
centrates and formulations should be centrally stored
and under the control of a limited number of person-
nel. Reducing the number of storage locations and
personnel handling raw products reduces overall
material handling and the associated chance of spills.
Also, restricting access reduces the chance of
unauthorized and untrained personnel mishandling
pesticides. Larger firms may want to adopt a comput-
erized inventory control system.
Inventory Management
• Store centrally
• Limit number of personnel involved
• Adopt computerized inventory control
• Train personnel
• Limit quantities purchased
• Protect from exposure
• Eliminate spill hazards
The quantity of pesticides stored on-site should be
limited. Ordering small quantities of pesticide avoids
many problems. First, the storage time of a pesticide
may exceed its shelf life or a new, less toxic substi-
tute may be developed, requiring management of
excess product. Second, if a spill or fire occurs, less
product will be involved, thus reducing the quantity of
waste or emissions generated. Further, if a product is
banned, any that is inventoried might become waste.
A firm should avoid purchasing excess pesticides
simply to obtain a discount, if possible. Pesticides
should be purchased from a supplier that will accept
timely return of full, unopened containers.
14
-------
Pesticides should be stored in a covered area pro-
tected from moisture, sunlight, and temperature
extremes. The storage area should be locked and
ventilated and have secondary containment or positive
drainage control to reduce the impact of a spill. Spill
or damage hazards include storage on high shelves;
exposure to activity, floor traffic, and machinery; and
exposure to heat or sunlight. To avoid these hazards,
product containers should be stored on sturdy pallets
or shelves where they can be readily inspected for
signs of damage or leakage on a regular basis.
PROPER MIXING
Properly mixing pesticides minimizes loss to the
non-targeted environment as well as reduces worker
exposure. Solid formulations for popular sprayable
products, which must be dispersed in water before
spraying, are sold as wettable powders, dry flowables,
or water dispersible granules. While powders have
significant dust-making potential, especially when
conditions are windy, dry flowables and water-
dispersible granules are dust free if they are well
designed. However, granular products can get on
pavement and in flower beds if they are improperly
used. Microencapsulated liquid formulations of espe-
cially toxic active ingredients should be used to pre-
vent unnecessary exposure (Hudson and Tarwater
1988).
Mixing only enough pesticide for the job at hand
and using closed mixing systems and premeasured
water-soluble packages, if available, will minimize
waste from mixing and application processes (Marer
1988).
Proper Mixing
• Use well-designed dry flowable and water-
dispersible pesticides
• Use microencapsulated liquid formulations
• Mix only the amount required
• Use closed or in-line mixing systems
Closed or in-line mixing systems reduce waste dur-
ing spray application of pesticides (Noyes 1991). In
an in-line mixing system, concentrated pesticide is
drawn from a small, reusable reservoir and mixed
with dilution water in the spray nozzle. Dilution
water is supplied from a separate tank. Computerized
in-line mixing systems provide controlled pesticide
application. In-line mixing also eliminates container
handling, rinsing, and disposal. Waste resulting from
rinsing equipment is also reduced because the pesti-
cide is not mixed in large-volume dilution water tanks.
With computer controlled in-line mixing applicators,
the amount of pesticide can be accurately metered.
PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION
Product substitution is an effective means of source
reduction. Examples of product substitution applica-
ble to the non-agricultural pesticides industry include
• Using physical, biological, or less hazardous
chemical control techniques
• Using biodegradable herbicides instead of very
persistent organochlorine herbicides
• Using insecticidal soaps instead of organo-
phosphates or other broad spectrum insectides
• Using water-based formulations in place of
organic solvent-based products
Product Substitution
• Use physical, biological, or less hazardous
chemical control techniques
• Use biodegradable herbicides
• Use insecticidal soaps
• Use water-based formulations
• Use dry granular or slow-release liquid
pesticides
• Use horticultural controls
15
-------
• Using dry granular or slow-release liquid
pesticides
• Using horticultural controls.
A variety of physical, biological, and chemical
control techniques may be substituted for techniques
that generate significant amounts of waste. (Bio-
Integral Resource Center 1992, Fullick and Fullick
1991).
The choice of pest control measures may vary
greatly by particular site and geographic location,
variety of pest species, and acceptance of the
customer or owner of the property to their use. The
utilization of all these suggestions may be impractical,
but trying to use even one of them may help decrease
pollution. Some customers of those in the commercial
application business are now specifically asking for
alternative methods of pest control or pesticide-free
programs, and the trend is expected to continue.
Physical Control
Physical control techniques include exclusion,
trapping, vacuuming, cultivation, environment modifi-
cation, and sanitation. .Exclusion consists of using
barriers (such as screens) to exclude pests. Trapping
is a popular physical control method, and many differ-
ent kinds of traps are available. Glue traps hung in
trees or gardens capture numerous insects. Light traps
and electrocutors attract insects with a fluorescent
black light lamp and then either catch or kill them.
This technique is only effective when used indoors
(such as in a greenhouse) and in conjunction with
good sanitation. Food traps are usually stocked with a
liquid that lures and eventually drowns insects (e.g., a
wide-mouth jar half-filled with a 10 percent molasses
solution can be used to trap grasshoppers). An inter-
esting variation is the use of trap crops, which are
planted around crops to be harvested. Trap crops may
also be used to attract beneficial insects to infested
areas.
Several simple physical steps can be taken to make
an environment less susceptible to a pest invasion.
Tilling the soil regularly or spraying water on plant
leaves will disturb the hiding places of pests. Pests
can be suppressed in enclosed areas, such as green-
houses, by altering environmental conditions (e.g.,
temperature, light, and humidity). For example, bright
lights discourage bats and low humidity discourages
mold. Good sanitation eliminates factors necessary to
a pest's survival.
Biological Control
In classical biological control programs, host-
specific natural enemies that are not native to a geo-
graphical area are introduced to control exotic pests.
Other forms of biological control augment and main-
tain a nest's natural enemies.
Biological controls can be effectively used in
indoor or outdoor settings and on localized or wide-
spread pest populations. To be effective, biocontrol
agents should be released early in the season when
pest populations are low. This allows natural enemies
to overwhelm the incipient pest population before it
can rise to damaging levels. Examples include releas-
ing predatory mites in early summer when pest mite
numbers begin to rise as temperatures increase, or
releasing parasitic Encarsia spp. miniwasps to control
whiteflies when the first preadult whitefly larvae are
visible on the undersides of leaves.
Biological controls include plants that provide
natural barriers to pests. Attracting birds that prey on
insects to an area makes it more unsuitable to pests.
Other natural enemies (such as herbivorous and
carnivorous insect predators, as well as parasites) can
stop a pest explosion and maintain pest populations at
a tolerable level.
While not an option for all types of weeds, insects
can be used instead of, or in conjunction with, herbi-
cides to control weeds. For example, the seed-head
weevil and seed-head fly larvae feed on the seeds of
yellow star thistle, thereby destroying the pest plant's
ability to reproduce (Organic Gardening 1989a).
Another successful example is the use of weed-
feeding insects against tansy ragwort. The combined
attack of three such insects on the roots, leaves, and
flowers of the ragwort reduced livestock poisoning in
Oregon and resulted in an annual savings of $4 mil-
lion (Poritz 1993). Dozens of other imported, host-
specific, weed-feeding insects have resulted in
dramatic declines of numerous exotic weeds world-
wide. Carnivorous insect pest controllers include
16
-------
ladybugs for aphid control and spiders that attack
planthoppers.
Host-specific herbivorous insects have been
extensively imported to control pest invasions.
However, the imported insect must come from a
similar climate to ensure its survival. Introducing a
carnivorous insect that kills the wrong insects or that
mates with existing insects and produces a hybrid with
unknown characteristics should be avoided. The
vedalia beetle from Australia has been successfully
introduced to eradicate cottony-cushion scale in
California and the conservula caterpillar from South
Africa has been introduced in Britain to destroy
bracken (Fullick and Fullick 1991).
Bacterial insecticides are very effective in eradi-
cating undesirable insect populations, and new uses
for them are being developed. Bacillus thuringiensis
(Bt) is the most common bacterium used and is a
proven insecticide for over 15 species. Several sub-
species of Bt exist, which facilitates pest-specific
treatment of infected areas. Genetic engineering is
increasingly important in increasing the virulence and
range of bacteria for pest control. Genes from Bt
have been introduced into selected vegetables (i.e.,
tomatoes). However, some insect resistance to these
genetically engineered plants has been detected
(Fullick and Fullick 1991).
Suppressing grasshopper infestations with Nosema
locustae is an example of parasitic control of pests.
This protozoan parasite infects the insects by direct
exposure and is passed on to the next generation
through the eggs of an infected adult (Organic
Gardening 1989a).
Viral and fungal regulation of pests is being
researched extensively (Carr et al. 1991). Viral pesti-
cide field trial results are positive, but few products
are available. Viral pesticides are expected to control
gypsy moths, corn borers, tobacco budworms, and
cabbage loopers without harm to animals or humans
(Organic Gardening 1989b). A fungal pathogen that
attacks and destroys the internal organs of locusts is
being developed (Fullick and Fullick 1991). Rust
fungus has been identified as a possible biological
control for yellow star thistle. These techniques
should be available within a few years.
Chemical Control
In addition to physical and biological controls,
chemical methods such as placing salt-embedded
plastic in a garden to kill slugs or spraying soapy
water on plants to reduce aphid populations are often
effective. Boric acid, if it remains dry, kills roaches,
silverfish, and crickets and lasts longer than
organophosphate sprays. Saturation of an infested
area with the appropriate insect pheromone prevents
males from finding females and mating (Holmes
1992).
Insect sex pheromones and other semiochemicals
have been synthesized and formulated into monitoring
and control products for many economically important
insect pests. Monitoring traps, as discussed earlier,
permit pest identification and population assessment.
Recently, population control using pheromones has
been demonstrated for several insects. The technique
is known as mating disruption. Pheromone in a
controlled-release formulation is broadcast or hand
applied at rates high enough to out-compete calling
females for males. As a result, no offspring are
produced. In addition, beneficial insect populations
are not adversely affected and outbreaks of secondary
pests are prevented. Mating disruption products are
available for a limited but growing list of pests
(Holmes 1992).
Certain compounds are useful because of their
sorptive properties. Silica aerogel used in confined
areas such as wall voids and attics will dehydrate
roaches, termites, fleas, and other insects. Although it
exhibits low toxicity to animals and humans, silica
aerogel may be toxic to fish and should not be used
around lakes, streams, or ponds. Diatomaceous earth,
which is a drying agent and has an abrasive property,
can tear the cuticle and thus dehydrate insect pests
(Olkowski and Olkowski 1989).
