United States Prevention, Pesticides, EPA734-R-92-012
Environmental Protection And Toxic Substances September 1992
Agency (H-7507C)
oEPA State Of The States
Report
Pesticide Storage, Disposal
And Transportation
•PrtnMd on paper that contains
at toast 50% racyctod OMT
-------
EPA 734-R-92-012
September 1992
State of the States Report:
Pesticide Storage, Disposal
and Transportation
•••••
Prepared by
Mitchell Systems Corporation
under
EPA Contract 68-D1-0124
for
Pesticide Management and Disposal Staff
Environmental Fate and Effects Division (H-7507C)
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Disclaimer
The material in this report has been subject to Agency technical and
policy review. The views expressed in the report do not necessarily reflect
those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Barbara Lounsbury, author of this report, for her
dedication, patience and noble efforts in researching and compiling this
report Thanks also to the many state agency personnel who provided
information and comments on this report. Special acknowledgement is given
to the State-FTFRA Issues and Research Evaluation Group (SFIREG) for
support on this report.
-------
Note to Readers
This report was prepared by Mitchell Systems Corporation, a contractor to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The purpose of the report is to provide information
to EPA on state activities in the areas of pesticide storage, disposal and transportation to support
federal regulations that are being developed;
The research for this report began in 1989 and ended in March 1991. Consequently, some
of the information may be outdated. The report was reviewed by EPA, and not by other federal
agencies, states, or industry and professional organizations familiar with the particular
components of information in the report Therefore, there is concern the information contained
in the report may not be presented accurately and equitably.
In weighing these concerns, the balance tipped toward publishing the report, as it contains
useful information that should be made available to those who can benefit from it
EPA intends to revise and update the information in this report periodically, based solely
on voluntarily submitted written comments from readers.
To facilitate the updating process and to maximize accuracy, please provide written
comments to be included verbatim. The comments should be in a format and length consistent
with this report Comments on diskette (preferably in WordPerfect 5.1) are welcome. In addition,
EPA would appreciate copies of relevant information, including statutes, regulations, policy
statements, reports or summaries of collection programs, studies, incident data, etc.
Please send all comments to:
Pesticide Management and Disposal Staff (H-7507Q
Office of Pesticide Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary xi
Chapter 1 Introduction 1-1
Chapter 2 History and Overview 2-1
2.1 Federal Pesticide Regulation 2-1
2.2 Federal/State Relationship 2-2
2.3 State Pesticide Laws 2-3
2.3.1 State Enforcement of the Label 2-3
2.3.2 General Authority Relating to Storage,
Disposal and Transportation 2-4
State Index 2-7
Endnotes 2-8
Chapter 3 Interjurisdictional Nature of State Authority 3-1
3.1 State Agencies Responsible for Pesticide Storage,
Disposal and Transportation 3-1
3.2 Multiplicity of State Statutes 3-2
State Index 3-6
Endnotes 3-7
Chapter 4 State Storage Regulations 4-1
4.1 Environmental Problems of Pesticide Storage 4-1
4.2 Federal Storage Guidelines: 40 CFR Part 165 4-1
4.3 Label Statements on Storage 4-2
4.4 State Bulk Storage Regulations 4-3
4.5 Dealer Warehouse and Applicator Storage Regulations 4-7
4.6 Retail Establishment Regulations 4-14
4.7 Other Statutory Authority Affecting Design or
Operation of Storage Facilities 4-16
4.7.1 Section 319, Non-Point Source Pollution and Groundwater
Protection Statutes 4-16
4.7.2 Other State Water Quality Laws 4-17
-------
4.7.3 State and Local Building and Fire Codes, Local Zoning
Ordinances 4-18
4.7.4 Underground and Aboveground Storage Tank Regulations 4-22
4.7.5 EPCRA and Similar Right-to-Know Legislation 4-23
4.7.6 OSHA -..;-. 4-26
State Index 4-27
Endnotes 4-28
Chapter 5 State Disposal Regulations 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 FEFRA Pesticide Disposal Regulations Under 40 CFR Part 165 5-1
5.3 Categories of Pesticide Materials That May Require Disposal 5-3
5.3.1 Pesticide Materials 5-3
5.3.2 Illegal or Unwanted 5-3
5.4 FIFRA Pesticide Label Statements on Pesticide and Container Disposal
Under 40 CFR Part 156 5-4
5.4.1 Label Statements on Pesticide Waste Disposal 5-5
5.4.2 Label Statements on Pesticide Container Disposal 5-6
5.5 State Definitions of Waste Pesticides and Residue Removal Procedures . . 5-6
5.5.1 State Definitions of Waste Pesticides 5-6
5.5.2 State Definitions of Residue Removal Procedures 5-7
5.6 State Regulations on Methods of Disposal 5-8
5.6.1 State Pesticide Statute References to State Solid and Hazardous
Waste Statutes 5-8
5.6.2 Methods of Pesticide Waste Disposal as Municipal Solid Waste . . 5-8
5.6.2.1 Landfilling 5-8
5.6.2.2 Incineration 5-13
5.6.2.3 Open Burning 5-14
5.6.2.4 Land Application 5-15
5.6.2.5 Open Dumping 5-16
5.6.2.6 Burial 5-17
5.6.3 Disposal in Wastewater Treatment Systems 5-23
5.7 State Authority for Disposal of Suspended, Canceled, Unregistered or
Otherwise Misbranded Pesticides 5-26
-------
5.8 Pesticides as Hazardous Waste 5-27
5.8.1 General Regulatory Scheme 5-27
5.8.2 State Definitions of Hazardous Waste 5-30
5.9 Waste Pesticide Collection Programs :...... 5-35
5.10 Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programs 5-58
State Index 5-60
Endnotes 5-62
Chapter 6 Alternatives To Disposal 6-1
6.1 Collection and Application of Rinsates and Washes 6-1
6.1.1 Groundwater Contamination: Improper Mixing, Loading,
Rinsing and Washing 6-1
6.1.2 Label Statements on Use of Rinsates and Washes 6-2
6.1.3 State Regulations Governing Use of Rinsates and Washes 6-3
6.1.4 State Regulations Governing Containment at
Mixing/Loading, Washing and Rinsing Sites 6-4
6.2 Pesticide Exchanges Among Users 6-7
6.3 Refilling, Reusing and Recycling Containers 6-8
6.3.1 Federal and State Regulations Governing Refilling .'. 6-8
6.3.2 State Regulations Governing Reuse and Recycling 6-12
6.3.3 Label Statements on Reuse and Recycling 6-14
6.3.4 Small Volume Returnable Containers 6-15
6.4 Container Collection Programs 6-15
6.4.1 General Elements 6-15
6.4.2 Collection Programs Offered by Registrants, Distributors, Dealers
and Commercial Applicators 6-30
6.5 State Solid Waste Reduction Programs 6-31
State Index 6-34
Endnotes 6-36
Chapter 7 Miscellaneous Regulations Affecting Storage and Disposal 7-1
7.1 Container and Equipment Design and Operation Regulations 7-1
7.2 Regulations Addressing Product Degradation 7-2
-------
7.3 Certification and Training 7-4
7.4 Recordkeeping Requirements 7-4
7.4.1 Reporting by Registrants 7-4
7.4.2 Recordkeeping and Reporting by Pesticide Dealers 7-5
7.43 Recordkeeping by Applicators ......;. 7-6
7.4.4 Miscellaneous Recordkeeping Relating to Disposal 7-7
7.5 Inspections 7-9
7.6 Spill Reporting and Cleanup Requirements 7-9
7.7 Liability and Insurance 7-10
State Index 7-12
Endnotes 7-13
Chapter 8 State Transportation Regulations 8-1
State Index 8-5
Endnotes 8-6
Chapter 9 Conclusion 9-1
Appendix 1 Acronyms A-l
Appendix 2 References A-2
Appendix 3 State Agencies A-10
Appendix 4 State Statutes and Regulations A-23
Appendix 5 State Bulk Containment Regulations A-31
Appendix 6 Container Residue Removal Procedures A-51
Appendix 7 State Open Burning Regulations A-60
-------
Table of Figures
Figures: ;.,,.; . ..-••••....
4-1 State Bulk Storage Regulations 4-4
4-2 State Warehouse and/or End User
Storage Requirements 4-8
4-3 State Application of EPCRA 4-24
5-1 Percent MSW Landfilled in Midwest 5-9
5-2 Midwest Region Landfill Capacity 5-10
5-3 Container Dump Site (photo) 5-18
5-4 Pesticide Container Burial 5-19
5-5 Discharge to Wastewater Treatment Systems 5-24
5-6 Containers Discarded in Field (photo) , 5-35
6-1 Containment Pad (photo) 6-5
6-2 Container Collection Program 6-17
6-3 Mobile Granulating Unit (photo) 6-24
6-4 Acceptable Containers (photo) 6-25
6-5 Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs 6-32
7-1 Recoidkeeping Regulations 7-1
Boxes:
2-A Use as a Regulating Authority 2-5
4-A Fire Incidents at Pesticide
Storage Facilities 4-19
4-B The BOCA Code 4-20
5-A Part 165: General Recommendation
for Disposal 5-2
5-B Hazardous Waste Landfill Accidents 5-9
5-C Montana Survey on Landfill Disposal 5-10
5-D Pesticide as Solid Waste 5-28
5-E Toxicity 5-31
5-F Dlegal Disposal Practices 5-36
5-G Minnesota Survey of Disposal Practices 5-38
6-A OCM Bulk Policy 6-10
6-B Landfill Container Disposal 6-26
-------
Executive Summary
Regulation of pesticide storage, disposal and transportation is a legal octopus with
tentacles in a variety of state agencies and environmental statutes. Regulation in these areas is
also fluid. Many states are developing regulatory approaches to pesticide-related issues; many
others are refining existing programs.
Regulation reflects only part of the system affecting pesticide use. Voluntary programs
organized by industry, state and consumer groups can tackle problems outside of legislation, as
can good business practices.
This report (1) analyzes state statutes and accompanying regulation affecting pesticide
storage, disposal and transportation; (2) briefly reviews state air pollution, water pollution and
waste disposal regulations as they affect pesticide storage, disposal and transportation, and (3)
discusses regulatory implementation issues in the states. A list of state agencies is provided in
Appendix 3.
The 1988 amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
authorized EPA to regulate the storage, disposal and transportation of pesticides, containers,
rinsates or other materials used to contain or collect excess or spilled pesticides. In keeping with
the purposes of the 40 CFR Part 165 regulations that will partially implement FIFRA section 19,
this report examines states' regulations and programs related to:
• encouraging refillable and recyclable containers;
• minimizing the number and severity of spills;
• ensuring appropriate storage, wherever it occurs;
• minimizing the volume of unused and unusable pesticides needing disposal;
• minimizing the volume of pesticide tank mixes, rinsates and equipment washing
needing disposal;
• regulating pesticide disposal to ensure that the most environmentally sound
methods are followed; and
• maintaining the maximum human safety and environmental health that is
practicable and cost-effective while accomplishing waste minimization.
XI
-------
The State of the States Report is designed to:
• highlight state creativity in finding ways to approach the problems of pesticide
storage, disposal and transportation and container management;
• facilitate information exchange among states and the regulated community so they
may improve their own programs; and
• assist EPA in gauging the impact of current and future pesticide management
policies and regulations.
In most states, pesticide storage, disposal and transportation is governed by an agriculture
department or a branch of the land grant university. Other agencies regulate solid and hazardous
waste disposal, and pesticide regulations may be set by agencies regulating air and water
pollution, transportation, occupational safety and health, and community right-to-know provisions.
FIFRA controls states' abilities to regulate pesticides by allowing them to exert authority
over pesticide storage, disposal and transportation. However, FIFRA restricts a state's authority
to impose regulations that are in addition to or different from federal regulations in two areas,
labeling and packaging, that are critical for proper storage, disposal and transportation of
pesticides.
States do not have authority to change a pesticide label. The label is the primary means
of conveying information to the user, and most state enforcement activity depends on label
interpretation. Many states have adopted legislation prohibiting certain activities not approved
on the label.
Most states have not implemented storage, disposal and transportation regulations, despite
the authority granted them by FIFRA, for several reasons. Some states hesitate to develop
regulations while EPA is doing so, for fear that the new federal regulations might conflict with
any the state might develop. Also, only recently have improper storage and disposal been
recognized as potential sources of environmental contamination. Finally, the complexities of the
various environmental statutes can raise difficult questions over agency jurisdiction and legality.
Storage
Proper storage is essential to maintaining product and container integrity and protecting
non-pesticidal products such as feed, food and products for human use from contamination. To
lessen the potential for adverse consequences to human health and the environment, EPA has
addressed pesticide storage in two ways: through 40 CFR Part 165 guidelines and through
required label statements. Most states lack regulations that are more stringent than federal
requirements on pesticide storage, and rely primarily on enforcement of label requirements.
Pending the development of more comprehensive federal or state regulations, several states
consider the Part 165 guidelines to be the state's storage guidelines for enforcement
xii
-------
Some states control dealer warehouses, retail sales areas and/or end-user storage through
regulations that, generally, reiterate selected label statements. States also may offer non-
regulatory guidelines and advice for proper storage.
Local zoning ordinances and building codes, the federal Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) regulations, and underground storage tank regulations also can affect the
location, design and operation of storage facilities.
Among the most common state regulations for pesticide storage are those governing bulk
quantities of pesticides. Regulations can vary in scope and stringency, from comprehensive to
relatively minimal. Generally, comprehensive state bulk storage regulations govern storage tanks,
operational area (mixing/loading and washing/rinsing) containment, spill response, recordkeeping
and rinsate and precipitation accumulation management These regulations also may address
facility location, facility abandonment and notification to the state of various activities. Such
regulations prohibit underground storage of pesticides and rinsates.
Some states authorize bulk sales of pesticides. Other states have adopted bulk storage
regulations that imply the acceptability of repackaging pesticides into refillable containers.
EPA has amended its 1977 bulk pesticide enforcement policy to allow repackaging of any
quantity of pesticides into refillable containers under certain conditions, including minimum
container size limits and cleaning provisions. With a handful of exceptions, state regulations are
silent on the issue of transferring less than bulk quantities, neither explicitly endorsing nor
prohibiting it
Disposal
Regulations pertaining to disposal of pesticides and their containers come under FIFRA,
solid waste laws and hazardous waste laws of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). In 40 CFR Part 165, EPA set out recommended procedures for disposing of
registered pesticides and their containers and provisions for acceptance by the agency of
pesticides that have been suspended and canceled by EPA. These general recommendations
cover use, disposal and/or recycling of the pesticide, its rinsates, residues, other related wastes
and containers.
In 40 CFR Part 156, EPA requires that the label of a pesticide product bear directions for
disposal of the pesticide and its container. Those requirements may be satisfied if certain label
statements instruct the user on pesticide residue removal procedures and container disposal.
Guidance documents have set out label language for various pesticide products and container
types; many labels incorporate this language nearly verbatim.
Xlll
-------
Fewer than half of the states define pesticide disposal methods within the state's pesticide
regulations. Of those states that do mention disposal methods, several adopt by reference the
state's solid and hazardous waste regulations.
Disposal of pesticide-containing wastes that are designated acutely hazardous must comply
with RCRA hazardous waste rules. Certain states consider all pesticide wastes as hazardous
wastes.
Landfilling of pesticide containers is the most common form of disposal. However, more
and more states' solid waste management strategies are beginning to rank landfilling as the least
desirable option. Concern for worker safety, groundwater contamination and potential liability
for release of hazardous substances have contributed to this reversal in a long-standing practice.
Other disposal methods reported by states include:
• open burning of empty containers. This is a common method used to dispose of
paper bags and plastic containers. The legal status of open burning as a means
of disposal for fanners varies among the states.
• open dumping, or throwing waste in an open area and leaving it uncovered. This
practice is illegal in all states and prohibited by EPA's Part 165 guidelines.
Nevertheless, states continue to find open dump sites for pesticide wastes in
ditches, sinkholes, gravel pits and other places.
• burial. In contrast to open dumping, burial is placing pesticide wastes under soil
cover in a site that does not qualify as a sanitary landfill. It was, and still is, a
common method of container disposal on farms. Most labels no longer
specifically authorize container burial.
Driven by the discovery of environmental contamination from open dumping, burial and
open burning of containers; the scarcity of landfill space; and the prospect of conserving
resources through recycling, states and the agrichemical industry in the last several years have
initiated more than a dozen container collection programs. Nearly every state has held a
household hazardous waste collection program that included pesticides. States with permanent
facilities, and several other states, have adopted separate regulations under the state solid and
hazardous programs. The programs have been funded by federal grants, state grants, increases
in refuse collection fees, tipping fees at landfills, general tax revenues and tax revenues from
sewer and stormwater utilities.
Improper pesticide handling and disposal at mixer/loader, rinsing and washing sites have
caused soil, surface and groundwater contamination. The contamination derives from large
accidental spills, chronic day-to-day uncontained spillage, inadequate cleaning of spray equipment
or leaking spray equipment and inappropriate disposal of excess spray mix and container rinsates.
These problems have been noted around the country.
xiv
-------
States have addressed potential groundwater contamination from rinsates and washes by
encouraging their reuse, rather than disposal.
Through the organizational efforts of state agencies, county extension services and
industry groups, 11 states have conducted or are planning to conduct pilot container collection
programs or statewide collection programs. In addition, 33 states have enacted comprehensive
waste reduction and recycling programs that require detailed statewide recycling plans and/or
separation of recyclables and contain one or more provisions to stimulate recycling.
Transportation
Most states have a general prohibition of unsafe transportation and provide authority to
the lead pesticide agency to regulate more specifically. Like EPA, which generally defers to
federal Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations on transportation, state pesticide agencies
generally defer to their state equivalents of DOT. Occasionally, state pesticide regulations or
statutes incorporate DOT regulations by reference.
A handful of states have adopted pesticide regulations to minimize the danger of accidents
and applicator exposure during transportation. Several states include provisions on the
transportation of bulk pesticides with bulk storage regulations.
Conclusion
The scope of this report was ambitious. This is because the subject matter is complex,
and the state and federal regulatory landscape is both intertwined and changing rapidly at all
layers of government
Just as the issues and activities this report chronicles are evolving, so, too, may the report
itself. Pending funding, EPA intends to revise and update the information in this report
periodically, based solely on voluntarily submitted written comments from readers. In that way
the State of the States Report will continue to be able to:
(a) highlight state creativity in finding ways to approach the problems of pesticide
waste minimization, storage, disposal, transportation and container management;
(b) facilitate information exchange among states and the regulated community so they
may improve their own programs; and
(c) assist EPA in gauging the impact of current and future pesticide management
policies and regulations.
xv
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
In 1988, Congress amended section 19(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA or the Act), expanding the authority of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the storage, disposal and transportation of pesticides. In
addition to the authority to require data on storage and disposal methods, EPA was explicitly
authorized to establish labeling requirements for storage, disposal and transportation of the
pesticide and its container.
To lessen the problems associated with pesticide container disposal, the amendments
required EPA to conduct a study of options to encourage or mandate:
(a) the return, refill and reuse of pesticide containers;
(b) the development and use of pesticide formulations that facilitate the removal of
pesticide residues from containers; and
(c) the use of bulk storage facilities to reduce the number of pesticide containers
requiring disposal
The 1988 amendments (FIFRA '88) also authorized EPA to regulate the storage, disposal
and transportation of containers, rinsates or other materials used to contain or collect excess or
spilled pesticides. To promote the safe storage and disposal of pesticides, EPA was directed to
issue, by December 1991, regulations for pesticide container design and residue removal.
