l ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAMS
THE USE OF PESTICIDES IN SUBURBAN HOMES AND GARDENS
AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
-------
PESTICIDE STUDY SERIES - 2
THE USE OF PESTICIDES IN SUBURBAN
HOMES AND GARDENS AND
THEIR IMPACT ON THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
This study is the result of
Contract No. 68-01-0119 awarded by the OWP,
as part of the Pesticides Study (Section 5(-£){2) P.L. 91-224)
to Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson and Associates, .Inc.
R.v. Rumker, Senior Author, RvR Consultants
R.M. Matter, Project Coordinator, RETA
D.P. Clement, Environmental Engineer, RETA
F.K. Erickson, Director of Environmental Affairs, RETA
EPA Project Officer's were:
'Charles D. Reese, Agronomist
David L. Becker, Chemical Engineer
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Water Programs
Applied Technology Division
Rural Wastes Branch
Mav 1972
-------
00113'*
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Water
Programs of the Environmental Protection Agency and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, or
does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
Among all environmental pollutants, chemical pesticides
have aroused special concern. They are widely used
throughout the United States on croplands, rangeland,
forests, lawns, turf, in and around homes, for protection of
structures and stored products, and over entire areas for
mosquito control, insect eradication, imported fireant
control, and similar area-wide programs. Chemical
pesticides include insecticides, fungicides, nematicides,
herbicides, rodenticides, defoliants, desiccants, plant
growth regulators and similar biologically active compounds.
Depending on dosage, many pesticides are toxic to humans,
animals and other non-target organisms.
Some environmental aspects of some specific pesticides
have been studied, but no overall quantitative description
and assessment of the pesticide pollution problem has been
made. In compliance with Section 5 (1) (2) of Public Law
91-224, however, the Office of Water Programs of the
Environmental Protection Agency has organized and conducted
a series of pesticide studies which are intended to provide
a comprehensive analysis of the pesticide problem in the
United States.
This particular case study was conducted by Ryckman,
Edgerley, Tomlinson and Associates, Inc. (RETA) with Dr. R.
von Rumker as Sub-contractor and Project Consultant.
ii
-------
Using all available information, this study provides an
in-depth evaluation of the impact on the natural environment
of pesticides used in the suburban homes and gardens of
Philadelphia, Lansing and Dallas.
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Title Page I
Foreword ii
Table of Contents iv
Participating Staff ix
Special Acknowledgments x
INTRODUCTION xi
SUMMARY REPORT
Home and Garden Pesticide Uses 1
Transport Mechanisms 16
Degradation of Home and Garden Pesticides 28
Aquatic Impact 34
Pesticide Alternatives 45
Applicable Laws and Regulations 48
Recommendations 58
APPENDIX A - HOME AND GARDEN PESTICIDE USE 1-A
Selection of Study Cities 1-A
Prior Information 2-A
Survey Methods 4-A
Survey Results for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 13-A
Survey Results for Dallas, Texas 23-A
Survey Results for Lansing, Michigan 33-A
Synopsis of Survey Results 45-A
Recommendations 63-A
Literature References 64-A
APPENDIX B - TRANSPORT MECHANISMS 1-B
Transport Mechanism from Point of
Application into Water 1-B
Soil and Soil Types 15-B
Pesticides Associated with Sediment Transport 15-B
Relationship of Techniques to Run-off 17-B
Ranking of Transport Mechanisms 26-B
Empty Container Disposal 30-B
Summary and Conclusions 32-B
Recommendations 35-B
Literature References 37-B
iv
-------
Page No.
APPENDIX C - DEGRADATION OF HOME AND GARDEN
PESTICIDES 1-C
The Problem of Degradation 4-C
Herbicides 41-C
Quantitative Documentation of Persistence 45-C
Recommendations 58-C
Literature References 60-C
APPENDIX D - AQUATIC IMPACT 1-D
The Aquatic Ecosystem 2-D
Short-Term Effects 5-D
Long-Term Effects 21-D
Aquatic Food Chain 49-D
Secondary Trophic Structure 56-D
Fishes 60-D
Synergistic Effects 66-D
Health Hazard to Humans 68-D
Recommendations 68-D
Literature References 71-D
APPENDIX E - ALTERNATIVES TO THE USE OF CHEMICAL
HOME AND GARDEN PESTICIDES 1-E
Recommendations 12-E
'APPENDIX F - APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS 1-F
Existing Federal Laws 1-F
New Federal Legislation 2-F
Impact of the Pending Federal Legislation 4-F
Testing and Registration of New Pesticides 5-F
State Law Summary 6-F
Identity of Favorable Types of Laws 25-F
Local Pesticide Laws and Regulations 26-F
Recommendations 4 0-F
TEXT OF LAWS
Federal Laws
State Laws
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page No.
1 Most Important Lawn and Garden Plants, 15-A
Pests and Pesticides - Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
2 Estimated Quantities of Home and Garden
Pesticides Used in Philadelphia, Pa.
Suburbs, 1971 17-A
3 Most Important Lawn and Garden Plants,
Pests and Pesticides - Dallas, .Texas 24-A
.4 Estimated Quantities of Home and Garden
Pesticides Used in Dallas, Texas
Suburbs, 1971 29-A
5 Most Important Lawn and Garden Plants,
Pests and Pesticides - Lansing,
Michigan 35-A
6 Estimated Quantities of Home and Garden
Pesticides Used in Lansing,. Michigan 38-A
7 Summary of Population, Single Family
Dwellings and Estimated Quantities of
Home and Garden Pesticides Used in the
Three Study Areas, By Products 46-A
8 Relationships Between Pesticide Deposit
and Size of Lawn and Garden Area-Per
Single Family Dwelling Unit 48-A
9 Home Owners' Equipment for Applying
Liquid Pesticides 54-A
10 Home Owners' Attitudes on Pesticides
and Observations of Environmental
Effects 60-A
APPENDIX B
1-B Extent of Pesticide Contamination 6-B
2-B Pesticides at the Two Philadelphia
Sample Stations 7-B
3-B Pesticides in Trinity River Below
Dallas, Texas 8-B
4-B Rain in April, May, and June for Dallas 21-B
5-B Rain in April, May, and June for
Philadelphia 22-B
6-B Rain in April, May, and June for Lansing 23-B
7-B Potential for Water Contamination by
Liquid Home and Garden Pesticide
Application 25-B
8-B Pesticide Transport Routes 29-B
9-B Dallas, Philadelphia and Lansing Total
Pesticide Use 32-B
10-B Estimated Individual Homeowner Pesti-
cide Usage Rate 34-B
vi
-------
Table No. Page No.
APPENDIX C
1-C Decomposition Products of DDT Iso-
lated From Soil After Anaerobic
Incubation for Two Weeks and Four
Weeks ' 7-C
2-C Inhibitory Effect of DDT and ODD on
Microorganisms in Nutrient Agar 8-C
3-C Persistence of Pesticides 48-C
APPENDIX D
1 Response of Two Fish Species to Pesti-
cides as Measured by LC5» 8-D
2 Response of Aquatic Invertebrates to
Pesticide Exposure 14-D
3 Summary of LC5Q (96h) Values of Seven
Organochlorine and Five Organophos-
phorus Insecticides Versus Seven
Species of Estuarine Fish 17-D
4 Representative Biological Concentra-
tion of Pesticides by Living
Organisms 25-D
5 The LCso for Various Fish to Malathion 31-D
6 ' 35-D
7 DDT Residues in Carmans River Estuary 53-D
8 The Mean TLso and Coefficient of Vari-
ability of p,p'-DDT for Fish and
Aquatic Invertebrates 60-D
APPENDIX F
1-F Law Questionnaire Summary Replies:
Dallas, Texas Suburbs 29-F
2-F Law Questionnaire Summary Replies:
Lansing, Michigan 32-F
3-F Law Questionnaire Summary Replies:
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Suburbs 34-F
vii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
1-3
2-B
3-B
4-B
APPENDIX B
Rail.fall and Run-off
Number and Types of Pesticides Found
in Trinity River Sediment, 1970-71
Potential for Water Pollution
Potential for Liquid Pesticide to
Contaminate Rainfall Run-off
Page No.
11-A
12-A
3-B
10-B
25-B
27-B
1-C
2-C
3-C
4-C
5-C
6-C
7-C
8-C
9-C
10-C
11-C
12-C
13-C
14-C
15a-C
15b-C
16a-C
16b-C
17-C
APPENDIX C
Outline of Possible Relationships
Between Pesticides and Environment 5-C
Metabolic Pathway for DDT Dechlori-
nation By Aerobacter aerogenes 12-C
Metabolic Pathway for DDA Dissimila-
tion By Aerobacter aerogenes 13-C
Possible Metabolites of Aldrin and
Endrin 15-C
Metabolites of Aldrin and Isodrin 23-C
Metabolites of Telodrin, Heptachlor
and Photoconversion of Dieldrin 24-C
Identified Metabolites of Methoxychlor 25-C
Composition and Metabolites of
Technical Chlordane 27-C
Sites of Chemical and Biological
Attack on Organophosphorus Compounds 28-C
Proposed Metabolic Pathway of Diazinon
in the Rat 30-C
Parathion and Most Common Metabolites
or Degradation Products 33-C
Major Metabolic Pathways of Malathion
Degradation in Soil 34-C
Degradation of Dichlorvos and DFP By
Fish Liver Enzymes 36-C
Sites of Attack for Carbamate (Carbaryl)
Degradation in Mammals 37-C
Possible Metabolites and Hydrolysis
Products of Carbaryl (Various Sources) 38-C
In Vitro Metabolism in Mammals, With
Water Soluble Glucuronides and/or
Sulfates of Carbaryl 39-C
Photolytic Degradation of 2,4-D 42-C
General Metabolism of 2,4-D in Plants,
Mammals, and Soil Microflora 43-C
Biological and Chemical Degradation
of Atrazine 46-C
viii
-------
PARTICIPATING STAFF
The following list includes key professional per-
sonnel whose efforts have contributed directly to the
study of the fate and effect of pesticides used in sub-
urban homes and gardens.
Project Principal
D. W. Ryckman, Sc.D., P. E., President
Project Manager
G. M. Barsom, Sc.D., Assistant Vice President
Project Coordinator
R. M. Matter, Ph.D., Associate
Sub-Contractor and Project Consultant
Rosmarie von Rumker, Sc.D.
Project Staff
D. P. Clement, Environmental Engineer
E. Edgerley, Jr., Ph.D., Senior Vice President
H. D. Tomlinson, Ph.D., P.E., Senior Vice President
F. K. Erickson, P.E., Director of Environmental Affairs
Donald B. McDonald, Ph.D., Consultant
K. W. Axetell, Jr., P.E., Senior Associate
J. W. Irvin, Sc.D., Senior Associate
P. D. Kilburn, Ph.D., Consultant
0. C. Tirella, Director of Finance and Administration
F. A. Brunner, Ph.D., Senior Associate
G. K. Lowder, Technical Writer
M. E. Wiese, Manager, Technical Services
M. R. Aron, Technical Writer
P. A. Braden, Senior Typist
IX
-------
SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report is the product of six months of
intensive, in-depth research and analysis. A large number
of people and organizations in the states of Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and Texas were contacted, and most of these were
very helpful in providing information. Gratitude is
extended to the many home owners, garden clubs, the
Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, the University Research
and Extension workers, home and garden pesticide manufacturers,
distributors and retailers, commercial applicators, city and
county officials/ doctors, veterinarians, and Congressional
leaders who were contacted in the. three study areas. While
the names of these contributors are too numerous to list
/
individually, their assistance and cooperation was essential
to the successful completion of this project.
-------
INTRODUCTION
As part of the pesticide study authorized and re-
quired by Section V (t) (2) of Public Law 91-224, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has initiated a
series of case studies on the effects of different
pesticide uses on the natural environment. Each of
these studies is designed to describe and document the
movement of pesticides from initial point of use to
and into the aquatic environment, to the point of ulti-
mate impact and effect on the ecosystem.
The present study under contract number 68-01-0119
is concerned .with the use of pesticides in suburban homes
and gardens in three different metropolitan areas/
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Dallas, Texas; and Lansing,
Michigan.
This report has the following objectives:
1. to analyze, describe and document quantita-
tively the use of pesticides in suburban homes
and gardens.
2. to evaluate and document quantitatively the
direct and indirect impact on the natural en-
vironment resulting from pesticide uses, with
special emphasis on the movement of pesticides
and their possible metabolites and degrada-
xi
-------
tion products from the initial point of use
to and into the aquatic environment, to the
point of ultimate effect on the ecosystem;
3. to pinpoint areas of actual or potential en-
vironmental damage;
4. to provide a basis for systematic correction
of such damage to the natural environment;
5. to describe applicable local and state laws
and regulations, and evaluate their effective-
ness in preventing environmental damage.
This study was carried out jointly by the contract
team of Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson & Associates, Inc.
(RETA) of St.. Louis, Missouri and R v R Consultants'
of Shawnee Mission/ Kansas. The
data, conclusions and recommendations detailed in the
Summary Report and Appendices were developed through ex-
tensive personal field studies, telephone interviews,
questionnaires, and literature surveys.
xii
-------
HOME AND GARDEN PESTICIDE USES
According to the U. S. Tariff Commission/ 1,034
billion pounds of active ingredients of pesticides and
related products were produced in the United States in
1970. This quantity included 404 million pounds of her-
bicides/ 490 million pounds of insecticides, and 140
million pounds of fungicides. Several different sources
report that approximately one-half of this quantity is
accounted for by domestic farm uses of pesticides.
Literally hundreds of people at the Federal, State, and
local level are engaged in collecting information on
the use patterns and disposition of these agricultural
pesticides by geographical areas, crops, and individual
chemicals. Several states have recently installed sys-
tems for routine collection and publication of farm
pesticide use statistics. Most, if not all, of the
public debate and the news media's attention to pes-
ticides has centered on problems associated with their
uses in agriculture.
It is truly surprising that, at the same time, al-
most no attention has been paid to the fate and disposi-
tion of the other 500 million pounds of pesticides which
constitute the balance between total production and
farm use. It is believed that this quantity is made up
-------
of pesticides used for industrial purposes, by public
agencies, and by homeowners. The relative share of
each of these segments is unknown. Exports may also
enter into the total balance sheet, but only to the
extent of any possible excess of exports over imports.
(The above mentioned 1,034 billion pounds total pro-
duction do not include imports).
The request for "an inventory and description of
pesticide uses in the area, including a tabulation of
quantities and types of major pesticides used" in the
specifications of this contract probably represents
the first systematic effort by a government agency to
develop quantitative information on non-farm uses of
pesticides. It is obvious that such information is
much needed for an assessment of the total pesticide
problem and its potential for water pollution, especially
since non-farm uses of pesticides often result in deposit
of higher amounts of pesticides on smaller land areas
as compared to farm uses.
The term "pesticide" as used in this report in-
cludes insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. The
term "pest" includes insects, mites, weeds, fungus
diseases, and similar agents affecting plants, people,
structures, etc. "Use of pesticides in suburban homes
and gardens" (as set forth in the contract specifica-
tions) is defined as pesticide uses by suburban resi-
-2-
-------
dents, commercial tree and lawn sprayers, golf courses
and city, county, and other public agencies. Industrial
or residential indoor uses of pesticides in the center
cities, for instance, for rodent control, or pesticide
uses by professional exterminators are not included in
this definition. The "suburban area" for purposes of
this study is defined as the total land area carrying
single family dwelling units, plus adjacent parks, golf
courses, and similar lands.
There is no information in the published litera-
ture on the kinds and quantities of pesticides used in
suburban homes and gardens, nor on methods on how to
obtain such data.
In suburban areas, pesticides are used by home-
owners, by commercial tree and lawn sprayers, by golf
courses, and by public agencies. Among these user
groups, homeowners dispense by far the greatest pesti-
cide quantities. To arrive at meaningful estimates of
the kinds and quantities of pesticides used by these
groups, especially by homeowners, proved extremely dif-
ficult. Homeowners themselves know and remember the
products they use only by brand names and/or trade
names. They are usually not able to quantify their
pesticide uses in terms of pounds, quarts or units of
product(s), but only in terms of dollars spent, if at all
-3-
-------
Homeowners very rarely know which pesticide active in-
gredient (s) they used.
Home and garden pesticide retailers may have a
somewhat greater knowledge of the products they offer,
but personnel at the retail level rarely know what
quantities they actually sell. Retailers often just
make shelf or floor space in their stores available
to different home and garden pesticide brands. The
salesmen representing these brands, or their distributors,
regularly restock their particular shelf or floor space
with those products which they think will move best at
that particular season. These products are billed
centrally, and store personnel at the retail level
usually do not see this information.
Manufacturers of home and garden pesticides would
probably be the best and simplest source of information
on the kinds and quantities of the products which they
produce and market. However, they operate in a very
competitive market and were therefore understandably
reluctant to release for eventual publication informa-
tion on the marketing and distribution of their products.
Thus, the request for quantitative data on suburban
pesticide use in the specifications of this contract pre-
sented a difficult and complex task. At the same time,
it was clear that information on pesticide inputs would
-4-
-------
be a prerequisite to dealing with the subsequent tasks in
the contract. Consequently, a major effort was devoted
to collecting this information.
This case study was conducted in three different
cities. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was chosen as a large
metropolitan area representative of the Middle Atlantic
United States. Dallas, Texas was selected as a large,
rapidly growing metropolitan area typical of the Mid-
south. Lansing, Michigan was included as representa-
tive of a smaller metropolitan area in the upper Midwest.
The main suburban pest problems in the Philadelphia
area are weeds and, to a lesser extent, insects and
diseases on lawn and turf grasses; scales and a variety
of other insects on shade trees and shrubs; insects and
diseases on roses and other perennial flowers; and mos-
quitoes, wasps and hornets which bother people. In
the Dallas area, lawn insects are by far the biggest
pest problem in suburbia. Insects and diseases on trees
and shrubs and lawn weeds are less predominant. In
Lansing, Michigan, weeds and insects on lawns are both
important; the Dutch elm disease - elm bark beetle com-
plex is still being fought and foliar insects and diseases
on roses, ornamental trees and shrubs, as well as mos-
quitoes, are problems.
-5-
-------
In each of the three study cities, we conducted a
survey of homeowners, including many personal door-to-
door- calls. Other sources of information contacted in
each city included the State Agricultural Extension
Service; Regional, County, and City Planning Depart-
ments; City and County Health, Parks and Recreation
Departments; commercial tree and lawn spraying companies;
and home and garden retail outlets. Several of the
major national manufacturers of home and garden pesti-
cides were also contacted.
Tables 1, 2, and 3 summarize the estimated quanti-
ties of home and garden pesticides used in Philadelphia,
Dallas and Lansing, respectively, broken down by major
individual products and user groups. Table 4 gives a
summary of the pesticide quantities used in each city,
combining all types of uses included in the survey, i.e.,
homeowners, commercial tree sprayers, golf courses,
city departments and area-wide insect control programs.
Table 4 also includes the total population, and the
number of single family dwelling units in each study
area.
The three areas combined have a population of about
5.5 million and comprise 1,244,000 single family dwelling
units. There were no correlations between the number of
single family residences and the estimated quantities of
pesticides used in each area. Climatic, soil and other
-6-
-------
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF HOME & GARDEN PESTICIDES USED IN PHILADELPHIA, PA. SUBURBS, 1971
(Lbs. of Active Ingredient)
Pesticides r-
User
Group
Homeowners
Commercial Sprayers
Golf
City
Courses
Parks
Mosquito Abatement
Totals
Herbicides
0)
o.
4J
1
X
o
c
0)
x;
o.
79,000
negl.
(2)
-
™
79,000
w
0)
•o
0
•rH
ja
rH
0)
w
r-f
0)
J3
4J
O
10,000
negl.
3,600
-
~
13,600
. .
Insecticides
0)
c
•a
n
o
rH
45
U
50,000
640
3,600
-
""
54,240
H
O
O
o
•H
a
10,000
500
(1)
-
™"
10,500
M
0
H
A
0
X
0
4J
s
(1)
1,600
(1)
-
™
1,600
c
0
'Jg
JJ
n
ID
£
95,000
7,000
(1)
100
2,300
104,400
0)
»j
n)
o
4J
g
•H
O
11,500
3,700
(1)
200
_
15,400
m
0)
•O
u
•H
4->
U)
c
M
M
(U
jj
0
32,000
14,000
1,000
600
700
48,300
0)
0)
•O
•tH
o
•rH
c
3
46,000
4,200
40,000
-
~
90,200
(1) Included in "Other Insecticides'
(2) Included in "Other Herbicides"
-------
TABLE 2
ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF HOME & GARDEN PESTICIDES USED IN DALLAS, TEXAS SUBURBS, 1971
(Ibs. of Active Ingredient)
Pesti<
,
User Group
Homeowners
Commercial Sprayers
Golf Courses
City
P o r
Totals
Herbicides
0)
Q,
i
^
x
o
c
1)
"a.
10,500
^
100
•^^•— —
10,600
id
o
"g
l3
U
•H
•0
3,500
•negligil
(1)
0)
c
•H
N
id
t-i
jj
id
3,500
3lc
(1)
ticy -i. J>^4 xt
3,500
3,500
0)
V
S
u
la
M
0)
J3
M
a
4J
0
3,000
2,000
5,000
Insecticides
o>
c
id
•o
o
H
A
0
35,000
1,000
3,000
( 21
\ ^/
39,000
c
•H
M
T)
0)
•H
•a
11,000
2,000
1,000
(21
l ^/
14,000
p^
&"1
M
id
M
id
u
15,500
3,000
800
._.
19,300
C
0
•H
JS
4J
id
f-4
fd
g
57,500
3,000
800
c nnn
J f \J \J \J
66,300
c
Q
C
•H
N
id
•H
T)
24,000
4,000
1,000
2 000
ft f \J\J \J
31,000
0)
0)
-o
•H
•H
jj
u
V
in
C
•H
M
(U
-------
TABLE 3
ESTIMATED .QUANTITIES OF HOME & GARDEN PESTICIDES USED IN
LANSING/EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN SUBURBS, 1971
(Lbs. of Active Ingredients)
Pesti
User Group
Homeowners
Commercial Sprayers
Golf Courses
Mosquito Abatement
Totals
H
to
a)
•d
•rl
0
•H
.Q
n
0)
ffi
12,100
negl.
500
-
12,600
Insecticides
0)
(0
TJ
M
o
H
43
O
3,500
negl.
(2)
-
3,500
n
0
i-H
43
O
>i
X
o
J5
4J
a>
e
(2)
3,300
negl.
-
3,300
C
o
•H
X5
4J
03
H
rt
e
3,700
-
(2)
-
3,700
rH
>1
M
(0
X)
M
n)
O
1,700
800
(2)
-
2,500
CO
a)
•a
•H
O
•H
4J
O
a>
en
c
•H
k
(U
J3
4J
o
5,600
550
1,000
2,500
9,650
CO
V
•O
•H
o
•H
tP
c
3
fo
2,800
negl.
1,000
-
3,800
I
VD
(1) Predominantly phenoxy-type products.
(2) Included in "Other Insecticides".
-------
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF POPULATION, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND ESTIMATED QUANTITIES
OF HOME AND GARDEN PESTICIDES USED IN THE THREE STUDY AREAS, BY PRODUCTS
o
Study Area
Philadelphia
Dallas
Lansing
Totals
Popu-
lation
(000)
3,866
1,327
272
5,465
Single
Family
Dwellings
879,413
307,775
56,658
1,243,846
Home and Garden Pesticides Used, 000 Lbs. of Active Ingredients
Herbicides
^
5
V
o.
79
11
13
103
m
u
•rl
Q
(1)
4
(3)
4
0)
c
N
10
M
<
(1)
4
(3)
4
U)
01
•d
•H
O
•r|
J3
V4
a
0)
4J
0
14
5
(3)
19
u
01
•o
•H
u
•H
J3
^4
01
rH
rH
**
93
24
13
130
Insecticides 2!
o>
c
10
•o
n
o
rH
£
CJ
54
39
4
97
c
•rl
•O
rH
0)
•H
Q
(2)
14
(3)
14
r-l
o
o
u
•H
Q
11
(2)
(2)
11
u
0
rH
r^
0
s
w
s
2
(2)
3
5
01
•P
01
•rl
Q
15
(2)
(3)
15
rH
^
(H
(0
!o
o
(2)
19
3
22
c
o
•H
4J
10
S
104
66
4
174
c
o
-H
N
10
•H
Q
(2)
31
(2)
31
•o
•rl
0
•rl
•P
O
0)
(0
c
H
l-l
01
.C
0
48
82
10
140
U)
01
•O
•H
O
•H
JJ
O
0)
V)
c
M
rH
rH
"*
234
251
24
509
m
0)
•o
•ri
U
•H
C
3
rH
rH
<
90
26
4
120
M
0)
•o
•rt
0
•H
4J
M
Q)
rH
rH
**
417
301
41
759
(1) Included in "Other Herbicides"
(2) Included in -"Other Insecticides"
(3) Negligible
-------
environmental conditions, as well as many man-made fac-
tors, vary a great deal between the three cities. As a
result, each area has a distinctly different home and
garden pesticide use pattern.
We estimate that a total of slightly over 750,000
pounds of pesticide active ingredients were used in the
three study areas combined during the last year. This
quantity consists of approximately 130,000 pounds of
herbicides, 510,000 pounds of insecticides, and 120,000
pounds of fungicides. Efforts to relate these quanti-
ties to the size of the area treated are hampered by the
lack of adequate land use data for the study cities. We
therefore attempted to quantify pesticide input per sur-
face area, at least for homeowner use. Homeowners alone
used an estimated 609,000 pounds of pesticide active
ingredients. Assuming that the average lawn and garden
area per residence ranges somewhere between 2,000 and
4,000 square feet in size, the average deposit of pesti-
cide active ingredients per acre would be somewhere be-
tween 5.3 and 10.6 pounds. While it would not be rea-
listic to define this estimate more closely without
additional data, it is obvious that the home and garden
use of pesticides deposits high amounts of chemicals per
acre. Suburban lawns and gardens probably receive the
heaviest applications of pesticides of any land area
in the United States.
-11-
-------
Of the 510,000 pounds of insecticide active ingred-
ients used (Table 4), we estimate that about 160 to 180,000
pounds were chlorinated hydrocarbons (chlordane, dieldrin,
dicofol, and methoxychlor, plus a portion of the materials
included under "other insecticides"). This is probably
a much smaller quantity of chlorinated hydrocarbons than
was used in the area in the past. Reasons for this reduc-
tion in the use of persistent insecticides include re-
placement of DDT by less persistent chemicals in most
home and garden products, and discontinuation of its use
for control of elm bark beetles, mosquitoes and gypsy
moths. In the absence of any prior information on subur-
ban pesticide uses, it is impossible to quantify these
statements.
Many suburbanites commented that they wished to re-
duce their use of pesticides. However, this intention
tends to be wiped out by the increasing use of multiple-
purpose "convenience" pesticides. Thus, the rate of pes-
ticide use per residence is probably still on the in-
crease, and total consumption is further increased by the
continuous construction of additional single family resi-
dences .
Home and garden pesticides are offered in an almost
bewildering variety of different brands, formulations,
-12-
-------
package sizes/ and application options. Products found
in the study areas contain some 50 to 60 different chemi-
cal active ingredients, formulated alone or in all kinds
of combinations. The chief purpose of combining active
ingredients is to offer control of a wider variety of
insects, weeds or diseases, or multiple effectiveness,
i.e., control of insects, weeds and/or diseases, with
or without plant nutrients added.
The labeling of these products makes it almost im-
possible for the layman to identify them by the active
ingredients which they contain. On the other hand, Fed-
eral and State agencies issuing research results and recom-
mendations on the use of these pesticides refer to them
by their common names or chemical names. However, the
lay gardener cannot relate these names to the colorfully
advertised, packaged and labeled products offered for
sale. Thus, he has practically no unbiased source of
information on their effectiveness, persistence or other
properties. For instance, a person wishing to determine
if he really needs a two-, three-, or four-way combina-
tion product has no unbiased way of finding out.
Dry granular formulations of home and garden pesti-
cides with or without plant nutrients are increasing in
popularity. These products are applied by fertilizer
spreaders. Liquid concentrates or wettable powders are
-13-
-------
applied by hose-end or tank sprayers. Dusts and aerosol
products are usually dispensed directly from the con-
tainer. Commercial operators and public agencies employ
hydraulic spraying equipment.
Home and garden pesticide formulations and applica-
tion techniques vary in their propensity to cause environ-
mental pollution. The use of dry granular products
applied by spreaders, and the use of sprayable products
by low-pressure hose-end or small tank sprayers have a
relatively low pollution potential. Likewise, aerosols
and dusts dispensed from small containers do not have a
high pollution propensity. Overuse of these latter pro-
ducts is unlikely because of their relatively high cost.
On the other hand, the use of liquid insecticides on
lawns, and the use of pesticides on trees growing over
pavement where run-off during or after application would
go directly into sewer systems are much more liable to
cause pollution by way of transport of pesticide particles
or residues away from the site of application.
Of 525 respondents to a survey conducted uniformly
in each of the three cities, 92.5 percent reported using
pesticides. Eighty-four percent reported doing so with-
out reservations, whereas 8.5 percent indicated concern
about possible side effects. Seven and five tenths per-
cent of the respondents reported using no pesticides at
-14-
-------
all. Concerning possible adverse effects on the environ-
ment/ 43 percent of all respondents replied specifically
that they had not observed any. Fifty-three and five
tenths percent made no reply to the question, whereas
3.5 percent reported believing that birds, bees, etc.
were diminishing and/or that, pets became sick from the
use of pesticides around the house and yard. There were
no reports of adverse effects on human health associated
with the use of home and garden pesticides.
-15-
-------
APPLICATION TECHNIQUES OF PESTICIDES AND
THEIR ROUTE INTO THE WATER ENVIRONMENT
Included in this section is a discussion of the use
by homeowners and professional applicators of different
pesticide formulations and modes of application. Per-
tinent factors are users' understanding and observance of
directions, mixing and calibrating procedures. Atten-
tion is also given to the various means by which pesti-
\
cides get from this original point of application into
the aquatic environment. The routes discussed include
run-off movement in ground water, atmospheric processes,
disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers, and
accidental spills.
Ranking of Transport Mechanisms
Liquid based pesticides have a high propensity to
enter run-off as long as they are in an emulsified state.
The time of mobility is determined by the emulsion used
to disperse the pesticide in the carrier water but is
believed to be on the order of 3 to 5 days. The emulsi-
fiers evaporate after application, leaving the pesticide
behind on the target. The pesticide is adsorbed on the
surface of organic material present in the target area
and thus becomes anchored at the target area. However,
-16-
-------
if rainfall occurs after application but before the breaking
of the emulsion by evaporation or adsorption, or both, the
rainwater may combine with the pesticide emulsion and carry
it off. This is the greatest potential transport mechanism
for materials applied to the target area. A summary and
ranking of pertinent pesticide transport mechanisms is shown
in Table 5.
In Dallas, spraying of insecticides to entire lawns is
commonly done to control soil insects. These insects are
less of a problem in Lansing and Philadelphia, so less
insecticide spraying of lawns is done.
Application of pesticides as solids is another commmon
way of applying a blanket layer of pesticide to a lawn.
With this method, the granular formulation is spread over
the lawn where the granules tend to lodge in the grass or
other cover material and be mechanically trapped. Gentle
rain helps settle them into the lawn where they are
immobile. Thus, these materials pose a smaller potential
pollution problem than the liquids.
-17-
-------
TABLE 5
PESTICIDE TRANSPORT ROUTES
Rank* Route to the Environment Relative Significance
1 Overland Drainage
.Emulsions in Water Greatest
.Construction Sediment Moderate
.Granular Formulation Low
2 Intentional Dumping of Great (potentially)
Leftover Materials
3 Accidental Spills Great (potentially)
4 Container Disposal Great (potentially)
5 Atmospheric Processes
.Evaporation from Land Moderate
.Evaporation during
Application Low
.Drift
individual Low
commercial Moderate
6 Movement in Ground Water Low
*In descending order of importance
Pesticides Associated with Sediment Transport
Erosion and subsequent transport of pesticides on
soil is less frequent in established suburban areas than
in agricultural lands, due to the permanent nature of
lawns around buildings. Only very heavy rains causing
flooding are likely to disrupt these lawns and produce
sediment transport. However, erosion during new con-
struction can add sediment to a stream, and if the land
was previously exposed to pesticides, the potential
exists for residues to enter the water.
The amount of pesticides entering the water environ-
ment due to accidental or intentional dumping of liquid
-18-
-------
formulations into a sewer system is unknown. A few home-
owners admitted this practice but the number may be
larger than indicated. Frequently containers are "re-
used," with the rinse water being discarded, rather
than being added to the solution prepared for applica-
tion.
Pesticide
Pesticide Applicators, Individual v. Commercial
The suburban user groups surveyed and the quantities
of pesticides utilized are summarized in Table 6 below.
Among the user groups surveyed, homeowners dis-
persed approximately 80 percent of the total pestic
applied. Thus legislative and educational efforts to
prevent pesticides from entering the aquatic environment
must be directed toward the homeowner.
TABLE 6
DALLAS, PHILADELPHIA, AND LANSING - TOTAL
PESTICIDE USE
Pesticide (in pounds)*
User Group
Individual Homeowner
Commercial Sprayer
Public Facilities**
TOTAL
Herbicide
121,600
Neglible
6,200
127,800
Insecticide
429,000
60,900
29,100
519,000
Fungicide
68,800
6,700
44,000
119,500
*Values experssed in pounds of active ingredients.
**Golf courses, parks, mosquito abatement.
-19-
-------
Relationship of Pesticide Application Techniques to Run-Off
Pesticides used in the suburban home and garden mar-
ket are applied by homeowners primarily either as liquids
from hose end sprayers or solids from spreaders pushed
across lawns. Some higher pressure liquid sprays are
used on shrubs and trees but these represent a smaller
volume of pesticides than the hose sprayers and spreaders.
In field.surveys of homeowners and pesticide manu-
facturers investigation determined the average subur-
banite applies pesticides at very distinct times - four
weekends in May, with some applications the last weekend
in April and the first weekend in June. These will be
referred to as application weekends. Thus there are
6 or 7 weekends each year during which 85-90 percent of all
home and garden pesticides are applied. If it rains
these weekends the pesticides are not applied. From
weather bureau records investigation determined that
each of the study cities had about an equal number of
rainy weekends in the last four year period for which
data could be obtained. Each of these cities experienced
about 6-1/2 rainy weekends out of 25 potential applica-
tion weekends during the last four years.
Other rainfall data collected show the number of
times rainfall occurred in the first few days following
application. Heavy rains producing large amounts of run-
off soon after pesticide application can carry pesti-
cides with them. In Lansing, there were four weeks
with heavy rains following an appliation weekend, in
Dallas there were two and in Philadelphia four.
-20 —
-------
The short and concentrated application season for home
and garden pesticides increases the pollution potential from
this source and clearly shows the desirability of monitoring
run-off during these application periods.
Table 8 shows the possible conditions of rainfall
during and following application weekends and the resulting
potential for contamination of water by liquid applied
pesticdes. Only a dry weekend followed by a wet week has a
potential for contamination of run-off waters.
Since this set of circumstances cannot be controlled
and cannot be accurately predicted several days in advance
and since pesticides are liable to be used under these
unfavorable conditions, clearly the most effective way to
minimize the pollution potential is to minimize the run-off
potential of pesticides by formulation and or application
improvements.
Research into very short lived emulsifiers, those with
a 10-15 minute working life after application, should
receive attention. Application of more pesticides as
granules instead of liquids would also help to lower this
peak.
-21-
-------
TABLE 8
POTENTIAL FOR WATER CONTAMINATION BY LIQUID
HOME AND GARDEN PESTICIDE APPLICATION
Weekend Weather/
"oek ' s Woather
Dry
Rainy
Rainy
1 Low
(1)
111 Low
(1)
Dry
i:ELow
(2)
IVVery
High
(2)
(1) No application - bad weather keeps homeowner inside.
(2) Application will occur. No run-off to cause problems,
Pesticide Monitoring Data
Measurement of pesticides in urban area waters is
almost non-existent. The few measurements uncovered
during this work were on a yearly grab basis and pro-
vided no meaningful base to work from. The criteria
for collecting samples should be rainfall and run-off,
to verify the amount of pesticide lost from the urban
areas.
In one of the few instances where pesticides were
measured in actual run-off under field conditions,
Edwards and Glass measured methoxychlor being removed
from pastureland grasses in Ohio. This pasture grass
was not a suburban lawn; but rather a mixture of coarse
field grasses that was not mowed to the short length of
a lawn. These measurements are important because they
represent pesticides in run-off from a stable, non-
plowed field. Soil erosion does not occur under such
conditions and the resulting loss of pesticides adsorbed
on soils do not occur. —22-
-------
Glass and Edwards applied methoxychlor in March at
a very heavy dose of 22.4 kg/ha or 19.9 pounds/acre. This
rate far exceeds normal agricultural application rates
and, according to contractor estimates, is about twice
the maximum rate applied by home and garden users. Run-
off was sampled after all rainfall for 14 months follow-
ing application; the total methoxychlor removed in run-
off was found to be 0.004 percent, a seemingly insigni-
ficant amount of the applied dose. No pesticide was found
in the ground water below the test plot throughout the
study. The implication of this study is that once applied
to the stable situation of grass cover the pesticide will
remain and not cause water contamination. No run-off
occurred for six days after the methoxychlor was sprayed
onto the field, allowing some time for the spray emul-
sion to break before rainfall occurred. The first run-
o-ff had only 0.1 ug/1 of methoxychlor in it.
Empty Container Disposal
After a container is "emptied," it is usually thrown
in the trash for private or municipal pick-up and dis-
posal. Then the container is either buried in a landfill
or incinerated. Both of these techniques are potential
causes of water pollution.
Water percolating through a landfill can contaminate
-23-
-------
ground water in the region; if pesticides are present
they could be carried by the percolating water into the
ground water beneath the landfill. If incinerated, the
pesticide container could contribute to water pollution
through quenching water or flue gas scrubbing water if
the incinerator temperature is not sufficeintly high
or is not maintained at a constantly high temperature.
24
-------
DEGRADATION OF HOME AND GARDEN PESTICIDES
The survey results detailed in Appendix A of this
report indicate that a large number of different pesti-
cide active ingredients are contained in home and garden
pesticide products. These active ingredients represent
a variety of different chemical groups. Many of these
chemicals are also used for agricultural and other pest
control purposes. Many of them have been in commercial
production and use for many years, including the phenoxy-
type herbicides, atrazine, chlordane, dieldrin, methoxy-
chlor, carbaryl, malathion, diazinon, PCNB, captan and
others.
The Problem of Degradation
In recent years, many expert committees, panels,
conferences, and symposia have dealt with practically
all aspects of pesticides, including their fate in the
environment after application. Publications emanating
from these activities include a report by the American
Chemical Society entitled "Cleaning Our Environment -
The Chemical Basis for Action;" proceedings of an inter-
national symposium on "Pesticides in the Soil; Ecology,
Degradation and Movement" which was held at Michigan
State University, East Lansing, in February of 1970,
25
-------
and the "Report of the Secretary's Commission on Pesti-
cides and Their Relationship to Environmental Health,"
U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, more
popularly known as the "Mrak Report," after its chair-
man.
Perusal of these and many other comprehensive studies
and reviews of the state of the art by our best experts
leads to the disturbing conclusion that, in effect, very
little is known about what happens to pesticides in the
environment after application under actual field con-
ditions . Many investigators have studied individual
factors or subsystems under laboratory conditions, but
it is not clear, and the authors themselves usually are
silent on the question, whether the results reported are
applicable or even relevant to field conditions.
Organic pesticides are known to be metabolized by
living systems by processes of hydrolysis, hydroxylation,
removal of halogens, oxidative and non-oxidative reduc-
tion, conjugation and desulfuration. More than one
site on the pesticide molecule may be subject to attack.
Plants, animals and microbes are known to metabolize
many pesticide compounds by similar pathways under
laboratory conditions.
26
-------
It is surprising as well as deplorable that so few
scientists in this area have ventured into studying what
really happens in the field. As a result, very little
is known about the pathways of metabolism and degrada-
tion and about the nature of the ultimate breakdown pro-
ducts of pesticides under field conditions. Not knowing
the nature of these degradation products, we of course
know nothing about their fate and effects in the environ-
ment.
Information on the degradative mechanisms and on
the chemical nature of metabolites and breakdown pro-
ducts is, of course, also important to the development
of analytical methods suitable for monitoring work.
Methods which are sensitive only to the parent compound
are of limited value in efforts to determine the total
environmental impact of chemicals.
While this type of information is lacking even for
pesticides which have been in large scale commercial
use for many years, including those mentioned above,
it is likewise unavailable for pesticides which have
been developed more recently and have thus far been
registered and used primarily on non-food crops. Pro-
ducts in this category include the herbicides Bandane
27
-------
and bensulide; the insecticide Aspon, and the fungicide
benomyl.
Toxicity, Synergism
Many of the compounds which are suggested for use in
lieu of chlorinated hydrocarbons, e.g., organo-phosphate and
carbamates, are known to degrade very rapidly under
laboratory and field situations. Quantitative data on the
toxicity of metabolites of these groups is largely lacking.
It is known, however, that the primary metabolites of some
are even more toxic than the parent compound. This feature,
plus the heavy additions of inorganic materials, heavy
metals, industrial compounds, domestic sewage with high BOD,
etc. from municipal sources, creates a potentially greater
pollution hazard from these areas than from strictly
agricultural regions.
Many of these non-metabolic features of the environment
(above), including additional alteration of temperature, pH,
alkalinity, etc. all act in consort to alter the basic
metabolic physiology of aquatic organisms and make them more
subject to the harmful effects of pesticides and their
degradative residues.
28
-------
testicide Persistence
The contractor feels that its estimates of quanti-
ties of pesticides applied are reasonably valid under
the conditions of the survey. When one compares these
figures to values monitored from various urban areas/
it is seen that one can account for about one year's
application at most. What has happened to the residues?
They may have been degraded, of course, but studies on
undisturbed soils suggest that the organo-chlorides
will persist for many years when plowed down. It is
entirely possible that the majority of urban and sub-
urban applications are more surface oriented and that
they never get down into the soil. Thus, the increased
propensity for vaporization, photo-alteration and run-
off, all of which remove the compounds from the appli-
cation site and contribute them to the aquatic environ-
ment, are global contamination. Relatively shallow cul-
tivation probably contributes toward keeping the chemi-
cals at or near the surface.
The chief conclusion to be drawn from this situation
is that our knowledge about the fate and degradation of
pesticides in the environment is very small indeed. This
is especially true of the home and garden area. The
type of research required to fill these knowledge gaps is
quite complex and therefore, expensive and time consuming,
29
-------
It is unlikely that such an effort would be justified or
supported for a chemical which is used only in the home
and garden pesticide market. However, it is hoped that
with the increasing general concern about these matters,
research will soon be initiated to systematically re-
solve these questions, at least for the most important
agricultural pesticides. The information to be obtained
from such studies will be very useful in gaining a better
understanding of the fate of home and garden pesticides,
and in reducing or eliminating practices and products
which may have a high environmental pollution potential.
30
-------
AQUATIC IMPACT
Decidedly different features characterize the urban-
suburban contribution of pesticides to the water environ-
ment than those of agricultural use. The contractor's
survey and analysis of use patterns indicates that
roughly fifty percent of each type of organochlorides
with relatively low acute toxicity and long persistence,
and/ carbamates and phosphates with relatively highly
acute toxicity and much shorter persistence, are used.
This is in contrast to the results from a five state
agricultural area (EPA No. 68-01-0117) where the use of
organochlorides was more than fifty to seventy-five
times the use of organophosphates and carbamates com-
bined .
Short Term Effects
Such a point source of highly toxic compounds, even
though they degrade quite rapidly in soil or water, could,
under appropriate conditions, constitute a serious health
hazard for aquatic life. It should also be noted in
passing that if damage to the aquatic environment could
be demonstrated either by outright death or reduced popu-
lation of organisms, the suspect material, if it was a
rapidly degradable compound, would, in most cases, be
31
-------
degraded before adequate identification could be com-
pleted. The same is not true, of course, for the more
persistent organochlorides. Of particular impact here
is the fact that the same point source, whether it be
sewage outfall or storm water drainage, could, through
its heavy load of acutely toxic compounds, so weaken or
debilitate aquatic organisms that lower levels of organo-
chlorides would now become more lethal through the com-
bined or synergistic effects of both. Such a problem
does not appear to exist in areas of intensive row crop
cultivation generally.
It has been demonstrated that peak rainfall and time
of application coinciding as they do over much of the
country, presents a particularly threatening situation
during the spring and early summer. It should be re-
membered that this is the time of year of maximum growth
and food conversion for fishes as well as the period
of most active reproduction, incubation, and development
of young.
Examination of population densities and river dis-
charge patterns suggests that east coast estuaries stand
to suffer the greatest potential harm during the months
of April, May, June, and July when the greatest amount
of soil is disturbed and application of pesticides is
the greatest. The impact of suburban and urban use here
32
-------
is contrasted to the interior drainage of the Mississippi
Valley and associated drainages, where lesser popula-
tions in suburban areas add to the already heavy load
of agricultural chemicals. These combined contributions
pose a more serious threat to fresh waters of the in-
terior of this basin than to the Gulf coastal estuaries/
the more toxic compounds generally having been degraded
during their time of travel to coastal estuarine waters.
Certain portions of central and southern California
estuarine areas have a high potential for harm through
the combined actions of heavy residential use of toxic
compounds, heavy, intensive agricultural use of both
toxic and less toxic compounds and the outfall from manu-
facture and formulation of highly persistent but less
toxic chemicals.
Short term effects, then, could be noted in the
outright death of aquatic organisms in some local static
situations. The effects of pesticide translocation re-
sulting from heavy rainfall would probably leave little
effect on the aquatic environment due to the considerable
dilution involved.
Long Term Effects
It has been clearly shown that many aquatic organisms
can accumulate pesticide compounds even from extremely
33
-------
dilute concentrations. It has further been demonstrated
that on a weight basis, many elements of lower trophic
levels, primary producer groups, and second level or pri-
mary consumer groups, have the ability to concentrate
pesticides at a higher rate than higher trophic levels.
This point is vitally important since exposure, even
for a very brief period, will result in some portion of
the pesticide load being incorporated into the food chain
immediately. The remaining, often larger, portion is
bound, at least for a time, to inorganic and organic
particles. Release from these sources into the food
chain follows at a slower rate.
Until we know more about the ultimate fate of meta-
bolic degradative compounds, little will be known about
the impact of these compounds on aquatic organisms. We
do know that complete degradation into totally harmless
compounds usually follows rapidly after primary metabolic
attack in the case of organophosphates and carbamates.
Many herbicides show intermediate persistence;
addition of these compounds to public waterways could
seriously reduce growth and photosynthetic activity in
aquatic plants. Many cases are on record where heavy
applications of herbicides caused heavy "die-off" of
aquatic plants, with subsequent high oxygen demand gener-
ated by the mass decomposition. Such a situation has been
34
-------
previously described as being potentially harmful to
aquatic animals in that the lowered oxygen content weakens
animals and makes them more susceptible to pesticide
effects in lower concentrations. It is doubtful whether
the suburban contribution of herbicides will ever be
responsible for mass "die-offs" but low level chronic
exposure could easily reduce plant growth and vitality,
thereby seriously impeding one of our natural purifica-
tion systems.
The annual application of organochloride compounds
(30-60 million pounds) by home gardeners, home pest con-
trol applicators and municipal authorities, although it
is less than the agricultural use of these compounds,
nevertheless makes a considerable contribution to poten-
tial environmental contamination.
Chronic exposure to low levels (sublethal) or organo-
chlorides has been shown to reduce photosynthesis in
both marine and fresh water algal species. Several bac-
terial species have developed an induced resistence to
these compounds. No long term full studies have been con-
ducted to demonstrate the long term effects of pesticides
on phytoplankton or periphyton species or community struc-
ture and/or metabolism. It appears that no long term, low
level exposure studies have been conducted in labora-
tories, either.
35
-------
Aquatic Crustacea, a major contributor to zooplankton,
are generally more resistant to organochlorides than to
organophosphate or carbamates. A notable exception is
their extreme sensitivity to DDT. Fishes, on the other
hand, are generally less susceptible to organophosphates
and carbamates than to organochlorides. A significant
point is the fact that many of the common zooplanktons
are capable of accumulating quantities of organochlo-
rides several thousand times the concentration in ambient
water within one day.
Aquatic insect larvae, another important component
of aquatic food chains are observed to exhibit a wide
variety of responses with the more fastidious species
being generally more susceptible to intoxication than
the less demanding species. All forms examined so far
are capable of considerable degrees of bio-magnifica-
tion. An insufficient number of different groups have
been examined to date to make a really valid statement.
Fishes have been the most widely examined group of
aquatic animals due to their economic importance and
their position as upper trophic level consumers. Studies
to date have identified an alarming array of responses to
long term, low level exposure. Among these are, be-
havioral alteration disturbances, especially nitrogen
metabolism; endocrine imbalance, particularly in regard
36
-------
to osmoregulatory failure; and, mineral imbalance and re-
productive failure due to steroid hormone disturbance.
Common to both fishes and other lower trophic level
animals, has been the reduction of growth rate generally,
as a result of altered food conversion; altered repro-
ductive potential, both in terms of number of eggs pro-
duced as well as survival of young.
A feature common to all aquatic organisms would
appear to be reduced fitness and increased suscepti-
bility to disease, capture or the effect of parasitic
infection as a result of long term, low level exposure.
Aquatic Food Chain
There is abundant evidence to point to accumulation
and biomagnification within aquatic food chains. The
fact that we do not see many cases of outright death to
fishes in no way detracts from the potentially harmful
effects of chronic exposure to this group. Ecological
efficiencies of about ten percent per trophic level are
common. Biomagnifications of nearly one order of magni-
tude are seen to occur at each of the lower trophic levels,
Residue values for higher trophic levels may or may not
reveal such magnification due to differential rates of
metabolism and degradation. The fact that the residues
of top trophic levels do not reflect such magnification
37
-------
at any given sampling does not mean that the animal was
not subjected to the potentially harmful influence of
metabolizing heavy body burdens of chemicals.
Limited data exists for other aquatic animals. What
is available suggests that toads, frogs, and salamanders
may be highly susceptible to the levels of pesticides
which might occur from suburban and municipal pesticide
use. These groups, along with snakes and turtles, are
virtually unmentioned in the literature. Clearly,
much research is needed.
Those birds which feed on fishes and other aquatic
life can be regarded as the top carnivores of aquatic
chains. Adequate documentation is available to point
clearly to reproductive failure and diminished population
numbers. Hepatic microsomal enzyme induction and dis-
turbed steroid and calcium metabolism is probably at fault.
Synergistic Effects
As described earlier in this report, home and garden
pesticides contain a great variety of different chemicals
as active ingredients. Occurrence of synergistic effects
is therefore definitely a possibility, between different
chemicals formulated together into one product as well
as between chemicals which may arrive at the same site
in the environment from separate applications.
38
-------
Synergism is present when the effect of two chemi-
cals applied together is greater than the sum total of
their independent effects. Among pesticidal chemicals, a
number of instances of synergism have been reported. The
commercially most successful application of this phenomenon
is the enhancement of the insecticidal effectiveness of
pyrethrins by "pyrethrin synergists" such as piperonyl
butoxide, sesamin and others. Many other cases of
synergism between pesticides have been reported in the
literature. Most of these were observed in terms of
increased toxicity of the combined chemicals to labora-
tory cultures of insects, or to laboratory mammals.
Very few investigators have addressed themselves to
possible synergistic interactions between pesticidal
chemicals or their residues in the environment after
application. The contractor's search of the literature
in this regard did not yield any reports applicable to
the present study. This is an area which is very little
explored.
It should be pointed out that field research in this
area is regarded as extremely difficult due to the multi-
plicity of environmental factors involved.
Health Hazard to Humans
The primary health hazard to humans would appear
39
-------
to arise through the careless use of organophosphate and
carbamate compounds. As the more persistent chemicals
are eliminated from use, the use of these alternatives
can be expected to increase. Most of these compounds are
considerably more toxic to warm blooded animals than are
the organochlorides. Standing in spray drift or other
physical contact with concentrated solutions will pose a
threat from these potent cholinesterase inhibitors. In-
gestion of these compounds by children, with tragic con-
sequences, through the careless handling of the original,
package, is sure to increase unless the full support of
state and local authorities can implement a workable
plan of education and information.
40
-------
PESTICIDE ALTERNATIVES
From the more detailed discussion in Appendix E,
we arrive at the following conclusions regarding
alternative methods of controlling lawn and garden
pests:
Methods such as microbial agents, juvenile hormone
mimics or pest management systems which look very pro-
mising for use on some agricultural crops and pests
are not likely to be employed in the lawn and garden
area in the near future.
Organic gardening methods appear to work well in
the hands of a small and dedicated group of believers
in them. A well developed "green thumb" combined with
considerable biological knowledge seem to be prere-
quisites for the success of completely non-chemical
gardening.
The large majority of suburban gardeners consider
"pure" organic gardening methods too cumbersome and
time-consuming, and they do not have the patience and
the basic know-how necessary to make them work.
Consequently, we do not believe that suburban
gardening entirely without chemicals is a realistic
possibility in the foreseeable future. We do believe
that there is room for improvement of the products and
practices which are presently employed for the control
of lawn and garden pests.
41
-------
An overwhelming majority of suburban gardeners
are keenly aware of the "pesticide problem" in relation
to the environment. All are aware, for instance, of
the DDT issue. In our opinion, suburban gardeners would
be most receptive to more information and more practical
advice on how to translate these concerns into action.
They need realistic guidance on how to select products
and practices which will preserve and enhance the en-
vironment and minimize damage to non-target organisms
and pollution from pesticide run-off.
Manufacturers of home and garden pesticides, es-
pecially those operating nation-wide, are keenly aware
of the fact that their clientele is the public at large
(in contrast to the marketing of agricultural pesticides),
and that this clientele is concerned about the quality
of the environment. Their efforts to develop environ-
mentally more desirable products are hampered by the
present lack of methods and yardsticks by which to mea-
sure and monitor the environmental damage potential of
chemicals.
Federal and state extension specialists and other
public officials dealing with lawn and garden pests and
their control share the public concern about environmental
quality and have developed a great deal of useful infor-
mation, advice and control recommendations with these
concerns in mind.
-42-
-------
A major obstacle to more effective communication
and cooperation between these three groups - suburban
gardeners, home and garden pesticide manufacturers and
public agencies - lies in the area of pesticide nomen-
clature . Lay gardeners know home and garden pesticide
products only in terms of brand names and trade names.
Public agencies refer to pesticide active ingredients
only in terms of common names or chemical names. Pre-
sent practices of identifying active ingredients on
home and garden pesticide labels make it practically
impossible for the lay person to utilize public agencies
recommendations.
-43-
-------
APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
The contractor has endeavored to examine and pre-
sent in concise form, the status of Federal and state
laws directly pertinent to the states and three cities.
By collecting and analyzing pertinent laws at the
state and Federal level, and through a series of inter-
views with key people, a picture of good and bad has
been assembled; each will be presented with the con-
tractor's evaluation of areas of needed reform.
The Federal regulation of pesticides operates
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenti-
cide Act (FIFRA) , enacted in 1947 and amended in 1959,
1961, and 1964. The act prohibits the interstate or
international shipment of economic poisons unless they
are: registered pursuant to provisions of Section 4
of the act, are in unbroken immediate containers, and
are labeled according to the provisions of the act.
Should the Administrator find that an imminent
hazard to the public would exist, he may suspend the
registration of an economic poison immediately. Any
person who violates this law may be found guilty of a
misdemeanor and on conviction can be fined not more
than $1,000.00.
— 44 —
-------
New Federal Legislation
During 1971, Congress has considered legislation
to amend or replace FIFRA. At least eight different
bills dealing with pesticides were introduced in the
House of Representatives. The primary one was H. R.
4152. In the Senate four bills have been under con-
sideration, two of which (S. 600 and S. 745) would -
like H. R. 4152 - replace the present FIFRA. The
other bills would either prohibit the sale of DDT or
prohibit the sale of aldrin, chlordane, DDD/TDE, diel-
drin, endrin, heptachlor, lindane, and toxaphene. The
fate of any legislation in the Congress is to be con-
sidered uncertain until enacted by both Houses and
sent to the President. H. R. 10729, the Committee
rewrite of H. R. 4152, was enacted by the House in the
first session of the 92nd Congress. There is strong
expectation that Senate action in the 1972 session
will result in enactment of a new FIFRA very similar
to H. R. 10729.
H. R. 10729 incorporates many of the provisions
of the existing law (FIFRA), but goes well beyond it
in the federal regulation of intrastate as well as
interstate activities, including registration of
pesticides in intrastate commerce. It provides for
the classification of pesticides as to: (a) "general
use" or (b) "restricted use." The original versions
-45-
-------
had a third category of "use by permit only." It also
provides for the certification of pesticide applicators.
It provides for aid and guidance to states in developing
training programs for pesticide applicators and for the
certification of individuals entitled to use restricted
pesticides.
The bill also substantially increases the enforce-
ment powers of the federal agency. There are provisions
for criminal misdemeanor and for civil penalties. These
include not only the registrant, wholesaler, dealer, re-
tailer, or other distributor.- the commercial pesticide
applicator, but the farmer who "knowingly violates any
provision of the Act."
Impact of the Pending Federal Legislation
The contractor views the pending legislation as (1)
an integral part of more effective pollution control, (2)
improved control of commercial and private applicators
to prevent overdoses and careless applications, (3)
more effective handling of pesticides, (4) reduction in
on-site storage of pesticides, and (5) more effective
control over retail sales subject to recall on order
of the Administrator.
City and urban community officials seem to be
—46-
-------
generally concerned with this opinion. When con-
tacted they were, for the most part, helpful and
seemingly aware of the necessity to control certain
areas of pesticide use. These people felt generally
that their offices have tried and were trying to
implement programs tending to minimize possible
environmental damage. Many felt that some retailers
and formulators were using practices designed to
circumvent existing regulations and most felt that
the pending Federal legislation would be of material
help. As might be expected, the greatest opposition
came from some retailers and commercial applicators -
both groups saw the impending legislation as too
restrictive.
The contractor believes that most commercial
structural applicators, including the common house-
hold pest applicators are responsible and honestly
try through national and local organizations to fol-
low reasonable guidelines. There is, however, a large
group of "cut-rate" applicators operating in most major
cities around the country who are opportunistic and in
many cases require only a merchant's license and a spray
can to be in business. Health officials are concerned
because these operators do a job which many munici-
palities cannot do; the reputable applicators are quite
-47-
-------
vocal in their opposition to this group, feeling that
they give the industry a bad name.
Section 20, Research and Monitoring, and Section 23,
State Cooperation and Training of H. R. 10729, are par-
ticularly significant advances. The provisions which
specifically empower the Administrator to (1) foster
research in biologically integrated alternatives for
pest control, (2) formulate a national plan for moni-
toring, (3) expand public funds to encourage state pro-
grams in training of certified pesticide applicators,
are viewed by the contractor as necessary and desirable.
Testing and Registration of New Pesticides
Section 3. Registration of pesticides appears to
provide for sufficient information to allow the Adminis- -
trator to make adequate judgments regarding new compounds,
The provisions which allow a full description of tests
performed, §3(c)(1)(D), and the results thereof to the
Administrator as he desires and §3(c)(1), wherein the
Administrator shall publish guidelines specifying the
kinds of information required in support of registration,
are regarded as particularly important. The further pro-
vision that the Administrator shall make public all
scientific information relating to the registration of
-48-
-------
any particular compound is viewed as an absolute neces-
sity and long overdue (S 23 (c) (2), p. 18, lines 4-9).
State Law Summary
Texas - The Texas Economic Pesticide Law of 1971
is simple and direct. Although it does make provisions
for the establishment of an Advisory Committee, it is
felt that additional members should be added to make
more equitable decisions possible. Apparently part of
the burden of determining whether certain pesticides
possess "serious uncontrollable adverse effects" or are
"of greater detriment to the environment" than "the
benefits received by its use" etc. will fall on this
committee.
Authority is still vested in county commissioner
courts to ameliorate portions of the state herbicide
law which is a kind of use and appliation provision.
Such authority may be subject to abuses in certain
cases. No insecticide use and application provisions
are currently in force. Most of the bills which were
offered but which did not pass in 1971 were really
too broad and under the existing law would have been
difficult to interpret in individual cases. The dis-
tribution of more stringent commercial applicator laws
or a restricted use provision encompassing chlorinated
-49-
-------
hydrocarbons would have been desirable but were not
passed. Texas was a large user of raw DDT which was
formulated for use in the state. The recent ban on
interstate shipments of DDT will materially affect
this use.
Pennsylvania - This state's existing law is fashioned
generally after FIFRA. No restricted use clause or use
or application law is included. The fate of many of
the pending bills is in doubt. Generally speaking, the
offered bills were much more restrictive than existing
law. Restricted use provisions, the prohibition of
chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, except in emergency,
are received as desirable. This state will probably
find it easy to accept the pending Federal legislation.
Of particular noteworthiness is Senate Bill 668
which would grant authority to the Department of Environ-
mental Resources to establish centers to collect and
dispose of non-biodegradable pesticides.
Michigan - Michigan already has adequate provisions
for testing and licensing of applicators. Annual re-
view and renewable clauses are deemed desirable.
The Pesticide Advisory Board in this state (cf.
Texas) is constituted of members more directly concerned
(and knowledgable) about environmental contamination
and potential health hazard to humans. Additional
-50-
-------
licensing provisions and the inclusion of restricted
use categories in legislation passed in 1971 are seen
as desirable additions to the law. This state will
have no problem with the Administration Bill (H. R.
10729) since many of their provisions are already
more restrictive than the proposed Federal law. The
provisions of the existing law do not, however, specify
restricted use pesticides, it merely grants the authority
to the Department of Agriculture to designate such.
A public hearing was scheduled for December 9, 1971,
on Michigan's Department of Agriculture proposed Regula-
tion No. 633. This proposed regulation provided for the
identity of restricted use pesticides and their formu-
lations; who may sell them and for what purposes; as
well as licensing and examination and reporting of sales
provisions for such compounds. Such a regulation, with
the full support of the Department of Agriculture, is
seen as very worthwhile legislation.
None of the suburban areas around the cities of
Dallas, Philadelphia, and Lansing have regulations or
local ordinances which materially alter the existing
state laws. Only a few local restrictions on DDT use
have been identified.
-51-
-------
Identity of Favorable Types of Laws
Although some states presently have laws which appear
to control use and application, it is seen that suffi-
cient control is not observed in practice at all times.
Hopefully, the provisions of the bill, which would
strengthen or reinforce Federal aid to educational pro-
grams designed to improve methods of application and
human safety, would have their impact in increased
environmental protection as well.
Some of the verbiage of the existing state laws is
rather loose in the interpretation of how to dispose of
containers and unused pesticides. Hopefully this major
source of environmental contamination will be solved by
more useful state laws in the future. As indicated in
another section of this report, many householders have
expressed an earnest desire to dispose of their material
in a suitable way but do not know of a practical solu-
tion. Aid in this matter should come from all states
as soon as possible (see Pennsylvania Senate Bill 668).
Studies on various soil types indicate that consid-
erable residues exist in urban and suburban soils
around the country. Means of identifying this residue
level would be desirable. The activities of State
Departments of Agriculture through the Agricultural
Extension Service are well known to farmers. The acti-
-52-
-------
vities of this group as well as the valuable services
and information they provide are much less well known
to suburban and urban home gardeners. Provisions of
the proposed Federal legislation which would augment
educational programs in the various states is viewed
as a very desirable feature and one which would ma-
terially aid this heavy pesticide use group.
The strengthening of applicator laws is viewed
as another very desirable feature of some state laws.
However, responsible operators who perform valuable
services should not suffer from over-regulation.
-53-
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Use Patterns
1. To obtain a more complete picture of the total
national pesticide input into the environment, collect
information on the distribution and use patterns of about
500 million Ibs. of pesticide active ingredients which
are produced annually, but not accounted for by farm use.
2. Extend the present study to other geographical
areas so as to obtain an estimate of the total national
home and garden pesticide consumption.
3. Extend study to all other non-farm pesticide uses
which, together with home and garden uses make up the 500
million Ibs. of pesticides about whose disposition we
currently know so little.
Transport Mechanisms
4. Verify the relationship between application tech-
niques and runoff for liquid and granular pesticide formu-
lations through simulated field conditions.
5. Establish monitoring networks to record daily
levels of pesticides at sewage and water treatment plants
and peaks from storm runoff to generate enough data to
allow an accurate inventory of pesticides entering water
from suburban use. This should include samples collected
-54-
-------
during and after storms to catch the runoff peaks as well
as a- few continuous (daily) samples at locations such as
waterworks facilities, where water quality is already
monitored, and should include sediment as well as water
analyses.
6. Establish educational programs through mass
media to show better ways of disposing of left over
materials and empty containers. Approaches such as deposits
on returnable cans might help keep the containers away
from the water environment. Another approach could be the
creation of pesticide collection stations where empty
containers could be taken for proper disposal during each
of the application weekends.
7. Develop emulsions which will persist only a few
minutes after application, thus reducing the chances of
subsequent rain carrying pesticides away from the target.
8. Institute, by legislation, different programs of
land clearing during construction. Allow only that area
actually required to be disturbed for construction to be
denuded. Reduce practices such as mass removal of trees
and bushes which break the force of rainfall and help
check erosion.
9. Institute a series of storm runoff control de-
vices which keep runoff at a low level longer, and catch
-55-
-------
sediment in the process, keeping the sediment on the land
rather than allowing it to enter the waterways. If a
large area must be disturbed in construction, encourage
the planting of rapid growing materials, such as black
mustard weed, which would provide temporary ground cover
to reduce erosion.
10. Formulate all possible pesticides as granules
rather than liquids for sod applications.
Degradation
11. Encourage and support down-to-earth, interdis-
ciplinary research on the fate and degradation of pesti-
cides in the environment under field conditions.
12. Investigate and identify the major metabolites
in several animal groups before final registration of new
products. This should include at least one warm blooded
(rat, mouse, rabbit, dog) and one cold blooded animal
(suitable fish) and one or more common invertebrate species,
at least one of which is an aquatic organism.
13. Investigate and identify the major metabolites
in several plant groups before final registration is grant-
ed. For herbicides these should include several terrestrial
non-target species. For both herbicides and pesticides,
the metabolites of several aquatic species of filamentous
algae as well as common diatoms and unicellular algae of
the primary producer group should be identified.
-56-
-------
14. Investigate and identify the nature of meta-
bolites and extent of decomposition of new products by
common soil and water microorganisms before final re-
gistration is granted.
Impact on Aquatic Environment
15. Support additional needed research in the
area of synergistic effects of pesticides with each other
and in combination with other environmental variables;
particularly effects of reduced oxygen tension, pH, alka-
linity, temperature, heavy metals, etc.
16. Establish improved monitoring systems which
would identify .levels of contamination at various trophic
levels especially in and around major metropolitan areas.
17. Support laboratory and'field studies on long
term effects on growth and population dynamics. These
should include experiments designed to examine the effects
of pulsed, (repeated) exposures to sub lethal concentrations
of more acutely toxic compounds. All elements of aquatic
ecosystems and trophic levels must be stressed.
18. Establish basic guidelines for the conduct of
experimental research programs. The thrust of this should
be toward insuring greater conformity and achieving greater
comparability between data. Especially useful data should
-57-
-------
be sought which identifies rates of accumulation under
varying conditions, particularly concentrations, and total
quantity of chemical the test animals are exposed to.
19. Support basic research on the effects of com-
binations of pesticides most commonly used by home gardeners
on primary carbon fixation.
20. Institute a workable plan of information retriev-
al for all elements of the aquatic ecosystem as well as
terrestrial. Compliance or voluntary cooperation, is ab-
solutely necessary by each state. Support may have to come
through Federal withholding of support monies. Such a plan
could make already gathered data available for analysis
as well as predicting where duplication of effort might
occur.
21. Continue to support and expand studies on basic
physiological responses of fish and other aquatic verte-
brates to pesticides under chronic sublethal exposure.
This ought to include expanded studies of effects of heavy
metals/pesticide synergisms.
22. Establish a means whereby the kinds of information
generated by points, 11-17 and 19, 21, if produced by manu-
facturers or fonuulators, is subject to examination by the
at large scientific community - with due regard for corpo-
rate integrity and confidentiality.
-58-
-------
Alternatives to Pesticide Use
23. To make home and garden pesticide labels more
meaningful to the user and to facilitate lay persons'
understanding of research findings and recommendations by
Federal and state agencies, make it mandatory that all
active ingredients be identified by common names.
24. Encourage public agencies, gardening organi-
zations and home and garden pesticide manufacturers to
cooperate in the development of meaningful, practical
information and advice on how to control pests around
the house and yard in such a way as to reduce actual and
potential environmental harm to a minimum. Furnish
suburban gardeners easily understandable, unbiased in-
formation on the properties of pesticide active ingredients
and on their potential for environmental harm in terms
-which they can relate to product labels.
25. Develop and furnish to suburban gardeners prac-
tical information on the pollution potential of different
pesticide use methods. Examples: dry granular lawn in-
secticides are less liable to produce runoff than liquid
sprays; are multi-purpose "convenience" products really
necessary?
-59-
-------
Regulations and Laws
26. Since over eighty percent (80%) of the total
pesticide load applied in homes and gardens is applied
directly by the homeowner, it is apparent that this group
needs to have as much or more control exercised over them
as do commercial applicators or farmers. By and large,
this group of people are extremely naive about the com-
pounds they apply. They appear to rely on promotional
criteria and salesmanship, rather than the actual product
required for a specific job. One form of restraint would
obviously be in what is available to them. This group
should have free, unbiased recommendations for use and
application, as well as means of disposal. Federal support
of educational programs is anticipated.
27. The use of some persistent compounds appears
warranted where it can be clearly demonstrated that
possible contamination of the environment is highly
unlikely. Structural pest applications where the material
can be worked down or otherwise prevented from vaporization
or runoff are suggested. The further use of more persist-
ent compounds may be justified when the preservation of a
valuable crop ( a seldom occurrence in the home and garden
use of pesticides) is confronted with an extreme emergency.
-60-
-------
28. The careless and reckless "dollar-a-room"
pesticide applicator obviously needs some restraint
placed on his activities. Licensing, which includes
examinations or testing for knowledge, the posting of
an adequate bond and other controls supported by a
rigid enforcement program are desired.
29. Passage of the Administration Bill (H. R. 10729)
as well as full state and Federal implementation of its
provisions is urged. Although directed primarily at
agricultural activities, its content clearly would have
a profound influence on suburban and urban pesticide use.
30. Interdisciplinary research and down-to-earth
thinking will have to be combined to answer many of the
questions outlined above. Industrial and independent
research and consulting organizations have much experience,
and have had much success in practical, problem-solving
research. This type of experience is greatly needed in
this complex area of environmental research and should
therefore be engaged to the maximum extent possible, along
with other appropriate research sources.
-61-
-------
APPENDIX A
HOME AND GARDEN PESTICIDE USES
Selection of Study Cities
Throughout the United States, an ever increasing
land area becomes part of "suburbia" with the continuous
growth of our cities and the addition of new subdivisions
along their outskirts. Lawn is probably by far the
biggest U. S. "crop."
The kinds and species of grasses, flowers and trees
grown in suburbs throughout the United States vary almost
as widely as the climatic and soil conditions and other
elements of the physical environment. Likewise, there
are great differences between regions of the country in
the insect, disease and weed problems affecting these
plantings, and in the chemical and other measures of con-
trol used to combat them. The contractor therefore thought
it advantageous to study home and garden pesticide uses and
their environmental impact in several different geograph-
ical areas. In consultation with the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, the cities of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Dallas, Texas and Lansing, Michigan were selected as re-
presenting three distinctly different geographical regions
and, in addition, a certain variance in size of metropolitan
areas. A more detailed description of each study city will
1-A
-------
be given below.
It would, of course, have been desirable to include
additional geographical regions, but this was not possible
within the limits of time and resources available for the
performance of the present investigation.
Prior Information
The U. S. Tariff Commission stated in a preliminary
refport dated September, 1971, that a total of 1.034
billion Ibs. of active ingredients of pesticides and re-
lated products were produced in the United States in 1970.
This quantity included 404 million Ibs. of herbicides;
490 million Ibs. of insecticides and 140 million Ibs. of
fungicides.
Eichers (one of the few nationally known authorities
on pesticide use statistics) described the use and dis-
position of the total U. S. production of pesticides as
follows in a recent symposium: (2)
"More and more information is becoming available
on farm use of pesticides. We may soon have a
fairly good impression of how much of which pesti-
cide products farmers use on what crops in different
sections of the country However, the exist-
ence of any systematic tabulation of pesticide use
and effects ends here. While we have several re-
cent enumerations attempting to identify farm use
of pesticides, there is almost no statistical in-
formation on non-farm use (by public agencies, in-
dustry and home owners). And, to my knowledge,
2-A
-------
there are no current proposals for obtaining
information on these areas of use. Yet farmers
account for only slightly more than one-half
of all pesticides used in the United States."
This is a very succinct, authoritative statement
on the present, almost total, lack of information on
the fate and disposition of about 500 million Ibs. of
pesticide active ingredients per year. Home and gar-
den pesticide uses share this total quantity with gov-
ernment and industrial uses, but the actual pesticide
quantities consumed annually by these two latter groups
are equally unknown. Thus, this contract study as de-
signed by the EPA represents the first systematic
effort by any government agency to shed light on this
unknown area.
One of the specifications of this contract included
a request for "an inventory and description of pesticide
uses in the area, including a tabulation of quantities
and types of major pesticides used and the pests toward
which their use is directed." It was obvious from the
outset that this inventory would be one of the key tasks
in this study because the pesticide inputs into the study
areas would have to be known in terms of specific chemi-
cals and quantities before most of the subsequent tasks
could be undertaken.
3-A
-------
Survey Methods
For purposes of this case study, the contractor
defined "the use of pesticides in suburban homes and
gardens" (as set forth in the contract specifications)
to include pesticide uses by suburban residents, commer-
cial tree and lawn sprayers, golf courses, city and
county Parks and Health Departments and similar agencies.
Industrial or residential indoor uses of pesticides in
the center cities, i.e., for rodent control, were not
included. The contractor also did not include pesti-
cide uses by professional exterminators for structural
pest control, such as termite control, because it has
been shown that pesticides used properly and profession-
ally for these purposes do not move away from the site
of application and therefore do not contribute to con-
tamination of waterways.
Furthermore, within the geographical boundaries
described below for each study city, the contractor
defined the "suburban area" as the total land area
carrying single family dwelling units, plus adjacent
parks, golf courses, and similar lands.
The methods used, and the agencies and individuals
contacted to arrive at a meaningful estimate of the total
quantities of pesticides used in suburban homes and gar-
4-A
-------
dens in the three cities are as follows:
State Agricultural Experiment Station and Extension
Services. State University research and extension workers
in the fields of horticulture, entomology, plant pathology,
weed science, and environment-oriented disciplines were
very helpful in giving the contractor a general overview
of the most important lawn grasses, ornamental trees,
shrubs and flowers; of the insects, weeds and diseases
affecting them; and of the major pesticides recommended
and used in their respective areas. They also gave the
contractor many suggestions as to other agencies and
individuals to contact.
Regional, County and City Planning Departments.
Planning Departments were contacted initially for informa-
tion on the number of acres and/or the percentage of sub-
urban land built up and under pavement versus land in sub-
urban lawns and plantings, golf courses, parks, etc. The
contractor learned that this type of land use data is not
available in any of the three study cities. However, the
Planning Commissions were able to give the contractor in-
formation on the number of single family dwelling units
in their respective areas, also the number of owner-occupied
dwelling units in eight different valuation brackets, rang-
ing from less than $5,000 to more than $50,000. These data
5-A
-------
from the 1970 census proved very helpful in extra-
polating the pesticide use data from individual residences
(see below). Not surprisingly, the contractor found that
there are definite correlations between property valuation
and dollar expenditures for home and garden pesticides.
City and County Health Departments. In each city,
it was determined if and to what extent Health Departments
were using pesticides for mosquito control or other pur-
poses. Where such programs were in effect in 1971, the
agency or agencies conducting them were contacted. Most
of them were very cooperative in furnishing the actual
purchase figures or estimates of the kinds and quantities
of pesticides used.
City Parks and Recreation Departments, These depart-
ments were queried about their use of pesticides in public
parks, golf courses, etc-and cooperated gladly.
Tree and Lawn Spraying Companies. In each study
city, the structure of this business was determined,
including the approximate number of individual operators
and their relative shares of the total market. The larger
operators were contacted and asked for information on the
kinds and quantities of pesticides which they purchased
and used during 1971. The contractor also asked these
experts about the most important ornamental trees and
6-A
-------
plants, pests affecting them, and pesticide use patterns.