Using pesticides derived from plant extracts is an
alternative to using traditional sprays. Extracts from
the sabadilla lily and neem trees have been used
against a variety of pests. Sabadilla powder is
obtained by grinding the seeds from the lily and is
usually mixed with diatomaceous earth before
packaging. The poison paralyzes and kills pests a
short time after contact and then deteriorates quickly
in sunlight, leaving no active sabadilla residue on
17
-------
vegetation. Sabadilla can be used for cucumber
beetles and harlequin bugs, but should not be used
indiscriminately because it is toxic to honeybees,
spiders, ladybugs, frogs, and fish (Pleasant 1991).
Neem cake and neem oil, both from the seeds of the
tree, are used as toxicants, growth-regulators, and anti-
feedants against over 25 species of pests. Neem oil
may also protect against fungus and virus attacks, but
more research is needed to support this claim. The
extracts of other plants closely related to the neem
tree (family Meliaceae) are being investigated for
insectitidal properties (Olkowski 1989).
CONTAINER WASTE MINIMIZATION
Pesticide containers must comply with federal,
state, and local regulations and should be designed to
allow safe, rapid, and clean transfer of their contents.
Generally, pesticides are formulated and packaged
by different groups within a company or by different
companies. To improve containers, a change in per-
ception is necessary from considering a container as
simply a vessel to transport a pesticide to seeing the
container as an important part of the pesticide delivery
system. The relationship between the container and
the pesticide is important in all stages of the pesticide/
container life cycle, including container use (trans-
portation, storage, transferring pesticide from the
container, etc.), residue removal, and container
Container Waste Minimization
• Consider the pesticide formulation and its
container as a unified system
• Purchase products in appropriate container
sizes
• Purchase certain products in water-soluble
packages
• Granulate and recycle containers
• Use container rinse water in application
mixtures
disposal. To assist pesticide users, the pesticide
industry must consider the pesticide formulation and
its container as a unified system, which would require
a significant change in production philosophy.
Efforts to improve pesticide container design
should take into consideration
• Protecting the integrity of the pesticide product
and the environment through which the container
passes
• Transferring pesticide safely and easily from the
container to the application equipment
• Minimizing the amount of unused pesticide resi-
due remaining in the container after the pesticide
has been transferred
• Minimizing the number of pesticide containers
requiring disposal (Fitz 1991 and 1992).
Pesticide users can minimize waste by purchasing
products in the container size needed for a particular
period of time. Refillable, returnable containers mini-
mize container waste because the user does not have
to dispose of empty jugs, cans, or bags.
Water-soluble packaging, when available, also
reduces waste. Water-soluble packages dissolve and
become part of the application mixture, avoiding the
need to clean containers and the need for measuring
and mixing equipment. Certain pesticides marketed as
wettable powders can now be purchased in water-
soluble, polyvinyl alcohol film packets that are added
directly to application equipment. Water-soluble
packaging is also being investigated for liquid
pesticides sold as emulsifiable liquid concentrates
(Hudson and Tarwater 1988).
The National Agricultural Chemicals Association is
pursuing several approaches to container waste mini-
mization, including the development of refillable and
water-soluble containers (Allison 1992). Tests are
being conducted on the feasibility of granulating and
recycling empty containers. The Agricultural Con-
tainer Research Council (ACRC), a non-profit organi-
zation of U.S. agricultural chemical manufacturers,
distributors, and dealers, has been formed to develop
state-level container programs and to conduct research
18
-------
to find acceptable uses for empty plastic containers.
A survey conducted in 1992 by the ACRC shows that
more than half of the states have collection and
recycling programs for plastic agricultural containers.
Container rinsing, which is required by many pesti-
cide labels, is effective for source reduction if the
rinse water is reused in application mixtures. Con-
tainers that are empty according to 40 CFR 261.7 are
not regulated as hazardous waste.
EFFICIENT APPLICATION
The efficiency of applying pesticides can be
improved by using the appropriate pesticide, properly
timing applications, and more effectively controlling
pesticide application. For example, spot treatment
may be as effective as blanket application of a pesti-
cide and is an effective way to reduce pesticide waste.
Generally, the application of pesticides should con-
form to manufacturer recommendations on the con-
tainer or technical sheet, and applicators should have
qualified formal training in pesticide usage. Infre-
quent or light application of the pesticide product may
result in product ineffectiveness, or eventual pest
Efficient Application
• Use the appropriate pesticide
• Follow manufacturer recommendations
• Practice spot treatment of pesticide
• Correctly sequence the application of
pesticide
• Calibrate equipment regularly
• Implement controlled drop sprayer tech-
niques such as rotary, air-assisted, and
direct charge injection atomizers
• Avoid spraying by using ropewick, roller,
or carpet applicators
• Select equipment of the most appropriate
size
resistance to the product. Too heavy or broad an
application may needlessly and harmfully impact the
environment. Deviations from manufacturer specifica-
tions must be based on reliable and competent techni-
cal sources and must be consistent with label direc-
tions. Examples would be the manufacturer's vendor
or representative, a governmental agricultural experi-
ment station or extension office, or a local university.
These information sources may also have useful
advice for minimizing generation of hazardous waste.
Federal and state information sources on pollution
prevention are listed in Appendix B. Other informa-
tion sources for pollution prevention include industry
associations, trade journals, trade shows, conferences,
and workshops.
Application Timing and Sequencing
Timing the application of pesticides is important
for controlling pests as well as protecting natural
enemies and beneficial insects. By correctly sequenc-
ing the application of various pesticides, cleaning
requirements can be significantly reduced. For
example, applying one type of pesticide to all areas
that require a particular treatment (e.g., insecticidal
treatment), then applying another type (e.g., a herbi-
cide) to other areas, eliminates the need to rinse
equipment between applications. Another way to
achieve the same effect is to have dedicated applica-
tion systems (i.e., separate equipment for each type of
pesticide), although this alternative may be too expen-
sive for small businesses.
Because some pesticides are more effective at dif-
ferent stages in the life cycle of pests, proper timing
of pesticide application is essential. If the pesticide is
applied at the correct stage in the life cycle of a target
pest, additional applications can be avoided. For
example, by applying pre-emergents at the correct
time, future applications of post-emergents may not be
needed. In addition, because insects are frequently
more sensitive at larval or immature stages of devel-
opment, applying them at the proper time will increase
the effectiveness of many insecticides. Treating
boring insects before they penetrate deeply into the
plant tissue is another example of proper timing.
Weather conditions also should be taken into
account when planning pesticide applications so that
19
-------
the amount of pesticide applied to targeted plants or
insects is maximized. Spray application efficiency
will be compromised on windy days; therefore,
applications should be rescheduled if windy conditions
prevail. Depending on the type of pesticide, rain in
small to moderate amounts can help or hinder applica-
tion efficiency.
Application Technology
Improving application techniques, as well as using
equipment of the appropriate size, increases the effi-
ciency of pesticide application. Calibrating equipment
more than once a year for granular and liquid pesti-
cides is a simple and effective way to reduce waste.
Spraying. Many pesticides are applied as a dilute
solution or suspension of pesticide concentrate in
water. The diluted material is dispensed as a spray
through a hydraulic nozzle. The standard hydraulic
nozzle ejects a stream under pressure to form a liquid
sheet at the nozzle tip. The sheet breaks up to form a
spray of drops with a broad, randomly distributed
drop size. For most pesticide applications, only a
narrow size range of droplets is really effective in
delivering the proper dose to the target. The actual
drop size needed depends on the type of pesticide (for
example, herbicide versus insecticide) and the target
characteristics (for example, greenhouse versus lawn).
Hydraulic spraying is effective but inefficient
With the wide range of drop sizes formed, some of
the drops will be in the required range; but drops not
in the required range may not reach the target The
difficulty of calibration and maintenance in the field
can further decrease the efficiency of hydraulic
nozzles (Bals 1987).
Pesticide application equipment is now available to
produce a spray with a reliably controlled drop size
(Giles 1992). However, greater care is needed in
selecting and operating sprayers to give the required
drop size. The variety of sprayer types available
allows selection of equipment specifically suited to the
pesticide and target The main types of controlled
drop size sprayers are
• Rotary atomizers
• Air-assisted and electrostatic atomizers
• Direct charge injection atomizers.
Rotary spray atomizers improve drop size control
and increase spray solution concentration, reducing
application rates for many pesticides. Rotary atomiz-
ers produce drops by delivering spray solution to a
rapidly rotating disk. The rotation speed of the disk
and the solution feed rate determine the drop size.
Rotary atomizers are available that allow field selec-
tion of the drop size. Because they can operate with a
higher viscosity solution than nozzle sprayers, they are
typically used with little or no carrier water.
Air-assisted atomizers combine pressurized air and
pesticide streams in the nozzle to improve drop size
control. The addition of a charging system in or just
outside the nozzle imparts an electrostatic potential to
each drop. The charged drops are attracted to a well-
grounded target repel each other, and, as a result
give more uniform coverage of the target.
Air-assisted and electrostatic atomizers produce the
smaller drop sizes needed to allow an insecticide to
reach the target pests, which typically concentrate on
the underside of the leaf. An electrostatic charge
improves the distribution of insecticide to the under-
side of the leaf. Further, the air-assisted electrostatic
atomizers are particularly well suited for insecticide
spraying on crops grown under cover where the crop
can be well grounded and the drift of small drops can
be controlled.
Direct electrostatic charging is an experimental
technique applicable to fluids with low electrical con-
ductivity. The method charge is directly injected into
the flowing feed stream. A voltage is impressed on
an electrode located inside the spray head, just prior to
the exit orifice. The high voltage builds up electrons
in the fluid. The charged fluid is ejected through the
orifice and disperses into a plume of drops. Direct
charge injection sprayers are potentially useful for
applying oil-based pesticides (Simmons and Kelly
1987).
20
-------
Wiping. Various mechanical wiping methods are
available for applying herbicides (Larsen 1987).
Some of the more commonly used types include
• Ropewick applicators
• Roller applicators
• Carpet applicators.
Ropewick applicators use the wicking action of
ropes to carry herbicide from a reservoir and wipe it
onto the target plant (e.g., grass). The ropes are
usually connected to a reservoir, such as a section of
pipe. Solution pressure and capillary action keep the
rope saturated. Solution is transferred to plant leaves
by contact with ropes as the reservoir pipe traverses
the area to be treated. The ropewick system can
selectively apply herbicide by adjusting the rope
spacing or by adjusting the height of the ropes.
Roller applicators use a cylinder covered with an
absorbing material, such as nylon carpet, to distribute
herbicide. The absorber is wetted with solution and
rotated. When the wet absorber on the surface of the
cylinder contacts a plant, it wipes herbicide onto any
leaf contacted. For best results, moisture sensing is
needed to control wetting of the absorber, which mini-
mizes dripping while maintaining sufficient herbicide
on the roller. As with the ropewick applicators, cov-
erage can be adjusted by changing the spacing and
height of the rollers. Roller applicators are typically
more expensive and more difficult to operate than
ropewick applicators.
Carpet applicators use a sheet of absorbing material
to distribute herbicide. A sheet of absorber, such as
nylon carpet backed by an expanded metal grid, is
hinged to hang vertically from a horizontal support.