In keeping with the purposes of the proposed regulations that will partially implement
section 19, this report examines states' regulations and programs related to:
(a) encouraging refillable and recyclable pesticide containers;
(b) minimizing the number and severity of pesticide spills;
(c) ensuring appropriate storage, wherever it occurs;
(d) minimizing the volume of unused pesticides needing disposal;
(e) minimizing the volume of pesticide mixes, rinsates and equipment washings
needing disposal;
(f) regulating pesticide disposal to ensure that the most environmentally sound
methods are followed; and
1-1
-------
(g) maintaining the maximum human safety and environmental health that is
practicable and cost-effective while accomplishing waste minimization.
This report is designed to:
(a) highlight state creativity in' finding ways to approach the problems of pesticide
waste minimization, storage, disposal and transportation and container
management;
(b) facilitate information exchange among states and the regulated community so they
may improve their own programs; and
(c) assist EPA in gauging the impact of current and future pesticide management
policies and regulations.
1-2
-------
Chapter 2
History and Overview
2.1 Federal Pesticide Regulation
Pesticides for farm use were first manufactured in 1908. Shortly thereafter, fanners began
to call for protection from quack products. The first federal pesticide statute, the Insecticide Act
of 1910, followed. This statute initiated the labeling orientation of federal law, which still
prevails, by forbidding the manufacture or shipment of adulterated or misbranded products.1
In 1947, the federal statute was repealed and replaced by FIFRA. For the first time, the
federal government obtained power to require registration of all products prior to marketing and
power to cancel and suspend registrations.2 Labeling was expanded to include all written
material accompanying the product and to require directions for use sufficient to protect the
public, vertebrate animals, vegetation and useful invertebrate animals.
In 1970, EPA was created and the pesticide registration functions of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) were transferred to EPA. Congress did not significantly amend FTFRA
again until passing the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972. This act elaborated
on the earlier registration provisions, establishing use classifications (restricted or general) and
certification requirements for applicators and providing for experimental use permits, section 18
emergency exemptions and section 24 special local needs registrations. In FEFRA section 19,
EPA obtained authority to regulate the disposal of pesticide containers and banned pesticides.
In 1974, EPA promulgated, in 40 CFR Part 165, guidelines for storage and disposal
operations for canceled products. In 1975, Congress again amended FIFRA to allow
self-certification of private applicators. Through labeling regulations issued in 1975, EPA
required the label to include "specific directions concerning the storage and disposal of the
pesticide and its container, meeting the requirements of 40 CFR Part 165."3 In 1978
amendments, Congress expanded the definition of "use inconsistent with the label" to its current
status, required EPA to address unused pesticides in cancellation notifications and elaborated
upon the federal/state relationship, giving states primacy in enforcement In March 1983, EPA
first published a notice implementing this label authority, PR Notice 83-3.
FIFRA '88 revised storage and disposal issues to give EPA additional, broad authority
pertaining to both registered pesticides and those that have been suspended or canceled.
Among EPA's new authorities, outlined in FIFRA section 19, are the powers to:
(a) require pesticide registrants or registration applicants to submit or cite information
on methods for safely storing and disposing of excess pesticide;
(b) require that pesticide labels contain requirements and procedures for transporting,
storing and disposing of the pesticide, its container, any rinsate containing the
2-1
-------
pesticide or any other material used to contain or collect excess or spilled
quantities of the pesticide;
(c) regulate the storage, disposal and transportation of suspended or canceled
pesticides, their containers, rinsates or any other material used to contain or collect
-"" • excess or spilled quantities; and
(d) regulate pesticide container design to promote the safe storage and disposal of
pesticides, as well as establish procedures and standards for removing pesticides
from containers prior to disposal.
2.2 Federal/State Relationship
FIFRA explicitly allows states to exert broad authority over pesticide storage, disposal and
transportation. In general, a state may regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide
or device in the state, but only if and to the extent that the registration does not permit any sale
or use prohibited by the Act A state also may provide registration for additional uses of
federally registered pesticides to meet special local needs.4 However, FIFRA restricts a state's
authority to impose regulations that are in addition to or different from federal regulations in two
areas: labeling and packaging.3
Some state statutes express a preference for uniformity of federal and state regulations,
although FIFRA does not mandate it For example, Arizona's pesticide act provides that:
... to avoid confusion endangering the public health, which would result from
diverse requirements,. . . and to avoid increased costs to the public due to the
necessity of complying with such diverse requirements in the manufacture and sale
of such pesticides, it is desirable that there should be uniformity between the
requirements of the several states and the federal government relating to such
pesticides. ..'
Under FIFRA section 11, states may certify applicators to use federally restricted
products, as long as EPA approves die state certification and training plan. All states operate an
EPA-approved certification program, except Nebraska and Colorado. EPA conducts the
certification and training programs in Nebraska for all applicators and in Colorado for private
applicators. EPA also has approved a certification program for the Fort Berthold Tribe, the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and is working with other tribes
to develop certification programs.
FIFRA section 26 allows a state meeting federal standards to exercise primary
enforcement authority for violations of the Act All states except Wyoming and Nebraska have
sought and received this authority.
EPA provides federal funds for enforcement to states exercising this authority. Generally,
states provide nearly 70% of the funds for certification and enforcement programs and EPA
provides 30%. Federal enforcement funds were maintained at basically the same level from
2-2
-------
1978-88, while state funds increased. In 1989, EPA increased both its enforcement and
certification grants.7
2.3 State Pesticide Laws
23.1 State Enforcement of the Label
States do not have authority to change a pesticide label. The Georgia Department of
Agriculture recently wrote a letter to EPA on behalf of the State-FIFRA Issues Research and
Evaluation Group (SFIREG), emphasizing the critical role that pesticide labels play in state
enforcement of FIFRA:
... the label still remains the primary means of conveying information to the user
and most of our enforcement activity depends on label interpretations. If labels
are confusing, vague or misbranded, misuse may result; fanners may apply
pesticides to the wrong crops, they may not use the right protective clothing for
the desired use, they may improperly dispose of containers and rinsates, just to
mention a few of the more serious consequences.8
A representative statutory provision is the Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law,
section 14(b). This section makes it unlawful for applicators to recommend, use or supervise the
use of any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its EPA-approved labeling or
Indiana state registration. Colorado makes a similar statement in its Pesticide Application Act9
FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(g) states that it is unlawful to use a registered pesticide in a
manner inconsistent with its labeling. Under FIFRA section 2(ee), the following uses are
consistent with the label, unless the label specifically prohibits them:
(a) applying a pesticide at any dosage, concentration or frequency less than that
specified on the labeling;
(b) applying a pesticide against any target pest not specified on the labeling, if the
application is to the crop, animal or site specified on the labeling;
(c) employing any application method not prohibited by the labeling; or
(d) mixing pesticide or mixing a pesticide with fertilizer when such mixture is not
prohibited by the labeling.
North Carolina adopted the FIFRA language in its statutes.10
Texas also has adopted the FIFRA language, but has expanded the definition of
inconsistent use to include:
(a) tank mixing of pesticides or using application techniques or equipment prohibited
by the label;
2-3
-------
(b) failure to observe reentry intervals, preharvest intervals or worker protection
requirements; and
(c) improper storage or disposal of the pesticide or its containers.11
2.3.2 General Authority Relating to Storage, Disposal and Transportation
In a few states, law or regulation precludes state pesticide agencies from adopting
regulations any more stringent than those of EPA. For instance, Wyoming's Applicator
Certification Rules and Regulations provide that its rules and regulations cannot be more stringent
than any federal regulations.13 In West Virginia,13 a narrower restriction of state authority
provides that any written examinations required of private or commercial applicators may not be
more stringent than the requirements for such examination by the EPA.
Most states have not implemented storage, disposal and transportation authority in
regulatory form. Some states hesitate to develop regulations while EPA is doing so, for fear that
the federal regulations might conflict with any the state might develop. Also, only recently has
it been recognized that improper storage and disposal can cause environmental contamination.
Finally, there is significant confusion over agency jurisdiction and legality.
Some states regulate pesticide storage, disposal and transportation through their authority
to regulate "use," which may be defined in state statutes or regulations specifically to include
storage, disposal and transportation. For example, Montana defines "use" as:
Any act of handling or release of a pesticide or exposure of man or the
environment to a pesticide through acts, including but not limited to: application
of a pesticide, including mixing and loading and any required supervisory action
in or near the area of application; storage actions for pesticides and pesticide
containers; disposal action for pesticides and pesticide containers.
See box 2-A for a description of other state definitions of use.
2-4
-------
BOX 2-A
Use as a Regulating Authority
Some state definitions are tied to the label, for example:
Illinois14
Use means "any activity covered by the pesticide label including but not limited to
application of pesticide, mixing and loading, storage of pesticides or pesticide
containers, disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers and reentry into treated
sites or areas."
Oklahoma15
Use means "transportation, storage, mixing, application, safety, waste and container
disposal and any other specific instructions contained on the label and associated
labeling."
Vermont
Vermont's Pesticide Regulations, section I, define use as any act of handling or
releasing a pesticide or the exposure of man or the environment to a pesticide
through acts including:
(a) application, including mixing or loading of equipment and any required
supervisory action in or near the application areas;
(b) storage and disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers; and
(c) recommendation of pesticide applicators.
Other states with similar regulations include: Arizona,16 Hawaii17, Massachusetts
(for certifying and licensing applicators)18, Missouri19, Montana30, New
Jersey21, and Rhode Island,22.
The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO) adopted in 1973 two
model pesticide statutes for states: the Suggested State Pesticide Control Act and the Suggested
State Pesticide Use and Application Act
Section 6 of the Suggested Pesticide Control Act states it is unlawful to:
(a) handle, transport, store, display or distribute pesticides in a way that would
endanger people and their environment, food, feed or any other products that may
be transported, stored, displayed or distributed with the pesticides; and
2-5
-------
(b) dispose of or store any pesticides or pesticide containers in a way that injures
humans, vegetation, crops, livestock, wildlife or beneficial insects or pollutes any
water supply or waterway.
Section 21 of the Suggested Pesticide Use and Application Act similarly provided that no
one should transport, store or dispose of any pesticides or pesticide containers in a way that
injures humans, vegetation, crops, livestock, wildlife or beneficial insects or pollutes any
waterway to the point that it would harm any wildlife.
Most states, within a few years after AAPCO adopted the model codes, enacted variations
of this suggested legislation. These include the Tennessee Fungicide, Insecticide and Rodenticide
Act,23 the Alabama Pesticide Use and Application Act,24 Alaska Regulations,23 the New
Mexico Pesticide Control Act Mand the Delaware Pesticide Law.27
The model code language has been used to address situations where damage has or is
about to occur. For example, in New York state, the Department of Environmental Conservation,
Bureau of Health recently discovered high levels of atrazine in residential wells near an
agrichemicals dealership that mixed and loaded pesticides for custom applications. Using
statutory authority based on the AAPCO models, the department forced the dealership to move
to a remote site and install improved mixing/loading facilities.
The Maine Board of Pesticides Control recently used a similar criterion to take action
against a farmer who claimed that 38 gallons of Diquat had vanished from his unlocked barn.
He had not reported the alleged theft nor, he said, had he known of it until an inspector asked
for an explanation of the discrepancy between the dealer's sales records, the applicator's use
records and his inventory on hand.
The AAPCO model statutes also contain sections granting regulatory authority. Section
21 of the Suggested Pesticide Use and Application Act says a pesticide regulatory board may set
rules and regulations governing the storage, disposal and transportation of pesticides or pesticide
containers, as long as it considers EPA regulations. Similarly, section 10 of the Suggested
Pesticide Control Act allows a lead agency to regulate the safe handling, transportation, storage,
display, distribution and disposal of pesticides and their containers.
Some states have incorporated this language into their own regulations. For example,
Indiana28 has iiuAupoRucd the models into its Pesticide Use and Application Law. Missouri29
and Arkansas30 have followed suit with similar language.
2-6
-------
State Index
Alabama 2-6
Alaska 2-6
Arizona 2-2, 2-5, 2-6
Arkansas 2-6, 2-7
Colorado 2-2,2-3,2-7
Delaware 2-6, 2-7
Georgia 2-3,2-7
Hawaii 2-5,2-7
Illinois 2-5, 2-7
Indiana 2-3, 2-6, 2-7
Maine 2-6, 2-7
Massachusetts 2-5, 2-7
Missouri 2-5,2-6,2-7
Montana 2-4, 2-5, 2-7
Nebraska 2-2,2-7
New Jersey 2-5,2-7
New Mexico 2-6,2-7
New York 2-6,2-7
North Carolina 2-3,2-7
Oklahoma 2-5,2-7
Rhode Island 2-5,2-7
Tennessee 2-6, 2-7
Texas 2-3,2-4,2-7
Vermont 2-4,2-7
Virginia 2-4, 2-7
West Virginia 2-4,2-7
Wyoming 2-2,2-4,2-7
2-7
-------
Endnotes
1. Rogers, Environmental Law, Volume 3, at 32, et seq.
2. .This was the statute in place when the Environmental Defense Fund initiated the first
major suspension and cancellation battle, the DDT litigation, Environmental Defense Fund
v. Hardin, 428 F.2d 1093 (D.C. Or. 1970).
3. 40 CFR Part 156.10.
4. FIFRA section 24, 7 USC section 136v.
5. Ibid.
6. Section 3-344, Arizona Revised Statue.
7. AAPCO, Financial Survey of the Cooperative EPA and State Pesticide Regulatory and
Educational Programs, August 1989.
8. Letter from Georgia Department of Agriculture on behalf of SFIREG to Anne Lindsay,
EPA, March 14, 1990.
9. Colorado Pesticide Education Act, section 35-10-117.
10. North Carolina Pesticide Law of 1971, General Laws of North Carolina, section
143-460(38).
11. Texas Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Regulations, section 7.22.
12. Wyoming Department of Agriculture Regulations, Chapter XXVm, section 14.
13. The West Virginia Pesticide Use and Application Act of 1975, section 19-16B-4.
14. Illinois Pesticide Act, as amended, Chapter 5, section 804.
15. Oklahoma Pesticide Applicator Law, Title 2, Article 13, section 3-81 et seq., Oklahoma
Statutes.
16. Pesticide Control Statute, Arizona Revised Statutes, section 3-361.
17. Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Plant and Industry Division, Pesticide Regulations,
section 4-66-2.
18. Rules and Regulations of the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture, 333 CMR 10.02.
19. Missouri Pesticide Use Act, section 281.020, Missouri Revised Statutes.
20. Montana Pesticides Act Administrative Rules, subchaptsr 15.
2-8
-------
21. Pesticide Control Code, New Jersey Administrative Code, section 7:30-1.2, Pesticide
Product Registration and General Requirements.
22. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Pesticide Regulations, General
Rules R.
23. Section 43-8-104(6) and (7).
24. Section 2-27-59.
25. Section 18 Alaska Administrative Code 90.040.
26. Section 76-4-6, 76-4-30.
27. Section 3-1235.
28. Indiana Code, title 15-3, section 3.6(24).
29. Missouri Pesticide Use Act, Missouri Revised Statutes, section 281.085.
30. Arkansas Pesticide Control Act, Arkansas Statutes Annotated, section 2-16-406.
2-9
-------
Chapter 3
Interjurisdictional Nature
of State Authority
3.1 State Agencies Responsible for Pesticide Storage, Disposal and
Transportation
The overriding feature of pesticide storage, disposal and transportation is its jurisdictional
complexity. Only six states (Alaska,1 California,2 Connecticut,3 New Jersey,4 New York5 and
Rhode Island6) house pesticide regulation under a single environmental agency. In other states,
pesticide storage, disposal and transportation usually are governed by an agriculture department
or a branch of a land grant university. Other agencies regulate solid and hazardous waste
disposal and pesticides fall under those agencies' purview when classified as waste. Still other
states may regulate air and water pollution caused by pesticide storage, disposal and
transportation. In some states, transportation departments regulate most aspects of pesticide
transportation, labor departments enforce federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) regulations and emergency management agencies may enforce community right-to-know
statutes. Names and addresses of the primary state agencies are included in Appendix 3.
Occasionally, agency coordination is mandated by statute, interagency memoranda of
agreement or less formal committee structures. For example:
Illinois
The Illinois Interagency Committee on Pesticides coordinates issues of pesticide use that
affect more than one agency.
Maryland
The Secretary of Agriculture must review any rules of the Department of the Environment
for hazardous substance spills and cleanup when the substance is a pesticide.
Minnesota
An example of the jurisdictional complexity involved can be found in Minnesota, which
now hosts one of the most comprehensive storage and disposal programs in the country. In the
fall of 1986, applicators were confused and angry at the "interagency tug of war over which state
agency had the authority to supervise pesticide clean-up activities."7 With the help of the
Minnesota Technical Assistance Program and an EPA grant for engineering services, a pesticide
rinsate collection facility was designed by the Agricultural Aircraft Association, the Department
of Agriculture, the Pollution Control Agency, the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota
Plant, Food and Chemicals Association.8
3-1
-------
Montana
Montana's Department of Health and Environmental Sciences must coordinate its
activities with programs administered by the Department of Agriculture under the Pesticide Act
Oklahoma
The Department of Pollution Control coordinates the pollution control functions of the
Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and the Water Resources Board.
Vermont
The Commissioner of Agriculture is responsible for implementing regulations concerning
the "generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of economic poisons" that are
promulgated by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as part of the state hazardous waste
program. DNR may not promulgate rules any more stringent than the federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Subtitle C, for economic poisons without the
concurrence of the commissioner. In addition, the commissioner may adopt regulations
"concerning the management of waste economic poisons which are more stringent than" RCRA
Subtitle C9
West Virginia
At least annually, an interagency pesticide committee reviews and prepares a report for
the legislature on pesticide use and related problems, pesticide programs sponsored by
government agencies and recommended legislation.10
3.2 Multiplicity of State Statutes
Many state statutes, other than those that are the primary focus of this report, constitute
pieces of the regulatory puzzle dealing with pesticide storage, disposal, transportation and waste
minimization. These include:
State Air Pollution Laws:
• Open burning regulations may limit burning of pesticide containers and related
waste.
• Ozone control, directed at volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and air toxics
programs, may affect the design or operation of bulk storage facilities and rinsate
collection systems. Although this still is a distant possibility, pesticides may come
under stricter regulations as states develop air toxics programs. Some states
already regulate certain emissions from pesticide manufacturing facilities.
Missouri regulates emission of VOCs11. California and New Jersey have
proposed limiting VOCs in certain pesticides to reduce ozone.
3-2
-------
State Water Pollution Laws:
• Discharges that cause groundwater or surface water pollution are prohibited in
most states by state water pollution statutes. These discharges may include direct
dumping of pesticide wastes into surface waters and indirect contamination of
surface water by runoff. Runoff could flow, for example, from firefighting at a
storage facility or equipment washing. Groundwater contamination from repeated
spills at mixing/loading sites or from leaking containers may be regulated by state
water pollution statutes or hazardous waste laws.