Again, the contractor obtained excellent cooperation and
much valuable information from the majority of them.
Home and Garden Pesticide.Retail Outlets. The con-
tractor determined the most important channels of distri-
bution of home and garden pesticides in each city and
visited a representative number of retail outlets to ob-
tain information on the major brands of home and garden
pesticides, and on the major products within the different
lines.
Nurseries, hardware stores and discount stores are
the three principal home and garden pesticide retail out-
lets. The majority of these, regardless of type, were
unable to give meaningful information on the kinds and
quantities of different products sold. These stores, in
effect, make certain shelf footage or floor space available
to each of the major brands stocked. The manufacturer's
or distributor's salesmen visit the retailer, usually early
in the week and at weekly intervals during the busy season,
and restock their respective shelf areas with those products
which, in their opinion, will sell best at the particular
time. These quantities are then billed centrally, but the
billings do not normally come to the attention of the
person in charge of the retail home and garden department.
7-A
-------
Accordingly, these persons do not know the quantities of
the varipus products they sell, except by general impressions
Manufacturers of Home and Garden Pesticides. Home
and garden pesticides are manufactured and marketed by a
relatively small number of large nationwide companies,
and by a much larger number of regional and local enter-
prises. Several of the large companies were contacted in
the course of this study. They were most helpful and coop»-
erative in supplying product manuals, price lists, sample
labels, leads to further sources of information, etc. In
additipn, they furnished some quantitative information on
their own products which was very useful as a means of
cross-checking the estimates which, of course, include
the entire market. These manufacturers' products make up
only a pprtion of the total market; this portion varying
considerably between the three study cities.
puburban Residents. Suburban gardeners undoubtedly
dispense far greater quantities of pesticides than the
public agencies and commercial tree and lawn sprayers
combined. To estimate their pesticide uses was therefore
very important, and by far the most difficult part of the
assignment.
The contractor made door-to-door calls to determine
8-A
-------
the kinds and quantities of home and garden pesticides
used. In addition, garden clubs and similar organizations
were contacted in each city, familiarized with the purp-
ose of this study and their cooperation enlisted. In
each city, the leaders and members of these organizations
were most helpful and assisted the contractor in obtaining
responses to the survey questions from their members,
neighbors and other qualified respondents. Copies of
the questionnaire used and an explanatory statement pre-
pared for these groups are attached as Exhibits A and B.
The individual survey forms were tabulated for each
city by major individual products and by property value
categories. By comparing the individual survey responses
with the information from all other sources, especially the
canvass of home and garden pesticide retail outlets, the
composition of the average home owner's pesticide shopping
list and expenses were determined. Also tabulated were
responses on the equipment used to apply these materials,
and the outlets where home owners purchase them, and
unstructured comments which were offered by respondents.
This data base was then further analyzed (for each study
city) to determine the amounts of pesticide active ingred-
ients contained in $100 worth of formulated products pur-
chased .
9-A
-------
Figures from the sample of respondents from all
single family dwelling units, stratified by property
valuation, determined the resultant total dollar amounts
into pounds of pesticide active ingredients.
It is obvious that estimates obtained by such a
series of approximations, including extrapolation from
very small samples to very large "universes" cannot
claim a high degree of accuracy. However, the contractor's
approach and the following statements have to be viewed
from the base of no information whatsoever on home and
garden pesticide consumption. The contractor believes —
—that the survey and information gathering methods
which were employed in this study are novel and
useful;
—that the survey results represent a first advance
into an unknown area in which information is badly
needed;
—and that the following estimates of the kinds and
quantities of home and garden pesticides used in
the three study areas provide "scope of magnitude1
information on the annual pesticide inputs into these
suburban 1and s.
10-A
-------
Exhibit "A"
ROSMARIE VON RiJMKER, SC. D.
R V R CONSULTANTS
P. O. BOX. 853 SHAWNEE MISSION. KANSAS 662OI
TELEPHONE 013/722-5795
Name:
HOME AND GARDEN PESTICIDE SURVEY.
Address
Name of Product
(if known)
*
10
0)
e M
•rl (d
•P 0)
>1
»H
O K
0)
l-i CU
0)
•Q-o
e
U)
A
D
k
.c
CO
(0
M
n
o
•a
c
H
Type of Product
X
•H
y.
M
a)
N
•H
H
•H
4->
M
0)
CM
TJ
H
&
H
^
M
0)
•a
S
b
a<
>!
m
M
04
co
4J
to
g
(0
0)
1-1
3
C
a
M
o
o
•H
e
0)
4->
10
>i
CO
>1
fl
M
&
V)
H
O
(0
Aero
How Applied
M
a)
•o
CO
0)
M
04
co
M
a>
>i
n)
M
a
CO
i
T3
C
H
1
0)
CO
O
K
M
(U
>i
(0
M
ft
CO
X
C
rt
EH
M
Q)
4J
(0
3
Q
E
O
M H
o-i d)
C
0) -H
ca n>
C 4J
0) C
040
CO U
•H
Q
Money spent per year on all above products (check one) :
Less than $5 $5-10 $10-15 $15-20 ' $20-25 $25-30 $
Products were purchased at (check one or more):
Nursery Discount store Hardware store
Value of property (check one):
Less than $10,000 $10-20,000
$20-50,000
Other
Above $50,000
Effects on environment (sick or dead birds, fish, pets, etc., other effects),
complaints, other comments:
11-A
Interviewer
Date
-------
Exhibit "B"
R V R CONSULTANTS
P.O. BOX 883 8HAWNEE MISSION. KANSAS 00201
TELEPHONE 913/722-3789
ROSMARIE VON RUMKER. Sc. D.
November 1, 1971
HOME AND GARDEN PESTICIDE SURVEY:
The purpose of this study is to obtain information on the total
quantity of chemical pesticides (including insecticides, weed-killers,
fungicides, etc.) used annually in suburban homes and gardens in three
metropolitan areas, namely Philadelphia, Pa.; Dallas, Texas; and Lansing,
Michigan. This study is funded by the Environmental Protection Agency
under contract No. 68-01-0119; its over-all purpose is to assess the
impact of pesticides on the environment. The starting base for such an
assessment is the quantitative pesticide input. The attached simple
question form is designed to obtain this information.
We are asking for the address of each residence in order to be able
to enter the origin of all completed forms on a map of each study area.
Following name and address, please enter the name of each pesticide
product used per year. A typical entry might look as follows: "Name
of product" - Scotts Plus 2;"l"in column "number of times used per year";
check weeds; lawn; fertilizer mix; and spreader. Another typical ex-
ample might be "Isotox", used "3" times per year; insects; roses, flowers;
shrubs, trees; liquid; hose-end sprayer. Please include all pesticide-
fertilizer mixes, but do not include straight fertilizers.
Concerning the amount of money spent per year on all pesticides,
many people cannot name a single figure right off-hand. However, if
you guide them by first asking whether the amount would be more or less
than, say, $10, and then take it from there until the right bracket is
reached, a good answer can usually be obtained.
The information on where the product(s) were purchased is needed
because we are also surveying the retail home and garden pesticide out-
lets. This is an important cross-check possibility. We are asking for
an estimate -in very broad brackets- of the valuation of each property
to allow analysis and extrapolation of the data by use of 1970 census
information.
We are very grateful for your interest in this project. As you can
see, we have much ground to cover in a short time; we need all completed
forms by the end of November, sooner if possible. Your assistance will
contribute much to making the survey more complete. Please mail all
completed forms to the above address at Shawnee Mission, Kansas and in-
dicate your direct expenses, such as postage and/or envelopes, which we
will gladly reimburse.
12-A
Dr. Rosmarie von Rflmker
Project Leader
RvR:fh
-------
Survey Results for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
General Description of the Area. Philadelphia was
chosen as representative of a large metropolitan area and
the Middle Atlantic United States.
Area sources contacted by the contractor included
Pennsylvania State University's Area Environmental Agent,
who furnished literature/ information on the area and
further sources; and the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society,
which conducted a mail survey of a cross-section of its
area membership.
The Philadelphia study area consisted of the metro-
politan region, including the five Pennsylvania counties
of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia.
The area has a population of about 3.9 million and contains
879,413 single-family dwelling units. Philadelphia is one
of the oldest cities in the United States and has a higher
percentage of older suburban homes. The terrain is quite
hilly in many of the suburbs, especially on the western
side, and many lots are wooded. For these reasons, and the
favorable growing conditions present for large shade trees,
the average lawn area per residence is probably somewhat
smaller in Philadelphia than in many other cities.
Located within the five-county study area is 3,800
acre Fairmount Park, acclaimed as one of the largest and
13-A
-------
most beautiful city parks in the world. It is made up
of rolling woodlands, meadows and hills, and offers nearly
every form of outdoor recreation. There are a total of
about 90 golf courses within the study area.
Plants, Pests, Pesticides. Table 1 gives an overview
of the dominant lawn and garden plants; the insects, dis-
eases and weeds affecting them; and the major pesticides
employed within the Philadelphia area. A considerable
variety of shade trees, shrubs and evergreens are grown
in this city. The climate favors scales, and these appear
to be affecting almost all the woody plants. Oil sprays
are used widely, with dimethoate frequently reported as
an effective insecticide against scales and other insect
pests of trees and shrubs. Other insecticides used on
trees and shrubs include carbaryl, malathion and methoxy-
chlor.
Roses and other perennial flowers are grown by many
Philadelphia suburbanites, although some wooded areas lack
sufficient sunlight for these plants.
Annual flowers are grown quite abundantly, but do
not generally require or receive insecticide or fungicide
treatments.
Bluegrass is the predominant lawn grass species.
14-A
-------
TABLE 1
MOST IMPORTANT LAWN & GARDEN PLANTS, PESTS AND PESTICIDES
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Plants
Insects, Diseases, Weeds
Pesticides
Deciduous Trees
oak
maple
birch
ash
magnolia
mimosa
honeylocust
dogwood
poplar
Deciduous Shrubs
azalea
lilac
Pyracantha
scales,caterpillar,aphids,mites,
borers
scales,aphids,tent caterpillar,
boxelder bug
leafminer,borer,aphids
scales jwebworm,borer
scales
mimosa webworm
mimosa webworm,scales
scales,borer
scales,borer
scales,mites,lacebug
scales,borer
scales,aphids
Evergreen Trees and Shrubs
juniper scales,mites,bagworms
yew scales
Euonymus scales
holly scales,leafminers,mites
fir aphids
pine scales,aphids,sawflies,weevil
spruce scales,mites,gall aphid,weevil
malathion
methoxychlor
carbaryl
dimethoate
lindane
oil sprays
oil sprays
dimethoate
malathion
malathion
methoxychlor
carbaryl
Perennial Flowers
roses
chrysanthemums
tulips
phlox
Annual Flowers
Vegetables
Lawn
lawngrass:
bluegrass
zoysia
aphids,rose chafers,Jap. beetle
adults,leafhoppers,black spot,
powdery mildew
aphids,thrips,leaf spot,
powdery mildew
Botrytis blight
leaf spot
fmalathion,
1carbaryl,maneb,
/dinocap,folpet
malathion,
ferbam
zineb, ferbam
ferbam
No major problems requiring routine
or extensive pesticide treatments
Insects; white grubs (incl. Jap.
beetle),chinchbugs,sod web-
worms
Diseases: leaf-spot,dollar spot,
brown patch
Weeds: crabgrass,dandelion
******
HOUSEHOLD PESTS & INSECTS AFFECTING MAN
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
chlordane,
carbaryl,
diazinon,Aspon
Dyrene.maneb
phenoxy herbi-
cides ,dicamba-
phenoxy combi-
nations
Host
Pests
Pesticides
Man
Structures
mosquitoes
houseflies
wasps,hornets
blackflies
carpenter ants,termites,
millipedes
Abate,fenthion,
oil
household
aerosols
lindane,pyrethrum
no chemical
recommended
chlordane,dieldrin
15-A
-------
There is some zoysia grass. Lawn insects, diseases and
weeds are present, but not to the extent that they will
completely destroy lawns if uncontrolled.
Mosquitoes and flies are ubiquitous. Many people
complained that wasps and hornets were a particularly
bad problem in 1971. Carpenter ants and termites feed
on structures in the area.
Table 2 summarizes the estimated total consumption
of pesticide active ingredients for suburban pest control
activities, broken down by home owners, commercial tree
sprayers, golf courses, city parks and mosquito abatement
activities. Pesticides are broken down by phenpxy herbi-
cides and other herbicides; malathion, chlordane, dicofol,
dimethoate, methoxychlor, and other insecticides; and
fungicides.
Home Owner Pesticide Use. Home owners used far
greater quantities of home and garden pesticides than
all other users combined. In the Philadelphia area, residents
have a choice of a bewildering variety of brands, formu-
lations, package sizes and devices, containing single or
multiple active ingredients, many of them competing for
the same or overlapping purposes. Fertilizer-pesticide
mixtures and, to a lesser extent, pesticides on inert
16-A
-------
TABLE 2
ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF HOME & GARDEN PESTICIDES USED IN PHILADELPHIA, PA. SUBURBS, 1971
(Lbs. of Active Ingredient)
User
Group
Homeowners
Commercial Sprayers
Golf
City
Courses
Parks
Mosquito Abatement
Totals
Herbicides
0)
•P
t
fr
c
-a
M
O
£
U
50,000
640
3,600
-
••
54,240
O
m
o
u
•H
•o
10,000
500
(1)
-
•"
10,500
0
rH
JG
0
O
A
-P
0)
e
(l)
1,600
(1)
-
~
1,600
c
o
•H
.C
4J
10
1-1
95,000
7,000
(1)
100
2,300
104,400
0)
10
-U
0)
E
•H
•O
11,500
3,700
(1)
200
—
15,400
to
•0
•H
U
•H
4J
O
0)
0)
C
•H
j^
0)
4J
O
32,000
14,000
1,000
600
700
48,300
0]
0)
•O
•H
U
o>
c
a
t,
46,000
4,200
40,000
-
—
90,200
(1) Included in "Other Insecticides"
(2) Included in "Other Herbicides"
-------
granular carrier materials which are applied by spreaders
are popular.
Commercial Tree and Lawn Spraying. The contractor
estimates about 25 - 30% of the market in the greater Phila-
delphia area residential tree spraying business is dominated
by two major companies. Both of them were interviewed;
also three other companies of somewhat smaller size. The
five companies interviewed account for approximately 40%
of this business. The information obtained from them was
extrapolated to obtain the entire pesticide input from this
source.
The percentage of home owners who engage commercial
tree sprayers varies considerably in different parts of
Philadelphia. One company estimated that in the western
suburbs, as many as 70% of the owners engage commercial
sprayers. The same person estimated that a comparable
figure for other suburbs would be less than 10%. An
operator in the northern suburbs estimated less than 1%
of area residents engage commercial sprayers.
Of the 194 respondents included in the home owner
survey, 21 (11%) reported that they engaged commercial
tree sprayers. The contractor believes that the city-
wide average is much lower than this.
18-A
-------
Golf Courses. There are five public golf courses
within the study area. An exact inventory of the quanti-
ties of pesticides used on these courses was obtained
from the City Parks Department. It was estimated that
about 90 golf courses are located within the five-county
area, and the estimated quantities were obtained for all
golf courses by extrapolating from the city figures.
These estimates are probably low because, in all likeli-
hood, private golf courses have higher pest control bud-
gets than the public ones.
City Parks. As mentioned earlier, the Philadelphia
study area includes Fairmount Park. The City Parks and
Recreation Department estimated that 25% of the pesticides
they use are applied in Fairmount Park, 75% in city streets.
The quantities reported for "city parks" in Table 2 include
both categories. This department uses practically no
herbicides or fungicides.
Insects sprayed in street and park trees are the
tussock moth, bagworms, tent caterpillars and scales.
Spraying for control of the Dutch elms' disease vector
has been discontinued completely because of lack of funds.
Some dead elm trees remain uncut.
Many of the elms in the center city have been replaced
with Gingko trees. This is a botanically very ancient
19-A
-------
species of tree, which is remarkably resistant against
city smog, car and industrial fumes and other forms of
city pollution.
Area-Wide Insect Control Programs. Mosquitoes:
Mosquito control practices and programs in the Philadelphia
area have changed considerably during the last ten years.
In the past, DDT was used as the prime mosquito control
in all five counties. Three of these, Chester, Bucks
and Montgomery, did not conduct any mosquito control work
in 1971.
Philadelphia City also relied primarily on DDT in
the past. DDT and other products were used for adult mos-
quito control through fogging devices in residential areas.
This activity has been discontinued in response to an in-
creasing number of complaints from residents and DDT is
no longer used anywhere.
Mosquito control efforts now focus on control of
larvae. Flit MLO larvicidal oil is used extensively,
also granular formulations of organic phosphate insecti-
cides. The city has approximately 100,000 "catch basins"
which catch rain and storm run-off. Most of them are
directly connected with the sewer system. These catch
basins are ideal mosquito breeding grounds. City crews
are currently suspending dichlorvos resin strips from
staples or wires strung through staples above the water
20-A
-------
surface in these underground basins. These strips remain
effective for about two years and offer very economical
and effective mosquito control, except for the high labor
costs for installation. Where the strips have not yet
been mounted, insecticide granules are sometimes used as
a stop-gap measure.
Mosquito adults are controlled by fogging only as
specifically requested in connection with public events
outdoors, but not in residential areas.
Delaware County also conducts mosquito control acti-
vities, employing the same procedures as Philadelphia City.
They also use Flit MLO larvicidal oil extensively, along
with some granules and some liquid and oil formulations
of several organic phosphate and carbamate insecticides.
The Delaware County mosquito control crews were kept
in service about five weeks longer in 1971 than usual
because of the need to spray for mosquito control in
Chester County, which suffered severe floods in September
following a hurricane.
No chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides are employed
by Philadelphia City or Delaware County in their mosquito
control programs. Officials of both agencies anticipated
mosquitoes will become a much greater problem in this area
than they were during the last decade, They were unable
to answer the question as to how this might affect their
21-A
-------
methods of mosquito control and the extent of control in the
future. They felt the public would eventually have to
make a choice between mosquitoes and pesticides.
Gypsy Moth: This insect/ which is spreading in
certain areas in the northeast, is not .yet a serious pro-
lem in the Philadelphia area. It has begun to show up
in the northern suburbs, especially in Bucks County. If
and when gypsy moth control should become necessary,
carbaryl will be the product of choice, probably in
combination with pinolene. Biological methods for con-
trol of the gypsy moth have been tried by various Federal
and state agencies, but no promising practical results
have been obtained to date.
In summary, home and garden pesticides in the Phila-
delphia area are used primarily against weeds and, to a
lesser extent, insects and diseases on lawns and turf.
Ornamental trees and shrubs receive insecticide treat-
ments for the control of scales and other insects.
Pesticides are also used for the control of diseases and
insects on roses and other perennials, and against mos-
quitoes, wasps and hornets. Major quantities of DDT were
used in the past on elms. The use of DDT has been dis-
continued completely, and elm spraying has largely been
abandoned.
22-A
-------
Survey Results for Dallas, Texas
General Description of the Area. Dallas was included
in this survey as representative of a large metropolitan
area which has grown very rapidly in the last 10 to 15 years,
and of the mid-south.
The Dallas study area consisted of Dallas County, in-
cluding the City of Dallas. The total population is approx-
imately 1,300,000, containing 307,775 single family dwelling
units.
The Dallas County terrain is flat, with only some lots
having gentle slopes. In the suburbs, there are relatively
few large shade trees and many subdivisions do not permit
garages and driveways at the front of homes. Alleys run
between two parallel rows of houses, with garages and drive-
ways opening on to them. This configuration takes up a con-
siderable portion of back yard space, and swimming pools
sometimes reduce this area even further. As a result, lawn
areas in relation to total lot size tend to be smaller in
the Dallas area than in areas farther north.
Plants, Pests, Pesticides. Table 3 summarizes the
most important lawn and garden plants, pests and pesti-
cides in the Dallas area. Elms and pecans probably re-
ceive more pesticide treatment than other deciduous trees.
The elm leaf beetle has become a major problem in recent
23-A
-------
TABLE 3
MOST IMPORTANT LAWN & GARDEN PLANTS, PESTS AND PESTICIDES
DALLAS, TEXAS
Plants
Insects, Diseases, Weeds Pesticides
Deciduous Trees
fruitless mulberry
sycamore
oaks (several species)
elms (esp. Chinese)
pecan
Arizona ash
no major insects,
some foliar diseases
no major problems
elm leaf bettle
faphid, webworms,
/nut case bearers ,
/scab, powdery mildew
borers
not used in
significant amounts
carbaryl> malathion,
diazinon
carbaryl, malathion
cycloheximide,
dodine, .thiram
lindane
Shrubs (no distinction here between deciduous and evergreens because
many species deciduous in the North are semi- or wholly ever-
green in Dallas)
wax ligustrum
(50% of all shrubs)
holly
(30% of all shrubs)
pyracantha
gardenia
boxwood
crepe myrtle
loguat
junipers
Euonymus
Perennial Flowers
roses
Annual Flowers
petunias, pansies 1
zinnias, marigold J
Vegetables
tomatoes
Lawn grasses
St. Augustine 80%
Bermuda 20%
no bluegrass
no bad problems
no bad problems
lace bugs, aphids
no bad problems
no bad problems
powdery mildew
no bad problems
bagworms
scales, aphids,whiteflies
aphids, mites
black spot, powdery
mildew
not used in
significant amounts
very short season,
no severe problems
few suburbanites grow
vegetables
Insects; white grubs,
chinchbugs (not on
Bermuda)
armyworms
Diseases; brown patch
Weeds: broadlesves
grasses
(difficult to control
with chemicals)
***********
insecticide mixtures
folpet, benomyl,
insecticide-fungi-
cide combinations
not used in
significant amounts
diazinon, dieldrin,
chlordane
carbaryl, insecti-
cide mixtures
PCNB > Daconil,
Consan 20 (benzyl
ammonium chloride)
atrazine (Bermuda in-
tolerant)
2,4-D (St. Augustine
intolerant),dicamba
MSMA
24-A
-------
TABLE 3
Continued
HOUSEHOLD PESTS AND INSECTS AFFECTING MAN
DALLAS, TEXAS
Host Pests Pesticides
man mosquitoes Have not been problem last
two years due to prolonged
drought.
structures, roaches, earwigs | aerosol sprays
stored products crickets, house-/ professional exterminators
flies \
termites professional exterminators
25-A
-------
years, especially on Chinese elm. Pecans are popular shade
trees in the area, and are affected by a number of differ-
ent insects, as well as powdery mildew.
There are very few evergreen coniferous trees in this
area. Many shrubs which are deciduous in the northern
parts of the United States are evergreen here; for this
reason, no distinction has been made between deciduous
and evergreen shrubs in Table 3. Most of the shrubs grown
in foundation plantings are very well suited to the area
and generally do not require a lot of pesticides.
Roses are grown in the area to some extent, but not
as abundantly as in other cities. As elsewhere, they have
their usual disease problems, i.e., blackspot and powdery
mildew, and Aphids and mites are among the insect problems.
Annual flowers have a very short growing season in
the Dallas area and usually do not have severe insect or
disease problems requiring chemical treatment. Very few
Dallas suburbanites have vegetable plantings and conse-
quently, this is not a major source of pesticide consump-
tion.
The present population of lawn grasses consists of
about 80% St. Augustine, 20% Bermuda. St. Augustine grass
was used almost exclusively in this area until about 1965.
26-A
-------
Since that time, it has been increasingly affected by the
destructive "St. Augustine decline" disease. At the same
time, several improved Bermuda grass hybrids were developed,
which now account for the great majority of new plantings.
There is no blue grass in this area.
Almost all lawns require irrigation. Many residences,
especially in the upper valuation brackets, have automatic
sprinklers.
White grubs (12 or more different insect species)
and chinch bugs are the worst lawn problems. They can
be quite devastating and have developed a considerable
degree of resistance to chlorinated hydrocarbon insecti-
cides. When this is the case, diazinon is currently the
product of choice. Last fall, Dallas lawns were invaded
by armyworms which were controlled by carbaryl and other
insecticides, including several combination products.
St. Augustine and Bermuda grasses are rather resis-
tant to fungus diseases and consequently home owners do not
use lawn fungicides to any great extent. Fertilizer-pesti-
cide combination products containing a fungicide component
are used.
St. Augustine and Bermuda grasses are quite aggressive
and effectively compete with weeds. Consequently, lawn
27-A
-------
weeds are not as much of a problem in Dallas as in other
areas. Phenoxy-type herbicides are used in small quanti-
ties here since St. Augustine grass is quite sensitive to
them.
Mosquitoes have not been a problem in the Dallas
area for the last two years because of a prolonged drought.
However, roaches, earwigs, crickets, houseflies, termites
and other insects feeding on structures and stored products
are a year-round problem. Insecticide aerosols are used
quite heavily and many residents employ professional ex-
terminators regularly.
Table 4 summarizes the estimated total suburban con-
sumption of pesticide-active ingredients in the Dallas
area.
Home Owner Pesticide Use. As in the other study
cities, there is a large assortment of home and garden
pesticides designed for home owner use. In addition to
a number of nationally distributed brands, several Texas-
based product lines are sold here.
Fertilizer-pesticide mixtures and pesticides in dry
inert granular carriers are quite popular both alone and
in combination with other active ingredients. Several
insecticide spray products still contain DDT, usually in
28-A
-------
TABLE 4
ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF HOME & GARDEN PESTICIDES USED IN DALLAS, TEXAS SUBURBS, 1971
(Lbs. of Active Ingredient)
User Group
Homeowners
Commercial Sprayers
Golf Courses
City Programs
Totals
Hofh ^ c* 4 A A Q
nc^» u±**r Aucss
8,
£
>,
x
2
a
10,500
100
m
10,600
id
"3
4
U
•H
•a
3,500
-negligil
(1)
-negligil
3,500
•H
N
id
a
id
3,500
•\~Le-
(1)
.1 -.
3,500
w
<0
•0
•H
3
•a
!
M
id
A
u
id
o
15,500
3,000
800
(2)
19,300
c
0
••H
A
4J
id
rH
id
e
57,500
3,000
800
5,000
66,300
c
o
c
•H
N
id
•H
•a
24,OOQ
4,000
1,000
2,000
31,000
tn
(U
•a
-H
o
•H
+j
U
0)
VI
c
•H
M
0)
£
JJ
O
73,000
6,000
1,000
2,500
82,500
eg
o
•0
•H
O
•H
U>
C
fe
20,000
2,500
3,000
negl.
26,000
\0
Included in "other herbicides"
Included in "other insecticides"
-------
combination with other insecticide active ingredients.
The assortment of chemicals used by Dallas home
owners reflects the heavy use of insecticides on lawns,
and the relatively lesser importance of weeds and dis-
eases. Sprayable products containing insecticide or
insecticide-fungicide combinations are popular for use
on shrubs and flowers.
The ornamental horticulture specialist in the office
of the Dallas County Agent, Texas A & M University Agricul-
tural Extension Service, reported receiving about 14,000
calls from Dallas area residents each year. Almost 80%
of these calls involve insect and disease problems on
ornamental plants with the specific problems varying with
the season. This past year, grub worms and armyworms
on lawns, and pecan scab were among the main problems.
Only about 30 calls pertain to roses. Several hundred
complaints were reported last year involving injury to
lawns or shrubs from the use of herbicide-fertilizer com-
binations. Products containing atrazine as an active
ingredient were involved in 95% of these cases.
Commercial Tree and Lawn Sprayers. Area experts
vary considerably in their opinions of the percentage
of suburban residents in the Dallas area engaging com-
30-A
-------
mercial sprayers. It is estimated that up to 30% of
those home owners in the highest valuation brackets con-
tract for outdoor pest control; this estimate holds for
approximately 8 to 10% in the $20 to $50,000 valuation
bracket, and less than 1% in lower brackets. In the con-
tractor's survey of Dallas home owners, 7 out of 164 (4%)
reported engaging commercial sprayers.
The commercial market in Dallas is composed of many
different lawn and tree service firms, with nurseries,
exterminators, and individuals also offering spraying
services.
Home owners engage commercial sprayers primarily
for two purposes: control of insects and diseases on
trees, and control of lawn insects.
Golf Courses. There are five city golf courses in
the Dallas study area. The Contractor obtained the pes-
ticide use inventories for these golf courses from the
Parks and Recreation Department, and, with these figures
as a basis, estimated the pesticides used on the fifty
public/private courses in the area. Protection of lawn
grasses from insects, diseases, and, to a lesser extent,
weeds are the main pesticide uses on golf courses.
31-A
-------
Other City Programs. In addition to the use of pest-
icides on golf courses, the Dallas City Government pur-
chases pesticides for use by the Parks, Health, Public
Works and Water Departments. All pesticides used by these
city agencies as reported by the city purchasing depart-
ment were combined under the category "City Programs" in
Table 4.
Area-Wide Insect Control Programs. As far as can
be determined, no area-wide insect control programs or
other activities involving area-wide distribution of pest-
icides by public agencies were conducted in the Dallas
area during the last two years. As mentioned above, mos-
quitoes have not been a problem due to a prolonged drought.
Table 4 shows the major problem areas for which
pesticides are used in the Dallas area. Lawn problems
rank as first on the list, and far outdistance insects,
tree and shrub disease, and lawn weeds. Lawn weeds are a
relatively small problem in this area due to the combi-
nation of aggressive, well adapted lawn grasses, and low
rainfall. The considerable quantity of herbicides applied
in this area is partially due to skillful selling of
fertilizer-herbicide mixtures. In many instances, blanket-
ing lawns with herbicides is probably not necessary.
32-A
-------
Survey Results for Lansing, Michigan
General Description of the Area. Lansing was chosen
as representative of a smaller metropolitan area and of
the upper Midwest. Both the state government and Michi-
gan State University are located here. The State Depart-
ment of Agriculture, especially the MSU Department of
Entomology and the Pesticide Research Center, have been
greatly interested in urban and suburban uses of pesti-
cides and their possible effects on environmental quality.
The contractor obtained excellent cooperation from these
agencies. Although they do not conduct any immediately
applicable work, the EPA Pesticide Community Studies Pro-
ject in the State Department of Public Health was also
contacted and provided some advice.
The Lansing study area consists of the "nine township
area" which includes the cities of Lansing and East Lansing,
and the townships of Lansing, Meridian, Delhi and Alaiedon
in Ingham County; Watertown, DeWitt and Bath in Clinton
County and Delta and Windsor in Eaton County. The area
population is approximately 272,000, and with 56,658 single-
family dwellings. Michigan State University campus at East
Lansing is included in this area.
The Lansing metropolitan area has grown rapidly in the
last two decades, with the population doubling between 1956
and 1966. Many suburban homes are less than ten years old
33-A
-------
and are surrounded by relatively large lawns. Large
shade trees predominate in older suburban subdivisions.
The terrain is generally flat with most lots having
only gentle slopes, if any.
Plants, Pests, Pesticides. Table 5 gives an overview
of the most important lawn and garden plants, pests and pesti
cides in the Lansing area.
As in many eastern and midwestern cities, elms have
been the predominant street and shade trees: however, they
are rapidly falling victim to the Dutch elm disease. Maples,
oaks, honey-locusts, birches and other trees have been
planted more recently. Deciduous shrubs and evergreen
trees and shrubs do very well in this region of the country
and are abundant in the Lansing suburbs. They also attract
numerous insect pests; however, these generally are not
severe infestations and do not require heavy insecticide
use.
Roses grow very well in this area and are grown with
enthusiasm by many suburbanites. Many people apply fungi-
cides for control of blackspot and, to a lesser extent,
powdery mildew. Insecticides are used on roses against
mites, aphids, chafers and beetles.
Annual flowers in this area rarely require or receive
pesticide treatments. Not many residents have vegetable
gardens and consequently, there is no significant use of
pesticides for this purpose either.
34-A
-------
TABLE 5
MOST IMPORTANT LAWN & GARDEN PLANTS, PESTS AND PESTICIDES
LANSING, MICHIGAN
Plants
Insects, Diseases, Weeds
Pesticides
Deciduous Trees
elm (dying out) elm bark beetles, Dutch elm
disease; scales, aphids
maple (sugar, Norway) scales, aphids, mites
oak
birch
locust (honey)
willow
flowering crab
sycamore
Deciduous Shrubs
forsythia
honeysuckle
cotoneaster
Euonymus
Viburnum
all shrubs
scales, fall webworms, galls
birch leafminer, aphids
bronze birch borer
mites, pod galls, leafhoppers
aphids, willow leaf beetle
aphids, scales, webworms,
cankerworms
Vlacebugs, scales '
)anthracnose
mites
mites
aphids, mites, scales
scales, aphids, black vine
weevil
aphids, plant bugs
powdery mildew
methoxychlor
malathion
carbaryl
Evergreen Trees and Shrubs
yew
juniper
arborvitae
fir
pine
spruce
Perennial Flowers
roses
chrysanthemums
peonies
gladiolus
Annual Flowers
various
Vegetables
tomatoes
beans
radishes, carrots
scales, black vine weevil
scales, webworms, mites
leafminer, mites, scales,
bagworms
gall aphid, other aphids
scales, mites, sawflies,
moths, aphids
scales, mites, gall aphids
blackspot > powdery mildew
mites, aphids, chafers,
beetles
gall midge
aphids
aphids
European corn borer
zineb, Cu-cpds.
malathion,
insecticide mix-
tures
rarely sprayed
malathion,
carbaryl
folpet, benomyl
malathion,
insecticide mix-
tures
methoxychlor,
carbaryl
rarely require or receive pesticide treatments
hornworm, flea beetles
Colorado potato beetle
maggots
carbaryl
carbaryl
diazinon
35-A
-------
TABLE 5
Continued
Plants
Insects, Diseases, Weeds
Pesticides
Lawn grasses
90% bluegrass;
some fescue, bent
no Zoysia or
southern grasses
Insects; white grubs, moles
sod webworm
Diseases; Fusarium
striped smut, dollar spot,
powdery mildew
Helminthosporium
Weeds: broadleaves
grasses difficult to con-
trol with chemicals
chlordane
carbaryl, diazinon
benomyl,
cyclohexiraide,
thiram
phenoxy-type
dicamba
*************
HOUSEHOLD PESTS AND INSECTS AFFECTING MAN
LANSING, MICHIGAN
Host
Pests
Pesticides
man
structures,
stored products
mosquito larvae
mosquito adults
houseflies
Abate, fenthion
aerosol sprays, malathion
aerosol sprays, malathion,
insecticide mixtures
carpenter ants, carpet")
beetles (chlordane, malathion
cockroaches, beetles (dichlorvos, methoxychlor
millipedes, centipedesj
36=A
-------
More than 90% of the lawns consist of bluegrass
varieties. Zoysia or southern types of grasses do not
survive the severe Lansing winters. Weeds generally cause
more lawn problems than insects or fungus diseases, and
consequently, there is sizeable consumption of herbicides.
Mosquitoes are a considerable problem in this area,
along with carpenter ants, carpet beetles, cockroaches
and several other household pests.
Table 6 summarizes the estimated total suburban con-
sumption of pesticide-active ingredients in the Lansing
area.
Home Owner Pesticide Use. Among the herbicides,
phenoxy-type products predominate so heavily that other
chemicals were not broken out in Table 6. Fertilizer-
herbicide mixtures are quite popular. Close to 40% of
the total quantity of herbicides used by home owners are
applied as fertilizer-herbicide mixtures. Chlordane is
used primarily for the control of lawn insects. Foliar
insects are controlled by malathion, carbaryl and combina-
tion insecticides whose active ingredients are included
in the "other insecticides" category. Fungicides are
used primarily on roses and, to a lesser extent, as con-
stituents in insecticide-fungicide products.
37-A
-------
TABLE 6
ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF HOME & GARDEN PESTICIDES USED IN
LANSING/EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN SUBURBS, 1971
(Lbs. of Active Ingredients)
CO
oo
Pesti
User Group
Homeowners
Commercial Sprayers
Golf Courses
Mosquito Abatement
Totals
tH
M
.
X
O
43
4J
0)
g
(2)
3,300
negl.
-
3,300
c
o
•H
42
4J
m
rH
(T3
e
3,700
-
(2)
-
3,700
rH
>l
M
(Q
43
^
m
o
1,700
800
(2)
-
2,500
(0
(U
•O
•H
O
__J
~
-P
O
(D
CO
c
•H
M
Q)
43
4J
O
5,600
550
1,000
2,500
9,650
w
(U
T3
•H
O
•H
tr>
C
3
PM
2,800
negl.
1,000
-
3,800
(1) Predominantly phenoxy-type products,
(2) Included in "Other Insecticides".
-------
Commercial Tree Spraying. More than 90% of the
residential tree spraying in the Lansing area is done by
one company. This company also contracts with the City
Parks Departments for the spraying of city trees. On
city streets as well as on residential properties, elm
trees account for the majority of the spraying. Methoxy-
chlor is presently chosen for control of the vector of the
Dutch elm disease, the elm bark beetle. Approximately
3,300 Ibs. methoxychlor active ingredient were used for
this purpose during the last year. Carbaryl and diazinon
(the latter included in the "other insecticides" category)
are the insecticides chosen for control of leaf-feeding
insects and miners on other trees.
Twelve of 135 responding home owners surveyed, or about
9%, reported engaging commercial sprayers. This figure
is supported by estimates from the dominant commercial
sprayer. This firm avoids residential lawn spraying when
possible and, consequently, uses only negligible amounts
of herbicides, insecticides and fungicides for this purpose.
The company also reported investigating as many as
200 trees killed by fertilizer-herbicide mixtures containing
the herbicide dicamba. This would indicate either gross
carelessness by users of this product, inadequate label
directions, or both.
39-A
-------
Area-Wide Insect Control Programs. Mosquitoes:
Mosquito control activities in the cities of Lansing and
East Lansing are carried out by the Parks and Recreation
Department of the City of Lansing. Mosquitoes are a con-
siderable problem in this area, and control measures are
directed against larvae as well as adults. Insecticides
used include Abate, fenthion and malathion. The con-
tractor estimates that a total of 2,500 Ibs. of active
ingredients of the three chemicals were used in this pro-
gram.
In spite of this substantial insecticide use, there
were a considerable number of citizen complaints about
lack of protection from mosquitoes. In general, these
complaints come from people who have lived in the area
for some time and compare the present mosquito level with
that of the past, when chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides
effectively lowered that level.
Elm Bark Beetle; As mentioned above, the older parts
of the Lansing metropolitan area have a high elm tree popu-
lation, and Dutch elm disease is well established there.
In the past, DDT was applied extensively to control the disease
vector, the elm bark beetle, with 7 to 8,000 pounds or more
used annually. However, DDT has been replaced by methoxy-
chlor, of which approximately 3,300 Ibs. were used in 1971.
40-A
-------
This declining rate of application of methoxychlor is
due to the decline in the number of elm trees remaining
and budget restrictions. Methoxychlor is approximately
twice as expensive as DDT so that with the same budget,
only half as many trees can be sprayed with this replace-
ment insecticide, assuming no change in the rate of appli-
cation.
Gypsy Moth; In the mid or late 1950'sf there was
a sizeable gypsy moth outbreak in this area. At that timer
about 60,000 acres were sprayed with 1 Ib DDT active in-
gredient per acre for several years in succession. The
program was considered quite successful at the time, and
very good mosquito control was obtained as a side benefit.
However, unwanted side effects also began to appear, in-
cluding low level DDT contamination in milk from area
dairies. As a result, carbaryl was substituted in the
pastures and other areas adjacent to dairies. DDT was last
used against the gypsy moth in about 1962.
A second, smaller but rather intense outbreak of gypsy
moths occurred in 1967 in a recreational area about 10
miles south of Lansing. At that time, two applications of
carbaryl at 1 Ib. of active ingredient per acre each time
were made, supplemented by a door-to-door search for, and
treatment of gypsy moth egg masses in the affected area.
No gypsy moths have been found in the area since 1968.
41-A
-------
Japanese Beetle; The area is also subject to Japanese
beetle infestations. In the late 50's or early 60's, an
infestation on the west side of Lansing was eliminated with
area-wide applications of 3 Ibs. of dieldrin active ingredient
per acre.
The State Department of Agriculture and Lansing city
officials who knew of this program emphasized that with
present knowledge of persistent pesticides, a blanket ap-
plication of 3 Ibs. of dieldrin active per acre would be
unthinkable. Chlordane is presently the only product still
available for Japanese beetle control. This product can
be used at a maximum of 5 Ibs. of active/acre in accordance
with guidelines of the Federal Working Group on Pesticides,
the group which must approve all federally funded or sup-
ported programs of this type. This rate of chlordane is not
sufficient for eradication of the Japanese beetle and it
will only give some degree of control. It was pointed out
that in view of this situation, prospects for halting fur-
ther spread of the Japanese beetle into Michigan are dim.
Legal Restrictions and Their Enforcement. Michigan
has a State Pesticide Law, but home and garden pesticides
ajre not subject to the more stringent requirements such
as licensing of retail outlets.
DDT was banned in the state of Michigan two years ago.
One year after notification of manufacturers and retail
42-A
-------
outlets of pesticides registered in the state, including
home and garden products, Department of Agriculture in-
spectors collected, without reimbursement, all inventories
of DDT-containing products remaining on retailers' shelves.
At the same time, active environmentalists and area
citizens, in cooperation with the Departments of Agriculture
and Natural Resources, initiated a collection program of
DDT-containing and other pesticides which local residents
wished to discard. Some 40,000 Ibs. of unwanted chemicals
were collected, however, disposal posed a major problem.
Eventually, the materials were sorted, segregated, drummed
and transported to Midland, Michigan for incineration by
Dow Chemical Company. Many of those involved in the pro-
gram now believe that use of the remaining pesticides would
have been a more efficient disposal method.
A considerable number of home and garden retail out-
lets were visited by the contractor. No DDT-containing
pesticides were evident, although some retailers did stock
liquid products containing 2,4,5-T, which is federally
banned from home and garden use. State officials contacted
were aware of this situation, but stated that implementation
of the Federal edict was proceeding slowly until all legal
proceedings, rebuttals by the manufacturers of these pro-
ducts, etc. are resolved.
43-A
-------
Some emulsifiable concentrate formulations containing
2,4,5-T found on retailers' shelves carried the following
warning sticker on the top of the can:
"Notice. The following uses for products contain-
ing 2,4,5-T are no longer registered by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture: 1-A11 uses in lakes,
ponds, or on ditch banks; 2-Liquid formulations
for use around the home, recreation areas and
similar sites. Do not apply this product on any
of the areas listed above."
Since these stickers were attached to pint containers,
stocked in home and garden pesticide retail outlets, this
warning sounded a rather unrealistic note.
The total pesticide use pattern for Lansing, as
shown in Table 6, mirrors the area's major pest problems:
weeds and insects on lawns; the Dutch elm disease - elm
bark beetle complex; diseases and insects on roses; foliar
insects on ornamental trees and shrubs; and mosquito con-
trol. Fungus diseases on lawns and on trees and shrubs are
of relatively minor importance.
In the past, the area has received heavy and repeated
area-wide applications of chlorinated hydrocarbon insecti-
cides, including DDT for gypsy moth and elm bark beetle
control, and dieldrin for Japanese beetle control. In
recent years, carbaryl has been substituted for DDT in
the control of gypsy moth, and methoxychlor for DDT in the
elm care program. Chlordane is the only available replace-
ment for dieldrin for Japanese beetle control, but its
effectiveness for this purpose is questionable.
44-A
-------
Synopsis of Survey Results
Home and Garden Pesticide Use Patterns. Table 7
summarizes the estimated quantities of pesticides used
in homes and gardens in each city. Also included is the
total population and the number of single family dwelling
units in each study area.
Based on this summary, there appears to be no cor-
relation between the numbers of single family dwellings
and the estimated quantities of pesticides used in each
area. As pointed out previously, climatic, soil and other
environmental conditions vary widely between the three
study cities. Types of trees, shrubs and lawn grasses
vary equally, as do the pests affecting them. In addi-
tion, many man-made factors including the lot size, rela-
tive size of lawn area in relation to lot, zoning restric-
tions, etc. also vary greatly between the three cities.
As a result, each area has a distinctly different home
and garden pesticide use pattern. For this reason, the
contractor does not feel the data presented here could
be meaningfully extrapolated to a national level. A
number of additional areas representative of conditions
not covered in this report would have to be studied be-
fore an estimate of the total national home and garden
pesticide consumption could be obtained.
45-A
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF POPULATION, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND ESTIMATED QUANTITIES
OF HOME AND GARDEN PESTICIDES USED IN THE THREE STUDY AREAS, BY PRODUCTS
Study Area
Philadelphia
Dallas
Lansing
Totals
Popu-
lation
(000)
3,866
1,327
272
5,465
Single
Family
Dwellings
879,413
307,775
56,658
1,243,846
Home and Garden Pesticides Used, 000 Lbs. of Active Ingredients
Herbicides
>i
X
o
c
01
a
79
11
13
103
flj
1
0
•rl
•O
(1)
4
(3)
4
,
X
o
•U
0)
e
2
(2)
3
5
0)
•U
10
o
4J
01
•H
-a
15
(2)
(3)
15
H
>,
M
m
A
u
>a
o
(2)
19
3
22
c
o
-rH
J3
-u
m
rH
(0
E
104
66
4
174
c
o
•-H
N
a
•r4
•0
(2)
31
(2)
31
•o
•H
O
•rl
JJ
O
O
(0
c
.H
IH
01
£
4J
O
48
82
10
140
U)
0)
•O
-rH
U
•r4
+J
O
0)
in
C
M
rH
rH
<
234
251
24
509
v>
01
•a
•H
0
•H
CP
C
CK
rH
rH
<
90
26
4
120
in
a>
•a
-H
0
•H
JJ
m
-------
The three study cities have a total population of
about 5.5 million and contain about 1,244,000 single family
dwelling units. It is estimated that a total of slightly
over 750,000 Ibs. of pesticide active ingredients are used
in this area, consisting of about 130,000 Ibs. of herbi-
cides, 510,000 Ibs. of insecticides and 120,000 Ibs. of
fungicides.
Efforts to relate these quantities to the size of
the input area are hampered by the lack of land use data
for the study areas. Therefore, the contractor attempted
to quantify home and garden pesticide use per unit of
area at least for the largest use segment, i.e., home
owner use on their own properties. It is estimated that
in the study area, the average lawn and garden area per
residence is somewhere in the range of between 2,000 and
6,000 square feet.
Table 8 presents a computation of the total pesti-
cide burden (in terms of Ibs. of active ingredients) per
acre of residential lawn and garden area, excluding areas
built up or under pavement, assuming an everage of 2, 4,
or 6,000 square feet of lawn and garden area per single
family housing unit. The total estimated pesticide use
by home owners alone (from Tables 2, 4 and 6) in the
three cities is 609,400 Ibs. of combined active ingred-
ients. In the case of the high estimate, there would
be 1,244,000 x 6,000 sq.ft. = 0.138 acres = 172,000 acres,
47-A
-------
TABLE 8
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PESTICIDE DEPOSIT AND SIZE OF
LAWN AND GARDEN AREA PER SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT
Assumptions
rt
0)
C H
§*
A G
-------
which would receive an average deposit of 3.5 Ibs. of
pesticide active ingredients per acre. In the case of
the low estimate, the 609,400 Ibs. of active ingredients
would impact on only 57,300 acres, for an average deposit
of 10.6 Ibs. of active ingredient per acre.
The contractor believes that the average is between
2,000 and 4,000 sq.ft. of garden area per home, but in
the absence of better land use data, it is not realistic
to try to pinpoint this estimate. However, these figures
indicate much higher amounts of chemicals are applied
per acre in home and garden use of pesticides than in
agricultural pesticide use. Suburban lawns and gardens
probably receive the heaviest applications of pesticides
of any land areas in the country.
Home and Garden Pesticide Formulations. There is a
bewildering array of home and garden pesticide brands,
formulations, and package sizes offered for sale. Some
of these product lines are nationally known and marketed,
while others are only regionally or locally distributed.
A number of products in the latter categories do not have
federally registered labels.
The contractor analyzed one typical retailer's as-
sortment in detail. This store carried three different
lines of fertilizer-pesticide combination products.
Each line offered a variety of straight fertilizers (not
49-A
-------
included in the analysis or figures below), and a variety
of fertilizers combined with one or more herbicides;
one or more insecticides; and different insecticide-
herbicide mixtures. Some of these are also offered as
inert granules, rather than as fertilizer carriers.
Among the three brands, there were 30 different products
of this type offered for sale, most of them in two or
three package sizes.
In the "packaged products" area, the store carried
about 20 herbicide products; more than 100 insecticides,
including liquids, wettable powders, aerosols, dusts,
cartridges, granules, etc.; and some 25 fungicides, again
with different choices of formulations. Furthermore,
there were about 20 various "multi-purpose" products con-
taining insecticide-fungicide, or "three-way" insecticide-
fungicide-herbicide mixtures in various formulations.
Repellents and other special items and devices comprised
an additional 30 products.
The almost 200 packaged products described above
do not include different package sizes. Usually, there
are two or three package sizes for each product, so the
above figures would have to be multiplied by an average
of 2.5, for a total of about 500 different items in the
50-A
-------
"packaged pesticides" category. Not all retail stores
carry all of the above products, but the situation detailed
here is fairly typical of the better garden supply stores.
The contractor found a still larger number of products
in several other places visited.
The total assortment of home and garden pesticides
offered in the three study areas contained 50 to 60 dif-
ferent active chemical ingredients, including at least
20 herbicides, 25 insecticides and 10 fungicides. As
described above, many formulated products contain com-
binations of these chemicals to control a wider variety
of insects, weeds, or diseases, or to multiply effect-
iveness, i.e., all conceivable combinations of insect,
weed and disease control, plus fertilization, in two,
three or four-way mixtures.
Home and Garden Pesticide Use Recommendations.
Nurseries, hardware stores and discount stores are the
main dispensaries of the plethora of products described
above. Most of the better nurseries and garden supply
stores strive to sell their customers satisfaction and
enjoyment from their gardening activities, rather than
just merchandise. Their approach is to analyze a cus-
tomer's insect, weed or disease problem and recommend
51-A
-------
the right product for its cure, with proper instructions
on its use. This system tends to break down somewhat
during rush hours when there are more pesticide customers
than trained sales personnel.
Discount stores, on the other hand, usually operate
on a self-service system, where the customer must select
the right product from among the large selection offered.
Hardware and department stores vary between the two
extremes of dispensing advice depending upon the degree
of interest and expertise of the store owner or manager
of the home and garden department.
In labeling home and garden pesticides, the brand
name of the line (example: "Ortho/" "Scotts") and the
trade name of the product (example: "Isotox," "Halts")
are heavily emphasized, while the active ingredient des-
criptions appear in very fine print. Identification of
trade named products with specific chemical active ingredi-
ents is further complicated by the fact that manufacturers
frequently change the active ingredients in these products
without changing the product name or outward appearance.
The only readily available unbiased source of advice
at the local level is provided by state university exten-
sion services. However, these agencies issue findings
and recommendations in terms of common names or chemical
52-A
-------
names of pesticide active ingredients. Consequently,
it is practically impossible for the layman to utilize
this source of advice.
Thus, the most important and often the sole source
of information on product effectiveness is the manufacturer's
literature, including the product label. Most of these
items are well written and informative and instruct the
customer on proper and safe usage. They are, of course,
also intended to sell as much of the product as possible.
For instance, a person wishing to find out if he really
needs a two-, three-, or four-way combination product
has no practical way of getting an unbiased answer.
Home and Garden Pesticide Application Techniques.
Home Owners: Table 9 summarizes the responses of home
owners on equipment for applying liquid pesticides. Of
a total of 493 respondents, 38% reported using hose-end
sprayers, while 30% used tank sprayers. Hose-end sprayers
which have come into use rather recently were reported
in greater use in Dallas and Lansing, which have young
suburbs, while Philadelphia, with older suburbs, reported
a predominance of tank sprayers.
Fertilizer spreaders were also included in the
survey but not tabulated; most suburban gardeners have
53-A
-------
TABLE 9
HOME OWNERS' EQUIPMENT FOR APPLYING LIQUID PESTICIDES
Study City
Philadelphia
Dallas
Lansing
Totals
fl Survey
Respondents
194
164
135
493
Hose end
Sprayers
#
54
81
53
188
I1
28
49
40
38
Tank
Sprayers
#
83
29
36
148
%i
43
18
27
30
Otncr
Devices
#
3
2
2
7
%*
2
1
1
1
Ul
1 Percentage figures do not total up to 100 because many respondents did not
have any hose-end sprayers, tank sprayers or other devices for dispensing
liquid pesticides. Some had two or all three types.
-------
or borrow spreaders when they wish to apply dry fertili-
zers and/or dry granular pesticides.
The "other devices" reported included sprinkling cans,
used mainly for application of total herbicides on drive-
ways, walkways, etc., and dusters, although the greatest
amount of home and garden pesticide dusts are dispensed
directly from the container. All outdoor, indoor, and
"universal" pesticide aerosols are dispensed directly from
the container.
Almost all empty home and garden pesticide containers
are deposited in the trash. Some users did admit to rinsing
pesticide containers or equipment in the sink, while others
said they had flushed liquids in either concentrate or
dilute form down the drain or toilet. It is suspected that
more people utilize these latter practices than are willing
to admit.
Professional Operators: The most common type of pes-
ticide application equipment used by commercial tree and
lawn sprayers as well as by public agencies is the hydraulic
tank sprayer. Various fogging devices are also in use
in mosquito control programs, but their use appears to have
declined in the study areas.
55-A
-------
Formulation and Application Techniques in Relation
to Pollution Potential. In the following discussion, pol-
lution potential is defined as the likelihood of pesticide
particles or residues to move from the site of application
and pollute the environment out of the target area.
The use of dry granular-type home and garden pesti-
cides has increased considerably in recent years. These
granular products often contain plant nutrients, and are
applied by fertilizer spreaders. The increasing popularity
of this application technique is a positive factor from
the standpoint of environmental pollution potential.
With the dry, granular-type pesticides, there is no drift,
and the granules tend to be more resistant to transport
by run-off or leaching. On the other hand, the development
and aggressive selling of multi-purpose granular products
tend to encourage unnecessary use of pesticides.
Application of liquid insecticides to lawns and turf
probably has a higher potential for environmental pollu-
tion than most other practices. These products are often
emulsifiable concentrates containing high percentages
of an active ingredient. For example, an emulsifiable
spray concentrate containing 74% technical chlordane is
recommended for the control of lawn insects at the rate
56-A
-------
of 1/2 pint per 2,400 sq.ft., which is equivalent to
about 9 Ibs. active/acre. If this application to a lawn
is followed by heavy rainfall soon afterward, heavy run-
off is a definite possibility, with the amount of run-off
depending upon the amount and intensity of precipitation,
how soon after application it occurs, the slope of the
treated area, as well as other factors.
In principle, spray applications of herbicides and
fungicides to lawns are subject to the same considerations,
although these products are generally used at lower rates
of application per treated area. Furthermore, many her-
bicides act systematically and are taken up and into treated
plants rather rapidly, preventing movement from the ap-
plication site.
The pollution potential of tree spraying depends
primarily upon the application equipment. Considerable
spray drift occurs from high pressure hydraulic sprayers,
and can travel over considerable distances, depending
upon spray particle size, wind velocity and other factors.
Run-off from treated foliage may also occur during or
after application, especially if rain follows. A high
percentage of run-off from trees growing in paved areas
will go directly into sewer systems. However, most run-
off from trees growing in unpaved areas will be adsorbed
57-A
-------
and retained on surrounding soil or vegetation thereby
reducing pollution potential.
Insecticide or fungicide sprays applied with hose«end
or small tank sprayers have a lower pollution potential.
These devices operate with low pressure, producing rather
large droplets which are not prone to drift. Run-off
from treated plants during or after application will be
caught and held by nearby soil or lawn. Home and garden
pesticide dusts or aerosols present an even lower ppllu--
tion potential since they contain very low percentages
of active ingredients, and are quite expensive in terms
of the active ingredient contained. When used in excess,
dust formulations also leave unsightly deposits which
is another deterrent to overuse.
It is believed that liquid insecticide sprays and
the use of pesticides on trees growing in pavement present
the greatest pollution potentials among suburban p§sti=-
cide use patterns.
Timing is an important consideration determining
this pollution potential. It is estimated that in Phila=-
delphia and Lansing, 80 to 90% of all lawn and garden
pesticides are applied annually between April 25 and June
10. Within this period, the majority of all materials
are applied on Saturdays. Therefore, a rainfall em im=-
58-A
-------
mediately subsequent days could result in considerable
pesticide run-off.
In Dallas, there is a dintinct peak in pesticide
use during the spring, followed by a second, smaller peak
in the fall.
Home Owners' Attitudes on Pesticides and Observations
on Environmental Effects. Home owners were questioned
by the contractor on the "effects on environment (sick or
dead birds, fish, pets, etc., other effects), complaints,
other comments," from pesticides. Table 10 summarizes
the replies of the 525 respondents.
No major variations in responses appeared between
the three cities. Of the respondents, 92.5% reported
using pesticides; 84% did not indicate any reservations
about using pesticides while 8.5% did indicate concern
about side effects, commenting that they used pesticides
sparingly, or only as a last resort. The latter group
included persons who attempted organic gardening, but
used pesticides where organic methods had not succeeded.
Seven and one-half per cent of all respondents reported
they used no pesticides at all. Two and one-half per cent
cited organic gardening as the reason, while five per
cent gave various reasons, including allergies to chemicals.
59-A
-------
TABLE 10
HOME OWNERS' ATTITUDES ON PESTICIDES AND OBSERVATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
City
Number of Respondents
Use Pesticides?
Yes
- without reservations
- with reservations (1)
No
- garden organically
- other reasons (2)
Notice adverse effects
on environment from
use of pesticides?
Yes (3)
No
No Reply
Philadelphia
194
91%
80
11
9
4
5
5
60
35
Dallas
196
93.0%
86.0
7.0
7.0
2.5
4.5
3.5
31.0
65.5
Lansing
135
94.0%
83.5 •
7.5
6.0
1.5
4.5
1.5
35.0
63.5
All
Respondents
525
92.5%
84.0
8.5"
7.5
2.5
5.0
3.5
43.0
53.5
a\
o
(1) Use pesticides very sparingly, only as a last resort; use pesticides, but
concerned about side effects; try to garden organically.
(2) Allergies to chemicals, other, or no specific reasons.
(3) Believe birds, bees diminishing from pesticide use; believe pets became
sick from pesticides, etc.
-------
When questioned on the adverse environmental ef-
fects from the use of home and garden pesticides, 43%
of all respondents 'said they had not observed any such
effects, with the most frequent reply being "none that
I know of." Three and one-half per cent answered af-
firmatively, indicating they believed birds, bees,
etc. were diminishing and/or pets became sick from the
use of pesticides around the house. 53.5% did not
specifically reply to the question. These responses
appear to indicate that a majority of those contacted
are not greatly concerned about home and garden pesti-
cides from an environmental standpoint.
The contractor did not receive any reports of
adverse effects on human health from the use of home
and garden pesticides by the 525 respondents. There
were eight reports (1.5%) of actual or feared aller-
gies to pesticides. Thus, the great majority of sub-
urbanites participating in this survey considered
home and garden pesticides safe for use.
At the same time, many of these people objected
to area-wide pesticide application activities. These
feelings were voiced both by home owners and public
agencies — especially those responsible for mosquito
abatement programs — received citizen reactions.
61-A
-------
Many suburban residents apparently endorse pesticides
they use or cause to be used on their own premises,
while opposing pesticide applications by public agencies
beyond their immediate control.
62-A
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Use Patterns
1. To obtain a more complete picture of the total
national pesticide input into the environment, collect
information on the distribution and use patterns of about
500 million Ibs. of pesticide active ingredients which
are produced annually, but not accounted for by farm use.
2. Extend the present study to other geographical
areas so as to obtain an estimate of the total national
home and garden pesticide consumption.
3. Extend study to all other non-farm pesticide uses
which, together with home and garden uses make up the 500
million Ibs. of pesticides about whose disposition we
currently know so little.
63-A
-------
LITERATURE REFERENCES
United States Production and Sales of Pesticides
and Related Products, 1970, Preliminary, United
States Tariff Commission, Washington, D. C.,
September, 1971.
Economic Research on Pesticides for Policy Decision-
Making, Proceedings of a Symposium, Washington, D. C.,
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service, 1970.
64-A
-------
APPENDIX B
TRANSPORT MECHANISMS
The process of pesticides entering the water en-
vironment from urban area run-off is not very well de-
fined. There are a few measurements made which may
hint at pesticide contamination from urban areas but
little proof is shown. In the three study cities,
Philadelphia has essentially no values (2 stations).
Dallas has one station below the city, and Lansing has
been the site of a special study on DDT. None of these
studies attempted to show a transport mechanism or
prove a relationship between measured levels in water
and land sources. This appendix which concerns itself
with the problem of transport mechanisms must therefore
be limited to a statement of transport systems suspected
of being sensitive to the parameters and a discussion
of the impact of changing them.
Transport Mechanism From Point of Application Into Water
Most pesticide materials are insoluble in water,
or are only slightly soluble. Some herbicides can be
formulated as esters or salts which will dissolve in
1-B
-------
water. However, these materials are much less toxic to
aquatic organisms than are the insoluble insecticides,
hence the herbicides pose little problem as a water pol-
lutant. The insoluble materials are mixed chemically to
form water suspensions for application or they are applied
as some type of solid (see Relationship of Techniques
to Run-off, this appendix). These formulations lose
their water mobility in time and become adsorbed on
organic material present at the target site, but they
can be carried away as a suspension if run-off occurs
before they can be adsorbed. They can also be carried
attached to solids which are physically transported in
run-off during and following a heavy rain.
Home and garden pesticides enter the water environ-
ment carried in run-off from grass areas as emulsions or
on sediments physically carried by moving water or both,
depending on the amount of run-off. Studies made on
urban run-off and its effect on water quality (1) (2)
show that run-off peaks virtually as soon as rainfall
does, that is, there is little or no delay caused by
water soaking into the ground, at least in the city.
Figure 1-B (a) shows this peaking phenomena in the
urban environment while Figure 1-B (b) shows a much dif-
ferent pattern for rainfall from a rural location. The
non-urban area with a high percentage of vegetation tends
2-B
-------
<
ce
125
100
0.75
0.50
0.25 —
-Surface runoff
Ground woler runoff
25,000
20.000
15.000
10,000
AUGUST
(A) The rainfall and runoff shown in this graph
resulted in an August flood at Sugar Creek, Ohio.
S 9
*- o
S
3
1
j > r
TIME, HOURS OF DAY
(B) Baker St. combined wastewater over-
flow results - storm of April 4-5,
1969. (Cfs X 1.7 = cu m/min; Ib X
0.454 = kg; in. X 2.54 = cm.)
FIGURE 1-B
3-B
-------
to store the rainfall from a storm and release it later,
so a measure of automatic flood control exists before
man arrives and restructures the land. This difference
is very significant as far as the potential pollution
from suburban pesticide usage is concerned. The slow,
delayed peak implies slower flowing water, the chance
for deposition of sediments to occur and less general
overall chance for erosion. The urban situation with
its rapid peak does none of these things. Erosion, sedi-
ment transport, with concurrent pesticide transport, if
pesticides have been used, can be expected from even a
fairly minor storm. Programs to reduce these run-off
peaks would not only prevent flood damage but help keep
pesticides from being transported as well.
Suspended solids which include dust and dirt from
gutters, leaves, debris from lawn clippings and the like,
peak at the same time, indicating the greatest potential
for pesticide contamination from pesticides adsorbed on
sediment materials occurs during the peak of a storm, or
when the peak slug of run-off water first enters the re-
ceiving water.
There have been few studies made of pesticides
during storm run-off and the studies completed show a
lack of structuring to detect this peak flow phenomena.
A study at Columbus, Ohio found dieldrin only 4 times in
4-B
-------
storm sewers in several rainfall events in 1969. This
program took samples after the rainfall peak and thus
missed the potential to document the amount of pesticide
transport (4) .
Weibel, et al. (2) studied the pollution implica-
tions of urban run-off and although they did not quantify
pesticides per se, they included a measurement of organic
chlorine in the urban run-off study around Cincinnati.
The average amount of organic chlorine was 1.7 ug/1 in
the 22-month study period. Since many, but not all,
pesticides are structured with chlorine attached to car-
bon, they can be, but were not proven to be, a source
of the chlorine in the run-off. Many industrial sources
could also have contributed these materials. Weibel
did measure and demonstrate drift of pesticides when
he showed DDT in rainfall run-off from an orchard area
which had never been treated with this material. How-
ever, a vineyard 500 feet away had received DDT. These
authors also demonstrated transport of pesticide on dust
and its subsequent deposition in rainfall.
Weibel found the following pesticides in one rain-
fall at Cincinnati, Ohio. This was a very low volume
rain which washed enough dust particles out of the sky
to produce a mud like covering on surfaces it contacted.
5-B
-------
TABLE 1-B
Pesticides Concentration ppm*
Chlordane 0.5
Heptachlor epoxide 0.04
DDE 0.2
DDT 0.6
Ronnel 0.2
Dieldrin 0.003
2,4,5-T 0.04
*Based on air dried weight of dust.
The dust-laden rain would clearly contaminate water it
fell onto and might be a supply of pesticide in an urban
area as well as a removal transport mechanism in run-off.
In the three study cities, little monitoring data
exists to show the extent of pesticide contamination.
Tables 2-B, 3-B show these results for Philadelphia and
Dallas from the STORET System. No data is available for
Lansing, Michigan from this source (5). In Philadelphia,
DDT, ODD, and dieldrin were detected in the Schuylkill
River at some time in.a 10 year sampling interval.
These samples were a once a year grab sample and^ as such,
are worthless in determining the pesticide deposits in the
river from the suburban area. No samples were taken to
see where the pesticides were coming from.
The State of Texas, Department of Agriculture (6)
began a series of pesticide measurements on sediments in
selected river basins in the state in 1970. These data
6-B
-------
TABLE 2-B
PESTICIDES AT THE TWO PHILADELPHIA SAMPLE STATIONS
1959-1969 (in parts per trillion (ppt))
Compounds
aldrin
BHC
Chlordane
ODD
DDE
DDT
dieldrin
endrin
heptachlor
heptachlor
Philadelphia 1
Schuylkill River
0
0
0
9*
0
0.7
17.3
0
0
epox . 0
Philadelphia 2
Delaware River
66*
800*
—
13
1.5
10
8.7
0*
13*
0.9
Values are means for ten or more samples in the
sample period.
*Samples are a value for one single positive value,
all others in the period being zero.
7-B
-------
TABLE 3-B
PESTICIDES IN TRINITY RIVER BELOW DALLAS TEXAS
1970-1971 (in parts per trillion (ppt))
Compound Water Mud
Aldrin
BHC
Chlrodane
ODD
DDE
DDT
dieldrin
endrin
Toxaphene
heptachlor epox.
heptachlor
malathion
parathion
diazion
m-parathion
2,4-D
2,4,5-T
Silvex
0
0
560
25
0
120
80
0
0*
0
0
590
0
550*
0
445
50
0
_
0*
—
1300*
0*
0*
1300*
0*
-
0*
0*
-
-
-
-
0*
0*
0*
*Single value reported. Other values are means
of 2 samples in sampling period.
8-B
-------
for the Trinity River show a marked increase in the num-
ber of variety of pesticides below the cities of Fort
Worth and Dallas. There is not a consistent pattern
either in time or flow along the stream but it is clear
that the urban area must be adding some pesticides to
the river. Figure 2-Bshows the number of times differ-
ent materials were reported although not the range or
source.
Sediment analyses below Dallas show an extremely
high amount of PCB's, August 11, 1971. This raised the
question of whether this PCB source was urban run-off or
industrial waste since the sample point is slightly be-
low the Dallas sewer plant. A check of weather bureau
records shows no rain on August 10 or 11, and only 0.18
inches on the 9th, which fell in a three hour period.
This is unlikely to have produced a run-off sufficient
to cause a concentration of 1000 ppb PCB. No insecti-
cides were reported at this time, leading to the conclu-
sion that the PCB's were from an industrial source.
This incident demonstrates the fact that a
sampling system is needed which will sample during and
after a rainfall/run-off incident, not on a calendar
basis. To further illustrate, on August 13, 2 days
after the sample was taken a 2.21 inch rainfall event
occurred. This run-off and heavy rainfall would produce
9-B
-------
TRINITY RIVER
AGRICULUTURAL
DRAINAGE
3 ODD
3 DDE
1 Chlordane
2 Toxaphene
3 PCB
3 DDD
3 DDE
1 Toxaphene
3 PCB
DALLAS
3 DDD
2 DDE
1 Chlordane
5 PCB
2 PCB
2 DDD
1 DDE
1 DDT
1 Toxaphene
FT.WORTH
3 DDD
3 DDE
1 DDT
1 Chlordane
1 Toxaphene
4 PCB
1 DDD
2 DDE
1 Toxaphene
2 DDT
2 DDD
2 DDE
X
AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE
2 DDD
2 DDE
1 Dieldrin
1 Chlordane
2 PCB
Flow
To Gulf of Mexico
tl
Number and types of Pesticides found in Trinity
River Sediment 1970-1971
Figure 2-B
10-B
-------
pesticide transport of any residues present on the sur-
face, but no analysis was made which would show this.
Gaps in data like this contribute to an overall lack
in the picture of what is really happening in pesticide
transport.
The contractor contacted wastewater treatment plants
and water works in the three study cities to attempt to
collect data which would show the amount of pesticides
entering the water from sewage plant effluents or found
in the waters used for water supply. The results of
these contacts were futile. No one routinely makes mea-
surements of even total pesticides in an effluent. In
Philadelphia, the situation is compounded by the geography
of the area. There are several small watersheds on both
sides of the Schuylkill River which drain the suburban
area and discharge in turn into the Delaware River, which
is a tidal estuary at Philadelphia. At the mouth of
nearly every one of these creeks is a sewage treatment
plant of fairly small size. Many of these plants were
built in the 1930's as CCC projects and some have not
been enlarged since then. The areas they serve often
have separate storm and sanitary sewers to help prevent
overload by stormwater. When rain and run-off occur
these plants process as much wastewater as they physically
can and dump, without measuring the volume, the rest
11-B
-------
directly into the waterways. The run-off is thus in
three segments: (1) the portion treated with normal
sewage up to capacity of the plant, (2) the portion by-
passed untreated at the plant, and (3) the portion
which is collected in the storm sewer system and dis-
charged to the many creeks in the area without any at-
tempt at treatment. Throughout this series of events no
pesticides are measured. The staffs of the treatment
plants contacted were helpful in supplying operating
data about their facilities but it is not included here
since no conclusions can be drawn from it.
Dallas and Lansing exhibit a somewhat different
drainage pattern in that each of them has a single flow-
ing river receiving wastewater from the city. In Dallas,
the Trinity River serves this function. In Lansing, the
Red Cedar is the receiving stream. If an adequate pro-
gram of monitoring above and below these cities was
established it should be possible to estimate by dif-
ference, calculations of the amount of pesticides contributed
by the cities. To date, this has not been done regularly.
There was one study of the Red Cedar made in which
a number of stations were examined. Zabik (7) looked
at the Red Cedar above, in and below Lansing over a
period of two years. His study concentrated on DDT in
water, suspended matter and bottom deposits. Although
12-B
-------
he was able to calculate an increase of almost 100 per-
cent in the DDT of the river below the two sewage treat-
ment plants in the area, his study was not sensitive to
the previously mentioned run-off parameters, therefore,
his samples do not represent a continuous on-going pic-
ture of the problem. Zabik does make the interesting
observation, which agrees with agricultural pesticide
studies, that water concentrations of pesticides are a
poor indicator of contamination due to extremely low
solubility, that pesticide residues on suspended solids
are a much more accurate indicator of recent pollution,
and that bottom sediment concentrations show the past
history of pesticide involvement in a river basin. The
implication is that any monitoring system needs to in-
clude sediments and suspended matter as a routine por-
tion of the analysis, perhaps as the analysis, except in
cases of acute poisoning where the source needs to be
determined.
In one of the few instances where pesticides were
measured in actual run-off under field conditions,
Edwards and Glass measured methoxychlor being removed
from pastureland grasses in Ohio. This pasture grass
was not a suburban lawn; but rather a mixture of coarse
field grasses that was not mowed to the short length of
a lawn. These measurements are never the less important
13-B
-------
because they represent pesticides in run-ott trom a stable,
non-plowed field. Soil erosion does not occur under such
conditions and the resulting loss of pesticides ad-
sorbed on soils does not occur.
Glass and Edwards (8) applied methoxychlor in March
at a very heavy dose of 22.4 kg/ha or 19.6 pounds/acre.
This rate far exceeds normal agricultural application
rates and, according to contractor estimates, is about
twice the maximum rate applied by home and garden users.
Run-off was sampled after all rainfalls for 14 months
following application; the total methoxychlor removed in
run-off was found to be 0.004 percent, a seemingly in-
significant amount of the applied dose. No pesticide
was found in the ground water below the test plot through-
out the study. The implication of this study is that,
once applied to the stable situation of grass cover,
the pesticide will remain and not cause water contamina-
tion. No run-off occurred for six days after the meth-
oxychlor was sprayed onto the field, allowing some time
for the spray emulsion to break before rainfall occurred.
The first run-off had only 0.1 ug/1 of methoxychlor in it.
14-B
-------
Soil and Soil Types
Soils and soil types can be significant in the re-
lationship of pesticides to the water environment in
several ways. Since pesticides can adsorb strongly to
soils, the soil may become a depository for substantial
amounts of pesticide as repeated applications are made
over the years. The compaction of the top soil layer
will affect the propensity of rainfall to soak into the
land or run-off into a water system. The organic and
clay content of soil is important to the pesticide
carrying capacity of soils since pesticides adhere most
strongly to organic matter and to clays, with their
electrically charged surfaces. Inert soil components
such as sand have much less affinity for pesticides.
The pH of the soil may influence the rate of chemical
breakdown of pesticides which are on soils (9).
Pesticides Associated with Sediment Transport
Erosion of soils in urban areas depends on slope
of the land, frequency of heavy rainfall and rate and
extent of new construction. The process of clearing
land and building on it usually exposes large amounts
of soil to rainfall. These uncovered areas lose the
protective, energy absorbing properties of the pre-
vious vegetation so that erosion occurs during and after
construction until a new growth is established or the
area paved. This series of events is significant in
15-B
-------
terms of the amount of soil eroded as the cities grow
and new suburban areas are created. The contractor is
aware of one reservoir in the suburban Philadelphia area
which has filled in 1/4 to 1/2 mile of its length and
has had the width reduced from 700 to perhaps 25 feet
over the past 15 years as the land upstream from the
reservoir was changed from wooded hills and pasture-
land to subdivisions for Philadelphia area residents.
If the land was used for agricultural purposes or
for orchards before the construction phase began, it
was potentially exposed to pesticide residues and
drifts connected with the prior use. Erosion of soil,
especially the rich topsoil which is usually scraped into
a pile at the edge of construction, can be expected to
carry large quantities of pesticides and persistent resi-
dues, such as DDT and its metabolites, to the waterways.
This process probably occurs more rapidly in Phila-
delphia with its steep hills and many small streams than
in either Dallas or Lansing/which are comparatively flat
and level cities on plains regions, while most of the
Philadelphia area is on hard rock of the Piedmont up-
rising.
The organic content of soil and the moisture or
moisture holding capacity of the soil greatly affect
the pesticide holding capacity of the soil (9). Pesti-
16-B
-------
aides are complex organic molecules which have a tendency
\
i
to adhere to other organic material, such as humus in
soil. The amount of moisture present can markedly af-
fect this attraction as Spencer (10) has shown. When
the soil is dry, more pesticides can be held on the soil,
and as the moisture increases water will displace some
of the pesticide residues, allowing greater evaporation
to occur.
The higher the organic content of the soil the more
pesticides will be held on the soil and less will be re-
leased to the water environment during times of heavy
run-off.
Relationship of Techniques to Run-off
The study of transport of pesticides from suburban
home and garden use to the water environment requires a
brief look at the application techniques used by the
suburbanite to get the products onto the target. Her-
bicides for control of lawn weeds and some insecticides
for insects in the lawn can be purchased in granular form,
or mixed with solid fertilizer. These combination pesti-
cide-fertilizer granules are applied by a spreader cali-
brated to apply a given rate of fertilizer on a pound/
square foot basis. The pesticide is physically held to
17-B
-------
the fertilizer and goes on at the correct rate. Solid
i
pesticide materials may be spread without fertilizer
with a spreader as well. These compounds have a low
percentage of active ingredient and a high percentage
of inert carrier to make distribution easier. Since
fertilizer can serve as a distributor agent and allow
application of two materials at one time, the mixtures
are becoming popular combination products.