Herbicide solution sprays wet the back of the
absorber. Runoff of herbicide is collected at the
bottom of the absorber sheet, filtered, and recirculated
to the sprays. The wetted absorber is moved over the
area to be treated. As with the other systems,
adjusting the spacing and height results in treatment
area selectivity.
Selecting Appropriate Equipment Size. The size
and type of application equipment should be selected
to match the characteristics of the area to be treated.
Most application equipment is suited only to a specific
range of situations (Marer 1988). Equipment too
large for the job is likely to release pesticide to the
non-targeted environment, as well as increase the
amount of rinsate generated during equipment cleanup.
GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PRACTICES
Implementing good housekeeping practices, in
addition to training employees to reduce the potential
for spills and improve application and cleanup
practices, will reduce pesticide waste.
Good Housekeeping Practices
• Train employees to follow good
housekeeping practices
• Reduce the potential for spills
• Reduce the use of rinse water
• Reuse rinse water
• Clean and rinse equipment at the site
• Recycle containers
• Provide employees with reusable or
semi-disposable protective clothing
Rinse Water Minimization and Reuse
Water rinsing is the most common option for
cleaning up equipment, containers, and spills; there-
fore, waste can be reduced by minimizing rinsing,
where possible. For example, reusable containers
eliminate the need for pesticide users to rinse empty
containers, and good spill prevention, control pro-
cedures, and training reduce the need for post-job
cleanup. Also, absorbent materials can be used to
replace water rinsing, as appropriate, such as for
absorbing spills. These pads or particulates will have
to be properly disposed.
21
-------
If water rinsing cannot be avoided, rinse volumes
should be reduced by good water management prac-
tices, such as
• Treating water as a raw material with a real cost
• Setting water conservation goals
• Making water conservation a management
priority
• Teaching employees how to use water efficiently
• Using high-pressure, low-volume cleaning
systems
• Providing easy-to-use water shutoff valves at the
final use point
• Using a broom or other dry method, rather than
water spray.
Any rinse water generated should be collected on
an impermeable area and reused, if possible. Rinse
water can be reused in two ways:
• As a diluent in subsequent formulations of
the same pesticide, in accordance with label
directions
• As rinse water in future cleaning activities
(Noyes 1992).
The first option is preferable because the excess
rinse water is incorporated into a usable application
mixture, eliminating the pesticide-bearing rinse water.
Applicability of this option is restricted by the com-
patibility of the previous pesticide with that of the
new formulation and the label directions, such as the
allowable application sites and the maximum allow-
able rates. The second option is effective, although a
liquid waste is still ultimately generated.
Cleaning and rinsing equipment at the site where it
is used also reduces the amount of waste rinse water
that must be managed. However, care must be taken
to conduct these cleaning activities in areas that will
not be adversely affected by the pesticide-containing
rinse water. This practice must meet applicable
regulatory guidelines.
Protective Clothing Waste Minimization and Reuse
Protective clothing is another waste that can be
reused; however, the recycling process may generate
hazardous waste.
Disposable clothing increases worker protection,
but also significantly increases waste. Reusable cloth
coveralls could eliminate this waste stream. However,
the washwater from laundering reusable coveralls may
be classified as a hazardous waste or require pre-
treatment prior to discharge, and cloth coveralls may
not offer the same protection as disposable clothing.
A compromise alternative involves using semi-
disposable protective clothing such as Sijal™ suits,
which could be worn and cleaned for a limited time
(e.g., one week) before needing disposal. This alter-
native would reduce the quantity of suits requiring
disposal. Compliance with personal protective
equipment directions on the label of protective
clothing is always required.
Economics
If waste reduction options are not cost-effective,
they may not be implemented unless mandated by reg-
ulations. The factors that influence the cost-
effectiveness of a particular option include the initial
capital cost and waste management cost Many waste
reduction options (such as inventory control to mini-
mize obsolete chemicals) can be very cost-effective.
The high cost of complying with regulatory
requirements or meeting environmental objectives may
make waste reduction options attractive even for waste
with otherwise low management costs. Some of the
long-term costs of not minimizing waste may be sig-
nificant, but difficult to predict. These include the
cost of
• Long-term liability for land disposal
• Complying with new regulations limiting disposal
• Waste transportation, treatment, and disposal
• Increased insurance.
22
-------
The economic aspects of various waste minimiza-
tion options are discussed below. Many of these tech-
niques require little if any capital expenditure and can
reduce waste management costs significantly.
Whether a given option is cost-effective depends on
the quantity of waste generated, current waste
management practices, and local disposal and treat-
ment costs.
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
If followed with care, IPM or PHC will result in
the best, and least expensive, waste management
program. Physical, biological, and cultural strategies
are effective means of alleviating pest problems while
minimizing risks to beneficial insects, animals, or
people. They can be used separately or together
depending on the magnitude of the problem. The use
of existing pest management procedures and the prac-
tical application of current research should allow for
more efficient, less expensive pest control while
reducing the amount of chemicals introduced into the
environment. Costs associated with implementing
BPM and PHC strategies can be offset by reducing the
use of pesticides, reducing the need for waste treat-
ment, and reducing the liability associated with
disposing of more hazardous pesticides.
INVENTORY MANAGEMENT
Capital costs associated with developing and imple-
menting a good inventory management system depend
on the current system. Possible costs include con-
struction of an adequate product storage area, develop-
ment of an inventory tracking system, and labor costs
associated with centralizing existing stores of pesti-
cides. If a usable storage area and efficient inventory
tracking system are already in place, capital costs
would be minimal.
A good inventory management system (including
centralized storage, control, and distribution) will
reduce obsolete inventory and product spills. Good
inventory management can also reduce the cost of
purchasing pesticide products.
PROPER MIXING AND
PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION
Properly mixing and applying pesticides reduce
costs because less pesticide is required. Three factors
affect the cost-effectiveness of product substitution:
• Cost difference between the substitute and the
original pesticide
• Capital and operating costs for application
• Waste management costs.
The cost difference for product substitution can be
either positive or negative, but reducing the volume of
pesticide applied can offset the higher cost of product
substitution. Volume reduction techniques such as
spot treatment or improved spray efficiency will help
offset any increased unit cost or capital and operating
costs. However, new equipment or more labor-
intensive application techniques may be needed.
An indirect cost saving of proper mixing and
product substitution is reduced liability related to
worker exposure and waste disposal. Eliminating a
waste stream removes the potential liability associated
with disposal of the waste.
CONTAINER WASTE MINIMIZATION
The savings associated with rinsing empty con-
tainers can be substantial. Container cleaning is cost-
effective if the rinse water is reused. If the rinse
water cannot be reused, rinse water disposal must be
considered. Container rinsing is not cost-effective if
rinse water treatment increases overall waste manage-
ment costs, although it still may be required by the
label.
The cost of recycling containers can be sig-
nificantly reduced if recycling programs are estab-
lished. The Minnesota container recycling project
found that the total cost of collecting and recycling
was $3.69 per plastic pesticide container in 1991.
23
-------
When permanent recycling programs are established
and the number of containers collected is increased,
the cost could be reduced by 50 percent (Hansen and
Palmer 1991).
EFFICIENT APPLICATION
Costs to develop an efficient application program
should be negligible except for very complex pro-
grams. Spot application and frequent calibration cost
almost nothing and have the potential to significantly
decrease pesticide costs. New, more efficient spraying
equipment will be more expensive. The initial pur-
chase and operating costs will be higher because of
the need for training and because the equipment
requires more demanding maintenance and calibration.
Further, a piece of equipment that is specific for cer-
tain conditions may not be suitable for other condi-
tions. As a result, more types of equipment may be
needed to provide the full range of required applica-
tion services and costs will be increased. The
increased costs can be offset by reduced pesticide use,
less dilution water hauling, and decreased rinse water
disposal.
GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PRACTICES
Good housekeeping practices can be cost-effective.
Costs associated with field cleaning equipment, con-
tainers, and clothing include the cost of obtaining and
operating portable cleaning equipment. In many cases
existing cleaning equipment (such as tanks and
sprayers) can easily be modified for field use. Cost
savings include reduced rinse water management
costs.
Most rinse water minimization methods require a
small investment. In general, rinse water is conserved
by training employees to avoid spills, to clean up
efficiently, and to consider water conservation while
working. Therefore, although training costs will
increase, wastewater conservation can reduce overall
costs.
Reusing rinse water can be very economical. No
significant costs are associated with this practice, and
the savings are great. Waste streams amenable to
recycling are rinse water from cleaning empty con-
tainers and protective clothing.
References
Allison, Scott W. 1992. "Container Minimization and
Reuse." Pesticide Waste Management. American
Chemical Society Symposium Series 510, p. 30.
Bals, T. E. 1987. "Economical Pesticide Application:
The Reasons for Controlled Droplet Application."
Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems:
7th Volume. ASTM STP 968. G. B. Beestman
and D.I.B. Vander Hooven, eds. American Society
for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, PA,
pp. 133-138.
Bechtol, Nancy J. 1989. "Guidelines for Establishing
an Integrated Pest Management Program." The
Public Garden: Journal of the American Associa-
tion of Botanical Gardens. 4(1). pp. 44-47.
Bernier, R. L., D. J. Gannon, G. P. Moser,
M. Mazzarello, M. M. Griffiths, and P. J. Guest.
1990. "Development of a Novel Bt Strain for the
Control of Forestry Pests." Brighton Crop Protec-
tion Conference—Pests and Diseases 1990, Vol. 1,
pp. 245-252.
Bennett, Gary W. and John M. Owens (Eds.) 1986.
Advances in Urban Pest Management. New York,
NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., Inc.
Bio-Integral Resource Center. 1987.
Lawn Management. Berkeley, CA.
Least Toxic
Bio-Integral Resource Center, 1992. The 1PM Practi-
tioner, XIV: 11/12, December.
Brazelton, R. W. and N. B. Akesson. "Principles of
Closed Systems for Handling Agricultural Pesti-
cides." Pesticide Formulations and Application
Systems: 7th Volume. ASTM STP 968. G. B.
Beestman and D.I.B. Vander Hooven, eds.
American Society for Testing and Materials.
Philadelphia, PA. pp. 15-27.
Brett, J. 1985. "Integrated Pest Management for
Home Landscapes." The Green Thumb, 42:1,
pp. 20-25.
24
-------
Carr, Anna, Miranda Smith, Linda A. Gilkeson, Joseph
Smillie, and Bill Wolf. 1991. Rodaie's Chemical-
Free Yard & Garden, Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press.
Clark, Roberta. 1987.
Fewer Chemicals."
Winter 1987, pp. 5-6.
"Lawn Maintenance with
New Alchemy Quarterly,
Collman, Sharon J. 1989. "Integrated Pest Manage-
ment: A Seattle Street Case Study." Forestry on
the Frontier: Proceedings of American Foresters
National Convention, Spokane, WA, September 24-
27, 1989, pp. 416-420.