• Discharges into municipal treatment plants may have to comply with pretreatment
regulations.
• Discharge permits are necessary for point sources of discharges from containment
or storage facilities.
• Groundwater protection statutes may limit the location, design or management of
storage and disposal facilities.
• Best management practices (BMPs) now being developed by states to assure
compliance with section 319 of the dean Water Act (non-point pollution control)
and in response to EPA's Agrichemicals in Groundwater Management Strategy
may affect when, where and how pesticides may be applied. BMPs also could be
used to recommend or mandate rinsate containment at mixer/loader sites and
agrichemical storage facility design and location.
Solid and Hazardous Waste Laws:
• Disposal of pesticides and related wastes is regulated, and certain disposal
methods may be prohibited, by solid and hazardous waste laws. Generally, open
dumping and water dumping are prohibited. Open burning may be prohibited.
storage, fee and liability provisions
storage, xee ana uaoiiiry provisions 01 nazaraous waste laws, states conducting
pesticide collection programs must deal with the hazardous waste statutes as well.
• Land application of sludges and residuals from rinsate collection facilities may be
regulated by individual permit or by regulation or be prohibited if the sludges
qualify as hazardous waste.
Waste Reduction and Recycling Laws:
o Recycling of containers made out of metal and high-density polyethylene plastic
(HDPE) may be encouraged or even mandated, by state and local waste reduction
legislation.
3-3
-------
• Toxicity reduction standards for packaging may require a change in the additives
used in pesticide packaging.
Toxic Substances Laws:
• Underground and abbveground storage tank regulations may require registration
or impose design specifications on storage of unused but usable pesticides and
rinsates.
• Community right-to-know and emergency response statutes may require local
and/or state disclosure of pesticides stored, reporting of accidents and
implementation of operating and maintenance procedures. These laws may apply
to dealers, commercial applicators and farmers.
• State Superfund laws and other clean-up statutes govern liability for releases,
procedures and standards for remediation and funding of clean-up activities.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Laws:
• States, generally through a state transportation department, enforce federal
Department of Transportation (DOT) and state requirements for vehicle placarding,
weight limits, safety, container strength and other issues related to transporting
pesticides.
State Fire Codes, Local Building Codes and Zoning Regulations:
• Local and/or state building and fire codes may require that pesticide storage
facilities comply with model building and fire codes.
• Building permits may be necessary for construction of mixing/loading and storage
facilities.
• Zoning may restrict the location of storage facilities to industrial or business
zones, may require setbacks or may require special permits.
Business Practices Laws, Common Law and Constitutional Law:
• New York's attorney general has testified before Congress that FIFRA and related
state statutes should be overhauled completely and, at the same time, directed his
office to pursue improper pesticide use through other state laws.12 From
1984-89, using the Environmental Conservation Law (groundwater contamination),
the state Constitution, the General Business Law (consumer fraud), criminal law
prohibiting conduct that endangers the public health, safety and welfare and the
common law doctrine of public nuisance, the state obtained the first felony
conviction in state history for unlawful pesticide disposal.13 It also gained access
3-4
-------
to records of a dissolved pest control company so the assets might be used in
cleaning up a hazardous site left by the owner and indicted the largest wholesale
florist in the northeast for contaminating the greenhouse and neighboring wetlands
and endangering the employees.14
3-5
-------
State Index
Alaska 3-1
California 3-1, 3-2
Connecticut 3-1
Illinois 3-1
Maryland 3-1
Minnesota 3-1
Missouri 3-2
Montana 3-2
New Jersey 3-1, 3-2
New York 3-1,3-4,3-5
Oklahoma 3-2
Rhode Island 3-1
Vermont 3-2
Virginia 3-2
West Virginia 3-2
3-6
-------
Endnotes
1. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
2. The California structure is new. In April 1991, the governor of California unveiled his
proposal-to .establish a cabinet-level California EPA with umbrella jurisdiction over air
and water quality and waste management and regulatory authority for pesticides. The
reorganization has taken place. Formerly, pesticides were regulated by a division of the
Department of Food and Agriculture.
3. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Pesticide Management Division.
4. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Pesticide Control.
5. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Hazardous Substances
Regulation, Bureau of Pesticide Control.
6. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Division of Agriculture and
Marketing.
7. Theresa Ambroz, executive director of the Minnesota Agricultural Aircraft Association,
in "Pesticide Rinsate Management Plan." Agrichemicals and Groundwater Protection:
Resources and Strategies for State and Local Management Freshwater Foundation, 1988.
8. Ibid.
9. Vermont Solid Waste Management Law, section 6608a.
10. The Interagency Pesticide Committee Act, section 19- 12C et seq., West Virginia Statutes.
11. Missouri Air Pollution Regulations, section 10 CSR 10-2.320, Control of Emissions from
Production of Pesticides and Herbicides.
12. McCabe, "Pesticide Law Enforcement: A Blueprint for State Action," National
Environmental Enforcement Journal, June 1989.
13. New York v. Abalene Pest Control Co., Saratoga County Court, Indictment No. W18-88.
The former manager of Abalene Pest Control Company pleaded guilty to one count of
unlawful disposal of a hazardous waste and testified against the company. The state
Department of Environmental Conservation referred the case to the attorney general in
1988, after discovering that Abalene had dug a pit behind its plant and dumped more than
100 containers of pesticides in it
14. In the Matter of the Application of William Wiedman for a Search Warrant to Search the
Premises of Newark Florist, Inc., New York Superior Court, December 4, 1988.
3-7
-------
Chapter 4
State Storage Regulations
4.1 Environmental Problems of Pesticide Storage
Proper storage is essential to maintaining product and container integrity and protecting
other non-pesticidal products in storage. Improper pesticide storage can result in exposure of
humans and the environment to dangerous levels of pesticides and can also result in costly
environmental cleanups. To lessen the potential for adverse consequences to human health and
the environment during pesticide storage, EPA has addressed storage in two ways: through 40
CFR Part 165 guidelines on storage facilities and through label language that states have
authority to enforce.
4.2 Federal Storage Guidelines: 40 CFR Part 165
In 40 CFR Part 165 adopted in 1974, EPA set out recommended warehouse and end-user
storage procedures for pesticides at sites where highly toxic and moderately toxic pesticides are
stored. The regulated pesticides or pesticides with and experimental use permit, bear the signal
words "Danger," "Poison" or "Warning" on the label. These procedures are mandatory only for
the Agency in carrying out its own pesticide and container storage operations.
The guidelines coven
(a) pesticides, excess pesticides and containers;
(b) recommendations for storing pesticide-related wastes in the same manner as
pesticides;
(c) location of storage sites, especially with respect to protection of water resources;
(d) security and posting measures;
(e) provisions for decontamination of equipment and personnel and handling of
rinsewater,
(f) procedures for classifying and separating pesticides and container inspection and
maintenance;
(g) safety precautions for accident prevention and general employee safety; and
(h) protective clothing, fire control and environmental monitoring.
4-1
-------
Pending the development of more comprehensive federal or state regulations, some states
have adopted portions of 40 CFR Part 165 as their state regulations. For example, Delaware,
Kentucky and West Virginia1 have adopted portions pertaining to storage. Delaware states that:
Until such time as the Secretary shall . . . promulgate more specific rules and
regulations governing the storage of pesticides and pesticide containers ... the
recommended procedures . . . detailed in the Regulations promulgated by the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, shall be the recommended procedures for Delaware.
The Secretary shall make copies of these procedures available to any person
needing guidance for proper storage of pesticides or pesticide containers.2
4.3 Label Statements on Storage
According to PR Notice 83-3, pesticide products are required to bear specific label
instructions regarding storage and disposal. Registrants must develop storage instructions that
consider the following factors, when applicable:
(a) storage conditions that might alter composition or usefulness of the pesticide.
Examples could be temperature extremes, excessive moisture or humidity, heat,
sunlight, friction or contaminating substances or media;
(b) physical requirements of storage that might adversely affect the container or the
product and its ability to continue to function properly. Requirements might
include positioning of the container in storage, storage temperature, potential for
breakage of glass, crushing or damage due to stacking, penetration of moisture and
ability to withstand shock or friction;
(c) specifications for handling the pesticide container, including movement of
containers within the storage area, proper opening and closing procedures
(particularly for opened containers) and measures to minimize exposure while
opening or closing containers;
(d) instructions on what to do if the container is damaged in any way or if the
pesticide is leaking or has been spilled and precautions to minimize exposure if
damage occurs;
(e) general precautions concerning locked storage, storage in original container only
and separation of pesticides during storage to prevent cross-contamination of other
pesticides, fertilizer, food and feed; and
(f) general storage instructions for household products should emphasize storage in
the original container and placement in locked storage areas.3
Specific label language can vary among registrants, although the precautions may be
equally applicable to products of several registrants. Among the most common instructions for
agricultural products are statements requiring storage in the original container, in a dry place,
4-2
-------
above freezing temperatures and away from direct heat or an open flame.4 As an example of
variations among registrants, most DuPont agricultural products require storage in a
well-ventilated area, whereas products of other registrants generally do not contain this
instruction.
Most states, lacking state regulations on pesticide storage, rely primarily on label
instructions to protect against the consequences of inadequate storage. For example, label
language has been used to take enforcement action against retail dealers that stacked food or
fertilizer immediately adjacent to pesticides.
4.4 State Bulk Storage Regulations
Although a number of states have proposed or implemented regulations for designated
quantities of pesticide held in bulk containers, some states have enacted regulations considerably
more comprehensive than others (see figure 4-1). Of these six states — Illinois,5 Indiana,6
Iowa,7 Minnesota,8 Vermont 'and Wisconsin10 — the Illinois regulations contain the most
detailed construction specifications. Florida also has adopted bulk storage regulations, but
through aboveground storage tank regulations for pollutants.11 A table comparing state and
model bulk storage regulations is attached as Appendix 5.
Some states have implemented bulk storage regulations with more limited requirements.
Kansas,12 Mississippi,13 North Carolina, North Dakota14 and Ohio15 rely upon minimal bulk
storage regulations.
Other states are in varying stages of developing bulk storage regulations:
(a) Colorado, pursuant to the Agricultural Chemicals and Groundwater Protection Act
of 1990, required its Department of Agriculture to develop bulk storage
regulations and mixer/loader containment regulations for sites where at least
55,000 pounds of finished agricultural product are stored and used annually. This
amount, calculated by including diluents and representing slightly more than a
tank truck load, was advocated by the Colorado Agricultural Chemicals
Association to preclude smaller farms from the regulation. However, the number
also exempts some dealers.
(b) Louisiana16 is revising its regulations substantially. It currently requires that
containers be stored in a secure, locked area and be free of leaks, the storage area
be maintained in good condition and empty containers not be stored for more than
90 days beyond the end of the spray season.17 Louisiana's Extension Service has
distributed a bulletin on construction of storage facilities for dealers and large
commercial applicators and growers. The state Department of Agriculture intends
to make the new storage regulations apply to commercial and private
applicators.18
(c) Michigan has developed draft regulations.19
4-3
-------
FIGURE 4-1
State Bulk Storage Regulations
VT,
• Comprehensive bulk storage regulations in effect
= Minimal bulk storage regulations in effect
Comprehensive bulk storage regulations proposed
; Minimal bulk handling regulations in effect
= Currently drafting bulk storage regulations
(d) Missouri, Virginia and Washington are drafting bulk storage regulations.
(e) Nebraska30 has comprehensive regulations awaiting final approval.
Several of these state regulatory packages were developed at the request of the
agrichemical industry, especially registrants concerned about liability for contamination from
inadequately designed and managed dealer facilities. In March 1990, AAPCO adopted its Model
Bulk Pesticide Regulations to serve as a template for regulation development for interested states.
4-4
-------
Statutory authority for state regulations derives from a variety of sources:
(a) authority to regulate aboveground and below-ground storage of pollutants,
including pesticides (Florida)21;
(b) pesticide legislation (Illinois)22;
(c) comprehensive groundwater legislation (Minnesota)23; and
(d) clean water legislation on control of discharges (Missouri is developing
regulations).24
The state agency responsible for enforcing the regulations may be the lead pesticide agency or
the pollution control agency, depending on the source of statutory authority.
Generally, the comprehensive bulk storage regulations govern storage tank construction,
secondary containment for storage tanks, operational area containment
(mixing/loading/washing/rinsing), spill response, recordkeeping and rinsate and precipitation
accumulation management The regulations also may address facility location, facility
abandonment and notification to die state of various activities. All of the regulations prohibit
underground storage of pesticides and rinsates.
Although the state regulations bear a superficial similarity, they differ in many critical
respects. These differences primarily concern:
(a) the persons, quantities and identity of materials to which the regulations apply,
• Nebraska proposes to use a 500-gallon tank as the trigger for regulation.
• Iowa,25 Michigan,26 in its draft, Minnesota27 and Wisconsin28 use the
standard definition of bulk pesticide (greater than 55 gallons undivided).
Vermont29 regulates 210-gallon tanks.
- Minnesota applies the regulations only to those persons who
distribute or repackage pesticides. Wisconsin limits them to
persons who manufacture or distribute and defines bulk pesticide
to include rinsate and use solutions, while Minnesota limits
pesticides to technical grade, formulated grade or other similar
grade, excluding rinsates.
- Vermont applies bulk regulations to facilities owned or operated
by persons who use, manufacture or distribute pesticides. Illinois'
agrichemical facility regulations apply to dealers, commercial
applicators and fanners if certain quantity requirements for storage
and/or mixing/loading are met30
(b) the size of the secondary containment for tanks;
4-5
-------
• Illinois similarly defines capacity as 100% for enclosed storage or 100%
plus the volume of a 25-year, 24-hour storm or a 6-inch rain for
unprotected storage.31
« Indiana requires 110% for existing tanks and 100% plus volume displaced
by other tanks and equipment up to the safe design level of the dike, plus
6 inches (if not protected from rain) for new facilities.32
• Iowa defines capacity as 100% of the largest container indoors and 110%
if the storage is not enclosed.33
• All the regulations except those of Louisiana add to these numbers the
volume displaced by other tanks within the containment area.34
• Michigan has proposed 110% of the largest tank plus 6 inches for outdoor
storage and 110% of the largest tank if indoors.35
• Minnesota36 and Wisconsin37 add 15% (for a total of 125% of the
largest tank) if the storage is outdoors.
• Nebraska38 uses essentially the same percentage, but adds the volume of
a 25-year, 24-hour storm if the storage is unprotected from precipitation.
• Vermont39 and South Dakota40 define capacity as 110% of the largest
tank.
(c) materials for secondary containment;
Most states allow concrete, steel or solid masonry. Several states permit soil
containment, while others allow various synthetic materials compatible with the
pesticide.
(d) specifications for the operational area;
All states with a requirement for containment of operational areas require paved,
curbed and/or sloped containment The dimensions of the paved area and the
capacity of the containment basin vary.
• Illinois defines capacity as the volume of the largest tank to be loaded plus
a 6-inch rainstorm, if the area is unprotected from rain.41
• Indiana requires a minimum of 750 gallons containment42
• Minnesota requires 1,000-gallon containment capacity.43
• Wisconsin requires 1,500 gallons or, if the largest container capacity is
less, 1.25 times the capacity of the largest container.44
4-6
-------
(e) disposition of rinsates, washes and spilled undiluted pesticide or tank mix;
• Illinois prohibits discharge into storm sewers and public or private sanitary
sewers.
• The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has not decided if it will
require storm water discharge permits.
• Other states allow discharge with a permit.
(f) state enforcement procedures;
Several states require permits prior to construction or, for existing facilities,
procedures and permits for bringing existing facilities into compliance with new
regulations over several years. Several states also require notification to the state
annually, prior to initial delivery.
4.5 Dealer Warehouse and Applicator Storage Regulations
Some states regulate dealer warehouse and/or end-user pesticide storage through
requirements in addition to those required by labeling (see figure 4-2). Those states include:
California, Colorado,45 Hawaii,46 Idaho47, Kentucky,48 New Jersey, New Mexico,49 New
York (guidelines only), North Carolina, Ohio,50 South Carolina,51 Washington and Wisconsin.
Several states require, by regulation, that containers be stored in the same manner as the
pesticide. For example, Kansas requires that any unused pesticide and any empty pesticide
container be stored in the same manner as the pesticide involved until disposal52
Other states use various methods to regulate dealer warehouse and applicator storage.
California
California requires that storage be in accordance with the label and labeling on all other
products, including non-pesticides, in the same storage area.53 Additional storage provisions
include:
• no one is permitted to deliver a container that holds or has held a pesticide unless
it is stored in an enclosure or the container is delivered to a person in charge of
the property;
• access to containers is controlled by the recipient;
• each person who controls the use of any property or premises is responsible for
all containers or equipment on the property; and
• signs visible from any direction of probable approach must be posted.54
4-7
-------
FIGURE 4-2
State Warehouse and/or End User Storage Requirements
' States that regulate dealer warehouse and/or end user storage
through requirements in addition to labeling.
Colorado
Colorado requires of all certified applicators and licensees that:55
• pesticide concentrates and dilute mixtures be stored using methods that are
reasonably calculated to prevent contaminating other products and avoid creating
an unreasonable risk of harm to persons, property, domestic or wild animals or the
environment;
• pesticide storage areas be kept clean and orderly and pesticide containers be
positioned so they are not exposed to unreasonable risk of damage to the
containers or their labels;
• indoor pesticide storage areas be secured from access by unauthorized persons;
« outdoor pesticide storage areas be fenced or walled and containers covered;
* pesticide storage areas be marked with a sign including the name and telephone
number of an emergency contact person;
4-8
-------
• each applicator inform the local fire department of the location of the pesticide
storage and provide the fire department with material safety data sheets (MSDSs)
for all pesticides held; and
• .. each applicator who stores pesticides have available at least one fire extinguisher
4 and materials for use in cleaning up pesticide spills.
Idaho
Idaho requires that:
• commercial applicators store empty or partially full pesticide containers labeled
with the signal words "Danger," "Warning" or "Caution" in locked enclosures that
consist of a closed vehicle, closed trailer, closed building or room, in an area with
a fence at least 6 feet high or in a truck with a secured tailgate;
• empty or partially full Class IV pesticide containers be kept in "secured" storage
out of the reach of children in one of the previously named enclosures; and
• warning notices be posted.
Kentucky
For all persons storing restricted-use pesticides (RUPs), Kentucky requires that sites:
• be of sufficient size to adequately and neatly store all stocks in designated and
segregated areas;
* be cool, dry and airy or, if possible, have an exhaust installed to reduce
concentrations of toxic fumes and to hold down temperatures. Ventilation must
not connect with offices or other areas frequented by people;
• have fire-fighting equipment and adequate lighting so labels and information can
be easily read;
• be kept securely locked at all times other than when authorized personnel are in
the area. Entrance to storage sites must be plainly labeled on the outside with
signs containing the words "danger" or "poison" and "pesticide storage area"; and
• keep on hand a floor-sweep compound of adsorptive clay or similar material to
absorb spills or leaks. The contaminated material must be disposed of per label
directions as an excess pesticide.56
4-9
-------
Maine
Maine recently proposed regulations entitled Chapter 24, Pesticide Storage Standards for
Distributors. Like New York's guidelines, Maine's proposed standards represents the state's
regulatory response to a pesticide fire. The fire occurred in 1985 at a dealership in
Westbrook.57 A state statute enacted after the fire required the Board of Pesticides Control to
establish requirements for storage longer than 60 days at commercial establishments. The new
regulations would apply to all wholesalers and licensed retailers who store pesticides for more
than 60 days in a year (not consecutive days).