The second major application technique is the hose
end sprayer. A liquid pesticide, or a suspension of a
solid and a wetting agent fill a small reservoir, and
water flowing through the hose aspirates a given amount
of pesticide, per unit volume of water from the bottle.
The pesticide and water mix are sprayed onto the ground
or onto trees, shrubs, and bushes to be protected.
Dusts, sprays, and liquids in small quantities can
be applied to particular plants, such as roses, needing
special protection or to specific pests such as dande-
lions in a lawn. These "spot treatments" apply pesti-
cides at a fairly high concentration but to a small
area and in low total quantity so they don't pose a
great threat to the environment.
How do the formulations affect the tendency of
these materials to enter waterways? Consider the hose
end sprayer putting out a liquid pesticide formulation.
18-B
-------
The bulk of the material applied is water. The pesti-
cide itself is insoluble or only slightly soluble in
water so it is mixed with an emulsifier which can form
a suspension of organic material in water. Water soluble
detergent-like materials called surfactants are used
with organic solvents to perform this function. Once
the pesticide is on the ground, this emulsifier should
dissipate so that subsequent rain will not pick up the
pesticide and carry it away. The length of time the
emulsifier stays effective in unknown, but a time of at
least 2-3 days is not unreasonable to assume. If rain-
fall is heavy enough to cause run-off, some of the pes-
ticide will probably be carried away.
Opposing this action is the fact that the pesti-
cide is being applied to an area which has organic ma-
terial - live grass, dead grass shreds, decaying leaves
and other organics which tend to build up the humus of
the soil. Pesticides, being organic chemicals, have a
much greater affinity for organics than for polar in-
organic materials such as water. Thus the pesticide
tends to "stick" to the organic matter on the ground
and resist movement by water run-off.
Solid materials on the other hand fall into this
rich organic maze and may be physically trapped among
the particles. These then are the apparent fates of
19-B
-------
the pesticides when they are applied to the suburban
home and garden environment.
After contact with retailers, manufacturers, and
professional agricultural personnel, as well as informa-
tion obtained from homeowner surveys, the contractor
believes that the pesticides are applied in a very short
time period - primarily the 4 weekends in May, with some
application the last weekend in April and the first in
June. Manufacturers felt that bad weather during any
of these time periods cut irreparably into their sales
for the year. If rain occurs in the period Sunday after-
noon to Wednesday morning of these 6 weeks, there should
be a greater chance of having the liquid spray applied
pesticides free and mobile to be carried off to the
water.
Tables 4-B, 5-B and 6-B show the distribution and
amount of rain in the three study cities for 1968 through
1971 in this heavy application period. Rainfall on
Saturday probably means no pesticide application that
weekend while rain later in the week may tend to wash
away the applied material. The column entitled "Rainy
Weekend Pattern" attempts to summarize the occurrence
of rain which could be significant in application terms.
The distribution of rainfall throughout the day was
taken into account in determining this pattern, thus it
20-B
-------
TABLE 4-B
RAIN IN APRIL, MAY, AND JUNE FOR DALLAS
s
April
Last
May 4)
1 0
11)
2
.47
18)
3
0
25)
4
.10
-)
5
June 1)
1 1.0
S
5)
0
12)
.06
19)
0
26)
0
-)
2)
T
1968
M
6)
0
13)
1.67
20)
0
27)
0
-5
3)
.01
T
7)
.31
14)
0
21)
T
28)
0
-)
4)
.21
W
8)
0
15)
T
22)
0
29)
0
-)
5)
T
1969
S
26)
3)
0
10)
0
. 17)
.66
24)
0
3D
0
7)
0
S
27)
4)
.46
11)
0
18)
.24
25)
.01
1)
.02
8)
0
M
28)
5)
1.59
12)
0
19)
0
26)
.07
2)
0
9)
0
T
29)
6)
4.49
13)
0
20)
0
27)
0
3)
.28
10)
0
W
30)
7)
.93
14)
.25
21)
28)
.09
4)
0
11)
0
1970
S
25)
2.05
2)
0
9)
0
16)
0
23)
6
30)
2.15
6)
0
S
26)
T
3).
0
10)
0
17)
0
24)
0
31)
T
7)
0
M
27)
0
4)
0
11)
0
18)
0
25)
0
1)
T
8)
0
T
28)
0
5)
0
12)
0
19)
0
26)
.12
2)
T
9)
0
W
29)
T
6)
0
13)
0
20)
0
27)
.39
3)
0
10)
0
Rainy
1971 Weekend
Pattern
S
24)
0
1)
0
8)
.01
15)
0
22)
0
29)
1.0
5)
0
S
25)
0
2)
0
9)
.01
16)
0
23)
0
30)
T
6)
0
M
26)
0
3)
0
10)
.06
17)
0
24)
0
31)
T
7)
0
T
27)
0
4)
0
11)
0
18)
.02
25)
0
1)
T
8)
0
W
28
T
5)
.03
12)
0
19)
T
26)
0
2)
0
9)
0
N
N N
N N
N N
N M
N N
Y N
N N
N N
M
N Y
M N
N N
No. of
Rainy
Weekends
1
0
1/2
1
1
1
1/2
1/2
Rainy Weekend Key: N not rainy - lawn & garden activities likely
M intermittent rain, daytime - questionable activities
Y Yes, pronounced rain during day - unlikely outside activities
- No 5th weekend that month
-------
TABLE 5-B
RAIN IN APRIL, MAY AND JUNE FOR PHILADELPHIA
1968
S
April
Last
May 4)
1 T
2 ID
.62
18)
3 T
4 25>
0
-)
5
June 1)
1 0
S
bj
.40
12)
.49
19)
.12
26)
0
-)
2)
.03
M
6)
.02
13)
T
20)
0
27)
.10
-)
3)
.08
T
'/>
0
14)
0
21)
T
28)
1.55
-)
4)
0
W
8)
0
15)
.06
22)
0
29)
.54
_)
5)
0
1969
S
26)
3)
0
10)
T
17)
0
24)
.06
31)
0
7)
T
S
27)
4)
0
11)
T
18)
0
25)
T
1)
0
8)
.06
M
28)
5)
0
12)
T
19)
.43
26)
0
2)
0
9)
.08
T
29)
6)
0
13)
T
20)
1.64
27)
0
3)
.81
10)
0
W
TO)
7)
0
14)
T
21)
0
28)
0
4)
0
11)
0
1970
S
25)
0
2)
0
9)
0
16)
T
23)
.51
30)
0
6)
.19
S
26)
T
3)
T
10)
0
17)
.60
24)
.02
31)
0
7)
0
M
27)
0
4)
.03
11)
T
18)
T
25)
T
1)
0
8)
0
T
28)
0
5)
T
12)
T
19)
.21
26)
1.02
2)
0
9)
0
W
29)
0
6)
T
13)
T
20)
0
27)
0
3)
.02
10)
.12
Rainy
Weekend
1971 Pattern
S
24)
T
1)
0
8)
.76 .
15)
.01
22)
T
29)
T
5)
0
S
25)
.01
2)
.06
9)
.01
16)
1.72
23)
0
30)
.25
6)
.01
M
26)
T
3)
.02
10)
T
17)
T
24)
0
31)
.01
7)
.01
T
27)
0
4)
0
11)
o
18)
O
255
.14
1)
0
8)
T
W
28)
.25
5)
T
12)
T
19)
O
26)
0
2)
.05
9)
0
N
N
N M
N M
Y N
N Y
N Y
N Y
N M
N N
- N
N Y
N Y
N N
No. of
Rainy
Weekends
0
1
2
2
1/2
1
1
W
-------
TABLE 6-B
RAIN IN APRIL, MAY, AND JUNE FOR LANSING
1968
April
Last
May
1
2
3
4
5
June
1
S
4)
.03
11)
0
18)
0
25)
0
-)
1)
.04
S
5)
T
12)
.02
19)
0
26)
1.75
-)
2)
0
M
6)
0
13)
T
20)
.15
27)
.99
-)
3)
0
T
7)
0
14)
.45
21)
0
28)
.02
-)
4)
0
W
8)
.04
15)
.11
22)
0
29)
T
-)
5)
0
1969
S
26)
3)
T
10)
T
17)
.48
24)
0
31)
.45
7)
0
S
27)
4)
0
11)
T
18)
.62
25)
.07
1)
.60
8)
0
M
28)
5)
T
12)
0
19)
T
26)
0
2)
.22
9)
0
T
29)
6)
.07
13)
0
20)
T
27)
0
3)
T
10)
0
W
30)
7)
.01
14)
0
21)
.04
28)
0
4)
.24
11)
0
1970
S
25)
0
2)
0
9)
0
16)
.02
23)
.06
30)
T
6)
0
S
26)
0
3)
T
10)
0
17)
0
24)
.61
31)
0
7)
0
M
27)
0
4)
.02
11)
0
18)
0
25)
.18
1)
.18
8)
0
T
28)
.04
5)
T
12)
.53
19)
0
26)
.21
2)
.21
9)
0
W
29)
.07
6)
0
13)
.53
20)
0
27)
.08
3)
.08
10)
0
Rainy
1971 Weekend
Pattern
S
24)
T
1)
.11
8)
0
15)
0
22)
0
29)
0
5)
.05
S
25)
0
2)
T
9)
0
16)
T
23)
0
30)
0
6)
.60
M
26)
0
3)
0
10)
0
17)
0
24)
1.28
31)
T
7)
T
T
27)
.07
4)
0
11)
.26
18)
0
25)
.03
1)
T
8)
T
W
28)
.05
5)
T
12)
.16
19)
.07
26)
.01
2)
.06
9)
0
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
M
No. Of
Rainy
0
1
0
1
1 1/2
1
1
to
Ul
CO
-------
is possible to show both a rainfall and a not rainy pattern
the same calendar day, if the rainfall was during the
hours of darkness.
All three study cities have approximately the same
number of rainy weekends throughout the data period -
geographical location does not appear to alter this
phenomena (11). The significance of this procedure is un-
known, since no data exists to show pesticides in run-
off during this time/ however, it does suggest an in-
teresting field study to see how big a pollution prob-
lem exists from these applications. The study in-
cluded the week days through Wednesday because the
contractor felt this would probably provide enough
time for water emulsion to break and for the emulsi-
fiers to decompose or adhere to other materials enough
to prevent motion if later rainfall occurred. The
literature failed to provide data on the effective life
of these emulsion materials. Table 7Band Figure SBshow
the possible conditions of rainfall during and following
application weekends as the resulting potential for con-
tamination of water by liquid applied pesticides. Figure
1 clearly indicates that only Condition IV (a dry week-
end followed by a wet week) has a potential for con-
tamination of run-off waters.
Since this set of circumstances cannot be controlled
24-B
-------
TABLE 7-B
POTENTIAL FOR WATER CONTAMINATION BY LIQUID
HOME AND GARDEN PESTICIDE APPLICATION
Weekend Weather/
Week's Weather
Dry
Rainy
1
Rainy
1 low
(1)
III T
Low
(1)
Dry
"LOW
(2)
IVVery
High
(1) No application - bad weather keeps homeowner inside.
(2) Application will occur. No run-off to cause problems
n
a
c
0)
4J
£
Q
to
id
8
o
c
H
FIGURE 3-B
POTENTIAL FOR'WATER POLLUTION
II
III
IV
CONDITIONS
(as per Table
25-B
-------
and cannot be accurately predicted several days in ad-
vance and since pesticides have created a continuing de-
mand for their use, clearly the most effective way to
minimize this potential is to change the formulation so
that run-off from rainfall does not pick up pesticides.
Research into very short lived emulsifiers, those
with a 10-15 minute working life after application,
should receive a major support if this potential for
pollution is to be removed-. Application of most pesti-
cides as granules instead of liquids could also help
lower this peak.
Figure 4Bdiagramatically shows the evaporation rates
of present emulsifiers and the potential for liquid pes-
ticides to be carried off by run-off until the emulsi-
fiers dissipate. If the emulsifier is dissipated in
several minutes, as proposed above, this potential
drops to a lower value very quickly and ceases to be a
problem.
Ranking of Transport Mechanisms
Liquid based pesticides have a high propensity to
enter run-off as long as they are in an emulsified state.
The time of mobility is determined by the emulsion used
to disperse the pesticide in the carrier water but is
believed to be on the order of 3 to 5 days. The emulsi-
26-B
-------
cs
o
•H
4J
nt
o
•H
H
H
0)
•H
«W
•H
10
UH b
°*
c c
O-H
•H C
4J-H
u m
nt E
M Q>
PL, «
FIGURE 4_B
POTENTIAL FOR LIQUID PESTICIDE TO
CONTAMINATE RAINFALL RUN-OFF
Currently used
emulsifiers
Time in. Days
Solid Line - Fraction of emulsifiers remaining
following pesticide application with different types
of emulsifiers shown.
Dotted Line - Potential for liquid pesticide to
contaminate water with different types of emulsifiers
shown.
27-B
-------
fiers evaporate after application, leaving the pesticide
behind on the target. The pesticide is adsorbed on the
surface of organic material present in the target area
and thus becomes anchored at the target area. However,
if rainfall occurs after application but before the break-
ing of the emulsion by evaporation or adsorption, or both,
the rain-produced water may combine with the pesticide
emulsion and carry it off. The contractor feels this is
the greatest potential transport mechanism for materials
applied to the target area. A complete summary and rank-
ing of pertinent pesticide transport mechanisms is shown
in Table 8-B.
In Dallas, spray applications of insecticides to
entire lawns is commonly done to control root worms and
grubs. These ground insects are less of a problem in
Lansing and Philadelphia, so less area spraying of
lawns is done.
Application of pesticides as solids is also a com-
mon way of applying a blanket layer of pesticide to a
lawn. With this method, the granular or powdered
formulation is spread over the lawn where the granules
tend to lodge in the grass or other cover material and be
mechanically trapped. Gentle rain helps settle them
into the lawn where they are immobile. Thus, these
materials pose a smaller potential pollution problem
than the liquids.
28-B
-------
TABLE 8-B
PESTICIDE TRANSPORT ROUTES
Rank* Route to the Environment
1 Overland Drainage
Emulsions in Water
Sediment Street Debris
Construct ion
Granular Formulation
2 Intentional Dumping of
Leftover Materials
3 Accidental Spills
4 Container Disposal
5 Atmospheric Processes
Evaporation from Land
Evaporation during
Application
Drift
individual
commercial
6 Movement in Ground Water
Relative Significance
Greatest
Moderate to High
Moderate
Low
Great (potentially)
Great (potentially)
Great (potentially)
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
*In descending order of importance
29-B
-------
Empty Container Disposal
Empty containers are'thrown into the household
trash in all three study cities. This refuse is either
buried in landfill operations or burned in municipal
incinerators. In either case the potential is great for
water contamination. In a landfill, water can often
percolate down through the refuse and contaminate ground
water. This has happened and is a consideration to be
taken into account when building a landfill. There
are no reported cases of pesticides being in the leach-
ate or causing contamination, however, chemical measure-
ments on leachate are seldom made and the overall effect
leachates have on water quality is poorly understood (12).
In an incinerator the residue from the burning operation
is quenched with water and the combustion gases may be.
This water quickly becomes contaminated and may pose
a severe pollution problem unless it is carefully pro-
cessed. Often this water is fed to a municipal sewer
system where some pollutants may be reduced. However,
sewage treatment systems do not remove pesticides so
any pesticide residues from the incineration will
travel to the receiving water almost unchanged. Thus
the contamination from empty containers is not known
or quantifiable.
The problem of leftover chemicals or bottles which
30-B
-------
are rinsed out is also unanswered. These materials may
be poured down a drain to"get rid of them. If this
happens, they end up in the receiving stream as out-
lined above.
In a study on landfill operations, Fungarlio (12) in-
ventoried in the field the materials going into a
landfill in the suburban Philadelphia area. Part of
this survey was run in May when pesticides were being
applied and when the containers should have been
thrown away. His survey failed to find pesticide
containers in the mixed domestic refuse. One con-
clusion which might be drawn from this is that the
containers are such a small percentage of the total
volume in a landfill that they are not significant.
Since the possibility of ground water contamination
and accidental poisoning to the operators exists
this area should receive further study.
It is obvious from the foregoing discussion that
the contribution suburban homes and gardens make to the-,
pesticide levels in our waterways is unknown and could
be the subject of an intensive research study._^ The
use of granular materials which are not mobile will
help decrease the contamination.
31-B
-------
Summary and Conclusions
Table 9B summarizes data from Appendix A on the use
of pesticides in the suburban home and garden envirpn.-
ment and shows the contractor's best estimate of the
relative use of pesticides by each of the three major
TABLE 9-B
DALLAS, PHILADELPHIA, AND LANSING
TOTAL PESTICIDE USE
Pesticide (in pounds)*
User Group Herbicide Insecticide Fungicide"
Individual Homeowner 121,600 429,000 68,800
Commercial Sprayer Negligible 51,090 6,700
Public Facilities** 6,200 22,700 44,000
TOTAL127,800502,790119,500"
*Values expressed in pounds of active ingredients,
**Golf courses, parks, mosquito abatement.
major user categories. The homeowner applies 619/400
pounds or approximately 83 percent of the total in the
study cities. From available land use data and estir-
mates on the number of square feet of lawn and garden
in suburbia, the contractor feels the application of
this amount of pesticide leads to an average of a
total of 7.2 pounds per acre as shown in Table 10=-B,
The homeowner has a very poor idea of what ma-
terials he is applying as shown in Appendix A and the
Summary Statement of this report. To minimize environs
mental contamination by pesticides in the home and
32-B
-------
garden environment, legislation, education, and persua<-
sion are all needed to help the homeowner reduce the
environmental impact of his pesticide use. Laws pro-
hibiting the unrestricted sale and use of persistent,
damaging products would help. Substitution of effec*-
tive but less persistent materials coupled with a
strong educational program through the mass media,
naming common names and dose rates would be a step in
the right direction. Granular formulations and sticky
dusts for vertical or exposed surfaces could be pro-
vided as alternatives to liquids and sprays. The big-
gest problems are in implementing their use, but this
is not an insurmountable problem if approached with the
correct selling program.
Table 10B also shows a comparison of home and garden
use rates with agricultural use rates in the midwestr
The home and garden use is 1 to 5 times as high as the
agricultural use on a per acre basis. Consideration of
the number of acres under cultivation shows however,
<
that the agricultural use is far greater than the home
and garden use, and further consideration of transport
mechanisms shows that much more of the agriculturally
applied material can be expected to be transported due
to erosion than in the home and garden situation*
33-B
-------
TABLE 10-B
ESTIMATED INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER PESTICIDE USAGE RATE
Pesticide Dosage Rate*
Herbicide** Insecticide** Fungicide**
Homeowner 1.4 5.0 0.8
(Agricultural 0.5 to 2.5 1.5 to 3.0 Negligible)
*Based on estimated 3000 square feet of lawn and
garden receiving pesticide treatment per resident.
**Pounds of active ingredients per dwelling unit.
Pesticides used in the home and garden market are
applied to small areas by hand operated devices by the
homeowners, mostly in 4 to 6 weekends in the spring
of the year. The active material is diluted either
in water or in a solid mixture for a uniform, low dose
application to the target. If rainfall occurs soon
after application, run-off may contain pesticides/al-
though attempts to document this have failed to show
significant quantities of pesticides to date.
The fate of leftover materials is unknown - but
some homeowners contacted admitted pouring them down
a drain. However, sewage treatment plants do not mea-
sure for pesticides due to the high cost of analyses
and the fact that treatment systems do not remove pes-
ticides, so the plant could do nothing even if it knew the
materials were present.
Empty containers in the suburban area are thrown
into refuse from the house for municipal or private
34-B
-------
collection. They subsequently are buried in a land-
fill or dumped or burned in an incinerator. If pro-
perly maintained, the incinerator could destroy the
materials but air pollution and mechanical problems with
existing incinerators make this an uncontrollable solu-
tion, r
Recommendations
1. Verify application pattern suggested in this Ap-
pendix.
2. Set up monitoring to record daily levels at sewage
plants and peaks from storm run-off to generate
enough data to allow an accurate inventory of
pesticides entering water from suburban use.
3. Set up educational program through mass media to
show best ways of disposing of left over materials
and empty containers. Approaches such as deposits
on returnable cans might help keep the containers
away from the water environment.
4. Develop emulsions which will persist only a few
minutes after application, thus reducing the
chances of subsequent rain carrying pesticides
away from the target.
35-B
-------
5. Instituter by legislation, different programs of
land clearing during construction. Allow only
that area actually required to be disturbed for
construction to be denuded. Reduce practices
such as mass removal of trees and bushes which
break the force of rainfall and help check ero-
sion,
6. Institute a series of storm run-off control de-
vices which will keep run-off at a low level
longer/ and catch sediment in the process, keep-
ing the sediment on the land rather than allowing
it tP enter the waterways. If a large area must
be disturbed in construction, encourage the planting
of rapid growing materials, such as black mustard
weed, which would provide temporary ground cover
to jreduce erosion.
7. Formulate all possible pesticides as granules rather
than liquids for sod applications.
36-B
-------
LITERATURE REFERENCES
1 Lager, J. A., R. P. Shubinski, and L. W. Russel,
"Development of a Simulation Model for Storm Water
Management," JWPCF, 43, 2424 (1971).
2 Weibel, S. R., R. B. Weidner, J. M. Cohen, and
A. G. Christiansen, "Pesticides and Other Con-
taminants in Rainfall and Runoff," JAWWA, 58,
1075 (1966).
3 Earth Science Curriculum Project (ESCP) , Investi-
gating The Earth, American Geophysical Institute,
Washington, 1965.
4 Michigan Committee on Specialty Pesticide-Fertilizer
Mixtures, Pesticide Residues in Sanitary and Storm
Sewer Effluent, 1969.
5 Environmental Protection Agency, STORET Data for
Pesticides in Lansing, Dallas, Philadelphia, 1971.
6 Texas Department of Agriculture, Environmental Re-
sources Division, "Report of Pesticide Analysis
Sediment Samples," Sites 1A-10C, 1970-1971.
7 Zabik, M. J., "The Contribution of Urban and Agri-
cultural Pesticide Use to the Contamination of the
Red Cedar River," Institute of Water Research,
Project No. A-012-Michigan (in press).
8 Edwards, W. A., and B. L. Glass, "Methoxychlor and
2,4,5-T in Lysimeter Percolation and Runoff Water,"
Bulletin of_ Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology, Vol. 6, 1971, pp. 81-84.
9 Adams, R. S., "Effect of Soil Organic Matter on the
Movement and Activity of Pesticides in the Environ-
ment," in press.
10 Spencer, W. F., "Distribution of Pesticides Between
Soil, Water, and Air," Pesticides in the Soil,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1970
37-B
-------
11 "Local Climatological Data for Dallas, Texas;
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Lansing, Michigan,"
U. S. Chamber of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data
Service, Asheville, North Carolina.
12 Fungaroli, A. A., and R. L. Steiner, "Laboratory
Study of the Behavior of a Sanitary Landfill,"
JWPCF, £3 , 252 (1971).
38-B
-------
APPENDIX C
DEGRADATION OF HOME AND GARDEN PESTICIDES
The survey results detailed in Appendix B of this
report indicate that a large number of different pesti-
cide active ingredients are contained in home and gar-
den pesticide products. These active ingredients re-
present a variety of different chemical groups. Many
of these chemicals are also used for agricultural and
other pest control purposes. Many of them have been in
commercial production and use for many years, including
the phenoxy-type herbicides, atrazine, chlordane, diel-
drin, methoxychlor, carbaryl, malathion, diaxinon, PCNB,
captan and others.
In recent years, many expert committees, panels,
conferences and symposia have dealt with practically all
aspects of pesticides, including their fate in the environ-
ment after application. Publications emanating from these
activities include a report by the American Chemical Society
entitled "Cleaning Our Environment - The Chemical Basis for
Action;" (1) proceedings of an international symposium on
"Pesticides in the Soil; Ecology, Degradation and Movement"
(2) which was held at Michigan State University, East
Lansing, in February of 1970, and the "Report of the Sec-
retary's Commission on Pesticides and Their Relationship
1-C
-------
to Environmental Health," U. S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, more popularly known as the
"Mrak Report," (3) after its chairman.
Perusal of these and many other comprehensive studies
and reviews of the state of the art by our best experts
leads to the disturbing conclusion that, in effect, very
little is known about what happens to pesticides in the
environment after application under actual field condi-
tions. Many investigators have studied individual fac-
tors or subsystems under laboratory conditions, but it
is not clear, and the authors themselves usually are
silent on the question, whether the results reported are
applicable or even relevant to field conditions. It is
surprising as well as deplorable that so few scientists
in this area have ventured into studying what really
happens in the field. As a result, very little is known
about the pathways of metabolism and degradation and
about the nature of the ultimate breakdown products of
pesticides under field conditions. Not knowing the nature
of these degradation products, we, of course,, know nothing
about where they might ultimately be deposited.
Information on the degradative mechanisms and on the
chemical nature of metabolites and breakdown products is,
of course, also important to the development of analytical
2-C
-------
methods suitable for monitoring work. Methods which
are sensitive only to the parent compound are of limited
value in efforts to determine the total environmental
impact of chemicals.
While this type of information is lacking even for
pesticides which have been in large scale commercial use
for many years, including those mentioned above, it is
likewise unavailable for pesticides which have been de-
veloped more recently and have thus far been registered
and used primarily on non-food crops. Products in this
category include the herbicides Bandane and bensulide;
the insecticide Aspon, and the fungicide benomyl.
The contractor feels that it would be remiss if
some indication of possible degradation routes were not
included in this report. Thus, the contractor has con-
centrated some effort into an examination of the more
pertinent routes of attack taken by many research workers
in this field. Our method is to strens the compounds
most commonly used in homes and gardens as determined by
field studies. The approach is essentially a compound
by compound presentation with whatever types of informa-
tion are currently being researched. As stated above,
laboratory results cannot readily be applied to field
3-C
-------
conditions, but it is felt that the identification of
major pathways, where known, are helpful to guide future
research efforts.
The Problem of Degradation
Degradatio^ used in its broadest sense, includes
any measurable chemical change in pesticide molecules
under natural environmental conditions. Such degrada-
tion may be complete or partial, depending upon the
nature of the end products. (4). We have elected to
include metabolic degradation as well, since many times
the same essential process may be involved, whether it
be the vertebrate liver system of an animal or soil
microorganisms.
So many different factors affect the degradation of
pesticides that it is almost impossible to identify them
all. All attack on a molecule is chemical, whether
mediated by biological means or not. Examination of
Figure 1 (5) shows plainly the complex interaction
possible between the biotic and abiotic factors of the
environment and pesticide contamination. It would be
desirable to know rates for each cell depicted under
any given loading of a specific pesticide in addition to
the physical features of the particular pesticide in
aqueous solution and all possible degradation products
4-C
-------
FIGURE 1-C
OUTLINE OF POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PESTICIDES
AND ENVIRONMENT (5)
ui
o
-------
and metabolites. No complete study of this kind has
been undertaken as yet, although we do get some useful
suggestions from the existing literature. We will, there-
fore, examine some of these in an attempt to further iden-
tify the problem and its hopeful solutions.
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons. DDT and its relatives have
probably been subjected to the closest scrutiny of all of
the chlorinated hydrocarbons. It is logical, therefore,
that more literature on this subject exists and perhaps
also, the greatest confusion. A great variety of micro-
organisms have been examined for their ability to degrade
DDT. Many bacteria isolated from soils, water, sediments
or intestinal contents have the ability to at least convert
DDT to ODD. Yeast and actinomycetes also have this ability
to a limited extent but the fungi are conspicuous for
their inability to attack the parent molecule. Degrada-
tion of DDT appears to be enhanced by anaerobic conditions -
unfortunately, many of the analyses have been conducted
with whole soil or natural environmental media so that no
identity of the organisms have been accomplished. Data
of this type shows (depending upon the soil type and the
original floral and faunal composition) that after four
weeks of incubation (30°C) as much as 62% of the original
6-C
-------
DDT had been converted to ODD, 34% remained as the parent
DDT, and only 4% was degraded to other products. Table 1
lists some of the decomposition products of dechlorination
of the original molecule. (6)
TABLE 1-C
DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS OF DDT ISOLATED FROM
SOIL AFTER ANAEROBIC INCUBATION FOR TWO WEEKS
AND FOUR WEEKS
Product
DDA
BA
Kelthane
DBP
ODD
DDT
DDM
DDE
Total
Recovery
mlcrograms)
2 weeks
0.37
.24
.15
.39
7.1
62
0.09
.19
71
(in
after
4 weeks
0.51
.59
.61
.64
35
19
0.03
.25
57
However, since the major product of the dechlorination
DDT (TDE), although much less toxic to mammals than the
original compound, is still nevertheless extremely toxic
to some aquatic organisms. Field studies have indicated
that under very heavy applications, DDT has persisted, up
to 39% of the application after 17 years. (7)
Evidence from other works indicates that the dechlori-
nation product ODD, while arising as the result of micro-
bial action, is itself more inhibitory on the growth of
these organisms at higher concentrations than DDT. Table 2
lists some of the forms examined as the possible inhibitory
7-C
-------
effects on nutrient agar. (8) At 100 ppm, DDT and ODD
had little effect on microorganisms in soil. It is
suggested that while no total effect was observed in
short term experiments, shifts or changes in microbial
species composition in soil could occur.
TABLE 2-C
INHIBITORY EFFECT OF DDT AND ODD ON MICROORGANISMS
IN NUTRIENT AGAR
Microorganism
Bacteria i
Agrobaclcrium tiimcfaciens
DDT (p.p.m.)
Control 1 10 100
— * — '_ _
DDD (p.p.m.)
1 10 100
-
Bacillus liclieniforiitis
B. subtilis
Coryncbactcrium fusciens
Esclierichia coli
Pscudomonas angiilata
P. fluorcsceiis
Rhizobium trtfolii
Serratia marccsccns
Xanthomonas pliaseoli var. sojeiisis
Actinomycetcs
Actinoplanes philippinemls
Micromonospora sp.
Nocardia crythropolis
Streptomyces aureofaciens
S. griscits
S. lavenduJae
S. scabies
S. vcnezuelae
S. viridochromoscnes
Streptosporangium roseion
• —, no inhibition of growth; +, 50% inhibition; ++, complete inhibition.
The fungi tested were Aphonomyces euteiches, Fusarium
solani, Glomerella cingulata, Helminthosporium victoriae,
Mucor ramannianus, Penicillium frequentans ? Pythium
ultimum, Rhizoctonia solani, Trichoderma viride and
Verticillium albo-atrum. None of the 10 fungi was
sensitive to either DDT or DDD at concentrations up
to 100 p.p.m. except for M. ramannianus, which was
partially inhibited by DDD at 10 and 100 p.p.m.
8-C
-------
Anaerobic dechlorination of DDT to ODD, as well as
some other water soluble products, have been identified (6).
Soil microorganisms were responsible, since no degradation
was detected in sterile soil.
Adaptation to DDT in natural populations was observed
to vary with the source of organism and, more particularly,
with the recent prior exposure to other organochloride
pesticides. Colonies grown from highly chlorinated tap
water were only one percent accumulated; polluted surface
water, two to seven percent; garden soil, 60-70 percent
and nursery soil, recently treated with endosulfan, lindane,
sumarin or captan, 80 to 95 percent. The ubiquity of
DDT in the global environment is thought to be responsible
for the large proportion of DDT-resistant bacteria in
soil samples. (9)
The lack of dechlorination of DDT by some bacteria
under anaerobic conditions may be due in part to the
lack of reduced cytochrome oxidase under these conditions.
This may explain the relative persistence of DDT under
aerobic conditions. (10)
Studies of the anaerobic degradative potential of
activated sludge mixtures on chlorinated hydrocarbons
9-C
-------
showed some degree of degradation of all compounds tested.
Lindane was clearly the least persistent compound with
heptachlor, endrin, DDT, ODD, aldrin, heptachlor epoxide
and dieldrin in order of increasing persistence. It is
suggested that wherever natural anaerobic bottom condi-
tions exist, the possibility for some degree of degrada-
tion could occur. Heat and increased biological activity
as well as the nature of the anaerobic bottom were listed
as possible variables, although the 35°C temperatures
used in the studies are really achieved by natural waters.
Activity at 2QOC was correspondingly much less. These
results indicate that DDT degrades to DDD very rapidly
under anaerobic conditions, but resisted conversion under
aerobic circumstances. Thus, spring and summer applica-
tions of DDT and subsequent entry into waterways could
be expected to follow several general paths. One, if
strongly bound to clays or particulate organic matter,
would find the product persisting until the silt or
detrital load was deposited along stream courses (bottoms
of pools, deep backwaters) where some anaerobic degrada-
tion could occur. Second, if transported to lakes or
ponds coincident with spring overturn and increasing
biological activity, we might expect the original DDT
to remain as DDT in the oxygen rich environment until
10-C
-------
carried to the bottom on silt or incorporated into dead
bodies of planktonic detriters. As the season progressed
and stratification occurred, the bottom would become a
progressively more favorable medium for degradation.
It was also suggested, (as others have), on the
basis of these studies, (above) that the conversion of
DDT to ODD requires a reducing cofactor. (4) Such a
factor for the mediation of the conversion is Fe(II)
reduced cytochrome oxidase. (10)
Studies with Aerobacter aerogenes have allowed a
partial elucidation of the metabolic pathway of degrada-
tion of DDT. It appears that discrete enzymes are in-
volved in each step. (11, 12) The scheme is presented
in Figure 2.
Dichlorodiphenylacetic acid (DDA) appears to be a
common metabolite of vertebrate DDT degradation. Further
biodegradation by the above bacterium produced the most
highly degraded product of DDT yet reported, DBF (Figure 3).
Further microbial breakdown is not precluded, but not yet
identified. (13)
In vitro degradation by fish gut contents (as well
as gut contents from numerous other vertebrates) has been
examined. (14, 15, 16) Discussion will be in Appendix D.
11-C
-------
FIGURE 2-C
METABOLIC PATHWAY FOR DDT DECHLORINATION BY
AEROBACTER AEROGENES (R = P-CHLOROPHENYL) (11)
DDT
DDD
DDMU
R-CH-R
CCL3
,. -HCL
+H
R-C-R
DDE
R-CH-R
CHCL2
-HCL
+2H
R-C-R
II
CHCt
x^
DDMS
R-CH-R -HCL
I v
1 >
CH2CL
DDNU
R-C-R +HOH
ii *^
II
CH2 ^
r^i
».
DDOH
R-CH-R
I
CH2OH
hM*
DDA
R-CH-R
COOH
12-C
-------
FIGURE 3-C
METABOLIC PATHWAY FOR DDA DISSIMILATION
BY AEROBACTER AEROGENES (12)
CLL
O ? O
COOH
DDA
CL
CL
HYPOTHETICAL ALKENE
CH -
DPM
CH
OH
DBH
CL
OsO
II
0
DBP
13-C
-------
Considerable research has been accomplished and
volumes have been written on the metabolism of aldrin,
dieidrin and other diene insecticides. Although consid-
erable voids are present as far as naturally occurring
populations of animals are concerned, we do know or can
infer from studies with laboratory animals what kinds of
reactions can be expected and what kinds of metabolites
would result from diene ingestion. We have tried to
summarize some of the major metabolites in Figure 4.
Several points are worthy of notice. Numerous studies
in the past eight to ten years have clearly established
that vertebrates (mostly mammals) and to some extent,
insects (mostly Diptera) convert aldrin, heptachlor and
isodrin to their epoxides iii vivo. The alarming nature
of these compounds is seen in the fact that they are
generally more toxic than their parent compounds. For
years, it was thought these epoxides were resistant to
further attack. More recently, it has been observed by
an increasing number of works that the epoxides are sub-
ject to hydrolytic attack resulting in more hydrophilic
and less toxic metabolites. These metabolites are also,
by virtue of this rearrangement, generally more water
soluble, which has facilitated their eliminating by the
renal route. It would appear, therefore, that generally
14-C
-------
FIGURE 4
POSSIBLE METABOLITES OF ALDRIN AND ENDRIN (17)
ALDRIN
6O
OH
OH
OR
OH
OR
OR
CL
ENDRIN
CL
CL
SO
CL
I
0
so
OH
OH
0
15-C
-------
the capacity for oxidative enzymatic alteration of the
dienes may be much more widespread in the animal king-
dom than previously imagined. The situation with rats
(and probably other laboratory animals as well) is
summed up by the following; 1) chronic feeding of
dieldrin produces approximately equal amounts of meta-
bolites in feces and urine (70 and 95%, respectively)
in both males and females. The rate of conversion,
however, is considerably lower in females. Telodrin
and heptachlor yield the reverse result. Saturation
is reached in males after fifty days but only after
200 days in the female, and 2) when endrin is fed
(0.4ppm daily) a steady state storage is reached in
five to six days for both males and females, thus aldrin,
dieldrin and endrin, when applied in daily constant
dosages, reach a saturation level at varying periods
of time, depending on the compound and the sex of the
receiving animal. This has also been shown for DDT and
methoxychlor, 3) when daily feeding is stopped, a declin-
ing half life curve is obtained of ten to eleven days
for males and 200 days for females. Endrin half life
is 200 days for males and three or four days for females.
(17, 18) It might therefore be inferred that females
16-C
-------
would be expected to show a greater affect than males.
Certainly the demonstrated involvement of microsomal
enzyme systems in both diene degradation and steroid
metabolism would suggest that reproductive failure or
alteration in females should be more pronounced in fe-
males than in males. Such a suggestion is supported by
the work with beagle dogs (19) and strongly indicated
in work with both penned and natural raccoon populations.
(20) The fact that rabbits appear to have a far greater
ability to degrade these compounds than other mammals,
is reflected in controlled studies with cottontail rabbits,
employing agricultural application levels. Here, no
alteration of reproductive success was noted. (21) A
point should be made here, we think, for this clearly
indicates the inadequacy of some of our testing procedures.
The rat, mouse and rabbit, while demonstrably adequate
for many pharmacodynamic studies, may not be adequate
for studies dealing with pesticides due to the rather
greater facility with which those animals metabolize
the pesticide compounds. We have found no adequate study
of comparable feeding and metabolite recovery for aquatic
organisms, especially fishes. Although such studies would
be relatively easy to accomplish, they have not been done
and we are left with data from loading experiments where
residue levels are tested from a population of sample ani-
17-C
-------
mals some time after exposure. Even this procedure has
not been carried through far enough to generate sufficient
data to allow generalizations to be made.
Another point which might be made at this time is
that of what kinds of data do we really need or want to
have (and as a consequence, what kinds of research activity
should be funded). It appears to the contractor that far
too many of the field and laboratory studies in the past
have concentrated on the gathering of residue levels
for their own sake. These, then, become relatively use-
less numbers lacking a reference framework with which to
make valid predictions.
Photodieldrin, previously thought to be a chemical
degradative product of the action of sunlight on dieldrin,
has recently been shown to arise from various sources as
a metabolite of microorganism activity. Photodieldrin is
of concern as an environmental contaminant because of its
greater toxicity to many living forms. Microorganisms
were isolated from dieldrin contaminated soils, lake
water, lake bottom muds, rat intestines and rumen stomach
contents, which showed the ability to convert dieldrin
to photodieldrin. Of concern is the fact that soils and
lake bottom silt showed the greatest number of different
18-C
-------
organisms capable of this transformation, while the
lake bottom material showed over 50 percent of the
isolates had this ability. Photodieldrin was the major
metabolic product from both soil and bottom sediments. (25)
In addition to photodieldrin isolates have been found
which created hitherto unreported ketones, an aldehyde
and an alcohol derivative of dieldrin. (22)
The most common and prevalent hydrolysis product
of dieldrin appears to be 6,7 dihydroxydihydroaldrin.
The trans form was found to be the main metabolite of
the urine of rabbits; which proved to be 1/2 to 1/16
as toxic to mice as the parent compound. (17) On the
basis of chromatographic separation, chemical behavior
and infrared and mass spectra, the structures shown in
Figure 4 have been proposed.
Recently, two as yet unidentified metabolites have
been found in livers of the sailfin mollie. (23) These
metabolites are thought to be produced in the liver of
these fish and not by intestinal microflora. All in-
dications are that they are similar to some of the pre-
viously described hydrophilic metabolites of dieldrin
found in mammals. These compounds were more polar than
dieldrin which has caused these authors (23) to suggest
19-C
-------
partial dechlorination. The data presented (chromato-
graph chart) also suggests that one of the metabolites
is produced at a greater rate than the other when fishes
are allowed to pick up dieldrin from the water. Marine
fishes drink water to maintain their osmolality - thus,
the possibility that the products were produced by in-
testinal microflora, transported across the gut and pre-
ferentially stored (or altered further) by the liver
cannot be precluded.
The common and ubiquitous bacterium Aerobacter
aerogenes has been demonstrated to apparently degrade
dieldrin to 6,7,trans-dihydroxydihydroaldrin in vitro. (24)
Numerous authors have demonstrated several other ubi-
quitous species of Pseudomonas and Bacillus. Many of
these studies are not particularly helpful in defining
degradative processes since they merely show the degrada-
tion but have not identified the metabolites.
No conversion of dieldrin has been shown to occur
in fungal preparations by some authors. On the other
hand, growing cultures of Aspergillus flavus have yielded
hydrophilic metabolites when treated with aldrin, telo-
drin, chlordane, heptachlor and endrin. (17) It would
appear that this fungus, when treated with both aldrin
and telodrin was capable of producing metabolites, and
20-C
-------
releases them back into the culture medium at a rapid
rate. Chlordane, heptachlor and endrin metabolites,
on the other hand, while produced in large or larger
quantities, were selectively retained by the growing
hyphae.
Young cabbage plants were also found to degrade
endrin to two compounds: a more hydrophilic main meta-
bolite and a product which appears similar to the ketone
(Figure 4). The pesticide, applied to leaves, produced
concentrations of metabolites in leaves, stalks, roots
and soil of 7, 26, 40 and 51 percent respectively. The
metabolites were thus translocated downward and extruded
from the growing plant. (17) Various algal species have
been identified which will take up pesticides from the
water. To what extent they retain the parent compound
and/or possible metabolites is completely unknown at
present. It can be seen that measurements of residue
levels remaining inside the growing cells are potentially
misleading to the total environmental assessment, if
metabolites are eliminated due to "clean-up" procedures
or if metabolites are differentially retained or elimi-
nated to the environment.
The conversion of endrin to ketoendrin was found to
21-C
-------
be common throughout twenty-five soil isolates which
degraded endrin (Figure 4). (25) The ketone and alcohols
seem to be common to partial dechlorination and early
degradation of chlordane, heptachlor, teledrin, aldrin
and dieldrin. Figures 5 and 6.
Photoconversion of solid and dissolved dieldrin
has recently been shown to elaborate a variety of com-
pounds. Since (biological) translocation is possible
with this compound, photoconversion at the leaf surface
is a real possibility. (26) Figure 7.
Bean and pea root or seedling preparations oxidized
aldrin to dieldrin and to a small quantity of aldrin diol.
The preparations also converted isodrin to. a compound
chromatographically similar to endrin ketone. Corn pre-
parations were ineffective in these transformations and
heptachlor was not effected in these studies. (27)
To what extent aquatic plants and algae, especially
diatoms, would affect such transformations in unknown at
this time. It is known and will be discussed later that
the compounds are accumulated by both filamentous and
single celled algae.
Metabolism of trans-chlordane in the rabbit has been
22-C
-------
FIGURE 5
METABOLITES OF ALDRIN AND ISODRIN (18)
ALDRIN
0
EPOXIDE
DIELDRIN
0
0
OH
H OH
HOUSEFLY
PIG
.OH
XOH
RAT OH
HOUSEFLY/PIG/RAT
PROBABLY FISH
DIHYDROALDRIN
OR
PIG AND HOUSEFLY
H
OH
H(EXO)
DI HYDROISODRIN
OH (EXO)
H
PIG AND HOUSEFLY
-------
FIGURE 6
METABOLITES OF TELODRIN, HEPTACHLOR
AND PHOTOCONVERSION OF DIELDRIN (18, 26)
a a
DlHYDROHEPTACHLOR
Cl
Cl
DIELDRIN
ci
PHOTODIELDRINS
24-C
-------
FIGURE 7
IDENTIFIED METABOLITES OF METHOXYCHLOR (32)
CCL3
H3CO-
METHOXYCHLOR
CHCL2
I
C-
-OCH;
-OCH
3
H
CCL3
I
-OH
HO
CCL3
-OH
MOUSE
HO-
II
-C-
MOUSE
OH
-OH
H3CO-
Irv-
.OH
HO-
-'c.r\-
-OH
HO-
MOUSE
0
II
-C-
MOUSE
-OH
25-C
-------
examined and one main metabolite identified, the other
proposed. After extended feeding periods, it was found
that 70 percent of the administered daily dose was elimi-
nated in the urine (daily) as metabolic products. Rela-
tively small storage in fatty tissue was observed. The
structure as well as other possible metabolites are shown
in Figure 8. (28) It should be noted that technical
grade chlordane is a mixture of isomers, including hepta-
chlor, which is covered in Figure g.
Thus it appears that one or both of the chlorine
atoms of the cyclopentane ring may be removed.
26-C
-------
FIGURE 8
COMPOSITION AND METABOLITES OF TECHNICAL CHLORDANE
(18 and various)
HEPTAr.HLOR
0 HEPTACHLOR
EPOXIDE
I
I-HYDROXY-CHLORDENE
H OH
-------
Organophosphorus compounds. Diazinon, malathion,
parathion and dimethoate all appear to be subject to
essentially the same sites of attack and degradation
(Figure 9 ). (29) Hydrolysis at several sites, desul-
furation, nitro-reduction and demethylation are common.
Most of the critical studies have been performed with
rat liver enzyme preparations but sufficient information
is available to suggest that microsomal mixed function
oxidase systems are operative in fishes and other cold
blooded vertebrates as well.
FIGURE 9
SITES OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ATTACK ON
ORGANOPHOSPHORCUS COMPOUNDS
CH?0 desulfuration
S ) -. dealkylation
demethylation
II
- CH2 - CNHCH3
^deamination
hydrolysis/ ( )
The relative degree of activation of P=S to P=0
observed between different animal groups forms the basis
for an understanding of the relative toxicity of these
compounds.
28-C
-------
It appears that the oxygen analog of these compounds
is considerably more toxic than the parent. Toxicity of
the numerous metabolites is variable. The mixed function
enzymes are generally NADPH and oxygen requiring, so that
poorly nourished and/or stressed animals (like low ambient
dissolved oxygen) would probably be much more susceptible
to harmful effects than healthy unstressed fishes. The
microsomal diazoxon degrading enzyme is not NADPH depend-
ent and is quite active in rats. (30) Figure 10 The
fact that diazinon or diazoxon are slowly degraded by
insect mixed function enzyme systems is important since
such organisms could carry a potentially high reservoir
of this organophosphate to be ingested by fishes. While
diethyl phosphothioic acid is not particularly toxic to
aquatic organisms, one of the other hydrolysis products,
p-nitrophenol, is known to be quite toxic to living systems.
Model bog studies suggest that under simulated natural
conditions (i.e., soil, microorganisms, etc., intact)
diazinon is lost from the water much more rapidly than
parathion following application. (31)
The metabolism of organic insecticides has been
divided into two broad groups: activation and detoxication.
29-C
-------
FIGURE 10
PROPOSED METABOLIC PATHWAY OP DIAZINON IN THE RAT (30)
CH
HCV N
NADPH, 0,, Liver S C2H50'
Microsones
I
I
"
—OH
Unknown Metabolite
30-C
-------
Activation is defined as the combined metabolic reactions
that convert an intrinsically inactive molecule to an
active compound or from one active compound to another
active compound. In some cases, more than one different
toxic compound may be produced. Detoxication is defined
as the reaction or reactions which lead to the production
of nontoxic substances. (32) While qualitatively the
metabolism of the above compounds in invertebrates and
vertebrates appears similar, sufficient quantitative
differences exist to make the various chemicals differen-
tially toxic to different animal groups. Thus, studies
with mice and roaches show the roach to contain ten times
as much malaoxon as a mouse after injection. This could
mean greater activation of P=S to P=O or a greater rate
of malaoxon degradation by the mammal compared to the
insect. (29) Studies which would compare activation rates
and rates of appearance of metabolites following dosing
could help to identify degrees of toxicity for these
compounds in aquatic animals but have as yet not been
attempted. Dimethoate use is increasing, in insects,
plants and mammals examined so far, all of the possible
sites of attack have been identified. The extreme toxi-
city to certain insects and the relative insensitivity
31-C
-------
to mammals resulting from dimethoate exposure has been
attributed to the rapid deamination to the nontoxic,
ionic, carboxylic acid metabolite in mammals. (29)
Further examples of organophosphorus compound degradation
are indicated in Figures 11 and 12.
Malathion has been found to degrade rather complete-
ly in soil by nonbiological hydrolysis alone. Obviously,
the rate of hydrolysis would be controlled by temperature,
ionic strength of system, pH, presence or absence of cata-
lytic agents. Of these, pH appears to be the more import-
ant with over 99% hydrolysis in one day and pH 11. The
degradation was rapid and, depending on the soil type was
found to be 50 to 90 percent in 24 hours in either sterile
or non-sterile soil. (33)
Examination of hypothetical and actual systems demon-
strated that of the two proposed routes (Figure 12), path-
way 2 leading to the formation of intermediate V was the
preferred route in their systems, since the hydrolysis 2a
was observed to be much more rapid than la.
Such a system is seen to be analogous to that occurring
in the degradation of diazinon. (Figure 10)
Fish liver enzymes tested against certain organo-
phosphorus compounds showed variable degrading capacity.
DFP and Dichlorvos were both readily hydrolyzed by en-
32-C
-------
FIGURE 11
PARATHION AND MOST COMMON METABOLITES
OR DEGRADATION PRODUCTS
CH30
CH30
CoHcO
DIMETHYL
OR
-N02
HEAT
CoHcO
C2H50
0
It
-p-o-
-N02
THIOPHOSPHATE
OXIDASE
v
\-P- OH
'
DI ETHYL
ORTHO THIO PHOSPHORIC ACID
-P-0-
C2H50
0.
P-NITROPHENOL
33-C
-------
FIGURE 12
MAJOR METABOLIC PATHWAYS OF MALATHION DEGRADATION IN SOIL (33)
CH2-C
CH,0
S-CH-C
Mjlilhion
DESULFURATION
HS-CH-C'.
0
0
//
OC2H5
(CH30)2 P - S - CHCS
CHCN
It OC2H5
MALAOXON ^ J
CHjO £ j>
rX * HS-CH-C'
CHjOT NOH | NOH
III
NOTE: Hydrolysis of malathion is rapid in alkaline media,
Products depend upon pH of reaction medium. Nu-
merous products have been identified (see next
appendix).
34-C
-------
zymes from sunfish and catfish but it is of interest and
possible concern that two highly toxic compounds to
mammals; paraoxon and mevinphos (LDgQ rat = 3.6-6.8 mg/kg)
were not hydrolyzed by bluegill enzymes while they were,
to some limited extent/ by channel catfish preparations.
These two species, which commonly inhabit the same waters,
could, as a result, show considerable differences in their
response.
The identification of metabolites from the fish liver
enzyme preparations would indicate that previously enumerated
systems common to mammals are operative in fishes. Hy-
drolysis of the P-0-vinyl bond in dichlorvos and P-O-
isopropyl bonds in DFP have tentatively been identified,
indicating enzymatic cleavage of the anhydride bond. Figure
13) Dealkylation and other products are not excluded but
not demonstrated under these conditions.
Carbamate pesticides. The widely used carbamate
insecticide carbaryl (sevin) is regarded as a relatively
simple carbamate ester. Its metabolism is not simple
however, for over twenty different metabolites have been
recovered from maiumalian systems. (32) It is rapidly
metabolized and excreted by mammals; the water soluble
glucuronide appearing in urine. Approximately half of
the total excreted metabolites show the intact ester
35-C
-------
FIGURE 13
DEGRADATION OF DICHLORVOS AND DFP BY FISH LIVER ENZYMES (34)
9
(CH30)2-P=0-CH=CCL2
(CH?0)o-P-OH
32
[CHOH=CCL2]
i
CHCL2CHO
UNSTABLE
DICHLORVOS
0
- CH30-P-0-CH=CCL2
1
OH
2,2- DICHLOROACETALDHYDE
0
[(CH3)2 CHO] 2 F>- F
0
[(CH3)2 CHO] 2 P-OH + HF
(CH3)2 CHO-P-F
OH
DFP
(CH3)2 CHOH
36-C
-------
linkage, so that even though more diverse in form,
the route of basic degradation via initial hydrolysis
of this linkage is vitally important. (29) Figure 14
FIGURE 14
SITES OF ATTACK FOR CARBAMATE (CARBARYL)
DEGRADATION - MAMMALS
HYDROLYSIS
8
HYDROXYLATION
EPOXIDATION
AND
HYDROLYSIS
0-CNHCH?
I ^
HYDROXLATION
Other possible metabolites recovered from urine
and identified by chromatographic and spectrofluorometric
methods are depicted in Figure 15.
The resulting metabolites have little demonstrated
toxic effect on mammals. No such recoveries have been
attempted from non-mammalian vertebrate systems, however,
and no data is available on the possible toxicology of
presumed metabolites. The degradation in mammals appears
37-C
-------
0
II
0-C-HH-CH2OH
CARBARYL
\
DIRECT HYDROXYLATION
0
0-C-NH-CH:
OH
0
0-C-NH-CH:
i
0-C-NH-CH:
I
TRANSITORY
^M
INTERMEDIATE
0-C-NH-CH
FIGURE 15a
'POSSIBLE METABOLITES AND HYDROLYSIS PRODUCTS
OF CARBARYL (VARIOUS SOURCES) (32)
38-C
-------
FIGURE 15b
IN VITRO METABOLISM IN MAMMALS, WITH WATER SOLUBLE
GLUCURONIDES AND/OR SULFATES OF CARBARYL (32)
VIA HYDROLYSIS
0-GLUCURONIDE
II
0-C=NCH:
0-GLUCURONIDE
GLUCURONIDE
-GLUCURONIDE
VIA HYDROXYLATION
39-C
-------
typical of that mediated by mixed function microsomal
oxidases and thus we might expect the degradative route
in fishes and other aquatic vertebrates to be similar,
if not identical. The hydrolysis may be either enzymatic
or by non-enzymatic, base-catalyzed means.
£-iso-propoxyphenyl N-methyl carbamate (Baygon) is
another very popular carbamate insecticide. Microsomal
mixed function oxidase degradation is indicated as in
other carbamates. Houseflies and rats both degrade the
compound rapidly; the rat eliminating over 75% of
administered dose within 24 hours. Degradation of this
compound gives an example of O-dealkylation of the ether
bond. A wide variety of products is possible, as with
carbaryl, and obviously, have not been identified from
fishes or other aquatic vertebrates at this date. Nothing
is known of the toxicity of the metabolites. (32)
40-C
-------
Herbicides
Herbicides undergo chemical and metabolic reactions
similar to those of any chemical in living systems and
not unlike those reactions observed with insecticides.
Thus, oxidation, hydrolysis, dealkylation, conjugation
and reduction are seen to occur. The rate at which
chemical alterations occur depends upon the initial
chemical, the particular living organism and the environ-
mental circumstances under which each finds itself. (33)
A great variety of natural environmental factors
can and do play important roles in the non-biological
degradation of many pesticide compounds. The oxidation
of several herbicides, including 2,4-D, can be effectively
carried out by non-living forces. (33) Such non-biologi-
cal degradation of 2,4-D is depicted in Figure 16a,
and shows photolysis through a series of reactive inter-
mediates with replacement of the chlorine by hydroxyl
groups and ether bond cleavage. The resulting 1,2,4-
benzene triol is non-photochemically oxidized to a poly-
meric humic acid, a non-toxic naturally occurring com-
pound. Such a reaction, it is said, can occur within
minutes on damp filter paper in sunlight. (33)
2,4-D can be metabolized to a limited extent by
mammals and to a greater extent by plants and certain
microorganisms. Some of the resulting identical pro-
41-C
-------
FIGURE 16a
PHOTOLYTIC DEGRADATION OF 2,4-D (34)
CL
0-CH2COOH
,0.
0-CH2COOH
OH
42-C
CH2COOH
OH
POLYMERIC
HUMIC ACID
-------
FIGURE 16b
GENERAL METABOLISM OF 2,4-D IN PLANTS,
MAMMALS AND SOIL MICROFLORA (34)
0-CH2COOH
CL
SOIIIMICROF
KH2COOH
CL
COOH
MAMMALS SHOW LIMITED METABOLISM
1H
OH
CONJUGATION WITH: AMINO ACIDS/ PEPTIDES,
CARBOHYDRATES
43-C
-------
ducts are shown in Figure 16b, (34)
Not all apparent disappearance results in degrada-
tion or non-metabolic alterations. It has been shown
that the common soil microorganism, Pseudomonas
fluorescens, which does not metabolize 2,4-D as a sole
carbon source, can remove the herbicide from solution
rapidly by adsorption onto the cell surface, followed
by passive diffusion into the cells. (35)
The conclusions reached by several authors suggest
that the substituted triazines, while not being parti-
cularly detrimental to aquatic animals at usage doses,
may persist for considerably longer times in submerged
sediments and under anaerobic conditions generally,
than in terrestrial soils. (36, 37)
Microbial degradation of side chains of atrazine
occur much more rapidly than ring cleavage. Once chemi-
cal hydrolysis has been initiated to yield hydroxy-
atrazine, ring cleavage can occur to a much greater
extent by microbial means than in the parent atrazine
ring. Under submerged conditions, hydroxy-atrazine
ring cleavage is accomplished principally by aerobic
and facultative aerobic organisms. Atrazine and hydro-
xy-atrazine do not appear to be degraded or metabolized
by anaerobic microflora to any extent.
44-C
-------
Differences in the rate of generation of different
products again depends upon the nature of the soil, its
pH, .organic content, etc. The two major pathways are
diagrammed in Figure 17 and show that the pathway of
degradation most likely under anaerobic conditions would
be dealkylation by faculative aerobes. The rates of
dealkylation and ring cleavage would be quite slow.
It has also been shown that atrazine hydrolysis is
catalyzed by adsorption to soil or organic particles. (38)
Hydrogen bonding between the ring or N containing side
chains is thought to increase the electron deficiency
of the carbon atom at the two positions of the parent
molecule, already surrounded by electronegative N and
Cl atoms, and thereby increase the rate of hydrolysis
through attack by weakly nucleophilic H-O. Lowered soil
pH and higher organic matter have been identified as in-
creasing the rate of hydrolysis by several authors. (36,37)
Quantitative Documentation of Persistence
It is difficult to attempt a strict separation of
degradation from persistence per se. The rate of degra-
dative processes under differing conditions in field and
laboratory will obviously determine the level of re-
maining pesticide. We can draw from the published litera-
45-C
-------
FIGURE 17
BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL DEGRADATION OF ATRAZINE (37)
OH
CHEM/CAL
HYDROLYSIS
H5C2HN
/
Xu^NH-ISO-l/jH;
\MICROBIAL
DEGRADATION
1
\ UNKNOWN
.CO
2, ETC
AEROBIC/ TERRESTRIAL, FAST
ANAEROBIC/ SEDIMENTS/
SUBMERGED SOILS/ SLOW
BIOLOG]
DEALKVLATION
CL
N NH-iso-C3H7
46-C
-------
ture/ however, and establish some limits for persistence
of various compounds.
Table 3-C seeks to summarize a fraction of the data
available on persistence. In-depth studies show that for
soil, the basic soil characteristics are most important
in determining the rate of degradation. These charac-
teristics will, of course, determine the kinds and amounts
of organisms present. Water is just as variable, in its
own way, as soil; here, the basic chemical and physical
nature and the kinds and amounts of organisms present
will determine degradative rates and persistence. Thus,
two waters apparently alike in all considerations^ but one
having more colloidal clay than the other, could be ex-
pected to adsorb and hence apparently rapidly remove from
the water greater quantities of certain pesticides than
the other. The compound did not, therefore, persist in
water for a very long time - its fate now relegated to
effects of the sediment. Similarly, many pesticides
have been found to adsorb strongly onto living algae
cells - to a much greater extent than onto clays. (4)
If they now passively diffuse into an algal cell body
they again did not persist in water for any great period
of time - but now can rapidly enter the food chain where
their degradative fate will be determined by entirely
new and different sets of forces.
47-C
-------
TABLE 3-C
PERSISTENCE OF PESTICIDES
Compound
Soil
Water
DDT
100 ppm/39%, 17 yrs.
considerable variation
100 ppb/100%, 8 wks.
Toxaphene
140 ppm 6 yrs
50 ppm
100 ppm/45%, 14 yrs.
Endrin
25 ppm/50%, 12 yrs.
100 ppm/41%, 14 yrs.
10 ppb/100%, 8 wks.
Methoxychlor
Dicofol
Aldrin
100 ppm/40%, 14 yrs.
25 ppm/50%, 4 yrs.
See Text.
100 ppb/20%, 8 wks.
Dieldrin
100 ppm 6-9 yrs.
100 ppm/31%, 15 yrs.
25 ppm/50%, 8 yrs.
10 ppb/100%, 8 wks.
Heptachlor
ea. 13 ppm/9 yrs.
100 ppm/16%, 14 yrs,
10 ppm/25%, 1 wk.
0%, 2 wks.
All (?) converted to
epoxide
Hepta/epoxide
10 ppm/100%, 8 wks.
Lindane
100 ppm/10%, 14 yrs.
25 ppm/2 yrs.'
10 ppb/100%, 8 wks.
Chlordane
. .
Parathion
Ethyl
Methyl
Paraoxon
Malathion
Dimethoate
Carbaryl
Dicamba
Atrazine
2,4-D
251/A/ 12 yrs.
100 ppm/60%, 14 yrs.
9j
12 wks.
3.2 ppm/90 d.
3.2 ppm/30 d.
3.2 ppm/8 d.
- - /2 d.
2 mos.
_ _ _
mos .
ea. 15% residue/yr.
1-3 ppm/30 d. +
3ppm/4-18 wks.
10 ppb/85%, 8 wks.
100% - 15% tech. prob-
ably to other products
690 d. § 20°C
10 ppb/ 5%, 4 wks.
175 d. @ 20°C
10 ppm/10%, 2 wks.
320 d. @ 20CC, see text
10 ppb/10%, 2 wks.
50% in 8 wks.
10 ppb/50%, 1 wk.
0%, 2 wks.
1000 ppra/10 ppm, 30 d.
10 ppm/6 wks.
48-C
-------
In soil and in water, depending upon the inherent
stability of the molecule, pesticides are subject to a
variety of physical environmental forces; temperature,
pH, and the kind and quality of light are probably the
most important.
Eight major U. S. cities were examined for total DDT
residues from urban soil. Generally, the soils were
found to have heavy pesticide residues compared to crop-
land residues from the same states. Lawn or green areas
had higher residues than waste or non-used portions. As
might be expected, there was considerable variation found.
All cities had different soil types and the absolute
quantities of prior pesticide use were undetermined. (41)
No similar study of suburban garden soils appears to have
been made.
Examination of Table 3 suggests that the chlorinated
hydrocarbons are the most persistent compounds, as we
all know. The organophosphorus and carbamate compounds
the least, under the widest possible range of conditions.
The artificiality of such a presentation should be
obvious. Variations in soil or water conditions, climate,
biological activity, etc. would have to be examined for
each individual circumstance.
The persistence of other chlorinated hydrocarbons
has been observed to follow DDT in a general way. (7)
49-C
-------
The extremely heavy applications in one study (39) have
probably masked the effect of total persistence and/or
translocation. Thus, heptachlor (10 pounds per acre)
rapidly disappeared from soil or was converted to the
epoxide so that by the end of three years following ap-
plication, less than 70 percent of the original was pre-
sent as either the parent or epoxide. At the end of six
years, no heptachlor was found at all and only 10 percent
of the original application remained as the epoxide.
The material was not translocated by plants and removed
by cropping nor did it move downward into the soil.
Similar documentation with aldrin and dieldrin ap-
pears to suggest a like fate. (48) Study after study
has clearly demonstrated that combined annual applica-
tions of these materials does not result in appreciable
soil build-up. Indeed, the reverse is seen; with 85-90
percent loss of applied aldrin within one year a common
feature. Dieldrin, the epoxide of aldrin, has been ob-
served to persist for 5 to 25 years (average, 8) to de-
grade 95 percent of the applied dosages. Aldrin is
known to be approximately thirty times as volatile as
dieldrin. It would appear from all sources of informa-
tion, that when aldrin is applied to soil, it moves upward
through the soil with water to the soil surface and
volatilizes into the air. This apparently happens so
50-C
-------
fast in lighter soils that very little of the applied
dose has a chance to be altered to dieldrin before it is
lost to the atmosphere and becomes a part of the total
global contamination.
While fungal attack of DDT and its relatives has not
been shown, the cyclodiene pesticides apparently are
capable of considerable biological alteration by fungi. (17)
Much more study is badly needed for this major group of
soil and water degradative sources.
Technical chlordane is a mixture of two isomers of
chlordane plus chlordene and heptachlor. The technical
product should, therefore, show a variety of persistence
responses. Thus, technical chlordane added to river
water is seen to degrade to the two isomers and ^chlor-
dane within two weeks. These products are stable for at
least eight weeks. Heptachlor apparently reaches an
equilibrium between the epoxide and 1-hydroxy-chlordene.
The epoxide is eminently stable; hydroxychlordene may be
converted to chlordene under these conditions.
The degradation of chlordane as well as other organo-
chloride in soil has been investigated. (7) Approxi-
mately 50 percent of the applied dose remained after 10
years. The soil, so treated, was maintained is such a
manner that leaching, volatilization, photodecomposition,
mechanical removal, and biological decomposition were
51-C
-------
minimized. Under these conditions, it was felt that the
upper limit of persistence of these insecticides in soil
was probably reached. This situation is rarely en-
countered and the conditions which would repeatedly bring
new soil to the surface and expose the pesticide to vola-
tilization, mechanical transport, or photoalteration
(i.e., cultivation) are the more common conditions, both
for agriculture in general or the home gardener in par-
ticular. It should be remembered that the soil type,
clay content, organic matter content, pH, and biological
activity all will determine the rates of decomposition
and/or persistence. Application rates were so high in
these experiments that the micro fauna was probably en-
tirely eliminated, thereby eliminating the possibility
of micro tillage and decomposition by soil animals. The
possibility of degradation by bacterial or fungal popu-
lations was not examined and remains as a distinct pos-
sibility.
Lindane ( Y-BHC) adsorption was affected by sedi-
ment suspension concentration, clay content, organic
matter content and J-BHC concentration in natural lake
sediment studies. (42) Anaerobic degradation in lake
sediments was much faster than aerobic degradation; the
former degrading 90 percent of added dose in 2,100 hours
incubation, and the latter only 15 percent during the
52-C
-------
same period. This dependency on oxygen plus a decided
lag phase in the reaction has caused the author to con-
clude that degradation probably occurs by some biological
mechanism. (43) Isomerism of the degradative products
appears to reduce the toxicity of resulting compounds.
The hydrolytic degradation of parathion in these
lake sediments occurs much faster than in sediment free
aqueous systems. Hydrolysis is rapid in alkaline solu-
tions as in other members of this group (t 1/2 3,250
hours at pH 7.0 and 138 hours at pH 10). Little dif-
ference in t 1/2 values is observed between sterile and
non-sterile samples (258 vs. 220 hours) but at pH 5.3
of these samples, such hydrolysis may have been speeded
by biologically generated enzyme systems.
The water used in one study, while adequate for that
study, is, after all, just one sample (what about the
rate of disappearance for water taken at other times of
the year?) and would probably yield rather different re-
sults under other natural conditions and with other water
samples. (43) One would, for example, like to see the
same experiment conducted under natural conditions (the
stream) where temperature and photoperiod would be more
varied and natural - and with more kinds of water.
An interesting point was brought to light and veri-
fied to some extent by the studies which followed toxa-
53-C
-------
phene application for fish eradication (44). In these
studies, two lakes which differed greatly in their basic
nutrient levels, and hence their biological productivity,
were shown to degrade toxaphene at two vastly different
rates. One, the more oligotrophic, was treated at 44 ppb,
declined to 2 ppb and remained here for 5 years. The
other,- more shallow, and definitely more oligotrophic,
had twice the initial application, declined to about the
same level (2 ppb), but reached this level after only one
year. Thus, the combined activities of warmer water,
more intense biological activities and more rapid turn-
over and redistribution of bottom sediments, resulted in
the applied toxaphene being distributed throughout the
entire ecosystem - exposing the applied dose to more
living material where it could be held for varying periods
of time. It did not disappear, however, and showed con-
siderable biomagnification potential. These factors are
results of the species concerned and on the concentration
of chemicals in the water, of course, and not dependent
on the water itself to any great degree (excluding tempera-
ture)-,
A further point, potentially more interesting than
the above, comes from the data of fishes exposed in live
cars to contaminated lake water. Fishes exposed to 1-2
ppb could not survive this exposure for more than 10 days
54-C
-------
and accumulated toxaphene at a rate of approximately 1,200
ppb/day or 1,000 times the ambient concentration. When
exposed to 0.84 ppb in water, the same species accumulated
toxaphene at 666 ppb per day, or about 800 times the am-
bient until they had accumulated approximately 8 ppb or
1,000 times the ambient per day. Both sets of data re-
sulted in accumulation roughly 10,000 times ambient for
the period of measurements (10 days or 8 days). However,
fishes exposed to two-thirds of the concentration demon-
strated to be lethal (1.20 ppb) did not die and reached
an equilibrium around 8 ppm. Thus, the degree of expo-
sure and rate of accumulation are seen to be vitally im-
portant to an assessment of toxicity. It is said, as
we have pointed out, that more data is not available on
this point so that more valid comparisons can be made.
The commonly used organophosphorus and carbamate com-
pounds are found to degrade rapidly in the soil and water
systems. Some potentially harmful metabolites may be
elaborated during hydrolysis. Most of these compounds
are rather rapidly taken up from water by all kinds of
living material, although at considerably different rates
(see remarks in next appendix).
Dimethoate appears to have a much greater potential
for persistence in water (only 50 percent in eight weeks)
than other organophosphorus compounds examined except
55-C
-------
ethion. The persistence of ethion might be explained
on the basis of stability conferred by steric hindrance
due to molecular symmetry. Dimethoate is not symmetri-
cal, however, and no explanation of its stability is of-
fered. (43)
Carbaryl decomposed quite rapidly in raw river water
(95 percent per one week) with the major metabolite,
1-napthol, apparently degrading as rapidly. Some authors
have found that sea water degrades carbaryl (Sevin) at a
rate of about 20 percent per day at 20°C and a pH of
about 8. (45) Similar results have been obtained in raw
river water (44) at approximately the same temperature
and probably somewhat lower pH. In both cases, the condi-
tions for hydrolysis are considerably lower than indi-
cated by the manufacturer. The hydrolysis product,
1-napthol, was found to be of variable stability depend-
ing upon conditions (see next appendix).
Application of two pounds per acre of carbaryl to
grain crop grassland resulted in residues of 39 ppm on
plants the first day. Only 1 percent persisted to the
sixteenth day (0.37 ppm). (46) The persistence of 2-
isopropoxyphenyl N-methylcarbamate in raw river water (44)
is considerably greater than carbaryl; measurable quan-
tities observed up to eight weeks after application with
only 50 percent degraded after the first week. It is
56-C
-------
suggested that possession of the isopropyl group is some-
what initially inhibitory. All carbamate compounds exa-
mined degraded completely by eight weeks in river water,
but little is known about the true fate of their meta-
bolites .
In summary, it has been seen that many of the com-
monly used persistent pesticides are degraded to one de-
gree or another by a wide variety of organisms, including
bacteria, fungii, certain higher plants, insects, and
some vertebrates. The rate of metabolic alteration
found depends upon the species, the conditions of the
experiments, sex and a multiplicity of other physiological
and environmental factors. The fate of the metabolites
is almost completely unknown although, generally, they
are less toxic than the parent compounds. In addition, a
variety of completely chemical and physical alterations
have been observed.
The organophosphorus and carbamate compounds, while
initially more toxic than organochlorides, are subject
to a great variety of chemical and biological attacks,
as are many of the herbicides in common use. The fate
of many of these degradative products is unknown as well.
The chief conclusion to be drawn from this situation
is that our knowledge about the fate and degradation of
pesticides in the environment is very small indeed. This
57-C
-------
as especially true of the home and garden area. The type
of research required to fill these knowledge gaps is quite
complex and, therefore, expensive and time consuming. It
is unlikely that such an effort would be justified or
supported for a chemical which is used only in the home
and garden pesticide market. However, it is hoped that
with the increasing general concern about these matters,
research will soon be initiated to systematically resolve
these questions, at least for the most important agricul-
tural pesticides. The information to be obtained from
such studies will be very useful in gaining a better un-
derstanding of the fate of home and garden pesticides,
and in reducing or eliminating practices and products
which may have a high environmental pollution potential.
The foregoing holds considerable hope that many
pesticide formulations may degrade at much faster rates
than previously known, indeed, it is encouraging to find
that many degrade at all. These facts should not create
the feeling that unrestricted use of pesticides is war-
ranted, however, as we will see in the next section.
Recommendations
1. Encourage and support down-to-earth, interdis-
ciplinary research on the fate and degradation
of pesticides in the environment under field
conditions.
58-C
-------
2. Investigate and identify the major metabolites
in several animal groups before final regis-
tration of new products. This should include
at least one warm blooded (rat, mouse, rabbit,
dog) and one cold blooded animal (suitable
fish) and one or more common invertebrate
species, at least one of which is an aquatic
organism.
3. investigate and identify the major metabolites
in several plant groups before final registra-
tion is granted. For herbicides these should
include several terrestrial non-target species.
For both herbicides and pesticides, the meta-
bolites of several aquatic species of fila-
mentous algae as well as common diatoms and
unicellular algae of the primary producer group
should be identified.
4. Investigate and identify the nature of meta-
bolites and extent of decomposition of new pro-
ducts by common soil and water microorganisms
before final registration is granted.
59-C
-------
LITERATURE REFERENCES
1. "Cleaning Our Environment - The Chemical Basis for Action/1
a Report by the Subcommittee on Environmental Improvement,
Committee on Chemistry and Public Affairs, American Chemical
Society, Washington, D. C., 1969.
2. "Pesticides in the Soil: Ecology, Degradation and Move-
ment," International Symposium, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, 1970.
3. Report of the Secretary's Commission on Pesticides and
Their Relationship to Environmental Health, Parts I
and II, U. S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, December 1969.
4. Hill, D. W., and P. L. McCarthy. Anaerobic Degradation
of Selected Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Pesticides. J.W.P.C.F.
Vol. 39, 1967, pp. 1259-1277.
5. Wilson, B. R. Fate of Pesticides in the Environment -
A Progress Report. Trans. N. Y. Acad. Sci. Vol. 28,
1966, pp. 694-705.
6. Guenzi, W. D., and W. E. Beard. Anaerobic Biodegradation
of DDT to ODD in Soil. Science Vol. 156, 1967, pp. 1116-
1117.
7. Nash, R. G. and E. A. Woolson. Persistence of Chlorinated
Hydrocarbon Insecticides in Soils. Science Vol. 157,
1967, pp. 924-927.
8. Ko, W. H. and J. L. Lockwood. Conversion of DDT to ODD
in Soil and the Effect of These Compounds on Soil
Microorganisms. Con. J. Microbiol. Vol. 14, 1968, pp.
1069-1073.
9. Kokke, R. DDT: Its Action and Degradation in Bacterial
Populations. Nature Vol. 226, 1970, pp. 977-978.
10./ Wedemeyer, G. Dechlorination of DDT by Aerobacter aerogenes.
11. Science Vol. 152, 1966, pp. 647.
12. Wedemeyer, G. Dechlorination of DDT by Aerobacter aerogenes
I. Metabolic Products. Applied Microbiology Vol. 15,
1967, pp. 569-574.
13. Wedemeyer, G. Biodegradation of DDT Intermediates in
Dichlorodiphenylacetic Acid Metabolism by Aerobacter
aerogenes. Applied Microbiology Vol. 15, 1967, pp. 1494-
1495.
60-C
-------
14. Wedemeyer, G. Role of Intestinal Microflora in the
Degradation of DDT by Rainbow Trout. Life Sciences
Vol. 7, 1968, pp. 219-223.
15. Greer, G. L. and V. Paim. Degradation of DDT in Atlantic
Salmon. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada Vol. 25, 1968, pp. 2321-
2326.
16. Cherrington, A. D., V. Paim, and 0. T. Page. In vitro
Degradation of DDT by Intestinal Contents of Atlantic
Salmon. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada Vol. 26, 1969, pp. 47-
54.