Daar, Sheila. 1987. "Urban Integrated Pest Manage-
ment: Policy Options for State and Local
Government." Pesticides and Pest Management:
Proceedings of the 16th ENR Annual Conference,
November 12 and 13, 1987, pp. 295-299.
Emmons, Robert. 1984. Turfgrass Science and Man-
agement. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers, Inc.
Ferguson, T. David (ed.). 1991. Proceedings of Inter-
national Workshop on Research in Pesticide
Treatment/Disposal/Waste Minimization.
Sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and Tennessee Valley Authority. Feb-
ruary 26-27, 1991, EPA/600/9-91/047.
Fitz, Nancy. 1991. "Pesticide Container Management
in the United States." Proceedings of International
Workshop on Research in Pesticide Treatment/
Disposal/Waste Minimization. Sponsored by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
Tennessee Valley Authority. February 26-27,
1991, EPA/600/9-91/047.
Fitz, Nancy. 1992. "Pesticide Container Regulations
as Part of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Strategy." Pesticide Waste Management.
American Chemical Society Symposium Series
510, p. 20.
Freeman, Harry (ed.). 1990. Hazardous Waste Mini-
mization, McGraw Hill Publishing Company.
Fullick, Ann and Patrick Fullick. 1991. "Biological
Pest Control." New Scientist, 43:1-4.
Giles, Durham K. 1992. "Pesticide Application Sys-
tems for Reduction of Rinsate and Nontarget Con-
tamination." Pesticide Waste Management.
American Chemical Society Symposium Series
510, p. 127.
Hansen, Rick and Larry Palmer. 1991. "Pesticide
Container and Recycling Pilot Project, 1990-1991,"
State of Minnesota, Department of Agriculture.
Harten, Teresa M. 1991. "Waste Minimization for
Non-agricultural Pesticide Applicators: EPA's Pol-
lution Prevention Guide." Proceedings of Inter-
national Workshop on Research in Pesticide
Treatment/Disposal/Waste Minimization. Spon-
sored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and Tennessee Valley Authority. February 26-27,
1991, EPA/600/9-91/047.
Helyer, N. L. and C. C. Payne. 1986. "Current Prog-
ress and Future Developments in Integrated Pest
Management of Protected Vegetable Crops."
Aspects of Applied Biology, Vol. 12, pp. 171-187.
Holmes, Matthew F. 1992. Personal communication.
Hudson, J. L. and O. R. Tarwater. 1988. "Reduction
of Pesticide Toxicity by Choices of Formulation."
American Chemical Society Symposium Series,
pp. 124-130.
Iowa State University. 1991a. "Lawn Care Practices
to Reduce the Need for Fertilizers and Pesticides."
September 1991.
Iowa State University. 1991b. "A Citizen's Guide to
Using Lawn Fertilizers and Pesticides Respon-
sibly." September 1991.
Iowa State University and University of Minnesota.
1991c. "Turfgrass Management for Protecting Sur-
face Water Quality." September 1991.
Knepper, R. G., S. A. Wagner and E. D. Walker.
1991. "Aerially Applied Liquid Bacillus
thuringiensis var. israelensis (H-14) for Control of
Spring Aedes Mosquitoes in Michigan." J. Amer.
Mosq. Control Assoc., 7:2, pp. 307-309.
25
-------
Larsen, S. F. 1986. "A Sticky Trap for Monitoring
Fly Populations on Mushroom Farms." /. Aust.
Ent. Soc., 25:8788.
Larsen, Thomas E. 1987. "Unique Methods of Herbi-
cide Application." Pesticide Formulations and
Application Systems: 7th Volume. ASTM STP
968. G. B. Beestman and D.I.B. Vander Hooven,
eds. American Society for Testing and Materials.
Philadelphia, PA, pp. 171-176.
Leslie, Ann R. and R. L. Metcalf. (eds). 1989.
Integrated Pest Management for Turfgrass and
Ornamentals, USEPA Office of Pesticide Pro-
grams, August.
Marer, Patrick J. 1988. The Safe and Effective Use of
Pesticides. University of California Statewide Inte-
grated Pest Management Project, Division of Agri-
cultural and Natural Resources, Publication 3324.
Nielsen, David G. 1989. "Integrated Pest Manage-
ment in Arboriculture: From Theory to Practice."
Journal of Arboriculture, 15:2, Febru-
ary, pp. 25-30.
Noyes, Ronald T. 1992. "Minimization and Reuse of
Pesticide Rinsate." Pesticide Waste Management.
American Chemical Society Symposium Series
510, p. 96.
Olkowski, William. 1989. "Update: Neem - A New
Era in Pest Control Products?" in Least Toxic Pest
Management: Botanical/Biorational Pesticides.
The Bio-Integral Resource Center, Berkeley, CA.
Olkowski, William and Helga Olkowski. 1989.
"Some Useful Organic Insecticidal Dusts." in Least
Toxic Pest Management: Botanical/Biorational
Pesticides. The Bio-Integral Resource Center,
Berkeley, CA.
Olkowski, William, Sheila Daar, and Helga Olkowski.
1991. Common-Sense Pest Control, Newtown, CT:
The Taunton Press.
Organic Gardening. 1989a. November, pp. 12 & 19.
Organic Gardening. 1989b. December, p. 10.
Patton, John. 1991. "Do You Practice Residential
IPM?" Pest Management, July, pp. 26-31.
Pleasant, Barbara. 1991. "The Return of An Old
Insect Killer." Organic Gardening, February,
pp. 52-53.
Poritz, Noah. 1993. Personal communication.
Racke, Kenneth D. and Anne R. Leslie. 1993. Fate
and Significance of Pesticides in Urban Environ-
ments. American Chemical Society Symposium
Series.
Ridgeway, R. L., M. Inscoe, and R. M. Silverstein.
1990. Behavior Modifying Chemicals for Insect
Management: Applications of Pheromones and
Other Attractants. New York, NY: Marcel
Decker, Inc.
Sastry, V. C. 1987. "Pesticide Application Tech-
niques in Integrated Pest Management." Plant
Protection Bulletin, 39:1-2, pp. 23-26.
Schultz, Warren. 1989. The Chemical-Free Lawn.
Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press.
Simmons, H. C. and Arnold J. Kelly. 1987. "Spray
Triode Electrostatic Agricultural Atomizer:
Development Update." Pesticide Formulations and
Application Systems: 6th Volume. ASTM STP 943.
D.I.B. Vander Hooven and L. D. Spicer, eds.
American Society for Testing and Materials.
Philadelphia, PA, pp. 88-100.
Srinath, D. 1986. "Principles of Integrated Pest
Management." Plant Protection Bulletin, 38:1-2,
pp. 69-71.
Steiner, Marilyn Y. and Don P. Elliot. 1983.
Biological Pest Management for Interior Plant-
scapes. Alberta Environmental Centre, Vegreville,
AB. 30pp.
Ticehurst, Mark and S. Finley. 1988. "An Urban
Forest Integrated Pest Management Program for
Gypsy Moth: An Example." Journal of
Arboriculture, 14:7, pp. 172-175.
26
-------
Ware, George W. 1988. Complete Guide to Pest Williams, Greg and Pat Williams. 1989. 'Toward
Control—With and Without Chemicals, 2nd ed. Sustainable Home Lawns." Hortldeas, 6(4):44.
Fresno, CA: Thompson Publications.
Wu, Lin and M. AH Harivandi. 1988. "In Search of
Widin, Katharine. 1987. "Integrated Pest Manage- Low-Maintenance Turf." California Agriculture.
ment: A Preventative Approach to Landscapes." January-February, pp. 16-17.
American Nurseryman, 165:10.
27
-------
SECTION 4
GUIDELINES FOR USING THE WASTE
MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETS
The worksheets provided in this section are
intended to assist the non-agricultural pesticides
industry in systematically evaluating waste generating
processes and in identifying waste minimization
opportunities. These worksheets include only the
assessment phase of the procedure described in the
EPA Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment
Manual and the EPA Facility Pollution Prevention
Guide. A comprehensive waste minimization assess-
ment includes planning and organization, gathering
background information, a feasibility study on
specific waste minimization options, and an imple-
mentation phase. For a full description of waste mini-
mization assessment procedures, refer to the Facility
Pollution Prevention Guide.
Table 3 lists the worksheets that are provided in
this section. After completing the worksheets, the
assessment team should evaluate the applicable waste
minimization options and develop an implementation
plan.
Table 3. List of Waste Minimization Assessment Worksheets
Number
1. Waste Sources
2.
Title
Waste Minimization: Integrated Pest
Management
3. Option Generation: Integrated Pest
Management
4. Waste Minimization: Pesticide Inventory
5. Option Generation: Pesticide Inventory
6. Waste Minimization: Pesticide Mixing
and Application
7. Option Generation: Pesticide Mixing
and Application
8. Waste Minimization: Protective Clothing,
Equipment, and Containers
9. Option Generation: Protective Clothing,
Equipment, and Containers
Description
Form for listing specific waste types
Questionnaire on pest management strategies
Options lor minimizing use of pesticides
Questionnaire on managing, storing, and handling
pesticides
Options for better managing, storing, and handling
pesticides
Questionnaire on mixing and applying pesticides
Options for improvements in mixing and apply-
ing pesticides
Questionnaire on disposing protective clothing,
equipment, cleaning waste, and empty containers
Options for minimizing protective clothing,
equipment cleaning, and container waste
28
-------
Firm Waste Minimization Assessment Prepared by
Checked by
Date Proj. No. Sheet of Paqe of
WORKSHEET WASTE SOURCES
4 A
1A
Waste Source: Pesticide Inventory
Excess Inventory
Obsolete Materials
Spills and Leaks
Poor Housekeeping
Inefficient Management
Inappropriate Container Sizes
Other
Waste Source: Pesticide Mixing
Highly Persistent Pesticides
Improperly Diluted Pesticides
Other
Waste Source: Pesticide Application
Poorly Timed Application
Inappropriate Pesticide
Inefficiently Dispensed Pesticide (i.e., poor spray or granule distribution pattern)
Pesticide Dust and Droplets
Other
Significance
Low
Medium
High
-
29
-------
Firm Waste Minimi7ation Assessment Prepared bv
Checked by
Date Proj. No. Sheet
of Page of
WORKSHEET WASTE SOURCES
1 B (Continued)
Waste Source: Pesticide Containers
Rinsewater
Empty Containers
Container Cleaning Solvents
Container Residue
Other
Waste Source: Equipment Cleaning and Protective Clothing
Equipment Cleaning Rinse Water
Cleaning Solvents
Disposable Clothing
Water from Laundering Reusable Clothing
Other
Significance
Low
Medium
High
30
-------
Firm
Date
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No.