The regulations define "major pesticide distributors" as those who hold at any one time
more than 2,000 pounds of dry materials other than prepackaged fertilizer and herbicide
combinations or more than 250 gallons of liquid formulations other than paints, stains and wood
preservatives. "Minor pesticide distributors" are defined as all others who hold pesticides for
distribution. The regulations require distributors to segregate flammable pesticides and store
them under the protection of automatic suppression equipment
All pesticides held by major distributors must be stored in facilities that encompass:
• standards for fire resistance (2 hours on walls and ceilings, 1 hour on doors) and
ventilation;
• siting and structural requirements;
• spill containment (including sealant-treated concrete floors);
• security, including an alarm system;
• running water and an eye-wash station; and
• ventilation standards.
Both major and minor pesticide distributors must also comply with certain general
standards, including:
• facilities must be posted and locked when unattended;
• no smoking is allowed;
• containers must be in good condition, have labeling inisct and be stored in a way
that allows inspection for integrity;
= products must be segregated to avoid contamination;
- no more than one day's worth of empty pallets is allowed within the facility;
4-10
-------
• each facility must have a spill response plan filed with the local fire department
and state emergency response commission; and
• facility floors and containers must be inspected weekly during the primary sales
season.
The regulations specify that they do not preempt any local ordinances that may be more
stringent, nor do they supersede the requirements of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
30, a set of storage standards for flammable and combustible liquids adopted by the Maine State
Fire Marshall in early 1991. The Board of Pesticides Control proceeded with a proposal that
additionally requires dealers to comply with NFPA 30, to the extent that the code is more
stringent than the board's regulations.
Minnesota
Minnesota statutes require that a commercial, non-commercial or structural pest-control
applicator (or the business that the applicator is employed by) develop and maintain a plan that
describes its pesticide storage, handling and disposal practices. The plan must be kept at a
principal business site or location within the state and must be submitted to the Commissioner
of Agriculture upon request, on forms provided by the commissioner. The state has not yet
implemented this provision through regulations, although it is developing a model plan that
businesses could use as a checklist to determine whether their facilities are sufficient38
New Jersey
For storing RUPs, New Jersey requires that:
• RUPs and containers with RUP residues be stored in a locked, posted area;
• anyone who stores any pesticide maintain a list of those stored or likely to be
stored and provide it annually to the fire department. This requirement does not
apply to homeowners storing for personal use or persons storing for less than
seven days; and
• no one store RUPs in a building wholly or partly occupied for residential,
commercial or institutional purposes, unless the pesticides are stored in a
structurally separate, ventilated area."
New York
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation issued storage guidelines for
registered businesses following a warehouse fire at Wagner Seed and Grain in 1985 (see box 4-A,
page 4-19 for details). For facility structural requirements, the guidelines recommend:
• storage areas physically separate from food, feed, livestock, water supply, office
and residential spaces;
4-11
-------
• security and access control;
• an impermeable floor and containment system with 25% total stored-volume
capacity or sump containment;
• ventilation to prevent vapor accumulation; and
• non-sparking fixtures.
For product storage, the guidelines recommend:
• segregation by hazard class and function;
• separation of potentially reactive materials from other materials by a dike, wall or
other barrier,
• storage on impermeable shelving so labels are visible;
• adequate aisle space for access in an emergency; and
• periodic inspection for container integrity.
As safety and emergency measures, New York recommends:
• that personal protective equipment, eyewash and shower facilities, routine washing
facilities, spill kits and fire extinguishers be readily available;
• staff training in safe handling and spill response;
• adherence to OSHA hazard communication standards;
• annual notification to the local fire department of types and quantities of pesticides
stored;
• preparation of an emergency response plan to be given to local authorities;
• maintenance of current inventories in a separate location; and
• a first aid kit for poisonings.
North Carolina
For all pesticide storage (general and restricted-use products, dealers and end users other
than homeowners), North Carolina requires that pesticides:
• be stored to prevent leaking and to facilitate inspections;
4-12
-------
• be stored in labeled containers when formulated;
• when formulated or diluted, not be stored in any food, feed, beverage or medicine
container that has previously been used for such purposes or that is specifically
designed to contain only those products; . ~
• be stored in a manner that would avoid contamination of food, feed, beverages,
eating utensils, tobacco or tobacco products, other pesticides, seeds or otherwise
avoid accidental ingestion by humans or domestic animals;
• be stored according to the pesticide label and labeling on all other products held
in the storage area;
• be stored to prevent unauthorized access and in a dry and ventilated area; and
• be stored in areas that are free of combustible materials. Appropriate care should
be taken to minimize fire hazard potential when providing supplemental
heating.*0
In addition, dealers and applicators holding RUPs in any amount are required to:
• use security precautions, such as signs, to prevent unauthorized access;
• clean up spills immediately;
• store pesticides to avoid contact with water,
• store pesticides more than 100 feet from a public water supply and SO feet from
a private water supply,
• develop an emergency fire and spill plan and provide it to local authorities; and
• maintain a current inventory of pesticides by brand name and formulation.
Dealers and applicators with large storage facilities (10,000 pounds or more of RUPs at
any one time) cannot store pesticides within 200 feet of the property line of schools, hospitals
and other institutions and must have a Pesticide Board-approved contingency plan.61
Wisconsin
Wisconsin requires that all pesticides be:
• stored in accordance with label instructions;
• kept in separate rooms or areas separate from food, feed, drugs, plants and other
products to prevent contamination in the event of volatilization or leakage;
4-13
-------
stored in areas not readily accessible to the general public or children, when stored
indoors;
• stored in fenced or walled enclosures and covered or otherwise protected to
prevent damage to labels and hazards to persons or wild animals, when stored
outdoors; .
• inspected for container integrity upon removal from the shipping carton.
Defective containers must be disposed of in accordance with the label or in a
landfill site approved by the state;
• stored in areas maintained in a clean condition and cleaned prior to use for any
other purpose; and
• for hypochlorite sanitizers, stored so the oldest stocks are used first62
Other State Programs
Through Cooperative Extension Services and certification and training programs, states
also offer non-regulatory guidelines and advice for proper storage. For example, in its brochure,
"Storage and Disposal of Pesticides and Containers on the Farm," the North Dakota Cooperative
Extension Service offers growers a drawing developed by Midwest Plan Services for a pesticide
storage and mixing building. The brochure also recommends:
• that areas be fenced, separate from other uses, isolated, not subject to flooding,
identified with warning signs and protected with smoke and fire alarms;
• metal construction of buildings and shelves, concrete floors and curbs; and
• clean-up procedures for spills.
4.6 Retail Establishment Regulations
Several states have requirements for retail sales areas.
Hawaii
The sale of lawn and garden products is limited to garden-supply centers or other retail
outlets with separate sales sections. The lawn and garden products must be displayed separately
from products for indoor use and must bear a sign stating, "Pesticide products for garden and
lawn or outdoor use only. It is unlawful and may be hazardous to use inside your home."63
4-14
-------
Maine
In Chapter 24 of the Board of Pesticides Control regulations, Maine requires that:
• self-service sales areas be separate from other product areas and marked with a
sign;
• outdoor areas be fenced and roofed;
• each area have spill remediation equipment;
• a sign advertising the availability of information on pesticide use from the local
Cooperative Extension Service or the Board of Pesticides Control be displayed;
and
• stock be rotated so that the oldest stock is sold first
Ohio
Ohio regulations
• prohibit storing pesticides close to food, feed and toys;
• require cleaning shelves before reuse; and
• require that RUPs be displayed so that they are inaccessible to children.64
South Carolina
Dealers and retailers are required to display both general-use and restricted-use pesticides:
• separate from each other and in the original container;
• with herbicides separated from other types of pesticides; and
• to the general public at least 25 feet from fresh, loosely packed items that could
absorb odors and at least 4 feet from canned items (bleaches, disinfectants, pet
products and paints are exempted).65
Texas
Pesticides intended for distribution or sale must be displayed or stored within an enclosed
building or fenced area and not be displayed on sidewalks, parking lots or similar open areas
without surveillance. Texas prohibits display or sale of pesticides in leaking, broken, corroded
or otherwise unsafe containers or with illegible labels. The state also requires pesticide dealers
4-15
-------
to maintain a list of poison control centers in the state to contact in case of pesticide
poisoning.66
Washington
•j . -
Pesticides are prohibited from:
• being stored and/or displayed over or adjacent to food, feed or drugs;
• being stored or displayed on sidewalks; (i.e., pesticides intended for sale must be
kept within an enclosed area of a building or fence); and
• being offered for sale if highly toxic in the same department where products for
human consumption are displayed or sold. Use of the same checkstand or food
packaging area is prohibited.67
Wisconsin
Wisconsin requires that:
• no pesticide be sold that is unlabeled or that bears an illegible label;
• pesticides with the words "Poison," "Danger" or "Warning" and packaged in glass
or non-rigid containers or in containers without child-proof packaging be displayed
at least 42 inches off the floor or otherwise out of children's reach;
• pesticide containers be examined for integrity before displaying them; and
• pesticides be separated from food, feed and other materials to avoid contamination
from volatilization or leakage.68
4.7 Other Statutory Authority Affecting Design or Operation of Storage
Faculties
4.7.1 Section 319, Non-Point Source Pollution and Groundwater Protection Statutes
Pursuant to section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Amendments of 1987, states must
develop management programs addressing non-point source pollution from agricultural operations.
Many states complement these federal requirements with groundwater protection legislation of
their own. Some states, in anticipation of EPA's adoption of the strategy, "Agricultural
Chemicals in Groundwater Management Plan," are drafting groundwater management plans for
pesticides.
States may develop programs or regulations that affect pesticide storage and disposal by
controlling the location, design and operation of storage facilities and by requiring containment
at mixing/loading sites and aboveground and underground storage tanks.
4-16
-------
Both section 319 and many state groundwater protection programs incorporate the concept
of best management practices (BMP). BMPs are generally accepted agricultural and management
practices. Minnesota, for its groundwater protection legislation, has defined BMPs as:
Voluntary practices that are capable of preventing and minimizing degradation of
groundwater, considering economic factors, availability, technical feasibility,
implementability, effectiveness and environmental effects. Best management
practices apply to schedules of activities; design and operation standards;
restrictions on practices; maintenance procedures; management plans; practices to
prevent site releases, spillage or leaks; application and use of chemicals; drainage
from raw materials storage; operating procedures; treatment requirements; and
other activities causing groundwater degradation.69
For its 1991 "Strategy for Managing Non-point Source Pollution from Agricultural
Sources and Best Management System Guidelines," the Maine Non-Point Source Agricultural
Task Force defined agricultural BMPs as "a method or practice which, when installed or used,
is consistent with efficient, practical, technically and environmentally sound animal or crop
production practices. For those practices that have an impact on water quality, BMPs are those
practices best suited for preventing, reducing or correcting surface and groundwater
contamination."
Although BMPs are usually voluntary guidelines, states frequently have authority to make
them mandatory in certain situations. In Nebraska, for example, the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) has the authority to adopt plans for dealing with pollution from
non-point sources. If the DEQ finds that groundwater contamination is occurring or is likely to
occur, it may designate a special protection district in which BMPs are mandatory.
Regulations governing storage and disposal, like BMP guidelines, also may be derived
from groundwater legislation. Minnesota's comprehensive pesticide storage and disposal statutes
were part of groundwater legislation enacted in 1989 as S.F. No. 262. Under its groundwater
statutes, the Illinois Pollution Control Board adopted "Groundwater Protection Regulations for
Existing and New Activities within Setback Zone and Regulated Recharge Areas." These
regulations require owners or operators of commercial applicator storage facilities and dealer
warehouses to monitor groundwater, provide secondary containment, inspect weekly and
inventory all pesticides.70
4.7.2 Other State Water Quality Laws
States have invoked other state water quality laws to force the installation of containment
structures if their absence results in or is likely to cause contamination. For example, an Illinois
Pollution Control Board regulation states, "All reasonable measures, including where appropriate
the provision of catchment areas, relief vessels or entrapment dikes, shall be taken to prevent any
spillage of contaminants from causing water pollution." The Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency interprets this as providing authority for requiring containment structures at agricultural
chemical facilities, even if substantial leakage has not occurred71
4-17
-------
Discharge permits required under the CWA or state equivalents could affect the design
or operation of storage facilities with point source discharges to sewer systems or waterways.
4.7.3 State and Local Building and Fire Codes, Local Zoning Ordinances
Fires at pesticide storage sites ^may jeopardize the health and safety of persons in the
vicinity and destroy inventory. Regulations that define criteria for locating storage facilities, that
require developing emergency response mechanisms and specify structural standards (fire-resistant
walls, explosion-proof wiring) and operational requirements (prohibition of smoking, limitation
on accumulation of pallets) are designed to minimize the likelihood of fire and costly
environmental cleanups (see box 4-A).
At least three organizations have developed model building codes for new construction
and model fire codes governing safety inspections after construction:
(a) the Building. Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA), based in
Illinois; (see box 4-B)
(b) the Southern Building Congress International and Southeastern and Southwestern
Association of Fire Chiefs in Birmingham, Alabama; and
(c) the International Conference of Building Officials in Whittier, California.
Portions of these codes define construction and operations standards for certain pesticide
storage facilities. They may be administered generally by local fire department inspectors, code
enforcement officers, building inspectors or state fire marshals, but typically not by the lead
pesticide agency. The codes include language on enforcement, scope, severability, adoption by
reference and other legal requirements, so they can function as ready-made local ordinances or
state regulations.
They also incorporate, by reference, a number of other widely recognized standards, such
as those of:
(a) the NFPA;
(b) the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM); and
(c) the American Petroleum Institute (API).
A state or municipality may adopt one or more of these other standards separately or,
more commonly, through adoption of one or more of the three model codes that incorporate
sections of NFPA codes or other standards.
4-18
-------
BOX 4-A
Fire Incidents at Pesticide Storage Facilities
• Lightning struck the Wagner Seed & Grain warehouse in Farmingdale, Long
Island on the night of May 31, 1985, igniting one of the largest toxic chemical releases in
recent New York history. The warehouse and its large quantities of pesticides and seed
were destroyed within hours. After the accident, New York's Office of the Attorney
General prepared a report describing the cleanup:
"The actual community cleanup was a challenging task indeed. In the fall of 1985,
the EPA designated the area a hazardous waste site. In summary, the job took nearly two
years and is estimated by EPA to have cost at least two million dollars and required
cleanup of not only the fire site itself but also five residential yards located near the
warehouse. Over nine million pounds of contaminated soils and debris were removed from
the area and placed in secure landfills."72
The report cataloged other recent pesticide fires in New York State at nurseries,
farm supplies stores, arborists' offices and farms. The report also documented fires in
California, Illinois, Maine, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
• In 1981, after a fire at its formulation plant in Glenwood, Iowa, Aidex Corporation
filed for bankruptcy. The company left the site contaminated, in part as a result of the
water used for firefighting. As of 1987, EPA had spent $10 million and Iowa had spent or
contractually committed to spend $1 million in site remediation.73
• In Plum Borough, Pennsylvania, a lawn care company allegedly bought and used
an old house in a residential neighborhood for pesticide storage. About 16 tons were said
to be stored in the house, unbeknownst to the local fire department or the town council.
Neighbors complained that the company washed its trucks in the driveway, allowed the
rinscwater to run into the street and dumped containers in a dumpster that was open and in
which children climbed. The town council subsequently enacted an ordinance regulating
storage in residential neighborhoods.74
• A 1-gallon spill of malathion in a drugstore in Phoenix, Arizona sent 11
employees to the hospital."
• In 1986, a fire in Brookings, South Dakota caused an estimated $1.35 million in
investigative and clean-up costs.
4-19
-------
BOX 4-B
The BOCA Code
The BOCA code includes the following provisions:
General requirements:
(a) Do not store pesticides in the same area with ammonium nitrate
fertilizer.
(b) Pesticide storage is restricted to a first-story room or area with direct
access to the outside. Pesticides may not be stored in basements.
Storage areas should be designed to prevent unauthorized entry.
(c) Pesticide storage should be constructed in such a manner so that run-off
from fire streams will not contaminate streams, ponds, groundwater,
crop lands or buildings.
(d) Pesticides in containers that could be damaged by moisture or water
must be stored off the floor.
(e) Damaged or leaking pesticide containers or materials contaminated by
pesticides should be immediately separated, disposed of or
decontaminated in accordance with required regulations.
Display:
Drums and packages must be tacked safely and should not be stored near any
food materials.
Compressed-gas pesticides:
Compressed-gas pesticides must be stored away from heat, such as steam pipes
and direct sunlight
Securing cylinders:
All compressed-gas cylinders in service or storage must be protected to ensure
against being knocked over.
Separation:
Compressed-gas pesticide cylinders must be separated from other compressed
gases.
Storage of highly toxic pesticides requires a permit from the local code official.
The materials must be separated from other chemicals by storage in a room or
compartment separated by walls, floor and ceilings with a fire resistance rating of not
less than 1 hour, with adequate drainage facilities and natural or mechanical ventilation
to the outside. Warning signs with the nature and location of the substances must be
posted at all entrances where the materials are stored or used
4-20
-------
There are several ways that model codes become binding:
(a) states may adopt one or more codes as regulations governing construction and
operation of all new buildings in the state. When states with home rule, such as
Arkansas, Georgia and North Carolina, adopt codes, they generally allow
municipalities to impose additional requirements. Some, like Alabama, give
municipalities the option of following the codes or applying less stringent
standards. Others, like Virginia, adopt codes at the state level that function as both
the minimum and maximum standards for municipal enforcement;
(b) states may adopt one or more codes governing construction and operation of new
state or publicly owned buildings only; and
(c) states may not adopt any codes, but leave the decision to municipalities.
Even in those states with separately enacted bulk or non-bulk pesticide storage regulations,
state fire and building codes may impose additional requirements.
BOCA codes, which predominate in the northeast and midwest, are undergoing revision
and will address pesticide storage more fully. At present, Article 34 of the BOCA code contains
minimal requirements for inside and outside storage of pesticides in portable containers other than
fixed installation on transportation equipment It does not apply to storage in dwellings or private
garages when pesticides are registered by EPA for use around the home. Article 28 provides that
pesticides that are flammable or combustible liquids are to be stored in accordance with the
requirements of NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code. Article 29 addresses
highly toxic materials, which correspond to FEFRA Toxicity Category L
New Jersey, Ohio, Vermont and Washington, D.C, are among the jurisdictions that have
adopted the BOCA Fire Prevention Code for all building construction and inspections. As of
1990, Kentucky was considering adopting the code. Maryland has adopted it for all state
buildings and New Hampshire has adopted it for public buildings. Most communities in Illinois
and Pennsylvania have adopted the code and many others in the east and midwest have also done
so.76
The Southern Building Congress and the International Conference of Building Officials
serve purposes similar to BOCA for southern states and western states, respectively. The
Southern Building Congress includes the Standard Building Code. The congress is affiliated with
the Southeastern and Southwestern Association of Fire Chiefs, which maintains and administers
the Standard Fire Code.77
Both the BOCA codes and the Standards Fire and Building codes incorporate, by
reference, various NFPA standards; since many pesticides fall under the code's definition of
flammable or combustible, the most commonly rcferred-to code is NFPA 30. The 1990 edition
of this code incorporated a number of major changes to earlier versions, including:
(a) elimination of all references to flammable aerosols (covered by NFPA 30B);
4-21
-------
(b) criteria for plastic containers, including pesticide containers for products that meet
the flammability criterion;
(c) clarification of allowable portable tank construction (metal only);
(d) revised requirements for storage of class I and n liquids in plastic containers in
general-purpose warehouses; and
(e) drainage systems for liquid warehouses.