17- Korte, F. Metabolism of Aldrin, Dieldrin and Endrin.
In Symposium on the Science and Technology of Residual
Insecticides in Food Production With Special Reference
to Aldrin and Dieldrin. Shell Chem. Co. 1967, pp. 102-
117.
18. Brooks, G. T. Perspectives of Cyclodiene Metabolism. In
Shell Symposium, 1967. Shell Chem. Co., pp. 89-101.
19. Deichmann, W. B. and J. L. Radomski. Retention of
Pesticides in Human Adipose Tissue - Preliminary Report.
Industr. Med. & Surg. Vol. 37, 1968, pp. 218-219.
20. Morris, J. E. Insecticide Residues in Raccoons and Some
Effects of Dieldrin on Raccoon Reproduction. M. S. Thesis,
University of Missouri, Columbia, 1968.
21. Allen, S. H. Effects of Dieldrin on Reproduction of
Confined Cottontails. M. S. Thesis, University of
Missouri, Columbia, 1968.
22. Matsumura, F. , K. C. Patil and G. M. Boush. Formation of
"Photodieldrin" by Microorganisms. Science Vol. 170,
1970, pp. 1206-1207.
23. Lane, C. E./ D. B. Seba and W. L. Hearn. Possible
Metabolites of Dieldrin in the Sailfin Mollie (Poecilia
latipinna). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. Vol. 133, 4,
1970, pp. 1375-1377.
24. Wedemeyer, G. Partial Hydrolysis of Dieldrin by Aerobacter
aerogenes. Applied Microbiol. Vol. 16, 1968, pp. 661-662.
25. Matsumura, F. , V. G. Khanvikar, K. C. Patil and G. M.
Boush. Metabolism of Endrin by Certain Soil Microorganisms,
J. Agric. Food Chem. Vol. 19, 1, 1971, pp. 27-31.
61-C
-------
26. Benson, W. R. Photolysis of Solid and Dissolved
Dieldrin. J. Agric. Food Chem. Vol. 19, 1, 1971, pp. 66-
72.
27. Yu, S. J., U. Kiigemagi, and L. C. Terriere. Oxidative
Metabolism of Aldrin and Isodrin by Bean Root Fractions.
Agr. and Food Chemistry Vol. 19, 1971, pp. 5-9.
28. Poonawalla. N. Y. and F. Korte. Metabolism of Trans-
Chlordane-l4C and Isolation and Identification of its
Metabolites From the Urine of Rabbits. J. Agr. and Food
Chem. Vol. 19, 3, 1971, pp. 467-470.
29. Dahm, P. A. Chemistry and Metabolism of Insecticides.
In Willrich and Smith , Eds. Agricultural Practices and
Water Quality. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa,
415 p., 1970.
30. Yang, R. S. H., E. Hodgson and W. C. Dauterman. Metabolism
in vitro of Diazinon and Diazoxon in Rat Liver. J. Agric.
Food Chem. Vol. 19, 1, 1971, pp. 10-13.
31. Miller, C. W., B. M. Zuckerman and A. I. Chairg. Water
Translocation of Diazinon C^-4 and Parathion S-" of a
Model Cranberry Bog and Subsequent Occurrence in Fish and
Mussels. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. Vol. 95, 1966, pp. 345-
349.
32. Fukuto, T. R. and R. L. Metcalf. Metabolism of Insecticides
in Plants and Animals. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. Vol. 160, 1969,
pp. 97-111.
33. Konrad, J. G., G. Chesters and D. E. Armstrong. Soil
Degradation of Malathion, a Phosphorodithioate Insecticide.
Soil Sci. Soc. of America Proceedings Vol. 33, 2, 1969,
pp. 259-262.
34. Hogan, J. W. and C. O. Knowles. Degradation of Organo-
phosphates by Fish Liver Phosphatases. J. Fish. Res. Bd.
Canada Vol. 25, 1968, pp. 1571-1579.
34A. Crosby, D. G. The Nonmetabolic Decomposition of Pesticides.
Ann. N. Y. Acad. Science Vol. 160, 1969, pp. 82-96.
34B. Freed, V. H. and M. L. Montgomery. Metabolism of Herbi-
cides. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Science Vol. 160, 1969, pp. 133-
137.
35. Wedemeyer, G. Uptake of 2, 4-D by Pseudomonas fluorescens.
Applied Microbiol. Vol. 14, 1966, pp. 486-491.
62-C
-------
36. Skipper, H. D. Hydrolysis and Biological Degradation of
Atrazine in Soils. Dissertation, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon, 1970.
37- Goswami, K. P. and R. E. Green. Microbial Degradation of
the Herbicide Atrazine and its 2-Hydroxy Analog in
Submerged Soils. Envir. Sci. and Tech. Vol. 5, 1971,
pp. 426-429.
38. Armstrong, D. E., G. Chesters, and R. F. Harris. Atrazine
Hydrolysis in Soil. Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. Proced. , Vol.
31, 1967, pp. 61-66.
39. Wingo, C. W. Persistence and Degradation of Dieldrin
and Heptachlor in Soil and Effects on Plants. Res. Bull.
914, University of Missouri, Agr. Exp. Station, Columbia,
1966.
40. Korschegen, L. J. Disappearance and Persistence of
Aldrin After Five Annual Applications. J. Wildlife Mgt.
Vol. 35, 1971, pp. 494-500.
41. Wiersma, G. B., H. Tai and P. F. Sand. Urban Pesticide
Residues in Soil. Pesticides Regulation Div., Office of
Pesticide Programs, EPA, Washington, D. C. 1971.
42. Lotse, E. G., D. A. Graetz, G. Chesters, G. B. Lee and
L. W. Newland. Lindane Adsorption by Lake Sediments.
43. Newland, L. W. The Adsorption and Degradation of Insecti-
cides by Lake Sediments. Dissertation, University of
Wisconsin, Madison, 1969.
43A. Eichelberger, J. W. and J. J. Lichtenberg. Persistence of
Pesticides in River Water. Envir. Sci. and Tech. Vol. 5,
1971, pp. 541-544.
44. Terriere, L. C. et al. The Persistence of Toxaphene in
Lake Water and Its Uptake by Aquatic Plants and Animals.
J. Agr. Food Chem. Vol. 14, 1, 1966, pp. 66-69.
45. Stewart, N. E., R. E. Milleran and W. P. Breese. Acute
Toxicity of the Insecticide Sevin and its Hydrolysis
Product 1-Napthol to Some Marine Organisms. Trans.
Amer. Fish Soc. Vol. 96, 1967, pp. 25-30.
46. Barrett, G. W. The Effects of an Acute Insecticide
Stress on a Semi-enclosed Grassland Ecosystem. Ecology
Vol. 49, 1968, pp. 1019-1035.
63-C
-------
47. Rosen, A. A. and H. F. Kroybill. Organic Pesticides in
the Environment. Advances in Chemistry Series, 60.
Symposium Amer. Chem. Soc. 1966, Washington, D. C. 309 p.
64-C
-------
APPENDIX D
AQUATIC IMPACT
Decidedly different features characterize the urban-
suburban contribution of pesticides to the water environ-
ment from those of agricultural use. The contractor's
survey and analysis of use patterns indicates that
roughly fifty percent of each type are used: organo-
chlorides, with relatively low acute toxicity and long
persistence, and carbamates and phosphates, with rela-
tively high acute toxicity and much shorter persistence.
This is in contrast to the results from a five state
agricultural area (EPA No. 68-01-0117) where the use of
organochlorides was more than fifty to seventy-five
times the use of organophosphates and carbamates com-
bined .
In keeping with the considerable diversity of com-
pounds employed by homeowners and home gardeners, we
have selected the most used compounds and will concen-
trate on them. Charts and/or tables attempting to sum-
marize all of the considerable body of information avail-
able in some areas would become unnecessarily confusing.
The contractor has, therefore, selected and combined
material in order to give the broadest possible coverage
1-D
-------
and to demonstrate particular points. Liberal use has
been made of numerous review articles, compilations, and
textbooks in addition to valuable literature references.
(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10)
The Aquatic Ecosystem
A thorough understanding of trophic structure and
trophic level dynamics is still wanting. An appreciation
of the complexity of trying to understand the effects of
a foreign chemical when applied to any natural, living
system, when we are really only at the threshold of under-
standing of the system itself, should be obvious.
It would appear to be imperative that we begin to
view the global implications of pesticide use more care-
fully. The agricultural use of pesticides to insure a
continued high yield of high quality food and fiber is
not at issue nor is the home and garden use to insure
pleasant surroundings, thrifty flowers and shrubs or
freedom from noxious pests. What is at issue is the kinds
of products used, the quantities applied and an implemen-
tation of practices which will insure minimum damage to
our fragile environment.
Although some studies have been conducted on basic
physiological responses of fishes and pesticides, such
studies are largely lacking from invertebrate animals.
2-D
-------
The oyster and some few other commercially valuable
species are exceptions. That these other, animals are
vital links in the chain of concentration of pesticides
residue has been amply demonstrated. The point which
should be made, perhaps, is that basic physiology —
especially as it relates to growth and population dyna-
mics, may be the most important feature. The good health
of any food chain or trophic structure rests on the good
health and perpetuation of any individual trophic level.
Thus, we believe that more fundamental experiments should
be instituted to determine the long-range effects of sub-
lethal exposure on basic invertebrate groups, especially
as such exposure relates to intrinsic rates of natural
increase. Unfortunately, we know relatively little about
the basic physiology of these organisms, let alone their
population dynamics.
Fundamental to our discussion and directly relevant
to the different organochloride compounds, is the question
of whether other compounds (i.e., cyclo-dienes) follow the
picture of distribution observed in the much more widely
examined family of DDT and its residues.
Of equal impact, we think, are the seasonal aspects
of pesticide residues, accumulation and natural toxicity.
Virtually no data is available to help identify how sea-
sonally altered metabolism and basic physiology may equip
3-D
-------
an animal to cope with pesticide exposure.
Several additional points are made which deserve
our attention. The suggestion is made that the concen-
tration of pesticide in birds is in equilibrium between
intake and excretion (and metabolism) of insecticide
residues. Thus, if the rate of metabolism and excretion
is greater in certain vertebrates than in invertebrates
or food of the next trophic level, no concentration or
biological amplification would be seen. One assumes that
the reverse is true in some, but not all, food chains,
since many examples are seen which indicate a progressive
accumulation and concentration up the food chain or
trophic level.
Clearly much additional research is necessary to
identify the fate of parent compounds and residues at
each trophic level. This is particularly true as it
relates to the rate of turnover of the compounds.
A step in the right direction is seen in the recent
work of Metcalf and co-workers (11). The model ecosystem
they propose could be very useful in relatively rapid
screening tests of large numbers of compounds as well as
in identification of the fate and chemical nature of
metabolites. We feel that the worth of such an approach
could be improved tremendously if all levels were in-
vestigated (i.e., bacteria, fungus, protozoans, etc.).
4-D
-------
Short-Term Effects
It is possible that an adequate distinction between
acute and chronic effects of pesticides could create as
much of a problem as the distinction between degradation
and persistence. Levels which were just barely sub-
acute under one set of circumstances might be extremely
toxic under others. What is acute to one animal species
may have little effect on another under one set of en-
vironmental conditions with the toxicity reversed under
other conditions, etc. So complex does this become that
valid comparisons between data are often impossible. Of
particular interest is the fact that data collected by
two different authors often conflicts so badly that com-
parison between what purports to be the same is likewise
impossible.
A point source of highly toxic compounds, such as
those generated by heavy residential use, even though
they degrade quite rapidly in soil or water, could,
under appropriate conditions, constitute a serious health
hazard for aquatic life. It should also be noted in
passing that if damage to the aquatic environment could
be demonstrated either by outright death or reduced popu-
lation of organisms, the suspect material, if it was a
rapidly degradable compound, would, in most cases, be
5-D
-------
degraded before adequate identification could be com-
pleted. The same is not true, of course, for the more
persistent organochlorides. Of particular impact here
is the fact that the same point source, whether it be
sewage outfall or storm water drainage, could, through
its heavy load of acutely toxic compounds, so weaken or
debilitate aquatic organisms that lower levels of organo-
chlorides would now become more lethal through the com-
bined or synergistic effects of both. Such a problem
does not appear to exist in areas of intensive row crop
cultivation generally.
It has been demonstrated that peak rainfall and
time of application,coinciding as they do over much of
the country, presents a particularly threatening situa-
tion during the spring and early summer. It should be re-
membered that this is the time of year of maximum growth
and food conversion for fishes as well as the period
of most active reproduction, incubation, and develop-
ment of young.
Examination of population densities and river dis-
charge patterns suggests that East Coast estuaries stand
to suffer the greatest potential harm during the months
of April, May, June, and July when the greatest amount
of soil is disturbed and application of pesticides is
the greatest. The impact of suburban and urban use here
6-D
-------
is contrasted to the interior drainage of the Mississippi
Valley and associated drainages, where lesser populations
in suburban areas add to the already heavy load of agri-
cultural chemicals. These combined contributions pose
a more serious threat to fresh waters of the interior of
this basin than to the Gulf coastal estuaries, the more
toxic compounds generally having been degraded during their
time of travel to coastal estuarine waters.
Certain portions of central and southern California
estuarine areas have a high potential for harm through
the combined actions of heavy residential use of toxic
compounds, heavy, intensive agricultural use of both
toxic and less toxic compounds ana the outfall from
manufacture and formulation of highly persistent but
less toxic chemicals.
Short-term effects, then, could be noted in the
outright death of aquatic organisms in some local static
situations. The effects of pesticide translocation re-
sulting from heavy rainfall would probably have little
effect on the aquatic environment due to the consider-
able dilution involved.
Examination of Table 1 indicates that considerable
variation in response is possible. Two species; trout
and sunfish, were chosen because they are supposed to re-
present extremes of environmental requirements. In a very
7-D
-------
TABLE 1
RESPONSE OF TWO FISH SPECIES TO PESTICIDES
AS MEASURED BY IC,Q (Various Sources)
Heptachlor
DDT
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Lindane
Dicofol
Toxaphene
Aldrin
Endrin
Parathion
Methyl
Parathion
Malathion
Dimethoate
Diazinon
Carbaryl
2,4-D
(Butyl Ester)
Dicamba
Atrazine
BG
RBT
RBT
RBT
RBT
BG
BG
RBT
RBT
BG
BG
RBT
RBT
RBT
BG
BG
RBT
RBT
RBT
BG
RBT
RBT
BG
BG
BG
RBT
RBT
BG
RBT
BG
RBT
RBT
BG
BG
BG
BG
RBT
BG
BG
RBT
BG
RBT
RBT
BG
BG
RBT
RBT
BG
96
48LC50
24 50
T r»3
48 50
96LC50
«,LCJ-ft
LC50
24ir
24 50
fc*l _ _ JU
48 50
LCc«
48LC
24LC50
24LC5°
48LC50
24LC50
48IC50
LC50
48LC
LC50
24LC
48LC5°
LC50
24 LC
48^50
24 50
T n
48LC50
48LC
48 50
LC
48LC
48LCcn
96LC5Q
96LC50
24
96LC50
24^50
96LC50
LC50
48TC
24LC5°
24LC5°
24LC
48LC5°
24LC50
96LC
96LC50
LC50
48LC
48 50
r p
LC50
48LC
48LC50
LC50
48LC
9fiLC-n
0.019 ppm
0.009 ppm
0.015 ppm
7 . 3 ppm
0.007 ppm
0.008 ppm
0.010 ppm
0.022 ppm
0.010 ppm
0.0034 ppm
0.0055 ppm
0.019 ppm
0.030 ppm
0.018 ppm
0.100 ppm
0.076 ppm
100 ppm
0.05 ppm
0.0028 ppm
0.018 ppm
0.036 ppm
0.003 ppm
0.096 ppm.
0.0083 ppm
0.7 ppm
1.2 ppm
2 ppm
0.047 ppm
2.75 ppm
8 . 72 ppm
0.130 ppm
0.170 ppm
0.140 ppm
0.103 ppm
9.6 ppm
28 ppm
19 ppm
0.052 ppm
0.030 ppm
0.380 ppm
6.76 ppm
4.38 ppm
1.1 ppm
1 . 3 ppm
130 ppm
35 ppm
12.6 ppm
10 ppm
8-D
-------
real sense they do; their responses to temperature and
dissolved oxygen often being cited. In truth, many of
the physiological factors which determine whether or not
one fish species will have a high oxygen requirement,
or require lower or higher ambient temperature, have
not yet been determined. We can identify some of the
obvious differences - we do not know the reasons
behind the differences. The artificiality of such lists
*»
is further exemplified by examination of the species
composition of animal forms making up any particular en-
vironment. For example, bluegill, a typical warm water
fish form, is often found in combination with other fish
species which are considerably less tolerant to levels of
certain pesticides which may have been found harmless
to the bluegill. It would not be surprising to find
fishes which would be even less tolerant under their
environmental conditions than would be the trout under
its typical environmental conditions. It can be seen
that the two fishes chosen do show considerable dif-
ferences in their responses to pesticides; lethal concen-
trations which yield 24.48 or 96 hours LC5Qfor organo-
phosphates, carbamates, or the listed herbicides will
probably never be found as the result of home and garden
use of pesticides. Such concentrations will undoubtedly
be reached in certain local conditions (golf course or
9-D
-------
country club ponds, city park ponds, etc.) as a result of
careless application of pesticides for vector control.
These situations are not particularly important to the
overall use of pesticides since the calculated rates of
degradation and metabolism should insure that the ap-
plied doses, no matter how carelessly used, would not
build up or persist for any period of time.
All pesticides appear to be accumulated (whether
absorbed or adsorbed) onto and into living material at
extremely rapid rates. What portion actually is phy-
siologically potent to the organism is open to question.
Thus, numerous authors have demonstrated concentration
of pesticides by algae and bacteria of 500 to 1000 times
within hours of application(12,13,14,15). Low concentra-
tion (1 ppm) appears to allow greater accumulation -
apparently having little identifiable effect on the
organisms. (16) Higher concentrations (100 ppm), while
they apparently do not kill algae cells, do reduce photo-
synthesis effectively (17 ). Since growth (new cells)
in algae is dependent upon photosynthetic activity and the
accumulation of certain levels of food reserves, it is
important that we understand effects of pesticides on
these organisms. It can be seen that it is important
to identify how an experiment is conducted before at-
tempting a statement of effects. Thus, while one author
10-D
-------
shows no effect on respiration at one level of pesticide
exposure, another shows reduced photosynthesis at the
same or an even lowered level of exposure. At present,
reduced carbon fixation has been observed in many marine
and freshwater diatoms, filamentous algae and others
including desmids and blue-green algae.
Algae and other photosynthesizing plants as well
as fungi and bacteria probably acquire pesticides by
absorption across limiting membranes; the relative insolu-
bility in water and the high solubility in lipids creat-
ing an apparently "active" accumulation. Whether active
transport or passive diffusion is involved is still open
to question. In any event, many algal forms are observed
to concentrate pesticides to quantities far in excess
of that of surrounding water. Data from field studies
suggests concentrations over one thousand times water are
possible. Controlled laboratory studies have demon-
strated concentrating abilities of 120-270 times the
medium in seven days for 2 species of Blue-green algae,
1 Desmid, 1 filamentous species, (16 ) while other studies
with natural populations have demonstrated that benthic
algal species can concentrate at least forty times the
water concentration. Observations in Scottish streams
following the dumping of sheep dip have indicated that
diatoms of the aufwuch3 can concentrate dieldrin to over
11-D
-------
1200 times that of water in less than one day- (13 )
Several species of aerobic floe forming bacteria were
observed to absorb aldrin from solutions and concentrate
625 times the media in 20 minutes.
Thus, Protozoan species, especially those which
feed on bacteria, can ingest considerable quantities of
pesticide in very short periods. Diffusion through or
across the general body surface as well as pinocytotic
activity are other active routes of uptake.
Low concentrations of DDT (10 mg/70 ml) apparently
do not inhibit growth of Euglena, but caution is empha-
sized here since it was found that the suspending medium,
ethanol, was responsible for growth anomalies observed.
Chlorella and Euglena were observed to adsorb and ab-
sorb 60 to 80 percent of the quantity of lindane present
in aqueous solutions. Concentration in the food chain
at this level is specifically indicated but hydrolysis and
microbiological degradation is not ruled out.
The results observed are not consistent within plant
toxonomic groups, however, and no generalization can be
made other than there seems to be an effect on photo-
synthesis. Although quantities of many pesticides in
water (especially chlorinated hydrocarbons) are rarely
over the parts per billion range, the propensity of these
forms to adsorb high levels of pesticides rapidly and
12-D
-------
then affect absorption by simple diffusion and accumulate
concentrations in the parts per million range is suffi-
cient to suggest that many pesticides, at levels currently
monitored, could reduce photosynthesis under appropriate
circumstances.
The fantastic ability of many zooplankters and ben-
thic forms to accumulate pesticides from very dilute
solutions is well known. To accomplish biomagnification,
the organism must survive initial exposure. Table 2 lists
some typical ranges of responses to acute exposure to
pesticides. Application of "safe use" levels for the
least resistant forms will probably confer some degree of
safety on other organisms of the same group. A wide range
of response is seen, however, and all aquatic forms are
considerably more susceptible to exposure than terrestrial
forms.
It would appear that, except for local situations
of extremely heavy application or accident, there is
little likelihood of acute damage to aquatic forms result-
ing from the normal use of home and garden formulations
under inland conditions. Carelessness, intentional dump-
ing, or flagrant violation of manufacturers1 specific
directions could certainly result in local damage from
any of the formulations. The potential for damage ap-
pears to be greater with some of the organophosphor-us or
13-D
-------
TABLE 2-D
RESPONSE OF AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES TO PESTICIDE EXPOSURE
DDT
24
Carbaryl
48
48
LC_0- Anthropods (including aquatic insect larvae)
0.003 ppm to 0.041 pptn.
5Q- do 0.00036 to 0.019 ppm.
LC5Q- crayfish - 0.6ppm
Stream insects 0.5-1.0 Ib/A - serious population
alterations, mortality (see text).
Heptachlor
48
LC
'BLC
Lindane
48
LC
48LC
Chlordane
Toxaphene
Dieldrin
Endrin
Parathion
Methyl
Malathion
Dime tho ate
Diazinon
48
48
•48
48
48
48
48
48
48
F.
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
SO"
50"
50~
50"
50"
50~
50"
50~
50"
50"
SO"
50"
^50"
W.
48LC
48
48
48
48
48
48
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
LC
Aquatic anthropods
do - 6 to 50 ppm.
Waterfleas 0.460 to
0.006-0.10 ppm
0.520 ppm
Other aquatic anthropods 0.008 to 0.460 ppm
Aquatic anthropods
Waterflea 0.020 to
waterflea 0.015 to
aquatic anthropods
Aquatic anthropods
0
0
0
0
0
Waterflea ea. , 0.240
Aquatic anthropods
Waterflea 0.020 ppm
Crawfish 0.3 ppm.
mussels survived 0.12
50"
50"
50"
50"
50"
50"
50"
Aquatic anthropods
Waterflea 0.0004 to
Aquatic anthropods
0
.020 to 0.080 ppm
.029
.019 ppm.
.007 to 0.07 ppm.
.0013 to 1.0 ppm.
ppm.
.00096 to 0.027 ppm.
ppm 4 hrs.
0
0
.006 to 0.04 ppm
0.0048 ppm.
.002 to 20.0 ppm.
Waterflea 0.0018 ppm.
Aquatic anthropods
Aquatic anthropods
0
0
.140 to 1.0 ppm.
.060 to 0.500 ppm.
Waterflea 0.0009 ppm.
48
48
LC..- Aquatic anthropods 0.0013 to 3.0 ppm.
LC50- Waterflea 0.006 to 0.008 ppm.
'EC50- Various mussels 2.0 to 3.0 ppm.
Dicamba
Atrazine
24
LC-.- Amphipod 10,000 ppb.
48
2,4-D EC50~ Brown Shrimp 2.0 ppm 10% mortality or
paralysis
1-4 ppm - reduced populations of common aquatic
insect larvae 50% after 1 week.
1 ppb - apparently no effect (see text) .
0.5 - 2.0 ppm reduced pond clam population over
85%.
1.0 ppm 96 hrs. no effect on growth of oyster.
48LC5()- Waterflea/3,600 ppb.
0.5 to 2.0 ppm reduced common benthic organisms 50%.
1.0 ppm/48 hrs. Brown Shrimp 30% mortality
Considerable synergism suggested between atrazine
and other herbicides against test beam plants.
What effect these combinations may have on algae
or other aquatic plants in unknown.
14-D
-------
carbamate compounds initially - the fact that they degrade
rather rapidly in the environment is hopeful.
It is entirely possible that coastal cities during
periods of peak residential use of pesticides could,
through their combined contributions, have an immediate
and direct harmful effect on estuarine animals. Thus, it
has been shown that quantities of insecticides designed
to eliminate, but were not sufficient to kill pestiferous
estuarine insects, were in fact sufficient to kill eggs
and larvae of bivalves, reduce photosynthetic activity,
and immobilize fishes. The ranges of toxicity to organo-
chlorine insecticides was compared to that of fresh water
forms and was distinctly greater in toxicity than other
agricultural or industrial wastes or the organophosphorus
compounds. Marine crustaceans generally were found to
be much more sensitive to organophosphorus compounds
than marine fishes. It has been further suggested that
marine molluscs may be particularly susceptible to ex-
posure as demonstrated by a reduction in reproductive
potential following a sublethal exposure. (18) The
fact that many of these forms are found to be more re-
sistant than many marine teleosts or crustaceans is re-
duced by the fact that the number of eggs produced was
severely reduced by some organochlorine compounds. En-
drin and dieldrin were particularly more potent than
15-D
-------
lindane or DDT. (19 ) Young juvenile crabs were found to
be much more sensitive to carbaryl than juveniles or
adults and delayed expression was evidenced here as with
other forms. ( 20) Of particular impact is the fact that
crabs have been noticed to suffer harmful effects after
feeding on clams previously paralyzed by pesticide ex-
posure.
The hydrolysis produce of carbaryl, 1-napthol, was
found to be less toxic than the parent compound to crus-
taceans , but more toxic to molluscs and fishes. (21)
Organophosphorus compounds, with the exception of
dioxathion, were consistently less toxic to marine teleosts
than organochlorides under standard conditions of sali-
nity, temperature and pH (Table 3-D) . (22) Eisler states
that the toxicity to these fishes is intermediate between
the highly susceptible marine decopod crustaceans and
relatively resistant marine molluscs, and recommends
that all future studies on marine organisms examine the
effects on at least one animal from each of the distinct
taxonomic groups. The contractor heartily concurs.
Many factors affect the determined LC5Q values. These
include temperature, salinity, pH, degradation rate
of compound, and toxicity of any possible metabolites.
These were found to yield distinctly different results
with one species (Muiranichog) where Organophosphorus com-
16-D
-------
TABLE 3-0
SUMMARY OF LC50(96h) VALUES OF SEVEN ORGANOCHLORINE AMD FIVE ORGANOPHOSPHORUS INSECTICIDES VERSUS
SEVEN SPECIES OF ESTUARINE FISHES AT 24e/00 SALINITY, 20°C., AND pH 8.0 (22)
Insecticide
Organochlorine :
endrin
p,p'-DDT
heptachlor
dieldrin
lindane
aldrin
methoxyehlor
Organophosphorus :
dioxathion
malathion
Phosdrin
DDVP
methyl parathion
Atlantic
Silver side
0.05
0.4
3
5
9
13
33
6
125
320
1,250
5,700
Bluehead
0.1
7
0.8
6
14
12
13
35
37
74
1,440
12,300
Striped
Killifish
0.3
1
32
4
28
17
30
15
250
75
2,300
13,800
American
Eel
0.6
4
10
0.9
56
5
12
6
82
65
1,800
16,900
Mummichog
1.0
5
50
10.5
60
8
46
20
240
300
2,680
58,000
Northern
Puffer
3.1
89
188
34
35
36
150
75
3,250
800
2,250
75,800
-------
pounds showed increased mortality as temperature increased
from 10°C-30°C and also with increase in salinity from
12 Veo to 36 Voo- Organochlorine insecticides,
on the other hand, showed the greatest toxicity at inter-
mediate temperatures and lowest at intermediate pH. (22)
The important point here is that this kind of valuable
experimentation is largely lacking from toxicity studies.
Without an assessment of these environmental parameter st,
the usual toxicity studies fail to be of much practical
value.
Differences in methodology, choice of test species,
season of collection and maintenance, period of acclima-
tion and conditions under which conducted, as well as
diversity of response observed between species, all are
sufficiently great to preclude strict comparisons be-
tween data (22).
Some points considered valuable, largely from the
literature (23 ), are included in summary.
1. It has been pointed out that samples of stan-
dard insecticides can vary by as much as 10 to
100 times in their toxicity - even from the
same source.
2. Results of acute toxicity should take into ac-
count the effects of latent sublethal effects.
It has been recommended that evaluation should
18-D
-------
be for a period of 13 to 20 days (LC5Q, 96 plus
240 hours recovery time to 10 days continuous
plus 10 days recovery). The post exposure
mortality for some marine fishes has been found
to vary considerably with the pesticide used
and the conditions employed.
3. Certainly temperature and pH should be included
in all studies as minimal environmental varia-
tions for all freshwater studies. Salinity
must be included for marine and estuarine
studies.
4. The practice of reporting the same data two
different ways in the same paper (or review)
is to be deplored. For example, 48 hours
ECg. for the waterflea (species) reported 20
ppb and one paragraph later the 48 hours LCcn
for waterflea at 0.020 ppm when the EC5Q (im-
mobilization) is the end point for the deter-
mination of the LCcn« Such a practice adds
unnecessary confusion to an already difficult
situation.
5. Federally sponsored research should stress
obtaining maximum yield of information for money
expended. Thus/ once a person or group has
gone to the trouble of reviewing 96 or 240 hours
19-D
-------
assays, the work has just begun. it is impera-
tive that after the hard, han<=i WOrk of setting
up these assays has been Uone that additional
information be routinely 'lathered. Enzyme
levels, tissue burdens, Pathologies, etc. are
suggested. Performance di,ta (i.e., work, etc.)
also suggested as being dt sirable to totally
assess the effects of expc.gure>
-------
Long-Term Effects
Chronic exposure to low levels (sublethal) of
organochlorides has been shown to reduce photosynthesis
in both marine and fresh water algal species. Several
bacterial species have developed an induced resistance
to these compounds. No definitive studies have been
conducted to demonstrate the long-term effects of pesti-
cides on phytoplankton or periphyton species or community
structure and/or metabolism. It appears that no long-
term, low level exposure studies have been conducted in
laboratories, either.
Aquatic Crustacea, a major contributor to zooplank-
ton, are generally more resistant to organochlorides
than to organophosphate or carbamates. A notable exception
is their extreme sensitivity to DDT. Fishes, on the
other hand, are generally less susceptible to organo-
phosphates and carbamates than to organochlorides. A
significant point is the fact that many of the common
zooplanktons are capable of accumulating quantities of
organochlorides several thousand times the concentration
in ambient water within one day.
Aquatic insect larvae, another important component
of aquatic food chains, are observed to exhibit a wide
variety of responses, with the more fastidious species
21-D
-------
being generally more susceptible to intoxication than
the less demanding species. All forms examined so far
are capable of considerable degrees of bio-magnification.
To date, an insufficient number of different groups have
been examined to make a really valid statement.
Fishes have been the most widely examined group of
aquatic animals due to their economic importance and
their position as upper trophic level consumers. Studies
have identified an alarming array of responses to long-
term, low level exposure. Among these are, behavioral
alteration disturbances, especially nitrogen metabolism;
endocrine imbalance, particularly in regard to osmoregu-
latory failure and, mineral imbalance and reproductive
failure due to steroid hormone disturbance.
Common to both fishes and other lower trophic level
animals, has been the reduction of growth rate generally,
as a result of altered food conversion; altered repro-
ductive potential, both in terms of number of eggs pro-
duced as well as survival of young.
A feature common to all aquatic organisms would
appear to be reduced fitness and increased susceptibility
to disease, capture or the effect of parasitic infection
as a result of long-term, low level exposure.
The above heading should probably read, relatively
22-D
-------
longer term effects - for there is a fine line between
acute and chronic exposure.
It has been demonstrated that on a weight basis,
many elements of lower trophic levels, primary producer
groups, and second level or primary consumer groups,
have the ability to concentrate pesticides at a higher
rate than higher trophic levels. This point is vitally
important since exposure, even for a very brief period,"
will result in some portion of the pesticide load being
incorporated into the food chain immediately. The remain-
ing, often larger, portion is bound, at least for a time,
to inorganic and organic particles. Release from these
sources into the food chain follows at a slower rate.
Astounding magnifications have occurred in only three
days. Authors have stressed the impact of such magnifica-
tion on succeeding trophic levels; 1) rapid accumulation
during periods of limited pollution exposure 2) ability
to concentrate even at extremely low ambient levels, 3)
source of biological magnification of degradation products.
Thus, the conversion of aldrin to dieldrin was 25% accom-
plished in three days and the degradation of DDT to DDE
was 85% accomplished in the Mayfly nymph in three days.
Additional metabolites were recovered from other organisms.
23-D
-------
Cladocera (waterflea) subjected to less than one-
fourth the concentration of aldrin as DDT, showed a
two-fold biological magnification in one day for a rate
of accumulation over eight times as fast as DDT. Simi-
larly, Chironomus sp. and Hexagenia concentrated aldrin
about four times faster than DDT in one day. The total
biological magnification of Hexagenia bilineata was
approximately equal for aldrin and DDT over the three-
day period, but was only one-half the total magnification
for aldrin in three days. This later fact may reflect
the suspicion that equilibrium storage capacity was being
reached, or that once a compound has entered the body,
a differential storage is possible. It should be noted
that dipterous larvae and Cladocera are two of the pri-
mary foods of young fish, in addition to being the two
greatest concentrations observed. In any event, magni-
fications of 5,000 to 140,000 time in three days is suf-
ficient cause for concern. See Table 4-D.
Until we know more about the ultimate fate of meta-
bolic degradative compounds, little will be known about
the impact of these compounds on aquatic organisms. We
do know that complete degradation into totally harmless
compounds usually follows rapidly after primary metabolic
attack in the case of organophosphates and carbamates.
24-D
-------
TABLE 4-D
REPRESENTATIVE BIOLOGICAL CONCENTRATION OF
PESTICIDES BY LIVING ORGANISMS
Compound
DDT
Toxaphene
Dieldrin
lindane
Aldrin
Heptachlor
Endrin
Chlordane
Parathion
Malathion
uimetnoate
Diazinon
Carbaryl
2, 4-D
Atrazine
Organism
Extremely Variable
E. Oyster
Clear Lake, California-
Plankton
Small pish
Predaceous Birds & Fish
Deep Lake
Aquatic Plants
Invertebrates
Shallow Lake
Plants
Invertebrates
Trout
E. Oyster
Biq Bear Lake. Calif. :
Plants
Zooplankton
Fish
Bird Fat
Rainbow Trout
E. Oyster
Freshwater Algae
Brown Trout
Gill
Muscle
Caddis Fly
Freshwater Mussel
E. Oyster
Fish 50% lost in 2 d.
Brown Trout
Gill
Muscle
Caddis Fly
Algae
Bacteria (absorption)
20 minutes
E . Oyster
Bluegill
Fathead Minnow
E. Oyster
Algae
E. Oyster
Freshwater Mussel
Fundulus
Mussel
Fish
50% applied lost in 1 da
•_ r i
Fundulus (50% lost 1 wk.)
Freshwater Mussel
_• i_ >_
Fish
Mussel
~
Effective Co
Concentration
0.1 ppb/40 d.
80
2 ppb
2 ppb
0.05 ppm/10 d.
0.1 to 0.2 ppm
.002 ppm
0.001 ppm
1 ppm/7 d.
.0069 ppm/l-7d.
.0069 ppm/l-7d.
.0069 ppm/l-7d.
2 ppb
0.05 ppm/10 d.
.0008 ppm/l-7d.
.0008 ppm/l-7d.
.0008 ppm/l-7d.
1 ppm/7 d.
0.01 ppm/10 d.
0.05 ppm
0.015 ppb
0.001 ppm/10 d.
1 ppm/7 d.
0.01 ppm/10 d.
3.4 ppb
0.12 ppm, 4 hrs.
0.12 ppm, 4 hrs.
y
0.32 ppm
0.32 ppm
1 ppb
1 ppb
ncentration
Factor
70,000
265x
500x
, 000-85, OOOx
8,500x
2,500x
500x
l,500x
15, OOOx
2,920x
lOx
lOOx
8,500x
3,300x
l,000x
150x
3, OOOx
300x
3, OOOx
500x
60x
5, OOOx
2, OOOx
l,500x
150x
625x
17,600x
315x
10, OOOx
l,000x
170x
7,300x
2, OOOx
8 Ox
5 Ox
lOx
2x
150x
380-700X
25-D
-------
Many herbicides show intermediate persistence;
addition of these compounds to public waterways could
seriously reduce growth and photosynthetic activity in
aquatic plants. Many cases are on record where heavy
applications of herbicides caused heavy "die-off" of
aquatic plants, with subsequent high oxygen demand gen-
erated by the mass decomposition. Such a situation has
been previously described as being potentially harmful
to aquatic animals in that the lowered oxygen content
weakens animals and makes them more susceptible to pesti-
cide effects in lower concentrations. It is doubtful
whether the suburban contribution of herbicides will
ever be responsible for mass "die-offs" but low level,
chronic exposure could easily reduce plant growth and
vitality, thereby seriously impeding one of our natural
purification systems.
The annual application of organochloride compounds
(30-60 million pounds) by home gardeners, home pest con-
trol applicators and municipal authorities, although it
is less than the agricultural use of these compounds,
nevertheless makes a considerable contribution to po-
tential environmental contamination.
26-D
-------
Toxaphene, in addition to being a potent direct
pesticide, can be accumulated by some aquatic food chain
organisms to quantities capable of causing toxic re-
sponses to fish when allowed to feed. Both Daphnia and
mixed periphyton communities were able to accumulate ,t
sufficient toxaphene to kill test fishes. That accumu-
lated by the periphyton killed all within 24 hours after
the community had been subjected to repeated, sublethal,
doses (0.01 ppm) for 336 hours and Daphnia subjected to
0.01-0.02 for 120-312 hours, caused some mortality. In-
sect larvae and planktonic algae did not accumulate
enough toxaphene to be lethal to test fishes. (24)
It is suggested that single, sublethal exposures
to food organisms, were insufficient to cause death,
while chronic sublethal exposure probably kept up with
or exceeded detoxification and hence allowed sufficient
accumulation to occur in the case of Daphnia and peri-
phyton. (25)
Heptachlor applied at varying rates (high to low)
appeared in fish flesh very rapidly after application
and reached its maximum concentration between three
days to seven days. A precipitous decline of the parent
27-D
-------
molecule is observed following one week's exposure to
fifty-six days, when virtually none could be found. The
generation of heptachlor epoxide and related compounds
(hydrolysis or metabolites?) is maximal from one to two
weeks following application. A graphic plot of the
data for two different ponds suggests that much of the
heptachlor was probably quickly adsorbed and absorbed
by other elements of the ecosystem becoming available
to fish after the initial high loading of heptachlor. (26)
Chronic exposure to malathion by warm water fishes
and aquatic invertebrates in one study demonstrated
that losses of fish could not be correlated with treat-
ment of 0.002 ppm or 0.02 ppm when treated biweekly.
Pishes grew well and reproduced. Aquatic insect larvae,
initially unaffected, showed serious reductions in
numbers after the third and fourth treatment at the
high exposure level. It was calculated that normal
field application rates could create concentrations
which could severely reduce aquatic invertebrates and
possibly kill fish. The pH of the ponds was high
enough (8.5) to permit rather rapid degradation of the
applied chemical. (21) While 20 ppb (.02 ppm) had
no effect on bluegill in the above studies, 40 to 80 ppb
28-D
-------
were directly lethal to bluegill in another study (28)
which employed flowing water under laboratory conditions.
Fishes held in 20 ppb resulted in death to males which
suggests that the 20 ppb applied in outdoor ponds (27)
was probably never realized as an effective dose level
for bluegill under those conditions. Small deformations
occurring in 10 ppb were sufficient cause to judge
this concentration unsafe under these conditions. There-
fore, concentrations calculated to be safe fell between
3.6 ppb and 7.4 ppb of malathion. All concentrations,
including those considered safe, depressed brain acetyl-
cholinesterase activity.
Several additional points concerning malathion
are in order. The extreme variability observed within
the same vertebrate class, i.e., fishes, creates an
inherent problem with classification of cold water fishes
and warm water fishes. Although such a scheme would
appear to delineate two ecologically different and dis-
tinct sets of environmental quality, it does not, how-
ever, prove to be particularly valuable in establishing
use levels of particular pesticides. For example, al-
though trout and salmon are generally much more suscepti-
ble to malathion than many warm water fishes (0.1-0.2
29-D
-------
ppm LC50) as compared to 6.0-12.0 ppm) Table 5, it is
seen that sunfish, perch and bass are affected by ap-
proximately the same levels (0.103-0.285 ppm) as the
trout. The fact that the waters normally inhabited
by these fish is subject to more varied extremes in
temperature, both seasonally and daily, would appear
to mitigate against the same criteria for toxicity
being applied to both. Species of catfish, carp and
minnows are found to be 30-50 times more resistant to
malathion as their other warm water associates (bass,
perch and sunfish).
Another feature which emerges from an analysis of
these and similar tables, is that of a suitable, safe
level of use or contamination. Figures of from 1/10 to
1/100 of the LC value for any group of animals are
generally regarded as adequate to protect the animals
from any acutely toxic effects. (This, of course, says
little about chronic effects.) Levels of contamination
(1/100 of LC for LM bass, for example) are found to
be acutely toxic to many stone flies, waterfleas, amphi-
pods, and mayflies. While the aquatic insect larvae may
survive as populations due to the variable number of eggs
laid and different stages of development - organisms
30-D
-------
TABLE 5-D
THE LC5Q FOR VARIOUS PISH TO MALATHION (2)
Fish Species
Exposure tC»
Tline (hr) (ppm)
Source
Harlequin fish.
Brook trout
Coho salmon..
Blucgill
Rcdcar sun fish
Rainbow trout
Brown trout
Yellow perch
Largemouth bass.
Carp
Fathead minnow.
Channel catfish ..
Goldfish
Fathead minnow.
24 10
48 0.0195
96 0. 101
96 0. 103
96 0. 17
96 0. 170
0.200
0.263
0.285
6.59
8.65
8.97
96
96
96
96
96
96
96 10.7
96 12.5
Black bullhead 96 12.9
Alabaster, 19G9
FWPCA, 1968
Macek and
McAllister, 1970
Henderson, Pick-
ering and
Tarzwell, 1959
Macck and
McAllister, 1970
31-D
-------
which compose the fundamental elements of the zooplankton
community (Waterflea) may be seriously affected. While
malathion at 0.1 ppm did not appear to exert an inhibitory
effect on mixed algal culture total growth, it was con-
verted to malaoxon (the toxic chemical). As such, the
algae which forms much of the food for aquatic micro-
crustacea, while itself not affected by the pesticide,
can convey toxic quantities of the chemical to the next
trophic level of the food chain.
It has previously been pointed out that malathion
produces different compounds upon hydrolysis, depending
upon the pH of the medium. The relative toxicities of
the different degradative products have been tested on very
few animals at this time. The following hypothetical
situation is proposed to identify the potential for harm.
Assume late spring and early summer application of mala-
thion near natural water (a pond), followed by relatively
heavy rainfall. The addition of fertilizer elements from
run-off plus the warmer temperatures are known to stimu-
late growth of phytoplankton and emergent vegetation;
this stimulated growth is further known to make demands
upon the free carbon dioxide content of water with conse-
quent elevation of the pH. Alkaline pH fosters the hy-
drolysis of malathion.
Data is quite meager for LC(-n acute toxicity measure-
32-D
-------
ments over a range of environmental tolerable pH's - but
we know enough about the basic physiology of these or-
ganisms to know that some degree of stress in encountered
as the pH rises above 85.
Now, we have a situation of warmed water and increased
activity enhanced photosynthesis, elevated pH, toxic hy-
drolysis products, and an already slightly distressed
animal. It is sufficient to point out that measurements
of the total effect of this kind of combination of factors
have not been made at present. We do know enough to iden-
tify the fact that LC,-0 measurements made under rigid labo-
raotry situations do not begin to cope with the aforemen-
tioned conditions.
Direct synergistic action resulting in increased
toxicity has been presented (29 ) which indicates that one
of the basic hydrolysis products, dithyl fumarate (which
has a TL of 4.5 wg/1 over twice the TL for the parent
malathion and a result which would be produced by the hy-
drolysis of 64 percent of the parent TL concentration) ,
and the parent malathion act to produce an effect greater
than either one alone. Other proposed hydrolysis pro-
ducts are either more toxic than the parent or sufficiently
toxic and capable of being produced in sufficient quanti-
ties to cause long-term damage. The hypothetical situa-
tion proposed sequential application of malathion 2-3
33-D
-------
days apart which could result in hydrolysis products and
the parent compound being washed into a common receiving
stream is not altogether fanciful. To date, no data is
available on either animals for either the products of mala-
thion or possible synergistic effects. Table 6 is also
valuable to point out the wide variation in response noted
by different authors. Reports such as these which at the
same time show the same 96 hours for one compound (Dimethyl
phosphite = 225 ppm) and yet show such different response
for others; Diethyl fumarate 4.5 vs. 38.0 ppm or Dimethyl
phosphate 18.0 vs. 250 ppm).
Dimethoate, while not directly shown to cause injury
to three species of mice in a natural population study,
did, indirectly arouse a considerable change in the species'
composition and absolute numbers of animals. No direct
mortality to mice was observed nor was a change in habitat
observed following spraying. Insects density declined
sharply after treatment, suggesting that drift mammalian
population composition reflected the decrease in insect
food items. (30)
Changes in species diversity, although quite transient
at times, has nevertheless been observed in a number of
aquatic situations. If we know more about "base" levels of
aquatic populations and their structure, we could prob-
ably identify a great many more.
34-D
-------
TABLE 6-D
Compound
Dimethylphosphorodithioic
acid
Diethyl fumarate
2-Mercaptodiethyl
succinate
Dime thy 1 pho s pho rothionic
acid
Maleic acid
Diethyl maleate
Dimethyl phosphate
Dimethyl phosphite
Thiogylcolic acid
Diethyl succinate
Diethyl-dl-tartarate
Bis (hydroxymethyl)
phosphinic acid
Ethylene phosphite
Malathion
Author 1
96 Hrs.
TLm
(mg/D
23.5
4.5
35.0
42.5
5.0
18.0
18.0
225.0
30.0
140.0
650.0
29.0
34.0
9.6
Author 2
96 Hrs.
LC50
ppm
38.0
25.0
41.0
250.0
225.0
18.0
14.0
Other
Authors
9.0 (3)
8.65 (4)
12.5 (5)
35-D
-------
Considerable confusion seems to exist as to which is
the preferential route of entry of pesticides into the
bodies of aquatic organisms. There would appear to be no
reason to debate any of the data presented by various
authors. Although techniques vary, all appear to be rea-
sonably consistent with physiological principles. Thus,
the gill is suggested as the site of inward diffusion of
pesticides (dieldrin) where it dissolves in the lipid
portion of lipoprotein, in which form it is transported
to and incorporated into the lipids of various tissues
( 31) . Concentrations of 169-515 ppb in bath water re-
sulted in plasma perfusate concentrations of 64-220 ppb.
This results in a constant inward diffusion gradient; con-
tinued transport and storage; thus perpetuating the gradi-
ent. (32) Radioisotope techniques were utilized to show
that brook trout accumulated almost ten times as much DDT
from their food as from the water directly (33 ). Using
comparative figures, pptr in water and ppm in food, they
suggest that at their calculated rates, it would take the
fish 12 years to accumulate 1 ppm total residues when ex-
posed to a constant 3 pptr in water. Since yearling sal-
monids from lakes often contain 1-2 ppm in their first
year of life, it is offered that the food chain is the
major source of DDT concentration in fish. Any gilled
animal, whether it be fish or invertebrate, probably takes
36-D
-------
a considerable portion of the potential contaminant into
the body through the gills, oral surface, or skin. Food
items which contain a pesticide food are likewise import-
ant routes of entry. Once inside the animal's body, the
liver or hepto-pancreas appear to be the sites of active
metabolic alteration of a great variety of chemical com-
pounds .
Atlantic salmon degraded DDT to DDE and TDE within
nine hours when immersed in solutions of the parent com-
pound. ( 34)
Decrease in the total quantity of organochlorine in
ovarian tissue of the winter flounder was observed as the
spawning season progressed. The total of DDT, DDE, hepta-
chlor, heptachlor epoxide and dieldrin was sequential
concentrated from October 30 (0.21 ppm) to March 29 (1.29
ppm). Although less than one-half of that value was re-
ported by Burdick ( 35 ) to cause fry death, these authors
felt that the high larvae mortality observed in this
species at final yolk sac absorption time could be the
result of synergistic response or species tolerance dif-
ferences ( 36 ) .
The effects of intestinal microflora have been demon-
strated to degrade certain pesticides (34 ) . This general
phenomenon, although minor, is nevertheless a known route
to decay. DDT has a strong inhibitory effect on adenosine
37-D
-------
2
triphosphatese (Na+, K+, Mg +) at 5 ppm.
Noneverted intestinal sacs of seawater-adapted eels
showed impairment of fluid absorption when bathed in DDT
solutions. This impairment was seen to have an enzymatic
basis. The DDT at 5 ppm producing a 43 percent inhibition
2
of adenosine triphosphatase (Na+, K+, Mg +) activity in
mucosal homogenates. (37)
Osmoregulatory impairment in teleosts is thought to
be involved with sodium transport and an ATP mixed system.
Organochlorines have shown such inhibition when investi-
gated. Lindane, endrin, chlordane, and DDT inhibition of
one or more ATP-ases from gill, muscle, brain, intestinal
mucosae, and liver have been shown for a variety of fresh-
water and marine fish (38, 39).
In addition to inhibition of ATP-ase systems, organo-
chloride insecticides has been observed to alter other
enzymatic systems. Thus, dieldrin was lethal to the sail-
fish mollie within 72 hours at concentrations of 12 ppb
and caused a significant increase in serum glutamic oxa-
lacetic transaminase levels. (40)
The liver, in addition to or as a result of its being
the site of more active in vivo degradation of pesticides,
is also the site of greatest enzyme induction. As pre-
viously stated, the effect of enhanced microsomal induction
of enzymes may be the most serious single biochemical event,
38-D
-------
The effect on disturbed steroid metabolism and the conse-
quences observed in raptorial and fisheating birds is well
documented.
It was found that induction of mixed function oxidase
system enzymes required a halide substituent on each phenyl
ring and there halid in the opposition of the eth ne
moiety. Substitution of other radicals in these positions
was ineffective as an inducer. Removing some of the chlo-
rine atoms (DDD) abolished the induction also (41). Thus,
rather strict specificity is indicated for the induction
of systems specifically effective in degrading DDT in
mammals. Although not identified at this time, such
specificity can probably be found in all vertebrates.
Young coho salmon were observed to succumb to DDT
in diets in direct proportion to their size. Younger
fish consumed a proportionately greater amount of food
for their body weight and thereby received the highest
dose (42). This feature is common to all young animals
which are in an active phase of growth.
Dieldrin was demonstrated to reduce growth rate in
160 and 230 day experiments with guppies continually ex-
posed to 1.0 and 2.5 ppb. While lower levels seemed to
increase the intrinsic rate of increase, at higher levels
(2.5 ppb) the intrinsic rate of increase was reduced by
a combination of lower total reproduction, increase in
39-D
-------
number of aborted broods and delay in age of first repro-
duction. Postnatal survival was not expected at concen-
trations up to 2.5 ppb (43).
Unfortunately, it is easier to age and separate
fishes by age than it is to identify different age groups
in many invertebrates. Many studies have indicated that
different aged fishes may accumulate and store pesticides
at differing rates. Effects of the age of fishes of the
same species have been identified. It is not known whether
changing food habits or differential exposure and/or stor-
age is responsible. Differences between species may cer-
tainly reflect differences in feeding habits but does not
preclude the fact that inherent differences in the basic
physiology of the animal is involved. A general increase
in tissue levels is indicated as fishes increase in age
(see 8MB and salmon). It should also be noted that no
direct relationship appears to exist between the storage
of dieldrin and/or DDT although all animals are theoreti-
cally exposed to the same concentrations. Although not
documented by anyone, it would appear that such differences
could accrue largely from the levels of residues in food
chain organisms. Differences in retention rates are not
ruled out.
It would be extremely desirable to identify dif-
ferential rates of uptake in a variety of aquatic inver-
40-D
-------
tebrates under common environmental variables as well as
for fishes. We really do not know what circumstances
lead to rate of uptake, body partition, or elimination
in our more valuable fishes of fish food organisms. For
example, why are the tissue levels of a particular pes-
ticide the same in a one-year old fish of one species; a
five-year old fish of another species, or a three-year
old crayfish, all from the same environment?
Artificial loading of aquatic organisms has yielded
some interesting data. When organochlorides of widely
different structure were tested with small sunfish and
goldfish sublethal levels (0.03 ppm), the labelled com-
pounds were picked up by the fish. Lindane, accumulated
during the period of exposure was eliminated by fishes
within two days of recovery, dieldrin was 90 percent eli-
minated within two weeks, but DDT was eliminated less
than 50 percent of accumulated level after one month.
Flow-through recovery tanks was sufficiently slow to
allow non-contaminated fishes to pick up excreted diel-
drin and DDT from the previously exposed fish. Of course
if this was possible, some of the eliminated compound
could have been re-accumulated by the test fishes. Such
studies do not account for continued exposure resulting
from diet under natural conditions and no metabolites
were measured. Since dieldrin is rather clearly eli-
41-D
-------
minated under these conditions it follows that studies
such as those which showed a parollee contamination of
flesh are indicative of contrived contamination by diel-
drin to these animals.
The value of such studies appears to be somewhat
underrated and it is felt that further study along this
line is warranted.
Fishes which have an acquired resistance to certain
organochlorine pesticides have been demonstrated to re-
lease sufficient compound or its metabolites into water
to kill non-resistant fish very shortly.
Low, marshy areas around and within many suburban
areas are particularly troublesome to vector control
officials; they likewise are very desirable breeding
grounds for many amphibians. Local heavy damage to many
common frogs and toads could occur during the spring -
especially during the periods of maximum home and garden
use. Static bioassays suggested that endrin and some
other chlorinated hydrocarbons were quite toxic to several
common species, however, lindane was the least toxic
insecticide (44 ). Endrin and dieldrin have been demon-
strated to be quite toxic to other frogs as well. Un-
like other pesticides, the toxicity of some of these com-
pounds appears to increase with the increase in exposure
time.
42-D
-------
Of particular note is the fact that the younger
animals (1-3 weeks) were less sensitive, generally, than
older tadpoles (7 weeks). The greatest degree of change
in sensitivity was seen during the period of 4-5 weeks and
characterizes many of faster growing frogs' period of in-
tense body reorganization associated with metamorphosis.
Dramatic changes in osmoregulatory ability, nitrogen
metabolism, and Krebs ornithine cycle enzymes induction,
thyroid activity and morphological changes of increased
weight, tail rescription, loss of external gills, etc.
are common.
It appears that as the skin assumes a greater ion
regulatory and respiratory role it also may be involved
in toxic transport. It is also interesting to note that
toads become increasingly more sensitive to DDT with age.
The fact that 96 hours TL of seven-weeks-old animals is
m
6 to 7 times the 24 hours TL for these animals compared
m
to one-week-old animals suggests longer exposure periods
are much more detrimental to older aged animals than
younger. It would be desirable to have such data for
many more species and chemicals before a firm statement can
be made.
Quantities of pesticides found toxic to frogs and
toads are not generally found to be toxic to fishes.
However, the problems encountered with fishes tends to be
43-D
-------
one of chronic exposure generally and not associated with
acute toxicity directly. To what extent frogs, toads,
and salamanders might accumulate pesticides in the insects
they eat can only be speculated at this time. Moderately
high residues have been found after repeated applications
of aldrin (dieldrin) to fields, in insects, frogs, toads,
and snakes (45). Additional residues have been identified
in coastal surveys (46 ), marshes (47 ), and estuarines
(48 ). To what extent any of these residues in amphibians
could produce acutely toxic effects on fishes feeding up-
on them is unknown. It is likewise unknown whether the
residues currently accumulated by amphibians affect their
growth, reproduction, longevity or health in any way under
prolonged sublethal exposures.
Diets of 0.0, 0.3, and 2.0 ug/g B.W. of endrin for
one month prior to spawning produced a large incidence of
deformity in fry of the channel catfish. The following
types were identified:
Tail-less 44 ± 9%
Spinal curvature 8 ± 3%
Large mandible 9 + 2%
That this result was due to the treatment and high
residues is borne out by the fact that brood stock from
the same source and maintained on pesticide-free regimes
for 2 years, exhibited fewer than 3 percent deformed progency,
(49 )
44-D
-------
Lake trout fry sustained a heavy mortality at hatch-
ing when egg fat content reached 2.05 ppm or above (35 ) .
Fry of the Sebago salmon had 76 ppm DDT in fat, 24 ppm DDT
one week after yolk sac absorption. On a wet weight basis,
this was 0.76 ppm; no mortality was observed (50 ).
Gonad development was reduced and a lowered gonadoso-
matic index was evident in goldfish chronically exposed
to endrin, through feeding at levels .43 ppm and .143 ppm
in food. These figures are not inconsistent with levels
observed in natural food organisms (25 ).
Similar injury to sac frey of the cutthroat trout
was noticed and reported as early as 1963 (51 ). More
recently, studies have demonstrated this in brook trout
eggs. The release of DDT by metabolized phospholipids is
probably of greater importance than the utilization of
triglyceride oil droplets as previously through (52 ).
These studies indicate that the greatest phospholipid
mobilization occurred at 65-70 days, the period of dinal
yolk sac absorption and greatest fry mortality.
Submersing carp eggs in various insecticides resulted
in 50-100 percent mortality above 5 ppm; none caused signi-
ficant mortality below 1 ppm, leading the researchers to
conclude that carp embryos are less susceptible to pesti-
cides in the water than are adults. Whether or not up-
take and accumulation reached levels known to be detri-
45-D
-------
mental to trout and salmon was not determined. Chlordane
was found to be responsible for slightly increased viability
and apparently stimulated development time. Additional
data is desperately needed to determine whether chemicals
like chlordane can stimulate microsomal enzyme induction
and thereby effect developmental rates in fishes (53 ).
Subtle, difficult-to-identify changes in behavior
associated with sublethal, chronic exposure to pesticides
is not as well documented as are the results of acute
toxicity. Aquatic organisms do exhibit behavioral changes
in response to pesticide exposure. The chlorinated hydro-
carbons including the cyclodienes are known to affect both
central and peripheral nervous tissues in mammals and
birds. Behavioral alterations which reduce alertness,
increase restlessness, reduce visual acuity or otherwide
are responsible for exposing the animal to capture or
debilitating injury all have a damaging effect on the
long-term success of the species.
Brook trout, exposed to DDT at sublethal concentrations
of 100-300 ppb increased the duration of response to a
simple mechanical disturbance. The response is greatly
potentiated by cold. The greatly increased instability
in sensory nerve fiber firing in the cold suggests that
DDT (and perhaps other compounds as well) may be more lethal
in colder temperatures. A constant barrage of uncoordi-
46-D
-------
nated bursts may easily reduce the animal's vigilance (54 ).
Twenty parts per billion of DDT for 24 hours was sufficient
to seriously reduce the ability of brook trout-to respond
to training. Training, ger se may not be a very meaning-
ful parameter, however, since other authors report no ef-
fect, even at high dose levels. The fact that chronic
exposure to sublethal amounts of chlorinated hydrocarbons
might alter a fish's natural repertoire of conditioned
responses and hence make it less fit to survive in a highly
competitive environment is suggested.
The organophosphorus compounds are potent cholines-
terase inhibitors. For the most part, they are.either ef-
fective in killing the animal in question or will degrade
shortly to non-lethal levels. Intoxication may not kill
the animal outright but often will allow a degree of ex-
posure which will subject the animal to capture and death.
Rapid degradation is probably responsible for the relative
lack of observed resistance as the organophosphorus com-
pounds don't usually remain around long enough to exert
a significant influence on a large enough population.
Rather than being a boom to the species or the ecosystem,
it appears that resistance has far greater biological and
ecological significance. The inescapable fact is that
any such resistance implies a genetic change in the tar-
get species. Any compound capable of affecting one such
47-D
-------
change in the genome can conceivably be responsible for
many more unidentified changes which might spell doom for
the species.
Another undesirable feature of such resistance is
that resistant species can develop massive body burdens
of persistent compounds which, when incorporated into the
food chain, could easily prove fatal to susceptible or-
ganisms higher in the food chain. Examples of such re-
sistance show that prior exposure can result in animals
which are as much as several hundred times as resistant
than previously unexposed numbers of the same species.
To what extent this build of resistance occurs in other
aquatic organisms is unknown at present. Over 200 species
of aerial insects (flies, mosquitoes, midges, etc.) have
demonstrated resistance - it should not be surprising to
find other insects with varying degrees of resistance.
48-D
-------
Aquatic Food Chain
There is abundant evidence to point to accumulation
and biomagnification within aquatic food chains. The
fact that we do not see many cases of outright death to
fishes in no way detracts from the potentially harmful
effects of chronic exposure to this group. Ecological
efficiencies of about 10 percent per trophic level are
common. Biomagnifications of nearly one order of magni-
tude are seen to occur at each of the lower trophic levels
Residue values for higher trophic levels may or may not
reveal such magnification due to differential rates of
metabolism and degradation. The fact that the residues
of top trophic levels do not reflect such magnification
at any given sampling does not mean that the animal was
not subjected to the potentially harmful influence of
metabolizing heavy body burdens of chemicals.
Limited data exists for other aquatic animals. What
is available suggests that toads, frogs, and salamanders
may be highly susceptible to the levels of pesticides
which might occur from suburban and municipal pesticide
use. These groups, along with snakes and turtles, are
virtually unmentioned in the literature. Clearly, much
research is needed.
Those birds which feed-on fishes and other aquatic
life can be regarded as the top carnivores of aquatic
49-D
-------
chains. Adequate documentation is available to point
clearly to reproductive failure and diminished population
numbers. Hepatic microsomal enzyme induction and dis-
turbed steroid and calcium metabolism .areprobably at fault.
The examples of biological magnification cited pre-
viously give good indication of the complexity of the
problem. The literature is filled with examples of ap-
plications of chlorinated hydrocarbons which have worked
their way into food chains and up the trophic structure
ultimately to contaminate and lead to the destruction of
top members of aquatic food chains.
Examples which have reached the popular press in-
clude declining numbers of predaceous and piscivorous
birds, eagles, ospreys, the peregrine falcon, and
sparrowhawks in the United States with parollee species
in Europe. Obviously a certain.amount of emotion and
sentiment appear attached to these magnificant species,
and caution must be exercised to insure that emotions
do not ride roughshod over the facts. It is apparent to
the contractor that sufficient scientific work of high
quality has been produced to justify the stated concern
of world biologists and scientists.
More recently, other species of birds, not as ro-
mantic in our thinking as the raptores, have been identi-
fied to accumulate pesticide residues from their environ-
50-D
-------
ment with a consequent measured reduction in their breed-
ing success. Examination of Lake Michigan's ecosystem
by numerous workers has clearly shown the residue accu-
mulation of the DDT family through various trophic levels
starting with bottom sediments and ending in certain
ducks and gulls. Residue analysis shows a concentration
from sediment to invertebrate of about 50 fold with a
factor of about 10 fold for the fish which eat the inver-
tebrates and another 15 fold for birds eating fish.
Specific organs, especially fat, show considerably higher
magnifications. (55 ) One point which should be empha-
sized is the unbelievable quantity of work which must go
into identifying these concentrations. The contractor
is convinced that some of the burden of the physical work
as well as the costs of these studies must be borne by
manufacturers and users of pesticide compounds in the
future.
Other studies, although not nearly so well documented
as the ones above, suggest very strongly that shore and
marsh inhabiting birds (herons, egrets, bitterns,
gallanales, etc.) which eat fish, frogs, crayfish, and
other invertebrates, have declined in certain estuarine
and coastal areas in the last 20 years. (56 ) It must be
remembered that much of the basic biology of these birds
is poorly understood at this time so it should not be
51-D
-------
too surprising to realize that we are at something of a
loss to identify real damage at the population level.
Just how subtle the interrelationship can be is typified
by studies with the Bermuda Petrel, a bird which has de-
clined in population steadily over the past 20 years.
The islands on which the bird breeds have never been
treated with DDT or its residues - the body burden which
apparently is responsible for the decline comes solely
from an oceanic food chain - contaminated on a global
scale by inland and coastal use of these pesticides. (57 )
That quantities of pesticides have found their way into
the water, then to plankton and fishes in the ocean, is
undisputed by responsible scientists at this time. The
situation in fresh water is potentially more devastating
due to the use of chlorinated hydrocarbons. Here although
we know quite a lot about the obvious aspects of the
biology of game and other commercially valuable species,
we are only at the threshold of understanding the inter-
relationship of trophic structure which support popula-
tions of these organisms. It has been pointed out that
the basic biology of lower trophic level organisms is
virtually unknown.
Few strictly freshwater ecosystems have been so
exhaustively studied as some estuarine areas, Table 7-D
( 56 ). The amount of labor involved and the actual cost
52-D
-------
TABLE 7-D
DDT RESIDUES IN CARMANS RIVER ESTUARY (48)
DDT residues (DDT-t-DDH-f DDD) (7) in samples from Carmans River estuary
and vicinity, Long Island. N.Y.. in pans per million wet weight oC the whole organism, with
the proportions of DDT, DDE, and DDD expressed as a percentage of the total. Letters
in parentheses designate replicate samples.
Sample
NYater*
Plankton, mostly zooplankton
Cladopliora gracilis -,- •
Shrimpt
ppsanus tau, oyster toadfish (immature) f
'Mcnidia nieniitia, Atlantic sQvcrsidet
Crickets*
Nassaritis obsoleius, mud snailt
Gasterostcm aciileattis, threespine sticklebackf
Ansttilla rostrata, American eel ( immature) t
Flying insects, mostly Diptcrat
Spariina patens, shoots
Merceiiaria incrccnaria, hard clamt
Cyprinoilon varicgains. ihccpshead minnowf
Anas rubripi's, block duck
J'lindului heti-roclinis. rmimmicho.zY
Paralichlhys deittattis, summer floundert
Esax niger, chain pickerel
Lants argcntams. herring gull, brain (d)
Strong) lura marir.a. Atlantic needlefish
Spartina patens, roots
Sterna hintndo, common tern (a)
Sterna liintndo, common tern (b)
Butoridcs \ircKcns. f.rccn heron (a) (immature, found dead)
Lams arcciitatu.t, herring gull (immature) (a)
BlUoridcs vircscens, green heron (b)
Lartis argcnlanis, herring pull, brain§ (e)
Sterna albi/rons, lea^t tern (a)
Sterna liiruntlp, common tern (c)
Lartts argentatus, licrring gull (immature) (b)
Larus argciiKitiis. herring gull (immature) (c)
Sterna (ilhi/rons, least tern (b)
Sterna hinintlo, common tern (five abandoned eggs)
Lnrus argcntiUiif. herring gull (d)
Larns arsfiuatiif. htrrin^ gull§ (c)
Painlion lialiaetin, c«prcy (one abandoned cgg)|I
Larus argentiitiis, herrinp gull (f )
Mergits senator, red-breasted merganser (I964)t
l'liatacrocora\ iniriiiis. double-crested cormorant (immature)
Larus ilelau-arcnsis, riny-billcd gutl (immature)
DDT
resi-
dues
(ppm)
o.oooos
.040
.083
.16
.17
.23
23
,26
26
M
30
.33
A2
.94
1^7
1.24
1.28
1.33
1.48
2.07
2.80
3.1S
3.42
3.51
3.52
3.57
4.56
4.75
5.17
5.43
5.53
6.40
7.13
7.53
9.60
13.8
1S.S
22.8
26.4
75.5
Percent of residue as
DDT DDE
25
56
16
None
17
62
18
24
29
16
58
71
12
43
58
28
34
24
21
31
17
21
20
18
8
22
14
17
18
25
17
23
19
22
15
30
28
12
IS
75
28
58
100
48
19
•39
51
43
44
26
17
20
46
IS
-44
26
61
28
57
67
58
57
73
70
67
71
55
71
62
68
" '50
70
71
64
56
65
75
71
DDD
Trace
16
26
Trace
35
19
43
25
28
40
16
12
68
11
24
28
40
15
51
12
16
21
23
9
22
11
15
28
11
13
15
•Li
11
7
21
14
7
13
14
53-D
-------
has been prohibitive. It should be mentioned that a co-
herent plan and truly imaginative approach has also largely
been lacking. One fruitful line of attack is seen in
radio tracer studies (58 ). Many more studies of this
kind are needed to identify effects.
Primary Production; Any energy-yielding or energy-
requiring system must have the source of that energy
identified. Photoshythesis and carbon fixation are fund-
mental to the support of succeeding trophic levels. An
understanding of the effects of pesticides on this basic
biochemical and life support system is therefore essential.
Natural bodies of water are quite diverse, as are the
forms of vegetative life they support. Oceanic water
masses and impounded or semi-impounded waters accomplish
carbon fixation, primarily through the action of free
floating phytoplankton, green plants which, by definition,
have very poor or no means of self-mobility. Rivers and
other flowing waters, because of the movement of the
water mass, support relatively few freely floating plant
forms. Forms attached to the substrata, diatoms, coccoid,
and filamentous algae, accomplish a part of the photo-
synthetic task in these waters.
More recently it has been shown that often as much
as 75 percent of the total energy-yielding food base in
streams does not arise in the stream itself, but comes
54-D
-------
from the watershed in the form of bits of fragmented plant
material. This allochthanous material could bring to the
stream accumulated quantities of pesticide materials/ along
with loads of silt and running water, each contributing
its share.
Each of these sources, including that portion of
airborne pesticides brought in by rainfall directly (pre-
viously co-distilled from the global environment) assure
that pesticide compounds find their way into the water en-
vironment. Now, do these compounds actually exert a harm-
ful effect on the total global photosynthetic picture, or,
depending upon local conditions, a sufficient effect on
photosynthesis in general to merit our concern?
DDT, when applied to laboratory cultures of coastal
and oceanic phytoplankton species was sufficient to re-
duce photosynthesis in all at concentrations less than
1.0 ppb ( 59 ). It is emphasized that although such a
level is high for the open ocean, it would be of the same
order of magnitude as other authors have found for natural
waters under certain circumstances (133 ppb in Florida
salt marsh for 1 week following DDT spraying; 22 ppb in
some California coastal waters; and 14-20 ppb added di-
rectly to Clear Lake, California). Levels far in excess
of 10 ppb have been recorded at outfall sources in fresh-
water streams and lakes. The ecological importance of
55-D
-------
such physiological stress as is imposed by DDT is that
species composition may be altered, allowing species which
may normally be suppressed by others to "explode" and
dominate the community for varying periods of time.
Thus, the normal ecological succession is disturbed and
community structure upset. The influence of varying
toxic susceptibility is indicated in other studies (60 )
which show that some forms from different oceanic environ-
ments show dramatically different responses to DDT, diel-
drin and endrin in culture. One species was inhibited by
all of these pesticides at concentrations above 1 ppb
with cell division markedly reduced at 0.1 ppb/
while another species was completely insensitive to these
ranges. This extreme difference serves to further em-
phasize the dramatic influence on succession and dominance
of algal populations referred to above.
Secondary Trophic Structure
No one has yet identified any loss to aquatic food
chain organisms resulting directly from the home and gar-
den use of pesticides from the three study cities or any
other urban areas. It is apparent, however, that the use
of chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds by home and garden
users does contribute an additional burden of these com-
pounds to the environment. From what we know about de-
56-D
-------
gradation of these chemicals, it is also apparent tha«-
rates of degradation are not efficiently fast to free us
from their harmful effects.
Work already referred to on natural communities of
periphyton ( 61) is valid for an assessment of total ac-
cumulation of pesticides. It does not, however, identify
the response of native periphyton communities to these
pesticides. One such study which does utilize an ubi-
quitous, naturally occurring freshwater algal species in-
dicates that DDT, dieldrin and toxaphene all decreased
cell numbers at all levels of treatment in culture. In
addition, total biomass and the rate of carbon "assimi-
lation was reduced (62 ).
Static bioassays with three species of stoneflies
(63 ) indicated that endrin and dieldrin were the most
toxic organochlorides used out of 38 different commonly
used pesticide compounds. Differences between species is
indicated as well as differences between sizes of the same
species; the smaller (younger) individuals being more
susceptible than larger (older). Carbamates and organo-
phosphates were generally less toxic to stonefly naiads.
It might also be mentioned that the symptoms of intoxi-
cation, increasing irritability, loss of equilibrium,
tremors, convulsions, are precisely those features which
would tend to expose these organisms to capture, inges-
57-D
-------
tion, and incorporation into the food chain.
DDT and ODD were the most toxic compounds to clado-
cerans, important members of the freshwater and marine
food chains.
Differences in toxicity between species is observed
as well as differences between potency of certain insec-
ticides .
Mention has already been made to the fantastic bio-
magnification possible in certain members of the food
chain.
One point which emerges from both acute and chronic
exposure studies is the fact that such a variety of re-
sponses is seen that every compound will probably have
some effect on at least one organism (perhaps many more)
at each different trophic level. The question then be-
comes one of properly assessing the impact of the most
susceptible species to the entire ecosystem. Species
which are not eliminated directly are seen to pose a
real hazard in their ability to pass the compound along
to other trophic levels with potentially disastrous
results later.
It is becoming increasingly evident that total meta-
bolism may be altered at all trophic levels. Of equal
importance is the suggestion that metabolic pathways
may be altered in response to pesticides. Such subtle
58-D
-------
alterations in pathway in the food chain organisms could
have far-reaching consequences on total energy budgets
for the ecosystem (64 ). Clearly more work of this kind
needs to be accomplished before a total assessment of
effects on the ecosystem structure can be made.
Fishes
A large number of publications have presented data on
acute and chronic toxicity to fish and other aquatic
organisms, of a wide variety of pesticide compounds.
Unfortunately, very few of these have utilized aldrin or
dieldrin of the insecticides or atrazine of the herbi-
cides. The body of published information on DDT alone
would fill volumes.* Due to the paucity of information on
aldrin, we have decided to review selected papers dealing
with DDT where they demonstrate a particularly valuable
point and other cyclodienes, as their mode of action might
be expected to reflect the action of aldrin/dieldrin. It
has been suggested by several authors recently that con-
siderably more effort could and should be directed at
studies utilizing organophosphates and carb ates since
it is hoped by many that these less persistent com-
pounds will eventually replace the more persistent organo-
chlorides.
In a study of relative pesticide susceptibility to
59-D
-------
some common fishes, it was found that considerable dif-
ferences existed not only between classes of pesticide
compounds but between the various families of fishes
(65 ). It was possible to establish a range of species
susceptible - a hierarchy of response. It was not pos-
sible to relate chemical structure absolutely with the
observed response but it was suggested that such hier-
archial rankings could be used to predict responses to
fish populations. The point is that such an evaluation
does appear to have merit, but is rarely applied by
workers. It was pointed out, and should be emphasized,
that safe levels based on assays with one group might be
extremely hazardous for another.
Analysis of inherent biological variability as
reflected in variability in genetic constitution and
physiological condition of the test species is identi-
fied as being responsible for the wide differences ob-
served to the same toxicant ( 66 ) (see Table 8 ).
TABLE 8
-The mean TLM and coefficient of variability of pff-DDT JOT fish and aquatic invertebrates.
The 96-hour values are given for fish and the 48-hour values are given for invertebrates
Species
Rainbow trout
Salmo cain/iicri
Fathead minnow
Pimephalet promelat
Channel catfish
Iclalurut punctalui
Lepomlt macrochim
Larfemouth baa
Micropterui talmoida
Daphnla
Daphnla maf.no
Seed shrimp
CypfUloi>tlt tidua
Sowbue
Atellui liretlcaudu*
Class shrimp
falaenionctet kadiakenti*
Darasrlfly
Itchnura rtrtlcelit
Scud
Cammana faiciatia
Number
•f tests
15
14
10
18
13
11
10
9
11
9
17
Temperature
(C)
124
184
184
184
184
81.1
81.1
154
154
154
154
TL, (us! I)
24 hours
9.6 (27)'
84.6 (47)
854 (34)
14.7 (35)
3.9 (88)
—
-
74 (19)
M (80)
60.0 (22) m
10.4 (31)*
48 or 96 hours
7.8 (30)'
19.9 (39)
17.4 (17)
94 (37)
14 (88)
4.0 (15)
54.0 (15)
4.7 (15)
4* (17)
834 (35)
3.6 (30)
1 Prntttlft*nt
-------
The importance of this feature of testing as it re-
lates to the significance of acute exposures can hardly
be overemphasized. The fathead minnow showed the great-
est variation in susceptibility. It is unfortunate that
data for the goldfish is not included since this species
is routinely used in such studies and for registration
applications.