Prepared by
Checked by
Sheet of Page
of
WORKSHEET
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Integrated Pest Management
Have pests been identified? Q Yes Q No
Have their life cycles and ecological interactions been identified? D Yes Q No
Have the boundaries of the area to be treated been determined? D Yes Q No
Is a pest monitoring program in place? D Yes Q No
Has the threshold level for implementation of a pest management program been reached? D Yes Q No
Have treatment options been developed? D Yes Q No
Has the pest management program been evaluated? D Yes D No
31
-------
Firm Waste Minimi7aHnn Ass
Date Proj. No.
essment P
C
S
repared by
hecked by
heel of Paqe of
WORKSHEET OPTION GENERATION:
3 Integrated Pest Management
Meeting Format (e.g., brainstorm inq, nominal group technique)
Meeting Coordinator
Meeting Participants
Suggested Waste Minimization Options
A. Physical Control
Use Barriers to Exclude Pests
Trap Pests
Till Soil
Alter Environmental Conditions (temperature, light, humidity)
Assure Good Sanitation
Modify Habitat
B. Biological Control
Introduce Natural Enemies
Maintain and Augment Natural Enemies
C. Chemical Control
Use Insect Pheromones
Use Pesticides Based on Chemical Extracts
from Plants (e.g., neem oil)
Replace Toxic Chemicals with Less Toxic Chemicals
Avoid Excessive Application of Chemicals
Currently
Done Y/N?
Rationale/Remarks on Option
32
-------
Firm Waste Minimizal
D,
A
ate Proj. No.
WORKSHEET WASTE MIN
4A Pesticide
INVENTORY MANAGEMENT
How often are material inventories performed?
How often are materials purchased?
How is material usage controlled and tracked?
Stockroom attendant
Limited access
Sign-out sheet
Computerized
Other
Are pesticides used on a first-in, first-out basis?
How is obsolete material handled?
Returned to supplier
Managed as waste
Tested for effectiveness
Other
ion Assessment Prepared by
Checked by
Sheet of Page
IIMIZATION:
Inventory
DYes
DYes
DYes
DYes
DYes
DYes
DYes
DYes
For pesticides used infrequently or on a seasonal basis, are pesticides ordered on
an as-needed basis? D Yes
B
. STORAGE AND HANDLING
Storage or handling location?
Distance from receiving area?
Are new containers and drums inspected before being
accepted? D Yes
Are storage areas routinely inspected for signs of spills, leaks, or hazards? D Yes
If yes. how often?
Are materials stored in a manner that minimizes the chance of spills or damage? D Yes
Are hazardous materials
Protected from weather?
Stored in low traffic areas?
Stored on stable shelves or pallets?
Distance to mixing area?
DYes
DYes
DYes
of
DNo
DNo
DNo
DNo
DNo
DNo
DNo
DNo
DNo
DNo
DNo
DNo
DNo
DNo
DNo
33
-------
Firm
Date
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No.
Prepared by _
Checked by _
Sheet of
.Page.
of
WORKSHEET
4B
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Pesticide Inventory
(Continued)
B. STORAGE AND HANDLING (Continued)
Does the storage area have secondary containment (e.g., berms) or drainage controls
to prevent spills from entering the environment? D Yes Q No
Is it impossible for material to be discharged from the facility before it is treated
(e.g., through a drain in the storage area floor)? D Yes 0 No
Are hazardous materials stored separately from nonhazardous materials? D Yes D No
Are the storage areas kept clean and uncluttered? D Yes D No
Are hazardous materials properly stored, readily accessible, and easily visible
for leak inspection and spill prevention? D Yes Q No
Away from traffic? 0 Yes D No
Away from activity? D Yes D No
Leaks readily visible? D Yes D No
Container bottoms readily visible? D Yes Q No
Minimal potential for puncture, tipping, dropping, other spill hazard? D Yes Q No
34
-------
Firm Waste Minimization Assessment Prepared bv
Checked by
Date Proi. No.
Sheet of Page of
WORKSHEET OPTION GENERATION:
5 Pesticide Inventory
Meeting Format (e.a. brainstormina, nominal aroup technique)
Meetinq Coordinator
Meetinq Participants
Suggested Waste Minimization Options
A. Inventory Management
Test Age-Dated Material (if expired) for Effectiveness
Return Obsolete Material to Supplier
Minimize Inventory
Computerize Inventory
Provide Formal Training
Purchase Appropriate Sizes
Limit Amounts Inventoried
Minimize Number of Containers Being Disposed
B. Storage and Handling
Inspect New Containers
Assure Proper Storage/Handling
Reduce Traffic
Reuse Spilled Material
Provide Secondary Containment for Spills
Use Cleanup Methods that Promote Recycling
Segregate Waste
Improve Accessibility
Inspect Storage Areas
Centralize Storage
Limit Number of Personnel Handling Materials
Restrict Access to Storage Areas
Currently
Done Y/N?
Rationale/Remarks on Option
35
-------
Firm
Date
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No.
Prepared by
Checked by
Sheet of Page
of
WORKSHEET
6A
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Pesticide Mixing
and Application
A. PESTICIDE MIXING
Is product mixed in batches prior to use?
If no, what mixing method is used?
Is the quantity of pesticide carefully matched to the amount needed for
each application?
Are applications sequenced to reduce the amount of equipment cleaning required?
Is the area where pesticides are mixed close to the pesticide storage area?
Is the spill cleanup equipment readily accessible to the mixing area?
Is the mixing area located on an impermeable or sealed concrete surface?
If no, what type of surface?
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
What type of waste water collection is provided in the mixing area?
Sump D Ground Surface D Single-Walled D Portable D
Sump Pump D Double-Walled Q Automatic D
Dry Well Q Permanent D
Storm Sewer []
Are closed systems or inductor methods used?
D Yes D No
-------
Firm
Date
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No.
Prepared by
Checked by
Sheet of Page
of
WORKSHEET
6B
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Pesticide Mixing
and Application
(Continued)
B. PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION
List products stored or in use that would require disposal as a hazardous waste. For each product, list the
nonhazardous or less hazardous product(s) that can be substituted for it.
Product
Possible
Substitute Product
Reason Substitute
Not Used
C. PESTICIDE APPLICATION
How is the timing of pesticide application decided?.
What application technology is used?.
For spray applications, how is drop size determined?
Is spot treatment possible?
How often is equipment calibrated?
What size equipment is available? _
37
-------
Firm
Date
WORKSHEET
7
Meeting Format (e.g., brainstorming, nc
Meeting Coordinator
Meeting Participants
Waste Minimization Assessment P
C
Proj. No. S
repared by
hecked by
heet of Page of
OPTION GENERATION:
Pesticide Mixing
and Application
>minal qroup technique)
Suggested Waste Minimization Option
A. Pesticide Mixing
Use In-Line Mixing Systems to Minimize Loss to
Non-Targeted Environment
Use Well-Designed Dry Flowable or Water-
Dispersible Pesticides
Use Microencapsulated Liquid Formulations
B. Product Substitution
Use Less Toxic or Biodegradable Pesticides
Use Water-Based Formulations
Substitute Physical, Biological, or Nonhazardous
Chemical Control Techniques (see Worksheet 3)
C. Pesticide Application
Time Pesticide Application to Protect Natural Enemies
and Beneficial Insects
Apply Pesticides at Appropriate Stage of Pest's Life Cycle
Use Controlled Drop Spraying Technologies
Eliminate Spraying by Using Wiping Techniques
Use Spot Treatment Rather Than Blanket Application
Calibrate Equipment More Than Once a Year
Currently
Done Y/N?
Rationale/Remarks on Option
38
-------
Firm Waste Minimization Assessment P
C
Date Proi. No. S
WORKSHEET WASTE MINIMIZATION:
3 Protective Clothing, Equipmen
and Containers
repared by
'hecked by
heet of Page of
t,
A. PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
Could reusable or semi-disposable clothing be substituted for
disposable clothing? Q Yes Q No
Number of employees who regularly use protective clothing: Disposable Semi-Disposable Reusable
Would less protective clothing be required if fewer personnel
had access to products requiring such clothing? Q Yes D No
B. EQUIPMENT
Could the equipment cleaning waste that is not now recycled be reused?
Explain:
Is rinse water reused to dilute pesticide concentrate?
Are any of the following methods used to reduce the amount of rinse water
Wiper blades
High pressure nozzle
Spray knife
Other
If organic solvents are used for cleaning, could water or detergents be used
D Yes D No
generated from cleaning?
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
instead?
Are employees trained in
Mixing? D Spill control? D
Application? D Equipment cleaning? D
C. CONTAINERS
List the type and quantity of containers disposed of each (circle one) month or year. Indicate whether the
containers could be cleaned; if so, which cleaning solvent is required and could the rinsate be reused to dilute
pesticide concentrate.
Could Rinsate
Container be Reusable?
Container Type Cleaned? (Y/N) Cleaning Solvent (Y/N)
39
-------
Firm Waste Minimization Ass
Date Proj. No.
essment P
C
S
repared by
hecked by
heet of Page of
WORKSHEET OPTION GENERATION:
9 Protective Clothing, Equipment,
and Containers
Meeting Format (e.a, brainstorm ing, nominal group technique)
Meeting Coordinator
Meeting Participants
Suggested Waste Minimization Option
A. Protective Clothing
Use Reusable or Semi-Disposable Protective Clothing
Clean Protective Clothing
B. Equipment
Minimize Use of Rinse Water
Recycle Rinse Water
Clean Equipment in the Field
C. Containers
Reuse Container Rinsate
Purchase Products in the Correct Container Size
Use Water-Soluble Packaging, Where Appropriate
and Available
Use Returnable Packaging, Where Appropriate
and Available
Currently
Done Y/N?
Rationale/Remarks on Option
40
-------
Appendix A
NON-AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE INDUSTRY
FIELD ASSESSMENTS: CASE STUDIES
In 1991, the California Department of Health Ser-
vices (DHS)* published a waste minimization study
(prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. under contract to DHS),
Waste Audit Study: Non-Agricultural Pesticide Appli-
cation Industry, that included assessments of three
non-agricultural pesticide waste generators. The
objectives of the study were to
• Conduct assessments to determine waste mini-
mization alternatives
• Prepare a model to be used by non-agricultural
pesticide waste generators to assess their own
waste minimization options.
Results of waste reduction assessments provide
valuable information about the potential for incor-
porating waste reduction technologies into the non-
agricultural pesticide industry. This appendix presents
summaries of the results of the assessments performed
by Tetra Tech at such operations. The summaries
presented are largely unedited and should not be taken
as recommendations of the USEPA; they are provided
as examples only.
The California field assessments focus on waste
management within the context of existing practices
and equipment. They provide valuable insight into
practical techniques to reduce waste with minimum
departure from current practices. However, this guide
to pollution prevention expands upon the concepts
applied in the California field assessments to apply
integrated pest management as the foundation of a
total system approach to preventing pollution in the
non-agricultural pesticide industry.
The original assessments may be obtained from
Mr. Benjamin Fries
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
(916) 322-3670
The Toxic Substances Control Program, Department of Health
Services, has since been reorganized and is now the Department
of Toxic Substances Control.
41
-------
CASE STUDY A
Case Study A was an assessment of a large business
and industrial park that served as a regional center for
both interstate and international trade. A small main-
tenance crew employed by the park's management
was responsible for applying herbicides to approxi-
mately 500 acres of the park.