NFPA 30 does not apply to storage of flammable and combustible liquids on farms.
Those requirements are covered in NFPA 395 (Standard for the Storage of Flammable and
Combustible Liquids on Farms and Isolated Construction Projects).
Local zoning ordinances and building codes can affect the location, design and operation
of storage facilities. Generally, states do not preempt local authority to enact ordinances more
stringent than the state's program under the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). In fact, states may encourage local zoning and planning
regulations.78 For example, after a series of explosions at a rocket fuel plant in Nevada, the
governor appointed a commission (the Henderson Commission) to examine the adequacy of
existing regulations pertaining to the manufacture and storage of highly combustible materials.
Among the commission's recommendations were:
(a) provisions for public safety have to be included in planning ordinances;
(b) planning commissions should maintain safe distances between residential areas and
hazardous industries;
(c) legislation should be addressed to ease the phasing out or relocation of businesses
that pose a public safety threat; and
(d) the state should develop a model zoning ordinance to address the manufacturing,
storage and handling of hazardous materials.
4.7.4 Underground and Aboveground Storage Tank Regulations
Persons who store pesticides in underground tanks (which are prohibited by states with
bulk pesticide storage regulations) may have to comply with federal underground storage tank
(UST) regulations and state equivalents. The regulations were adopted pursuant to the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments to the federal RCRA, enacted in 1984 and the Superfund
Amendments to RCRA enacted in 1986.79 The amendments envisioned that states would obtain
EPA approval to act as the primary enforcement agencies for the federal program. Each state
may enact more stringent regulations.80
UST regulations apply to storing pesticides that are listed as hazardous substances under
the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
The regulations require that owners register underground tanks with the state and that new
4-22
-------
underground tanks meet design and operational requirements to prevent releases due to structural
failure, corrosion, spills and overfills. Owners and operators must maintain specified records and
make reports to the state agency administering the program. The regulations define reporting
requirements for spills and suspected releases and dictate response and corrective actions.
Many states also regulate aboveground tank storage of hazardous substances in a manner
similar to underground tank regulation. New York's Hazardous Substances Bulk Storage Act and
the Regulations on Releases, Registration and Listing of Hazardous Substances, adopted pursuant
to the act, exempt aboveground storage tanks on operating farms from registration if the
hazardous substances will be used for agricultural purposes on the farm. The regulation also
exempts non-stationary tanks. Hazardous substances under the regulations include pesticides
whose use or possession is prohibited under HFRA as of June 1, 1985, pesticides listed as
CERCLA hazardous substances and pesticides that meet the definition of hazardous waste or are
acutely hazardous.
Effective in March 1991, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER)
adopted comprehensive regulations governing construction, installation, maintenance, registration,
removal and disposal of stationary aboveground storage tank systems having a storage capacity
greater than 550 gallons.81 The regulations apply to all owners or operators of tanks, including
those on farms.
Unlike federal and other state underground and aboveground tank regulations, the Florida
regulations encompass all pesticides, not just those defined as hazardous substances under
CERCLA or another statutory scheme. The regulations exempt any mobile tank moved at least
every 180 days, evaporation/degradation systems for pesticides, storage tank systems used for the
temporary storage of mixtures of pesticides and diluent intended for reapplication as pesticides.82
The regulations require:
(a) secondary containment for tanks;
(b) containment for the loading area;
(c) spill response planning and reporting;
(d) extensive recordkeeping; and
(e) details on financial responsibility, unlike the bulk pesticide storage regulations in
other states.
4.7JS EPCRA83 and Similar Right-to-Know Legislation
According to EPCRA and corresponding state right-to-know statutes, owners and operators
of certain pesticide storage facilities must comply with several reporting and emergency planning
requirements.
Those sections of EPCRA that relate most directly to reporting and emergency planning
requirements are:
4-23
-------
(a) 302 — facilities, including dealer warehouses, commercial applicator storage sites
and farm storage sites, holding amounts above "threshold planning quantities" of
any "extremely hazardous substances" listed by EPA must notify the local
emergency planning committee (LEPC) that the facility is subject to emergency
planning requirements and provide information to the LEPC for use in developing
the local emergency response plan.
(b) 311 — facilities that must prepare or have available MSDSs under OS HA must
submit those MSDSs or a list of the covered chemicals exceeding certain
thresholds to the LEPC, state emergency response commission and the local fire
department OSHA exempts all hazardous wastes that are subject to RCRA
regulations from the requirements for producing an MSDS. If a facility held a
substance as a RCRA hazardous waste rather than as a product, this section would
not require reporting that substance.
(c) 312 •— requires that the same facilities must submit inventory forms annually
regarding amounts and general locations of categories of chemicals.
States that have adopted one or more of EPCRA sections 302,311 or 312 as of November
1989 are shown in figure 4-3.
FIGURE 4-3
State Application of EPCRA
= States that have adopted one or more of EPCRA sections
302,311, or 312 as of November 1989.
4-24
-------
The Maine Board of Pesticides Control prepared a booklet for agricultural operators
detailing these requirements through sample worksheets and explanatory text84
In reference to sections 311 and 312, LEPCs, state emergency response commissions and
local fire departments can demand-more specific information.on amounts and locations of specific
chemicals. In addition, some states and local communities have chosen to lower the threshold
quantities required for emergency planning or broaden the list of reportable substances. The
National Center for Policy Alternatives in Washington, DC maintains a data base that contains
the threshold planning requirements, facility emergency planning requirements and emergency
release reporting thresholds of the 50 states.
As of November 1989, 13 states85 had adopted one or more measures to lower threshold
quantities for planning or to broaden the list of substances reportable under sections 311 and
312.86 Hainespoit Township in New Jersey removed altogether the minimum limitations on
reporting under sections 311 and 312." Oregon requires employers to submit a list of
hazardous substances annually to the state fire marshal's office. Reporting is triggered when an
MSDS is required under right-to-know laws and where a business has more than 500 pounds, 55
gallons or 200 cubic feet of the substance. If the substance is a poison or explosive, the numbers
drop to 10 pounds, 5 gallons or 20 cubic feet
In 1988, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment published a summary titled
"Registered Pesticides and Livestock Pharmaceutical Products [Registered] in Kansas Listed as
Extremely Hazardous under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA),"
which contained 55 pesticide active ingredients and three livestock Pharmaceuticals that were also
pesticides (coumaphos, dichlorvos and phosmet products).
Emergency response plans are similar to emergency response provisions imposed by
regulations on bulk pesticide storage facilities. Several dozen pesticides fall on the extremely
hazardous substance list for the purpose of emergency response planning. For example, with
methamidophos packaged as Monitor 4, the holder would have to prepare an emergency plan if
the amount accumulated reached 25 gallons (4 pounds active ingredient per gallon); for
methamidophos (Monitor), 100 pounds or above active ingredient; dichlorvos at quantities of
1,000 pounds and above; methyl bromide at quantities 1,000 pounds and above; for methyl
bromide as methyl bromide grain fumigant, 1,000 pounds; for dichlorvos as Dursban Plus, 4,000
gallons (.25 pounds active ingredient/gallon); for methyl bromide as grain fumigant, 1,000
pounds.88
Texas, through the Agricultural Hazard Communication Act of 1987, requires farm
operators to report to local fire departments pesticides stored in excess of 55 gallons or 500
pounds within a quarter-mile of residential areas.
Vermont, in its pesticide regulations, mandates annual reporting to the local fire
department by all commercial applicator companies, certified non-commercial applicators and
RUP dealers:
(a) the names of responsible persons in the event of a discharge;
4-25
-------
(b) pesticides routinely used or stored and MSDSs for them; and
(c) a map of the storage location and procedures to control or recover discharges.
To comply with the provisions of Vermont's Community Right-to-Know law of 1985,
restricted-use dealers, licensed pesticide applicator companies, non-commercial pesticide
applicator facilities, pesticide producing establishments and certified private applicators with 10
or more full time employees must submit:
(a) MSDSs for each RUP and the location at the facility to local fire departments
within six days of product arrival; and
(b) an annual Community Right-to-Know Pesticide Inventory Report to the
Department of Agriculture and the local fire department89
The^Gommunity'Right-to-Know Act of 1991, introduced by Congressman Gerry Sikorski,
(D-MN), as H.R. 2880, would expand the list of chemicals covered by the Right-to-Know Act
to include additional pesticides and broaden the scope of covered facilities.
4.7.6 OSHA
OSHA regulations for tank farms storing flammable liquids apply to pesticides
encompassed by the definition of flammable liquids. Although California has not adopted any
bulk storage regulations, some dealers have developed their own standards for new facilities and
facility upgrades by using these OSHA regulations and adding additional specifications
appropriate for pesticide storage.
4-26
-------
State Index
Alabama 4-18,4-21
Arizona 4-19
Arkansas 4-21
California 4-7, 4-18, 4-19, 4-24, 4-26
Colorado 4-3,4-7,4-8
Connecticut 4-24
Delaware 4-2, 4-24
Florida 4-3,4-5,4-21,4-23
Georgia 4-21
Hawaii 4-7,4-14
Idaho 4-7,4-9
Illinois 4-3, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-21
Indiana 4-3, 4-6
Iowa 4-3,4-5,4-6,4-19
Kansas 4-3,4-7,4-24
Kentucky 4-2,4-7,4-9,4-21
Louisiana 4-3, 4-6, 4-21, 4-24
Maine 4-10, 4-11, 4-15, 4-17, 4-19, 4-22, 4-24
Maryland 4-21
Massachusetts 4-11
Michigan 4-3,4-5,4-6,4-7
Minnesota 4-3,4-5,4-6,4-11,4-17
Mississippi 4-3,4-21
Missouri 4-4, 4-5
Nebraska 4-4,4-5,4-6,4-17
Nevada 4-22
New Hampshire 4-21
New Jersey 4-7,4-11,4-21,4-24
New Mexico 4-7,4-16,4-21
New York 4-7,4-10,4-11,4-12,4-19,4-23
North Carolina 4-3, 4-7, 4-12, 4-13, 4-21, 4-24
North Dakota 4-3,4-14,4-19
Ohio 4-3,4-7,4-15,4-21,4-24
Oklahoma 4-19,4-21
Oregon 4-24
Pennsylvania 4-19, 4-21
Rhode Island 4-24
South Carolina 4-7, 4-15, 4-21
South Dakota 4-6, 4-19
Tennessee 4-21, 4-24
Texas 4-15,4-21,4-24,4-25
Vermont 4-3, 4-5, 4-6, 4-21, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26
Virginia 4-2,4-4,4-19,4-21
Washington 4-4, 4-7, 4-16, 4-21, 4-24
Washington, DC 4-21
4-27
-------
West Virginia 4-2,4-21
Wisconsin 4-3, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-13, 4-14, 4-16
4-28
-------
Endnotes
1. West Virginia Pesticide Use and Application Act Regulations, section 14.
2. Delaware Pesticide Regulations, section 16.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PR Notice 83-3, Notice to Manufacturers,
Formulators and Registrants of Pesticides, March 29, 1983.
4. See Crop Protection Chemicals Reference, 1989, Storage and Temperature Requirements
by Product
5. Title 8, Illinois Administrative Code, Part 255, Agrichemical Facilities, 1989.
6. 355 Indiana Administrative Code 5.
7. Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship Regulations, Chapter 9, "On-site
Containment of Pesticides, Fertilizers and Soil Conditioners."
8. Minnesota Department of Agriculture Pesticide Storage Rules, Parts 1505.3010-1505.3150,
1989.
9. Vermont Pesticide Control Regulations, section Xffl, Transportation, Storage and Disposal
of Pesticides.
10. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP)
Regulations, Ag 163.
11. The Florida proposal is discussed in the subsection of this chapter on Underground and
Aboveground Storage Tank Regulations.
12. Kansas State Board of Agriculture Regulations, section 4-13-25.
13. Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce, Plant Industry Division,
Regulations Governing Distribution of Economic Poisons in Bulk Containers.
14. North Dakota Department of Agriculture Regulations, section 60:03:01:10.
15. Ohio Department of Agriculture Regulations, section 901:5-11-05(3).
16. Louisiana Department of Agriculture Regulations, Subchapter J.
17. Ibid, section 13169.
18. Conversation with Betty Brousseau, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry.
19. Michigan's draft regulations were expected to go to public hearing in the fall of 1991.
4-29
-------
20. Nebraska Department of Environmental Control, Proposed Title 198, Rules and
Regulations Pertaining to Agricultural Chemical Containment The regulations cover
fertilizer storage over 3,000 pounds and pesticide storage over 500 pounds. The
regulations have been approved by the Environmental Control Council and the Attorney
.General. They have been pending in the office of the governor, who must sign them,
ilnW'JuiylL990. TJie regulations are the result of a request by the agricultural chemicals
industry that the state set storage standards.
21. Florida Pesticide Law, title 31, chapter 487, Florida Statutes.
22. Illinois Pesticide Act, as amended, chapter 5, et seq., SHA.
23. Minnesota Pesticide Control Law of 1987, as amended, chapter 18B.01 et seq., Minnesota
Statutes.
24. Missouri Pesticide Use Act, section 281.010 et seq., Missouri Revised Statutes.
25. Rules and Regulations of the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship,
Iowa Administrative Code, chapter 9.
26. Michigan Department of Agriculture Pest and Plant, Pest Management Division,
Regulation No. 640, Commercial Pesticide Bulk Storage (proposed).
27. Rules and Regulations of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Pest and Disease
Control, chapter 1505.
28. Rules and Regulations of the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection,
chapters Ag 29 and Ag 163, Wisconsin Administrative Code.
29. Department of Agriculture, Food and Markets, Vermont Regulations for Control of
Pesticides in Accordance with 6 VSA chapter 87.
30. Title 8 Illinois Administrative Code, chapter I, subchapter i, part 255, Agrichemical
Facilities.
31. Ibid.
32. Indiana Administrative Code, title 357, Registration Title 355, Primary and Secondary
Containment of Pesticides (proposed).
33. Rules and Regulations of the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship,
Iowa Administrative Code, chapter 9.
34. Rules and Regulations of Louisiana Department of Agriculture, and Forestry Advisory
Commission on Pesticides, Louisiana Administrative Code, subchapter J.
35. Michigan Department of Agriculture Pest and Plant, Pest Management Division,
Regulation No. 640, Commercial Pesticide Bulk Storage (proposed).
4-30
-------
36. Rules and Regulations of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Pest and Disease
Control, chapter 1505.
37. Rules and Regulations of the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection,
chapters Ag 29 and Ag 163, Wisconsin Administrative Code.
38. Nebraska Department Environmental Control, Rules and Regulations Pertaining to
Agricultural Chemical Containment, title 198 (proposed).
39. Department of Agriculture, Food and Markets, Vermont Regulations for Control of
Pesticides in Accordance with 6 VSA, chapter 87.
40. Rules and Regulations of the South Dakota Department of Agriculuture, Article 12:56:13,
Bulk Pesticide Storage Rules.
41. Title 8 Illinois Adminitrative Code, chapter I, subchapter i, part 255, Agrichemical
Facilities.
42. Indiana Administrative Code, title 357, Registration Title 355, Primary and Secondary
Containment of Pesticides (proposed).
43. Rules and Regulations of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Pest and Disease
Control, chapter 1505.
44. Rules and Regulations of the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection,
chapters Ag 29 and Ag 163, Wisconsin Adminitrative Code.
45. Colorado Department of Agriculture Regulations for the Colorado Pesticide Application
Act, Part 11.
46. Hawaii Department of Agriculture Regulations, section 4-66-54.
47. Idaho Pesticide Use and Application Rules and Regulations, section 15.
48. Kentucky Pesticide Regulations, section 6, Storage and Handling of Restricted-Use
Products.
49. New Mexico Department of Agriculture Regulations, Regulatory Order No. 5, section
13.
50. Ohio prohibits storage or loading into application equipment within 100 yards of an
airline passenger terminal. Regulations 901:5-11-05.
51. South Carolina Department of Fertilizer and Pesticide Control, Rules and Regulations
for the Enforcement of the South Carolina Pesticide Act, section 27-1081.
52. Kansas Pesticide Regulations, section 4-13-18.
53. California Department of Food and Agriculture Regulations, section 3138.1.
4-31
-------
54. California Department of Food and Agriculture Regulations, Article 4, sections 6670-
6674.
55. Colorado Department of Agriculture, Rules and Regulations under the Colorado Pesticide
. Applicators Act, Part 11. : =--. - -.
--- •-••• - .. ,; .:.r-.-:.• !•- - • •- -.- - • .. .-. ,/r -
56. Kentucky Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Regulations, section 6.
57. "Pesticides on Fire," Maine Times, March 15, 1985.
58. Minnesota Statutes, 18B.37(4). See also Massachusetts: Restricted use pesticides must
be displayed separately from general use and must bear a sign stating "for sale to certified
applicators only." 333 CMR Section 9.04.
59. New Jersey Pesticide Control Regulations, section 7:30-9.4.
60. North Carolina Pesticide Regulations, section 1902.
61. North Carolina Pesticide Regulations, section 1905.
62. Wisconsin DATCP, Ag 29.12.
63. Hawaii Pesticide Regulations, section 4-66-54.
64. Pesticide Regulations 901:5-11-05.
65. Rules and Regulations for the Enforcement of the South Carolina Pesticide Control Act,
section 27-1081.
66. Texas Pesticide Regulations, section 7.21.
67. Washington State Department of Agriculture, Rules Relating to General Pesticide Rules,
Section WAC16-228-160. New Mexico's regulations are similar to Washington's sections
1 and 2. New Mexico Department of Agriculture, Regulatory Order No. 5, Section IB
(1979).
68. Wisconsin DATCP Regulations, Ag 29.12
69. Section 103 H.005, MSA.
70. Pollution Control Board Regulations, section 615.603.
71. Taylor, A.G., Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, "Testimony in Support of
Regulatory Proposals Regarding Agrichemical Storage and Handling Facilities," PCB
R89-5, 1989.
72. Office of the Attorney General, Pesticide Fires: Preventable Disasters, August 1987.
73. United States v. Aceto Agrichemical Corporation.
4-32
-------
74. Conversation with Sharon Malhotra, Murrysville, PA, an organizer of the campaign.
Ordinance #431, An Ordinance for the Borough of Plum Regulating the Storing,
Handling, Use and Processing of Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Material
Constituents within the Territorial Limits of the Borough of Plum.
The ordinance requires that
(a) hazardous materials be stored in containers in good condition;
(b) container storage areas have a containment system for spills and precipitation;
(c) the facility's owner report to the town the method by which excess substances are
disposed of, and the amounts and names of the substances;
(d) facility personnel complete training on hazardous material management; and
(e) the facility prepare and file with the town an emergency response plan.