Various metabolic effects have been noted in fishes.
Thus, treating immature rainbow trout with 1.0 mg diel-
drin/kg. BW (140 days) and subjecting to forced swimming
for 24 hours. Total serum amino acids in control and
DDT treated fish were decreased. Significantly, dieldrin
exposed fish did not decrease. It was concluded that
amino acids were preferentially utilized by dieldrin
treated fish while fat and carbohydrate was preferentially
used by DDT and control groups for an energy source dur-
ing the first week of forced swimming.
RBT subjected to loading with DDT and dieldrin and
then forced to swim showed that stressed dieldrin treated
fish lost 32 percent more weight during two weeks of
stress than similarly treated controls or DDT loaded
fish. The loss of weight of these two latter groups was
60 percent more than fasted groups of fish, however.
Measurements of losses of mesenteric fats during the
forced swimming showed that DDT was not appreciably meta-
61-D
-------
bolized until the depot fat was about depleted, then
rapid mobilization and brain and liver inflamation, fol-
lowed by death. Little fat was mobilized by stressed
dieldrin treated fish during forced swimming (previously
described) (67 ) and elimination followed predicted eli-
mination half-life. Thus, a basic difference in the
metabolic response of fish is noted between these two
compounds.
The importance of diet control in toxicological
studies has been pointed out ( 68 ) in studies which
showed that DDT and dieldrin acted synergistically when
fed in combination to rainbow trout. More DDT was stored
in the brain of fishes on low methionine diet than in
those on high methionine diet.
A similar feature has been noted in rats and dogs
and may be a general vertebrate response to combinations
of these two chemicals.
Data has been presented to indicate that dieldrin
and DDT both increase lipogenesis in the rainbow trout
( 69 ). Furthermore, the effect of both of these organo-
chlorides was additive and more significantly, it took
several months of exposure to cause this effect. Feeding
combinations of DDT and dieldrin resulted in the trout
retaining relatively more of the total load of DDT than
of dieldrin. Thus, 98 percent of the DDT was retained
62-D
-------
after 56 days and 50 percent of the dieldrin was eli-
minated in less than 14 days. It is suggested that the
fish have a greater capacity to metabolize and/or excrete
dieldrin than DDT.
Data on responses of fishes to atrazine are absent.
Simazine, a substituted triazine, has been utilized and,
as most other herbicides, found to be far less toxic
than insecticide compounds.
Concentrations of simazine g O.I/ 0.3, 1.0f and 3.0
mg/e (ppm) resulted in residues of 0.0, 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5
ug/gm (ppm) in bluegill reared in these treated ponds.
Dead and decaying vegetation lend an immediate and
temporary enriching effect but this was ultimately off-
set by a decrease in net primary production. Although
it was not commented upon, gross shifts in CO3/HCO3
ratios resulting from the treatment could have dramatic
effects on feeding and food utilization by the fish (70 ).
Features of the environment which alter respiratory
rates such as the above might augment the harmful effects
of pesticides.
It has been pointed out by many authors that moni-
toring of pesticide levels in fishes has certain obvious
advantages. We might add that the manner in which some
monitoring is conducted has certain obvious disadvantages
as well. Residue levels which have been published tend
63-D
-------
many times to confuse rather than illuminate. The fol-
lowing items (largely from Rickey (55 ))/ are quite
valid today. It is noted that the demonstration of
residue levels in fish of no biological significance is
impossible to identify at this time. This, of course,
is precisely what the problem is all about. Levels of
intake which were exactly balanced by degradation rate
could theoretically produce no residues. This has not
been the case, even though we do not have enough data
to completely substantiate such a statement. The pro-
duction of some residues and their concentration in
larger fish, fish-eating birds, and other piscivorous
species/ could have several effects. It is stated that
there is presently no test of the no-effect hypothesis.
Clearly there is not. Even the acceptance of "safe"
level is anathema for it spells'out levels of exposure
which we are willing to accept without really knowing
the consequences. It would appear that "safe" levels
have validity in the more rapidly degraded substances
which do not tend to accumulate. Such a category for
persistent pesticides is probably unwarranted under any
circumstances due to the abilities of many organisms to
magnify the compound.
Depressed reproductive success on adult fishes
directly or on species which feed on fish are clearly
64-D
-------
indicated in numerous studies. It would appear .that
additional monitoring data plus controlled laboratory
studies are required to identify the possibility for
harm here. Direct mortality is often equally difficult
to identify - as has been pointed out - the dead do not
remain long in a properly functioning ecosystem - many
times not long enough for us to measure residue levels
and relate them as cause of death. It has also been
noted that alteration of lower trophic level populations
could result in lowered food stocks which could lead to
death of higher food chain species. This could develop
in two distinctly different ways. First, simply not
enough food to support the higher level populations
under times of severe stress or, second, the utilization
of body fat stress which would release into circulation
levels of pesticides which would then become lethal or
sublethal. We have seen that hard data of this kind from
natural populations of animals is largely lacking.
Reproductive failure of fishes themselves has been com-
mented upon. Death of lake trout fry, and some mor-
phological abnormalities in catfish fry are pitifully
slight evidence of such effects. As we have indicated
elsewhere, the results of such effects are rarely seen
due to their rapid removal. Declining strength of year
class, years later, can always be attributed to other of
'65-D
-------
man's activities including over exploitation of a stock
of fishes - it would be impossible to lay the blame di-
rectly on pesticides with the present state of our know-
ledge. Levels of dieldrin carried by channel catfish in
Iowa streams would appear to be sufficient to result in
reproductive failure of some kind - but have not been
identified with any certainty. How many other repro-
ductive failures in the minor fishes of any ecosystem can
only be imagined at this time. The measurements simply
have not been made.
The number of cases of direct mortality to adult
fishes is likewise very meager. Certain examples show
an obvious cause and effect relationship. Under normal
agricultural and home and garden use it is unlikely that
direct mortality will occur. The subtle, difficult to
measure, and almost impossible to identify analysis of
sublethal exposure is regarded as the more pressing need.
Synergistic Effects
As described earlier in this report, home and garden
pesticides contain a great variety of different chemicals
as active ingredients. Occurrence of synergistic effects
is therefore definitely a possibility, between different
chemicals formulated together into one product as well
as between chemicals which may arrive at the same site
66-D
-------
in the environment from separate applications.
Synergism is present when the effect of two chemi-
cals applied together is greater than the sum total of
their independent effects. Among pesticidal chemicals, a
number of instances of synergism have been reported. The
commercially most successful application of this pheno-
menon is the enhancement of the insecticidal effectiveness
of pyrethrins by "pyrethrin synergists" such as piperonyl
butoxide, sesamin, and others. Many other cases of
synergism between pesticides have been reported in the
literature. Most of these were observed in terms of
increased toxicity of the combined chemicals to*labora-
tory cultures of insects, or to laboratory mammals.
Very few investigators have addressed themselves to
possible synergistic interactions between pesticidal
chemicals or their residues in the environment after
application. The contractor's search of the literature
in this regard did not yield any reports applicable to
the present study. This is an area which is very little
explored.
It should be pointed out that field research in this
area is regarded as extremely difficult due to the multi-
plicity of environmental factors involved.
67-D
-------
Health Hazard to Humans
The primary health hazard to humans would appear
to arise through the careless use of organophosphate and
carbamate compounds. As the more persistent chemicals
are eliminated from use, the use of these alternatives
can be expected to increase. Most of these compounds
are considerably more toxic to warm blooded animals than
are the organochlorides. Standing in spray drift or
other physical contact with concentrated solutions will
pose a threat from these potent cholinesterase inhibitors.
Ingestion of these compounds by children, with tragic
consequences/ through the careless handling of the ori-
ginal package, is sure to increase unless the full support
of state and local authorities can implement a workable
plan of education and information.
Recommendations
1. Support additional needed research in the area
of synergistic effects of pesticides with each other
and in combination with other environmental variables;
particularly effects of reduced oxygen tension, pH, alka-
linity, temperature, heavy metals, etc.
2. Establish improved monitoring systems which
would identify levels of contamination at various trophic
levels especially in and around major metropolitan areas.
68-D
-------
3. Support laboratory and field studies on long-
term effects on growth and population dynamics. These
should include experiments designed to examine the ef-
fects of pulsed (repeated) exposures to sublethal concen-
trations of more acutely toxic compounds. All elements
of aquatic ecosystems and trophic levels must be stressed.
4. Establish basic guidelines for the conduct of
experimental research programs. The thrust of this
should be toward insuring greater conformity and achieving
greater comparability between data. Especially useful
data should be sought which identifies rates of accumu-
lation under varying conditions, particularly concentra-
tions , and total quantity of chemical the test animals
are exposed to.
5. Support basic research on the effects of com-
binations of pesticides most commonly used by home and
gardeners on primary carbon fixation.
6. Institute a workable plan of information re-
trieval for all elements of the aquatic ecosystem as well
as terrestrial. Compliance or voluntary cooperation is
absolutely necessary by each state. Support may have
to come through Federal withholding of support monies.
Such a plan could make already gathered data available for
analysis as well as predicting where duplication of effort
might occur.
69-D
-------
7. Continue to support and expand studies on basic
physiological responses of fish and other aquatic verte-
brates to pesticides under chronic sublethal exposure.
This ought to include expanded studies of effects of
heavy metals/pesticides synergisms.
8. Establish a means whereby the kinds of infor-
mation generate, if produced by manufacturers or for-
mulators, is subject to examination by the at-large sci-
entific community - with due regard for corporate integ-
rity and confidentiality.
70-D
-------
LITERATURE REFERENCES
1. FWPCA. Water Quality Criteria. Report of the National
Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the
Interior, 1968, 234 p., Washington, D. C.
2. Pimentel, D. Ecological Effects of Pesticides on Non-
target Species. Executive Office of the President,
Office of Science and Technology, 1971, 219 p., Washington,
D. C.
3. Johnson, D. W. Pesticides in Fishes - A Review of
Selected Literature. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc., 1968,
pp. 398-424.
4. Bloom, S. C. and S. E. Degler. Pesticides and Pollution.
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. BNA Environmental
Management Series, 1969, Washington, D. C.
5. Carson, R. Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin Company,
Boston, 1962.
6. Rudd, R. L. Pesticides and the Living Landscape. Univer-
sity of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, 1970.
7. Detwyler, T. R. Man's Impact on Environment. McGraw-Hill,
Inc., New York, 1971.
8. Broughey, A. S. Man and the Environment. The MacMillen
Company, New York, 1971.
9. Report of the Study of Critical Environmental Problems
(SCEP). Man's Impact on the Global Environment. MIT
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971.
10. Graham, F., Jr. Since Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston, 1971.
11. Kapoor, I. P., R. L. Metcalf, R. F. Nystrom and G. K.
Sangha. Comparative Metabolism of Methoxychlor, Methiochlor
and DDT in Mouse, Insect and in a Model Ecosystem. Agri-
culture and Food Chemistry, Vol. 18, 1970, pp. 1145 -
12. Hannon, M. R., Y. A. Greichus, R. L. Applegate and A. C.
Fox. Ecological Distribution of Pesticides in Lake
Poinsett, S. Dakota, Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc., Vol. 99,
1970, pp. 496-500.
71-D
-------
13. Holden, A. V. and K. Marsden. The Examination of Surface
Water and Sewage Effluents for Organo-Chlorine Pesticides.
J. Proc. Inst. Sew. Purif. (G.B.), 1966, pp. 295-299.
14. Leshniowsky, W. 0., P. R. Dugan, R. M. Pfister, J. I. Frea
and C. I. Randies. Adsorption of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Pesticides by Microbial Floe and Lake Sediment and its
Ecological Implications. Inter. Assoc. of Gr. Lakes Res.
Proc. 13th Conf., 1970, pp. 611-618.
15. Warnick, S. L., R. F. Gaufin, and A. R. Gaufin. Concen-
trations and Effects of Pesticides in Aquatic Environments.
J. Amer. Water Works Assoc., Vol. 58(5), 1966, pp. 601-608.
16. Vance, B. D. and W. Drummond. Biological Concentration of
Pesticides by Algae. J. Amer. Water Works Assoc., Vol.
61, 1969, pp. 360-362.
17. Christie, A. E. Effects of Insecticides on Algae. Water
Sewage Works, Vol. 116, 1969, pp. 172-176.
18. Eisler, R. Acute Toxicities of Insecticides to Marine
Decapod Crustaceans. Crustaceana, Vol. 16, 1969, pp.
302-310.
19. Eisler, R. Latent Effects of Insecticide Intoxication to
Marine Molluscs. Hydrobiologia, Vol. 36, 1970, pp. 345-
352.
20. Buchanan, D. V., R. E. Milleman and N. E. Stewart. Effects
of the Insecticide Sevin on Various Stages of the Dungeness
Crab. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, Vol. 27, 1970, pp. 93-
104.
21. Stewart, N. E., R. E. Milleman and W. P. Breese. Acute
Toxicity of the Insecticide Sevin and Its Hydrolytic
Product 1-Napthol to Some Marine Organisms. Tech. Paper
No. 2108, Oregon Agr. Exp. Station, Corvallis, Oregon,
1969.
22. Eisler, R. Factors Affecting Pesticide-Induced Toxicity
in an Estuarine Fish. U.S.D.I. BSF&W Technical Paper No.
45, 1970, Washington, D. C.
23. Eisler, R. Acute Toxicities of Organochlorine and Organo-
phosphorous Insecticides to Estuarine Fishes. U.S.D.I.
BSF&W, Tech. Paper No. 46, 1970, pp. 2-12.
72-D
-------
24. Schoettger, R. A. and J. R. Olive. Accumulation of Toxaphene
by Fish Food Organisms. L. & 0. , Vol. 6, 1961, pp. 216-219.
25. Johnson, B. J. , C. R. Saunders , H. 0. Sanders, and R. S.
Campbe 1 1 . Biological Magnification and Degradation of DDT
and Aldrin by Freshwater Invertebrates. J. Fish. Res.
Bd. Canada, Vol. 28, 1971, pp. 705-709.
26. Andrews, A. K. , C. C. Van Valin, and B. E. Stebbings. Some
Effects of Heptachlor on Bluegills (Lepomis machrochirus ) .
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. , Vol. 95, 1966, pp. 297-309.
27- Kennedy, H. D. and D. F. Walsh. Effects of Malathion on
Two Warmwater Fishes and Aquatic Invertebrates in Ponds.
U.S. D.I. F&W Ser., Tech. Paper No. 55, 1970, Washington,
D. C.
28. Eaton, J. G. Chronic Malathion Toxicity and the Bluegill.
Water Research, Vol. 4, 1970, pp. 673-684.
29. Bender, M. J. The Toxicity of the Hydrolysis and Break-
down Products of Malathion to the Fathead Minnow. Water
Research, Vol. 3, 1969, pp. 571-582.
30. Barrett, G. W. and R. M. Darnell. Effects of Dimethoate
on Small Mammal Populations. Am. Midland Natur., Vol. 77,
1967, pp. 164-175.
31. Macek, K. , C. R. Rodgers, D. I». Stalling and S. Korm.
The Uptake, Distribution and Elimination of Dietary C-
DDT and l^c-Dieldrin in Rainbow Trout. Trans. Amer. Fish.
Soc., Vol. 99(4), 1970, pp. 698-695.
32. Fromm, P. 0. and R. C. Hunter. Uptake of Dieldrin by
Isolated Perfused Gills of Rainbow Trout. J. Fish. Res.
Bd. Canada, Vol. 26, 1969, pp. 1939-1942.
33. Macek, K. J. and S. Korm. Significance of the Food Chain
in DDT Accumulation by Fish. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada,
Vol. 27, 1970, pp. 1496-1498.
34. Greer, G. L. and V. Paim. Degradation of DDT in Atlantic
Salmon. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, Vol. 25, 1968, pp.
2321-2326.
35. Bardide, G. E. , E. J. Harris, H. J. Dean, T. M. Walker,
J. Skea and D. Colby. The Accumulation of DDT in Lake
Trout and the Effect on Reproduction. Trans. Amer. Fish.
Soc., Vol. 93(2), 1964, pp. 127-136.
73-D
-------
36. Smith, R. M. and C. F. Cole. Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Insecticide Residues in Winter Flounder. J. Fish. Res.
Bd. Canada, Vol. 27, 1970, pp. 2374-2380.
37. Janicki, R. H. and W. B. Kinter. DDT: Disrupted Osmo-
regulatory Events in the Intestine of the Eel, Anguilla
rostrata. Adapted to Seawater. Science, Vol. 173, 1971,
pp. 1146-1148.
38. Grant, B. F. and P. M. Mehrle. Chronic Endrin Poisoning
in Goldfish. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, Vol. 27, 1970,
pp. 2225-2232.
39. Eisler, R. and P. H. Edmunds. Effects of Endrin on
Blood and Tissue Chemistry of a Marine Fish. Trans. Amer.
Fish. Soc., Vol. 95(2), 1966, pp. 153-159.
40. Lane, C. E. and E. D. Scura. Effects of Dieldrin on
Glutamic Oxaloacetic Transaminase in Poecilia latipinna.
J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, Vol. 27, 1970, pp. 1869-1871.
41. Abernathy, C. 0. The Induction of the Microsomal Mixed
Function Oxidase System in Mice by DDT and DDT Analogs.
Dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
1970.
42. Buhler, D. R. and W. E. Shanks. Influence of Body Weight
on Chronic Oral DDT Toxicity in Coho Salmon. J. Fish.
Res. Bd. Canada, Vol. 27, 1970, pp. 347-358.
43. Roelofs, T. D. Effects of Dieldrin on the Intrinsic
Rate of Increase of the Guppy. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Oregon State University, 1971.
44. Sanders, H. O. Pesticide Toxicities to Tadpoles of the
Western Chorus Frog, Pseudacris triseriata, and Fowler's
Toad, Bufo woodhousii fowleri. Copeia, Vol. 2, 1970,
pp. 246-251.
45. Korschgen, L. Soil-Food Chain-Pesticide Wildlife
Relationships in Aldrin-Treated Fields. J. Wildlife Mngt.
Vol. 34, 1970, pp. 186-199.
46. Stickel, L. F. Organochlorine Pesticides in the Environment,
U.S.D.I, F&W Ser. Special Scientific Report-Wildlife,
No. 119, 1968, Washington, D. C.
47. Eberhardt, L. L., R. L. Meeks and T. J. Peterle. Food
Chain Model for DDT Kinetics in a Freshwater Marsh.
Nature, Vol. 230, 1971, pp. 60-62.
74-D
-------
48. Woodwell, G. M., C. F. Wurster, and P. A. Isaacson.
DDT Residues in an East Coast Estuary: A Case of Biological
Concentration of a Persistent Insecticide. Science, Vol.
156, 1967, pp. 821-824.
49. Annual Report of Progress:1970. Fish Pesticide Research
Laboratory, Columbia, Missouri.
50. Anderson, R. B. and W. H. Everhart. Concentrations of DDT
in Landlocked Salmon at Sebago Lake, Maine. Trans. Amer.
Fish. Soc., Vol. 95(2), 1966, pp. 160-164.
51. Allison, D., B. Kallman, O. B. Cope, and C. C. Van Valin.
Insecticides: Effects on Cutthroat Trout of Repeated
Exposure to DDT. Science, Vol. 142, 1963, pp. 958-961.
52. Atchison, G. J. Lipid and DDT Dynamics in Developing
Brook Trout Eggs and Fry. Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan
State University, East Lansing, 1970.
53. Malone, C. R. and B. G. Blaylock. Toxicity of Insecticide
Formulations to Carp Embryos Reared in. Vitro. J. Wildlife
Management, Vol. 34, 1970, pp. 460-463.
54. Anderson, J. M. and M. R. Peterson. DDT: Sublethal
Effects on Brook Trout Nervous System. Science, Vol. 164,
1969, pp. 440-441.
55. Hickey, J. J. , J. A. Keith, and F. B. Coon. An Exploration
of Pesticides in a Lake Michigan Ecosystem. J. Applied
Ecol. No. 3 Suppl. on Pesticides in the Environment, 1966,
pp. 141-152.
56. Woodwell, G. M., C. F. Wurster, and P. A. Isaacson. DDT
Residues in an East Coast Estuary. Science, Vol. 156,
1967, pp. 821-824.
57. Wurster, C. F. and D. B. Wingate. DDT Residues and Declining
Reproduction in the Bermuda Petrel. Science, Vol. 159,
1968, pp. 979-981.
58. Peterle, T. J. and R. H. Giles. New Tracer Techniques for
Evaluating the Effects of an Insecticide on the Ecology of
a Forest Fauna. Ohio State Univ. Res. Found. Rept., 435 p.,
1964.
59. Menzel, D. N. , J. Anderson, and A. Randtke. Marine
Phytoplankton Vary in Their Response to Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons. Science, Vol. 167, 1970, pp. 1724-1726.
75-D
-------
60. Wurster, C. F., Jr. DDT Reduces Photosynthesis by Marine
Phytoplankton. Science, Vol. 159, 1968, pp. 1474-1475.
61. McDonald, D. Personal communication.
62. Stadnyk, L., R. S. Campbell, and B. T. Johnson. Pesticide
Effect on Growth and **C Assimilation in a Freshwater Alga.
Bull. Environ. Contain. & Toxicol., Vol. 6(1), 1971, pp. 1-
8.
63. Sanders, H. O. and 0. B. Cope. The Relative Toxicities of
Several Pesticides to Naiads .of Three Species of Stoneflies,
Limnol. & Oceanog., Vol. 13(1), 1968, pp. 112-117.
64. Thompson, A. R. Stonefly Metabolism and the Effects of DDT,
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Utah, 1971.
65. Macek, K. J. and W. A. McAllister. Insecticide Suscepti-
bility of Some Common Fish Family Representatives. Trans.
Amer. Fish. Soc., Vol. 99(1), 1970, pp. 20-27-
66. Macek, K. J. and H. 0. Sanders. Biological Variation in
the Susceptibility of Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates to
DDT-. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc., Vol. 99(1), 1970, pp. 89-90.
67. Rodgers, C. A. and D. L. Stalling. In_ Animal Progress
Report:1970. Fish-Pesticide Research Laboratory. BSF&W,
Columbia, Missouri.
68. Mpyer, F. L., Jr. In Animal Progress Report:1970. Fish-
Pesticide Research Laboratory, BSF&W, Columbia, Missouri.
69. Macek, K. In Animal Progress Report:1970. Fish-Pesticide
Research Laboratory, BSF&W, Columbia, Missouri.
70. Rodgers, C. A. Uptake and Elimination of Simazine by
Green Sunfish. Weed Science, Vol. 18(1), 1970, pp. 134-
136.
76-D
-------
APPENDIX E
ALTERNATIVES TO THE USE OF
CHEMICAL HOME AND GARDEN PESTICIDES
Pesticides for use in homes and gardens are usually
applied in homes and gardens for aesthetic reasons as
compared to the economic reasons behind agricultural
use. Leaving weeds, insects and plant diseases un-
controlled does not directly affect a loss of yield or
income for the suburban resident, although it may result
in an indirect economic loss if these uncontrolled weeds,
insects or diseases become so devastating that they
destroy lawns, trees, shrubs, or other plantings, thus
reducing the value of the property. However, such
severe pest damage does not occur often in suburban
areas, and where it does occur, its extent is limited
to the cost of replacing the destroyed lawns and plant-
ings. Therefore, suburban gardeners are not subject to
the same economic considerations and pressures which
influence the use of pesticides in agriculture.
In general, suburban gardeners also have a very
limited knowledge of the weeds, insects, and diseases
they wish to control. An understanding of the biology
and the life cycles of these pests is prerequisite to
1-E
-------
the intelligent and selective use of pesticides. This
lack of knowledge by suburban gardeners is a major
obstacle in the development of more prudent pest control
methods. It also creates a great incentive to the de-
velopment of multi-purpose pesticide products, based on
the principle that if one uses a large enough hammer,
it is not necessary to pinpoint the bug.
Another obstacle in the development of non-chemical
methods to control lawn and garden pests is the great
variety to be dealt with. Unlike farm crops, suburban
gardens are not monocultures, instead containing dif-
ferent plant species affected by many different insects,
diseases, and weeds.
At present, much work is devoted to the development
of alternative control measures for some of the major
agricultural pests, including biological and microbial
agents, juvenile hormone mimics, insect attractants,
sterilization by chemical or physical agents, etc.
Efforts are also being expended to develop "integrated
control" or "pest management" systems in which all avail-
able cultural, chemical and non-chemical methods for con-
trol or .repression of a pest or pest complex are combined
so as to obtain optimal (but not necessarily maximal)
crop protection with minimal environmental damage.
2-E
-------
These efforts are, by necessity, target-specific
in terms of a single important pest species, or a com-
plex of pests affecting a specific crop. Since a
great variety of host plants and pest organisms exist
in the home, lawn, and garden situation, it is not likely
the developments discussed above will be as useful here
as in agricultural settings.
Organic gardening methods appear to be the most
important non-chemical methods of home and garden
pest control currently in use. In the three study
cities, the contractor found organic gardening organi-
zations, pesticide task forces and similar groups at
work interested in reducing or eliminating the use of
chemical home and garden pesticides. Group members are
informed about the dangers from pesticide pollution;
from the use of persistent, broad spectrum pesticides;
from residue accumulation of persistent pesticides in
the soil and in the environment; and from improper dis-
posal of "empty" pesticide containers or leftover con-
centrated or dilute pesticides. They provide information
on those less persistent chemicals to be utilized when
use of pesticides is unavoidable.
The importance of good housekeeping, mulching and
generating a healthy environment for plants in general
is also stressed.
3-E
-------
Beneficial insects such as the praying mantis, the
lady-bird beetle and the trichogramma wasp are recommended,
along with sources of supply. Marigolds are suggested for
interplanting with tomatoes, beans, eggplants and other
vegetables to repel grubs and nematodes. Asparagus re-
portedly also repels nematodes. Nasturtiums are recom-
mended to prevent aphids on cucumbers and tomatoes inter-
planted with them. Recipes are offered on spray pre-
paration from peppers, onions, garlic, cloves and other
ingredients to control a variety of foliar insects on
flowers and vegetables.
As outlined in Appendix A of this report, only a
small percentage of the homeowners surveyed during this
study reported gardening organically; 2.5 percent of all
respondents reported complete success and satisfaction
with organic gardening methods. A somewhat larger group
reported using organic gardening methods, supplemented
by sparing use of chemical pesticides where absolutely
necessary.
The great majority of the homeowners surveyed re-
ported using home and garden pesticides without serious
reservations, and without observing undesirable effects
on their own health and well-being or on the environment.
However, from personal contacts with suburbanites and
leaders of gardening organizations, it was obvious that
4-E
-------
most suburban gardeners are quite aware of the "pesticide
problem" and its international, national, and local impli-
cations. This was especially true in Michigan, where
major legislative and. regulatory steps toward control of
pesticide use have been achieved.
The contractor feels suburban gardeners are not
only very aware of environmental problems, but also
very receptive to educational efforts and advice on how
they can contribute directly to preserving and improv-
ing the natural environment. However, it is also dif-
ficult for many to find any realistic middle ground
between the two extremes. At present home gardeners
are given a choice between complete and immediate aban-
donment of all chemicals as opposed to complete reliance
on chemicals, and especially multi-purpose products, as
touted by colorful pesticide brochures and labels.
As pointed out in Appendix A of this report, the
home gardener has no practical way of utilizing Federal,
state or other unbiased sources of advice on home and
garden pesticides in his choice of products. Public
agencies, especially state Agricultural Extension Ser-
vices, have very useful observations, advice and recom-
mendations available. However, performance results and
recommendations of these agencies identify pesticide
chemicals by their common names or chemical names instead
5-E
-------
of brand names. Thus, while there are many alert, well
educated and interested suburban homeowners and gardeners
and many gardening organizations who are keenly inte-
rested in this information, it is extremely difficult,
if not impossible, for the layman to relate these recom-
mendations to the home and garden pesticide products
offered for sale.
As noted in Appendix A of this report, home and
garden pesticide manufacturers want their products iden-
tified by brand and product names, instead of by active
chemical ingredients. Label description of active in-
gredients is a legal requirement, but choice of place-
ment and size of print for this label section indicate
manufacturers do not expect or encourage their customers
to take an interest in it. In many instances, this dis-
couragement of interest by manufacturers is manifested
in their choice of using the chemical names of active
ingredients instead of the common names, which some
customers might be able to identify. For example, DDT
was described on the label as "l,l,l-trichloro-2f2-bis
(p-chlorophenyl) ethane." This disguise was so effec-
tive that not even store owners realized they carrie-d
DDT-containing products.
One reason for this subterfuge by home and garden
pesticide manufacturers is that they often replace active
6-E
-------
ingredients in tradenamed products without changing the
product name, handling characteristics or outward ap-
pearance. From an environmental standpoint, these
changes often represent improvements. One manufacturer
recently replaced a heavily chlorinated, probably rather
persistent herbicide active ingredient which has to be
used at 30 - 35 Ibs. of active ingredient per acre with
a probably much less persistent organic phosphate chemi-
cal requiring "only" 10-20 Ibs. of active ingredient per
acre.
Likewise, many other persistent pesticides previous-
ly contained in home and garden formulations have quiet-
ly been replaced by less persistent ingredients.
In general, manufacturers of home and garden pesti-
cides are aware they must approach environmental concerns
in a different manner from agricultural pesticide
manufacturers. Companies selling pesticides for farm
use deal with customer attitudes which are somewhat at
variance with those of the general population. In con-
trast, manufacturers of home and garden pesticides
deal with the public at large. Their literature and
philosophy in the marketing of home and garden pesticides
quite clearly reflect this awareness.
Practically all pesticides now in commercial use
7-E
-------
were developed prior to the "environmental age." In
the past, prime concerns governing the development and
registration of pesticides were effectiveness at econo-
mically feasible dosage rates, safety to the user, and
safety to the consumer who might be exposed to residues
by way of consuming treated produce. Consequently,
safety tests of pesticide chemicals included extensive
studies on their acute and chronic toxicity to labora-
tory animals, and on the nature and the quantities of
residues remaining on treated crops or animals after
application. Concern about possible effects of pesti-
cides and their residues on the environment is of re-
cent origin, and practical methods of measuring and
monitoring such effects, or of screening pesticides
for their behavior in this regard have not yet been
resolved. Accordingly, manufacturers wishing to de-
velop and offer more environmentally desirable home
and garden pesticides presently have very little tan-
gible and authoritative information to follow.
The contractor has reached the following con-
clusions about alternative methods of controlling lawn
and garden pests:
1. Methods such as microbial agents, juvenile
8-E
-------
hormone mimics or pest management systems which look
very promising for use on some agricultural crops and
pests are not likely to be employed in the lawn and
garden area in the near future.
2. Organic gardening methods appear to work well
in the hands of small, dedicated groups of believers.
A well-developed "green thumb" combined with consider-
able biological knowledge seem to be prerequisites for
the success of completely non-chemical gardening.
3. The large majority of suburban gardeners consid-
er "pure" organic gardening methods too cumbersome and
time consuming, and do not have the patience and the
basic knowledge to make them work.
4. Consequently, the contractor does not foresee
suburban gardening without the use of any chemicals as
a realistic possibility. There is room for improvement
in products and practices presently employed for the
control of lawn and garden pests.
5. An overwhelming majority of suburban gardeners
are keenly aware of the pesticide problem in relation
to the environment. For instance, all are aware of the
DDT issue. Suburban gardeners appear to be most recep-
tive to additional information and more practical advice
on how to translate these concerns into action. They
9-E
-------
need realistic guidance on how to select products
and practices which will preserve and enhance the
environment and minimize damage to non-target orga-
nisms and pollution from pesticide run-off.
6. Manufacturers of home and garden pesticides,
especially those operating nation-wide, are aware
that their clientele is the public at large and that
this market is concerned about the quality of the en-
vironment. Their efforts to develop environmentally
desirable products are hampered by the present lack
of methods and yardsticks by which to measure and moni-
tor the environmental damage potential of chemicals.
7. Federal and state extension specialists and
other public officials dealing with lawn and garden
pests and their control share the public concern about
environmental quality and have developed a great deal
of useful information, advice and control recommenda-
tions .
8. A major obstacle to more effective communication
and cooperation between these three groups - suburban
gardeners, home and garden pesticide manufacturers and
public agencies - is the area of pesticide nomenclature.
Lay gardeners know home and garden pesticide products
in terms of brand and trade names, while public agencies
refer to pesticide active ingredients in terms of common
10-E
-------
or chemical names. Present practices of identifying
active ingredients on home and garden pesticide labels
make it practically impossible for the lay person to
utilize public agency recommendations.
11-E
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Alternatives to Pesticide Use
1. To make home and garden pesticide labels more
meaningful to the user and to facilitate lay persons'
understanding of research findings and recommendations by
Federal and state agencies, make it mandatory that all
active ingredients be identified by common names.
2. Encourage public agencies, gardening organi-
zations and home and garden pesticide manufacturers to
cooperate in the development of meaningful, practical
information and advice on how to control pests around
the house and yard in such a way as to reduce actual and
potential environmental harm to a minimum. Furnish
suburban gardeners easily understandable, unbiased in-
formation on the properties of pesticide active ingredients
'-*.
and on their potential for environmental harm in terms
which they can relate to product labels.
3. Develop and furnish to suburban gardeners prac-
tical information on the pollution potential of different
pesticide use methods. Examples: dry granular lawn in-
secticides are less liable to produce runoff than liquid
sprays; are multi-purpose "convenience" products really
necessary?
12-E
-------
APPENDIX F
APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
The contractor has endeavored to examine and pre-
sent in concise form the status of Federal and state
laws directly pertinent to the states and three cities.
By collecting and analyzing pertinent laws at the state
and Federal level, and through a series of interviews
with key people, a picture of good and bad has been as-
sembled; each will be presented with the contractor's
evaluation of areas of needed reform.
The Appendix is organized as follows: a review
of Federal Laws and proposed new legislation; a review
and synopsis of state laws affecting each of the ghree
cities; a review of local laws or lack of them; and
finally a section containing the text of each of these
laws and selected pending bills.
Existing Federal Laws
The Federal regulation of pesticides operates
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenti-
cide Act (FIFRA), enacted in 1947 and amended in 1959,
1961, and 1964. The act prohibits the interstate of
international shipment of economic poisons unless they
are: registered pursuant to provisions of Section 4
1-F
-------
of the act, are in unbroken immediate containers, and
are labeled according to the provisions of the act.
Should the Administrator find that an imminent
hazard to the public would exist, he may suspend the
registration of an economic poison immediately. Any
person who violates this law may be found guilty of
a misdemeanor and on conviction can be fined not more
than $1,000.00
New Federal Legislation
During 1971, Congress has considered legislation
to amend or replace FIFRA. At least eight different
bills dealing with pesticides were introduced in the
House of Representatives. The primary one was H.R.
4152. In the Senate, four bills have been under con-
sideration, two of which (S.600 and S.745) would —
like H.R. 4152 — replace the present FIFRA. The other
bills would either prohibit the sale of DDT or prohibit
the sale of aldrin, chlordane, DDD/TDE, dieldrin, en-
drin, helpachlor, lindane, and toxaphene. The fate
of any legislation in the Congress is to be considered
uncertain until enacted by both Houses and sent to the
President. H.R. 10729, the Committee rewrite of H.R.
4152, was enacted by the House in the first session
of the 92nd Congress. There is strong expectation that
2-F
-------
Senate action in the 1972 session will result in enact-
ment of a new FIFRA very similar to H.R. 10729.
H.R. 10729 incorporates many of the provisions of
the existing law (FIFRA), but goes well beyond it in
the Federal regulation of intrastate as well as inter-
state activities, including registration of pesticides
in intrastate commerce. It provides for the classifi-
cation of pesticides as to: (a) "general use" or (b)
"restricted use". The original versions has a third
category of "use by permit only". It also provides
for the certification of pesticide applicators. It
provides for aid and guidance to states in developing
training programs for pesticide applicators and for the
certification of individuals entitled to use restricted
pesticides.
The bill also substantially increases the enforce-
ment powers of the Federal agency. There are provisions
for criminal misdemeanor and for civil penalties. These
include not only the registrant, wholesaler, dealer,
retailer, or other distributor, the commercial pesti-
cide applicator, but the farmer who "knowingly.violates
any provision of the Act."
3-F
-------
Impact of the Pending Federal Legislation
The contractor views the pending legislation as
(1) an integral part of more effective pollution control
which provides for (2) improved control of commercial
and private applicators to prevent overdoses and careless
applications, (3) more effective handling of pesticides,
(4) reduction in on-site storage of pesticides, and (5)
more effective control over retail sales subject to
recall on order of the Administrator.
City and urban community officials seem to generally
concur in this opinion. When contacted, they were, for
the most part, helpful and seemingly aware of the necessity
to control certain areas of pesticide use. These people
felt generally that their offices have tried and were
trying to implement programs tending to minimize possi-
ble environmental damage. Many felt that some retailers
and formulators were using practices designed to circum-
vent existing regulations and most felt that the pending
Federal legislation would be of material help. As might
be expected, the greatest opposition came from some re-
tailers and commercial applicators -- both groups saw
the impending legislation as too restrictive.
The contractor believes that most commercial struc-
tural applicators, including the common household pest
4-F
-------
applicators are responsible and honestly try through
national and local organizations to follow reasonable
guidelines. There isf however, a large group of "cut-
rate" applicators operating in most major cities around
the country who are opportunistic and in many cases
require only a merchant's license and a spray can to
be in business. Health officials are concerned because
these operators do a job which many municipalities
cannot do; the reputable applicators are quite vocal
in their opposition to this group, feeling that they
give the industry a bad name.
Section 20, Research and Monitoring, and Section
23, State Cooperation and Training of H.R. 10729, are
particularly significant advances. The provisions which
specifically empower the Administrator to (1) foster
research in biologically integrated alternatives for
pest control, (2) formulate a national plan for monitor-
ing, (3) expand public funds to encourage state pro-
grams in training of certified pesticide applicators,
are viewed by the contractor as necessary and desirable.
Testing and Registration of New Pesticides
Section 3. Registration of pesticides appears
to provide for sufficient information to allow the Ad-
ministrator to make adequate judgments regarding new
5-F
-------
compounds. The provisions which allow a full description
of tests performed, S3(c)(l)(D), and the results thereof
transmitted to the Administrator as he desires and
S3(c)(l), wherein the Administrator shall publish guide-
lines specifying the kinds of information required in
support of registration, are regarded as particularly
important. The further provision that the Administrator
shall make public all scientific information relating
to the registration of any particular compound is viewed
as an absolute necessity and long overdue (S 23 (c) (2),
p.18, lines 4-9).
State Law Summary
Texas. The Texas Economic Pesticide Law of 1971
is simple and direct. Although it does make provisions
for the establishment of an Advisory Committee, it is
felt that additional members should be added to make
more equitable decisions possible. Apparently part
of the burden of determining whether certain pesticides
possess "serious uncontrollable adverse effects" or are
"of greater detriment to the environment" than "the
benefits received by its use" etc. will fall on this
committee.
Authority is still vested in county commissioner
courts to ameliorate portions of the state herbicide
6-F
-------
law which is a kind of use and application provision.
Such authority may be subject to abuses in certain
cases. No insecticide use and application provisions
are currently in force. Most of the bills which were
offered but which did not pass in 1971 were really
too broad and under the existing law would have been
difficult to interpret in individual cases.
The synopsis which follows shows provisions of
laws enacted in 1971 as well as the first mentioned bills
which failed to become law this year. The distribution
of more stringent commercial applicator laws or a re-
stricted use provision encompassing chlorinated hydro-
carbons would have been desirable but were not passed.
Texas was a large user of raw DDT which was formulated
for use in the state. The recent ban on interstate
shipments of DDT will materially affect this use.
7-P
-------
SYNOPSIS OF TEXAS LAWS
Bills Enacted
Title
Prohibited acts
Senate Bill 602 (House Bill 1338)
[amends Insecticide Law]
Forbids sale to purchasers other
than those named on custom mixes;
Prohibits registration of pesti-
cides with "serious uncontrollable
adverse effects," or whose use is
"of less public value" or "of
greater detriment to the environ-
ment" than "the benefits received
by its use/' or which "is detri-
mental to vegetation/ to domestic
animals, or to the public health
and safety."
Authority granted
to:
restrict usage
requires ingredient statement and
purchaser's name on custom mixes;
stop sale provisions.
require compliance batch numbers or symbols on labels
label
inspect property
Pesticide Board
Title
Authority granted
to:
licensing
regulation of
persons engaged
in business
factory inspection.
Advisory Committee composed of
Texas A&M and Texas Tech deans, and
heads of departments of Parks and
Wildlife, Health and Agriculture.
Senate Bill 910
Enacts Structural Pest Control Law
titled, "Texas Structural Pest
Control Act."
Create a structural pest control
board.
Yes.
Yes.
8-F
-------
Title
Grants authority
to:
Relevant Laws
House Bill 217
County commissioner courts, to
exempt, revoke exemptions and
reinstate exemptions of counties
from the .provisions of the law
governing sale, use and trans-
portation of herbicides where it
relates to custom applicators.
Texas Herbicide Law
[Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. (1969), art.
135b-4] This act regulates the sale,
use, and transportation of herbicides
and requires commercial applicators
(those who apply herbicides to more
than 10 acres per year) to obtain a
permit, and those who sell herbicides
in amounts over 1 pound (except up
to 1 gallon of 10% concentrate for
lawn use) to be licensed by the Depart-
ment of Agriculture. Equipment used
in custom application must also be
inspected and licensed. The law and
regulations are very specific, but
certain counties are exempted from
all provisions of the law and others
are exempted from some provisions of
the law.
"Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenti-
cide Act of Texas'*
[Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat.
135b-5]
(1971), art.
9-P
-------
Bills Not Passed
Title
Prohibited Acts
Authority granted
to:
restrict usage
Title
Prohibited acts
Title
Title
Authority Granted
to:
regulate use
regulate storage,
transportation
and disposal of
pesticides
Title
Authority granted
to:
House Bill 9.
Changes name of Insecticide, Fungi-
cide and Rodenticide Act to Economic
Pesticides Control Act and amends it.
Prohibits registration of pesticides
which have "uncontrollable adverse
effects," or whose use is "of less
public value" or "of greater detri-
ment to the environment" than "the
benefit received by its use," or
for which there is a substitute
"less destructive to the environ-
ment" or which "is detrimental to
vegetation, animals or public health
and safety" or which "is of little
or no value."
Yes; permit provision.
House Bill 55
Bans sale or use of DDT.
House Bill 671
Enacts commercial applicators law,
House Bill 698 (same as Senate
Bill 171)
Yes.
Yes.
House Bill 773
10-F
-------
require compliance Yes; labels should bear directions
label for disposal of unused pesticides
and decontamination of used con-
tainers .
Title
Prohibited Acts
Title
Authority granted
to:
issue regulations
Pesticide Board:
Title:
Prohibited Acts
Title:
Authority granted
to:
regulate storage,
transportation and
disposal of pesti-
cides :
Pesticide Board:
Title:
Prohibited Acts:
House Bill 795
Bans use of pesticides which are
not biodegradable [biodegradable
is defined as "capable of being
broken down into its chemical com
ponents by processes of nature."]
House Bill 1603
Yes.
Water Quality Board with the con-
currence of the Commissioner of
Agriculture and the Departments of
Health, Education and Welfare.
Senate Bill 170 (House Bill 321)
Bans the sale of chlorinated hydro-
carbon pesticides.
Senate Bill 171
issue regulations: Yes.
Yes.
Pesticide Control Agency, headed by
Pesticide Control Administrator.
Senate Bill 234 (House Bill 321)
Bans sale of DDT "and of any other
chlorinated hydrocarbons" and any
other product sprayed or treated by
them.
11-F
-------
Pennsylvania. This state's existing law is fashioned
generally after FIFRA. No restricted use clause or use
or application law is included. The fate of many of
the pending bills is in doubt. Generally speaking, the
offered bills were much more restrictive than existing
law. Restricted use provisions, the prohibition of
chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, except in emergency,
are received as desirable. This state will probably
find it easy to accept the pending Federal legislation.
Of particular noteworthiness is Senate Bill 668
which would grant authority to the Department of Environ-
mental Resources to establish centers to collect and
dispose of non-biodegradable pesticides. This is the
first law the contractor team has learned of which
addresses the problem of eliminating contamination
from "empty" pesticide containers. The following
synopsis of laws shows provisions of this and other
pending pesticide legislation.
12-F
-------
SYNOPSIS OF PENNSYLVANIA LAWS
Title No pesticide use and application law.
Relevant laws "Pennsylvania Pesticide Act of 1957"
(Economic poison law)
(Pa. Stat. Ann. (1963), tit. 3, s 111.1
to 111.12)
"Pennsylvania Grape Herbicide Act" (1965)
(Pa. Stat. Ann. (1963), tit. 3, s 214.51
to 214.55) Permits establishment of
geographical areas, within which use of
herbicides may be restricted or prohibited,
Pest Control Compact (1967)
(Pa. Stat. Ann. (1963), tit. 3, s 214.41
to 214.47) Provides for the entry of the
Commonwealth into a compact with other
States relating to pest control.
13-F
-------
Bills Enacted: None
Bills Pending:
Title
Prohibited acts
Title
Licensing
Title
Prohibited acts
Title
Licensing
fees
House Bill 447
Bans sale of pesticide containing
additive to mask or change its
odor.
Amended to prohibit sale of a
pesticide containing additive
"for the purpose of adding an
odor where there is none, unless
the additive, because of its
objectionable nature, tends to
limit or lessen the use of such
pesticides."
House Bill 807
Every manufacturing or processing
plant within the commonwealth to
register every chemical and mineral
used - manufacturing or processing
if such chemicals will be dis-
charged into waters or sewage sys-
tem.
House Bill 819
Prohibits sale, use or distribu-
tion of DDT (including isometric
compounds), endrin, chlordane,
aldrin, dieldrin, lindane, hep-
tachlor, or toxaphene or any of
their isomers, except in an emer-
gency .
House Bill 1016
Amends Pennsylvania Pesticide Act
fee based on volume of sale for
dealers in restricted use pesti-
cides? others - annual fee $3.00
Secretary may review and revise
14-F
-------
Definitions
Labeling
Pesticide Board
Title
Prohibited acts
Licensing
qualifications
fees
Aithority granted to
restrict usage
Title
Authority granted to
Title
fees. Non-fee license required
of farmers or landscape gardeners
to use restricted use pesticides.
pesticides - include spray adjuvants.
restricted use pesticides - highly
toxic, persistent or permanent pes-
ticides which the Secretary finds
to be so hazardous to man or his
environment, animal, wildlife,
livestock, poultry, or crop, ex-
cept pest or vegetation to be
destroyed, that restriction on
its sale or use is necessary to
protect the public.
for pesticides containing mercury.
Ten-member council
House Bill 1557
Prohibited pesticides include DDT,
endrin, benzene hexachloride, chlor-
dane, aldrin, dieldrin, lindane,
heptachlor, toxaphene, and any of
their isomers.
permit system similar to that in
New York.
None.
Secretary of Environmental Re-
sources would establish list of
restricted pesticides.
Senate Bill 668
Department of Environmental Re-
sources to establish centers to
collect and dispose of non-bio-
degradable pesticides.
Senate Bill 1036
15-P
-------
Appropriations $665,000 to Department of Environ-
mental Resources to establish a
forest insect biological control
program.
16-F
-------
Michigan. Michigan already has adequate provisions
for testing and licensing of applicators. Annual re-
view and renewable clauses are deemed desirable.
The Pesticide Advisory Board in this state (cf.
Texas) is constituted of members more directly concerned
(and knowledgable) about environmental contamination
and potential health hazard to humans. Additional
licensing provisions and the inclusion of restricted
use categories in legislation passed in 1971 are seen
as desirable additions to the law. This state will
have no problem with the Administration Bill (H.R.
10729) since many of their provisions are already more
restrictive than the proposed Federal law. The provi-
sions of the existing law do not, however, specify re-
stricted use pesticides, it merely grants the authority
to the Department of Agriculture to designate such.
A public hearing was scheduled for December 9, 1971,
on Michigan's Department of Agriculture proposed Regu-
lation No. 633. This proposed regulation provided for
the identity of restricted use pesticides and their
formulations; who may sell them and for what purposes;
as well as licensing and examination and reporting of
sales provisions for such compounds. Such a regulation,
with the full support of the Department of Agricul-
ture, is seen as very worthwhile legislation.
Other Michigan laws and pending legislation about
pesticides are outlined in the synopsis which follows.
17-F
-------
SYNOPSIS OF MICHIGAN LAWS
Title
Prohibited acts
Exemptions
Licensing
qualifications
application
examination
fees
issuance
nonresidents
Financial
responsibility
Authority granted
to;
issue regulations
enforce the act
delegate duties
restrict usage
Application of Economic Poisons
[Mich. St. Ann. (1967), s 12.353]
Unlawful to operate pesticide equip-
ment or apply pesticides commer-
cially unless licensed by the
Director of Agriculture.
Farmers, municipalities, road com-
missions, or State or Federal
agencies.
Director must find applicant quali-
fied.
Forms to be furnished by Director.
Examination of application form re-
quired .
Initial license $20; annual renewal
$20.
Issued after applicant found quali-
fied; renewable annually (Dec-
ember 31) .
No provision for reciprocity.
Applicant with unsatisfied judgments
required to post bond before ob-
taining license.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
18-F
-------
inspect property
require records
cooperate
with others
publish
information
conduct courses
regulate storage,
transportation,
or disposal of
pesticides
require
compliance
with label
license
equipment
subpoena persons
or records
report losses
investigate
damages
Pesticide board
Definitions
Yes.
Not specified in act.
Not specified in act,
Not specified in act,
Not specified in act,
Not specified in act,
Not specified in act.
Not specified in act.
Not specified in act.
Not specified in act.
Not specified in act.
Five-member advisory committee
created consisting of Director of
Conservation, Director of Public
Health, Director of Aeronautics,
Director of the Pesticides Re-
search Center, Michigan State
University, and the Executive
Secretary of the Water Resources
Commission (or their designee).
1. aircraft
2. defoliant
3. desiccant
4. Director
10. herbicide
11. insect
12. insecticide
13. nematocide
5. economic poison 14. nematode
19-F
-------
Penalties
Relevant laws
6. equipment 15. person
7. fungi 16. plant regu-
8. fungicide lator
9 - ground equipment 17. weed
Violation of act or regulation is
a misdemeanor
"Michigan Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act of_ 1949"
[Mich. St. Ann. (1967), s 12.352]
Michigan 2,4-D Act
[Mich. St. Ann. (1967), s 12.366]
Permits establishment of designated
areas within which the use of cer-
tain herbicides may be prohibited
(grape vineyards).
"Michigan Food Law of 1968"
[Mich. St. Ann. (1967), s 12.933]
Sec. 12.933(21) provides that any
pesticide chemical in or on a raw
agricultural commodity is unsafe,
unless in compliance with the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act.
20-F
-------
LAWS PASSED IN 1971
Title
Additions
Authority granted
to:
restrict usage
require records
reports of sales
require licensed
dealers to supply
information to
purchaser
Amendment to the Michigan "Insecti-
cide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
of 1949."
Adds and defines the following terms:
1. Restricted use pesticides
2. Restricted use pesticide dealers
3. Identity of restricted use pesti-
cide formulations to be sold
only by licensed dealers.
4. Identity of those restricted
use formulations that may be
sold by licensed dealers only
to licensed economic poison
applicators or representatives
of governmental agencies.
Authorize the Director of the State
Department of Agriculture to adopt
a list of restricted use pesti-
cides and to regulate the "...
time and conditions of sale/ dis-
tribution and use of restricted
use pesticides. . ."
Require dealers to furnish the
Director of Agriculture a ". . .
record of all sales of restricted
use pesticides..." and to keep
copies of such records for a period
of 2 years. Other State agencies
may obtain copies upon request
[with certain exceptions relating
to patent rights].
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
21-F
-------
Licensing
qualifications A person in charge of each sales
and application location or outlet shall apply, on
a form prescribed by the Director
for a license to sell restricted
use pesticide formulations for
each location or outlet.
examination Person applying shall pass a
written examination.
issuance Issued after applicant found quali-
fied; renewable annually on or be-
fore January 1 of each year.
nonresidents No provision for reciprocity.
22-F
-------
Comments upon House Bill No. 4775, approved August 12,
1971 amending the Michigan "Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act of 1949"
At the present time, 30 states either restrict or
have the authority to restrict the sale and use of cer-
tain designated pesticides. Nineteen of these states
(Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oregon, Utah, and Washington) have incorporated and de-
fined the term "restricted use pesticides" in their
laws.
The other 11 states (see list below) use terms
having essentially the same meaning or include authority
(enabling legislation) for some state agency to prohibit,
restrict, or otherwise control the use of designated
pesticides through the issuance of regulations.
Alaska, California (restricted materials or injurious
materials), Connecticut (prescribed or prohibit use) ,
Hawaii (herbicides only), Illinois, Maine (relating
to waters), Massachusetts (hard, persistent pesti-
cides) , New Jersey, New Mexico (environmentally
harmful, persistent pesticides), Rhode Island
(banned or restricted pesticides, and Wisconsin.
23-F
-------
BILLS PROPOSED BUT NOT PASSED IN 1971
House Bill 4683 - Prohibits sale of pesticide/fertilizer
mixtures.
House Bill 4706 - Directs Department of Agriculture not
to register heptachlor, dieldrin, toxaphene, lindane,
benzene hexachloride, endrin/ aldrin and chlorade except
where the agricultural experiment station says there is
no reasonable alternative .
House Bill 4707 - Makes it a misdemeanor to use a pesti-
cide which is not registered.
House Bill 5486 - Would prohibit sale of product pack-
aged in polyvinyl chloride containers or the use of
such containers after December 31, 1972.
24-F
-------
Identity of Favorable Types of Laws
Although some states presently have laws which ap-
pear to control use and application, it is seen that
sufficient control is not observed in practice at all
tiroes. Hopefully, the provisions of the bill, which
would strengthen or reinforce Federal aid to educational
programs designed to improve methods of application
and human safety, would have their impact in increased
environmental protection as well.
Some of the verbiage of the existing state laws
is rather loose in the interpretation of how to dispose
of containers and unused pesticides. Hopefully this
major source of environmental contamination will be
solved by more useful state laws in the future. As in-
dicated in another section of this report, many house-
holders have expressed an earnest desire to dispose of
their material in a suitable way, but do not know of
a practical solution. Aid in this matter should come
from all states as soon as possible. (See Pennsylvania
Senate Bill 668.)
Studies on various soil types indicate that con-
siderable residues exist in urban and suburban soils
around the country. Means of identifying this residue
level would be desirable. To date, not enough is known
25-P
-------
to conduct a mass balance to see where the pesticides
go once they are applied. Legislation providing for
studies of this type would help increase our overall
understanding of pesticide use and degradation patterns.
The activities of State Departments of Agriculture
through the Agricultural Extension Service are well known
to farmers. The activities of this group as well as
the valuable services and information they provide are
much less well known to suburban and urban home gardeners.
Provisions of the proposed Federal legislation which would
augment educational programs in the various states is
viewed as a very desirable feature and one which would
materially aid this heavy pesticide use group.
The strengthening of applicator laws is viewed
as another very desirable feature of some state laws.
However, responsible operators who perform valuable
services should not suffer from over-regulation.
Local Pesticide Laws and Regulations
As part of the survey of the three study cities,
the contractor contacted all the municipalities which
make up the suburban areas under study. These are spread
out over five counties in Pennsylvania, three in Michigan,
and one in Texas. The possibility of county laws or
regulations as well as township laws concerning use or
sales of pesticides was explored. In the entire study
26-F
-------
area only one local law was found. This is an ordinance
of the City of Grand Prairie, Texas, requiring the licen-
sing of all commercial applicators. This ordinance re-
quires the applicant to carry personal property and in-
jury insurance and a performance bond, and that he apply
for a license each year. The applicant is not required,
however, to show practical or theoretical knowledge of
pesticides, and the pests each controls. This law is
a start in the right direction, however. In many cities,
all that is needed to be a pesticide applicator is a
merchant's license and some pesticide. The licensing of
an operator and the requirement of financial responsi-
bility should tend to make the applicator more careful
in his work. The title section of this ordinance follows,
the full text is reproduced in the text of laws sections
of this Appendix.
Ordinance No. 1498. "An ordinance to license and
regulate pest control operators in the City of Grand
Prairie; making it unlawful to engage in the business
of pest control without obraining a license from
the City of Grand Prairie; establishing require-
ments for obtaining a pest control operator's license;
providing for payment of a license fee; excepting
certain persons or firms from the operation hereof;
providing for the revocation of such license, and
for an appeal from such revocation; providing that
pest control operators in the City shall comply
with this ordinance within sixty (60) days from
its enacement; providing a penalty for violation
hereof; declaring the provisions contained herein
to be severable; providing for publication; and
providing that this ordinance shall take effect
from and after five (5) days after such publication."
27-F
-------
Tables 1-F, 2-F and 3-F show the response from
each of the municipalities contacted in the study cities,
Except for Grand Prairie, the tables show no local at-
tempts to control or limit pesticide use. In a few
cities outside the study area, local laws restricting
the use of DDT have been discovered. It is possible
that local governments do not feel they have sufficient
knowledge to restrict pesticide use or it may be that
a reliance on state and Federal laws seems sufficient
because of a lack of visible problems concerning pesti-
cides.
Vector control officers, environmental health of-
ficers and Agriculture Department officials were con-
tacted as part of the program to assess the local con-
trol of pesticides. The contractor found only that
insect fogging programs and rodent control programs may
either be well planned or operated haphazardly, without
record keeping or listing of complaints received.
At the local level, pesticide control is not prac-
ticed in these study cities. Attempts were made to see
if this was a unique situation or a widespread phenomena
by contacting similar officials in other mid-Atlantic
cities, but no evidence of other programs was discovered,
28-F
-------
TABLE 1-P
LAW QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY REPLIES: DALLAS, TEXAS SUBURBS
Municipality
Dallas, Tex.
Univ. Park
Grand Prairie
Duncanville
Pesticide
law?
None
None
Yes
None
Retailer '-s
license?
None
None
Yes
None
Applicator ' s
license?
None ; the
State of Tex.
is currently
setting up a
board to regu
late chemical
applications
throughout
the state.
None
Yes
None
Applicator's
course?
None
None
No ; Senate
Bill 910,62nd
Legislature,
Regular Ses-
sion, 1971
for 1972 &
beyond.
None
Products
registered?
None
None
No
None
Pesticides
restricted?
None
None
No
None
Pesticides
prohibited?
None
None
No
None
Comments
Read the label.
Understand the
instructions. Fo]
low manufac-
turer ' s direction
for use.
None
None
In our community
we -actually have
experienced only
one local problen
parathion use &
its control. As
we have grown frc
a rural to a sub-
urban community,
this has not beei
a significant
problem.
to
to
4>
-------
TABLE 1-F
Continued
Municipality
Seagoville
Irving
Pesticide
law?
None
No, cer-
tain pro-
hibitive
ordinance:
Retailer's
license?
None
The same as
any other
retail mer-
chant
Applicator ' s
license?
None
If they go
from door to
door they
must have a
solicitor's
license
Applicator's
course?
None
None
Products
registered?
None
The Federal
legend law
is appli-
cable
Pesticides
restricted?
None
None; other
than those
that would
appear on the
Government
Control sheet
Pesticides
prohibited?
None
We would not
permit or
omit any-
thing beyond
government
restriction
Comments
it is possiDJ.e
that we need
some control over
the uses of pest
cides, but at
this time we
have none.
In Vector Control
this city has
for the past
several years
used BHC Dust in
dusting appli-
cators and Batex
in liquid appli-
cators as a con-
trol agent. The
standard used in
selecting these
two is based upoi
the fact that
they are nontoxic
to humans and
toxic to insects.
Admittedly/
there are product
on the market
that have a
greater knock
down power but
the selection of
these could have
10
o
•fl
-------
TABLE 1-F
Continued
Municipality
Sunnyvale
Richardson
Rowlett
Pesticide
law?
None
None
No
Retailer ' s
license?
None
None
Yes
Applicator ' s
license?
None
None
Applicator's
course?
None
None
Products
registered?
None
None
Pesticides
restricted?
None
None
Pesticides
prohibited?
None
None
Comments
an adverse ef-
fect on the
local residents.
We have no or-
dinance but feel
that the control
of pesticides
usage is import-
ant.
Overplayed.
We are a small
city and at the
present do not
have a health
officer.
u>
H«
-------
TABLE 2-F
LAW QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY REPLIES: LANSING, MICHIGAN
Municipality
Delhi
Township
Lansing
Township
Meridian
Township
Pesticide
law?
None
None
None
Retailer's
license?
None
None
None
Applicator's
license?
None
None
No-not by
local law, by
state law
Applicator's
course?
None
None
None
Products
registered?
None
None
None
Pesticides
restricted?
Only through
State regu-
lations
Only through
State regu-
lations
DDT is re-
stricted
state-wide
2,4,5-T is
somewhat re-
stricted
Pesticides
prohibited?
None
No DDT used
now using
malathion
DDT by
state law
only, mala-
thion &
larvicide
use more
wide now be
cause there
are no resi
dual effect
Comments
None
At Michigan State
Univ. there is ar
interior fight
between the stu-
dents and enviror
mentalists and
the professors
who developed
pesticides. There
is a wishy-washy
situation right
now, which the
state should
settle.
None
.
.
i
U)
M
-------
TABLE 2-F
Continued
Municipality
City of East
Lansing
Ingham Count]
Lansing, Mid
Pesticide
law?
None
None
Retailer '-s
license?
Not from
local gov't.
None
New state
law for '72
Applicator's
license?
None
None
•
Applicator's
course?
None
None
Products
registered?
None
Yes , roden-
ticides
Pesticides
restricted?
Not through
local ordi-
nance. DDT
restricted,
malathion
now used.
Yes, DDT
Pesticides
prohibited?
None
Yes, 1080 or
sodium fluo-
roacetate
is tightly
regulated
Comments
This is a sub-
ject for Fed-
eral or State
control
Problem prob-
ably over
played, but
there is poten-
tial hazard.
u>
-------
TABLE 3-F
LAW QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY REPLIES: PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA SUBURBS
Municipality
Philadelphia
i>.
V.
Doylestown
Sucks County
Pesticide
law?
No
No
Retailer's
license?
No
Jo
Applicator's
license?
No
Nc
Applicator's
course?
No
No
Products
registered?
No
No
Pesticides
restricted?
No
«o
Pesticides
prohibited?
Mo
«0
Comments
It is my opinion
that pesticides
have created no
environmental
hazard in terms
of measurable hu-
man mortality.
Uncontrolled ap-
plication of pes-
ticides may be-
come a threat but
I feel the risk
has been over-
stated. I favor
a management ap-
proach rather
than banning then
outright. Li-
censing through
training and
examination of
pesticide com-
mercial applica-
tions and sale
and use also most
desirable.
None
u>
ifc
4>
-------
TABLE 3-F
Continued
Municipality
Chester
County
Uoylan
Upper Darby
Pesticide
law?
No
No
No
Retailer '-a
license?
No
No
No
Applicator ' s
license?
No
No
NO
Applicator's
course?
No
No
No
Products
registered?
No
I
No
No
Pesticides
restricted?
No
No
No
Pesticides
prohibited?
No
No
No
Comments
Chester County
has no regula-
tions in this
field at pre-
sent. None is
contemplated at
present time.
None
Improper use of
pesticides nat-
urally can be a
hazard. However ,
certain environ-
mental damage mus
be tolerated at
times. The trade
off of damage
versus total
effective control
of insect and
rodent vectors
must be weighed
and decided on tfc
merits of each
case.
U)
Ul
4.
-------
TABLE 3-F
Continued
Municipality
Media
Edgmont
Haver ford
Lansdowne
Township
rinicum
Township
t
,*'
Pesticide
law?
No
No
No
No
No
Retailer '-s
license?
No
No
No
to
to
Applicator ' s
license?
No
No
No
No
No
Applicator ' s
course?
No
No
No
No
No
Products
registered?
No
No
No
No
No
Pesticides
restricted?
No
No
No
No
No
Pesticides
prohibited?
No
No
No
No
Use only
those ap-
iroved by
government .
tfe have no
laws prohi-
biting pes-
ticides.
Comments.
None
Spraying by
County Weed Con-
trol Unit does
not seem to ap-
preciably reduce
weeds along road-
sides but does
produce an ap-
pearance of
blight.
None
Not qualified to
answer .
The township does
not have an
Environmental
Health officer or
Vector Control
officer. The town
ship does have a
Health officer
who works in con-
junction with the
Tinicum Township
Board of Health.
-------
TABLE 3-F
Continued
Municipality
Lower
Southampton
Abington
Pesticide
law?
No
No
Retailer '-s
license?
No
No
Applicator ' s
license?
No
No
Applicator's
course?
No
No
Products
registered?
NO
No
Pesticides
restricted?
No
No
Pesticides
prohibited?
No
No
Comments
Kindly refer to
the Bucks County
Department of
Health, Doyles-
town , Pa .
The controls of
the ingredients
used in the manu-
facture of pes-
ticides that are
available for
purchase by the
general public
are a matter for
"higher govern-
ment" (state or
Federal) legis-
lation. At the
local level we
do not have any
facilities or
staff to make a
scientific study.
Local government
does not have
the legal autho-?
rity to legislate
for or control
areas or sources
outside its
jurisdiction.
Ui
-J
4,
-------
TABLE 3-F
Continued
Municipality
Malvern
Borough
Cheltenham
Pesticide
law?
No
No
Retailer ''S
license?
No
No
Applicator ' s
license?
No
No; state
legislation
proposed
Applicator's
course?
No
Not locally.
Recommended
by state.
Products
registered?
No
No
Pesticides
restricted?
No
NO
Pesticides
prohibited?
No
No
Comments
Only pesticides
that are degra-
dable within a
relatively short
time span should
be permitted.
The long range
public health and
environmental
hazards have not
really been de-
termined as yet.
I do not feel
that the danger
is overplayed.
Pesticides are
perhaps a greater
pollutant than
either sewage or
solid waste.
See following
page.
00
11
-------
TABLE 3-F
Concluded
Cheltenham Comments
The degree to which pesticides adversely affect
the health of the public remains unclear to both the
professional public health worker and to the public
in general. It is generally agreed that some pesti-
cides are necessary to protect agricultural products,
livestock, and humans. It is also agreed that some
pesticides may be potentially harmful to humans, how-
ever, unsafe tolerances and just what may constitute
"improper use" of these still needs to be clearly de-
fined .
Some "conservationists" and "ecologists" are ready
to completely ban DDT although its toxicity to humans
apparently has not been established. The enclosed ar-
ticle extracted from U. S. Medicine, March 1, 1971 pre-
sents an interesting point of view. A specimen of "help-
ful hints" distributed by a local group interested in
environmental control is also enclosed.
Until reliable data is developed upon which sound
conclusions can be based, and there is some element
of agreement on these, it is my opinion that local laws,
codes, or ordinances (below State level) are not war-
ranted at this time since they would tend only to add
to the existing confusion. Undoubtedly, there is a
need for some control and limitation of pesticides -
the question remains as to the degree.
39-F
-------
Recommendations
1. Since over eighty percent (80%) of the total
pesticide load applied in homes and gardens is applied
cirectly by the homeowner, it is apparent that this group
needs to have as much or more control exercised over them
as do commercial applicators or farmers. By and large,
this group of people are extremely naive about the com-
pounds they apply. They appear to rely on promotional
criteria and salesmanship, rather than the actual product
required for a specific job. One form of restraint would
obviously be in what is available to them. This group
should have free, unbiased recommendations for use and
application, as well as means of disposal. Federal support
of educational programs is anticipated.
2. The use of some persistent compounds appears
warranted where it can be clearly demonstrated that
possible contamination of the environment is highly
unlikely. Structural pest applications where the material
can be worked down or otherwise prevented from vaporization
or runoff are suggested. The further use of more persist-
ent compounds may be justified when the preservation of a
valuable crop ( a seldom occurrence in the home and garden
use of pesticides) is confronted with an extreme emergency.
40-F
-------
3. The careless and reckless "dollar-a-room"
pesticide applicator obviously needs some restraint
placed on his activities. Licensing, which includes
examinations or testing for knowledge, the posting of
an adequate bond and other controls supported by a
rigid enforcement program are desired.
4. Passage of the Administration Bill (H. R. 10729)
as well as full state and Federal implementation of its
provisions is urged. Although directed primarily at
agricultural activities, its content clearly would have
a profound influence on suburban and urban pesticide use.
5. Interdisciplinary research and down-to-earth
thinking will have to be combined to answer many of the
questions outlined above. Industrial and independent
research and consulting organizations have much experience,
and have had much success in practical, problem-solving
research. This type of experience is greatly needed in
this complex area of environmental research and should
therefore be engaged to the maximum extent possible, along
with other appropriate research sources.
41-F
-------
TEXT OF LAWS
-------
FEDERAL LAWS
-------
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT
(7U.S.C. 135-135k)
Approved June 25, 1947 (61 Slat. 163) as amended by the
Nematocidc, Plant Regulator, Defoliant, and Desiccant
Amendment of 1959 (73 Stal. 286) as amended by the Act
of March 29, 1961 (75 Slat. 18) and the Act of April 7,
1961 (75 Stat. 42) and the Act of May 12, 1964 (P.L.
88-305,78 Slat. 190)
An Act to regulate the marketing of economic poisons and
devices, and for other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress as-
sembled.
Title
Sec. 1. This Act may be cited as the "Federal Insecti-
cide, Fungicide, and Rodcnticidc Act."
Definitions
Sec. 2 For the purposes of this Act-
a. The term "economic poison" means (1) any substance
or mixtures of substances intended for preventing, destroy-
ing, repelling, or mitigating any insects, rodents, ncmatodes,
fungi, weeds, and other forms of plant or animal life or
viruses, except viruses on or in living man or other animals,
which the Secretary shall declare to be a pest, and (2) any
substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a
plant regulator, defoliant or dcsiccant.
b. The term "device" means any instrument or contriv-
ance intended for trapping, destroying, repelling, or mitigat-
ing insects or rodents or destroying, repelling, or mitigating
fungi, ncmatotlcs, or such other pests as may be designated
by the Secretary, but not including equipment used for the
application of economic poisons when sold separately
therefrom.
c. The term "insecticide" means any substance or
mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying,
repelling or mitigating any insects which may be present in
any environment whatsoever.
d. The term "fungicide" means any substance or mix-
ture of substances intended for preventing, destroying,
repelling, or mitigating any fungi.
e. The term "rodcnticidc" means any substance or
mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying,
repelling, or mitigating rodents or any other vertebrate
animal which the Secretary shall declare to be a pest.
f. The term "herbicide" means any substance or mixture
of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling,
or mitigating any weed.
g. The term "Ncmatocide" means any substance or
mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying,
repelling, or mitigating ncmatodes.
h. The term "plant regulator" means any substance or
mixture of substances intended through physiological
action, for accelerating or retarding the rate of growth or
rate of maturation, or for otherwise altering the behavior of
ornamental or crop plants or the produce thereof, but shall
not include substances to the extent that they are intended
as plant nutrients, trace elements, nutritional chemicals,
plant inoculanls, and soil amendments.
i. The term "defoliant" means any substance or mixture
of substances intended for causing the leaves or foliage to
drop from a plant, with or without causing abscission.
j The term "dcsiccant" means any substance or mixture
of substances intended for artificially accelerating the
drying of plant tissue.
k. The term "ncmatodc" means invertebrate animals of
the phylum nemathclminthes and class nematoda. that is.
unscgmented round worms with elongated, fusiform, or
saclike bodies covered with cuticle, and inhabiting soil.
water, plants or plant parts; may also be called ncmas or
cclworms.
I. The term "weed" means any plant which grows where
not wanted.
m. The term "insect" means any of the numerous small
invertebrate animals generally having the body more or less
obviously segmented, for the most part belonging to the
class insccta, comprising six-legged, usually winged forms.
as, for example, beetles, bugs, bees, Hies, and to other allied
classes of arthropods whose members are wingless and
usually have more tiian six legs, as, for example, spiders,
mites, ticks, centipedes, and wood lice.
n. The term "fungi" means all non-chlorophyll-bcaring
thallophytcs (that is, all non-chlorcphyll-bearing plants of a
lower order than moses and liverworts) as, for example,
rusts, smuts, mildews, molds, yeasts, and bacteria, except
those on or in living man or other animals.
o. The term "ingredient statement" means cither-
(1) a statement of the name and percentage of each
active ingredient, together with the total percentage
of the inert ingredients, in the economic poison; or
(2) a statement of the name of each active ingredient.
together with the name of each and total percentage
of the inert ingredients, if any there be, in the
economic poison (except option 1 shall apply if the
preparation is highly toxic to man, determined as
provided in section 6 of this Act); and, in addition
to (1) or (2) in case the economic poison contains
arsenic in any form, a statement of the percentages
-------
of total and water soluble arsenic, each calculated as
elemental arsenic.
p. The term "active ingredient" means-
(1) in the case of an economic poison other than a
plant regulator, defoliant or dcsiccant, an ingredient
which will prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate
insects, ncmatodcs, fungi, rodents, weeds, or other
pests:
(2) in the case of a plant regulator, an ingredient
which, through physiological action, will accelerate
or retard ihc rate of growth or rate of maturation or
otherwise alter the behavior or ornamental or crop
plants of the produce thereof:
(3) in the case of a defoliant, an ingredient which will
cause the leaves or foliage to drop from a plant;
(4) in the case ota dcsiccunt. an ingredient which will
artificially accelerate the drying of plant tissue.
q. The term "inert ingredient" means an ingredient
which is not active.
r. The term "antidote" means a practical immediate
treatment in case of poisoning and includes first-aid
treatment.
s. The term "person" means any individual, partnership,
association, corporation or any organized group of persons
whether incorporated or not.
t. The term "Territory" means any Territory or posses-
sion of the United States, excluding the Canal Zone.
u. The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Agri-
culture.
v. The term "registrant" means the person registering
any economic poison pursuant to the provisions of this Act.
w. The term "label" means the written, printed, or
graphic matter on, or attached to, the economic poison or
device or the immediate container thereof, and the outside
container or wrapper of the retail package, if any there be,
of the economic poison or device.
x. The term "labeling" means all labels and other
written, printed, or graphic matter-
(1) upon the economic poison or device of any of its
containers or wrappers;
(2) accompanying the economic poison or device at
any time;
(3) to which reference is made on the label or in
literature accompanying the economic poison or
device, except to current official publications of the
United States Department of Agriculture and In-
terior, the United States Public Health Service,
State experiment stations, State agricultural
colleges, and other similar Federal or. State institu-
tions or agencies authorized by law to conduct
research in the field of economic poisons.
y. The term "adulterated" shall apply to any economic
poison if its strength or purity falls below the professed
standard of quality as expressed on its labeling or under
which it is sold, or if any substance has been substituted
wholly or in part for the article, or if any valuable
constituent of the article has been wholly or in part
abstracted.
z. The term "misbranded" shall apply-
(1) to any economic poison or device if its labeling
bears any statement, design, or graphic representa-
tion relative thereto or to its ingredients which is
false or misleading in any particular;
(2) to any economic poison-
(a) if it is an imitation of or is offered for sale under
the name of another economic poison;
(b) if its labeling bears any reference to registration
under this Act other than the registration number
assigned to the economic poison;
(c) if the labeling accompanying it does not contain
directions for use which arc necessary and if
complied with adequate for the protection of the
public;
(d) if the label does not contain a warning or caution
statement which may be necessary and if complied
with adequate to prevent injury to living man and
other vertebrate animals, vegetation, and useful
invertebrate animals;
(e) if the label docs not bear an ingredient statement
on that part of the immediate container and on the
outside container or wrapper, if there be one,
through which the ingredient statement on the
immediate container cannot be clearly read, of the
retail package which is presented or displayed under
customary conditions of purchase: Provided That
the Secretary may permit the ingredient statement
to appear prominently on some other part of the
container, if the size or form of the container
makes it impracticable to place it on the part of the
retail package which is presented or displayed under
customary conditions of purchase;
(0 if any word, statement, or other information
required by or under authority of this Act to appear
on the label or labeling is not prominently placed
thereon with such conspicuousncss (as compared
with other words, statements, designs, or graphic
matter in the labeling) and in such terms as to
render it likely to be read and understood by the
ordinary individual under customary conditions or
purchase and use;
(g) if in the case of insecticide, ncmatocide, fungicide,
or herbicide when used as directed or in accordance
with commonly recognized practice it shall be
injurious to living man or other vertebrate animals,
or vegetation, except weeds, to which it is applied,
or to the person applying such economic poison; or
(h) if in the case of a plant regulator, defoliant, or
desiccant when used as directed it shall be injurious
to living man or other vertebrate animals, or
vegetation to which it is applied, or to the person
applying such economic poison: Provided, That
physical or physiological effects on plants or parts
thereof shall not be deemed to be injury, when this
is the purpose for which the plant regulator,
defoliant, or dcsiccant was applied, in accordance
with the label claims and recommendations.