Process Description
The California DHS found that all pest control
activities were based at an operating station with a
small warehouse to store herbicides, applicators, and
other equipment. The crew used several herbicides
including Roundup™, Surflan™, Oust™, and
Karmex™. Surfactants were added to the herbicide
formulations to aid mixing, and dyes were used as
pattern indicators. All raw materials were stored in
one of two locked rooms to which only the supervisor
had access. Herbicides were purchased in the amount
needed for the upcoming season. Individual contain-
ers were small, ranging in size from 2-gallon bottles
to 30-gallon drums for liquids and 50-pound bags for
dry herbicides. The park purchased approximately
2,200 pounds of herbicide annually.
The park applied herbicides using four 3-gallon
back-mounted and hand-held sprayers, one 100-gallon
truck-mounted sprayer, and one 200-gallon towed-
spray boom. All herbicide was mixed in the sprayers
themselves for the smaller units or in the supply tanks
for the larger sprayers. For each application, the
quantity of herbicide mixed was carefully matched to
the area to be sprayed. Any herbicide left over was
used in subsequent formulations. The sprayers were
cleaned using a water and detergent solution. Clean-
ing frequency varied depending on the type of herbi-
cide and the size of the sprayer. For example, the
small 3-gallon sprayers were rinsed after every use,
while the larger 100- and 200-gallon sprayers were
only cleaned when switching from pre-emergent to
post-emergent herbicides. Cleaning involved rinsing
tanks with water or detergent several times and flush-
ing the delivery hoses, booms, and nozzles. For the
small units, rinse water from the first rinsing was used
as makeup for subsequent formulations if the herbi-
cides were compatible or sprayed on areas to be
treated. Second and third rinsings were dumped on
the ground. For the large units, the tanks were filled
half full and the system was flushed for 15 to 20
minutes on areas to be treated. DHS recommended
that the park verify that this is compatible with regula-
tory requirements and with responsible waste manage-
ment practices.
Waste Generation and Management
The four primary waste streams generated by herbi-
cide application activities included
• Used protective clothing
• Empty herbicide containers
• Obsolete and out-of-date herbicides
• Rinse water from applicator cleaning.
USED PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
Personnel applying herbicides routinely wore dis-
posable protective clothing to limit their exposure. At
the end of each shift, the used clothing was segregated
based on the type of herbicide, bagged, and disposed
of with the regular solid waste or taken to a Class III
landfill, as appropriate.
EMPTY PESTICIDE CONTAINERS
Herbicides were delivered in two forms: liquid and
wettable powder. Empty liquid containers were triple-
rinsed and disposed of as a solid waste. The rinse
water was used as makeup water for new application
mixtures. Wettable powders were delivered in paper
bags, which were disposed of as a solid waste when
completely empty. Local health department officials
routinely inspected the disposal of empty containers at
the landfill.
42
-------
OBSOLETE AND OUT-OF-DATE HERBICIDES
At the time of the assessment, the industrial park
was arranging disposal of several obsolete or out-of-
date herbicides. The previous supervisor had not
maintained careful inventories and, as a result, had
purchased many herbicides that were never used.
Current operating practices precluded using many of
these products because of their toxicity. The current
purchasing and inventory system was designed to mini-
mize this type of waste by ordering only what was
needed for the season and making sure that old herbi-
cides were used before new products. Approximately
two drums (440 Ibs) of out-of-date herbicide required
disposal annually under the old management.
RINSE WATER FROM APPLICATOR
CLEANING
Rinse water from cleaning sprayers and other
equipment was either sprayed on vacant property or
incorporated into new herbicide formulations. The
rinse water contained water, residual herbicide formu-
lation, and a biodegradable non-hazardous detergent.
Conclusions and Recommendations
With some minor exceptions, the California DHS
found that waste management practices were effective
in reducing the quantity of hazardous waste requiring
disposal. Empty product containers, the largest single
waste stream, were rinsed and the rinsate reused in
new herbicide tank mixes. Little or nothing could
be done to minimize the protective clothing waste
stream. Disposal of obsolete and out-of-date herbicide
inventory was apparently a one-time event caused by
poor inventory control in the past. The new, much
stricter control on the herbicide inventory will elim-
inate this waste stream in the future.
The California DHS recommended that spent rinse
water from equipment cleaning be managed better.
Currently some of the rinsewater from the smaller
sprayers was reused in subsequent tank mixes. How-
ever, all of the spent rinse water from cleaning the
larger sprayers was sprayed onto vacant fields within
the operating station boundary. This rinse water was
significantly more dilute than the original application-
strength formulation, but repeated application of resid-
ual herbicides could lead to an accumulation of
herbicides or herbicide breakdown products and could
be a violation of the label.
The DHS recommended that the first rinse of all
sprayers, including the 100- and 200-gallon units, be
conducted with the minimum amount of water or
detergent and that the rinse water be collected and
reused. Rinse water should be incorporated into new
tank mixes or used as rinse water in subsequent clean-
ings. Water from second and third rinsings should be
used for future first rinsings. Sprayers should be
rinsed only when necessary and not after every use.
Rinse water should not be disposed to vacant land
until compatibility with federal, state, and local regu-
latory requirements is verified.
43
-------
CASE STUDY B
In Case Study B, a maintenance station located in
the south San Francisco Bay Area maintained the
rights-of-way, shoulders, and median strips for a
regional road and highway system. Several regional
crews reported directly to the station. Maintenance
activities included weed and pest control.
The station consisted of a small office area, equip-
ment warehouse, machine shop, and pesticide storage
building on approximately two acres. Trucks, tankers,
and other large equipment were parked in a large lot
that was mostly paved. Public access was restricted
by a six-foot-high perimeter fence.
Process Description
The California DHS found that the operation used
several herbicides including Roundup™, Surflan™,
Karmex™, Embark™, Diquat™, and Princep™, and
Safer™, an insecticidal soap. All pesticide products
were stored in a specially designed building. Access
to the storage building was restricted to the supervisor
and the senior application specialist.
Pesticides were purchased approximately three times
per year to minimize the amount of product in storage
at any one time. Typical quantities purchased were:
Karmex™, 500 Ib; Roundup™, 250 gal; Surflan™,
50 gal; and Diquat™, 15 gal. The largest individual
containers were 50-pound bags for Karmex™ and
2.5-gallon containers for Roundup™. A complete
inventory was taken monthly. Also, regional crews
were given only a one-month "working stock" of
pesticides.
The maintenance station used one 3,000-gallon
tanker/boom truck, two 500-gallon boom trucks, one
300-gallon towable tank, and numerous backpack and
hand-held units to apply pesticide. The 300-gallon
towable tank was typically used as a nurse tank to fill
the smaller units in the field. This practice greatly
reduced the amount of mixing and pesticide handling
required. One 500-gallon boom truck had been
recently equipped with a computerized application
system, which stored water and pesticide in separate
tanks and metered the correct quantities to the nozzles,
where pesticide and water were mixed prior to appli-
cation. The programmable system took into account
vehicle speed and wind velocity to apply the correct
amount of pesticide and automatically shut down if
necessary.
Pesticide was mixed in the application equipment.
Only the quantity to be used on a given day was pre-
pared. Any pesticide left at the end of the day was
incorporated into the next day's batch. Equipment
was cleaned in the field using fresh water stored on
each of the vehicles. The larger tanks were cleaned at
the station, with the rinse water used in subsequent
formulations. Pesticide applications were sequenced
to minimize the amount of cleaning required.
Waste Generation and Management
Used protective clothing and empty pesticide con-
tainers were the two major waste streams.
USED PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
Personnel applying pesticides routinely wore dis-
posable protective clothing to limit their exposure. At
the end of each shift, the used clothing was segregated
based on the type of herbicide, bagged, and stored on-
site in a fenced and locked area. Every four to six
weeks, the used clothing was taken to a Class III
landfill for disposal.
EMPTY PESTICIDE CONTAINERS
Pesticides were delivered to the main station in two
forms: liquid and wettable powder. Empty liquid con-
tainers were triple-rinsed and disposed of as a solid
waste. The rinse water was used as makeup water for
new tank mixes. Wettable powders were delivered in
plastic-lined paper bags, which were disposed of as a
solid waste when completely empty. Local health
department officials routinely inspected the disposal of
empty pesticide containers at the landfill.
44
-------
Conclusions and Recommendations
The DHS concluded that the maintenance station
had effectively implemented several waste minimiza-
tion practices, practically eliminated the generation of
hazardous waste, and reduced the quantity of solid
waste generated. Waste minimization efforts included
inventory control, product substitution, application
sequencing, and improved application technology.
Because the operation generated little, if any, hazard-
ous waste, the DHS recommended that future waste
minimization efforts should focus on product substi-
tution to reduce the impact of pesticide application
activities on the environment. The maintenance
station could also buy pesticide in refillable containers
(especially Karmex™ and Roundup™).
Continuing to upgrade the efficiency of the pesticide
application equipment was also recommended. When
cleaning parts in the field, the maintenance station
should collect the spent rinse water in the tank from
which the pesticide was drained. When the tank is
subsequently cleaned at the station, that rinse water
should be used as the first rinse, followed by subse-
quent cleaning with fresh water. The spent rinse
water might be usable for mixing.
45
-------
CASE STUDY C
Case Study C was the assessment of a large park
system that covers several thousand acres of land.
The system included golf courses, a botanical garden,
commercial farms, and rangelands. As part of routine
pest management, 35 pest applicators were employed
by the park system. The park system used an inte-
grated pest management program to determine pest
control strategies.
Process Description
The pest control program involved treatment strate-
gies for each pest on a systemwide basis. Pest status
and control strategies were monitored and recorded,
allowing the park system to evaluate the effectiveness
of control strategies and to monitor pesticide applica-
tion levels necessary to attain required results.
Pest control measures included some that did not
require pesticide use, including habitat modification,
physical control, plant selection, and biological control
measures. Chemical control measures were used only
as a last resort.
The park system coordinated pest control activities
through pest management programs. Pesticides and
application equipment were stored at the headquarters.
Access to the storage area was restricted. The storage
area was weatherproof, ventilated, and periodically
inspected for physical damage. An inventory program
ensured that only authorized amounts of pesticides
were removed from the premises.
The park system required completion of pest
management checklists and preparation of pesticide
use reports prior to using pesticides. These docu-
ments were used to assess the effectiveness of pest
management action and monitor pesticide use. The
pesticides used at the park system were reviewed by
park management. Only certified or licensed firms
were allowed to use approved pesticides within the
park system. Authorization was required prior to the
use of pesticides on the property. The park system
used a variety of algicides, fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides. Most of the pesticides used were
Category III and IV compounds, including
Roundup™, Surflan™, Karmex™, and Rodeo™. Cate-
gory I and Category II compounds were used infre-
quently and applied by qualified firms. Surfactants
and dye indicators were mixed with some of the her-
bicides. The park system had discontinued the use of
most Category I pesticides. Obsolete pesticides were
disposed of by a qualified disposal contractor. Pesti-
cide purchases occurred in the quantities necessary to
fulfill the needs of a pest management program.