75. National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP) Technical Report, June
1989.
76. BOCA chart, "Who Uses the BOCA Codes," October 1989.
77. The southeastern states represented include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. The
southwestern states encompassed by the Association are Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.
78. For example, see Coordination and Administration of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986, Title 37-B of the Maine Revised Statutes, Subchapter D3-A,
Section 804.
79. 42 USCA section 6991-69911. The regulations are found in 40 CFR Part 280.
80. A useful discussion of UST regulation may be found in Yagerman, "Underground Storage
Tanks: The Federal Program Matures," 21 Environmental Law Reporter 10136, March
1991.
81. Chapter 17-762, Aboveground Storage Tank Systems, Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation.
82. Ibid, section 17.762.300.
83. 42 USCA sections 11001-11050.
84. Community Right-to-Know and Agricultural Operations: A Guide to Understanding the
4-33
-------
Repotting Requirements of the Maine Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act, February 1991.
85. California, Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, and Vermont
86." Working notes, U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) Education Fund, June
and November 1989.
87. Working notes, U.S. PIRG, November 1989.
88. Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA, Tide m List of Lists, Consolidated List of
Chemicals Subject to Reporting under Tide UJ of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, December 1986. Document Number EPA
560/4-88-003.
89. Vermont Pesticide Regulations, sections V and XH
4-34
-------
Chapter 5
State Disposal Regulations
5.1 Introduction
In early 1989, the Virginia Council on the Environment reported to the governor its
conclusions from a comprehensive review of pesticide management practices in Virginia.
Regarding disposal, the council issued a finding that echoes the views of many state lead
agencies:
Overall, the current situation regarding disposal of waste pesticides
and containers is characterized by unclear or confusing
requirements, conflicting advice, strict and expensive requirements
for some chemicals but no regulations for others and a sense of
frustration on the part of many pesticide users. Although records
obviously do not exist to verify it, this situation probably leads to
the surreptitious, improper disposal of pesticide wastes in numerous
cases.1
This chapter investigates federal disposal and label guidance and various state laws
relating to this important component of pesticide use. The regulations that pertain to pesticide
and container disposal are under the solid waste laws, hazardous waste laws (RCRA) and
pesticide laws (FEPRA).
5.2 FIFRA Pesticide Disposal Regulations Under 40 CFR Part 165
In 1974, EPA set out in 40 CFR Part 165 recommended procedures for disposal of
registered pesticides and their containers and provisions for acceptance by the agency of
pesticides that have been suspended and canceled by EPA. These procedures are only mandatory
for EPA in carrying out its own pesticide and container disposal activities.
The general recommendations set out in Part 165 for management and disposal of
registered pesticides are summarized below. The specific recommendations for pesticide and
container disposal are given in box 5-A.
(a) Disposal procedures that are recommended (section 165.8). The owner of excess
pesticides should, before undertaking disposal, exhaust the following two avenues:
1. use the pesticides for the purpose originally intended, at the prescribed
dosage rates, provided these are currently legal; and
2. return the pesticides to the manufacturer for potential relabeling or
reprocessing into other materials.
5-1
-------
BOX 5-A
Part 165: General Recommendations for Disposal
Section 165.8 sets out the following recommendations for disposing of excess
pesticides, according.to pesticide type:
(a) for organic pesticides [section 165.8(a)]: incineration in a pesticide
incinerator, burial in a specially designated landfill; soil injection, chemical
degradation and well injection only on the advice of an EPA regional
administrator, and temporary storage if other approved procedures are not
available.
(b) for metallo-organic pesticides [section 165.8(b)]: treatment to recover heavy
metals, followed by incineration in a pesticide incinerator, burial in a
specially designated landfill;, chemical degradation, soil injection and well
injection only on the advice of an EPA regional administrator, and temporary
storage until other approved procedures become available.
(c) for organic mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic and inorganic pesticides [section
165.8(c)]: chemical deactivation and recovery of heavy metals on the advice
of an EPA regional administrator, encapsulation and burial in a specially
designated landfill; and temporary storage until other approved procedures
become available.
Section 16S.9 sets out the following recommendations for disposing of pesticide
containers, according to container type:
(a) combustible containers that formerly contained organic or metallo-organic
i pesticides [section 165.9(a)]: incineration in a pesticide incinerator or burial
in a designated landfill, except that small quantities may be burned by the
user and single containers buried
(b) non-combustible containers that formerly contained organic or metallo-
organic pesticides [section 165.9(b)]: triple rinsing followed by return to the
manufacturer, transportation to a recycling facility; crushing and burial in a
sanitary landfill or burial in the field by the user. Unrinsed containers
should be disposed of in a designated landfill or subjected to incineration in
a pesticide incinerator.
(c) containers that formerly contained organic mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic
or inorganic pesticides [section 165.9(c)]; triple rinsing, puncturing and
disposal in a sanitary landfill Unrinsed containers should be encapsulated
and buried in a designated landfill.
5-2
-------
(b) Disposal procedures that are not recommended (section 165.7). Procedures for
disposal of excess pesticides that are not recommended include:
1. open dumping of pesticides or containers, including water or ocean dumping;
2. open burning of-pesticides or containers, except for small amounts of
combustible containers by the user, and
3. procedures that violate any applicable federal or state pollution control
standard.
(c) Procedures for disposal of pesticide containers (section 165.9). Empty pesticide
containers should be cleaned using a triple rinse procedure and then returned to
the manufacturer, transported to a pesticide recycling facility or crushed and
buried in a sanitary landfill or buried in the field by the user.
(d) Procedures for disposal of pesticide residues (section 165.9). Disposal of residues
and rinsates should be accomplished through addition to the pesticide spray
mixtures in the application equipment or in accordance with the procedures
specified for excess pesticides.
(e) Procedures for disposal of pesticide related wastes (section 165.11). Disposal of
pesticide related wastes (pesticide-containing wastes or byproducts resulting from
the manufacturing of pesticide) should be in accordance with procedures for
excess pesticides. Disposal by addition to an industrial effluent stream is not
recommended.
53 Categories of Pesticide Materials That May Require Disposal
Pesticide waste encompasses two broad categories of materials. The first includes
materials generated by the use of pesticides that are unable to be used in accordance with the
label The second is unused pesticides that are illegal to use or are unwanted.
53.1 Pesticide Materials
Disposal of materials generated by the use of pesticides that cannot be used according
to label instructions can be a problem. These materials may include excess tank mix, container
and spray tank rinsates, equipment washes, sludges from collection of rinsates and washes,
contaminated clothing, pesticide containers, container residue and spill clean-up debris. These
materials may be regulated separately under federal and state law from the unused product
53.2 Illegal or Unwanted
Federal law and state statutes can make the distribution or application of unused
pesticides illegal under several circumstances. The Suggested State Pesticide Control Act
suggests that states make it unlawful to distribute any unregistered pesticide, any pesticide whose
5-3
-------
composition or label differs from representations made in connection with registration, any
pesticide that is adulterated or misbranded or any pesticide in a container unsafe due to damage.
Since the model statute also suggests making it unlawful for anyone to use a pesticide contrary
to the label, holders would not be able to use products for which the appropriate labeling is
.missing.. Montana, for example, makes it unlawful "to handle, apply or attempt to apply any
registered pesticide for which [the-applicator] does not have an appropriate, complete or legible
label at hand."2
Although use of a product may be permissible under federal and state law, applicators
may decide not to use products already purchased or not to buy products in dealer inventory for
reasons wholly apart from legal restrictions. In these situations, an unused but usable product
becomes unwanted and poses a potential disposal problem. Marketplace pressures guarantee that
unused pesticides will continue to be generated. In addition, some persons become unwilling
holders of usable products through the acquisition of property on which pesticides are stored.
During the 1990-1991 Minnesota Waste Pesticide Collection program, the Department of
Agriculture asked participants to complete a survey. Of those who responded, the majority said
they had purchased the pesticides presented for disposal A significant percentage also replied
that they received the pesticides at no cost or received them unwillingly.
In practice, the following reasons have proven to generate waste disposal problems for
dealers and end users:
(a) the pesticide is no longer registered for its original use (Le., the use for which
dealers intended to sell it and end users expected to use it);
(b) the pesticide's physical nature has changed, preventing application;
(c) the pesticide's efficacy is reduced through product deterioration, causing use to be
stopped;
(d) labels are lost or destroyed, making safe use impossible; and
(e) holders of pesticides through acquisition of property have no need for the product
5.4 FIFRA Pesticide Label Statements on Pesticide and Container
Disposal Under 40 CFR Part 156
The EPA requires in 40 CFR Part 156.10(i)(2)(ix) that the labeling of a pesticide
product bear the directions for storage and disposal of the pesticide and its container required by
Part 165. The current Part 165 does not contain specific directions. EPA's PR Notice 83-3
provides that the requirements of section 156.10(i)(2)(ix) may be satisfied if certain statements
are placed on the label instructing the user on pesticide residue removal procedures and container
disposal. PR Notices 83-3 and 84-1 set out statements for a variety of pesticide products and
container types. Many labels incorporate the language of these guidance documents nearly
verbatim.
5-4
-------
5.4.1 Label Statements on Pesticide Waste Disposal
The guidance and label statements set out in PR Notice 83-3 inform registrants to
include "updated" and "explicit" instructions regarding pesticide disposal. The statements listed
below contain the exact wording set out in the notice for non-household and household pesticide
product labels.—--
(a) All non-household pesticide products must contain the following statement: "Do
not contaminate water, food or feed by storage or disposal."
(b) For non-household pesticide products containing an active ingredient that appears
on the "Acutely Hazardous" Commercial Pesticide Products List (RCRA E List)
or assigned to Toxicity Category I (oral or dermal toxicity, skin or eye irritation)
or Toxicity Category I or n (acute inhalation toxicity) must bear the following
pesticide disposal statement:
Pesticide wastes are acutely hazardous. Improper disposal of
excess pesticide, spray mixture or rinsate is a violation of
Federal Law. If these wastes cannot be disposed of by use
according to label instructions, contact your State Pesticide or
Environmental Control Agency or the Hazardous Waste
representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for
guidance.
(c) Non-household pesticide products with active or inert ingredients that appear on
the Toxic" Commercial Pesticide Products Last (RCRA F List) or that meet
Subpart C, 40 CFR 261 hazardous waste criteria must bear the following pesticide
disposal statement:
Pesticide wastes are toxic. Improper disposal of excess
pesticide, spray mixture or rinsate is a violation of Federal
Law. If these wastes cannot be disposed of by use according
to label instructions, contact your State Pesticide or
Environmental Control Agency or the Hazardous Waste
representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for
guidance.
(d) Labels for all other non-household pesticide products must bear the following
pesticide disposal statement:
Wastes resulting from the use of this product may be disposed
of on site or at an approved waste disposal facility.
PR Notice 83-3 does not mention use or disposal of exterior equipment washes,
contaminated clothing and spill clean-up debris, leaving those wastes to other regulatory and
educational programs. California, by regulation for termiticide applications, assigns responsibility
for cleaning or disposing of contaminated clothing and safety equipment to the employer.3
5-5
-------
5.4.2 Label Statements on Pesticide Container Disposal
For disposal of the containers used in the distribution and sale of household products,
PR Notice 83-3 sets out the statement: "Securely wrap original container in several layers of
newspaper and discard in trash." 'Additional-statements are set out according to the container
type, such as "discarding in the trash" after "thorough rinsing" if the container held a non-aerosol
product in glass, plastic or metal
PR Notice 84-1 sets out an alternative statement for household/domestic-use products
in 1-gallon or smaller or 5-pounds or smaller sizes: "Do not reuse empty container (bottle, can,
bucket). Wrap (container) and put in the trash." Included in "domestic use" are products
marketed in container sizes similar to products intended for household use and used in public
areas such as office buildings, retail stores, hotels, schools and certain hospital areas.4
For containers used in the distribution and sale of household products, PR Notice 83-3
specifies triple rinsing or equivalent for metal, plastic and glass containers before disposal in a
sanitary landfill, by incineration or by other procedures approved by state and local authorities.
The term "triple rinsing" is defined in 40 CFR Part 165.2 as The flushing of containers three
times, each time using a volume of the normal diluent equal to approximately ten percent of the
container's capacity and adding the rinse liquid to the spray mixture or disposing of it by a
method prescribed for disposing of the pesticide." For paper and plastic bags, PR 83-3 specifies
complete emptying, followed by disposal in a sanitary landfill, incineration or burning, if allowed
by state and local authorities. For compressed gas cylinders, PR 83-3 specifies return for reuse.
5.5 State Definitions of Waste Pesticides and Residue Removal Procedures
5.5.1 State Definitions of Waste Pesticides
The terminology used to describe die various categories of unused pesticides and
pesticide-containing materials varies among states. The same term may have different meanings
in different state regulations. Terms found in state regulations that are related to disposal
include:
Minnesota
In amendments to its pesticide laws enacted as pan of comprehensive groundwater
legislation in 1989, Minnesota defines "waste pesticides" as "A pesticide that the pesticide end
user considers a waste. A waste pesticide can be a canceled pesticide, an unusable pesticide or
a usable pesticide."5
New Hampshire
For its pesticide collection program, New Hampshire defined "unwanted" pesticide as
any pesticide formulation that cannot be used according to label directions in the state due to:
• cancellation or suspension of its federal or state registration;
5-6
-------
• loss of effectiveness in controlling a pest;
• prohibitions or restrictions on its use;
, *... ^deterioration of the product or its label; and/or
• any pesticide formulation whose active ingredients are not clearly identifiable
because of label deterioration or because the pesticide is not stored in its original
container.
South Dakota
Defines "excess pesticide" for the purpose of storage and disposal regulations as
pesticides that cannot be legally sold pursuant to the state pesticide act or that are to be
discarded.6
Washington
Unlike Minnesota, the Washington State Department of Agriculture defines "waste
pesticide" for the purpose of its waste pesticide collection program to include only those products
that cannot legally be used:
Any pesticide formulation which cannot be used according to label
directions in Washington State because of cancellation or
suspension of its federal or state registration or deterioration of the
product or its label and any pesticide formulation whose active
ingredients are not clearly identifiable because of label deterioration
or because the pesticide is not stored in its original container.
5.5.2 State Definitions of Residue Removal Procedures
Several states have specified by regulation or described in educational flyers, a
procedure for triple rinsing or equivalent and designated the containers to which the procedure
applies. A chart outlining residue removal procedures and definitions is attached as Appendix
6. States may also define triple rinsing in hazardous waste regulations for the purpose of
establishing a standard by which to judge whether containers require treatment as hazardous
waste.7 The definitions vary among states in the type and volume of solvent required, whether
drain and agitation times are specified and the time at which rinsing should be done.
Several states have specified a procedure for pressure rinsing. Similar to the triple
rinsing definitions, these vary in terms of specified rinse time and whether a pressure and volume
of diluent is specified. Oregon requires that one of four methods be used to clean rigid
containers: "multiple rinse," "jet rinse," aeration for volatile substances (fumigants) or chemical
washing methods. Most of the specifications for rigid containers also require that the container
be punctured, cut or crushed after rinsing to render it unusable. A few states have also specified
5-7
-------
the procedure for emptying bags. These procedures may require that a bag be cut and opened
fully or may simply require shaking.
5.6 State Regulations on Methods of Disposal
5.6.1 State Pesticide Statute References to State Stolid and Hazardous Waste Statutes
Less than half the states define methods of pesticide disposal within the state's pesticide
regulations, other than 40 CFR Part 165. Of those states that do mention methods of disposal,
several8 adopt by reference the state's solid and hazardous waste regulations. The following
discussion examines disposal options and methods available in the states.
5.6.2 Methods of Pesticide Waste Disposal as Municipal Solid Waste
Municipal solid waste (MSW) encompasses solid waste emanating from domestic and
normal commercial sources. It includes the waste collected by municipal trash collection services
and wastes placed in rural dumps by residents in communities without municipal collection
services. MSW may include household hazardous waste (including pesticides), non-hazardous
pesticide wastes from users and hazardous pesticide wastes from small-quantity generators.
Pesticide waste of all types may be generated by a variety of users and businesses, including
those that use pesticides incidentally (e.g., restaurants) as well as commercial applicators (like
PCOs) that use pesticides regularly.
5.6.2.1 Lan&Wnf
Landfilling is the primary method for disposing of MSW in the midwest (see figure
5-1).10 Most states' MSW management strategies are beginning to rank landfilling as the least
desirable option. For example, in Iowa, landfilling pesticide containers is legaL However, the
state's Groundwater Protection Act, HF 631, established a MSW policy that ranked disposal in
a sanitary landfill as the least desirable option. The Summary of the National Conferences and
Workshops on Pesticide Waste Disposal recommended that landfilling of empty containers should
be allowed only in facilities approved for MSW and that land disposal should be phased out as
recycling and incineration become "acceptable and accessible."
Concern for worker safety (see box 5-B), groundwater contamination and potential
liability for releases of hazardous substances11 have contributed to this reversal of a long-
established practice. States, communities and landfill operators have become increasingly
restrictive of the types of waste that may be disposed of by this method and landfill operators
are often likely to refuse acceptance of agricultural pesticide containers or pesticide wastes.
Triple rinsed (or equivalent) pesticide containers are considered non-hazardous waste
under most federal laws and state statutes. Theoretically, this allows them to be buried in
landfills permitted to accept solid waste. However, in many states, agricultural users have
experienced difficulty disposing of containers in landfills, primarily because landfill operators
often want some assurance that the containers have been triple rinsed, but do not have a reliable
5-8
-------
FIGURE 5-1
Percent MSW Landfilled in Midwest
99*
99*
100*
u*
State
and economical means of verifying triple rinsing. In Iowa, where most landfills still accept
properly rinsed containers, the Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship noted in its 1988
report on container disposal that some landfill operators were beginning to refuse to accept all
empty pesticide containers.12 In Montana, most landfills will accept containers if triple rinsing
can be verified (see Box 5-C). Other states will not accept them under any circumstances.
BOX 5-B
Hazardous Waste Landfill Accidents
At a landfill in Maine several years ago, exposure to pesticide dust from an
"empty" bag triggered an asthmatic attack that sent one employee to the hospital
In 1988, an Arizona pesticide applicator and his company pled guilty to one count
under FIFRA for pesticide misuse by improper disposal. The criminal information charged
that the defendants disposed of 15 to 30 containers of Termide (chlordane and heptachlor)
at a landfill not licensed for disposal of the product A landfill employee crushed some of
the containers while operating heavy equipment This caused a release of pesticides that
sent the employee to the hospital13
There have been numerous documented incidents of sanitation workers being
injured due to contact with hazardous household waste mixed with regular trash.14
5-9
-------
Box 5-C
Montana Survey on Landfill Disposal
In response to a 1990 survey by the Montana Department of Agriculture, 15% of
pesticide applicators said they had jfprbblcm disposing of pesticides, 20% had a problem
disposing of pesticide containers and 9% replied that the nearest landfill would not accept
containers. Twelve percent of dealers replied that they had a problem disposing of
pesticides, 28% had a problem disposing of containers and 12% responded that the nearest
landfill would not accept containers.