Prohibited Acts
Sec. 3. a. It shall be unlawful for any person to
distribute, sell, or offer for sale in any Territory or in the
District of Columbia, or to ship or deliver for shipment
from any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia to
-------
jny other State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or
to any foreign country, or to receive in any State,
Territory, or the District of Columbia from any other State,
Territory, or the District of Columbia, or foreign country,
and having so received, deliver or offer to deliver in the
original unbroken package to any other person, any of the
following:
(1) Any economic poison which is not registered
pursuant to the provisions of section 4 of this Act,
or any economic poison if any of the claims made
for it or any of the directions for its use differ in
substance from the representations made in con-
nection with its registration, or if the composition
of an economic poison differs from its composition
as represented in connection with'its registration:
Provided, That in the discretion of the Secretary, a
change in the labeling or formula of an economic
poison may be made within a registration period
without requiring registration of the product.
(2) Any economic poison unless it is in the regis-
trant's or the manufacturer's unbroken immediate
container, and there is affixed to such container,
and to the outside container or wrapper of the retail
package, if there be one, through which the
required information on the immediate container
cannot be clearly read, a label bearing—
(a) the name and address of the manufacturer, regis-
trant, or person for whom manufactured;
(b) the name, brand, or trade-mark under which said
article is sold;
(c) the net weight or measure of the content: Pro-
vided, That the Secretary may permit reasonable
variations; and
(d) when required by regulation of the Secretary to
effectuate the purposes of this Act, the registration
number assigned to the article under this Act.
(3) Any economic poison which contains any sub-
stance or substances in quantities highly toxic to
man, determined as provided in section 6 of this
Act, unless the label bear, in addition to any other
matter required by this Act-
fa) the skull and crossboncs;
(b) the word "poison" prominently (IN RED) on a
background of distinctly contrasting color; and
(c) a statement of an antidote of the economic
poison.
(4) The economic poisons commonly known as stand-
ard lead arscnatc, baisc lead arscnatc, calcium
arsenate, magnesium arscnate, zinc arscnate, zinc
arscnitc, sodium fluoride, sodium flousilicatc, and
barium fluosilicate unless they have been distinctly
colored or discolored as provided by .regulations
issued in accordance with this Act, or any other
white powder economic poison which the Secre-
tary, after investigation of and after public hearing
on the necessity for such action for the protection
of the public health and the feasibility of such
coloration or discoloration, shall, by regulation,
require to be distinctly colored or discolored, unless
it has been so colored or discolored: Provided, That
the Secretary may exempt any economic poison to
the extent that it is intended for a particular use or
uses from the coloring or discoloring required or
authorized by this section if he determines that
such coloring or discoloring for such use or uses is
not necessary for the protection of the public
health.
(5) Any economic poison which is adulterated or
misbrandcd or any device which is misbrandcd.
b. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, no
article shall be deemed in violation of this Act when
intended solely for export to any foreign country and
prepared or packed according to the specifications or
directions of the foreign purchaser.
c. It shall be unlawful- .
(1) for any person to detach, alter, deface, or destroy,
in whole or in part, any label or labeling provided
for in this Act or the rules and regulations promul-
gated hcrcundcr, or to add any substance to, or take
any substance from an economic poison in a
manner that may defeat the purpose of this Act;
(2) for any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, carrier,
or other person to refuse, upon a request in writing
specifying the nature or kind of economic poison or
device to which such request relates, to furnish to
or permit any person designated by the Secretary to
have access to and to copy such records as
authorized by section 5 of this Act:
(3) for any person to give a guaranty or undertaking
provided for in section 7 which is false in any
particular, except that a person who receives and
relics upon a guaranty authorized under section 7
may give a guaranty to the same effect, which
guaranty shall contain in addition to his own name
and address the name and address of the person
residing in the United States from whom he
received the guaranty or undertaking; and
(4) for any person to use for his own advantage or to
reveal, other than to the Secretary, or officials or
employees of the United States Department of
Agriculture or other Federal agencies, or to the
courts in response to a subpoena, or to physicians,
and in emergencies to pharmacists and other quali-
fied persons, for use in the preparation of antidotes,
in accordance with such directions as the Secretary
may prescribe, any information relative to formulas
of products acquired by authority of section 4 of
this Act
Registration
Sec. 4. a. Every economic poison which is distributed,
sold, or offered for sale in any Territory or the District of
Columbia, or wBch is shipped or delivered for shipment
from any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia to
any other State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or
which is received from any foreign country shall be
registered with ahe Secretary: Provided, That products
which have the same formula, arc manufactured by the
same person, tlir labeling of which contains the same
claims, and the labels of which bear a designation identify-
ing the product as the same economic poison may be
registered as a -angle economic poison: and additional
-------
names and labels shall be added by supplement statements;
the applicant for registration shall file with the Secretary a
statement including
(1) the name and address of the registrant and the
name and address of the person whose name will appear
on the label, if other than the registrant:
(2) the name of the economic poison.
(3) a complete copy of the labeling accompanying the
economic poison and a statement of all claims to be
made for it, including the directions for use; and
(4) if requested by the Secretary, a full description of
the tests made and the results thereof upon which the
claims arc based.
b. The Secretary, whenever he deems it necessary for the
effective administration of this Act, may require the
submission of the complete formula of the economic
poison. If it appears to the Secretary that the composition
of the article is such as to warrant the proposed claims for
it and if the article and its labeling and other material
required to be submitted comply with the requirements of
section 3 of this Act, he shall register it.
c. If it docs not appear to the Secretary that the article
is such as to warrant the proposed claims for it or if the
article and its labeling and other material required to be
submitted do not comply with the provisions of this Act,
he shall notify the applicant for registration of the manner
in which the article, labeling or other material required to
be submitted fail to comply with the Act so as to afford the
applicant for registration an opportunity to make the
corrections necessary. If, upon receipt of such notice, the
applicant for registration docs not make the corrections,
the Secretary shall refuse to register the article. The
Secretary, in accordance with the procedures specified
herein, may suspend or cancel the registration of an
economic poison whenever it docs not appear that the
article or its labeling or other material required to be
submitted complies with the provisions of this Act.
Whenever the Secretary refuses .registration of an economic
poison or determines that registration of an economic
poison should be cancelled, he shall notify the applicant for
registration or the registrant of his action and the reasons
therefor. Whenever an application for registration is re-
fused, the applicant, within thirty days after service of
notice of such refusal, may file a petition requesting
that the matter be referred to an advisory committee
or file objections and request a public hearing in
accordance with this section. A cancellation of registration
shall be effective jliirly days after service of the foregoing
notice unless within such time the registrant (1) makes the
necessary corrections: (2) files a petition requesting that the
matter be referred to an advisor)' committee; or (3) files
objections and requests a public hearing. Each advisory
committee shall be composed of experts, qualified in the
subject m.ittcr and of adequately diversified professional
background selected by the National Academy of Sciences
and shall include one or more representatives from land-
grant colleges. The size of the committee shall be deter-
mined by the Sccrctaiy. Members of an advisory committee
shall receive as compensation for their services a reasonable
per diem, which, the Secretary shall be rules and regulations
prescribe, for time actually spent in the work of the
committee, and shall in addition be reimbursed for their
necessary traveling and subsistence expenses while so
serving away from their places of residence, all of which
costs may be assessed against the petitioner, unless the
committee shall recommend in favor of the petitioner or
unless the matter was referred to the advisory committee
by the Secretary. The members shall not be subject to any
other provisions of law regarding the appointment and
compensation of employees of the United States. The
Secretary shall furnish the committee with adequate clerical
and other assistance, and shall by rules and regulations
prescribe the procedures to be followed by the committee.
The Secretary shall forthwith submit to such committee the
application for registration of the article and all relevant
data before him. The petitioner, as well as representatives
of the United States Department of Agriculture, shall have
the right to consult with the advisory committee. As soon
as practicable after such submission, but not later than
sixty days thereafter, unless extended by the Secretary for
an additional sixty days, the committee shall, after indepen-
dent study of the data submitted by the Secretary and all
other pertinent information available to it, submit a report
and recommendation to the Secretary as to the registration
of the article, together with all underlying data and a
statement of the reasons or basis for the recommendations.
After due consideration of the views of the committee and
all other data before him, the Secretary shall within ninety
days after receipt of the report and recommendations of
the advisory committee, make his determination and issue
an order, with findings of fact, with respect to registration
of the article and notify the applicant for registration or
registrant. The applicant for registration, or registrant, may
within sixty days from the date of the order of the
Secretary, file objections thereto and request a public
hearing thereon. In the event a hearing is requested, the
Secretary shall, after due notice, hold such public hearing
for the purpose of receiving evidence relevant and material
to the issues raised by such objections. Any report,
recommendations, underlying data, and reasons certified to
the Secretary by an advisory committee shall be made a
part of the record of the hearing, if relevant and material,
subject to the provisions of section 7(c) of the Administra-
tive Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 1006 (c)). The National
Academy of Sciences shall designate a member of the
advisory committee to appear and testify at any such
hearing with respect to the report and recommendations of
such committee upon request of the Secretary, the petit-
ioner, or the officer conducting the hearing: Provided. That
this shall not preclude any other member of the advisory
committee from appearing and testifying at such hearing.
As soon as practicable after completion of the hearing, but
not later than ninety days, the Secretary shall evaluate the
data and reports before him, act upon such objections and
issue an order granting, denying, or cancelling the registra-
tion or requiring modification of the claims or the labeling.
Such order shall be based only on substantial evidence of
record of such hearing, including any report, recommenda-
tions, underlying data, and reason certified to the Secretary
by an advisory committee, and shall set forth detailed
findings of fact upon wluch the order is based. In
connection with considerations of any registration or
-------
application for registration under tins section, the Secretary
may consult with any other Federal agency or with an
advisory committee appointed as herein provided. Notwith-
standing the provisions of section 3.c. (4), information
relative to formulas of products acquired by authority of
this section may be revealed, when necessary under this
section to an advisory committee or to any Federal agency
consulted, or at a public hearing, or in findings of fact
issued by the Secretary. All data submitted to an advisory
committee in support of a petition under this section shall
be considered confidential by such advisory committee:
Provided, That this provision shall not be construed as
prolu'biting the use of such data by the committee in
connection with its consultation with the petitioner or
representatives of the United States Department of Agri-
culture, as provided for herein, and in connection with its
report and recommendations to the Secretary. Notwith-
standing any other provision of this section, the Secretary
may, when he finds that such action is necessary to prevent
an imminent hazard to the public, by order, suspend the
registration of an economic poison immediately. In such
case, he shall give the registrant prompt notice of such
action and afford the registrant the opportunity to have the
matter submitted to an advisory committee and for an
expedited hearing under this section. Final orders of the
Secretary under this section shall be subject to judicial
review, in accordance with the provisions of subsection d.
In no event shall registration of an article be construed as a
defense for the commission of any offense prohibited under
section 3 of this Act.
d. In a case of actual controversy as to the validity of
any order under this section, any person who will be
adversely affected by such order may obtain judicial review
by filing in the United States court of Appeals for the
circuit wherein such person resides or has his principal place
of business, or in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, within sixty days after the
entry of such order, a petition praying that the order be set
aside in whole or in part. A copy of the petition shall be
forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the
Secretary, or any officer designed by him for that purpose,
and thereupon the Secretary shall file in the court the
record of the proceedings on which he based his order, as
provided in section 2112 of title 2S. United States Code.
Upon the filing of such petition the court shall have
exclusive jurisdiction to affirm or set aside the order
complained of in whole or in part. The findings of the
Secretary with respect to questions of fact shall be
sustained if supported by substantial evidence when con-
sidered on the record as a whole, including any report and
recommendations of an advisory committee. If application
is made to the court for leave to adduce additional
evidence, the court may order such additional evidence to
be taken before the Secretary, and to be adduced upon the
hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions
as to the court may seem proper, if such evidence is
material and there were reasonable grounds for failure to
adduce such evidence in the proceedings below. The
Secretary may modify his findings as to the facts and order
by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and shall file
with the court such modified findings and order. The
judgment of the court affirming or setting aside, in whole
or in part, any order under this section shall be final,
subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United
States Code. The commencement of proceedings under this
section shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court to
the contrary, operate as a stay of an order. The court shall
advance on the docket and expedite that disposition of all
causes filed therein pursuant to this section.
e. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act,
registration is not required in the case of an economic
poison shipped from one plant to another plant operated
by the same person and used solely at such plant as a
constituent part to make an economic poison which is
registered under this Act.
f. The Secretary is authorized to cancel the registration
of any economic poison at the end of a period of five years
following the registration of such economic poison or at the
end of any five-year period thereafter, unless the registrant,
prior to the expiration of each such five-year period,
requests in accordance with regulations issued by the
Secretary that such registration be continued in effect.
Books and Records
Sec. 5. For the purposes of enforcing the provisions of
this Act, any manufacturer, distributor, carrier, dealer, or
any other person who sells or offers for sale, delivers, or
offers for delivery, or who receives or holds any economic
poison or device subject to this Act, shall, upon request of
any employee of the United States Department of Agri-
culture or any employee of any State, Territory, or political
subdivision, duly designated by the Secretary, furnish or
permit such person at all reasonable times to have access to,
and to copy all records showing the delivery, movement, or
holding of such economic poison or device, including the
quantity, the date of shipment and receipt, and the name of
the consignor and consignee; and in the event of the
inability of any person to produce records containing such
information, all other records and information relating to
such delivery, movement, or holding of the economic
poison or device. Notwithstanding this provision, however,
the specific evidence obtained under this section shall not
be used in a criminal prosecution of the person from whom
obtained.
Enforcement
Sec. 6. a. The Secretary (except as otherwise provided
in this section) is authorized to make rules and regulations
for carrying out the provisions of this Act, including the
collection and examination of samples of economic poisons
and devices subject to this Act and the determination and
establishment of suitable names to be used in the ingredient
statement. The Secretary is in addition, authorized after
opportunity for hearing—
(1) to declare a pest any form of plant or animal life
or virus which is injurious to plants, man, domestic
animals, articles, or substances;
(2) to determine economic poisons, and quantities of
substances contained in economic poisons, which
are lughly toxic to man; and
-------
(3) to determine standards of coloring or discoloring
for economic poisons, and to subject economic
poisons to the requirements of section 3.3. (4) of
this Act.
b. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of
Agriculture shall jointly prescribe the regulations for the
enforcement of section 10 of this Act.
c. The examination of economic poisons or devices shall
be made in the United States Department of Agriculture or
elsewhere as the Secretary may designate for the purpose of
determining from such examination whether they comply
with the requirements of this Act, and if it shall appear
from any such examination that they fail to comply with
the requirements of this Act, the Secretary shall cause
notice to be given to the person against whom criminal
proceedings arc contemplated. Any person so notified shall
be given an opportunity to present his views, cither orally
or in writing, with regard to such contemplated proceed-
ings, and if in the opinion of the Secretary it appears that
the provisions of this Act have been violated by such
person, then the Secretary shall certify the facts to the
proper United States attorney, with a copy of the results of
the analysis of the examination of such article: Provided,
That nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring the
Secretary, to report for prosecution or for the institution of
libel proceedings minor violations of this Act whenever he
believes that the public interest will be adequately served
by a suitable written notice of warning.
d. It shall be tlic duty of each United Slates attorney, to
whom the Secretary or his agents shall report any violation
of. this Act, to cause appropriate proceedings to be
commenced and prosecuted in the proper courts of the
United States without delay.
e. The Secretary shall, by publication in such manner as
he may prescribe, give notice of all judgments entered in
actions instituted under the authority of this Act.
Exemptions
Sec. 7. a. The penalties provided for a violation of
section 3.a. of this Act shall not apply to-
(1) any person who establishes a guaranty signed by,
and containing the name and address of, the
registrant or person residing in the United States
from whom he purchased and received in good faith
the article in the same unbroken package, to the
effect that the article was lawfully registered at the
time of sale and delivery to him, and that it
complies with the other requirements of .his Act,
designating this Act. In such case the guarantor shall
be subject to the penalties which would otherwise
attach to the person holding the guaranty under the
provision of this Act;
(2) any carrier while lawfully engaged in transporting
an economic poison or device if such carrier upon
request by a person duly designated by the Secre-
tary shnll permit such person to copy all records
showing the transactions in and movement of the
articles:
(3) to public officials while engaged in the perform-
ance of their official duties;
(4) to the .manufacturer or shipper of an economic
poison for experimental use only by or under the
supervision of any Federal or State agency author-
ized by law to conduct research in the field of
economic poisons; or by others if a permit has been
obtained before shipment in accordance with regu-
lations promulgated by the Secretary.
Penalties
Sec. 8. a. Any person violating section 3.a. (1) of this
Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall on
conviction be fined not more than SI,000.
b. Any person violating any provision other than section
3.a. (1) of this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and
shall upon conviction be fined not more than $500 for the
first offense, and on conviction for each subsequent offense
be fined not more than SI,000or imprisoned for not more
than 'one year, or both such fine and imprisonment:
Provided, That an offense committed more than five years
after the last previous conviction shall be considered a first
offense. An article the registration of which has been
terminated may not again be registered unless the article, its
labeling, and other material required to be submitted
appear to the Secretary to comply with all the requirements
of this Act.
c. Notwithstanding any other provision of tliis Section,
in case any person with intent to defraud, uses or reveals
information relative to formulas of products acquired under
the authority of section 4 of this Act, he shall be fined not
more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than three
years, or both such fine and imprisonment.
d. When construing and enforcing the provisions of this
Act, the act, omission or failure, of any officer, agent, or
other person acting for or employed by any person shall in
every case be also deemed to be the act, omission, of failure
of such person as well as that of the person employed.
Seizures
Sec. 9. a. Any economic poison or device that is being
transported from one State, Terrirory, or District to
another, or having been transported, remains unsold or in
original unbroken packages, or that is sold or offered for
sale in the District of Columbia or any Territory, or that is
imported from a foreign country, shall be liable to be
proceeded against in any district court of the United States
in the district where it is found and seized for confiscation
by a process of libel for condcmnation-
(1) in the case of an economic poison—
(a) if it is adulterated or misbrandcd;
(b) if it is not registered pursuant to the provisions-of
section 4 of this Act;
(c) if it fails to bear on its label the information
required by this Act;
(d) if it is a white powder, economic poison, and is not
colored as required under this Act; or
(2) in the case of a device if it is misbrandcd.
b. If the article is condemned it shall, after entry of the
decree, be disposed of by destruction or sale as the court
may direct and the proceeds, if sold, less the legal costs,
shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States, but the
article shall not be sold contrary to the provisions of this
-------
Act or of the laws of the jurisdiction in which it is sold;
Provided, That upon the payments of the costs of the libel
proceedings and the execution and delivery of a good and
sufficient bond conditioned that the article shall not be
sold or otherwise disposed of contrary to the provisions of
this Act or the laws of any State, Territory, or District in
which sold, the court may direct that such articles be
delivered to the owner thereof. The proceedings of such
libel cases shall conform, as near as may be, to the
proceedings in admiralty, except that cither party may
demand trial by jury of any issue of fact joined in any case,
and all such proceedings shall be at the suit of and in the
name of the United States.
c. When a decree of condemnation is entered against the
article, court costs and fees, storage, and other proper
expenses shall be awarded against the person, if any,
intervening as claimant of the article.
Imports
Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury shall notify the
Secretary of Agriculture of the arrival of economic poisons
and devices offered for importation and shall deliver to the
Secretary of Agriculture, upon his request, samples of
economic poisons or devices which arc being imported or
offered for import into the United States, giving notice to
the owner or consignee, who may appear before the
Secretary of Agriculture and have the right to introduce
testimony. If it appears from the examination of a sample
that it is adulterated, or misbrandcd or otherwise violates
(he prohibitions set forth in this Act, or is otherwise
dangerous to the health of the people of the United States,
or is of a kind forbidden entry into or forbidden to be sold
or restricted in sale in the country in which it is made or
from which it is exported, the said article may be refused
admission, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall refuse
delivery to the consignee and shall cause the destruction of
any goods refused delivery which shall not be exported by
the consignee within three months from the date of notice
of such refusal under such regulations as the Secretary of
the Treasury may prescribe: Provided, That the Secretary
of the Treasury may deliver to the consignee such goods
pending examination and decision in the matter on execu-
tion of penal bond for the amount of the full invoice value
of such goods, together with the duty thereon, and on
refusal to return such goods for any cause to the custody of
the Secretary of Treasury, when demanded, for the purpose
of excluding them from the country, or for any other
purpose, said consignee shall forfeit the full amount of said
bond: and provided further, That all charges for storage,
cartage, and labor on goods which are refused admission or
delivery shall be paid by the owner or consignee and in
default of such payment shall constitute a lien against any
future importation made by such owner or consignee.
Delegation of Duties
Sec. 11. AH authority vested in the Secretary by virtue
of the provisions of tlu's Act may with like force and effect
be executed by such employees of the United States
Department of Agriculture as the Secretary may designate
for the purpose.
Authorization for Appropriations and Expenditures
Sec. 12. a. There is hereby authorized to be appropri-
ated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, such sums as may be necessary for the
purposes and administration of this Act. In order to carry
out the provisions of this Act, which take effect prior to
the repeal of the Insecticide Act of 1910, appropriations
available for the enforcement of such Act are authorized to
be made available.
b. The Secretary is authorized from the funds appropri-
ated for this Act to make such expenditures as he deems
necessary, including rents, travel supplies, books, samples,
testing devices, furniture, equipment, and such other
expenses as may be necessary to the administration of this
Act.
Cooperation
Sec. 13. The Secretary is authorized to cooperate with
any other department or agency of the Federal Government
and with the official agricultural or other regulatory agency
of any State, or any State, Territory, District, possession, or
any political subdivision thereof, in currying out ihe
provisions of this Act, and in securing uniformity of
regulations.
Separability
Sec. 14. If any provision of this Act is declared unconsti-
tutional, or the applicability thereof to any person or
circumstances is held invalid, the constitutionality of the
remainder of this Act and the applicability thereof to other
persons and circumstances shall not be affected
thereby.
-------
INTERDEPARTMENTAL AGREEMENTS ON PESTICIDES
(Interdepartmental Agreement for Protection of Public Health and Quality of
Environment announced March 3, 1970, and establishment of a working group of the
Subcommittee on Pesticides of the Cabinet Committee on the Environment announced
March 26, 1970)
INTERDEPARTMENTAL AGREEMENT
.Purpose. Coordination of the activities of the three
Departments pertaining to economic poisons us defined in
section 2 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenlicide Act (7 U.S.C. 135), hereinafter referred to as
pesticides, with reference to the review of current or
proposed registrations to assure maximum protection of the
public health, the well being of man, and the quality of the
environment.
Existing departmental responsibilities. Each of the three
Departments has certain statutory authority and responsi-
bility relating to pesticides in the environment, as set forth
below:
Department of Agriculture
1. Statutory authority under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenlicide Act for registration of pesti-
cides.
2. Responsibility for research, education, information,
regulatory, and action programs designed to protect the
well being of man, crops, livestock, forests, ranges, habitats,
products, structures, and premises against arthropod and
other invertebrate pests, weeds, and fungi with equal
concern for the protection of beneficial nontargct organ-
isms and the quality of the environment.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
DHEW has the statutory authority and responsibility
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for.
establishing safe tolerances for pesticides in or on raw
agricultural commodities, processed food and potable
water. The Department also has responsibilities for protect-
ing the public from health, occupational, and environ-
mental ha/ards related to the use and disposal of pesticides,
and for other public health aspects such as the control of
diseases and their vectors.
Department of Interior
USDI has statutory authority and responsibility under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to carry out
programs, to protect and enhance the quality of the
Nation's waters including determining the effects of pesti-
cides in water on health, welfare, and aquatic life. These
responsibilities include establishing water quality standards
for interstate waters. The Department also has statutory
authority for the conservation of wild birds, fish, mammals,
their food organisms and their environment as affected by
pesticides and the appraisal of effects of pesticides on fish
and wildlife.
Information. Each Department will keep each of the
other Departments fully informed of developments in
knowledge from research or other sources which may come
into its possession in connection with matters referred to in
this agreement. High priority shall be placed by each
Department representative to respond to each of the other
Departments' requests, whether written or oral, for any and
all information concerning action pending or taken on
pesticide matters.
Procedures - A. General I. Each Department will desig-
nate a qualified representative to act on behalf of such
Department in carrying out the terms of this agreement. All
communications from USDA, DHEW, and USDI will be
directed to these representatives.
2. USDA shall furnish to the other Departments copies
of each proposal received for registration or reregistration
with the accompanying safety data (if any) and a request
for an opinion from DHEW and USDI on the requested
action in their areas of responsibility.
3. Within 15 working days, DHEW and USDI shall
evaluate each registration or reregistration proposal in light
of the data supplied and offer an opinion or provide a
status report as to whether or not the registration should be
granted or specify the additional data deemed necessary
before such evaluation can be made. When cither is unable
to assess the public health or environmental risk without
additional data, USDA shall advise the registrant of its
inability to consider registration of the pesticide until the
additional data requested have been received and reviewed
by the respective Departments according to the following
procedures described below.
B. Specific. I. The Departmental Representative will
accomplish review by his agency of each proposal and
report results of such review to each of the other agencies
within 15 working days of the receipt of the proposal. If
there is insufficient information to reach a decision of the
proposal, USDA will be contacted within such period of 15
working days and advised with particularity what additional
information is needed for the necessary evaluation. Appli-
cants for registration should not be discouraged from
communicating with DHEW or USDI on registration mat-
ters of mutual interest, so long as the other representatives
-------
are informed of the details of such contact by memoran-
dum thereof.
2. Upon receipt of such a request for further informa-
tion, USDA will make arrangements to obtain the addi-
tional information, if available, and furnish it to the
Department making the request. USDA will withhold final
action on the matter for 15 working days, from the date of
furnishing the requested information or advice that such
information is not available, pending receipt of the report
of the other Department of the results of further review.
3. If a Department concludes that the registration
should be rejected in whole or in part, this view shall be
expressed in writing along with a statement of the reasons
for the conclusion including the specific information, lack
of information, or scientific judgment upon which these are
based.
Upon, being so notified, USDA will notify the party
involved, i.e., the applicant or registrant, and offer him an
opportunity to submit any data, views or arguments with
respect to the proposed rejection and any such submission
shall be promptly referred to the other Department
representatives who shall report to USDA the results of
their review of the submission.
4. In the event that after the review of the additional
data the Departments cannot agree on the approval of the
proposal, any Department may request the formation of a
Registration Review Panel for the purpose of making a
complete review of the issues and related information or
lack thereof and submit a detailed report of their findings.
Each Registration Review Panel shall be composed of two
representatives from each of the three Departments with
the chahman to be selected from the rcsprcscntativcs of the
Department from which the objections have come.
The Registration Review Panel shall prepare its report
within 20 working days, including any minority opinions,
and submit it to each of the three Departments.
5. The report(s) of the Registration Review Panel shall
be reviewed by each Department'within 15 working days of
its receipt.
6. If significant differences between the Departments
remain still unresolved, all data and information submitted
by all parties shall be reviewed at the first monthly
Intcrdepartmcnt Pesticide Meeting after the reviews of the
Registration Review Panel reports have been made.
7. In the event agreement is not reached among the
Department representatives at the monthly Inter-
department Pesticide Meeting, a submission of the reports
of the reviews referred to in paragraphs B-l through B-6
above, will be referred at the request of the Secretary of the
objecting Department to the Cabinet Committee on Envi-
ronmental Quality. The referral shall be accompanied by a
statement prepared by each Department analyzing the
issues involved and setting forth the decision it recom-
mends. The Cabinet Committee on Environmental Quality
wilt consider such recommendations and make a written
report, cither accepting, rejecting, or modifying them.
.8. Based upon consideration of the action of the Cabinet
Committee, the Secretary of Agriculture will make the
decision ns to the specific action to be taken with respect to
the matter on which the Department representatives were
not in agreement, and will thereupon notify the other two
Secretaries in writing in advance of the publication of the
final determination if he has not followed the recommenda-
tions made by the objecting Departments), specifically
staling his reasons for such action.
9. When registration is granted, USDA shall supply to
DHEW and USDI final printed labeling at the time of
registration with a copy of the final letter to the registrant.
10. The Departmental representatives may review exist-
ing patterns of usage and registrations for particular
pesticides. A conclusion by USDA, DHEW, or USDI that an
existing pesticide use or registration may be detrimental to
the public health or to the quality of the environment shall
be transmitted to the other two Departments together with
the supporting reasoning and information, with a recom-
mendation for corrective action. Written information from
all sources on the health or environmental aspects of such
pesticides shall be submitted to a Registration Review Panel
for review and recommendations. If USDA, DHEW, or
USDI disagrees with the recommendations of the Registra-
tion Review Panel, that Department can initiate further
review by the procedural steps described in paragraphs B-6
through B-8 above.
Intcrdcpartmcnt pesticide meetings and conferences. The
Department representatives will meet jointly at an Inter-
department Pesticide Meeting once a month to provide a
continuous dialogue concerning all aspects of their current
activities and to promote cooperation and understanding
among the Departments. Monthly reports concerning their
activities will be made to the Secretaries of the three
Departments, according to a mutually agreed upon format.
The Departmental representatives will arrange a general
conference at least once each year to discuss research needs,
research program and policy, and the application of
research findings in action programs, including public
information relating to pesticides. The Interdepartment
Pesticide Conference will consider broad questions on
policies relating to pesticides involving the interrelation-
ships of control programs, research, registration, tolerances,
the public health, and general departmental recommenda-
tions to the public.
In order to promote free interchange or information
among the Departments involved under this agiccmcnt,
each Department representative should be invited and
encouraged to participate in conferences, meetings, and
various symposiums with Federal, State, university, or
industry people on possible matters of mutual interest.
Effective dale and sttpersedure. This agreement shall
become effective upon signature by the Secretaries of
USDA, USDI, and DHEW, and shall supersede the agree-
ment entitled "Interdepartmental Coordination of Activi-
ties Relating to Pesticides by the Department of Agricul-
ture, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
and the Department of the Interior," published in the
FEDERAL REGISTER on May 1,1964 (29 F.R. 5808).
CHARTER OF THE WORKING GROUP
A. Establishment. A working group of the Subcommit-
tee on Pesticides of the Cabinet Committee on the
Environment (formerly Environmental Quality Council) is
established pursuant to action of the Committee (Council)
-------
announced on November 20, and the Federal Committee
on Pest Control is hereby abolished.
The working group will: (1) Provide day-to-day coordina-
tion of Federal agency pesticide activities; and (2) develop
program and policy proposals for consideration by the
Subcommittee on Pesticides.
The following agencies will have membership on the
working groups:
Department of Agriculture.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Department of the Interior.
Department of Defense.
Department of Transportation.
Department of State.1
The Office of Science and Technology, the Bureau of the
Budget, and the Office of Intergovernmental Relations will
be invited to designate an observer at the meetings of the
working group. Other agencies will be invited to participate
in meetings when matters of significant concern to them are
to be discussed.
The woiking group will consist of one principal autho-
rized to commit his agency in routine coordination and on
most issues and to make reservations on behalf of his
agency on controversial issues. At the request of any
principal, Departmental or agency issues will be referred to
the Subcommittee on Pesticides for review prior to imple-
mentation.
Each member agency will name one or more alternates to
speak for that agency in the absence of the principal. Other
individuals, cognizant of the pesticide programs and respon-
sibilities of their agencies, may attend meetings to provide
technical support for the principal.
It is recognized that the use of pesticide chemicals is
necessary to protect man, animals, plants, and the environ-
ment against harmful insects, rodents, other vertebrate
pests, weeds, and diseases. It is further recognized that use
of pesticide chemicals, especially careless and unauthorized
use, is hazardous to n on target man, plants, and animals, and
the environment. It is, therefore, essential that any use of a
pesticide chemical be evaluated as to the necessity for its
use, the harm which may result, and the precautions which
must be taken to minimize harmful effects.
B. Purpose. The working group is the primary staff level
coordinating mechanism for Federal activities concerning
pesticides, pests, and their control. The activities coordi-
nated by the working group include, but arc not limited to:
(1) Pest control programs in various parts of the world
in which there is active participation on the part of the
Federal Government, either in funding or in supervision;
(2) Research on pests and their control and effects of
control procedures, whether by chemical or other methods;
(3) Monitoring of the environment for pesticides and
their residues;
(4) Establishment of pesticide investigation teams to
conduct special investigations of pesticide problems which
arise or which may be anticipated;
'The intent is to assure adequate consideration of international
Concerns which arc largely but not wholly represented within the
Agency for International Development.
(5) Public information on pest control and the use of
pesticides;
(6) Evaluation of economic and social values and risks
involved in the control of pests by various methods; and
(7) Advice to the interdepartmental group on pesticide
registration on problems that it believes should be consi-
dered by that group.
The working group shall advise the Subcommittee on
Pesticides and the appropriate Federal departments and
agencies concerning matters of common interest. In no
case, however, will the working group supersede the
responsibility of each department and agency to carry out
the functions assigned to it by legislative and executive
mandates. The working group will encourage exchange of
information among international, Federal, State, and local
agencies and may participate with them as appropriate.
C. Procedures — 1. Review of programs, a. On request,
any Federal agency shall submit to the working group for
review a detailed description of its proposed and current
pest control programs and monitoring, research, education,
and other programs pertaining to pest control.
b. The working group will review such programs from
the standpoint of effectiveness, economic impact and
hazards to human health, to livestock and crops, to fish or
wildlife, and to other elements of the environment.
c. Based on such review, the working group shall
recommend to the heads of the departments or agencies
concerned such modifications in the programs as the
working group feels will best serve the public interest.
2. Intergovernmental cooperation.-a. The working
group shall promote or encourage review of both Federal
and non-Federal programs by State and local groups
representing a broad spectrum of interests and responsibili-
ties.
b. The working group may communicate with such State
and local groups to receive their recommendations and to
make recommendations to them cither directly or through
member departments, whichever seems most expeditious
and effective.
c. Subject to foreign policy guidance from the Depart-
ment of State, the working group may participate in joint
activities with foreign or international groups having similar
interests and will coordinate these activities among Federal
and State agencies, informal recommendations arising from
such joint activities may be directed by the working group
to the concerned Federal department or agency. No formal
recommendations shall be transmitted directly to any
foreign government or international agency
3. Stimulation of new activities, a. Whenever the work-
ing group feels that the public interest will be served by the
initiation of new activity, such as interdepartmental partici-
pation in integrating a variety of control methods or in
analyzing jointly the efforts of such integrated control on
all aspects of the environments, the working group may
recommend appropriate action to the Subcommittee on
Pesticides and to the concerned departments or agencies
and representatives of States.
,4. Mechanisms available to the working group, a. The
working group may establish ad hoc groups or panels of
specialists to assist in discharging the working group's
-------
responsibilities. Membership on such ad hoc groups need
not be limited to representatives of Federal departments.
b. The working group may request the appropriate
agencies to provide special services, consultation, staff,
facilities, publications, conferences, etc., as may facilitate
the work of the working group. Expenditure of appropri-
ated funds for such activities of the working group must be
within the authority and area of responsibility of the
contributing department or agency and must remain within
its individual Fiscal control, even though the technical
supervision may be provided by the working group.
D. Membership. Membership and observer status on the
working group is by appointment of principals and alter-
nates by letter, to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Pesticides, from the heads of agencies concerned. On
invitation of the working group, a liaison representative
may be similarly appointed by other Government agencies
having an interest in problems related to pest control.
E. Officers and staff. l.The officers of the working
group shall be:
Chairman.
Vice Chairman.
Executive Secretary.
The Chairman and Vice Chairman shall be elected from
among members of the working group.
2. The staff of the working group shall include such
professional and other staff as may be required.
3. It shall be the duty of the Chairman to preside at all
meetings and to assure compliance with the charter of the
working group. He shall call meetings of the working group
when he deems it necessary or on request of any member
department. The Chairman shall exercise leadership in
seeking timely intcragcncy coordination on items of con-
cern to the working group. The Chairman shall communi-
cate directly with the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Pesticides as needed.
4. In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman
will perform the functions of the Chairman.
5. The Executive Secretary will be responsible for:
a. Preparation of agenda, notice of meetings, corres-
pondence, coordination of administrative matters and
representation of the working group as requested by the
Chairman.
b. Preparation and recommendation to the working
group of pertinent policies and plans to meet the working
group requirements. To this end, the Executive Secretary
may request the Chairman to appoint advisory and other ad
hoc groups as required.
c. Maintenance of minutes, sufficient other records and
accounts to provide an annual report of the working group
activities for such distribution as recommended by the
working group.
F. Meetings. I. Meetings shall be held at the call of the
Chairman, following coordination with members regarding
time, place, and date.
2. Decisions of the working group usually shall be made
at regular meetings where there is an opportunity for
discussion and not by correspondence or telephone calls,
except in rare cases of urgency.
. 3. Minutes of meetings shall consist of a record of
important discussions and decisions of the working group,
but need not be a verbatim record. Minutes shall be
distributed to principals, alternates, and observers.
G. Quorum. A majority of the members of the working
group shall constitute a quorum authorized to transact any
business duty presented at any meeting of the working
group.
-------
Union Calendar No. 235
MfcCONGKKSrt
Irr SESSION II Ji
[Report No. 92-511]
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SMTEMIIFK 10,1071
Mr. POAGK (for himself, Mr. KKI.CIIKII, Mr. (iu.iDi.ixo, Mr. HKKGL.\XI>, and Mr.
SISK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com-
mittee on Agriculture
SKTTKMKKR 25, 1071
Committed to Ilir ConiniUtcc of the Whole House on the State of the Union
and ordered to be printed
A BILL
To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 fives of the United Slates of America in Congress assembled,
3 That this Act may he cited as the "Federal Environmental
4 Pesticide Control Act of 1971".
5 AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL IKSJCCTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND
6 RODENTICIDE ACT
7 SEC. 2. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodon-
8 ticidc Act (7 U.S.C. 135 ct seq.) is amended to read as
9 follows:
10 -SEC. 1. SHOUT TITLE AND TAHLE OF CONTENTS.
11 "(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the
12 Tcdcral Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act'.
V1--0
-------
" (li) TAHI.K OF CONTHXTS —
"Section 1. Short title and taltli- of contents.
"(a) Short tiilo.
"(b) Table of contents.
"See. 2. Definitions.
"(a) Active ingredient..
"(li) Administrator.
"(c) Adulterated.
«(csticii)o ii|iplic:itor.
"(I) Defoliant.
"(fi) Desiccanl.
"(h) Device.
"(i) Di^rict court
"(j) Knviroiiment.
«(k) Fungus.
"(I) Iniininent lui/nrd.
**(m) Inert in^tvdk-nt.
"(n) Ingredient statement.
"(o)In?cct.
"(p) Laliel and InM'mg.
«(1) Uliel.
"(2) I.ak-lii!».
"(q) Misbrandi-d.
"(r) Keinatode.
«(s) Person.
"(t) Pest,
"(u) Pesticide.
"(v) Plant repulator.
"(w) Producer and produce.
**(s) Protect health and the environment.
"(y) Kegistrant.
u(z) licgislrntion.
"(aa) State.
"(bl>) Sulistantial ndvei-sc effects on the cnvironnu-nt.
«{cc) Weed.
"Sec. 3. Registration of pesticides.
"(a) llcquirenu'iit,
"(b) Exemptions.
"(c) Procedure for resist ration.
"(1) Statement required.
"(2) DutA in siippni-t of registration.
"(8) Time for acting with respect to application.
"(4) Notice of application.
"(5) Approval of rc^istralion.
"(C) Ui-nial of registration.
"(d) Classilirntiou of pi-sliculi-s.
" (1) Clnssifieat inn for general use-, rest ricted tise, or liotli.
"(2) Change in classiliralion.
-------
"Sec. 3. Registration of pesticides.—Continued
"(e) Products with same formulation mid claims.
"(f) Miscellaneous.
"(1) Killct of change of labeling or formulatinn.
"(2) Registration n»l it defense.
"(3) Aulliority to consult olhor Fudrr.il agencies.
"Sec. 4. Use of ivslrk-Uil use pititiridr; certified applicators.
"(a) Certification procedure.
"(1) Federal vert ilicat ton.
"(2) Stntc crrliliralinn.
"(b) Slate plans.
"Sec. 5. Experimental use permits.
"(n) Issuance.
"(b) Temporary tolerance, level.
"(c) Use uiuK-r permit.
"(d) Studies.
"(o) ItcvocAtion.
"Sec. 0. Adiniiiir-ti-ntivc n-view; susi>cnsion.
"(") Cancellation after five years.
"(1) Procedure.
"(2) Information.
"(b) Cancellation and change in classification.
"(c) Suspension.
"(1) Order.
"(2) Duration of order.
"(3) Judicial review.
"(d) I'nlilic hearings and scientific review.
a(c) Judicial review.
"Sec. 7. Registration of establishments.
"(a) Requirement.
"(b) Registration.
"(c) Infontiiition required.
"(d) Confidentiat reconls and information.
"See. 8. Hooks and records.
"(a) Requirement.
"(b) Inspection.
"See. 9. Inspect ion of establishments, etc.
"(a) In general.
"(b) Warrants.
"(c) Enforcement.
"(1) Certification of facts to Attorney General.
"(2) Notice not required.
"(3)' Warning notice*.
"Sec. 10. Protection of trade secrets, etc.
"(a) In general.
"(b) Disclosure.
"Sec. 11. Standards applicable, to pesticide applicator?.
"(a) In general.
"(b) Separate standards.
"Src. 12. Unlawful acts.
"(a) In general.
f(b) Exemptions.
-------
"See. 1.3. Stop snlc, use, removal, nnd seizure.
H(o) Stop snlo, etc., orders.
"(b) Seizure.
ll(c) Deposition after condemnation.
«(esticide applicator.
"(8) Disclosure of information.
"(4) Act of oflicors, agents, etc.
"Sec. 15. Indemnities.
"(a) Requirement.
"(b) Amount of payment.
"(1) In general.
"(2) Special rule.
"Sec. 10. Administrative procedure; judicial review.
"(a) Application of Administrative Procedure Act.
a(b) Judicial review.
"(c) Jurisdiction of district courts.
" (d) Notice of judgments.
"Sec. 17. Imports and exports.
"(a) Pesticides nnd devices intended for export.
"(b) Cancellation notices furnished to foreign govcniiiu-iilx.
"(c) Importatinn of pesticides and devices.
"(d) Cooperation in intcmatioiial efforts.
"(c) Regulations.
"Sec. IS. Esemptioii of Federal agencies.
"See. 19. Disposal and transportation.
"(a) Procedures.
"(b) Advice to Secretary of Transportation.
"Site. 20. Kcsciirch and monitoring.
"(a) Research.
"(b) National monitoring plan.
"(c) Monitoring.
"Sec. 21. Solicitation of public comments.
"Sec. 23. Delegation and coopoi-ntiou.
"Sec. 23. Stale cooi>crntion, aid. nnd training.
"Sec. 24. Authority of States and political subdivisions.
"(a) Cooperative agreements.
"(b) Contracts for training.
"Sec. 25, Authority of Administrator.
"(a) Regulations.
"(b) Exemption of pesticides.
"(c) Other nutliority.
"Sec. 20. Sevcrability.
"Sec. 27. Autliorization for appropriations.
-------
5
1 "SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
2 "For purposes of tins Act—
3 "(a) ACTIVE IKGRKFJIEXT.—The term 'active ingrcdi-
4 cnt' means—
5 "(1) in tbc case of a pesticide other than a plant
6 regulator, defoliant, or dcsiccant, an ingredient which
7 will prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pest;
8 " (2) in the case of a plant regulator, an ingredient
9 which, through physiological action, will accelerate or
10 retard the rale of growth or rate of maturation or othcr-
11 wise alter the behavior of ornamental or crop plants or
12 the product thereof;
13 " (3) in the case of a defoliant, an ingredient which
14 will cause the leaves or foliage to drop from a plant;
15 and
16 " (4) in the case of a desiccant, an ingredient which
J7 wDl artificially accelerate the drying of plant tissue.
18 "(h) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term 'Administrator*
19 means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
20 Agency.
21 "(c) ADUIVTKRATED.—The term 'adulterated' applies
22 to any pesticide if:
23 "(1) its strength or purity falls below the professed
24 standard or quality as expressed on its labeling under which
25 it is sold;
-------
6
1 " (2) any substance lias been substituted wholly or in
2 part for the pesticide; or
3 " (3) any valuable constituent of the pesticide Las been
4 wholly or in part abstracted.
5 " (d) ANIMAL.—The term 'animal' means all vertebrate
6 and invertebrate species, including but not limited to man
7 and other mammals, birds, fish, and shellfish.
8 "(e) CERTIFIED PESTICIDE APPLICATOR, ETC.—
9 "(1) CERTIFIED PESTICIDE APPLICATOR.—'The
10 term 'certified pesticide applicator* means nny individual
11 who is certified under section 4 as authorized to use or
12 supervise the use of any pesticide which is classified for
13 restricted use.
14 " (2) PRIVATE PESTICIDE APPLICATOH.—The term
15 'private pesticide applicator* means a certified pesticide
1$ applicator who uses or supervises the use of any pcsti-
17 cide which is classified for restricted use for purposes of
18 producing any agricultural commodity on property
1^ owned or rented by him or (if applied without com-
20 ponsation other than trading of personal services be-
21 twecu producers of agricultural commodities) on the
^ property of another person.
23 " (3) COMMERCIAL PESTICIDE APPLICATOR.—The
** term 'commercial pesticide applicator* means a certified
*^ pesticide applicator (whether or not he is a private
-------
7
1 pesticide applicator with respect to some uses) who
2 uses or supervises (lie use of any pesticide which is
3 classified for restricted use for any purpose or on any
4 property other than as provided by paragraph (2).
5 "(f) Dici'OLUXT.—The term 'defoliant' means nny
6 substance or mixture of substances Intended for causing the
7 leaves or foliage to drop from a plant, with or without caus-
8 ing abscission.
9 "(g) DBSICCAXT.—The term 'dcsiceant' means any
10 substance or mixture of substances intended for artificially
11 accelerating the drying of plant tissue.
12 " (h) DiiVicu.—The term 'device' means any instrument
13 or contrivance (other than a firearm) which (1) is intended
I4 for trapping, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest
15 or any other form of plant or animal life (other than man
16 and other than bacteria, vims, or other micro-organism on
I? or in living man or other living animals), and (2) is within
18 a class of devices in respect of which the Administrator has
19 made the determination referred to in section 25 (c) (4).
20 " (i) DISTRICT COUKT.—The term 'district court' means
21 a United States district court, the District Court of Guairij
22 the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and the highest
23 court of American Samoa.
24 " (j) EXVIKONMEXT.—The term 'environment' includes
25 water, air, laud, and all plants and man and other animals
-------
8
1 living therein, and the interrelationships which exist among
2 these.
3 "(k) FUNGUS.—The term 'fungus' means any non-
4 chlorophyll-bearing thallophytc (that is, any non-chloro-
5 plyrll-bcaring plant of a lower order than mosses and liver-
6 worts), as for example, rust, smut, mildew, mold, yeast,
7 and bacteria, except those on or in living man or other
8 animals and those on or in processed food, beverages, or
9 pharmaceulicals.
10 " (1) IMMINENT HAZABD.—The term 'imminent hazard*
11 means a situation which exists when the continued use of a
12 pesticide during the time required for cancellation procced-
13 ing would likely result in substantial adverse effects on the
14 environment.
15 " (m) INERT INGREDIENT.—The term 'inert ingredient'
16 means an ingredient which is not active.
17 " (n) INGREDIENT STATEMENT.—The term 'ingredient
13 statement' means a statement which contains—
19 "(1) the name of each active ingredient in the
20 pesticide;
21 "(2) if all the uses of the pesticide are classified
22 for general use, then either—
23 "(i) the total percentage of all inert ingredi-
2* euts, and of all active.ingredients, in the pesticide;
25 or
26 "(ii) the percentage of each active ingredient,
-------
9
1 and the total percentage of all inert ingredients, in
2 the pesticide; mid if nil the uses of the pesticide arc
3 not classified for general use, then the information
* required under (ii); and
5 " (3) if tlie pesticide contains arsenic in any form,
6 a statement of the percentages of total and water soluble
7 arsenic, calculated us clcineutal arsenic.
8 " (o) IXSKCT.—The term 'insect* means any of the nu-
9 merous small invertebrate animals generally having the body
10 more or less obviously segmented, for the most part bclong-
H ing to the class insccta, comprising six-legged, usually winged
12 forms, as for example, beetles, bugs, bees, flies, and to other
13 allied classes of arthropods whose members are wingless and
14 usually have more than six legs, as for example, spiders
15 mites, ticks, centipedes, and wood lice.
16 "(p) LABEL AND LABELING.—
17 "(1) LARKL.—The term 'label' means the written,
18 printed, or graphic matter on, or attached to, the
19 pesticide or device or any of its containers or wrappers.
20 "(2) J.IABBMNO.—The term 'labeling' means all
21 labels and all other written, printed, or graphic matter—
22 " (A) accompanying the pesticide or device at
23 any time; or
24 "(H) (o which reference is made on the label
25 or in literature accompanying the pesticide or dc-
H.R. 10729 2
-------
10
1 vice, except to current official publications of the
2 Bnviroumcntal Protection Agency, the United
3 States Department*! of Agriculture and Interior,
4 the Department of Health, Education, and \Vcl-
5 fare, State experiment stations. State agricultural
6 colleges, and other similar Federal or State iusti-
7 tutious or agencies authorized by law to conduct
8 research in the field of pesticides.
9 "(q) MlSBHASDKD.-—
10 "(1) A pesticide or device subject' to this Act is
11 misbrandcd if—
12 " (A) its labeling bears any statement, design,
13 or graphic representation relative thereto or to its
1-1 ingredients which is false or misleading in any
15 particular;
16 " (B) it is contained in a package or other con-
17 taiuer or wrapping which does not conform to the
18 standards established by the Administrator pur-
19 suant to section 25 (c) (3) ;
20 " (C) it is an imitation of, or is offered for sale
21 under the name of, another pesticide or device;
22 "(D) its labeling does not bear the rcgistra-
23 tion number assigned under section 7 to each cslab-
24 lisluncnt in which it was produced;
-------
11
. 1 "(H) miy word, sink-incut, or other infonnn-
2 tion required by or under nulhorily of this Act to
3 appear on llio label or labeling is not prominently
4 placed tlicreon \vitli sncli conspicuousncss (as com-
5 pared willi other words, stntoincnts, designs, or
G graphic mutter in the labeling) and in such terms as
7 to render it likely (o be read nnd understood by the
8 ordinary individual under customary conditions of
9 purchase and use;
10 "(V) if the labeling accompanying it does
11 not contain directions for use which arc necessary
12 for effecting (he purpose for which the product is
13 intended nnd if complied with, together with any
14 requirements imposed under section 3 (d) of this
15 Act, is adequate to protect health and the environ-
1(> meat: or
17 "((i) if the label docs not contain a warning
18 or caul ion statement which may he necessary and
19 if complied with, together with any requirements
20 imposed under section 3(d) of this Act, is adc-
21 quatc to protect health and the environment.
22 "(2) A pesticide is misbnmdcd if—
23 "(A.) the label docs not bear an ingredient state-
24 incut on that part of the immediate container (and
&~> on I lie outside container or wrapper, if there be one.
-------
12
1 through which thu ingredient statement on the im-
2 mediate container caiuiot he clearly read, of the
3 retail package) which is presented or displayed
4 under customary conditions of purchase, except
5 that a pesticide is not mishrunded under this sub-
6 paragraph if:
7 "(i) the size or form of the immediate con-
8 taincr, or the outside container or wrapper of the
9 retail package, makes it impracticable to place the
10 ingredient statement on the part which is presented
11 or displayed under customary conditions of pur-
12 chase; and
13 "(ii) the ingredient statement appears prom-
14 incntly on another part of the immediate container,
15 or outside container or wrapper, permitted hy the
16 Administrator;
17 " (B) the labeling docs not contain a statement
18 of the use classification under which the product is
19 registered;
20 " (C) there is not affixed to its container, and to
21 the outside container or wrapper of the retail pack-
22 age, if (here he one, through which the required in-
23 formation on the immediate container cannot be
2-1 clearly read, a label bearing—
-------
18
1 " (i) the name and address of (he producer,
2 registrant, or person for whom produced;
tt " (ii) the inline, bnmd, or trademark under
4 which the pesticide is sold;
f> "(iii) (he net weight or measure of the
G content: Provided, That the Administrator
7 may permit reasonable variations; and
8 "(iy) when required by regain I ion of the
9 Administrator to cfTectualc the purposes of
10 this Act, the registration number assigned to
11 the pesticide under this Act, and the use
12 classification; and
13 "(D) the pesticide contains any substance or
14 substances in quantities highly toxic to man, unless
15 the label shall bear, in addition to any other matter
16 required by this Act—
1? "(i) the skull and crossbones;
18 " (ii) the word 'poison' prominently in red
19 on a background of distinctly contrasting color:
20 and
-' "(in) n statement of a practical treatment
•*•* (first aid or otherwise) in case of poisoning by
-•* the pcstiride.
^* "(r) NKMATODK.—The term 'neinatodc' means invcr-
tcbratc animals of the phylum ncmnthchninlhes and class
-------
14
1 ucinatoda, that is, unscgmcntcd round worms witli elongated,
2 fusiform, ur snclikc bodies covered with cuticle, mid iuba)*-
3 iting soil, waler, plants, or plant pnrts; may also be called
4 nemas or cchvorms.
5 " (s) PKKSOX.—The term 'person' means any individual,
6 partnership, association, corporation, or any organized group
7 of persons whether incorporated or not.
8 "(|) PKST.—The term 'pest' moans (1) any insect, ro-
9 dent, nematodc, fungus, weed, or (2) any other form of ter-
10 rcstrial or aquatic plant or animal life or vims, bacteria, or
11 other micro-organism (except viruses, bacteria, or other
12 micro-organisms on or in living man or other living animals)
13 which the Administrator declares to be n pest under section
14 25(c)(l).
15 "(u) PESTICIDE.—Tlic term'pesticide'means (1) any
16 substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing,
J? destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest, and (2) any
18 substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant
19 regulator, defoliant, or desiccant.".
20 " (\) PLANT RKGOLATOK.—The term 'plant regulator
21 means any substance or mixture of substances, intended
22 through physiological action, for accelerating or retarding the
23 rate of growth or rate of maturation, or for otherwise altering
24 the behavior of plants or the produce thereof, but shall not
-~> include substances to the extent that they ore intended us
-------
15
1 plum nutrients, trace elements, nutritional chemicals, plant
2 iiHWilnnts, and soil amendments.
3 " (w) PitoiirrKi; AND PHOIHJCK.—The term 'producer'
4 im'iuis the person who manufactures, prepares, compounds,
& propagates, or processes any pesticide or device. The term
G 'produce' menus to manufacture, prepare, compound, propa-
7 gate, or process 0113' pesticide or device.
8 "(x) PlJOTECT IlKALTII AND THE ENVIRONMENT.—
9 The terms 'protect health and the environment' and 'protec-
10 tiou of health and the environment' means protection against
11 any injury to man and protection against any substantial
12 adverse effects on environmental values, taking into account
13 the public interest, including benefits from the use of the
14 pesticide.
15 "(y) REGISTRANT.—The term 'registrant' means a
1C person who bus registered an}' pesticide pursuant to the pro-
17 Visions of (his Act.
18 "(s) KKGISTKATION.—The term 'registration' includes
19 reregistration.
20 '' (aa) STATE.—The term 'Stale' means a State, the Dis-
21 trirt of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Kieo,' the
22 Virgin Islands, Guam, the Trust Territory of the Pacific
23 Islands, and American Samoa.
24 " (bb) SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE EN-
25 VIRONMENT.—The term 'sul>s(nn(ial adverse effects on the
-------
10
1 environment' means any injury to man or any substantial
2 adverse effects on environmental values, taking into account
8 the public interest, including benefits from the use of the
4 pesticide.
6 " (cc) WEED.—The term 'weed' means any plant which
6 grows where not wanted.
? "SEC. 3. REGISTRATION OF PESTICIDES.
8 "(a) BKQUIKBMENT.—Except as otherwise provided
9 by this Act, no person in any State may distribute, sell, of-
10 fer for sale, hold for sale, ship, deliver for shipment, or re-
11 ceive and (baring so received) deliver or offer to deliver,
12 to any person any pesticide which is not registered with the
13 Administrator.
14 "(b) EXEMPTIONS. A pesticide which is not rcgis-
1** t6rcd with the Administrator may be transferred if—
1® "(1) the transfer is from one registered establish-
1* mcnt to another registered establishment operated by
I**- the same producer solely for packaging at the second
19 establishment or for use as a constituent part of another
*" pesticide produced at the second establishment; or
" (2) the transfer is pursuant to and in accordance
22 with the requirements of an experimental use permit.
** " (c) I>ROCKDVRE FOB REGISTRATION.—
24 "(1) STATBMEKT REQUIRED.—Each applicant for
-------
17
1 registration of n pesticide shall flic witb the Adiniuis-
2 trator a statement which includes—
3 "(A) ('ie unnle nll(l Address of the applicant
4 and of any other person whose name will appear
5 on tbc labeling;
6 "(B) the name of the pesticide;
7 "(0) a complete copy of the labeling of the
8 pesticide, a statement of all claims to bo made for
9 it, and any directions for its use;
10 " (D) if requested by the Administrator, a full
11 description of the tests made and the results thereof
12 upon which the claims are based, except that data
13 submitted in support of an application shall not,
14 without permission of the applicant, be considered
15 by the Administrator in support of any other appli-
16 cation for registration;
17 "(E) the complete formula of the pesticide;
18 and
19 " (F) a request that the pesticide be classified
20 for general use, for restricted use, or for both.
21 "(2) DATA IN SUPPORT ov EBQISTBATJON.—The
22 Administrator shall publish guidelines specifying the
23 kinds of information which will be required to support
24 the registration of a pesticide and shall revise such
H.E. 10729 3
-------
13
1 guidelines from lime to time. If thereafter lie requires
2 any additional kind of information he shall permit
3 sufficient lime for applicants to obtain such additional
4 information. Except as provided by subsection (o) (1)
5 (D) of this section and section 10, within 30 days after
G the Administrator registers a pesticide under this Act
7 bo shall make available to the pirblic the data called for
8 in the registration statement together with such other sci-
y entific information as he deems relevant to his decision.
10 " (3) TIME FOB ACTING WITH RESPECT TO APPLI-
11 CATION.—The Administrator shall review the data after
12 receipt of the application and shall, as expeditiously as
13 possible, cither register the pesticide in accordance
U with paragraph (5), or notify the applicant of his deter-
15 mination that .it does not comply with the provisions of
16 the Act in accordance with paragraph (6).
17 "(4) NOTICE OP APPLICATION.—The Adminis-
18 trator shall publish in the Federal Register, promptly
19 after receipt of the statement and other data required
20 pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), a notice of each
21 application for registration of any pesticide if it contains
22 any new active ingredient or if it .would entail a changed
23 use pattern. The notice shall provide for a period of 30
24 days in which any Federal agency or any other inter-
25 estcd perron may comment.
-------
19
1 "(5) APPKOVAL OF REGISTRATION.—The Admin-
2 islrator shall register a pesticide if he determines that,
3 when considered with an)' restrictions imposed under
4 subsection (d) —
5 "(A) its composition is such as to warrant the
G proposed claims for it;
7 "(B) its labeling and other material required
8 to be submitted comply with the requirements of
9 this Act; and
30 " (C) it will perform its intended function with-
11 out substantial adverse effects on the environment.
12 The Administrator shall not make any lack of essentiality
13 a criterion for denying registration of any pesticide.
14 " (6) DENIAX OF REGISTRATION.—If the Adminis-
15 trator determines that the requirements of paragraph (5)
16 for registration are not satisfied, he shall notify the ap-
17 plicant for registration of his determination and of his
18 reasons (including the factual basis) therefor, and that,
19 unless the applicant corrects the conditions and notifies
20 the Administrator thereof during the 30-day period be-
-' ginning with the day after the date on which the appli-
22 cant receives the notice, the Administrator wDl refuse to
23 register the pesticide. Whenever the Administrator re-
24 fuses to register a pesticide, he shall notify the applicant
25 of bis decision and of his reasons (including the factual
-------
20
1 basis) therefor. Upon such notification, the applicant for
2 registration shall have the some remedies as provided for
3 the registrant in section G.
4 "(d) CLASSIFICATION OF PESTICIDES.—
5 "(1) CLASSIFICATION POU GENERAL USE, BR-
6 STRICTKl) USE, OR BOTH.—
7 "(A) As a part of the registration of a pesti-
8 cido the Administrator shall classify it as being for
9 general use or for restricted use, provided that if
10 the Administrator determines that some of the uses
11 for which the pesticide is registered should he for
12 general use and that other uses for which it is
13 registered should be for restricted use, he shall
14 classify it for both general use and restricted use.
15 If some of the uses of the pesticide are classified
16 for general use and other uses ore classified for re-
17 stricted use, the directions relating to its general
18 uses shall be clearly separated and distinguished
19 from those directions relating to its restricted uses.
20 " (B) If the Administrator determines that the
21 pesticide, when applied in accordance with its di-
22 reclions for use, warnings and cautions and for the
23 uses for which it is registered, or for one or more
24 of such uses, will not cause substantial adverse
25 effects on the environment, he will classify the pcsti-
-------
21
1 cidc, or (lie particular use or uses of the pesticide
2 to which the determination applies for general use.
3 " (0) If the Administrator determines that the
4 pesticide, when applied in accordance with its di-
5 rcclions for use, warnings and cautions and for the
6 uses for which it is registered, or for one or more
7 of such uses, may cause, without additional rcgula-
8 tory restrictions, substantial adverse effects on the
9 environment, including injury to the applicator,
10 he shall classify the pesticide, or the particular use
11 or uses to which the determination applies, for re-
12 strictcd use.
13 (i) If the Administrator classifies a pesti-
14 cide, or one or more uses of such pesticide, for
15 restricted use because of a determination that
16 its acute dermal or inhalation toxicity of the
17 pesticide presents a hazard to the applicator or
18 other persons, the pesticide shall be applied for
I9 any use to which the restricted classification
20 applies only by or under the direct supervision
21 of a certified pesticide applicator.
22 (ij) If (ho Administrator classifies a pcsti-
23 cidc, or one or more uses of such pesticide, for
24 restricted use because of a determination that
2& its use without additional regulatory rest no-
-------
22
1 tion may cause substantial adverse effect on tlic
2 environment, the pesticide sliall be applied for
3 any use to which the determination applies only
4 by or under the direct supervision of a certi-
5 ficd pesticide applicator, or subject to such
6 other restrictions as the Administrator may
7 determine.
8 " (2) ClJAKGK IN CLASSIFICATION.—If lllC Admill-
9 islrator determines that a change in the classification of
10 any use of a pesticide from general use to restricted use
11 is necessary to prevent substantial adverse effects on the
12 environment, he shall notify the registrant of such pcsti-
1& cidc of such determination at least 30 days before making
34 die change and shall publish the proposed change in the
35 Federal Register.
1(5 "(c) PRODUCTS WJTII SAME FORMULATION AND
37 CLAIMS.—Products which have the same formulation, are
18 manufactured by the same person, the labeling of which
39 contain!; the same claims, and the labels of which bear a
20 designation identifying the product as the same pesticide
21 may be registered as a single pesticide; and additional names
22 and labels sliall be added by supplemental statements.
23 "(f) MISCELLANEOUS.—
21 "(1) EFFECT or CHANGE OF LABELING ou POR-
25 MULATION.—If the labeling or formulation for a pcsli-
-------
23
1 cide is changed, (ho registration shall be amended to
2 reflect such change if the Administrator determines that
3 the change will not violate any provision of this Act.
4 " (2) KKCISTKATIOX NOT A DEKKNSE.—In no event
5 shall registration of an article he construed as a defense.
6 /or the commission of any offense under this Act.
7 "(3) AUTIIOUITY TO CONSULT OT1JEK FUNERAL
6 AGENCIES.—In connection with consideration of any
9 registration or application for registration under this
10 section, the Administrator may consult with any other
11 Federal agency.
12 "SEC. 4. USE OF UESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE; CERTIFIED
13 APPLICATORS.
14 "(a) CERTIFICATION FROCKDUKB.—
35 " (i) FKDKIJAL CERTIFICATION.—Subject to para-
'0 groph (2), tlic Administrator shall prescribe standards
17 for the certification of pesticide applicators. Such stand-
38 ards shall provide that to be certified, an individual must
19 be determined to be competent with respect to the use
20 and handling of pesticides, or of the use and handling
23 of the pesticide or class of pesticides covered by such in-
22 dividunl's certification.
23 " (2) STATIC CERTIFICATION.—If any State, at any
^ time, desires to certify pesticide applicators, the Gover-
25 nor of such State shall submit a State plan for such pur-
-------
24
1 JHISC. The Administrator shall approve the plnn submit-
2 ted by any State, or any modification thereof, if such
3 plan in his judgment—
4 "(A) designates a State agency as the agency
5 responsible for administering the plan throughout
G the State;
7 "(B) contains satisfactory assurances that such
8 agency has or will have the legal authority and
9 qualified personnel necessary to carry out the plan;
10 " (C) gives satisfactory assurances that the State
11 will devote adequate funds to the administration of
12 the plan;
13 " (D) provides that the State agency will make
14 such reports to the Administrator in such form and
15 containing such information as the Administrator
16 may from time to time require; and
17 " (E) contains satisfactory assurances that State
18 standards for the certification of pesticide applicators
19 conform with those standards proscribed by tho
20 Admiiustrator under paragraph (1).
21 "(b) STATE PLANS.—If the Administrator rejects a
22 plan, submitted under this paragraph, he shall afford the
23 State submitting the plan duo notice and opportunity for
24 hearing before so doing. If the Administrator approves a
-------
25
1 plan submitted under tins paragraph, then such State shall
•J certify pesticide applicators with respect to such State.
3 "SEC. 5. EXPERIMENTAL USE 1'KKMITS.
4 "(a) ISSUANCE.—Any person may apply to the Ad-
•r» ministralor for tin experimental use permit for a pesticide.
<» The Adininistmtor nuiy issue an experimental use permit if
7 he determines that the applicant needs such permit in order
8 to accumulate information necessary to register a pesticide
9 under section 3. An application for an experimental use per-
W mit may be filed «t (he time of or before or after an appliea-
? I tion for registration is filed.
12 «(i,) TjnipoitAitY TOLEKAKCR LKVKL.—If the Adinin-
13 istrntor dutermincs (hat the use of a pesticide may reasonably
^ he expected to result in any residue on or in food or feed, he
35 may establish a temporary tolerance level for the residue of
"* the pesticide before issuing (he experimental use permit.
17 "(c) USR rxDEK FEUMTT.—Use of a pesticide under
^ an experimental use permit shall he under the supervision of
19 the Administrator, and shall he subject to such terms and
-° conditions and be for such period of time as the Administrator
~' may prescribe in the permit.
~ " (d) STUHIES.—When any experimental use permit is
~'J issued for a pesticide containing any chemical or combination
'** of chemicals which has not been included in any previously
H.R. 10729 4
-------
26
1 registered pesticide, the Administrator may specify tltat
2 studies be conducted to detect whether (lie use of the pesticide
3 under the permit niny cause substantial adverse effects on
4 Ibc environment. All results of stu-b studies shall be reported
5 to the Administrator before such pesticide may be registered
6 under section 3.
7 "(o) HKVOCATIOX.—The Administrator may revoke
8 any experimental use permit, at any lime, if he finds that its
9 tcnns or conditions arc being violated, or that its terms and
10 conditions arc inadequate to avoid substantial adverse effects
11 on the environment.
12 "SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW; SUSPENSION.
13 "(a) CANCELLATION AFTER FIVE YEARS.—
!•* " (1) PROCEDURE.—The Administrator shall cancel
15 the registration of any pesticide at the end of the five-
16 year period which begins on the date of its registration
17 (or at the end of any five-year period thereafter) un-
18 less the registrant, before the end of such period, re-
19 quests in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
20 Administrator that the registration be continued in
21 effect.
22 "(2) INFORMATION.—If at any time after the
23 registration of a pesticide the registrant has additional
24 factual information regarding substantial adverse effects
-------
27
1 on ibe environment of the pesticide, be shall submit
2 such information to the Administrator.
3 "(ll) CANCJif.r.ATIOX AND ClIANOH IN CLASSIKICA-
4 Q'ION.—If the Administrator determines that registration of
5 a pesticide should he canceled or that the classification of
6 a pesticide should he changed, he shall notify the registrant
7 of such notice, the registrant may, within 30 days (A)
8 registration or change the classification and of his reasons
9 (including the factual basis) therefor in writing. Upon receipt
10 of such notice, the registrant may, within 80 days (A)
11 make the necessary corrections and so notify the Adininis-
12 trator, or (U) file objections and request a public bearing.
13 If the registrant does not take any such action, the notice
14 shall, at the end of 30 d.-iys from its receipt by the registrant,
15 constitute a final order of cancellation or change in classifica-
16 tion. If the registrant files objections and requests a public
17 bearing, the order of cancellation or change in classification
18 may only be issued after completion of such proceeding.
19 "(c) SUSPENSION.—
20 " (1) OLDER.—If the Administrator determines that
21 such action is necessary to prevent an imminent hazard
22 during the time required for cancellation proceedings, he
23 may, by order, suspend the registration of the pesticide
21 inimodinU'ly. No order of suspension may be issued unless
-------
28
1 at the same time the Administrator issues notices of his
2 intention to cancel the registration of the pesticide. Any
3 remedy elected by the registrant under section G (a) shall
4 he held as expeditionary as possible.
5 " (2) DURATION OF ORDER.—Any suspension order
G shall remain in effect only until 90 days after the eoinplo-
7 tion of the administrative remedies provided for under
8 section G (a) or until the Administrator issues his final
!) order either canceling or denying cancellation of the
10 registration, whichever is sooner.
11 "(3) JUDICIAL REVIEW.—Any order of suspension
12. shall he subject to immediate review in all actions by the
13 registrant in an appropriate district court, solely to dcter-
!•* mine whether the order of suspension was arbitrary,
l»r> capricious or an abuse of discretion, or whether the order
1C was issued in accordance with the procedures established
17 by law. This action may be maintained simultaneously
18 with any administrative review proceeding under
19 section G.
20 " (d) SCIENTIFIC REVIEW.—Whenever application for
21 registration is refused or a registration is cancelled or sus-
22 pcndcd, the registrant within 30 days after service of notice
2^ of such action may file a petition requesting that the matter
34 "(d) -PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SCIENTIFIC REVIEW.—
-;' In the event a hearing is requested pursuant to subsection
-------
29
I (a) or (d) or determined upon by the Administrator pur-
- suant to subsection (d), suck bearing shall be held after due
3 notice for the purpose of receiving evidence relevant and ma-
4 tcrial to the issues raised by the objections filed by the a.p-
5 plicnnt or other interested parties, or to the issues stated by
6 the Administrator, if the hearing is called by the Adminis-
7 trntor rather than by the filing of objections. Upon a show-
S ing of relevance and reasonable scope of evidence sought
y by any part}' to a public hearing, the Hearing Examiner shall
JO issue a subpcna to compel testimony from any person. Upon
11 the request of any party or when in the hearing officer's judg-
12 mcnt it is necessary or desirable, the hearing officer shall refer
13 to a Committee of the National Academy of Sciences ull rele-
14 vant questions of scientific fact arising in the course of the
)" public hearing. The Committee of the National Academy of
l(i Sciences shall report in writing to the officer within 60 days
17 on these question!! of scientific fact. The re-port shall be made
1S public and shall be considered as part of the hearing record.
'*' The Administrator shall enter into appropriate arrangements
~() with the National Academy of Sciences to assure an objective
~1 and competent scientific review of the questions presented to
22 Committees of the Academy and to provide such other scicn-
•*•' tific advisory services as may be required by the Adminis-
'•^ trator for carrying out the purposes of this Act. The Hearing
25 Examiner shall be guided by the principles of the Federal
-------
80
1 link's of Civil Procedure in making any order for tlio protco-
2 lion of the witness and shall order the payment of reasonable
3 fees and expenses as a condition lo requiring his testimony.
4 On contest, the subpena may ho enforced hy an appropriate
5 United States District Court in accordance with the prin-
6 ciplcs stated herein and the Administrative Procedure Act.
7 As soon as practicable nfler completion of the hearing but
8 not later than 90 days thereof tor, the Administrator shall
9 evaluate the data and reports before him and issue an order
10 either revoking his notice of intention issued pursuant to
11 this section, or shall issue an order cither cancelling the
12 registration, changing (he classification, denying the regis-
13 tration, or requiring modification of (he labeling or packag-
14 ing of the article. Such order shall be based only on siibstau-
15 tial evidence of record of such hearing and shall set forth
16 . detailed findings of fact upon which the order is based.
" " (c) JUDICIAL REVIEW.—Final orders of the Admin-
18 istrator under this section shall be subject to judicial review
19 pursuant to section 1C.
20 -SEC. 7. REGISTRATION OP ESTABLISHMENTS.
21 "(a) REQTJJKEMENT.—No person shall produce any
22 pesticide or device subject to this Act in any State unless
23 (ho establishment in which it is produced is registered with
24 the Adininstralor. The application for registration of any
25 establishment shall include the name and address of the
-------
81
1 establishment and of the producer who operates such
2 establishment.
3 "(b) KKOKSTKAIMON.—Whenever the Administrator
4 receives an application under subsection (a), he shall register
5 (ho establishment and assign it an establishment number.
6 "(c) iNl'OHMATJOSr RliQUlRED.—
7 "(1) Any producer operating an establishment
8 registered under this section shall inform the Adminis-
9 trator within 30 days after it is registered of the types
10 and amounts of pesticides and devices—
11 "(A) which he is currently producing;
12 " (B) which he has produced during the past
13 year; and
14 " (C) which he bos sold or distributed during
15 (ho post year.
16 The information required by this paragraph shall be kepi
17 current and submitted to the Administrator annually as
18 required under such regulations as the Administrator
19 may prescribe.
~0 "(2) Any such producer shall, upon the request of
21 the Administrator for the purpose of issuing a stop sale
22 order pursuant to section 13, inform him of the name
23 and address of any recipient of any pesticide produced in
24 any registered establishment which he operates.
25 "(d) COXJPIDENTIAL IlKCOBDS AND INFORMATION.—
-------
32
1 Any information submitted to the Administrator pursuant
2 to subsection (c) slinll be considered confidential and shall
3 be subject lo the provisions of section 10.
4 "SEC. 8. BOOKS AND HKCORDS.
5 "(n) HKQITIREMKNT.—The Administrator may prc-
6 scribe regulations requiring producers to maintain such rcc-
7 ords with respect to their operations and the pesticides and
8 devices produced ns he determines arc necessary for the cf-
9 /ectivc enforcement of this Act. No records required under
10 this subsection shall extend to financial data, sales data other
Jl than shipment data, pricing data, personnel data, and rc-
12 search data (other than data relating to registered pesticides
13 or to a pesticide for which an application for registration has
!•* been filed).
15 "(b) INSPECTION.—For the purposes of enforcing the
10 provisions of this Act, airy producer, distributor, carrier,
17 dealer, or any other person who sells or offers for sale,
18 delivers or offers for delivery an}' pesticide or device sub-
19 jcct to this Act, shall, upon request of any officer or employee
20 of the Environmental Protection Agency or of any State or
21 political subdivision, duly designated by the Administrator.
22 furnish or permit such person at all reasonable times to have
23 access to, and to copy: (1) all records showing the delivery,
24 movement, or holding of such pesticide or device, including
25 the quantity, the date of shipment and receipt, and the name
-------
33
1 of (ho consignor and consignee; or (2) in llio event of the
'2 inability of any person lo produce records containing such in-
3 formation, all oilier records
-------
34
1 If no violation is suspected, 1111 alternate and sufficient reason
2 shall be given in writing. Each sucli in.spcetion shall be com-
3 nic.Jiccd mid completed \vilb reasonable promptness. If the
4 ofliccr or employee obtains any samples, prior to leaving
5 the premises, he shall give to the owner, operator, or agent
6 in charge a receipt describing the samples obtained and, if
7 requested, a portion of each such sample equal in volume or
8 weight to the portion retained. If an analysis is made of such
9 samples, a copy of the results of such analysis shall be fur-
10 nished promptly to the owner, operator, or agent in charge.