The park system used a variety of application equip-
ment, including back-mounted and hand-held sprayers
and truck-mounted sprayers. All pesticides were
mixed on-site. Applicators were cleaned with a water
and detergent solution. Cleaning occurred on-site
unless a compatible pesticide was prepared in the
applicator. Most of the applicators were dedicated to
the use of a particular pesticide, which reduced the
frequency of cleaning.
Waste Generation and Management
The DHS found that four primary waste streams
were generated by pesticide application activities:
• Used protective clothing
• Empty pesticide containers
• Rinse water from applicator cleaning
• Spill cleanup material.
Protective clothing was bagged and disposed of with
regular waste. Empty pesticide containers were triple-
rinsed, punctured, and disposed of in a Class III
facility. Rinse water was sprayed on vegetation or
incorporated into new pesticide formulations. Spill
cleanup material was stored in containers until
arrangements were made for proper disposal. County
agricultural officials routinely inspected storage facili-
ties and monitored disposal of empty pesticide
containers.
46
-------
Conclusions and Recommendations amount of waste generated. Waste was minimal and
limited to used protective clothing, empty pesticide
The DHS concluded that the pest management containers, rinse water from applicator cleaning, and
practices were very effective in reducing the quantity SPU1 cleanuP ™*en& The DHS recommended focus-
of hazardous waste requiring disposal. The park in« on increased efficiency of pesticide application
system's pest management policies reduced the and P^^ide use-
47
-------
Appendix B
WHERE TO GET HELP:
FURTHER INFORMATION ON POLLUTION PREVENTION
Additional information on source reduction, reuse
and recycling approaches to pollution prevention is
available in EPA reports listed in this section, and
through state programs and regional EPA offices
(listed below) that offer technical and/or financial
assistance in the areas of pollution prevention and
treatment.
Waste exchanges have been established in some
areas of the United States to put waste generators in
contact with potential users of the waste. Twenty-four
exchanges operating in the United States and Canada
are listed. Finally, relevant industry associations are
listed.
U.S. EPA Reports on
Waste Minimization
Facility Pollution Prevention Guide.
92/088.*
EPA/600/R-
Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment Manual.
EPA/625/7-88/003.*
Waste Minimization Audit Report: Case Studies of
Corrosive and Heavy Metal Waste Minimization Audit
at a Specialty Steel Manufacturing Complex. Execu-
tive Summary. EPA No. PB88-107180.**
Waste Minimization Audit Report: Case Studies of
Minimization of Solvent Waste for Parts Cleaning and
from Electronic Capacitor Manufacturing Operation.
Executive Summary. EPA NO. PB87-227013.**
Waste Minimization Audit Report: Case Studies of
Minimization of Cyanide Wastes from Electroplating
Operations. Executive Summary. EPA No. PB87-
229662.**
Report to Congress: Waste Minimization, Vols. I and
II. EPA/530-SW-86-033 and -034 (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. EPA, 1986).***
Waste Minimization—Issues and Options, Vols. I-III.
EPA/530-SW-86-041 through -043. (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. EPA, 1986.)***
The Guides to Pollution Prevention manuals*
describe waste minimization options for specific
industries. This is a continuing series which currently
includes the following titles:
Guides to Pollution Prevention:
Industry. EPA/625/7-90/005.
Paint Manufacturing
Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Pesticide For-
mulating Industry. EPA/625/7-90/004.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Commercial
Printing Industry. EPA/625/7-90/008.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Fabricated
Metal Industry. EPA/625/7-90/006.
Guides to Pollution Prevention for Selected Hospital
Waste Streams. EPA/625/7-90/009.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: Research and Educa-
tional Institutions. EPA/625/7-90/010.
* Available from EPA CERI Publications Unit (513) 569-7562,
26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH, 45268.
** Executive Summary available from EPA, CERI Publications
Unit, (513) 569-7562, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cin-
cinnati, OH, 45268; full report available from the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of
Commerce, Springfield, VA, 22161.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Printed Circuit
Board Manufacturing Industry. EPA/625/7-90/007.
*** Available from the National Technical Information Service as
a five-volume set, NTIS No. PB-87-114-328.
48
-------
Guides to Pollution Prevention:
Industry. EPA/625/7-91/017.
Guides to Pollution Prevention:
Industry. EPA/625/7-91/012.
The Pharmaceutical
The Photoprocessing
Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Fiberglass Rein-
forced and Composite Plastic Industry.
EPA/628/7-91/014.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Automotive
Repair Industry. EPA/625/7-91/013.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Automotive
Refmishing Industry. EPA/625/7-91/016.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Marine Mainte-
nance and Repair Industry. EPA/625/7-91/015.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Metal Casting
and Heat Treating Industry. EPA/625/R-92/009.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: Mechanical Equip-
ment Repair Shops. EPA/625/R-92/008.
Guides to Pollution Prevention:
Industry. EPA/625/R-92/011.
The Metal Finishing
U.S. EPA Pollution Prevention Information Clearing-
house (PPIC): Electronic Information Exchange Sys-
tem (EIES)-User Guide, Version 1.1. EPA/600/
9-89/086.
Waste Reduction Technical/
Financial Assistance Programs
The EPA Pollution Prevention Information Clear-
inghouse (PPIC) was established to encourage waste
reduction through technology transfer, education, and
public awareness. PPIC collects and disseminates
technical and other information about pollution pre-
vention through a telephone hotline and an electronic
information exchange network. Indexed bibliogra-
phies and abstracts of reports, publications, and case
studies about pollution prevention are available. PPIC
also lists a calendar of pertinent conferences and semi-
nars, information about activities abroad, and a direc-
tory of waste exchanges. Its Pollution Prevention
Information Exchange System (PPIES) can be
accessed electronically 24 hours a day without fees.
For more information contact:
PPIES Technical Assistance
Science Appb'cations International Corp.
8400 Westpark Drive
McLean, VA 22102
(703) 821-4800
or
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Myles E. Morse
Office of Environmental Engineering and
Technology Demonstration
(202) 260-5748
Priscilla Flattery
Pollution Prevention Office
(202) 260-8383
The EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response has a telephone call-in service to answer
questions regarding RCRA and Superfund (CERCLA).
The telephone numbers are:
(800) 242-9346 (outside the District of Columbia)
(202) 382-3000 (in the District of Columbia)
The following programs offer technical and/or
financial assistance for waste minimization and
treatment.
Alabama
Hazardous Material Management and Resource
Recovery Program
University of Alabama
P.O. Box 6373
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-6373
(205) 348-8401
Department of Environmental Management
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
(205) 271-7914
49
-------
Alaska
Alaska Health Project
Waste Reduction Assistance Program
431 West Seventh Avenue, Suite 101
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 276-2864
Arizona
Arizona Department of Economic Planning and
Development
1645 West Jefferson Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 255-5705
Arkansas
Arkansas Industrial Development Commission
One State Capitol Mall
Little Rock, AR 72201
(501) 371-1370
California
Pollution Prevention, Public and Regulatory
Assistance Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
California State Department of Health Services
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
(916)322-3670
Pollution Prevention Program
San Diego County Department of Health Services
Hazardous Materials Management Division
P.O. Box 85261
San Diego, CA 92186-5261
(619)338-2215
Colorado
Division of Commerce and Development Commission
500 State Centennial Building
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 866-2205
Connecticut
Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service
Suite 360
900 Asylum Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105
(203) 244-2007
Connecticut Department of Economic Development
210 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
(203) 566-7196
Delaware
Delaware Department of Community Affairs &
Economic Development
630 State College Road
Dover, DE 19901
(302) 736-4201
District of Columbia
U.S. Department of Energy
Conservation and Renewable Energy
Office of Industrial Technologies
Office of Waste Reduction, Waste Material
Management Division
Bruce Cranford CE-222
Washington, DC 20585
(202) 586-9496
Pollution Control Financing Staff
Small Business Administration
1441 "L" Street, N.W., Room 808
Washington, DC 20416
(202) 653-2548
Florida
Waste Reduction Assistance Program
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
(904) 488-0300
Georgia
Hazardous Waste Technical Assistance Program
Georgia Institute of Technology
Georgia Technical Research Institute
Environmental Health and Safety Division
O'Keefe Building, Room 027
Adanta, GA 30332
(404) 894-3806
Environmental Protection Division
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
205 Butler Street, S.E., Suite 1154
Adanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-2833
50
-------
Guam
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Program
Guam Environmental Protection Agency
IT&E Harmon Plaza, Complex Unit D-107
130 Rojas Street
Harmon, Guam 96911
(671) 646-8863-5
Hawaii
Department of Planning & Economic Development
Financial Management and Assistance Branch
P.O. Box 2359
Honolulu, HI 96813
(808) 548-4617
Idaho
IDHW-DEQ
Hazardous Materials Bureau
450 West State Street, 3rd Floor
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 334-5879
Illinois
Illinois EPA
Office of Pollution Prevention
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217) 782-8700
Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center
Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources
One East Hazelwood Drive
Champaign, IL 61820
(217) 333-8940
Illinois Waste Elimination Research Center
Pritzker Department of Environmental Engineering
Alumni Memorial Hall, Room 103
Illinois Institute of Technology
3201 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60616
(312)567-3535
Indiana
Environmental Management and Education Program
School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University
2129 Civil Engineering Building
West Lafayette, IN 47907
(317) 494-5036
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Office of Technical Assistance
P.O. Box 6015
105 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317) 232-8172
Iowa
Center for Industrial Research and Service
Iowa State University
Suite 500, Building 1
2501 North Loop Drive
Ames, IA 50010-8286
(515) 294-3420
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Air Quality and Solid Waste Protection Bureau
Wallace State Office Building
900 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50319-0034
(515) 281-8690
Waste Management Authority
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 East Grand
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515) 281-8489
Iowa Waste Reduction Center
University of Northern Iowa
75 Biology Research Complex
Cedar Falls, IA 50614
(319)273-2079
Kansas
Bureau of Waste Management
Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field, Building 730
Topeka, KS 66620
(913) 269-1607
Kentucky
Division of Waste Management
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
Cabinet
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 564-6716
51
-------
Kentucky Partners
Room 312 Ernst Hall
University of Louisville
Speed Scientific School
Louisville, KY 40292
(502) 588-7260
Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Solid and Hazardous Waste
P.O. Box 44307
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
(504) 342-1354
Maine
State Planning Office
184 State Street