One reason that farmers, but not commercial applicators in non-agricultural businesses
(PCOs for example), have experienced difficulty in disposing of containers in landfills is that
fanners tend to save their containers (rinsed and unrinsed) until the end of the season and then
truck a large and unmistakable pile to the 'landfill. In Indiana, the Department of the State
Chemist advises growers to spread out their trips to the landfill over the course of the growing
season.
Missouri, by enacting the Omnibus Solid Waste Management Law,15 prohibits the
disposal in landfills of small quantities of hazardous waste as of January 1994. The state has just
begun to develop regulations implementing this statute. The thrust of the program is to create
collection sites for hazardous wastes (primarily household hazardous waste) so it will not be
necessary for holders to dispose of them in landfills, which in many areas are reaching their
capacity (see figure 5-2).16
New Mexico, which has relied on landfill disposal of pesticide containers, is now
encountering groundwater contamination from previous disposal practices. In the last three years,
available landfills in Wyoming have declined by 15%"
In a 1984 study, EPA concluded that of 16,000 municipal landfills identified, only 35%
were in compliance with groundwater protection requirements.1* Many landfills do not meet
current siting and design criteria for solid waste facilities. For this reason, some states, such as
Maine, which considers restricted and limited use rinsed containers to be special waste, permit
containers to be disposed of in some but not all of the licensed municipal landfills. Other states
require approval before disposal.
States that restrict pesticide disposal in landfills include:
Minnesota
Any landfill must develop plans for managing empty pesticide containers in order to
operate.19
5-10
-------
FIGURE 5-2
Midwest Region Landfill Capacity
SUtff
Numberofbndfills ^W AV* capacity fa jwm
South Carolina
The Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEQ requires that persons
wishing to dispose of containers larger than 1 gallon of liquid or more than 5 pounds of dry
product bags must write to the DHEC and request permission for disposal. The application must
include a list of the approximate number, kinds (5-gallon plastic, 55-gallon metal, etc.) and types
(Parathion, Sevin, etc.) of containers to be disposed of annually and provide the name and
address of the landfill where disposal is sought (previous permission of the operator is required).
Texas
Triple rinsed containers of agricultural products must go to Class I landfills suitable for
hazardous waste. Only if the containers are triple rinsed, punctured and rendered unusable may
they be disposed of in Class n landfills suitable for ordinary MSW.
Virginia
Pesticide containers are considered special wastes and the director of the Department
of Environmental Protection must approve of their disposal at a particular facility in advance.30
5-11
-------
The following discusses other landfilling constraints and related container disposal
problems encountered in various states.
The Cooperative Extension Service in North Dakota has published a list of city-owned
and privately run landfills acceptable for rinsed container disposal, but the policy and rules of
the State Department of Health and Consolidated Laboratories caution "Some landfill owners or
operators may, at their own discretion, disallow these containers." The North Dakota Governor's
Waste Management Task Force, in its May 1989 report, noted:
Many municipal landfills in North Dakota will not accept pesticide
containers even when properly triple rinsed and handled according
to federal and state laws ... Part of the problem is that no one can
be certain whether the containers have been adequately rinsed and
drained.21
Some landfills in Hawaii will not accept containers because of inability to verify
rinsing.22 In Florida, landfill operators have been known to refuse pesticide containers without
a special indemnification form. Operators of private landfills in California have refused pesticide
containers. Also in California, large growers rarely attempt to dispose of containers in landfills
because of liability concerns. Most Nebraska landfills refuse agricultural pesticide containers.23
Landfills in Virginia have refused containers.24 In 1987, the Minnesota Department of
Agriculture surveyed fanners, users (selected licensed commercial and non-commercial
applicators) and dealers on disposal practices. The survey revealed that 12% of dealers and 11%
of users had triple rinsed containers refused by a landfill operator.23
Growers in Michigan and Wisconsin have complained that landfills may refuse
containers. One commercial landfill in Maine proposed to exclude restricted-use pesticide
containers as a condition of its license. Most state-owned landfills in Rhode Island accept triple
rinsed containers, but only if they are punctured and rendered unusable. In Missouri, the
Department of Natural Resources attempts to convince landfill operators that triple rinsed
containers may safely be accepted for disposal but is not always successful
Landfills in Louisiana now accept cleaned, crushed metal containers and plastic
containers that have been split open. This situation resulted from a special initiative by the
Department of Agriculture last year to enforce the triple rinsing requirement After receiving
complaints from fanners that their containers were refused and inquiries from landfill operators
asking whether they could require crushing and puncturing, the department sent inspectors to
farm sites to check containers stockpiled at mixer/loader sites. The department sent out a number
of warning letters, stating that failure to triple rinse was a violation of Louisiana's regulations
and could result in a fine of $5,000 for each improperly rinsed container. The letters promised
that the inspectors would return and that, if any improperly rinsed containers were found, the
applicator would be subject to a hearing before the Pesticide Advisory Commission. At the same
time, county Extension Service agents visited farms and taught pressure rinsing techniques. The
effort succeeded in gaining fanner compliance with rinsing requirements and landfill operator
acceptance of containers.26
5-12
-------
In many states, the permitted landfills may not accept leftover or unused pesticides.
This is true in North Dakota and California, for example. If landfill operators refuse to accept
empty pesticide containers, they also will not knowingly accept pesticide wastes other than
containers, whether or not it is technically legal to do so.
5.6.2.2 Incineration - - • • i:-~ r- ; --- -.-..;.--? -•--,—- ,.-. -. -:
40 CFR Part 165.1 defines a pesticide incinerator as any installation capable of the
controlled combustion of pesticides at a temperature of 1,000°C for two seconds dwell times in
the combustion zone or lower temperatures and related dwell time that will assure complete
conversion of the specific pesticide to inorganic gases and solid ash residues. This definition
complies with 40 CFR Part 240, Agency Guidelines for the Thermal Processing of Solid Wastes.
In its Part 165 guidelines, EPA recommended incineration in a pesticide incinerator,
but not an ordinary MSW incinerator, as the preferred disposal method for waste pesticides and
a recommended procedure for Group I containers and Group H unrinsed containers. The 1987
National Conferences and Workshops on Pesticide Waste Disposal stated that incineration is
preferable to landfilling. Several states, including Hawaii and South Dakota, have incorporated
portions of Part 165 in their pesticide regulations and thus authorize incineration. New York
authorizes burning containers in a high-temperature incinerator approved by the Department of
Environmental Conservation, except for containers that held volatile hormone herbicides.
In areas with MSW incinerators, pesticide wastes thrown in municipal trash are burned.
As of January 1991, there were 128 MSW incinerators that burn waste and produce steam or
electricity as a byproduct and about 30 MSW incinerators that do not generate energy as a
byproduct Another 31 waste-to-energy plants are under construction and 74 are in advanced
planning. Nationally, these plants bum 14% of MSW, but the percentage of waste incinerated
varies significantly from state to state and from region to region. Incineration predominates in
the northeast;27 however, MSW incineration is not available in many agricultural areas and is
not likely to become much more widely available in the near future.28
In response to concerns about the all-inclusive nature of the waste stream to municipal
incinerators, some states and communities are implementing waste-reduction programs to limit
the volume and character of wastes that can be incinerated by municipal incinerators. Li its
proposed new source performance standards for municipal incinerators, released on December
20, 1989, EPA proposed that operators of municipal waste combustion facilities be required to
reduce the amount of garbage they bum by 25% and recycle it instead. Operators would have
been required to separate recyclables, such as glass, metal, paper and plastic, either at the plant
or in a source-separation program. Certain wastes, such as car batteries, would have been
removed from the waste stream. The proposal had two primary purposes: (1) lower the amount
and toxic content of ash and (2) limit toxic air emissions. On February 12,1991, EPA published
its decision to defer any separation and recycling requirements. The proposed rule did not
address pesticide wastes specifically. If pesticide containers can be recycled, separation programs
in the future may limit the volume that can be incinerated. If waste pesticides contribute
substantially to toxic air emissions (principally dioxins, furans and heavy metals) or toxic ash
constituents (heavy metals that force the ash to be characterized as hazardous rather than
5-13
-------
non-hazardous waste), incinerator operators and community residents may choose to limit the
volume that can be incinerated in MSW incinerators.
5.6.2.3 Open Burning
Federal regulations in 40 CFR Part 165 do not recommend open burning of pesticides
or pesticide containers. Open burning, unlike incineration, is the uncontrolled burning of solid
wastes outdoors. A chart comparing state open burning regulations is attached as Appendix 7.
Open burning of empty containers can offer a convenient way for fanners in many rural areas
to dispose of paper bags and plastic containers. In Minnesota, for example, where farmers
purchase pesticides primarily in paper containers or plastic jugs under 5 gallons, burning was
their preferred practice, according to a 1987 survey.29
Problems have been identified with open burning. For instance, the Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture has noted, "Illegal burning of pesticide containers frequently results
in incomplete combustion of pesticide residues ... these activities result in highly concentrated
localized areas of contaminated soil."30 In one recent case in Nebraska, a farmer lost a dozen
head of cattle, apparently because the animals licked the salty residue remaining on the ground
after he burned bags that were not completely clean.31
The legal status of open burning as a means of disposal for fanners varies among the
states. Some states specifically permit burning; others specifically prohibit it; some interpret the
state air pollution laws to prohibit burning.
Ten states32 specifically permit by regulation open burning of containers under certain
conditions. The practice is generally limited to agricultural users burning small quantities of
combustible containers on site. Several of these states — Delaware, Pennsylvania and South
Dakota — have adopted the language of 40 CFR Part 165.7 almost verbatim, including the
reference to "user," which may not limit the practice to commercial agriculture. Illinois, by its
Agrichemicals Facilities Regulations, permits open burning by dealers and commercial
applicators, but at commercial agrichemical facilities only until January 1995. In Iowa, where
the practice is legal for farmers, it is, nevertheless, not the state's preferred method of disposal
because it is inconsistent with the state's solid waste disposal hierarchy.33 Iowa's container
collection program provides an immediate option to the field burning of containers.
Two states that had allowed open burning for years, North Carolina and West Virginia,
no longer do so. North Carolina amended its pesticide regulations as of December 1, 1989, to
prohibit the practice. The state air pollution agency argued that open burning conflicted with the
state's air pollution regulations. The state solid waste agency agreed to allow landfills to accept
empty containers so burning was not necessary. The West Virginia legislature recently enacted
a law banning open burning in areas serviced by municipal garbage collection. As a result, the
majority of orchard owners can no longer bum combustible containers, nor can they easily
dispose of rigid containers in landfills.
While burning is not specifically prohibited in Louisiana's pesticide regulations, the
Department of Agriculture plans to amend its regulations to do so. In the meantime, the
Department of Agriculture notifies the Department of Environmental Quality of the discovery of
5-14
-------
any large open burn sites and has sent warning letters to farmers advising them that binning
anything other than outer wrapping boxes is illegal.
In Indiana, burning is illegal under the state's air pollution laws, except with a special
permit from the state Department of Environmental Management However, the department will
mot grant permits and state certification and training programs advise applicants that burning is
illegal.34
Maine, New Jersey, Rhode Island and South Carolina interpret their air pollution
regulations to prohibit burning. Even when prohibited by state law as in Maine, however, open
burning of both bags and plastic containers occurs in rural areas. Convenience and lack of state
agency enforcement in the absence of practicable recycling or other disposal alternatives are the
primary causes. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection is, however, pursuing a
report of Velpar container burning in an open town dump. This kind of situation also occurs in
New Hampshire:33 Although the Texas Department of Agriculture, in its certification programs,
instructs growers not to burn containers,36 some growers continue to do so.37 To compound
the problem, several of the core manuals widely used in certification and training programs offer
open burning as a legal disposal option for agricultural users.
State pesticide lead agencies that do not address burning directly in the pesticide
regulations, generally defer to the state air pollution agency for a determination of its legality.
For example, the Florida Bureau of Air Quality Management submitted a request to EPA in 1986
to amend its state implementation plan to permit open burning of pesticide containers.
The air pollution statutes of a number of states contain a provision similar to the
following excerpt from New Mexico's statutes: open burning is prohibited except for
"agricultural management. . . directly related to the growing and harvesting of crops." This
language has been interpreted both to prohibit (as in Maine's) and to allow (for example, local
Air Resources Boards may make this decision in California) container burning on-site.
In Nebraska, fanners may burn bags, but the status of plastic containers is unclear and
persons with questions are referred to the state air pollution agency. On the other hand,
commercial applicators and dealers may not bum containers and the state has taken enforcement
actions against dealers who have done so.
Some states decline to take a public position. The Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection has not taken a position on the legality of farmers burning containers
and pending a decision, fanners do burn containers.
Some dealers also bum containers, although in most states the practice is illegal Nine
percent (12) of dealers who responded to the 1990 Montana Department of Agriculture Pesticide
Dealer Disposal Survey replied that they burned returned or damaged drums and containers.
5.6.2.4 Land Application
At this time, a few states address in their regulations land application as a disposal
option. For example, Iowa's solid waste disposal rules allow land application of waste pesticides,
5-15
-------
provided that the director of the Department of Natural Resources determines that land
application is the best disposal method and the applicant submits an accepted permit plan. The
plan must contain, among other information:
(a) a complete description of the waste* including, brands,,active ingredients, solvents
and carriers, the concentrations, and quantities thereof, original use made of the
product, the date of use, duration and conditions of storage and any other
information relating to the effects to be expected from the waste;
(b) the rate at which the product would normally be applied to the site given specified
cropping intentions, soil types, moisture levels, soil pH, organic matter present,
previous pesticide applications and any other relevant information;
(c) the rate at which the waste is to be applied to the site along with the reason for
any discrepancy from normal product application rates as described below, the
impacts to be expected and any information necessary to show that adverse
impacts will not be significant;
(d) a description of the methods to be used in disposing of the waste, including any
special provisions needed to assure intended application rates; and
(e) a description of methods to be used to avoid migration of the waste off-site.
5.6.2.5 Open Dumping
Open dumping is the practice of throwing waste in an open area leaving it uncovered.
Open dumping is illegal in all states and is not recommended by EPA's Part 165 guidelines.
Nevertheless, states have found and continue to find, open dump sites for pesticide wastes in
ditches, sinkholes, gravel pits and other places. For example:
(a) In September 1989, the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
removed 450 old pesticide containers from a sinkhole in Osage, previously used
as a dump.
(b) A 1981 aerial survey in Maine disclosed 400 dump sites for containers. Maine's
returnable container program virtually has eliminated new container dump sites.
However, in the summer of 1990, Maine pesticide inspectors found a cache of
containers, some empty and some unused, in a gravel pit on a potato farm.
(c) The North Carolina Department of Agriculture conducted a survey of container
disposal sites while making routine inspections in 1981-82. Inspectors found 356
dump sites, a majority of which were in woodland areas.38
(d) Press releases encouraging growers to participate in Idaho's container collection
program noted, "Another quick and dirty disposal method has been simply to
dump containers in an out-of-the-way spot on public land. More than a few dump
5-16
-------
FIGURE 5-4
Pesticide Container Burial
VT,
= States that authorize burial of pesticide containers.
= States that allow burial of empty pesticide containers by
fanners within the constraints of specific regulations.
In their pesticide regulations, Arizona, Hawaii, New York, South Dakota and West
Virginia specifically authorize burial of containers.
Arizona
Arizona permits growers to bury triple rinsed containers from their own use on site,
provided that a permit is obtained from the County Board of Supervisors for an agricultural
on-site disposal area.41
Hawaii
Hawaii allows pesticide containers to be "buried in the ground, covered with at least
one foot of soil, unless otherwise directed by the label" or the Department of Agriculture. The
regulation does not restrict burial to growers or to on-site locations. It is, however, qualified by
regulations requiring triple rinsing and puncturing or crushing of glass and metal containers and
a general statement that "Pesticides and empty containers shall not be disposed of so as to create
a hazard."42
5-19
-------
New York
New York allows container burial and burial of small quantities of pesticides.43
"Unwanted or unusable pesticides in total quantities per calendar year of 10 pounds or less of dry
,j material active ingredient or five gallons,or less oJL&tal liquid may be disposed of by burial with
at least 18 inches of compacted cover in a manner and at a location such that ground or surface
water will not be contaminated, except that no more than 1 kg of pesticides listed as acute
hazardous waste ... may be buried and no pesticide wastes shall be buried if the label prohibits
such burial."
South Dakota
South Dakota permits burial on-site by the user of up to 50 pounds or one day's
accumulation of both triple rinsed containers and unrinsed containers, provided that "light soil
texture or subsurface water is not a factor" and "taking into consideration environmental
considerations."44 A 1988 South Dakota farm survey found that growers disposed of 22% of
containers in sanitary landfills or on-farm dump sites.
West Virginia
West Virginia allows "disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers on farms where
disposal by open-field burial of single containers is undertaken with due regard to the protection
of surface and sub-surface waters,"45 unless the label or Part 165 guidelines specifically
prohibits it
Others, such as Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico
(bags only), North Dakota and Oregon, allow burial of empty containers by fanners on-site
pursuant to solid waste regulations.
Arkansas
Arkansas allows users to bury not more than five containers. The containers must not
have held organic mercury, lead, cadmium or arsenic compounds and they may be buried "in
open fields with due regard for protection of surface and subsurface water."46
Nevada
Nevada has established three container dump sites near agricultural areas so growers
do not have to transport containers to one of the handful of landfills in the state. However, the
sites are not well controlled. They have no liners due to desert conditions and are operating
without a means of checking containers for proper rinsing. Nevada's solid waste regulations do
not prohibit farmers and ranchers from disposing of wastes on their own land, although the state
can bring enforcement actions against persons who dispose of pesticides in a way that creates
potential for water pollution. The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division
of Environmental Protection, did take action against one rancher who buried stock dust in a way
that threatened water supplies.
5-20
-------
North Dakota
In its "Policy or Rules Regarding the Disposal of Agricultural Chemical Containers and
Unused Leftover Chemicals," the North Dakota State Department of Health and Consolidated
Laboratories notes that: "Disposal of properly rinsed and punctured containers by burial is
allowed on the farm by the fanner who generates the containers. However, containers generated
by any commercial application must be disposed of in an approved landfill." A 1986 extension
brochure states: "Directions on the product label in the storage and disposal section or the
environmental statement will have instructions for burying empty containers. Guidelines that
specify the distance needed from water sources, cropland areas or houses are not available. You
must consider many things when selecting a burial site for empty pesticide containers. Soil type,
water table height, isolation, future land use and possible development are a few of the factors
that determine burial site location. Using good judgment and maintaining a properly managed
burial site should provide for years of pesticide container disposal on the ranch or farm."
Ohio
In Ohio, the Department of Agriculture, "Pesticide Safety: Storage and Disposal,"
Bulletin 581 states that:
... the fanner may readily use the burial method as follows.
Light, single trip containers, after adequate rinsing, crushing and/or
breaking, may be buried in safe locations on the farm premises.
Burial of unrinsed containers or large quantities of containers
should be in clay or loam soil, with 18 to 24 inches of similar soil
cover, in an isolated, level spot at least 500 feet from livestock
feeding areas, wells and streams and where water supplies will not
be contaminated. Single containers, after rinsing and destruction,
can be buried on site of application.