11 " (b) WARRANTS.—For purposes of enforcing the pro-
12 visions of this Act and upon a showing to an ollieer or court
13 of competent jurisdiction that there is reason to believe that
1^ the provisions of this Act have been violated, officers or
15 employees duly designated by the Administrator arc em-
16 powered to obtain and to execute warrants authorixing—
17 "(1) entry for the purpose of this section;
18 "(2) inspection and reproduction of all records
19 showing (he quantity, date of shipment, and the name
20 of consignor and consignee of any illegal pesticide or dc-
21 vice found in the establishment and in the event of the
22 inability of any person to produce records containing
23 such information, all other records and information rc-
24 luting to such delivery, movement, or holding of the
25 pesticide or device; and
-------
85
1 " (3) (lie seizure of niiy pesticide or device which is
2 in violation of this Act.
3 "(c) KNKOKCUMKNT.—
4 "(]) CRHTIPICATJON OF FACTS TO ATTOitNBy
5 CKNKKAL.—The examination of pesticides or devices
6 shall he made in the Environmental Protection Agency
7 or elsewhere as (he Administrator may designate for the
8 purpose of determining from such examinations whether
9 they comply with the requirements of this Act. If it
10 shall appear from any such examination that they fail to
11 comply with (he requirements of this Act, the Admin-
12 jslratur shall cause notice to be given to the person
13 against whom criminal proceedings are contemplated.
14 Any person so notified shall he given an opportunity to
15 present his views, either orally or in writing, with regard
1C to such contemplated proceedings, and if in the opinion
17 of the Administrator it appears that the provisions of
18 this Act have been violated by such person, then the
19 Administrator shall certify the facts to the Attorney
20 General, with a copy of-(he results of the analysis or the
21 examination of such pesticide for the institution of a
22 criminal proceeding pursuant to section 16> when the
23 Administrator determines that such action will bo stifli-
24 cleat to effectuate the purposes of this Act.
25 " (2) NOTICE NOT HEQUIKEIK—The notice of con-
-------
36
1 tcmplatcd proceedings nnd opportunity to present views
2 set forlli in this subsection arc not prerequisites to the
•I inslitutioii of liny proceeding by the Attorney General.
4 "(3) WAKNIXO NOTICFS.—Nothing in this Act
« shall be construed us requiring the Administrator to
it institute proceedings for prosecution of minor violations
7 of this Act whenever he believes that the public interest
8 will he adequately served by a suitable written notice
9 of warning.
10 "SEC. 10. PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS AND OTHER
1J INFORMATION.
1- " (») IN GENERAL.—In submitting data required by this
13 Act, the applicant may (1) clearly mark any portions therc-
•14 of which in his opinion are trade secrets or commercial or
15 financial information, and (2) submit such marked material
16 separately from other material required to be submitted
17 under this Act.
18 •'(!)) DISCLOSURE.—Notwithstanding any other provi-
19 sion of this Act, the Administrator shall not make public
20 information which in his judgment contains or relates to
21 trade secrets or commercial or financial information obtained
22 from a person and privileged or confidential, except that,
23 when necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, in-
24 formation relating to formulas of products acquired by nu-
-" thorizntion of this Act may bo revealed to any Federal
-------
87
1 agency consulted and may lie rcvcnlod nt a public hen ring
2 or in findings of fact issued by the Administrator.
3 "SEC. II. STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO PESTICIDE AP-
4 PLICATOUS.
5 "(a) IN Cli!NB«AL.—No regulations prescribed by the
0' Administrator for carrying out the provisions of this Act shall
7 require any private pesticide applicator to maintain any rec-
8 ords or file any reports or other documents.
9 "(b) SEPARATE STANDARDS.—When establishing or
10 approving standards for licensing or certification, the Admin-
11 istrator shall establish separate standards for commercial and
12 private applicators.
13 -SEC. 12. UNLAWFUL ACTS.
14 "(a) IN GENERAL.—
15 " (1) Except as provided by subsection (b), it shall
IK be unlawful for any person in any State to distribute, sell.
17 odor for s;ilc, hold for sale, ship, deliver for shipment, or
18 receive and (having so received) deliver or offer to de-
19 liver, to any person—
20 "(A) any pesticide which is not registered
21 under section 3;
22 "(B) any registered pesticide if any claims
23 mode for it as a part of its distribution or sale
21 substantially differ from an}' claims made for it as
-------
38
1 a part of the statement required in connection with
2 its registration under section 3;
3 " (C) any registered pesticide the composition
4 of which differs at the time of its distribution or
5 sale from its composition as described in the state-
6 ment required in connection with its registration
7 under section 3;
8 " (D) any pesticide which has not been colored
9 or discolored pursuant to the provisions of section
10 25 (c) (5);
11 " (E) any pesticide which is adulterated or niis-
12 branded; or
13 "(F) any device which is misbraudcd.
14 " (2) It shall be unlawful for any person—
15 "(A) to detach, alter, deface, or destroy, hi
36 whole or hi port, any labeling required under this
17 Act;
18 "(B) to refuse to keep any records required
19 pursuant to section 8, or to refuse to allow the in-
20 spection of any records or establishment pursuant to
21 section 8 or 9, or to refuse to allow an officer or
22 employee of the Environmental Protection Agency
23 to take a sample of any pesticide pursuant to sec-
24 tion 9;
25 " (G) to give a guaranty or undertaking pro-
-------
39
1 vidcd for in subsection (b) which is false in any
2 particular, except that a person who receives and
3 relics upon n guaranty authorized under subjection
4 (b) may give a guaranty to the same effect, which
5 guaranty shall contain, in addition to his own nnnic
(>' and address, the name and address of the person
1 residing in the United States from whom he rc-
8 ceived the guaranty or undertaking;
9 " (D) to use for his own advantage or to reveal,
10 other than to the Administrator, or officials or cin-
11 ployccs of the Environmental Protection Agcnc}- or
12 other Federal executive agencies, or to the courts,
13 or to physicians, pharmacists, and other qualified
14 persons, needing such information for the pcrform-
15 auce of their duties, in accordance with such dircc-
16 tions as the Administrator may prescribe, any
17 information acquired by authority of this Act which
18 is confidential under this Act;
19 "(E) who is a registrant, wholesaler, dealer,
20 retailer, or other distributor to advertise a product
2J registered under this Act for restricted use without
22 giving the classification of the product assigned to
23 U under section 3;
24 " (F) to make available for use, or to use, any
25 registered pcstii-idc classified for restricted use for
-------
40
1 some or all purpose* other than in accordance with
2 section 3 (d) and any regulations thereunder;
l\ "(G) to use any registered pesticide in a nian-
•1 ner inconsistent with its labeling;
*> "(U) to use any ])cstieidc which is under an
<» experimental use permit contrary to the provisions
7 of such pennit;
** "(I) to violate any order issued under section
n- 13;
1° "(J) to violate 8113' suspension order issued
11 under section 6;
12 " (K) to violate any cancellation of ri-gistrn-
J;* tion of a pesticide under section 0;
1"* "(I*) w'ho is a producer to violate any of the
I** .provisions of section 7;
''•' "(M) to knowingly falsify all or part of any
I; application for registration, applicntion for cxpcri-
^ mental use pennit, an}' infonnation suljiuittcd to the
^ Administrator pursuant to section 7, ainy records
20 required to he maintained pursuant to section 8,
21 any report filed under this Act, or any infonnn-
2iJ tion marked as confidential and submitted to the
^ Administrator under any provision of this Act;
-4 "(N) who is a registrant, wholesaler, dealer.
-------
41
1 retailer, or olLcr distributor to fail to file repor*-
2 required by this Act; or
3 " (0) to add any substance to, or take any sub-
4 stance from any pesticide in a manner that may
;* defeat the purpose of this Act.
<> " (b) EXEMPTIONS.—The penalties provided for a vio-
7 lation of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) shall hot apply
8 to-
9 " (1) any person who establishes a guaranty signed
10 by, and containing the name and address of, the regis-
11 trant or person residing in the United States from whom
12 he purchased and received in good faith the pesticide in
13 the same unbroken package, to the effect that the pesti-
14 cide was lawfully registered at the time of sale and deliv-
l5 cry to him, and that it complies with the other rcquirc-
16 mcnts of this Act, and in such case the guarantor shall be
1? subject to the penalties which would otherwise attach to
18 the person holding the guaranty under the provision of
19 this Act;
20 "(2) any carrier while lawfully shipping, trnns-
21 porting, or delivering for shipment any pesticide or
22 device, if .such oarricr upon request of any officer or
23 employee duly designated by the Administrator shall
24 permit such officer or employee to copy all of its records
25 concerning such pesticide or device;
-------
42
1 "(3) any public official while engaged in the per-
2 forinnncc (if bis nflicinl duties;
3 " (4) an)' person using or possessing any pesticide
4 us provided by an experimental use permit in effect
5 with respect to such pesticide and such use or posses-
6 sion; or
7 "(5) any person who ships a substance or mixture
8 of substances being put through tests in which the pur-
9 pose is only to determine its value for pesticide purposes
10 or to determine its toxicity or other properties and from
11 which the user docs not expect to receive any benefit
*2 in pest control from its use.
13 "SBC. 13. STOP SALE, USE, REMOVAL AND SEIZURE.
14 "(a) STOI» SAM;, ETC., OKDKKS.—Whenever any pesti-
*** cidc or device is found by the Administrator in any State
•" and there is reason to believe on the basis of inspection or
17 tests that such pesticide or device is in violation of any of the
™ provisions of this Act, or that such pesticide or device has
** been or is intended to be distributed or sold in violation of any
such provisions, or when the registration of the pesticide
or device has been canceled by a final order or has been sus-
pcndcd, the Administrator may issue a written or printed
'stop sale, nsc, or removal' order to any person who owns,
controls, or has custody of such pesticide or device, and after
receipt of such order no person shall sell, use, or remove the
-------
43
1 pesticide or device described in (he order except in accord-
2 ancc with flic, provisions of the order.
3 " (b) SISTZUKK.—Any pesticide or device that is being
4 transported or, having been transported, remains unsold or
5 in original unbroken packages, or that is sold or offered
6 for sale in any State, or that is imported from a foreign conn-
7 try, shall be liable to be proceeded nguinst in any district
8 court in the district where it is found and seized for con-
9 fiscation by a process in rem for condemnation if—
10 "(1) in the case of a pesticide—
11 "(A) it is adulterated or misbrandcd;
12 " (B) it is not registered pursuant to the pro-
13 visions of suction 3;
14 "(C) its labeling fails to bear the information
15 required by this Act;
16 "(D) it is not colored or discolored and such
37 coloring or discoloring is required under this Act; or
18 "(E) any of the claims made for it or any
39 of the directions for its use differ in substance from
20 the representations made in connection with its reg-
21 ist ration;
-'- "(2) iu the case of a device, it is misbrandcd; or
'-'•> "(3) in the case of a pesticide or device, when
2-* used in accordance with (he requirements imposed under
2J» this Act and as directed by the labeling, it nevertheless
-------
44
1 causes substantial adverse effects on the environment.
2 In the case of a plant regulator, defoliant, or dcsiccant,
3 used in accordance with the label claims and rccommcn-
4 dations, physical or physiological effects on plants or
5 parts thereof shall not be deemed to be injury, when
6 such effects arc the purpose for which the plant regu-
7 lator, defoliant, or desiccnnt was applied.
8 "(c) DISPOSITION* AFTER CONDEMNATION.—-If the
9 pesticide or device is condemned it shall, after entry of the
10 decree, be disposed of by destruction or sale as the court
11 may direct and the proceeds, if sold, less the court costs,
12 shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States, but the
13 pesticide or device shall not be sold contrary to the provisions
14 of this Act or the laws of the jurisdiction in which it is sold:
15 Provided, That upon the payments of the costs of the condem-
16 nation proceedings and the execution and delivery of a good
17 and sufficient bond conditioned that the pesticide or device
18 shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of contrary to the pro-
19 visions of the Act or the laws of any State in which sold, the
20 court may direct that such pesticide or device be delivered to
21 the owner thereof. The proceedings of such condemnation
22 cases shall conform, as near as may be, to the proceedings in
23 admiralty, except that cither party may demand trial by jury
24 of any issue of fact joined in any case, and all such proceed-
-------
45
1 ings shall bo at the suit of nud in tho name of the United
2 States.
3 " (d) COURT COSTS, ETC.—When a decree of condcm-
4 nation is entered against the pesticide or device, court costs
5 and fees, storage, and other proper expenses shall ho awarded
6 against the person, if any, intervening as claimant of the
7 pesticide or device.
8 "SEC 14. PENALTIES.
9 "(a) CIVIL PENALTIES.—
10 "(1) IN GENERAL.—Any registrant, commercial
11 pesticide applicator, wholesaler, dealer, retailer, or other
12 distributor who violates any provision of this Act may be
13 assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not
14 more than $5,000 for each offense.
15 "(2) PRIVATE PESTICIDE APPLICATOB.—Any
16 private pesticide applicator who violates any provision
17 of this Act subsequent to receiving a written warning
18 from the Administrator or following a citation for a prior
19 violation, may be assessed a civil penalty by the Admin-
20 istrator of not more than $1,000 for each offense.
21 "(3) HKARING.—No civil penalty, shall be assessed
22 unless the person charged shall have been given notice
23 and opportunity for a hearing on such charge in the
24 county, parish, or incorporated city of the residence of
-------
46
1 the person charged. In determining the amount of the
2 penalty the Administrator shall consider the appro-
3 priatencss of such penalty to tlic size of the business
4 of the person charged, the effect on tbe person's ahility
5 to continue in business, and the gravity of the violation.
6 "(4) ItEKEHKNCES TO ATTORNEY GENERAL.—In
1 case of inability to collect such civil penalty or failure
8 of any person to pay all, or such portion of such civil
9 penalty as the Administrator may determine, the Ad-
10 ministrator shall refer the matter to the Attorney Gen-
ii eral, who shall recover such amount by action in the
12 appropriate United States district court.
13 " (b) CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—
1* "(1) IN GENERAL.—Any registrant, commercial
15 pesticide applicator, wholesaler, dealer, retailer, or other
1" distributor who knowingly violates any provision of this
17 Act shah* be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall on con-
18 viction be fined not more than §25,000, or imprisoned
19 for not more than one year, or both.
20 "(2) PRIVATE PESTICIDE APPLICATOR.—Any
*1 private pesticide applicator who knowingly violates any
22 provision of this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
23 and shall on conviction be fined not more than $1,000,
** or imprisoned for not more than 30 days, or both.
25 "(3) DISCLOSURE OP INFORMATION.—Any per-
-------
47
1 son, who, with intent to defraud, uses or reveals informa-
2 tion relative lo formulas of products acquired under tbc
3 authority of section 3, shall he fined not more than
4 $10,000, or imprisoned for not more than three years,
5 or both.
t» "(4) 'ACTS OP OPFICEltS, AGENTS, ETC.—When
7 construing and enforcing the provisions of this Act, tlie
8 act, omission, or failure of any ofiicer, agent, or other
9 person acting for or employed by any person shall in
10 every case be also deemed to be the act, omission, or
11 failure of such person as well as that of the person
12 employed.
13 "SBC. 15. INDEMNITIES.
1* "(a) REQUIREMENT.—If—
I5 " (1) the Administrator notifies a registrant that he
16 has suspended the registration of a pesticide because such
*1 action is necessary to prevent an imminent hazard;
18 "(2) the registration of the pesticide is canceled as
19 a result of a final determination that the use of such pesti-
20 cide will create an imminent hazard; and
21 "(3) any person who owned any quantity of such
22 pesticide immediately before the notice to the registrant
23 under paragraph (1) suffered losses by reason of suspen-
24 sion or cancellation of the registration,
25 the Administrator shall make an indemnity payment to such
2s person.
-------
48
1 " (b) AMOUNT OF PAYMENT.—
2 " (1) IN GENERAL.—The amount of tlie indemnity
3 payment under subsection (a.) to any person sbnll be de-
4 termincd on the basis of the cost of the pesticide owned
5 by such person immediately before the notice to the
6 registrant referred to in subsection (a) (1) ; except that
7 in no event shall an indemnity payment to any person
8 exceed the fair market value of the pesticide owned by
9 such person immediately before the notice referred to in
10 subsection (a) (1).
11 "(2) SPECIAL RULE.—Notwithstanding any other
12 provision of this Act, the Administrator may provide a
13 reasonable time for use or other disposal of such pcsti-
14 cide. In determining the quantity of any pesticide for
15 which indemnity shall be paid under this subsection,
16 proper adjustment shall be made for any pesticide used
17 or otherwise disposed of by such owner.
18 "SEC. 16. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE; JUDICIAL RE-
19 VIEW.
20 " (a) APPLICATION OP ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
21 ACT.—Except as provided by subsection (b), subchapter II
22 of chapter 5 of title 5 of the United States Code (sec. 551
23 and following, relating to administrative procedure) and
24 chapter 7 of title 5 of the United States Code (sec. 701
23 and following, relating to judicial review) apply in respect
-------
49
1 of rules, rulo making, orders, adjudication, licensing, snnc-
2 lions, agency proceedings, and agency actions (as such
3 terms are used in subchapter II of chapter 5 and in chapter
4 7 of title 5 of the United States Code).
5 "(b) JUDICIAL KKVIKW.—In the case of actual contro-
6 vcrsy as to the validity of any order issued by the Adminis-
7 Irntor following a public hearing, any party at interest may
8 obtain judicial review by iiling in the United States court
9 of appeals for the circuit wherein such person resides or has
10 a place of business, within 60 days after the entry of such
11 order, a petition praying that the order be set aside in
12 whole or in part. A copy of the petition shall bo forthwith
13 transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Administrator
14 or any oflicer designated by him for that purpose, and thcrc-
15 upon the Administrator shnlJ file in the court the record
16 of the proceedings on which he based his order, as provided
17 in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. Upon the
18 filing of such petition the court shall hare exclusive juris-
19 diction to affirm or set aside the order complained of in
20 whole or in part. The court shall consider all evidence of
21 record. The order of the Administrator shall ho sustained if it
22 is supported by substantial evidence when considered on the
23 record as a whole. The judgment of the court affirniinir or
24 setting aside, in whole or in part, jmy order under this suction
25 shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the
-------
50
1 IniU'd States upon ccrtiorari or certification as provided in
2 section 1254 of title 28 of the United States Code. The
3 commencement of proceedings under this section shall not,
4 unless specifically ordered by the court to the contrary, op-
5 erate as a stay of an order. The court shall advance on the
6 docket and expedite the disposition of all cases filed therein
7 pursuant to this section.
8 "(c) JUKLSIMCTION OF DISTRICT CouKTs.—The dis-
9 trict courts of the United States arc vested with jurisdiction
10 specifically to enforce, and to prevent and restrain violations
U of, this Act.
*2 "(d) NOTICE OP JUDGMENTS.—The Administrator
13 shall, by publication in such manner as he may prescribe,
14 give notice of all judgments entered in actions instituted un-
15 tier the authority of this Act
16 "SEC. 17. IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
17 "(a) PESTICIDES AND DEVICES INTENDED FOB Ex-
18 POUT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no
19 pesticide or device shall be deemed in violation of this Act
*0 when intended solely for export to any foreign country and
^ prepared or packed according to the specifications or dirrc-
22 tions of the foreign purchaser.
23 "(b) CANCELLATION NOTICES FURNISHED TO FOB-
24 EIQN GOVERNMENTS.—Whenever a cancellation of the rcpis-
•^ tration of a pesticide becomes effective, the Administrator
-------
51
1 shall transmit through (lie State Department copies of each
- notice of ranc'cllalion of a registration of a pesticide to the
3 governments of other countries and to appropriate inlcr-
4 national agencies.
i> "(c) IMPORTATION OF PESTIOIDKS AND DKVIOES.—
<> The Scrretary of tlic Treasury shall notify the Administrator
7 of the arrival of pesticides and devices and shall deliver to the
8 Administrator, upon his request, samples of pesticides or
9 devices which are being imported into tho United States,
10 giving notice to the owner or consignee, who may appear
11 before the Administrator and have the right to introduce tcsti-
12 mony. If it appears from the examination of a sample that it
W is adulterated, or misbrandcd or otherwise violates the provi-
1*1 sions gut forth in this Act, or is otherwise injurious to health
15 or the environment, the pesticide or device may be refused
Iti admission, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall refuse
17 delivery to the consignee and shall cause the destruction of
J*> tiny pesticide or device refused delivery which shall not be
19 exported by the consignee within 5)0 days from the date
211 of notice of such refusal under such regulations as the Secro-
-l tary of the Treasury may prescribe: Provided, That the Sec-
22 rctary of the Treasury may deliver to the consignee such
23 pesticide or device pending examination and decision in the
24 matter on execution of bond for the amount of tho full invoice
-~> value of such pesticide or device, together with the duty
-------
52
1 thereon, and on refusal to return such pesticide or device for
2 any cause to the custody of (be Secretary of the Treasury,
3 when demanded, for the purpose of excluding them from the
4 country, or for nny other purpose, said consignee shall forfeit
5 the full amount of said bond: And provided further, That all
6 charges for storage, cartage, and labor on pesticide or device
7 which arc refused admission or delivery shall he paid by the
8 owner or consignee, and in default of such payment shall con-
9 stitute a lien against any future importation made by such
10 owner or consignee.
11 "(d) COOPKKATION IX INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS.—
12 The Administrator shall, in cooperation with the Depart-
13 went of State and any other appropriate Federal agency,
14 participate and cooperate in nny international efforts to
15 develop improved pesticide research and regulations.
16 " (e) REGULATIONS.--The Secretary of the Treasury,
17 in consultation with the Administrator, shall prescribe regu-
18 lations for the enforcement of this section.
19 "SEC. 18. EXEMPTION OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.
20 "The President by executive order may exempt any
21 Federal Agency from any provision or all provisions of this
•^ Act if he determine;: that emergency conditions exist which
2:J require such exemption.
'•*•* "SEC. 19. DISPOSAL AND TRANSPORTATION.
25 " (a) PKOCJBDUKES.—The Administrator shall, after con-
-------
53
1 saltation with other interested Federal agencies, establish
2 pnimhires nnd regulations for the disposal or storage of
3 packages nnd containers of pesticides and for disposal or
4 storage of excess amounts of such pesticides, nnd accept nt
5 convenient locations for safe disposal a* pesticide the regis-
6 1 rat ion of which is canceled under section 0 (c.) if requested
7 by the owner of the pesticide.
8 " (h) ADVICE TO SKCKKTAKY OF TnANsro«T.\Tiox.—
9 The Adniinislnitor shall provide advice and assistance to
JO the Secretary of Transportation with respect to his func-
11 lions relating to the transportation of hazardous materials
12 under the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C.
13 1657), the Transportation of Explosives Act (t8 U.S.C.
14 831-83.1), the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C.
15 1421-1430, 1472 II), and the Hazardous Cargo Aet (-10
16 U.S.C. 170, 375, 416).
17 "SEC. 20. RESEARCH AND MONITORING.
18 "(a) RESEARCH.—The Administrator shall undertake
19 research, including research by grant or contract with other
20 Federal agencies, universities, or others as may be ncces-
21 sar}' to carry out the purposes of this Act, and he shall
22 give priority to research to develop biologically integrated
23 alternatives for pest control. The Administrator shall also
24 take care to insure that such research docs not duplicate
25 research being undertaken by any other Federal agency.
-------
54
1 "(b) NATIONAL MONITOKING PLAN.—The Adminis-
2 Irator sluill formulate and periodically revise, in coopcmtiou
3 with other Federal, State, or local agencies, a national plan
4 for monitoring pesticides.
•r> "(c) MONITORING.—The Administrator shall undcr-
G take such monitoring activities, including but not limited
7 to monitoring in air, soil, water, man, plants, and animals.
8 as may be necessary for the implementation of this Act
9 and of the national pesticide monitoring plan. Such activities
10 shall be carried out in cooperation with other Federal, Stale,
11 and local agencies.
32 "SEC 21. SOLICITATION OF PUHL1C COMMENTS.
13 "In addition to any other authority relating to public
14 hearings and solicitation of views, in connection with the
15 suspension or cancellation of a pesticide registration or any
1C other actions authorized under this Act, the Administrator
17 may, at his discretion, solicit the views of all interested per-
18 sons, cither orally or in writing, and seek such advice from
19 scientists, fanners, farm organizations, and other qualified
20 persons as he deems proper.
21 "SEC. 22. DELEGATION AND COOPERATION.
22 "(a) DKI.KHATION.—All authority vested in the Ad-
23 minislrulor by virtue of the provisions of this Act mny
2-1 with like force and effcet be executed by such employees
-------
55
1 of the Environmental Protection Agency as the Adminis-
2 (nilor nmy designate for the purpose.
3 "(l>) Cooi'Ki.'ATiox.—The Administrator shall coopcr-
4 ntc with (he Department of Agriculture, any other Federal
5 agency, and any appropriate agency of any Slate or any po-
6 litical subdivision thereof, in carrying out the provisions of
7 this Act, and in securing uniformity of regulations.
8 "SEC. 23. STATE COOPERATION, AFD. AND TRAINING.
9 "(a) COOPERATIVE AGRRGMKXTS.—The Administrator
10 is authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with
11 States—
12 "(1) to delegate, to any State the authority to
13 cooperate in the enforcement of the Act through the use
1-4 of its personnel or facilities, to train personnel of the
15 State to cooperate in the enforcement of this Act, and
16 to assist States in implementing cooperative enforcement
17 programs through grants-in-aid; and
18 " (2) to assist State agencies in developing and ad-
19 ministering State programs for training and certification
20 of pesticide applicators consistent with the standards
21 which he prescribes.
22 "(h) CONTRACTS FOR TRAINING.—In addition, the
23 Administnilor is authorized to enter into contracts with Fcd-
24 cral or Slate agencies for (he purpose of encouraging the
25 training of certified pesticide applicators.
-------
66
1 "SEC. 21 AUTHORITY OK STATES.
2 "(a) A State may regulate the sale or use of any
3 pesticide, or device iu the Stale, but only if and to tbc extent
4 the regulation docs not permit any sale or use prohibited
5 by this Act or restrict by license or permit the use of a
6 pesticide registered for general use;
' " (b) such State shall not impose or continue in effect
8 any requirements for labeling and packaging in addition to
9 or different from those required pursuant to this Act; and
10 " (c) a State may assist the Administrator in the rcgis-
11 (ration of pesticides formulated for intrastate distribution
12 to meet specific local needs if that State is certified by the
13 Administrator as capable of exercising adequate Controls.
14 "SEC. 25. AUTHORITY OF ADMINISTRATOR.
15 " (a) REGULATIONS.—The Administrator is authorized
16 to prescribe regulations to carry out flic provisions of this Act.
17 Such regulations shall take into account the difference in con-
18 ccpt and usage between various classes of pesticides.
19 "(b) EXEMPTION OP PESTICIDES.—The Administrator
20 may excanpt from the requirements of this Act by regulation
21 any pesticide which he determines either (1) to be adc-
22 quatcly regulated by another Federal agency, or (2) to be
23 of a diameter which is unnecessary to be subject to this Act
** in order (o carry out the purposes of this Act.
-------
57
I "(c) OTHER AUTHORITY.—The Administrator, after
2 notice and opportunity for hearing, is authorized—
3 "(1) to declare a pest any form of plant or naiimal
4 life (other than man and other than bacteria, virus, and
5 other micro-organisms on or in living man or other living
6 animals) which is injurious to health or the cnviron-
7 ment;
8 "(2) to dot ermine any pesticide which contains
9 any substance or substances in quantities highly toxic to
10 man;
11 "(3) to establish standards (which shall be con-
12 sistcnt with those established under the authority of
13 the Poison Prevention Packaging Act (Public Law
14 91-C01)) with respect to the package, container, or
15 wrapping in which a pesticide or device is enclosed
16 for use or consumption, in order to protect children and
17 adults from serious injury or illness resulting from acci-
18 dental ingestion or contact with pesticides or devices
19 regulated by this Act as well as to accomplish the other
20 purposes of this Act;
21 " (4) to specify that any class of devices shall be
22 subject to this Act if he determines that the application
23 of this Act in respect of such class is necessary to effectu-
34 ate the purposes of this Act;
-------
58
1 "(5) to prescribe regulations requiring any pesli-
2 cidc lo be colored or discolored if he determines tlint
3 such requirement is feasible nnd is necessary for the
4 protection of health nnd the environment; and
5 "(6) to determine and establish suitable names
6 to be used in the ingredient statement.
7 "SEC. 20. SEVERABILITY.
8 "If any provision of this Act or the application thereof
9 to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity
10 shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Act
11 which can be given effect without regard to the invalid pro-
12 vision or application, and to this end the provisions of this
13 Act are scverable.
14 «SEC. 27. AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS.
15 "There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as
16 may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act for
17 each fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, June 30, 1973, and
18 Juno 30, 1974. The amounts authorized to be appropriated
19 for any fiscal year ending after June 30, 1974, shall be the
20 sums hereafter provided by law."
21 AMENDMENTS TO OTHER ACTS
22 SEC. 3. The following Acts are amended by striking out
23 the terms "economic poisons" and "an economic poison"
24 wherever they appear and inserting in lieu thereof "pesti-
25 cidcs" and "a pesticide" respectively:
-------
59
1 (1) The Federal Hazardous Substances Act, as
2 amended (15 U.S.C. 1261 ct seq.);
3 (2) The Poison Prevention Packaging Act, as
4 amended (15 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.); and
5 (3) The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
6 as amended (21 U.S.C. 301 ct seq.).
7 EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROVISIONS OF ACT
8 SEC. 4. (a) Except as otherwise provided in the Fcd-
9 oral Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodcnticide Act, as amended
1° by this Act, and as otherwise provided by this section, the
11 amendments made by this Act shall take effect at the close
12 of the date of the enactment of this Act, provided if rcgu-
13 lations arc necessary for the implementation of any pro-
14 vision that becomes effective on the date of enactment, such
15 regulations shall be promulgated and shall become cffcc-
16 tivo within 90 days from the date of enactment of this
17 Act
18 (b) The provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungi-
19 cidc, and Kodcnticidc Act and the regulations thereunder
20 as such existed prior to the enactment of this Act shall rc-
21 main in effect until supcrceded by the amendments made by
22 this Act and regulations thereunder: Provided, That all pro-
23 visions made by these amendments and all regulations thcrc-
24 under shall be effective within four years after the cnact-
25 ment of this Act.
-------
60
1 (c) (1) Two years after the enactment of this Act the
2 Administrator shall have promulgated regulations providing
3 for the registration and classification of pesticides under the
4 provisions of this Act and thereafter shall register all new
5 Applications under such provisions.
6 (2) After two years but within four years after the cn-
7 ootmcitt of this Act the Administrator shall register and
8 rcclassify pesticides registered under the provisions of the
9 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticidc Act prior
10 to the effective date of the regulations promulgated under
11 subsection (c) (1).
12 (3) Any requirements that a pesticide be registered for
13 use only by a certified pesticide applicator shall not be
!•* effective until four years from the date of enactment of this
1* Act.
1^ (4) A period of four years from date of enactment shall
17 be provided for certification of pesticide applicators.
18 (A) One year after the enactment of this Act the
I9 Administrator shall have prescribed the standards for
20 tho certification of pesticide applicators.
21 (B) Within three years after the enactment of this
22 Act each State desiring to certify pesticide applicators
23 shall submit a State plan to the Administrator for the
2* piupose provided by section 4 (b).
25 (C) As promptly as possible but in no event more
-------
61
1 than one ycnr nftor submission of a State plan, the Ad-
2 ininislralor shall approve the State plan or disapprove
3 it and indicate the reasons for disapproval. Considcrn-
4 tion of plans rosuliinillcd by States shall be expedited.
5 (5) One year after the enactment of this Act the
C Administrator shall have promulgated and shall make
7 effective regulations relating to the registration of cstab-
8 lishmeiits, permits for experimental use, and the keeping
9 of books and records under the provisions of this Act.
10 (d) No person shall be subject to any criminal or civil
11 penalty imposed by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
12 Rodenticide Act, as amended by this Act, for any act (or
13 failure lo act) occurring before the expiration of 60 days after
H final regulations (relating to such penalty) under the Federal
15 Insecticide, Fungicide, and Eodenticidc Act, as amended, are
16 published in the Federal Register.
17 (c) For purposes of determining any criminal or civil
18 penalty or liability to any third person in respect of any act
19 or omission occurring before the expiration of the periods
20 referred to in this section, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
21 and Rodenticidc Act shall be treated as continuing in effect
22 as if this Act had not been enacted.
-------
PENNSYLVANIA LAWS
-------
INSECTICIDES, FUNGICIDES, PESTICIDES, ETC
Library reference*: P.L.E. Nuisance I 63!
Crocs Reference*
Analyses, Department of Agriculture, see section 44G of Title 71, State Gov-
ernment.
Federal statutes, sec 7 U.S.C.A. § 13.1 et scq.
Ground limestone and related products, sec sections 131—1 to 131—9 of this
title.
Pharmacy Act, poisons, application, see section 300—0(J) of Title 03, Profes-
sions and Occupations.
§§ 101-110. Repealed. 1957, June 5, P.L. 248, No. 125,
§ 13
Historical Note
These sections were derived from the June 12. P.L. 124. No. 64. |{ 1 and 2.
act of 1907, May 29, P.L. 309; act of The sections related to insecticides and
1917. May 17, P.I* 224; act of 1925. fungicides. The subject matter Is now
April 4. P.L,. 13G; act of 1931. April 24. covered by sections 111.1 to 111.13 of
P.U 44. No. 35, 8 1; act of 1939, May 25. this title.
P.U 221, fg 1 and 2; and act of 1941.
Pharmacy Act
Section 9(j) of the Pharmacy Act of 1961 (section 390—9
(j) of Title 63, Professions and Occupations) provides: "(j)
'The provisions of this section [Title 63, § 390—9] shall not ap-
ply with respect to any poisons regulated and controlled by the
Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the Pennsylvania Pesti-
cide Act of 1957 [section 111.1 ct scq. of this title] nor with
respect to any poisons present in commercial feeds as defined
and regulated by the Commercial Feeds Act of 1956, May 29,
P.L. (1955) 1788 [section 57.1 ct scq. of this title]."
§ 111.1 Short title
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Pennsylvania Pesti-
cide Act of 1957". 1957, June 5, P'.L. 24S, No. 125, § 1.
150
-------
Ch. 4 ADULTERATION OR MISBRANDING 3 § 111.2
Historical Note
Title of Act:
An Act relating to the distribution. Infr traffic therein: providing- for reg-
•tale or transportation of deficient or istratlon and examination of such ma-
misbranded in.-eciicides. fungicide*, ro- tcrials; and imposing penalties. 1057.
denticldes and other pesticides; regulat- June 5, P.L. 24$, No. 125.
§ 111.2 Definitions
As used in this act—
(1) "Pesticide" means any substance or mixture of substances in-
tended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any insects,
rodents, fungi, weeds or other forms of plant or animal life or viruses,
except viruses on or in living man or other animals which the secretary
shall declare to be a pest.
(2) "Insecticide" means any substance or mixture of substances in-
tended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any insects
which may be present in any environment whatsoever.
(3) "Fungicide"' means any substance or mixture of substances in-
tended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any fungi.
(4) "Rodenticide" means any substance or mixture of substances
intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating rodents.or
any other vertebrate animal which the secretary shall declare to be a
pest.
(5) "Herbicide" means any substance or mixture of substances in-
tended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any weed,
and shall include defoliants, deflorants and those hormone-like substanc-
es which may be used to regulate the growth of plants.
(6) "Insect" means any of the numerous small invertebrate animals
generally having the body more or less obviously segmented for the
most part belonging to the class Insecta comprising six-legged usually
winged forms as, for example, beetles, bugs, bees, flies and to other
allied* classes of arthropodes whose members are wingless and usually
have more than six legs as, for example, spiders, mites, ticks, centipedes,
wood lice and shall include nematodes.
(7) "Fungi" means all. non-chlorophyll-bearing thallophytes (that
is all non-chlorophyll-bearing plants of a lower order than mosses and
liverworts) as, for example, rusts, smuts, mildews, molds, yeasts and
bacteria, except those on or in living man or other animals.
(8) "Weed" means any plant which grows where not wanted.
(9) "Ingredient statement" means, either
151
-------
3 §111.2 AGRICULTURE Ch. 4
(i) a statement of the name and percentage of each active ingredient
together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients in a pesti-
cide; or
(ii) a statement of the name of each active ingredient, together with
the name of each "and total percentage of the inert ingredients, if any.
in the pesticide, except clause (i) shall apply if the preparation is for
agricultural use or is highly toxic to man determined as provided in
section 6 of this act, and in addition to clauses (i) and (ii), if the pesti-
cide contains arsenic in any form, a statement of the percentages of
total and water soluble arsenic each calculated as elemental arsenic.
(10) "Active ingredient" means an ingredient which will .prevent,
destroy., repel or mitigate insects, fungi, rodents, weeds or other, pests.
(11) "Inert ingredient" means an ingredient which is not an active
ingredient.
(12) "Antidote" means the most practical immediate treatment in
case of poisoning and includes first aid treatment.
(13) "Person" means any individual, partnership, association, corpo-
ration or organized group of persons, whether incorporated or not.
(14) "Secretary" means the Secretary of Agriculture of the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania.
(15) "Registrant" means the person registering any pesticide pursu-
ant to the provisions of this act.
(16) "Label" means the written, printed or graphic matter on or
attached to the pesticide or the immediate container thereof and the
outside container or wrapper of the retail package, if any, of the pes-
ticide.
(17) "Labeling" means all labels and other written, printed or graphic
matter:
(i) upon the pesticide or any of its containers or wrappers;
(ii) accompanying the pesticide at any time; and
(iii) to which reference is made on the label or in literature accom-
panying the pesticide, except when accurate non-misleading reference
is made to current official publications of the United States Departments
of Agriculture, Interior, Health, Education and Welfare, State Experi-
ment Stations, State Agricultural Colleges or other similar Federal in-
stitutions or official agencies of this Commonwealth or other states au-
thorized by law to conduct research in the field of pesticides.
(18) "Deficient" applies to any pesticide if its.strength or purity
falls below the professed standard or quality as expressed on labeling
or under which it is sold, or if any substance has been substituted wholly
or in part for the article, or if any valuable constituent of the article
152
-------
Ch. 4 ADULTERATION OR MISBRANDING 3 §111.3
has been wholly or in part abstracted. 1957, June 5, P.L. 248, No. 125,
§2-
Library references: Agriculture C=>9; C.J.S. Agriculture I 30 et seq.
Pharmacy Act
Section 2(13) of the Pharmacy Act of 1961 (section 390—
2(13) of Title 63, Professions and Occupations) Provides: "nor
shall the word 'drug' include any article of mixture covered by
the Pesticide Act of 1957."
Historical Note
Prior Law:
Act 1917. May 17. P.L,. 224, §§ 4 and 5.
3 F.S. ii 104 and 105.
§ 111.3 Misbranding
"Misbranded" shall apply—
(1) to any pesticide if its labeling bears any statement, design or
graphic representation relative thereto or to its ingredients which is
.false or misleading in any particular;
(2) to any pesticide,
(i) if it is an imitation of or is offered for sale under the name of
another pesticide;
(ii) if its labeling bears any reference to registration under this act;
(iii) if the labeling accompanying it does not contain instructions
for use which are necessary and if-complied with adequate for the pro-
tection of the public ;
(iv) if the label does not contain a warning or caution statement
which may be necessary and if complied with adequate to prevent injury
to living man and other vertebrate animals;
(v) if the label does not bear an ingredient statement on that part
of the immediate container and on the outside container or wrapper if
there be one through which .the ingredient statement on the immediate
container cannot be. clearly read of the retail package \vhich.is presented
or displayed under customary conditions of purchase ;
(vi) if'any word', statement or other information required by or un-
der the authority of'this act to appear on the labeling is not prominent
ly placed thereon with such conspicuousness (as compared with othei
words, statements, designs, or graphic matter in the labeling) and in
such terms as to render it likely to be read and understood by the ordi-
nary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use; ot
153
-------
3 § 111.3 AGRICULTURE. Ch. 4
(vii) if in the case of an insecticide, fungicide or herbicide when used
as directed or in accordance with commonly recognized practice, it shall
be injurious to living man or other vertebrate animals or vegetation,
except weeds, to whjch it is applied or to the person applying the pesti-
cide. 1957, June 5, P.L. 248, No. 125, § 3.
Library references: Poisons C=>3; C.J.S. Poisons I 4.
Historical Not*
Prior Law:
Act 1917. May 17. P.L. 224, t 7.
3 P.S. i 108.
§ 111.4 Prohibited acts
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to distribute, sell or offer for
sale within this Commonwealth or deliver for transportation or trans-
port in intrastate commerce or between points within this Common-
wealth via any point outside this Commonwealth:
(1) Any pesticide which has not been registered pursuant to the pro-
visions of section 5 of this act1 or any pesticide, if any, of the claims
made for it, or any of the directions for its use differ in substance from
the representation made in connection with its registration, or if the
composition of a pesticide differs from its composition as represented
in connection with its registration. The secretary may permit a change
in the labeling or formula of a pesticide within a registration period
without requiring rercgistration of the product.
(2) Any pesticide unless it is in the registrant's or the manufacturer's
unbroken immediate container, and there is affixed to such container and
to the outside container or wrapper of the retail package, if there be one
through which the required information on the immediate container
cannot be clearly read, a label bearing—
(i) the name and address of the manufacturer, registrant or person
for whom manufactured;
(ii) the name, brand or trademark under which the article is sold;
and
(iii) the net weight or measure of the content subject to such reason-
able variations as the secretary may permit.
(3) Any pesticide which contains any substance or substances in
quantities highly toxic to man determined as provided in section 6 of
this act,2 unless the label shall bear in addition to any other matter re-
quired by this act—
(i) the skull and crossbones;
(ii) the word "poison" prominently in red on a background of dis-
tinctly contrasting color; and
154
-------
Ch. 4 ADULTERATION OR MISBRANDING 3 § 111.5
(iii) a statement of an antidote for the pesticide.
(4) Pesticides commonly known as standard lead arsenate, basic lead
arsenate, calcium arsenate, magnesium arsenate, zinc arsenate, sodium
fluoride, sodium fluosilicatc, and barium fluosilicate unless they have
la-en distinctly colored or discolored as provided by regulations issued in
. accordance with this act, or any other white powder pesticide which the
secretary, after investigation of and after public hearing on the necessity
for such action for the protection of the public health and the feasibility
of such coloration or discoloration, shall, by regulation, require3 to be
distinctly colored or discolored unless it has been so colored or discol-
ored. The secretary may exempt any pesticide to the extent that it is
intended for a particular use or uses from the coloring or discoloring
required or authorized by this section, if fie determines that coloring or
discoloring for such use or uses is not necessary for the protection of
the public health.
(5) Any pesticide which is deficient or misbranded.
(b) It shall be unlawful—
(1) for any person to detach, alter, deface or destroy, in whole or
in part, any label or labeling provided for in this act or regulations
promulgated hereunder, or to add any substance to or take any substance
from a pesticide in a manner that may defeat the purpose of this act.
(2) for any person to use for his own advantage or to reveal other
than to the secretary or proper officials or employes of the Common-
wealth or to the courts of this Commonwealth in response to a subpoena
or to physicians or in emergencies to*pharmacists and other qualified
persons for use in the preparation of antidotes, any information relative
to formulas of products acquired by authority of section 5 of this act.
1957, June 5, P.L. 248, No. 125, § 4.
i Section 111.5 of this title.
* Section 111.6 of this title.
• Enrolled bill read "required".
Hittorical Koto
Prior Law:
Act 1917. May 17, P.L. 224. | 1. •
1 P.S. | 1Q1.
§ 111.5 Registration
(a) Every pesticide which is distributed, sold or offered for sale
within this Commonwealth or delivered for transportation or transported
in intrastate commerce or between points within this Commonwealth
•through any point outside this Commonwealth, shall be registered by tho
manufacturer or person for whom .manufactured with the secretary, and
155
-------
3 § 111.5 AGRICULTURE Ch. 4
such registration shall be renewed annually. The registrant shall file,
with the secretary, a statement including
(1) The nam.e and address of the registrant and the name and address
of the person whose name will appear on the label if other than the
registrant;-
(2) The name of the pesticide;
(3) A complete copy of the labeling accompanying the pesticide and
a statement of all claims to be made for it including directions for use;
and
(4) If requested by the secretary, a full description ot the tests made
and the results thereof upon which the claims are based. In the case of
renewal of registration a statement shall be required only with respect to
information which is different from that furnished when the pesticide
was registered or last reregistered.'
(b) Each pesticide shall be registered with the secretary before being
offered for sale, sold or otherwise distributed in this Commonwealth.
The application for registration shall be submitted to the secretary on
forms which he shall supply, and shall be accompanied by a fee of seven
dollars and fifty cents ($7.50) per brand, for the first ten brands regis-
tered and two dollars ($2) per brand for each brand registered in excess
thereof. Upon approval by the secretary, a copy of the registration
shall be furnished to the applicant. All registrations shall expire on the
thirty-first day of December of each year. The registration fees and
fines, when 'collected, shall be placed in the Feed and Fertilizer Fund to
be administered by the secretary for the payment of the costs of inspec-
tion, sampling, analysis and other expenses necessary for the adminis-
tration of this act.
(c) The secretary, whenever he deems it necessary in the adminis-
tration of this act, may require the submission of the complete formula
of any pesticide. If it appears to the secretary that the composition
of the article is such as to warrant the proposed claims for it and if the
article and its labeling and other material required to be submitted com-
ply with the requirements of section 4 of this act,1 he shall register the
article.
(d) If it does not appear to the secretary that the article is such as
to warrmt the proposed claims for it or if the article and its labeling
and other material required to be submitted do not comply with the
provisions of this act, he shall notify the registrant of the manner in
which the article labeling or other material required to be submitted
fail to comply with the act so as to afford the registrant an opportunity
to make the necessary corrections. If upon receipt of such notice, the
registrant insists that the corrections are not necessary and requests, in
writing, »hat the article be registered, the secretary shall-register the
156
-------
Ch. 4 ADULTERATION OR MISBRANDING 3 § 111.6
article, under protest, and. the registration shall be accompanied by a
warning, in writing, to the registrant of the apparent failure of the
article to comply with the provisions of this act. In order to protect the
public, the secretary may, at any time, • cancel. the registration of a
pesticide, and in lieu thereof issue a registration under protest in accord-
ance with the foregoing procedure. In no event shall registration of an
article, whether or not protested, be construed as a defense for the
commission of any offense prohibited under section 4 of this act.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, registration is
not required in the case of a pesticide shipped from one plant within
this Commonwealth to another plant within this Commonwealth oper-
ated by the same person.
« V
(f) This act shall not apply to. the transportation of pesticides by
the ultimate consumer. 1957, June 5, P.L. 248, No. 125, § 5.
i Section 111.4 of this title.
Library references: Agriculture ©=>9; C.J.S. Agriculture { 30 et seq.
Historical Note
Prior Laws:
Act 1917. May 17. P.L. 224. { 5[a]. Act 1939. May 25. P.l>. 221, } 1.
Act 1925. April 4, P.L. 136. { 2. 3 P.S. I 106.
§ 111.6 Determinations; rules; regulations; uniformity
(a) The secretary may, after opportunity for a hearing—
(1) Declare as a pest any form of plant or animal life or virus which
is injurious to plants, men, domestic animals, articles or substances;
(2) Determine whether pesticides are highly toxic to man; and
(3) Determine standards of coloring or discoloring for pesticides and
to subject pesticides to the requirements of section 4 (a) (4) of this act.1
(b) The secretary may, after due public hearing, make rules and
regulations for carrying out the provisions of this act, including rules
and regulations providing for the collection and examination of samples
of pesticides.
(c) In order to avoid confusion, endangering the public health, re-
sulting .from diverse requirements particularly as to the labeling and
coloring of pesticides and to avoid increased costs to the people of this
Commonwealth due to the necessity of complying with such diverse
requirements in the manufacture and sale of such pesticides, it is desir-
able that there -should be uniformity between -the requirements of the
several states and the Federal government relating to such pesticides.
To'this end the secretary may, after due public hearing, adopt rules and
regulations applicable to and in conformity with the primary standards
established by this act, which are prescribed in the United States De-
157
-------
3 §111.6 AGRICULTURE Ch. 4
partment of Agriculture -with respect to pesticides. Suck rules and
regulations shall have the full force and effect of law as if they had
been specifically enacted by the Legislature. 1957, June 5, PJL. 248,
No. 125, §6.
i Section 111.4 of this title.
Library reference*: Administrative Law and Procedure C=»38G; C.J.S. Public
Administrative Bodies and Procedure J 94.
Historical Vote
Prior Law*:
Act 1917. May 17. P.U 224. I 3. Act 1941. June 12. P.U 124. No. 64*. 11.
Act 1825. April 4. P.U 136.- 1.1. 3 P.S. { 103.
§ 111.7 Enforcement
.(a) The examination of pesticides shall be made under die direction
of the secretary for the purpose of determining whether they comply
with the requirements of this act. If it appears from such examination
that a pesticide fails to comply with the provisions of this act and the
secretary contemplates instituting proceedings against any person, the
secretary shall cause appropriate notice to be given to such person and
to the registrant. Any person so notified shall be given an opportunity
to present his views, either orally or in writing, with regard to such
contemplated proceedings and, if thereafter in the opinion of the secre-
tary, it appears that the provisions of the act have been violated by such
person, the secretary shall institute such action as is hereinafter provided
in the county in which the violation occurred. Nothing in this act shall
be construed as requiring the secretary to report for prosecution or for
the institution of libel proceedings minor violations of the act, whenever
he believes that the public interests will be best served by a suitable
notice of warning in writing.
(b) The secretary shall, by publication in such manner as he may
prescribe, give public notice of all judgments entered in actions insti-
tuted under the authority of this act, and all registrations made under
protest. 1957, June 5, P.L. 248, No. 125, § 7.
Library reference*: Agriculture ®=9; C.J.S. Agriculture I SO et aeq.
§ 111.8 Exemptions
(a) The penalties provided for violations of section 4(a) of this act *
shall not apply to—
(1) Any 'carrier while lawfully engaged in transporting a pesticide
within this Commonwealth if such carrier shall, upon request, permit'
the secretary or his designated agent to copy all records showing the
transactions in and movement of the articles.
158
-------
Ch. 4 ADULTERATION OR MISBRANDING 3 § 111.9
(2) Public officials of this Commonwealth and the Federal govern-
ment engaged in the performance of their official duties.
(3) The manufacturer or shipper of a pesticide for experimental use
only:
(i) by or under the supervision of an agency of this Commonwealth
or of the Federal government authorized by law to conduct -research in
the field of pesticide; or
(ii) by others if the pesticide is not sold and if the container thereof
is plainly and conspicuously marked "For experimental use only. Xot to
be sold", together with the manufacturer's name and address. When a
written permit has been obtained from the secretary, pesticides may be
sold for experimental purposes subject to such restrictions and condi-
tions as may be set forth in the permit.
(b) No article shall be deemed in violation of this act when intended
solely for export to a foreign country and when prepared or packaged
according to the specifications or directions of the purchaser. If not
so exported, all the provisions of this act shall apply. 1957, June 5, P.L.
248, No. 125, § 8.
1 Section 111.4 of this title.
§ 111.9 Penalties
(a) Any person violating any of the provisions of this act or any
rule, regulation or order made pursuant to this act shall, 'for the first
or second offense, upon conviction thereof in a summary proceeding,
be sentenced, to pay a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more
than one hundred dollars ($100) and costsl of prosecution, and in
default of payment thereof, shall be sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for not more than thirty days, and for a third or subsequent offense
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof,
be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than five hundred .dollars ($500)
nor more than one thousand dollars ($1000), or to undergo imprisonment
not exceeding one year, or both. . Any offense committed more than five
years after a previous conviction shall be considered a first offense. In
any case where a registrant was issued a warning by the secretary pur-
suant to the provisions of this act, the registrant sh'all, upon conviction
of a violation of any provision of this act. other than section 4(a) (I),2'
be fined not more than one thousand dollars ($1000) or imprisoned
for not more"than one year, or both, and the registration of the article
with reference to which the violation occurred shall terminate auto-
matically. An article, the registration of which has been terminated,
may not again be registered, unless the article, its labeling and other
material required to be submitted, appear to the secretary to comply
with all the requirements of this act.
159
-------
3 §111.9 AGRICULTURE Ch. 4
(b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, in case any
person who, with intent to defraud, uses or reveals information relative
to formulas of products acquired under authority of section 5 of this
act,3 upon conviction thereof in a summary proceeding, shall be fined
riot less than two hundred dollars -($200) nor more than five hundred
dollars ($500), or imprisoned for not mpre than one year, or both.
1957, June 5, RL. 248, Xo. 125, § 9.
i EnroHed bill read "cost".
: Section 111.4 of this title.
» Section 111.5 of this title.
Library reference*: Agriculture C=>16; C.J.S. Agriculture I 5..
Historical Note
Prior Laws:
Act 1917. May 17. P.U 224. | 9. Act 1939. May 25. P.I* 221. I 2.
Act 1925. April 4. P.L.. 136. f 3. 1 P.S. i 110.
§ 111.10 Seizures
(a) Any pesticide that is distributed, sold or offered for sale within
this Commonwealth, or delivered for transportation or transported in
intrastate commerce or between points within this Commonwealth
through any point outside this Commonwealth, shall be liable to be pro-
ceeded against in any competent court in any county of the Common-
wealth where it may be found and seized for confiscation by process of
libel for condemnation:
(1) In the case of a pesticide—
(i) if it is deficient or misbranded;
(ii) if it has not been registered under the provisions of section 5
of this act;1
(iii) if it fails to bear on its label the information required by this
act;
(iv) if it is a white powder pesticide and is not colored as required
under this act.
(b) If the article is condemned, it shall, after entry of decree, be
disposed of by destruction or sale as the court may direct, and the pro-
ceeds, if such article is sold less legal costs, shall be paid into the fund
hereinbefore referred to in section 5(b) of this act. The article shall
not be sold contrary to the provisions of this act Upon payment of
costs and execution and delivery of a good and sufficient bond condi-
tioned that the article shall not be disposed of unlawfully, the court may-
direct that the article be delivered to the owner thereof for relabeling
or reprocessing as the case may be.
(c) When a decree of condemnation .is entered against the article.
court costs and fees and storage and other proper expenses shall be
160
-------
Ch. 4 ADULTERATION OR MISBRANDING 3 § 127
awarded against the person, if any, intervening as claimant of the arti-
cle. 1957, June 5, P.L. 248, Xo. 125, § 10.
l Section 111.5 of till* title.
Library references: Forfeitures C=3; C.J.S. Forfeitures 9 3 et acq.
Historical Note
Prior Laws.- Act 1941f June 12. P.L. 124. Xo. 64. J 2.
Act 1917. May 17. P.L.. 224. 9 8. 3 PA { 109. •
§ 111.11 Delegation of duties
All authority vested in the secretary by virtue of the provisions of this
act may, with like force and effect, be executed by duly authorized agents
of the Department of Agriculture as the secretary may, from time to
time, designate for said purpose. 1957, June 5, P.L. 248, Xo. 125, § 11.
§ 111.12 Cooperation
The Secretary is authorized and empowered to cooperate \\ith, and
enter into agreements with any other agency of this Commonwealth.
the United States Department of Agriculture and any other State or
agency thereof for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this
act and securing uniformity of regulations. 1957, June 5, P.L. 248, Xo.
125, § 12.
§ 111.13 Repealer; jurisdiction
The act of May 17, 1917 (P.L. 224), entitled "An act preventing
the manufacture, sale, or transportation within the Commonwealth of
adulterated or misbranded Paris greens, lead arsenatcs, lime-sulphur
compounds, and other insecticides and fungicides, and regulating traf-
fic therein; providing for inspection of such materials, and imposing
penalties," * is repealed. Jurisdiction in all matters pertaining to the
distribution, sale and transportation of pesticides is, by this act, vested
conclusively in the secretary, and all acts and parts of acts inconsistent
with this act are hereby expressly repealed. 1957, June 5, P.L. 248,
Xo. 125, § 13.
* Sections 101-110 of this title.
GROUND LIMESTONE AXD RELATED PRODUCTS
§§ 121-127 Repealed. 1961,. Aug. 8, P.L. 971, § 10
Historical Note
These sections, derived from the aot related product.-'. The subject matter Is
of 1915. June 1, P.L. 678: and act of now covered by sections_131—1 to 131—3
1933. May 22. P.L. 894. | 1. related to of this title.
pulverized limestone, lime, gypjunt and
T. 1-4 P.S.—11 1 61
-------
No. 262
AN ACT
IIB 1584
•Vesting authority ift the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict or prohibit .the'use of
certain herbicides causing damage to grape vines or grape crops, and authorizing
the Department of Agriculture to establish regulations therefor and providing penalties.
The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby
enacts as follows:-
Section 1. Short Title.—This act shall be known and may be cited as
'he 'Tennsylvania Grape Herbicides Act."
Section'2. Definitions.—As used in this act—
-------
518 Act Na 262 LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA,
•
(1) "Secretary** means the Secretary of Agriculture of the Common
wealth.
(2) "Grape grower" means a producer of grapes for profit.
(3) "Grape vineyard" means lands upon which -grapevines are main*
tained and harvested for profit.
(4) ''"Proximity" means a radial distance of two miles from the site
of damage.
(5) "Development" means natural and normal growth before harvest
(6) "Affected area" means the area defined in petition. The affected
area may be altered by description in the order of the secretary, if the
secretary finds that such alteration should be made to effectuate the
purposes of the petition.
(7) "Major source of agricultural income" means that the producers
of grapes within the affected area obtain at least ten percent of their
gross farm income as a group in any five year period from the produc-
tion of grapes.
(8) "Herbicide" means any agent used to destroy or inhibit plant
growth.
Section 3. Petitions, Hearings and Orders.—(a) Authority is hereby
vested in the secretary to administer and enforce the provisions of this
act and orders issued pursuant thereto.
(b) Whenever the secretary receives a petition in a form prescribed
by him, signed by at least five grape growers in the same township or
contiguous townships in the Commonwealth, alleging that the use of
herbicides, described in the petition in proximity to grape vineyards or
crops of grapes described in the petition, has proved harmful to the
development of grapevines or the grape crop in the affected area in the
same or any prior year and asking that the use of such chemical sub-
stances be prohibited or restricted within the affected area, the secretary
shall ascertain whether at least five of the signers of the petition are
grape growers and owners of grape vineyards within the affected area. In
counting the required number of petitioners, joint tenants or tenants
by the entireties shall be counted as one signer.
(c) If the secretary determines that the petition is properly filed, the'
secretary or his agent shall hold a public hearing after giving at Icart
ten days' notice of the time and place at which the hearing will be held
which notice shall be given in a newspaper of general circulation in the
area affected and by notice by mail to each named user of herbicide*
or his agent complained of within the affected area.
(d) If the secretary finds from testimony adduced that:
(1) There has been injury sustained to grapevines or grape er°P>
-------
SESSION OF 1965. Act Nos. 262-263 519
within affected area; and
(2) Injury was caused by use of herbicides described in petitions; and
(3) Use of herbicides was upon lands within affected area or in proxi-
mity to affected area; and
(4) The production of grapes constitutes a major source of agricultural
income within affected area, the secretary shall (i) issue an order pro-
hibiting or restricting the use of .herbicides named in the petition or
similarly dangerous herbicides within or in proximity of affected area for
a period of time to be specified in the order unless such use is authorized
by permit issued by the secretary; and (ii) provide that the order shall
become effective upon publication in a newspaper having general circula-
tion in affected area. Petitioners and each named user or his agent
complained of within affected area shall be notified in writing by the
secretary of the effective date of the order.
Section 4. Permits.—Upon written request, the secretary may issue
a permit to use herbicides within or in the proximity of an area affected
by an order issued pursuant to section 3, if he shall find that, such use
is reasonably necessary for its purpose, and the proposed manner of
use will not be harmful to the grapevines or grape crops which the
order is intended to protect. Every such permit shall prescribe the
manner of use, either as proposed by the permittee or as the secretary
may deem necessary to avoid harm to such grapevines or grape crops.
Section 5. Penalties.—Any person violating the prohibitions of this
act or the manner of use prescribed in a permit is guilty of a mis-
demeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to pay a
fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) or to imprisonment for
not more than six months, or both.
Section 6. Effective Date.—This act shall take effect immediately.
APPROVEI>—The 10th day of September, A. D. 1965.
WILLIAM W. SCROTON
No. 263
AN ACT
HB 436
Providing certain requirements for the commercial slaughtering of livestock; defining
the humane methods that may be used; imposing powers and duties on the Secretary
of Agriculture; and providing penalties.
The General Assembly, of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby
enacts as .follows:
-------
No. 251
AN ACT
SB 625
Providing for the entry of the Commonwealth into a compact with other states relating
to pest control.
The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
hereby enacts as follows:
Section 1. The Pest Control Compact is hereby enacted into law
and entered into with all other jurisdictions legally joining therein
in the form substantially as follows:
PEST CONTROL COMPACT
Article I
Findings
The party states find that:
(a) In the absence of the higher degree of cooperation among them
possible under this compact, the annual loss of approximately seven
billion dollars from the depredations of pests is virtually certain to
continue, if not to increase.
(b) Because of varying climatic, geographic and economic factors,
each state may be affected differently by particular species of pests;
but all states share the inability to protect themselves fully against
those pests which present serious dangers to them.
(c) The migratory character of pest infestations makes it nec-
essary for states both adjacent to and distant from one another, to
complement each other's activities when faced with conditions of
infestation and reinfestation.
•(d) While every state is seriously affected by a substantial number
of pests, and every .state is susceptible of infestation by many species
of pests not now causing damage to its crop and plant life and prod-
ucts, the fact that relatively few species of pests present equal
danger to or are of interest to all states makes the establishment and
operation of an Insurance Fund, from which individual states may
-------
518 Act No. 251 LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA.
obtain financial support for pest control programs of benefit to them
in other states and to which they may contribute in accordance with
their relative interests, the most equitable means of financing coopera-
tive pest eradication and control programs.
Article II
Definitions
As used in this compact, unless the 'context clearly requires a
different construction:
(a) "State" means a state, territory or possession of the United
States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.
(b) "Requesting state" means a state which invokes the proced-
ures of the compact to secure the undertaking or intensification of
measures of control or eradicate one or more pests within one or
more other states.
(c) "Responding state" means a state requested to undertake or
intensify the measures referred to in subdivision (b) of this article.
(d) "Pest" means any invertebrate animal, pathogen, parasitic
plant or similar or allied organism which can cause disease or damage
in any crops, trees, shrubs, grasses or other plants of substantial
value.
(e) "Insurance Fund" means the Pest Control Insurance Fund es-
tablished pursuant to this compact.
(f) "Governing Board" means the administrators of this compact
representing all of the party states when such administrators are
acting as a body in pursuance of authority, vested in them by this
compact.
(g) "Executive Committee" means the committee established
pursuant to Article V (e) of this compact.
Article III
The Insurance Fund
There is hereby established the Pest Control Insurance Fund for
the purpose of financing other than normal pest control operations
which states may be called upon to engage in pursuant to this com-
pact. The Insurance Fund shall contain moneys appropriated to it by
the party states and any donations and grants accepted by it. All
appropriations, except as conditioned by the rights and obligations
of party states expressly set forth in this compact, shall be uncondi-
tional and may not be restricted by the appropriating state to use in
the control of any specified pest or pests. Donations and grants may
be conditional or unconditional, provided that the Insurance Fund
shall not accept any donation or grant whose terms are inconsistent
with any provision of this compact.
Article IV
The Insurance Fund, Internal Operations and Management
(a) The Insurance Fund shall be administered by a Governing
Board and Executive Committee as hereinafter provided. The actions
-------
SESSION OF 1967. Act No. 251 519
of the Governing Board and Executive Committee pursuant to this
compact shall be deemed the actions of the Insurance Fund.
(b) The members of the Governing Board shall be entitled to one
vote each on such Board. No action of the Governing Board shall be
binding unless taken at a meeting at which a majority of the total
number of votes on the Governing Board are cast in favor thereof.
Action of the Governing Board shall be only at a meeting at which
a majority of the members are present.
(c) The Insurance Fund shall have a seal which may be employed
as an official symbol and which may be affixed to documents and other-
wise used as the Governing Board may provide.
(d) The Governing Board shall elect annually, from among its
members, a chairman, a vice chairman, a secretary and a treasurer.
The chairman may not succeed himself. The Governing Board may
appoint an executive director and fix his duties and his compensation,
if any. Such executive director shall serve at the pleasure of the
Governing Board. The Governing Board shall make provision for the
bonding of such of the officers and employees of the Insurance Fund
as may be appropriate.
(e) Irrespective of the civil service, personnel or other merit sys-
tem laws of any of the party states, the executive director, or if there
be no executive director, the chairman, in accordance with such pro-
cedures as the bylaws may provide, shall appoint, remove or discharge
such personnel as may be necessary for the performance of the func-
tions of the Insurance Fund and shall fix the duties and compensation
of such personnel. The Governing Board in its bylaws shall provide
for the personnel policies and programs of the Insurance Fund.
(f) The Insurance Fund may borrow, accept or contract for the
services of personnel from any state, the United States, or any other
governmental agency, or from any person, firm, association or cor-
poration.
(g) The Insurance Fund may accept for any of its purposes and
functions under this compact any and all donations, and grants of
money, equipment, supplies, materials and services, conditional or
otherwise, from any state, the United States,- or any other govern-
mental agency, or from any person, firm, association or corporation,
and may receive, utilize and dispose of the same. Any donation, gift
or grant accepted by the Governing Board pursuant to this paragraph
or services borrowed pursuant to paragraph (f) of this article shall
be reported in the annual report of the Insurance Fund. Such report
shall include the nature, amount and conditions, if any, of the dona-
tion, gift, grant or services borrowed and the identity of the donor
or. lender.
(h) The Governing Board shall adopt bylaws for the conduct of
the business of the Insurance Fund and shall have the power to
amend and rescind these bylaws. The Insurance Fund shall-publish its
bylaws in convenient form and shall file a. copy thereof and a copy
-------
520 Act No. 251 LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA.
of any amendment thereto with the appropriate agency or officer in
each of the party states.
(i) The Insurance Fund annually shall make to the Governor and
legislature of each -party state a report covering its activities for the
preceding year. The Insurance Fund may .make such additional reports
as it may'deem desirable.
(j) In addition to the powers and duties'specifically authorized and
imposed, the Insurance Fund may do such other things as are" neces-
sary and incidental to the conduct of its affairs pursuant to this
compact.
Article V
Compact and Insurance Fund Administration
(a) In each party state there shall be a compact administrator, who
shall be selected and serve in such manner as the laws of his state
may provide, and who shall:
1. Assist in the coordination of activities pursuant to the compact
in his state; and
2. Represent his state'on the Governing Board of the Insurance
Fund.
(b) If the' laws of the United States specifically so provide, or if
administrative provision- is made therefor within the Federal govern-
ment, the United States may be represented on the Governing Board
of the Insurance Fund by not to exceed three representatives. Any
such representative or representatives of the United States shall be
appointed and serve in such manner as may be provided by or pursuant
to Federal law, but no such representative shall have a vote on the
Governing Board or on the Executive Committee thereof.
(c) The Governing Board shall meet at least once each year for
the purpose of determining policies and procedures in the administra-
tion of the Insurance Fund and, consistent with the provisions of the
compact, supervising and giving direction to the expenditure of
moneys from the Insurance Fund. Additional meetings of the Gov-
erning Board shall be held on call of the chairman, the Executive
Committee, or a majority of the membership of the Governing Board.
(d) At such times as it may be meeting, the Governing Board shall
pass upon applications for assistance from the Insurance Fund and
authorize disbursements therefrom. When the Governing Board is
not in session, the Executive Committee thereof shall act as agent of
the Governing Board, with full authority to act for it in passing upon
such applications.
(e) The Executive Committee shall be composed of the chairman
of the Governing Board and four additional members of the Govern-
ing Board chosen by it so that'there shall be one member representing
each of four geographic groupings of party states. The Governing
Board shall make such geographic groupings. If there is representa-
tion of the United States on the Governing Board, one such repre-
sentative may meet with the Executive Committee. The chairman of
the Governing Board shall be chairman of the Executive Committee.
-------
SESSION OF 1967. Act No. 251 521
No action of the Executive Committee shall be binding unless taken
at a meeting at which at least four members of such Committee
are present and vote in favor thereof. Necessary expenses of each of
the "five members of-the Executive Committee incurred in attending
meetings of such Committee, when not held at the same time and
place as a.meeting of the Governing Board, shall be charges against
the Insurance Fund.
Article VI
Assistance and Reimbursement
(a) Each party state pledges to each other party state that it will
employ its best efforts to eradicate, or control within the strictest
practicable limits, any and all pests. It is recognized that performance
of this responsibility involves:
1. The maintenance of pest control and eradication activities of in-
terstate significance by a party state at a level that would be reason-
able for its own protection in the absence of this compact.
2. The meeting of emergency outbreaks or infestations of inter-
state significance to no less an extent than would have been done
in the absence of this compact.
(b) Whenever a party state is threatened by a pest not present
within its borders but present within another party state, or when-
ever a party state is undertaking or engaged in activities for the
control or eradication of a pest or pests, and finds that such activities
are or would be impracticable or substantially more difficult of success
by reason of failure of another party state to cope with infestation
or threatened infestation, that state may request the Governing Board
to authorize expenditures from the Insurance Fund for eradication or
control measures to be taken by one or more of such other party states
at a level sufficient to prevent, or to reduce to the greatest practicable
extent, infestation or reinfestation of the requesting state. Upon such
authorization the responding state or states shall take or increase
such eradication or control measures as may be warranted. A respond-
ing state shall use moneys made available from the Insurance Fund
expeditiously and efficiently to assist in affording the protection re-
quested.
(c) In order to apply for expenditures from the Insurance Fund, a
requesting state shall submit the following in writing:
1. A detailed statement of the circumstances which occasion the
request for the invoking of the compact.
2. Evidence that the pest'on account of whose eradication or control
assistance is requested constitutes a danger to an agricultural or
forest crop, product, tree, shrub, grass or other plant having a sub-
stantial value to the requesting* state.
3. A statement of the extent of the present and projected program
of the requesting state and its subdivisions, including full information
as to the legal authority for the conduct of such program or programs
and the expenditures being made or budgeted therefor, in connection
-------
622 Act No. 251 LA'WS OF PENNSYLVANIA.
with the eradication, control, or prevention of introduction of the
pest concerned. .. .
4. Proof that the expenditures being made or Budgeted' as detailed
in item 3 do not constitute a reduction of the effort for the control or
eradication of the pest concerned or, if there is a reduction, the
reasons why the level of program detailed in item 3 constitutes a
normal level of pest control activity.
5. A declaration as to whether, to the -best of its knowledge and
belief, the conditions which in its view occasion the invoking pf the
compact in the particular instance can be abated by a program under-
taken with the aid of moneys from the Insurance Fund in one year
or less, or whether the request is for an installment in a program
which is likely to continue for a longer period of time.
6. Such other information as the Governing Board may require
consistent with the provisions of this compact.
(d) The Governing Board or Executive Committee shall give due
notice of any meeting at which an application for assistance from the
Insurance Fund is to be considered. Such notice shall be given to the
compact administrator of each party state and to such other officers
and agencies as may be designated by the laws of the party states.
The requesting state and any other party state-shall be entitled to be
represented and present evidence and argument at such meeting.
(e) Upon the submission as required by paragraph (c) of this
article and such other information as it may have or acquire, and upon
determining that an expenditure of funds is within the purposes of
this compact and justified thereby, the Govei-ning Board or Executive
Committee shall authorize support of the program. The Governing
Board or the Executive Committee may meet at any time or place
for the purpose of receiving and considering an application. Any and
all determinations of the Governing Board or Executive Committee,
with respect to an application, together with the reasons therefor
shall be recorded and subscribed in such manner as to show and
preserve the votes of the individual members thereof.
(f) A requesting state which is dissatisfied with a determination of
the Executive Committee shall upon notice in writing given within
twenty days of the determination with which it is dissatisfied, be
entitled to receive a review thereof at the next meeting of the Gov-
erning Board. Determinations of the Executive Committee shall be
reviewable only by the Governing Board at one of its regular meet-
ings, or at a special meeting held in such manner as the Governing
Board may authorize.
(g) Responding states required to undertake or increase measures
pursuant to this compact may receive moneys from the Insurance
Fund, either at the time or times when such state incurs expenditures
on account of such measures, or as reimbursement for expenses in-
curred and chargeable to the Insurance Fund. The Governing Board
shall adopt and, from time to time, may amend or revise procedures
for submission of claims upon it and for payment thereof.
-------
SESSION OF 1967. Act No. 251 623
(h) Before authorizing the expenditure of moneys from the Insur-
ance Fund pursuant to an application of a requesting state, the Insur-
ance Fund shall ascertain the extent and nature of any timely as-
sistance or participation which may be available from the Federal
government and shall request the appropriate agency or agencies of
the Federal government for such assistance and participation.
(i) The Insurance Fund may negotiate and execute a memorandum
of understanding or other appropriate instrument defining the extent
and degree of assistance or participation between and among the
Insurance Fund, cooperating Federal agencies, states and any other
entities concerned.
Article VII
Advisory and Technical Committees
The Governing Board may establish advisory and technical com-
mittees composed of state, local, and Federal officials, and private
persons to advise it with respect to any one or more of its functions.
Any such advisory or technical committee, or any member or mem-
bers thereof may meet with and participate in its deliberations. Upon
request of the Governing Board or Executive Committee an advisory
or technical committee may furnish information and recommendations
with respect to any application for assistance from the Insurance
Fund being considered by such Board or Committee and the Board
or Committee may receive and consider the same: Provided, That any
participant in a meeting of the Governing Board or Executive Com-
mittee held pursuant to Article VI (d) of the compact shall be entitled
to know the substance of any such information and recommendations,
at the time of the meeting if made prior -thereto or as a part thereof
or, if made thereafter, no later than the .time at which the Governing
Board or Executive Committee makes its disposition of the application.
Article VIII
Relations with Nonparty Jurisdictions
(a) A party state may make application for assistance from the
Insurance Fund in respect of a pest in a nonparty state. Such applica-
tion shall be considered and disposed of by the Governing Board or
Executive -Committee in the same manner as an application with
respect to a pest within a party state, except as provided in this
article.
(b) At or in connection with any meeting of the Governing Board
or Executive Committee held pursuant to Article VI (d) of this com-
pact a nonparty state shall be entitled to. appear, participate, and
receive information only to such extent as the Governing Board or
Executive Committee may provide. A nonparty state shall not be
entitled to review of any determination made by the Executive Com-
mittee.
(c) The Governing Board or Executive Committee shall authorize
expenditures from the Insurance Fund to be made in a nonparty state
only after determining that the conditions in such state and the value
of such expenditures to the party states as a .whole justify them. The
-------
524 Act No. 251 LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA.
Governing Board or Executive Committee may set any conditions
which it deems appropriate with respect-to the expenditure of moneys
from the insurance Fund in a nonparty state and may enter into such
agreement or agreements with nonparty states and other jurisdictions
or entities as it may deem necessary or appropriate to protect the
interests of the Insurance Fund with respect to expenditures and ac-
tivities outside of party states.
Article IX
Finance
(a) The Insurance Fund shall submit to the executive head or
designated officer or officers of each party state a budget for the
Insurance Fund for such period as may be required by the laws of
that party state for presentation to the legislature- thereof.
(b) Each of the budgets shall contain specific recommendations of
the amount or amounts to be appropriated by each of the party states.
The requests for appropriations shall be apportioned among the party
states as follows: one-tenth of the total budget in equal shares and
the remainder in proportion to the value of agricultural and forest
crops and products, excluding animals and animal products, produced
in each party state. In determining the value of such crops and
products the Insurance Fund may employ such source or sources of
information as in its judgment present the most equitable and ac-
curate comparisons among the party states. Each of the budgets and
requests for appropriations shall indicate the source or sources used
in obtaining information concerning value of products.