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 289-3261
Maryland
Maryland Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Board
60 West Street, Suite 200 A
Annapolis, MD 21401
(301) 974-3432
Massachusetts
Office of Technical Assistance
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Room 1904
Boston, MA 02202
(617) 727-3260
Source Reduction Program
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 292-5982
Michigan
Resource Recovery Section
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-0540
Minnesota
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Solid and Hazardous Waste Division
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612) 296-6300
Minnesota Technical Assistance Program
1313 5th Street, S.E., Suite 207
Minneapolis, MN 55414
(612) 627-4646
(800) 247-0015 (in Minnesota)
Mississippi
Waste Reduction & Minimization Program
Bureau of Pollution Control
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
(601) 961-5190
Missouri
State Environmental Improvement and Energy
Resources Agency
P.O. Box 744
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314) 751-4919
Waste Management Program
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Jefferson Building, 13th Floor
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314) 751-3176
Nebraska
Land Quality Division
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
Box 98922
State House Station
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
(402) 471-2186
Hazardous Waste Section
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
(402) 471-2186
52
-------
New Hampshire
New Hampshire Pollution Prevention Program
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301-6509
(603) 271-2901
New Jersey
New Jersey Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting
Commission
Room 514
28 West State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-1459
(609) 292-1026
Hazardous Waste Advisement Program
Bureau of Regulation and Classification
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-8341
Risk Reduction Unit
Office of Science and Research
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-8341
New Mexico
Economic Development Department
Bataan Memorial Building
State Capitol Complex
Santa Fe, NM 87503
(505) 827-6207
New York
New York Environmental Facilities Corporation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 457-4222
North Carolina
Pollution Prevention Pays Program
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development
P.O. Box 27687
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
(919) 733-7015
Governor's Waste Management Board
P.O. Box 27687
325 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
(919) 733-9020
Technical Assistance Unit
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch
North Carolina Department of Human Resources
P.O. Box 2091
306 North Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27602
(919) 733-2178
North Dakota
North Dakota Economic Development Commission
Liberty Memorial Building
State Capitol Grounds
Bismarck, ND 58505
(701) 224-2810
Ohio
Division of Hazardous Waste Management
Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 0149
1800 Watermark Drive
Columbus, OH 43266-0149
(614) 644-2917
Oklahoma
Industrial Waste Elimination Program
Oklahoma State Department of Health
P.O. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 271-7353
Oregon
Oregon Hazardous Waste Reduction Program
Department of Environmental Quality
811 Southwest Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-5913
(800)452-4011 (in Oregon)
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program
501 F. Orvis Keller Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 865-0427
53
-------
Center of Hazardous Material Research
Subsidiary of the University of Pittsburgh Trust
320 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
(412) 826-5320
(800) 334-2467
Puerto Rico
Government of Puerto Rico
Economic Development Administration
Box 2350
San Juan, PR 00936
(809) 758-4747
Rhode Island
Hazardous Waste Reduction Section
Office of Environmental Management
83 Park Street
Providence, RI 02903
(401) 277-3434
(800) 253-2674 (in Rhode Island)
South Carolina
Center for Waste Minimization
Department of Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 734-4715
South Dakota
Department of State Development
P.O. Box 6000
Pierre, SD 57501
(800) 843-8000
Tennessee
Center for Industrial Services
University of Tennessee
Building #401
226 Capitol Boulevard
Nashville, TN 37219-1804
(615) 242-2456
Bureau of Environment
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment
150 9th Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37219-5404
(615) 741-3657
Tennessee Hazardous Waste Minimization Program
Tennessee Department of Economic and Community
Development
Division of Existing Industry Services
7th Floor, 320 6th Avenue, North
Nashville, TN 37219
(615) 741-1888
Texas
Texas Economic Development Authority
410 East Fifth Street
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 472-5059
Utah
Utah Division of Economic Development
6150 State Office Building
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
(801) 533-5325
Vermont
Economic Development Department
Pavilion Office Building
Montpelier, VT 05602
(802) 828-3221
Virginia
Office of Policy and Planning
Virginia Department of Waste Management
llth Floor, Monroe Building
101 North 14th Street
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 225-2667
Washington
Hazardous Waste Section
Mail Stop PV-11
Washington Department of Ecology
01ympia,WA 98504-8711
(206) 459-6322
West Virginia
Governor's Office of Economics and Community
Development
Building G, Room B-517
Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
(304) 348-2234
54
-------
Wisconsin
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
101 South Webster Street
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 267-3763
Wyoming
Solid Waste Management Program
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
Herschler Building, 4th Floor, West Wing
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7752
Waste Exchanges
ACS California Section
Wayne Phillips
Custom Lab Supply
2127 Research Drive
Livermore, CA 94550
(501) 633-1329
Alberta Waste Materials Exchange
Mr. Jim Renick
303A Provincial Building
4920 51st Street
Red Deer, Alberta
CANADA T4N6KB
(403) 340-7980
B.AJLT.E.R. Waste Exchange
Mr. Jamie Anderson
MPIRG
2512 Delaware Street SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
(612)627-6811
British Columbia Waste Exchange
Mr. Robert Smith
1525 West 8th Avenue
Vancouver B.C.
CANADA V6J 1T5
(604) 731-7222 - General Information
(604) 732-9253 - Recycler Data Base
California Materials Exchange (CALMAX)
Ms. Joyce Mason
Local Government Commission
909 12th St., Suite 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916)448-1198
FAX: (916) 448-8246
California Waste Exchange
Ms. Claudia Moore
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
(916) 322-4742
Canadian Chemical Exchange*
Mr. Philippe LaRoche
P.O. Box 1135
Ste-Adele, Quebec
CANADA JOR 1LO
(514)229-6511
Canadian Waste Materials Exchange
ORTECH International
Dr. Robert Laughlin
2395 Speakman Drive
Mississauga, Ontario
CANADA L5K 1B3
(416)822-4111 (Ext. 265)
FAX: (416)823-1446
Indiana Waste Exchange
Ms. Susan Scrogham
P.O. Box 1220
Indianapolis, IN 46206
(317) 634-2142
Industrial Materials Exchange
Mr. Bill Lawrence
172 20th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98122
(206) 296-4633
FAX: (206)296-0188
Industrial Materials Exchange Service
Ms. Diane Shockey
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217) 782-0450
FAX: (217)524-4193
* For-Profit Waste Information Exchange
55
-------
Iowa Waste Reduction Center
(By-product Waste Search Service)
Ms. Susan Salterberg
75BRC
University of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0185
(800) 422-3109
(319) 273-2079
FAX: (319) 273-2893
Louisiana/Gulf Coast Waste Exchange
Ms. Rita Czek
1419 CEBA
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
(504) 388-8650
FAX: (504) 388-4945
Manitoba Waste Exchange
Mr. James Ferguson
c/o Biomass Energy Institute, Inc.
1329 Niakwa Road
Winnipeg, Manitoba
CANADA R2J3T4
(204) 257-3891
Montana Industrial Waste Exchange
Mr. Don Ingles
Montana Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 1730
Helena, MT 59624
(406) 442-2405
Northeast Industrial Waste Exchange, Inc.
Mr. Lewis Cutler
90 Presidential Plaza, Suite 122
Syracuse, NY 13202
(315) 422-6572
FAX: (315)422-9051
Ontario Waste Exchange
ORTECH International
Ms. Linda Varangu
2395 Speakman Drive
Mississauga, Ontario
CANADA L5K1B3
(416)822-4111 (Ext. 512)
FAX: (416) 823-1446
Pacific Materials Exchange
Mr. Bob Smee
South 3707 Godfrey Boulevard
Spokane, WA 99204
(509) 623-4244
Peel Regional Recycling Assistance
(Publishes Directory of Local Recyclers)
Mr. Glen Milbury
Regional Municipality of Peel
10 Peel Center Drive
Brampton, Ontario
CANADA L6T4B9
(416) 791-9400
RENEW
Ms. Hope Castillo
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512) 463-7773
FAX: (512) 463-8317
Southeast Waste Exchange
Ms. Maxie L. May
Urban Institute
UNCC Station
Charlotte, NC 28223
(704) 547-2307
Southern Waste Information Exchange
Mr. Eugene B. Jones
P.O. Box 960
Tallahassee, FL 32302
(800) 441-SWIX (7949)
(904) 644-5516
FAX: (904) 574-6704
Wastelink, Division of Tencon, Inc.
Ms. Mary E. Malotke
140 Wooster Pike
Milford,OH 45150
(513) 248-0012
FAX: (513) 248-1094
56
-------
U.S. EPA Regional Offices
Region 1 (VT, NH, ME, MA, CT, RI)
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3715
Region 2 (NY, NJ, PR, VI)
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-2525
Region 3 (PA, DE, MD, WV, VA, DC)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-9800
Region 4 (KY, TN, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS)
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-4727
Region 5 (WI, MN, MI, IL, IN, OH)
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-2000
Region 6 (NM, OK, AR, LA, TX)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 655-6444
Region 7 (NE, KS, MO, IA)
756 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 236-2800
Region 8 (MT, ND, SD, WY, UT, CO)
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303) 293-1603
Region 9 (CA, NV, AZ, HI, GU)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1305
Region 10 (AK, WA, OR, ID)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442-5810
Industry and Trade Associations
and Other Sources of Information
Agricultural Container Research Council
Hayley-Whilden Associates
698 Holly Drive North
Annapolis, MD 21401-5502
(301) 757-9488
Agricultural Research Institute
9650 Rockville Pike
Bethesda,MD 20814
(301) 530-7122
American Mosquito Control Association
P.O. Box 5416
Lake Charles, LA 70606-5416
(318) 474-2723
American Mushroom Institute
907 E. Baltimore Pike
Kennett Square, PA 19348
(215) 388-7806
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas
P.O. Box 3657
Fayetteville, AR 72702
(501) 442-9824
Bio-Integral Resource Center
P.O. Box 7414
Berkeley, CA 94707
(510) 524-2567
Committee for Sustainable Agriculture
(Agricultural Science) (CSA)
P.O. Box 1300
Colfax, CA 95713
(916) 346-2777
57
-------
Electronic Pest Control Association (EPCA)
710 E. Ogden, Ste. 113
Naperville, IL 60563
(708) 369-2406
Integrated Plant Protection Center
Oregon State University
Cordley Hall 2040
Corvallis, OR 97331-2915
(503) 737-3541
FAX: (503) 737-3080
Intermountain Research Station
324 25th Street
Ogden, UT 84401
Interstate Professional Applicators Association
(Pest Control) (IPAA)
P.O. Box 1377
Milton, WA 98354
(206) 922-9437
National Animal Damage Control Association
(Pest Control) (NADCA)
Rt. 1, Box 37
Shell Lake, WI 54871
(715) 468-2038
National Pest Control Association (NPCA)
8100 Oak St.
Dunn Loring, VA 22027
(703) 573-8330
Pacific Northwest Research Station
33 S.W. First Ave.
Portland, OR 97204
Pacific Southwest Research Station
P.O. Box 245
Berkeley, CA 94701
Professional Lawn Care Association
of America (PLCAA)
1000 Johnson Ferry Road, N.E.
Suite C-135
Marietta, GA 30068
(404) 977-5222
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station
240 West Prospect Street
Fort Collins, CO 80526-2098
58
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1998 -«
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Please make all necessary changes on the below label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner.
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE D;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner.
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/625/R-93/009
------- |