(c) The financial assets of the Insurance Fund shall be maintained
in two accounts to be designated respectively as the "Operating Ac-
count" and the "Claims Account." The Operating Account shall consist
only of those assets necessary for the administration of the Insurance
Fund during the next ensuing two-year period. The Claims Account
shall contain all moneys not included in the Operating Account and
shall not exceed the amount reasonably estimated to be sufficient to
pay all legitimate claims on the Insurance Fund for a period of three
years. At any time when the Claims Account has reached its maxi-
mum limit or would reach its maximum limit by the addition of
moneys requested for appropriation by the party states, the Gov-
erning Board shall reduce its budget requests on a pro rata basis in
such manner as to keep the Claims Account within such maximum
limit. Any moneys in the Claims Account by virtue of conditional
donations, grants or gifts shall be included in calculations made pur-
suant to this paragraph only to the extent that such moneys are
available to meet demands arising out of claims.
(d) The Insurance Fund shall not pledge the credit of any party
state. The Insurance Fund may meet any of its obligations in whole
or in part with moneys available to it under Article IV (g) of this
compact, provided that the Governing Board takes specific action
setting aside such moneys prior to incurring any obligation to be
met in whole or in part in such manner. Except where the Insurance
-------
SESSION OF 1967. Act No. 251 525
Fund makes use of moneys available to it under Article IV (g) hereof,
the Insurance Fund shall not incur any obligation prior to the allot-
ment of moneys by the party states adequate to meet the same.
(e) The Insurance Fund shall keep accurate accounts of all receipts
and disbursements. The receipts and disbursements of the'Insurance
Fund shall be subject to the audit and accounting procedures estab-
lished under its bylaws. However, all receipts and disbursements of
funds handled by the Insurance Fund shall be audited yearly by a
certified or licensed public accountant and a report of the audit shall
be included in and become part of the annual report of the Insurance
Fund.
(f) The accounts of the Insurance Fund shall be open at any
reasonable time for inspection by duly authorized officers of the party
states and by any persons authorized by the Insurance Fund.
Article X
Entry Into Force and Withdrawal
(a) This compact shall enter into force when enacted into law by
any five or more states. Thereafter, this compact shall become
effective as to any other state upon its enactment thereof.
(b) Any party state may withdraw from this compact by enacting
a statute repealing the same, but no such withdrawal shall take
effect until two years after the executive head of the withdrawing
state has given notice in writing of the withdrawal to the executive
heads of all other party states. No withdrawal shall affect any lia-
bility already incurred by or chargeable to a party state prior to the
time of such withdrawal.
Article XI
Construction -and Severability'
This compact shall be liberally construed so as to effectuate the
purposes thereof. The provisions of this compact shall be severable
and if any phrase, clause, sentence or provision of this compact is
declared to be contrary to the constitution of any state or of the
United States or the applicability thereof to any government, agency,
person or circumstance is held invalid, the validity of the remainder
of this compact and the applicability thereof to any government,
agency, person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby. If this
compact shall be held contrary to the constitution of any state par-
ticipating- herein, the compact shall remain in full force and effect
as to the remaining party states and in full force and effect as to
the state affected as to all severable matters.
Section 2. Consistent with law and within available appropria-
tions, the departments, agencies and officers of this state may coop-
erate with the Insurance Fund established by the Pest Control
Compact.
Section 3. Pursuant to Article IV (h) of the compact, copies of
bylaws and amendments thereto-shall be filed with -the Department
of Agriculture.
-------
526 Act Nos. 251-252 LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA.
Section 4. The compact administrator for this State shall be the
Secretary of Agriculture. The duties of the compact administrator
shall be deemed a regular part of the duties of his office.
Section 5. Within the .meaning of Article VI (b) or VIII (a), a
request or application for assistance from the Insurance Fund may
be made by the Governor whenever in his judgment the conditions
qualifying this State for such assistance exist and it would be in
the best interest of this State to make such request.
Section 6. The department, agency, or officer expending or be-
coming liable for an expenditure on account of a control- or eradica-
tion program undertaken or intensified pursuant to the compact shall
have credited to his account in the State Treasury the amount or
amounts of any payments made to this State to defray the cost of
such program, or any part thereof, or as reimbursement thereof.
Section 7. As used in the compact, with reference to this State,
the term "executive head" shall mean the Governor.
Section 8. This act shall take effect immediately.
APFROVED-^The 21st day of November, A.'D. 1967.
RAYMOND P. SHAFER
No. 252
AN ACT
SB 1110
Amending the act of December 22, 1951 (P. L. 1726), entitled "An act relating to
the loyalty to the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of public
officers and employes, including teachers and other employes of the public school
system, and officers and employes of State-aided institutions of learning; requiring
oaths or affirmations by applicants for public office or employment and by present
appointed officers and employes; prohibiting appointment or employment and re*
quiring discharges after hearing in certain cases; imposing conditions on the payment
of appropriations to State-aided institutions of learning; requiring statements under
oath or affirmation of candidates for elective public offices; and imposing duties on
State and local appointing authorities and certain other State officers," further pro-
viding for excluding from the provisions of the act certain teachers who have
declarations of intent to secure United States citizenship.
The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
hereby enacts as follows:
Section 1. Subsection (c) of section 15, act of December 22,1951
(P. L. 1726), known as the "Pennsylvania Loyalty Act," amended
October 21, 1965 (P. L. 639), is amended to read:
Section 15. Effect and Applicability of Act.—* * *
(c) The provisions of this act shall not apply to teachers in the
State colleges, who are citizens or subjects of the foreign governments
and whose appointments to these positions shall be temporary, and
shall not extend for a period of more than two (2) years, or who
-------
MICHIGAN LAWS
-------
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
§12.352(1) Short title.] SECTION 1.' This act may be cited
as "The insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act of 1949." (CL
'48, § 286.161.)
Cross-reference. Digest reference.
Act regulating the application of See Callaghan's Mich Dig, Agri-
economic poisons by aircraft or ground culture, § 1 et seq.
machinery, see § 12.353(1) et seq.,
infra.
§12.352(2) Definitions; application of terms "adulterated,"
"nrisbranded."] SEC. 2. For the purpose of this act:
a. 4 "Economic poison" means any substance or mixture of sub-
stances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating
any insects, rodents, [nematodes,] fungi, weeds [and] other forms
of plant or animal life or viruses, except viruses on or in living man
or other vertebrate animals, which the director shall declare to be
a pest[; and any substance or mixture of substances intended for use
as a plant regulator, defoliant or desiccant].
b. 4 "Device" means any instrument or contrivance intended for
trapping, destroying, repelling or mitigating insects or rodents or
destroying, repelling or mitigating fungi, £nematodes] or weeds, or
such other pests as may be designated by the director, but not in-
cluding equipment used for the application of economic poisons when
sold separately therefrom.
c. 4 "Insecticide" means any substance or mixture of substances
intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any
insects which may be present in any .environment whatsoever.
d. ^ "Fungicide" means any substance or mixture of substances
intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any
fungi
-------
§ 12.352(2) Title 12—Agriculture 120
e. • "Rodenticide" means any substance or mixture of substances
intended- for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating rodents
or any other vertebrate animal which the director shall declare to be
a pest.
f. 4 "Herbicide" means any substance or mixture oi substances
intended 'for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any
weed.
g. • "Larvicide" means any substance or mixture of substances
intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any
larvae which may be present in any environment whatsoever.
h. • "Ovicide" means any susbtanec [sic] or mixture of sub-
stances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating
any ova.
i. ["Nematocides" means any substance or mixture of substances
intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating nema-
todesj
j. ["Plant regulator" means any substance or mixture of sub-
stances intended through physiological action for accelerating or
retarding the date of growth or rate of maturation, or for otherwise
altering the behavior of ornamental or crop plants or the produce
thereof, but shall not include substances to the extent that they are
intended as plant nutrients, trace elements, nutritional chemicals,
plant inoculants and soil amendments.]
k. ["Defoliant" means any substance or mixture of substances
intended for causing the leaves or foliage to drop from a plant, witli
or without causing abscission.]
1. ["Dcsiccant" means any substance or mixture of substances
intended for artificially accelerating the drying of plant tissue.]
m. $ "Insect" means any of the numerous small invertebrate
animals generally having the body more or less obviously segmented,
for the most part belonging to the class Insecta, comprising 6-legged,
usually winged forms, as for example, beetles, bugs, bees, flies, in-
cluding eggs, larvae and immature forms, and to other allied classes
of arthropods whose members are wingless and usually have more
than 6 legs, as for example, spiders, mites, ticks, centipedes and wood
lice.
n. ["Nematode" means invertebrate animals of the phylum
nemathelminthes and class nematoda, that is, unsegmented round
worms with elongated, fusiform, or saclike bodies covered with cuticle,
and inhabiting soil, water, 'plants or plant parts; may also be called
nemas or eelworms.]
o. 4. "Fungi" means all nonchlorophyll-bearing thallophytes that
is, all nonchlorophyll-bearing plants of a lower order than mosses
and liverworts, as for example, rusts, smuts, mildews, molds, yeasts
and bacteria, except those on or in living man of other vertebrate
animals
p: • "Weed" means any plant which grows where not wanted.
q. • "Ingredient statement" means:
(1)' A statement of the name and percentage of each active in-
gredient, together with the total percentage of the inert ingredients,
'in the economic poison.
(a) Or, in the case of "economic poison", household disinfectants
or household germicides, for preventing, destroying, repelling or
mitigating common household pests, a statement of the name of each
active ingredient together with the name of each and total percent-
-------
121 Orchards, Nurseries, Crops §12.352(2)
age of the inert ingredients, if any there be, in the economic poison
(except option 1 shall apply if the preparation is highly toxic to man,
determined as provided in section 6 of this act); and
(2) In case the economic poison contains arsenic in any form, a
statement of the percentages of. total and -water soluble arsenic, each
calculated as elemental arsenic.
r. 4 "Active ingredient"!), other than a plant regulator, defoliant
or desiccant], means an ingredient which. will prevent, destroy, repel
or mitigate insects, fnematodes], fungi, rodents, weeds or other pests.
[(1) In the case of a plant regulator, an ingredient which,
through physiological action, will accelerate or retard the rate of
growth or rate of maturation or otherwise alter the behavior of
ornamental or crop plants or the produce thereof;
(2) In the case of a defoliant, an ingredient which will cause the
leaves of foliage to drop from a plant;
(3) In the case of a desiccant, an ingredient which ^^ &T^~
ficiaUy accelerate the drying of plant tissue.]
s. 4 "Inert ingredient" means an ingredient which is not an
active ingredient.
t. 4 "Antidote" means a practical immediate treatment in case
of poisoning and includes first aid treatment.
u. 4 "Person" means any individual, partnership, association,
corporation or organized group of persons whether incorporated or
not.
v. 4 "Director" means the director of the 4 [state] department
of agriculture.
[w.] 4 "Registrant" means the person registering any economic
poison pursuant to the provisions of this act.
[x.] 4 "Label" means the written, printed or graphic matter on
or attached to, the economic poison or device, or the immediate con-
tainer thereof, and the outside container or wrapper of the retail
package, if any there be, of the economic poison or device.
(1) 4 "Labeling" means all labels and other written, printed or
graphic matter—
t(a)3 Upon the economic poison or device or any of its containers
or wrappers;
t(b)] Accompanying the economic poison or device at any time;
E(c)] To which reference is made on the label or in literature
accompanying the economic poison of device, except when accurate,
nonmisleading reference is made to current official publications
of the United States departments of agriculture or interior, the
United States public health service, state experiment stations, state
agricultural colleges or other similar federal institutions or official
agencies of this state or other states authorized by law to conduct
research in the field of economic poisons.
[y.] 4 "Adulterated" shall apply to any economic poison if its
strength or purity falls below the professed standard or quality
as expressed on its labeling or under which it is sold, or if any
substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article, or
if any valuable constituent of the article has been wholly or in part
abstracted.
p:.] 4 "Misbranded" shall- apply—
(1) To any economic poison or device'if its labeling bears- any
statement, design or graphic representation relative thereto or to its
ingredients which is false or misleading in any particular;
-------
§ 12.352(3) Title 12—Agriculture 122
(2) To any economic poison—
(a) If it is an imitation of or is offered for sale under the name
of another economic poison;
(b) If its labeling bears any reference to registration under this
act, except as provided in section [sic] 3, a., (6);
(c) If the labeling accompanying it does, not contain instructions
for use which are necessary and, if complied with, adequate for the
protection of the public;
(d) If the. label docs not contain a warning or caution statement
which may be necessary and, if .complied with, adequate to prevent
injury to living man and other vertebrate animals[, vegetation and
useful invertebrate animals];
(e) If the label docs not bear an ingredient statement on that
part of the immediate container and on the outside container or
wrapper, if there be one through which the ingredient statement
on the immediate container cannot be clearly read, of the retail pack-
age which is presented or displayed under customary conditions of
purchase ;
(f) If any word, statement or other information required by or
under the authority of this act to appear on the labeling is not
prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness (as compared
with other words, statements, designs or graphic matter in the
labeling) and in such terms as to render it likely to be read and
understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions
of purchase and use; •
(g) If in the case of insecticide, [nematocide,] fungicide, herbi-
cide, larvicide or ovicide, when used as directed or in accordance
with commonly recognized practice, it shall be injurious to living
man 07 other vertebrate animals or vegetation, except weeds, to which
it is applied, or to the person applying such economic poison; [or
(h) If in the case of a plant regulator, defoliant or desiccant
when used as directed it shall be. injurious to living man or other
vertebrate animals, or vegetation to which it is-applied, or to the
person applying such economic poison. Physical or physiological
effects on plants or parts thereof shall not be deemed to be injury
when this is the purpose for which the plant regulator, defoliant or
desiccant was applied, in accordance with the label claims and
recommendations.]
(CL '48, § 286.162.)
History. . Gross:refcrence.
At amended by Pub Acts 1961, No. Similar provision defining economic
130, eff Sept 8. poison, see S 12.353(1). infra.
Comparable provisions. ALR note
NY Agriculture and Markets I#w, Exterminator's liability for per-
J 148 (similar); Wis Stats §§ 94.67, sonal injury or death, 73 ALR2d 1155.
94.675, 94.676.
§ 12.352(3) Unlawful distribution, sale or transportation of
certain economic poisons; detachment, alteration or destruction of
label; adding to or taking substance from economic poison.]
SEC. 3. a. It shall be unlawful for any person to distribute, sell.
or offer for sale within this state or deliver for transportation or
-------
123 Orchards, Nurseries, Crops §12.352(3)
transport in intrastate commerce or between points within this state
through any point outside this state any of the following:
(1) Any economic poison which has not been registered pursuant
to the provisions of section 4 of this act, or any economic poison if
any of the claims made for it or any of the directions for its use
differ in substance from the representations made in connection with
its registration, or if the composition of an economic poison differs
from its composition as represented in connection with its registra-
tion : Provided, That in the discretion of the director, a change in the
labeling 'or formula of an economic poison may be made within a
registration period without requiring reregistration of the product.
(2) Any economic poison unless it is in the registrant's or the
manufacturer's unbroken immediate container, and there is affixed
to such container, and to the outside container or wrapper of the
retail package, if there be one through which the required informa-
tion on the immediate container cannot be clearly read, a label bear-
ing:
(a) The name and address of the manufacturer, registrant, or
person for whom manufactured;
(b) The name, brand, or trade mark under which said article
is sold; and
(c) The net weight or measure of the content subject, however,
to such reasonable variations as the director may permit.
(3) Any economic poison which contains any substance or sub-
stances in quantities highly toxic to man, determined as provided in
section 6 of this act, unless the label shall bear, in addition to any
other matter required by this act:
(a) -The skull and cross bones;
(b) The word "poison" prominently, in red, on a background
of distinctly contrasting color; and
(c) A statement of an antidote for the economic poison.
(4) The economic poisons commonly known as standard lead
arsenate, basic lead arseuate, calcium afsenate, magnesium arsenate,
zinc arsenate, zinc arsenite, sodium fluoride, sodium fluosilicate, and
barium fluosilicate unless they have been distinctly colored or dis-
colored as provided by regulations issued in accordance with this act,
or any other white powder economic poison which the director, after
investigation of and after public hearing on the necessity for such
action for the protection of the public health and the feasibility of
such coloration or discoloration, shall, by regulation, require to be
distinctly colored or discolored, unless it has been so colored or dis-
colored : Provided, That the director may exempt any economic poison
to the extent that it is intended for a particular use or uses from the
'coloring or discoloring required or authorized by this section if he
determines that* such coloring or discoloring for such use or uses is
.not necessary for the protection of the public health.
(5) Any economic poison which is adulterated or misbranded, or
any device which is misbranded.
(6) Any economic poison which has been registered under protest
unless each package bears a label printed in bold face on a strongly
contrasting background the words "WARNING : REGISTERED UNDER PRO-
TEST IN MICHIGAN."
b. It shall be unlawful—
-------
§12.352(4) Title 12—Agriculture 124
(1) For any person to detach, alter, deface, or destroy, in -whole
or in part, any label or labeling provided for in th'is act or regulations
promulgated hereunder, or to add any substance to, or take any sub-
stance from, an economic poison in a manner .that may defeat the
purpose of this act.
(CL''48, §286.163.)
Comparable provision. not abandoned in pretrial or opening
•NY Agriculture and Markets Law, statement. Patrick v. Carrier-Stevens
5 149. po., 358 Mich 94.
1-10. [Reserved for use in future sup- ALB note.
pleinentation.] Liability of manufacturer or seller-
for injury .caused by animal feed
11. Duties of seller. Or medicines, • crop sprays, f erti-
In action against druggist for dam- lizers, insecticides, rodenticides. and
ages for death of mink from flea similar product^, 81 ALE2d 133.
poison packaged and sold by defend-
ant, instruction on defendant's com- NCCA notes.
mon law duty, as well ns on his duty Landowner's liability for injury to
of care' under economic poison act, another's livestock eating grass
was proper, in view of fact that sprayed with poisonous chemicals,
breach of latter duty was alleged and 28 NCCASd 271.
§12.352(4) Registration of brands or poisons; fee; effect of
payment by manufacturer or distributor; eligibility for registra-
tion; keeping of records and documents.] SEC. 4. Each $ manu-
facturer, importer, jobber, firm, association, corporation or person
manufacturing, distributing or selling any economic poison as de-
fined in section 2 $ shall pay to the director of agriculture on or
before November 1, [19G4], aQd annually thereafter, a registration
fee of C$10.00] for each $ brand or separate economic poison sold,
offered or exposed for sale, or distributed in this state $ [, except]
that for each $ registration in excess of 10 in any year by the same
person, the registration fee shall be [$4.00]. [Such] fees t shall
be paid into the state treasury and credited to the $ [general]
fund *.
$ [When any entity or person has paid such fee, no other entity
or person shall be required to pay such fee upon such economic
poison], nor is registration required in case of an economic poison
shipped from one plant -within this state to another plant -within this
state operated by the same person. 4 The provision of this section
requiring registration shall not apply to economic poisons that have
been discontinued by manufacturers or to stocks of economic poison
in the possession of dealers until 1 year after the effective date of this
act. [Economic poisons registered by the United States Department
of Agriculture under the provisions of the federal insecticide, fungi-
cide and rodcnticide act shall be eligible for registration in this state.
A vendor of economic poisons shall keep on file, subject to inspection
byf any authorized agent of .the director for a period of 1 year, all in-
voices, freight bills, truckers' receipts, way bills and similar shipping
data pertaining to economic poisons that would establish date and
origin of the shipments.]
(CL '48, § 286.164.)
History. Comparable provision.
As amended by Pub Acts 1964, No. Wis Stats S 94.68.
258, eff Aug 28.
-------
125 Orchards, Nurseries, Crops § 12.352(6)
§ 12.352(5) Cancellation of registration; lowering analysis or
changing ingredients; appeal ;• failure of article to comply with act,
notification of registrant; registration under, protest, warning.]
Sr.c. 5. Should any economic poison be registered in this state and
it is afterward discovered that such registration is in violation of any
of the provisions of this act, the said director shall have the power
to cancel such registration. The director shall have the po>yer to
refuse to allow any manufacturer, importer, jobber, firm, association,
corporation or person to lower the guaranteed.analysis or change the
active ingredients of any brand of his or their economic poison during
the term for which registered unless reasons satisfactory to said di-
rector are presented; for making such change or changes: Provided,
That a person who has been denied a registration of an economic
poison or whose registration has been cancelled may be granted an
appeal hearing before the commission of agriculture, whose finding
of fact shall be justification for sustaining or overruling of the di-
rector.
If it does not appear to the commission of agriculture that the
article is such as to warrant the proposed claims for it or if the article''
and its labeling and other material required to be submitted do not
comply with the provisions of this act, the director shall notify the
registrant of the manner in which the article, labeling, or other ma-
terial required to be submitted fails to comply with the act so as to
.afford the registrant an opportunity to make the corrections neces-
sary. If, upon receipt of such notice, the registrant insists that such
corrections are not necessary and requests in writing that it be reg-
istered, the director shall register the article, under protest, and such
registration shall be accompanied by a warning, in writing, to the
registrant of the apparent failure of the article to comply with the
provisions of this act.
(CL '48, § 286.165.)
§ 12.352(6) Powers of director; rules and regulations.]
SEC. 6. a. The director is authorized, after opportunity for a hear-
ing
(1) To declare as a pest any form of plant or animal life or virus
which is injurious to plants, men, domestic animals, articles, or sub-
stances ;
(2) To determine whether economic poisons are highly toxic to
man; and
(3) To determine standards of coloring or discoloring for economic
poisons, and to subject economic poisons to the requirements of sec-
tion 3a(4) of this act.
b. The director is authorized, after due public hearing, to make
appropriate rules and regulations for carrying out the provisions of
this act, including rules- and regulations providing for the collection
and examination of samples of economic poisons or devices. Rules
and regulations promulgated under the provisions of this act shall be
subject to the provisions of Act No. 88 of the Public Acts of 1943,
as amended, being sections 24.71 to 24.82, inclusive, of the Compiled
Laws of 1948.
(CL '48, § 286.166.)
-------
§ 12.352(7) Title 12—Agriculture 126
Statutory reference. Comparable provisions.
Act 88, 1943, above referred to, is NY Agriculture and Markets Law,
S 3.560(7) et seq., supra. § 150; Wis Stats § 94.69.
§12.352(7) Examination;-notice, opportunity to be heard;
reference of violations to prosecuting attorney, duty; notice of judg-
ments entered.] SEC. 7. a. The examination of economic poisons
or devices shall be made under the direction of the director for the
purpose of determining whether they comply with the requirements
of this act. If it shall appear from such examination that an economic
poison or device fails to comply with fhe provisions of this aet, and
the director contemplates instituting criminal proceedings against
any person, he shall cause appropriate notice to be given "to such per-
son. Any person so notified shall be given an opportunity to. present
his views, either orally or in writing, with regard to such contem-
plated proceedings and if, thereafter, in the opinion of the director
it shall appear that the provisions of the act have been violated by
such person, then the director shall refer the facts to the prosecuting
attorney for* the county in which the violation shall have occurred
with a copy of the results of the analysis or the examination qf such.
article.
b. It shall be the duty of each prosecuting attorney to whom any
such violation is reported to cause appropriate proceedings to be in-
stituted and prosecuted in the circuit court without delay.
c. The director shall, by publication in such manner as he may
prescribe, give notice of all judgments entered in actions instituted
under the authority of this act.
(CL '48, § 286.167.)
§12.352(8) Inapplicability of penalties; articles deemed not
in violation of act.] SEC. 8. a. The penalties provided for viola-
tions of this act shall not apply to—
(1) Any carrier while lawfully engaged in transporting an eco-
nomic poison within this state, if such carrier shall, upon request,
permit the director or his designated agent to copy all records show-
ing the transactions in and movement of the articles;
(2) Public officials of this state and the federal government en-
gaged in the performance of their official duties;
(3) The manufacturer 'or shipper of an economic poison for
experimental use only.
(a) By or under the supervision of an agency of this state or
of the federal government authorized by law to conduct research in
the field of economic poisons, or
(b) By others if the economic poison is not sold and if the
container thereof is plainly and conspicuously marked "For experi-
mental use only—Not to be sold," together with the manufacturer's
name and address: Provided, however, That if a written permit has
been obtained from the director, economic poisons may be sold for
experimental purposes subject to such restrictions and conditions as
may be set forth in the permit.
b. No article shall be deemed in violation of this act when-in-
tended solely for export to a foreign country, and when, prepared
-------
127 Orchards, Nurseries, Crops § 12.352(10)
or packed according to the specifications or directions of Jhe pur-
chaser. If not so exported all the provisions of this act shall apply.
(CL '48, § 286.168.)
Comparable -provisions.
NV Agriculture and Markets Law,
8151-a (practically the same); Wia
StntȤ94.70,.BUbd(2).
§12.352(0) Violation of act, penalty; minor violations.]
SEC. 9. Any manufacturer, importer/jobber, firm, association, cor-
poration, or person, who shall sell, offer, or expose for sale, or dis-
tribute in this state, or who shall take or receive from any firm, asso-
ciation, corporation, or person in this state any order-for the sale of
any economic poison or device as defined in section 2 of this act^ or
•who shall directly or indirectly contract with any manufacturer, im-
porter, jobber, firm, association, corporation, or person, in this state
for the sale of such economic poison'or device to be delivered in this
state by common carrier or otherwise, which has not been registered as
required by the provisions of this act, or without complying with the
labeling requirements of this act or who shall impede, obstruct, or
hinder such director or his authorized agents in the performance'
of his or their duty in connection with the provisions of this act, or
who shall violate any of the rules or regulations promulgated by the
director as provided herein, shall be deemed guilty of a violation of
the provisions of this act and, upon conviction thereof, shall be sen-
tenced to pay a fine of not more than $200.00, or to imprisonment of
not more than 60 days in the county jail, or both such fine and im-
prisonment in the discretion of the court: Provided, however, That
nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring the director to
report for prosecution or -for the institution of libel proceedings,
minor violations of the act whenever he believes that the public inter-
est will be best served by a suitable notice of warning in writing. (CL
'48, § 286.169.)-
§ 12.352(10) Seizure of poisons, etc.; analysis; libel proceed-
ings, procedure, forfeiture to state, appeal; proceeds of sale, dis-
position; delivery to owner for relabeling or reprocessing, bond;
duty of prosecuting attorney.] SEC. 10. The director, his deputy,
or any person by said director duly appointed for that purpose, is
authorized at all times to seize and take possession of any and all eco-
nomic poisons or devices, substitutes therefor, or imitations thereof,
kept for sale, exposed for sale, distributed, or held in possession or
under the control of any person, which are contrary to the provi-
sions of this act.
1. The person so making such seizures as aforesaid, shall take
from such goods as seized a sample for the purpose of analysis and
shall cause the remainder thereof to be boxed- and sealed and shall
leave the same in the possession of the person from whom they were
seized, subject to such disposition as shall hereafter be made thereof
according to the provisions of this act.
2. The person so making such seizure shall forward the sample so
taken to the chief chemist of the department of agriculture for anal-
-------
§12.353(10) Title 12—Agriculture 128
ysis, who shall make an analysis of the same and shall certify the
results of such analysis, •which certificate'shall be prima facie evi-
dence-of the fact or facts therein certified to in any court where the
same'may be offered in evidence.
3. If upon such analysis it shall appear that said economic poison
or device is adulterated, niisbranded, a substitute or imitation within
the meaning of this act, said director, or his deputy or any person by
him duly authorized, may make complaint before any justice of the
peace or police justice .having jurisdiction in the city, village, or
township where such goods were seized, and thereupon said justice of
the peace shall issue his summons to .the person from whom said.goods
were seized, directing hjm to appear not .less than 6 nor more than
12'days from the date of the issuing of said summons and snow cause
why said goods should not be condemned and disposed of. If the
said person from whom said goods were seized cannot be found said
summons shall be served upon the person then in possession-of the
goods. The said summons shall be served at least 6 days before the
time of appearance mentioned therein. If the person from whom said
goods were seized cannot be found, and no one can be found in posses-
sion of said goods, and the defendant shall not appear on the return
day, the said justice of the peace shall proceed in said cause in the
same manner provided by law where a writ of attachment is returned
not personally served upon any of the defendants and none pf .the
defendants shall appear upon the return day.
4. Unless cause to the contrary thereof is shown, or if said goods
.shall be found upon trial to be in- violation of any of the provisions
of this act or other laws which now exist or'which may be hereafter
enacted, it shall be the duty of said justice of the peace or police
justice to render judgment that said seized property be forfeited to
the state of Michigan, and that the said goods be destroyed or sold by
the said director for any purpose other than to be used for economic
poisons or devices. The mode of procedure before said justice shall
be the same, as near as may be, as in civil proceedings before justices
of the peace. Either parties may appeal to the circuit court as ap-
peals are taken from justices' courts, but it shall not be necessary for
the people to give any appeal bond.
5. The proceeds arising from any such sale shall be' paid into the
state treasury and credited to the general fund: Provided, That if
the owner or party claiming the property or goods so declared for-
feited can produce and prove a written guarantee of purity, signed
by the wholesaler, jobber, manufacturer or other party from whom
said articles were purchased, then the proceeds of the sale of such
articles, over and above the cost of seizure, forfeiture, and sale, shall
be paid over to such owner or claimant to reimburse him, to the extent
of such surplus, for his actual loss resulting from such seizure and
forfeiture, as shown by the invoice: And provided, further, That upon
payment of costs, and execution and delivery of a good and sufficient
bond conditioned that the article shall not be disposed of unlawfully,
the court may direct that said article be delivered to the owner thereof
for relabeling or reprocessing as the case may be.
6. It shall be the duty of each prosecuting attorney when called
upon by said director or by any person by him authorized as afore-
said, to render any legal assistance in his power in proceedings under
the provisions of this act, or any subsequent act, relative to the adul-
-------
129 Orchards, Nurseries, Crops § 12.353(1)
teration, misbrandiug, substituting, imitating or selling economic
poisons or devices.
(CL'48, §286.170.)
Cross-references. eiviL procedure in justice court, 8 27 A-
Procoodings in attachment in 6601 et seq., infra; appeal to circuit
justice court, see § 27AI7419, infra; court, § 27A.7701, et seq., infra.
§12.352(11) Execution of authority vested in director.]
SEC. 11. All authority vested in the director by -virtue of the pro-
visions of this act may -with like force and effect be executed by such
employees of the department of agriculture as the director may from
time to time designate for isaid purpose: (CL '48, § 286.171.)
§ 12.352(12) Cooperation with U. S. department of agricul-
ture and other agencies.] SEC. 12. The director is authorized and
empowered to' cooperate with, and enter into agreements with, 'any
other agency of this state, the United States department of agricul-
ture, and any other state or.agency thereof for the purpose of carry-
ing out the provisions of this act and securing uniformity of regula-
tions. (CL'48, §286.172.)
§12.352(13) Jurisdiction vested in department of agricul-
ture; repeal.] SEC. 13. Jurisdiction in all matters pertaining to the
distribution, sale and transportation of economic poisons and devices
is by this act vested exclusively in the department of agriculture and
all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby express-
ly repealed. Act No. 25'4 of the Public Acts of 1913, being sections
286.151 through 286.160 of the Compiled Laws of 1948, is hereby re-
pealed. (CL'48, §286.173.)
Statutory reference.
Act No. 254 of 1913, above referred
to, was §§ 12.341-12.350.
REGULATION OP APPLICATION OP ECONOMIC POISONS
Act 233,1959, p 338; eff March 19, I960.
(Title as amended by Pub Acts 1966, No. 120, imd eff June 23.)
AN ACT to prevent the destruction or damage of agricultural crops,
growing plants, livestock or wildlife from the application of, any
economic poison, pesticide, insecticide, herbicide, fungicide,
rodenticide; to provide for the $ [licensing of persons engaged
in the business of applying3 economic poisons [out of doors]
and imposing penalties for violations; to provide for the collection
of $ licensing fees' >; and to prescribe the powers and duties
of-certain officers.
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
§ 12.353(1) Definitions.] SECTION 1. As used in this act:
(a) "Equipment" means any mechanical device, system, apparatus,
or method utilized in the application of economic poisons out of doors.
-------
§ 12.353(2) Title 12—Agriculture 130
(b) "Economic poison" means any substance or mixture of sub-
stances, by whatever term designated, intended for preventing, de-
stroying, repelling or mitigating any insects, rodents, fungi, weeds
or other forms of plant or animal life or viruses, except virus on ot
in living man or other vertebrate animals, which the director'of
agriculture shall declare to be a'pest.
(c) "Director" means the director of agriculture/
(CL '48, § 286.411.)
Cross-reference.
Similar provision defining economic
goison, see § 12.352(2), supra.
§12.353(2) Exceptions to'application of act.] SEO. 2. This
•aot shall not apply to persons .applying economic poisons -on their
own premises, or to the employees of such persons on such premises;
or to persons who make occasional applications of such poisons on
the premises of another, but who do 'not .hold themselves out as
engaged in the business of applying economic poisons; or to farmers
•who are trading work with other farmers; or to municipalities, road
commissions, or state or federal agencies. (CL '48, § 286.412.)
§ 12.353(3) License to apply economic poisons; application,
contents.] SEC. 3. No person subject to this act shall operate
equipment without first obtaining from the director a license for
such operation. Application for a license shall be filed with the direc-
tor on blanks furnished-by him. The application shall state the. name
and permanent address of the applicant; his knowledge of the effects
of economic poisons upon agricultural crops, growing plants, live-
stock and wild life when misapplied; his knowledge of proper dosing
of economic poisons to accomplish the control or eradication of pests;
his knowledge of the susceptibility of economic poisons to wind drift
and air currents; his experience in the application of economic
poisons; the type of equipment to be used by the applicant in the
application of economic poisons; his knowledge of the use of such
equipment; damage suits resulting in judgment against him, if any,
arising out of his application of economic poisons, which judgments
have not been satisfied; and other information deemed to be pertinent
by the director, which shall be requested on the application form. (CL
'48, § 286.413.)
1-10. [Reserved for use In future buildings for purpose of controlling
supplementation.] pests inside of buildings must obtain
license under this act. Op Atty Gen,
11. Necessity for license. Aug 2,1960, No. 3520.
Person or firm making applications
of economic poisons on exterior of
§12.353(4) Same; fees, disposition; expiration; renewal.]
SEC. 4. Every application for license, whether for an initial, license
or annual renewal, shall be accompanied by a fee of $10.00. All* fees
shall be deposited in the state treasury to the credit of the general
fund. If the license is not issued or renewed, the fee shall be retained
by the state as payment for the reasonable expense of processing the
application. Licenses shall expire on December 31 following their
issuance, but may be renewed annually upon qualifying and payment
of the annual fee of $10.00. (CL '48, § 286.414.)
-------
131 Orchards, Nurseries, Crops § 12.353(8)
§ 12.353(5) Same; issuance; refusal to issue, grounds; bond.]
SEC. 5. If the director shall find from examination of the application
that the applicant is qualified for license he shall issue such license.
If the license application discloses unsatisfied judgments against the
applicant, the director may require a sufficient bond of the applicant
conditioned upon the payment of further judgments against him,
or the director may refuse to issue a license or annual renewal thereof
because of such unsatisfied judgments. The director- may refuse to
issue a license or annual renewal thereof if the equipment to be used
by the licensee is unsafe or inadequate to accomplish the proper appli-
cation of the economic poisons to be used. The director may refuse to
issue a license if the applicant discloses an insufficient knowledge of
any item called for in the application. Denial of a license shall be
treated as a contested case under the provisions of Act No. 197 of the
Public Acts of 1952, as amended. (CL '48, § 286.415.)
Statutory reference.
Act 197, 1952, above referred to, is
(3.560(21.1) et.seq., supra.
§ 12.353(6) Administrative rules.] SEC. 6. The director may
promulgate administrative rules pursuant to the provisions of Act
No. 88 of the.Public Acts of 1943, as amended, defining safe and
adequate equipment for the application of the several economic
poisons; defining wind and weather conditions when certain economic
poisons shall not be applied; and defining the method of handling
certain economic poisons for the safety of the operator. (CL '48,
§ 286.416.)
Statutory reference.
Act 88, 1943, above referred to, is
68.560(7) et scq., supra.
§ 12.353(7) Responsibility for damages.] SEC. 7. Registra-
tion with the director of agriculture shall not exonerate the owner and
operator of the equipment from responsibility for damage resulting
from over-dosing, drifting or misapplication of control chemicals. (CL
'48, § 286.417.)
§12.353(8) Taking samples; inspecting equipment; order to
cease .use, noncompliance, rescission.] SEC. 8. The director of
agriculture or his 'designated employees may • enter upon premises
where a licensee is operating and take samples of economic poisons
or mixtures being used by the licensee; and may. inspect equipment
or methods of application uSed by the licensee and make recommenda-
tions therefor. [Whenever the director of -agriculture or any of his
designated employees shall have reason to believe "that a licensee is
using or intending to use economic poisons in an unsafe or inadequate
manner, the director or his designated employed s"hall order the
licensee to cease the use of or refrain from the intended use of such
economic poisons, mixtures, equipment or methods. The order may
be either oral or written and shall inform the licensee of the reason
therefor.
Upon the receipt of the order, the licensee shall immediately comply
therewith. Failure to comply constitutes cause for revocation of the
-------
§ 12.353(9) Title 12—Agriculture 132
license and subjects the licensee to the penalty imposed under section
10 of this act.
The director of agriculture shall rescind the order immediately
upon being satisfied after inspection that the reason therefor does not
or no longer exists. The inspection shall be conducted as soon as
possible at the request of the licensee, which request may be either
oral or -written. The rescinding order of the director may be oral and
the licensee may rely thereon. However, an oral order shall be
followed by a written rescinding order.J
(CL'48, §286.418.)
History.
As amended by Pub Acts 1966, No.
120, imd eff June 23.
§12.353(9) Advisory committee on economic poisons; mem-
bers.j SEC. 9. There is hereby created an advisory committee on
economic poisons to consult with and aid the director in the ad-
ministration of this act. The committee shall be composed of the
director of conservation, the state commissioner of health, the director
of aeronautics and the executive secretary of the water resources
commission. Members of the committee may designate an employee
to represent them on the committee. (CL '48, § 286.419.)
§ 12.353(10) Violation, penalty.] SEC. 10. Any person sub-
ject to license under this act who operates equipment without such
license is guilty of a misdemeanor. (CL '48, § 286.420.)
-------
135 Orchards, Nurseries, Crops § 12.36G(4)
affected area, the director shall ascertain whether at least 10 of the
signers of the petition are grape growers and owners of grape vine-
yards within the affected area. In counting the required number of
petitioners, joint tenants or tenants by the entireties shall be counted
as 1 signer. (CL '48, § 286.402.)
History.
Aa amended by Pub Acts 1963, No:
70, cfI Sept 6.
§ 12.366(3) Public hearing; notice; proof of notice.] SEC: 3.
If the director determines that the petition is properly filed, he shall
hold a public hearing after giving at least 10 days' notice of the time
and place at which the hearing will be held by posting in at least
5 of the most public places within the affected area, and by notice by
mail to each of the petitioners and to each manufacturer, supplier and
dealer furnishing the chemical substance complained of within ^the
affected area, so far as is known to the director, after diligent inquiry.
Proof of notice shall be evidenced by affidavit of the director appended
to the minutes of the hearing at which the petition is considered.
(CL'48, §286.403.)
§ 12.366(4) Order prohibiting or restricting use of chemicals;
findings required.] SEC. 4. If the director finds, from testimony
adduced, that:
(a) There has been actual damage to grapevines or grape crops
•within the affected area; and
(b) Such damage was caused by the use of the chemical substance
complained of in the petition, and by that cause alone; and
(c) Such use was upon lands within the affected area or in prox-
imity to the affected area, or upon the damaged crop itself; and
(d) The commercial production of grapes within the affected area
constitutes a major source of agricultural income within the affected
area; then the director may issue his order prohibiting or restricting
the use of 2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorolphenoxyaeetic acid), 2,4-5-T (£2,4-5.3
Trichlorophenoxyacetie acid) or MCP (2 Methyl, 4 Chlorophenoxy-
acetic acid) within or in proximity to the affected area $ [during
the period from May 1 to October 1. The order shall continue in ef-
fect from year to year unless modified or rescinded by the director.
Not later than March 15 of each year, the director shall give notice
of the order by publication in a newspaper of- general circulation in
the area affected. The notice shall state the terms of the order in
general language and that the order will continue in effect for the
ensuing period of May 1 to October 1, unless .a petition for modifica-
tion or recision of the order, signed "by 10 or more grape growers or
50 or more persons not grape growers in the affected area, is filed
with the directors on or before April 1. If a request for modification
or recision is received, the director shall hold a hearing after giving
notice as provided in section 3. After the hearing, the director shall
make such findings as the evidence adduced justifies and may con-
tinue, modify or rescind the order. If the director modifies or
rescinds the order, he shall give notice of his action ds provided in
section 4J. All restrictions upon the use of 2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorolphe-
noxyacetic acid), 2,4-5-T ([2,4-5-3 Trichloropheuoxyacelic acid) or
-------
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
§12.366(1) Definitions.] SECTION 1. As used in this act:
(a) "Grape grower" means a producer of grapes for profit.
(b) "Grape vineyard" means lands upon which grapevines are
maintained and harvested for profit.
(c) "Townships" means government survey townships, and need
not be in the same county.
(d) "Proximity" means a radial distance of 2 miles from the site
of damage.
(e) "Development" means natural and normal growth before
harvest.
(f) "Affected area" means the area defined in the petition. The
affected area may be altered by description in the order of the director;
if the director finds that such alteration should be made to effectuate
the purposes of the petition.
(g) "Major source of agricultural income" means that the pro-
ducers of grapes within the affected area obtain at least IQ% of their
gross income as a group in any 5-year period from the production of
grapes.
(h) "Director" means the director of the state department of agri-
culture.
(CL'48, §286.401.)
§ 12.366(2) Petition; prohibition of restriction of use of harm-
ful chemical substances; number of petitioners.] SBC. 2. When-
ever the director receives a petition in a form prescribed by him,
signed by 10 or more grape growers in the same or contiguous town-
ships in this state, alleging that the use of 2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorolphe-
noxyacetic acid), 2-4-5-T (£2,4-5-3 Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid) or
MCP (2 Methyl, 4 Chlorophenoxyacetic acid) in proximity to grape
vineyards or crops of grapes described in the petition has proved
harmful to the development of grapevines or the grape crop in the
affected area in the same or any prior year and asking that the use
of such chemical substances be prohibited or restricted within the
-------
§ 12.366(5) Title 12—Agriculture 186
MCP (2 Methyl, 4 Chlorophenoxyacetic acid) within or in proximity
to the affected area shall be set forth in the order -with particularity.
(CL '48, § 286.404.)
History.
As amended by Pub Acts 1963, No.
70, eff-Septe.
§ 12.366(5) Orders effective upon posting; publication in ad-
ministrative code.] SEC. 5. All orders shall be effective upon post-
ing the same prominently in at least 5- of the most public places
•within the affected area. They shall be published in 'the administra-
tive code, provided for in-Act No. 83 of the Public Acts of 1943, as
amended, being sections 24.71 to 24.82 of the Compiled Laws of 1948,
but publication within the quarterly supplement to' the administra-
tive code shall not be a condition precedent to their effectiveness. (CL
'48, § 286.405.)
Statutory reference.
Act No. 88 of 1943, above referred
to ia §§3.5GO(7)-3.560(16), infra.
§ 12.366(6) Violation of order; penalty.] SEC. 6. Any per-
son who uses 2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorolphenoxyacetic acid), 2,4-5-T (£2,4-
5-] Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid) or MCP (2 Methyl, 4 Chlorophe-
npxy acetic acid) within or in proximity to an affected area, in
violation of an order of the director prohibiting or restricting such use,
[is] guilty of a misdemeanor. (CL MS, § 2S6.406.)
History.
As amended by Pub Acts 19C3, No.
70, ef f Sept 6.
-------
TEXAS LAWS
-------
Art 135b—5. Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodcnticide Act of Texas
***********
Prohibited Acts
Sec. 3. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to distribute, sell,
or offer for sale within this State or deliver for transportation or trans-
port in intrastate commerce or between points within this State through
any point outside this State any of the following:
(1) Any economic pesticide which has not been registered pursuant
to the provisions of Section 4 of this Act, or any economic pesticide if
any of the claims made for it or any of the directions for its use differ in
substance from the representations made in connection with its registra-
tion, or if the composition of an economic pesticide differs from its com-
position as represented in connection with its registration. Provided,
that, in the discretion of the Commissioner, a change in the labeling or
formula of an economic pesticide may be made within a registration pe-
riod if the economic pesticide is registered in conformity with the require-
ments of this Act for other economic pesticides.
(2)- Any economic pesticide unless -it is in the registrant's or the
manufacturer's unbroken immediate container, and there is affixed to
such container, and to the outside container or wrapper of the retail
package, if there be one through which the required information on the
immediate container cannot be clearly read, a label bearing:
(a) The name and address of the manufacturer, registrant, or person
for whom manufactured;
'(b) The name, brand, or trademark under which said article is sold;
and
(c) The net weight or measure of the contents of the container, sub-
ject, however, to such reasonable variations as the Commissioner may
permit after he consults with the advisory group provided for in Section
5f>
-------
Art. 135b—5 AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE Title 4
5B of this Act. Provided, that in the case of a tank truck used, merely to
deliver an economic pesticide to the user when the truck does not remain
in the user's hands, an invoice with the required labeling information left
with the purchaser at the time of delivery of the economic pesticide is
permissible in lieu of a label being affixed to the tank.
(d) The ingredient statement as provided for in Section 2C of this
Act.
(e) Numbers or other symbols which would identify the lot and
batch number of the manufacture of the contents of the package.
'(3) Any economic pesticide which contains any substance or sub-
stances in quantities highly toxic to man, determined as provided in Sec-
tion 5 of this Act, unless the label shall bear, in addition to any other
matter required by this Act:
(a) The skull and crossbones,
(b) The word "poison" prominently, in red, on a background of dis-
tinctly contrasting color; and
(c) A statement of an antidote for the economic pesticide:
(4) Any economic pesticide that is not distinctly colored or discol-
ored in accordance with such rules and regulations as the Commissioner
shall issue pursuant to this Act.
(5) Any economic pesticide which is adulterated or misbranded, or
any device which is misbranded/
B. It shall be unlawful:
(1) For any person to detach, alter, deface, or destroy; in whole or
in part, any label or labeling provided for in this Act or regulations pro-
mulgated hereunder, or to add any substance to, or take any substance
from, an economic pesticide in a manner that may defeat the purpose of
this Act;
(2) For any person to use for his own advantage or to reveal, other
than to the Commissioner or proper officials or employees of the State or
to the courts of this State in response to a subpoena, or to physicians, or
in emergencies to pharmacists and. other qualified persons, for use in the
preparation of antidotes, any information relative to formulas of prod-
ucts acquired by authority of Section 4 of this Act.
(3) For any person to sell custom mixes without the identification of
the purchaser and without an ingredient statement attached as required
elsewhere in this Act and so labeled as soon as formulated. The labeling
shall be marked with indelible pen or stamp only and may be sold only to
those persons whose name appears on the container and shall not be
placed on the shelf for resale.
Sec. 3, subsecs. A, B amended by Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., p. 1244, ch. 308,
§§ 1, 2, eff. May 24,1973
Registration
Sec. 4.
*»*«»******
B. The registrant shall pay the Commissioner an annual registration
of Thirty Dollars ($30.00) for each economic pesticide registered provided
that:
(1) All registration fees collected by the Commissioner under this
Act shall be paid into the State Treasury by the Commissioner and placed
by the State Treasurer in the Special Department of Agriculture Fund,
and shall be used only for administrative and enforcement purposes of
this Act;
(2) Any registrant who is located outside the State of Texas but who
distributes economic pesticides in the State of Texas shall deposit with
the Commissioner an instrument in writing appointing a resident agent
60
-------
Tttle 4 AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE Art. 135b—5
within this State upon whom service may be had in actions filed by the
State or taken by the Commissioner in the administration or enforcement
of this Act.
(3) The Commissioner is authorized to cancel all registrations of any
registrant who fails to comply with the requirements of this Act.
*•»»****»**•
"D. The Commissioner may, after notice and hearing, cancel the reg-
istration of, or refuse to register any economic pesticide:
(1) Which has demonstrated serious uncontrollable adverse effects,
cither within or outside the agricultural environment.
(2) The use of which is of less public value or greater detriment to
the environment than the benefits received by its use; or
(3) Which, even when properly used, is detrimental to vegetation,
except weeds, to domestic animals, to the public health and safety, or
(4) Concerning which any false or misleading statement is made or
implied by the registrant or his agent, either verbally or in writing, or in
the form of any advertising literature; or
(6) When any registrant of a chemical or pesticide fails to comply
with the requirements of the Act or any rule or regulation adopted by the
Commissioner.
***********
Sec. 4, subsec. B amended by Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., p. 1245, ch. 308, § 3,
eff. May 24; Subsec. D amended by Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., p. 1246, ch
308, § 4, eff. May 24, 1971.
Pesticide advisory committee
Sec. 4a. There is hereby established a pesticide advisory committee
composed of the Deans of-Agriculture, Texas A & M University, and Texas
Tech University, Executive Director of Texas Parks and Wildlife Depart-
ment, Texas Commissioner of Health, and Texas Commissioner of Agricul-
ture or their designated representatives. The duties of this committee
are to advise with the Commissioner of Agriculture to the extent neces-
sary to protect property, animal life and the public health and welfare by
recommendation of the best use of pesticides. The Committee would be
empowered to call on all State universities and State agencies as well as
outside consultants retained by the State entities to assist in developing
recommendations to the Commissioner of Agriculture regarding the feasi-
bility of any pesticide program or other such matters which are submit-
ted to them by the Commissioner of Agriculture/
Sec. 4a added by Acts 1971. 62nd Leg., p. 1246, ch. 308, § 6, eff. May 24.
1971.
Determinations; rules and regulations; uniformity
Sec. 5.
• * *. • * * * * * *• * * *
D. The Commissioner shall furnish upon request a consolidated an-
nual report of the official economic pesticide sample results. The con
tents of the* report are to be determined in a manner which the Commis-
sioner finds most expedie'nt.
Sec. 5, subsec. D amended by Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., p. 1246, ch. 308, § 5, eff.
May 24, 1971.
Enforcement
'Sec. 6. A. The Commissioner shall have authority to enter into
any building or place owned, controlled or operated by a registrant or deal-
er where from probable cause it appears that said building or place
contains economic pesticides for the purpose of inspection or sampling,
and shall 'have the power to take a sample for official analysis from any
package or lot of economic pesticides, including custom mixes, found
61
-------
Art. 135b—5 AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE Title 4
within this State. The Commissioner shall have the power to issue and
enforce a written or printed "stop-sale" order to the owner or custodian of
any economic pesticide which he has reason to believe is in violation of
any of the provisions of this Act .prohibiting further sale of such econom-
ic pesticide until he has evidence that the law has been complied with.
Provided, that in respect to the economic pesticide which has been denied
sale as provided in this paragraph, the owner or custodian of such eco-
nomic pesticide shall have the right to appeal from such order to a court
of competent jurisdiction where the economic pesticide is found, praying
for a judgment as to the justification of said order and the discharge of
such economic pesticide from the order prohibiting the sale in accordance
with the findings of the court; and provided further, that the provisions
of this paragraph shall not be construed as limiting the right of the Com-
missioner to proceed as-authorized by other sections of this Act.
B. In addition to the remedies herein" provided, the Commissioner is
.hereby authorized to institute an action in his own name to enjoin any
violation of any provision of this Act.
C. The Commissioner is authorized to contract with State colleges,
State agencies or commercial laboratories for examination of economic
pesticides provided that such contracts to commercial laboratories are let
on a competitive bid basis.
D. The Commissioner shall make or provide for service sample testa
of economic pesticides on request, and after consulting with the advisory
group as provided for in Section 5B of this Act, he shall fix and collect
charges for each service sample on a cost basis.
Sec. 6 amended by Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., p. 1247, ch. 308, § 7, eff. May 24,
1971.
Cross Reference*
Hazardous substances, labeling and sale.
see Vemon's Ann.P.C. art. 726-3.
Law Review Commentaries
Pesticide pollution. 48 Texas L.Rev. 1130
(1970).
Supplementary Index to Note*
Liability for Injuries 4
Review 5
Warning to users 3
Library references
Agriculture C=>2. 9.
C.J.S. Agriculture it 6. 30 et seq.
3. Warning to users
Exact wording used In suggested label
statements with respect to warning, cau-
tion and antidote statements required to
appear on labels of economic poisons is
not essential; the substance is required.
Muncey v. Magnolia Chemical Co. (Civ.
App.1968) 437 S.\V.2d 15, ref. n. P. e.
Manufacturer of insecticide which was
produced for purpose of killing livestock
pests and which had been sprayed on em-
ployee while he was moving cattle from
pens in order for them to be sprayed for
lice had duty to warn users of the inher-
ently dangerous product. Id.
Adequacy of warning, which appeared
on label of Insecticide manufactured for
purpose of killing livestock pests, which
consisted of word "warning". In bold let-
ters, preceding cautionary statement de-
claring product toxic; stating that It could
be absorbed through skin In dry form and
from solutions, which cautioned to avoid
inhaling mists from sprays and getting it
in the eyes; to avoid unnecessary skin
contact; to keep clothing free from residue
was for trier of fact in action by cattle
feed lot employee who was sprayed with
insecticide by fellow employee. Id.
4. Liability for Injuries
Failure to comply wilh minimum statu-
tory standards with respect to warning.
caution and antidote statements required
to appear on label of economic poisons
constitutes negligence per se. Muncey v.
Magnolia Chemical Co. (Civ.App.1968) 437
S.W.2d 15. ref. n. r. e.
Mere fact of compliance with minimum
statutory standards with respect to warn-
ing, caution and antidote statements re-
quired to appear on label of economic
poisons, docs not relieve manufacturer or
seller from negligence as a matter of law.
Id.
Manufacturer of toxic product which was
produced for purpose of killing livestock
pests and which had been sprayed on em-
ployee by coemplovee while employee was
moving Cattle in order for them to be
sprayed for lice could not avoid liability for
Injury caused by the product on ground
that neither employer nor coemployee had
read label containing allegedly Inadequate
warning. Id.
5. Review
For purpose of determining required
warning, reviewing court would assume
that Insecticide which was manufactured
-------
Title 4 AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE Art. 135b—6
for purpose of killing livestock peats and of analysis of product or tests which had
which had been sprayed on workman con- been conducted. Muncey v. Magnolia
talned Ingredients and proportions as stated Chemical Co. (Clv.App.19C8) 437 S.W.2d 15.
on the label where there was no evidence ref. n. r. e.
Art. 135b—6. Structural Pest Control Act
Citation of Act
Section 1. This Act may be cited as the Texas Structural Pest Control
Act.
Definitions
Sec.-2. (a") For-purposes of this Act a person shall be-deemed to be
engaged in the business of structural pest control if he engages in, offers
to engage in, advertises for, solicits, or performs any of the following
. services for compensation:
(1) identifying infestations or making inspections for the purpose of
identifying or attempting to identify infestations of arthropods (insects,
spiders, mites, ticks, and related pests), wood-infesting organisms, rodents,
•weeds, nuisance birds, and any other obnoxious or undesirable animals
which may infest households, railroad cars, ships, docks, trucks, airplanes,
or other structures, or the contents thereof, or the immediate adjacent
outside areas;
(2) making inspection reports, recommendations, estimates, or bids,
whether oral or written, with respect to such infestations;
(3) making contracts, or submitting bids for, or performing services
designed to prevent, control, or eliminate such infestations by- the use of/
insecticides, pesticides, rodenticidcs, fumigants, or allied chemicals or sub-
stances or mechanical devices.
(b) As used in this Act, "person" means an individual, firm, partner-
ship, corporation, association, or other organization, or any combination
thereof, or any type of business entity.
Board; members; chairman; bylaws; expenses; executive director
.Sec. 3. (a) The Texas Structural Pest Control Board is created. The
'•board is. composed, of seven ihembers, foyjtr.of whom", shall be ..appointed'.by
•the Governor with the advice and consent of th'e Senate for terms'of two
years. To be eligible for appointment, a person must have been engaged
in the business of structural pest control for at least five years. No two
members shall be representatives of the same business entity. In addition
to the appointed members, the board also consists of the Commissioner of
Agriculture, the Commissioner of Health, and the chairman of the De-
partment of Entomology at Texas A&M University, or their designated
representatives, who shall serve in ex officio capacity.
(b) The board shall elect a chairman from its appointed members and
shall .adopt bylaws governing the conduct of the board's affairs.
(c) Members serve without compensation but are .entitled to reimburse-
ment-for actual expenses incurred in carrying on the work of the board.
(d) The board shall appoint, an executive director who shall administer
the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations promulgated by the
board: The executive, director shall receive a salary as determined by the
board which shall be paid from funds available to fhe board.
Licensing standards; rules and regulations
Sec. 4. (a) The board shall develop standards and criteria for licens-
ing persons engaged in the business of structural pest control. The board
may require applicants to pass an examination demonstrating their com-
petence in the field in order to qualify for a license.
(b) The board shall promulgate rules and regulations governing the
methods and practices of structural pest control when it determines that
-------
Art* 135b—6 AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE Title 4
the public's health and welfare necessitates such regulations in order to
prevent adverse effects on human life and the environment. The rules.
and regulations relating to the use 'of economic poisons shall comply with
applicable federal standards governing the use of such substances.
Temporary license
Sec. 6. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), no person shall
engage in the business of structural pest control after the effective date
of this Act unless he meets the standards set by the board and possesses
a valid license issued by the board.
(b) A person who has engaged in the business of structural pest control
for a period of- two years next preceding the effective date qf this Act
may apply to the board within 90 days afler the effective date 'of this Act
and shall be issued a temporary license which- shall be valid for a period
not to exceed two years upon payment of the required fee and completion
of a temporary licensing form as prescribed by the board without further
qualifications or examination. All applicants under this subsection shall
furnish evidence substantiating their eligibility before a temporary license
may be granted.
Application forms; expiration and renewal; nontransferabllity
Sec. 6. (a) All applications for licenses shall be made on forms pre-
scribed and provided by the board, and each applicant shall furnish such
information as the board may require for its determination of the ap-
plicant's qualifications.
(b) All licenses issued by the board shall expire on March' 1 of each
calendar year and may be renewed by submitting an application to the
board and paying the required renewal fees.
(c) A license issued by the board is not transferable..
Fees
Sec. 7. (a) An applicant for an initial or renewal license shall 'ac-
company his application with a fee of $50 for each place of business located
in the State and a fee of between $5 and $15, as determined by the board,
for each employee of the applicant who is engaged in structural pest con-
trol services. This is not to apply to those locations serving only as answer-
ing services for a licensed business.
(b) A licensee whose license has been lost or destroyed shall be issued
a duplicate license after application therefor and the payment of a fee
of $10.
Disposition of fees
Sec. 8. The proceeds from the collection of the fees provided in this
Act shall be deposited in a special fund in the State Treasury to be known
as the Structural Pest Control Fund, and shall be used for the administra-
tion and enforcement of the provisions of this Act. No expense incurred
in implementing the provisions of this Act shall ever be a charge against
the general revenue funds of the State of. Texas. Any balance in the
special fund at the end of each State fiscal bicnnium in excess of ap-
propriations out of that fund for the succeeding biennium shall be trans-
ferred to the general revenue fund. All money deposited in the Structural
Pest Control Fund is hereby appropriated to the board for the purpose of
carrying out the'provisions of this Act for the fiscal biennium ending
August 31, .1973.
License suspension, revocation and refusal; appeal
Sec. 9. (a) The board, after notice and a hearing, may suspend or
revoke a license, refuse to examine an applicant, refuse to issue a license,
or refuse to renew a license when it finds that the applicant or licensee
has substantially failed to comply with the standards and rules and reg-
ulations established by the board.
6*
-------
Title 4 AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE Art. 164
(b) An applicant or licensee may appeal from an order of the board
by an action in the district court in which he resides or in the district court
of Travis County, and the trial shall be de novo as in the case of an appeal
from a justice court to a county court.
Injunction
Sec. 10. The board may request the Attorney General to bring suit
to enjoin a person from engaging in the business of structural pest con-
trol without a license.
Exceptions
. Sec. 11. The provisions of this Act shall not apply to nor shall the
following persons be deemed to be engaging in the business of structural
pest control:
(1) an officer or employee of a governmental or educational agency who
performs pest control services as part of his duties of employment;
'2) a person or his regular employee who performs pest control work
upon property which he owns, leases, or rents;
(3) an employee of a person licensed to engage in the business of
structural pest control; and
(4) a person or his employee who is engaged in the business of ag-
riculture or aerial application or custom application of pesticides to ag-
ricultural lands.
Severabillty
Sec. 12. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any
person or circumstances is held, invalid, such invalidity shall not affect
other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect with-
out the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of
this Act are declared to be severable.
Acts 1971, 62nd Leg., p. 2363, ch. 726, eff. Aug. 30, 1971.
Title of Aet: ability: and declaring an emergency.
An Act relating to the creation of the Acts 1971. 62nd Leg., p. 2363. ch. 726.
Structural Peat Control Board and pro- Law Review Commentaries
vlding for the licensing and regulation of Pesticide pollution. 48 Texas L.Rev. 1130
persons engaged in the business of struc- (1970).
tural pest control; providing for sever-
-------
ORDINANCE HO. 1't9B
AN ORDINANCE TO LICENSE AMD REGULATE PEST CONTROL OPERATORS IN THE CITY CF
GRAND PRAIRIEl MAKING IT UNLAWFUL TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF P£ST CCNJ
TROL WITHCUT OOTAINING A LICENSE FROM THE CITY CF GRAHO PRAIRIEl ESTAO-
LISUING REQUIREMENTS FOR ODTAIHING A PEST CC.'JTROL OPERATOR'S LICEHSEi PRO*
VIOING FOR PAYMENT CF A LICENSE FEEl EXCEPTING CERTAIN PERSONS OR FIRMS
FROM THE OPERATION HERECFj PROVIDING FOR THE REVOCATION OF SUCH LICENSE;
AND FOR AN APPEAL FRCM SUCH REVOCATION! PROVIDING THAT PEST CCHTROL CP-
ERATORS IN THE CITY SHALL COMPLY WITH THIS ORDINANCE WITHIN SIXTY (60)
DAYS FROM ITS ENACTMENTi PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION HEREOFi DECLAR-
ING THE PROVISIC.MS CONTAINED HEREIN TO OE SEVERABLEj PROVIDING FOR PUOLI-
CATION) AND PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL TAKE EFFECT FROM AND AFTER
FIVE (5) DAYS AFTER SUCH PUBLICATION.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE .CITY COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS»
SECTION 1
IT SHALL HEREAFTER OE UNLAWFUL FOR AHY PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION TO ENCAGE
IN THE DUSINESS OF "PEST CONTROL OPERATOR" AS THAT TERM 1$ HEREINAFTER OE-
FINED, WITHOUT HAVING A VALID AND UHEXPIRC0 LICENSE TO 00 $0 ISSUED UIIOER THE
TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE.
SECTION 2
DEFINITIONS
(A) "PesT CONTROL OPERATOR" SHALL MEAN AHY PERSON, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION,
FIRM, OR ASSOCIATION THAT ENGAGES IN OR CONTROLS THE BUS(HESS OF OS ING OR
EMPLOYING INSECTICIDES, RODENT 1C IDES, FUHIGANTS, FUNGICIDES, OR OTHER SUB-
STANCES FOR THE CONTROL OR DESTRUCTION OF INSECTS. VERMIN, RODEHTSr TERMITES,
FU1ICI Oft OTHER SIXILA.7 MTJT5 |H OUILCIKG, DUELLING liCUSC:, AND ABOUT THE
GROUNDS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO BUILDINGS AND DWELLING HOUSES.
(a) "APPLICANT" SHALL MEAN ANY PERSON, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, FIRM, OR
ASSOCIATION THAT APPLIES TO THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE FOR A PEST CONTROL
CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE OR A PEST CONTROL OPERATOR'S LICENSE.
(c) "SERVICE EMPLOYEE" SHALL MEAN ANY PERSON WHO ACTUALLY PERFORMS UNDER
THE SUPERVISION AHO CONTROL OF A LICENSED PEST CONTROL OPERATOR THE SERVICE CF
APPLYING INSECTICIDES, ROOCNTICIDES, FUHICAHTS, ANO FUNGICIDES AT THE RESIDENCE
OR PLACE OF OUSINESS OF A CUSTOMER, AHO WHO IS A BONA FIDE EMPLOYEE CF SUCH
PEST CONTROL OPERATOR OR CONTRACTOR.
(0) "LICENSEE" SHALL MEAN ANY PERSON, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, FIRM, OR .
ASSOCIATION THAT HOLDS A VALID PEST CONTROL OPERATOR'S OR PEST CONTROL CON-
TRACTOR'S LICENSE ISSUED DY THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE UNDER THIS OROIHAHCE.
(E) "DOHA FIDE EMPLOYEE" OR "EMPLOYEE" SHALL MCAH ANY PERSON WHO WORKS FOR
A SALARY OR WAGES IN THE SERVICE OF A LICENSED PEST CONTROL OPERATOR OR CON-
TRACTOR AHO WHOSE PHYSICAL CONDUCT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS SERVICES IS CON"
TROLLED DY THE PEST CONTROL OPERATOR.
(F) "INSECTicIDES" SHALL MEAN AMY SUOSTANCC USED FOR THE DESTRUCTION OR CON-
TROL OF INSECTS OR SIMILAR PESTS WHICH IS HOT A FUKIGANT.
(c) "ROOEHTICIOE" SHALL MEAN ANY SUOSTANCC USED FOR THE DESTRUCTION OR CON-
YfiOl OF RODENTS W:.|CH IS HOT A FUMICAMI,
(l() "FUMIGANT" SHALL MEAN AHY SUOSTAMCE WHICH DY ITSELF OR IN C OHO I HAT I Oil
WITH AHY OTHER SUOSTA*UCC EMITS OR HAY OE MADE TO EMIT GASSES, FUI1ES, OR VAPORS.
OAHCCROUS OR IHJUfllOUS TO HUMAN OE1HGS, UldCII IS USCO FOR THE PURPOSES OF CON-
TROLLING THC INCREASE Of OR DESTROYING INSECTS, ROOCNTJ, VERMIN, OR ANY OTHER
* I HI L Aft POSTS.
-------
(l) "FUUCICIDC" SHALL MCAH ANY JUflSTANCC THAT DESTROY* TUHCI OR INHIBITS
THE GROWTH Of THC SPORES OR HYPHA,
sea i ON 3
APPLICATIOM FCft LICENSE - PEST- CONTROL OPERATOR
ANY INDIVIDUAL DCStRINC TO WORK AS A PCST CONTROL OPCRATOR SHALL MIC WITH
THC DIRCCTOR op PUBLIC HEALTH or THC CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE A WRITTCH APPLICA-
TION FOR A LICCKSC. SUCH APPLICATION SHALL STATE THC NAME, ACE, AND AOORCSS
OF THE APPLICANT, AND SMALL CONTAIN A STATEMENT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
CSOlt/AUCE HAVE OCCN READ OY THC APPLICANT AND THAT HE AGREES TO COMPLY WITH
ALL PROVISIONS CONTAINED HEWE Ml AND WITH ALL ORDINANCES OF THC CITY OF GRAND
PRAIRIE PERTAINING TO PCST CONTROL. THE FOLLOWING QUALIFICATIONS AND CONDI-
TIONS SHALL APPLY TO PEST CONTROL OPERATORS AND THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES TO
SUCH OPERATORS IN THC CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE.
(A) APPLICANT SHALL HAVE, OEFORE LICENSE WILL DC ISSUED, AND MAINTAIN, FOR
SO LONG AS HE HOLDS A LICENSE, A POLICY OF PUOLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE COVER-
ING PROPERTY DAMAGE OF $50,000.00 DOLLARS AND PERSONAL INJURY OF $100,000.00
DOLLARS WRITTEN DY AN INSURANCE COMPANY AUTHORIZED TO 00 OUSINCSS IN THC STATE
OF TEXAS, IN A FORM SATISFACTORY TO THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE. BEFORE LICENSE
WILL DE ISSUED, APPLICANT WILL FURNISH THE CITY HEALTH OFFICER A CERTIFICATE
OF INSURANCE SHCWING THAT INSURANCE AS HEREIN PROVIDED IS IM FORCE, SUCH CERTI-
FICATE SHALL PROVIDE THAT ADVANCE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF TCN J[10) DAYS WILL OE
GIVEN TO THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE IN THE EVENT THE INSURANCE CARRIER DESIRES
TO CANCEL THE POLICY EVIDENCED DY SUCH CERTIFICATE*
(o) APPLICANT SHALL HAVE, OEFORE LICENSE is ISSUED, A SURETY DONO^ EXECUTED
OY APPLICANT AS PRINCIPAL AND A CORPORATE SURETY COMPANY AS .SURETY, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1, CCO. 00 DOLLARS AND APPROVED OY THE CITY ATTORNEY AS TO FORM,
CONDITIONED UPON THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BY APPLICANT OF ALL CONTRACTS ENTER-
ED INTO OY KIM AS A PEST CONTROL OPERATOR IN THE' CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE) PRO-
VScr'c, Kstfcvcn, TK.VT !T SHALL BE J»FEMED SUFFICIENT THAT »UCH nono SHALL DECLARE
ITSELF. EFFECTIVE AS TO EACH SUCH CONTRACT ONLY FOR A PERIOD OF CUE (1) YEAR
FROM THE DATE THE WORK CONNECTED WITH EACH SUCH CONTRACT IS COMPLETED. SUCH
BONO SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CITY HEALTH CFFICER AND SHALL PROVIDE THAT IT HAY
BE CANCELLED ONLY UPON TEN (10) DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CITY.
(c) APPLICANT SHALL HAVE AN ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT BUSINESS ADDRESS AND
TELEPHONE IIUMOER III THC COUNTY OF DALLAS OR TARRAHT.
(o) C/.CH APPLICANT SHALL STATE WHETHER OR NOT HE, OR ANY PARTNERSHIP IN WHICH
HE HAS DEEII A PARTNER, OR ANY CORPORATION IN WHICH HE HAS BEEN AN OFFICER OR
DIRECTOR, HAS EVER OEEH. REFUSED A LICENSE TO OPERATE AS A PCST CONTROL OPERATOR
OR HAS HAD A LICENSE REVOKED OR SUSPENDED OY ANY STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
FULL DETAILS OF ANY SUCH REFUSAL OR REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF LICENSE MUST
OE GIVEN.
(c) APPLICANTS FOR A LICENSE AS A PEST CONTROL OPERATOR SHALL FILE WITH THE
APPLICATION AN AFFIDAVIT SETTING FORTH THE NAMES OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO
ARE OWNERS OF THE BUSINESS OR WHO ARE THE OFFICERS OF THC FIRM, AND THE HAKE
AIID ADDRESS OF THE PCRSOH WHO SHALL oe RESPONSIOLC FOR THE BUSINESS IN THE
Cf.Y OF GRAND PRAIRIE AS WELL AS THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO SHALL HAVE GENERAL
SUPERVISION OF THC BUSINESS IN THC CITY. NOTICE IN WRITING OF ANY CHANGE IN
SUCH OWNERSHIP, PERSONS OR OPCRATORS SHALL DC C.IVEM THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE
WITHIN FIVE (D DAYS AFTER SUCH CHANCE.
(F) SUCH PERMIT SHALL HOT DC TRAHSFCflAOLC.
EACH APPLICATION SHALL INCLUDE A SIGHED AND SCALED CERTIFICATE OF A NOTARY
PUOLIC, on OTHER orriccn AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO ADMINISTER OATHS, CERTIFYING THAT
APPLICANT PERSONALLY APPCARCD OCFORC SUCH OFFICER, AND AFTCR PC ING OULY SHORN,
APPLICANT DCCLARCO THAT HC SIGNED SUCH APPLICATION, AND THAT THC STATEMENTS CON-
TAINED THEME IN ARC TRUE.
-------
SECT I Oil **
ISSUANCE OF LtCniSE - EXPIRATION AMD REHEWAl - FEES
UPON DtTCnMllllUC THAT THE APPLICANT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE,
THE DinccTon op Puouc HCALTII SHALL so iiorirv THE DIRECTOR or THE DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE AND TAXATIOH WHO SHALL ISSUE THE" APPROPRIATE LICENSE UPON RECEIPT
OF $10,00 DOLLARS IN PAYMENT Of THE COST OF AOMIHISTRATION HEREOF* EACH LIC«-
CHSE SHALL DE EFFECTIVE FOR ONE (1) TEAR FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE. ANY LICENSEE
HOLDING A LICENSE WHICH HAS HOT BEEN REVOKED, OR IS NOT UHpER SUSPENSION, HAY
ODTA'IN A RENEWED LICENSE EACH YEAR OY MAKING APPLICATION AS PROVIDED ADOVE AND
UPON PAYMENT OF $10.00 DOLLARS AS A RENEWAL- FEE,
SECTION 5
EXCEPT1 QMS
THE USE OF IHSCCTIDICES, RODENTICIOES, FUHIGAIITS, FUNGICIDES, OR OTHER SUO-
STAIICES FOR T«E CONTROL OR DESTRUCTION OF INSECTS, VERMIN, RODENTS, TERMITES
OR OTHER SIMILAR PESTS BY PERSONS, ASSOCIAT1011, OR CORPORATION NOT HAVING A
LICENSE SHALL NOT DE IN VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IF SUCH USE IS ONE THAT
IS SET OUT IK (1) THROUGH (3) AS FOLLOWS!
(1) BY A SERVICE EMPLOYEE, AS HEREIN OEFINEp, DOING WORK UNDER THE DIR-
ECTION AND SUPERVISION OF HIS EMPLOYER WHO IS A LICENSEE, AS HEREIN DEFINED)
(2) BY AM AGENCY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, STATE OF TEXAS, COUNTY OF
DALLAS AND TARRAHT, OR THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE, ENGAGED IN ANY WORK OF. RODENT
OR INSECT CONTROL OR EXTERMINATION, OR ANY PERSON EMPLOYED IN ANY SUCH AGENCY
OR DY SUCH GOVERNMENTS WHEN SUCH WORK-IS DEING DONE DY SUCH EMPLOYEE AS A PART
OF HIS DUTIES AS AH EMPLOYEE OF SUCH .AGENCY OR GOVERNMENTS* THIS EXEMPTION
SHALL. NOT LXTttlD TO ANY WOKK DONE BY ANY EMPLOYEE Cr SUCK AGCKCV OR CCVCRr.'f.E.'JT
SEPARATE AND APART FROM HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES OR EMPLOYMENT}
(3) BY ANY PERSON IN A BUILDING OR OH PREMISES OWNED OR OCCUPIED BY HIM
AS HIS HOME OR BUSINESS.
SECTION 6
REVOCATION CF LICEMSE
ANY LICENSE MAY DE DECLARED REVOKED OR SUSPENDED DY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
HEALTH OF THE CITY CF GRAND PRAIRIE UPON THE FINDING DY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
•HEALTH OF THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIEI
(A) OF A VIOLATION OH THE PART OF THE LICENSEE OR ANY ORDINANCE, RULE,
OR REGULATION OF THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE GOVERNING THE USE OF INSECTICIDE,
ROOEIJTICIOES, FUHICAHTS, FUNGICIDES, OR SIMILAR SUBSTANCES) OR
(o) FOR FAILURE OF THE LICCNSC HOLDER TO PAY THE LICENSE FEE OR RENEWAL
FEE} OR
(c) FOR FAILURE OF LICENSEE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT FINANCIAL RESPONSIBIL-
ITY AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 3 OF THIS ORDINANCE) OR
(D) FOR FAILURE TO PAY A-FINE ASSESSED UNDER ANY ORDINANCE OY THE CORPOR-
ATION COURT OF GRAND PRAIRIE WITHIN TEH (10) DAYS AFTER SAID JUDGMENT OF CONVICT
1011 DCCOHCS FINALJ OR
(c) UPON CONVICTION OF LICENSEE OF A CRIME OR OFFENSE OF THE GRADE OF FELOII
OR ANY OFFENSE INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE) OR
-------
PfiAinic, rnoor or SUCH PUDLICATIOH TO DC HADE OY AN AFFIDAVIT DULY CXCCUTCO
DY THE PUOUSIICn or SAID NEWSPAPER AIIO FILED WITH THE ClTT SECRETARY, AMD
SHALL TAKE EFFECT AND OE IN FORCE FRON AHO AFTER FIVE (5) DAYS AFTER PUO-
L 1C AT I Oil HEREOF.
PASSED AND APPROVED OY .THE CITY COMHISSIOM OF THE CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE;
TEXAS,' THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEH0ER, A. 0* 1962*
•»/ 'C« P» V/ACCOHER
ATTESTI
S/ HELPA FLACC
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORMs
S/ "JERRY D. BRCHHLOW
MAYOR, CITY or GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS
• C:TY A
* U. 3. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1972 721-961/412
------- |