For 30- and 55-gallon containers, the department suggests recycling because "This
could save effort in having to crush, in excavating a deeper hole and in burying the larger
containers." The brochure also suggests burial on privately owned premises for large farm
operations, custom applicators and governmental agencies.
Oregon
Oregon allows fanners to bury empty non-rigid or decontaminated rigid containers on
their own property, provided the containers were from their own use and the site is flat ground
at least 500 feet from surface water or a well.47
Utah
Brochures published by the Extension Service in Utah describe farm burial of
containers as an acceptable practice.48 "Paper bags should be thoroughly emptied and either
buried on your own property in a safe location away from water and animals or susceptible plants
5-21
-------
or they may be added to other solid waste trash for ultimate sanitary landfill disposal... Glass
containers should be triple rinsed and then either buried or... Plastic containers should be triple
rinsed and either buried or ... Metal containers should be triple rinsed and either buried or . .
. Other ' •--•-• -r- '•-••^••v ' • "• •••—-
A rodent edition of the Penn State core Pesticide Education Manual states:
Most of your triple rinsed containers can be buried on your
property if placed at least 18 inches below the surface and kept
away from water sources and underground utilities. Extra caution
must be exercised with containers that held organic or inorganic
pesticides containing mercury, lead, cadmium or arsenic; follow the
label instructions.
A recent version of the widely used Cornell core manual also instructs applicators that
burial of containers is legal. The Penn State core manual and the Ohio Department of
Agriculture's Bulletin 581 even recommend burial of excess thak mix and rinsates.
The Ohio bulletin states that when excess tank mix and rinsates cannot be disposed of
by application:
The dilate pesticide solution, emulsion or rinsings should be run
into a shallow holding pit dug in an area where there will be no
runoff or downward percolation and where the water table is at
least 10 feet below the surface. Under no circumstances should
dilute pesticides or rinse water be allowed to enter streams, lakes,
sewers, drainage ditches or other areas where water contamination
can result The holding pit area should be properly identified so
that no other use is made of this area and so that subsequent
contamination of other areas will not occur.
The Penn State Pesticide Education Manual states:
Farmers who need to dispose of a surplus spray mixture or
contaminated rinsewater should do so on their own property only
if not prohibited by the label and only in a specially designated
site. A site at least 500 feet from any source of water should be
selected In addition, the disposal site should not have a high
water table or lead to a surface water source.
In those states where burial is legal, it is not a practice that is encouraged. Nor is it
a disposal method that states can readily control, once authorized, to ensure that only empty
containers are buried or that other pesticide wastes are buried in such a way that groundwater is
not contaminated For example, Georgia allows burial, but the Department of Agriculture
5-22
-------
attempts to discourage it Burial is still legal in Florida, but Extension Service brochures advise
against it Previously, Alabama allowed burial of containers on farm sites with a permit Those
permits are rarely granted now that past abuses have surfaced through contamination of water
supplies or fish kills.
Burial is illegal in many slates, including Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, North
Carolina, South Carolina and Texas.
Three years ago, Louisiana prohibited burial as a result of groundwater
contamination.49 At one site, the state unearthed several thousand cans of Dinitro. In another
situation, a retired man bought a 2-acre plot for his retirement home, only to discover that 10
tons of aldrin-contaminated seed had been dumped on it EPA has taken over the cleanup, which
may cost as much as $2.5 million.
In June of 1990, new Louisiana legislation on pesticide wastes mandated that the
Department of Agriculture monitor, investigate and issue remedial orders pertaining to pesticide
waste disposal. The legislation specifically provided that citizen complaints concerning the
treatment, storage or disposal of pesticide wastes may be filed with the department and that the
department must investigate all such complaints. Since enactment, the department has received
about a dozen tips concerning improper burial, most of which have proved valid.
5.63 Disposal in Wastewater Treatment Systems
Few states restrict discharges to wastewater treatment systems through their pesticide
statutes (see figure 5-5). Connecticut prohibits the "discarding of any pesticide into any public
sewage disposal system."30 New Mexico prohibits dumping pesticide waste into any sewer or
storm drain. However, the regulations define pesticide waste to exclude materials packaged for
household or agricultural use.31 Wisconsin provides that no one "may apply a pesticide to or
cause a pesticide to enter waters of the state ... through sewer systems," except for the use of
pesticides under special permits for treatment of sewer rodents and pesticides for root control in
sewage lines and disinfectants, slimicides, swimming pool chemicals, hospital equipment, etc.32
CWA section 304 requires wastewater treatment prior to discharge into a municipal
treatment plant Section 307 regulates discharge of 65 toxic substances, many of which are
pesticides. Those substances are listed in 40 CFR Part 401.15.
Pursuant to state programs that implement CWA standards, states license point-source
discharges by certain commercial and industrial sources into water bodies or municipal
wastewater treatment systems. EPA estimates that these facilities discharge from 175 million to
1 billion pound equivalents per year.33
For occasional discharges, EPA recommends that pesticide-related wastes from pesticide
manufacturing facilities not be added to the "industrial effluent stream" if not "ordinarily a part
of or contained within such industrial effluent stream, except as regulated by and in compliance
with effluent standards established pursuant to sections 304 and 307 of the Clean Water Act"94
However, CWA discharge permits do not currently control pesticide discharges to any significant
degree with numerical standards issued pursuant to sections 304 and 307. EPA is developing
5-23
-------
FIGURE 5-5
Discharge to Wastewater Treatment Systems
YTA
'• States that restrict discharge to wastewater treatment
systems through pesticide statutes.
effluent limitation guidelines, pretreatment standards and new source performance standards for
pesticide manufacturers, f ormulators and packagers, as well as effluent regulations for the
majority of toxic substances under section 307.
Federal ambient water quality criteria do exist for about 100 substances, many of which
are pesticides. Some states have adopted the criteria and use them to develop National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions. Missouri has taken the position that,
because EPA has not developed pretreatment standards for pesticides and the state does not want
to be in the position of trying to devise them, the Missouri bulk storage regulations probably will
The absence of numerical or water quality criteria for the vast majority of pesticides
allows discharges to occur legally, as long as enforcement authorities do not discover harm in
a particular situation. EPA has recognized the difficulty for states and municipal treatment plants
in developing their own numerical standards:
Facilities in mis category [pesticide manufacturing/ formulating]
handle a wide variety of pollutants. The pollutant mix changes
seasonally, according to the industry's Kuaiufacturing cycle. This
complex and variable pollutant mix greatly complicates NPDES
permit issuance and the establishment of pretreatment limits in the
5-24
-------
absence of national standards. Thus the Agency believes that
guidelines and standards will be of great value to permit writers
and POWTs [publicly owned treatment works].53
-. Several-estates with bulk storage regulations, address the issuance of CWA permits for
discharges from bulk facilities. Iowa's bulk storage regulations36 and Nebraska's proposed bulk
regulations prohibit discharges of rinsates and wash waters to storm sewers or to sanitary sewers
without an NPDES permit and to sanitary sewers connected to a wastewater treatment plant
without prior approval and in accordance with discharge limitations of a pre-treatment agreement
or sewer use ordinance. In its agrichemical facilities regulations, Illinois prohibits discharges
from these facilities into storm sewers, public or private sewage treatment facilities and sanitary
sewer systems.
State water pollution agencies and municipalities may also regulate pesticide discharges
from recycling facilities requiring an NPDES permit or pre-treatment permit The company
holding die contract for recycling all bottle plastic collected in Minneapolis, for example, is
waiting for municipal review of the results of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture study of
cleanliness of pesticide containers collected in its pilot projects prior to accepting pesticide
containers for recycling. The company discharges into a treatment plant and lagoon. Water from
the facility is used to irrigate nearby fields. The company does not want to risk contaminating
the treatment plant or harming the irrigated crops.57
The CWA has been employed to correct some egregious disposal practices. In 1988,
a federal jury convicted three Arkansas businessmen of violations of the act They had purchased
heptachlor-treated seed for gasohol production and discharged the heptachlor-contaminated
wastewater to drainage ditches leading to Flat Rock Creek and the Arkansas River. At the time,
federal water regulations prohibited discharge of heptachlor.38
State agencies and municipal treatment plant operators may publicly caution against
disposal without prior approval. For example, the Pesticide Division of New Jersey's Department
of Environmental Protection recommends that veterinarians contact municipal treatment plant
operators prior to discharging animal dips to make certain that the facility can accept the
discharges. The Florida Extension Service recommends "POTWs (Publicly Owned Treatment
Works) can accept rinse water and treat it If you have the permission of a POTW you may be
able to dispose of rinse waters to the sewer system. Make sure you have permission or you may
be liable for a sewer system cleanup."59
States do not generally regulate individual routine domestic discharges to treatment
plants. Some municipal wastewater treatment facilities, however, distribute a recent brochure
published by the Water Pollution Control Federation, "Household Hazardous Waste, What You
Should and Shouldn't Do." The brochure recommends mat "indoor bug sprays, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, rat poisons and weed killer" be saved for a community collection day and
given to a licensed hazardous waste contractor. The brochure also urges homeowners to "read
and follow directions on how to use a product and dispose of the container."
5-25
-------
5.7 State Authority for Disposal of Suspended, Canceled, Unregistered or
Otherwise Misbranded Pesticides
Most states have authority to seize unregistered or otherwise misbranded pesticides, to
obtain •« court order disposing of the pesticides and to charge the costs of storage and disposal
to the holder. New"Ybfk,"f6f example, gives" me Commissioner"of Environmental Conservation
the following powers:
(a) "Whenever the commissioner finds or has probable cause to believe, that any
pesticide is adulterated or misbranded or improperly labeled or is not colored
within the meaning of this article or is not registered as required under this article
or for which a permit has not been issued for its sale, offer for sale, purchase,
possession, or use as required by this article, he may affix to such pesticide a tag
or other appropriate marking giving notice that such pesticide is or is suspected
• • = of being adulterated or misbranded or improperly labeled or not colored . .. and
warning all persons not to remove or dispose of such "pesticide by sale or
otherwise, until permission from removal or disposal is given by the commissioner
(b) "Before destruction of any pesticide following seizure or quarantine, the
commissioner shall give the owner, proprietor or custodian of such pesticide ten
days notice in writing ... of a hearing ... to show cause why such pesticide
should not be destroyed or otherwise disposed of..."
(c) "Whenever any pesticide is seized or quarantined ... me destruction and
disposition thereof, together with any necessary storage, handling or other
incidentals between the time of seizure or quarantine and the destruction and
disposition thereof, shall be the responsibility, both financially and otherwise, of
the owner, proprietor or custodian of such pesticide; provided, however, that such
destruction and disposition shall be carried out only under the direction and
immediate supervision of the commissioner or his duly authorized representative.
In addition, if upon cancellation/suspension the pesticides are considered
hazardous waste under state law, the state may bring to bear the liability and clean
up provisions of the hazardous waste laws."
The federal government has this authority in FEFRA Section 13; 7 USCA section 136k.
fc 1988, the United States used this authority under FIFRA and the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act to require destruction of all unregistered products in the possession of Argent
Chemical Laboratories, which promoted itself as the largest producer and seller of aquatic
pesticides in the country. The company sold Copper Control, rctenone, fenthion, igran and
trichlorfon before they were registered by EPA and continued to sell Copper Control and other
unregistered pesticides after a 1982 Stop Sale order.**
Several states have defined the responsibility of the registrant upon cancellation or
suspension of product registration. Florida law requires that:
5-26
-------
(a) "When the use of any pesticide registered or otherwise approved for use in this
state is suspended or canceled to prevent harm to the public or the environment,
the registrant, at its own expense, shall reclaim that pesticide from any distributor,
dealer, user or other party possessing it in this state, provide reimbursement
therefor and. provide for the proper removal or disposal of the pesticide in
accordance with federal and state law."
(b) "The registrant shall comply with the requirements of subsection (1) within 90
days of issuance of the order of suspension or cancellation."61
Through HB 1406, enacted in 1989, Illinois defines the registrant's obligation as
properly disposing "of any pesticide the registration of which has been suspended, revoked or
which is otherwise not properly registered in the State."
Mississippi allows the Division of Plant Industry to require a fidelity bond up to
$10,000 from non-residents whose product has been canceled.62
At least two states, Iowa and Wisconsin, have addressed disposal in legislation barring
a specific product. A 1988 Iowa statute prohibiting sale or use of chlordane after January 1,
1989, required "The Department [of Agriculture and Land Stewardship], working in conjunction
with the DNR shall identify existing stocks of chlordane, shall formulate recommendations for
the safe disposal of existing stocks of chlordane and shall make those recommendations available
to the owners of existing stocks of chlordane."63 The Wisconsin Environmental Protection Act,
section 144.788, gives the Department of Natural Resources authority to establish facilities for
the collection and disposal of 2,4,5-T and silvex and allows the department to restrict the
facilities so that no person who manufactures, sells or transports the products or who is a certified
applicator can use them.
5.8 Pesticides as Hazardous Waste"
5.8.1 General Regulatory Scheme
Certain unused pesticides and additional pesticide-containing materials may be regulated
as hazardous waste under federal and/or state law (see box 5-D). The designation has significant
legal and practical consequences: Fanners, other end users such as institutions, commercial
applicators and dealers and even recycling facilities that generate washes, may become hazardous
waste generators with the requisite liability, assessment of fees, storage requirements and
paperwork. Those who haul pesticides to a disposal facility may be required to obtain transporter
licenses. Compounding disposal problems is the fact that many states do not contain any licensed
hazardous waste disposal facilities that are publicly available.69 There are 338 licensed
hazardous waste incinerators in the United States, but most of these are private disposal facilities
for industrial waste disposal66
5-27
-------
BOX 5-D
Pesticides as Solid Waste
For purposes of determining whether a pesticide is a waste regulated by RCRA
subtitle -C-:(42 USCA Sections 6921-6939, hazardous waste), it must first be a "solid
waste." This requires that the pesticide be "discarded." EPA interprets this criterion to
prohibit the Agency from regulating production processes or normal uses of chemical
products and its definitions of waste attempt to distinguish between "waste-like" and
"product-like" materials. A solid waste is any discarded material, not excluded from
regulation, that falls into one of three categories: abandoned material, recycled material
and inherently waste-like material. A material is recycled when it is used in a manner
constituting disposal, burned for energy recovery, reclaimed or accumulated speculatively.
The following materials are solid wastes when accumulated speculatively: spent materials,
sludges, by-products, commercial chemical products and scrap metal. The burden of
proving that the material is not intended to be discarded and thus not a waste generally
rests upon the holder.
The regulations implementing RCRA Subtitle C include as hazardous waste four groups
of pesticides. The first, listed in 40 CFR Part 261.31, includes certain discarded unused pesticide
formulations containing tri-, tetra- and pentachlorophenols or certain compounds derived from
the chlorophenols. This list includes about 20 phenoxy herbicides and their salts and esters. It
also includes residues resulting from the incineration or thermal treatment of soil contaminated
with these pesticides. These products are listed as acute hazardous waste. The second group,
known as "K" wastes, derive from the production of specific pesticides, such as wastewater
treatment sludges from the production of chlordane. These chemicals are listed as toxic wastes.
The third group, found at Parts 26133(e) and (f), includes about 130 commercial
pesticide products and encompasses commercial pure and technical grade products,
off-specification pesticides and formulations whose sole active ingredient is listed. 40 CFR Part
261.33(e) lists about SO commercial pesticide products deemed "acutely hazardous." These
pesticides are designated by a number beginning with the letter "P" and are frequently referred
to as the "P" list products. 40 CFR Pan 261.33(f), also known as the "U" list for the letter that
precedes each product number, contains 83 pesticide active ingredients designated "toxic" under
RCRA.
The fourth group includes wastes that meet one or more of the four RCRA hazardous
waste characteristics (40 CFR Part 261.21 ignitability, Part 261.22 corrosivity, Part 26123
reactivity or Part 261.24 toxicity). Until recently, only six pesticide wastes were regulated on
a concentration basis under the toxicity characteristic criterion: endrin, lindane, methoxychlor,
toxaphene, 2,4-D and silvex. On March 29,1990, EPA issued its final rule revising the toxicity
characteristic criterion for identification as hazardous waste. The new Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) encompasses more pesticides as toxic constituents than the previous
Extraction Procedure test, about 10 pesticides.67
5-28
-------
Pesticide formulations containing P or U list wastes are hazardous only when the listed
chemical is the sole active ingredient or if the P or U list constituent is one of multiple active
ingredients, when the mixture meets one or more of the four hazardous waste characteristics.
This creates the anomalous result that holders disposing of products with more than one listed
active ingredient-may not have 4o comply with RCRA hazardous waste rules, while those
disposing of products with only one such ingredient must do so. By increasing the number of
pesticide constituents encompassed by the new TCLP test; however, EPA has expanded the
number of multiple active ingredient pesticide wastes regulated as hazardous waste by RCRA.
In its preamble to the rule, EPA stated:
The principal effects of today's final rule will be felt by
commercial applicators, such as aerial applicators and pest control
operators, who are not eligible for the special requirements
applicable to farmers and who may use sufficiently large volumes
of pesticides that they exceed the small quantity generator
limitations. If they use large quantities of multiple active
ingredient pesticide products that have not previously been
regulated, such commercial applicators may be newly subject to the
RCRA hazardous waste management requirements.68
Generally, for formulations containing pesticide active ingredients on the P or U lists,
disposal of excess undiluted commercial product, excess tank mix, equipment washings and
container rinsates, spill clean-up residues, contaminated clothing and unemptied containers must
comply with RCRA hazardous waste rules. If a pesticide formulation is hazardous by virtue of
meeting the RCRA hazardous waste characteristics, additional pesticide-containing wastes
generated by use of the formulation are hazardous only if the resulting mixture continues to meet
one or more of the characteristics tests.
Pesticide wastes that qualify as hazardous waste must be disposed of by methods
approved for other hazardous wastes. New federal restrictions on land disposal of hazardous
wastes, including those pesticides that are hazardous waste, will ultimately prohibit disposal of
hazardous wastes in impoundments, unless the wastes meet applicable treatment standards or are
subject to a petition showing there will not be migration for as long as the wastes remain
hazardous. In its preamble to the new land disposal restrictions, EPA noted that the prohibition
could affect generators of pesticide wastes:69
A number of generators of pesticide waste that have heretofore
been comparatively unaware of the land disposal restrictions may
be regulated when today's proposed rulemaking is promulgated.
This will require that the Agency develop guidance materials and
provide training on how to comply with the requirements of the
land disposal restrictions.
Generators of significant quantities of pesticide P and U wastes are
farmers and commercial applicators. The provisions of 40 CFR
262.70 and 268.1 exempt farmers from regulation under the land
5-29
-------
disposal restrictions program; however, no such exemption exists
for commercial applicators. Such generators of hazardous wastes
have traditionally land disposed their pesticide wastes. Subsequent
to promulgation of today's proposed rule, these generators must
comply with the requirements of the land disposal restrictions if
ihey dispose of a restricted hazardous waste.
Under section 3006 of RCRA, states with hazardous waste programs equivalent to,
consistent with and no less stringent than the federal program may administer their own programs
in lieu of the analogous provisions of federal law. As EPA regulations change, states generally
have up to two years to adopt the new federal regulations. In an authorized state, the regulated
community follows the state's effective date for new regulations. However, if the regulations are
promulgated in response to the 1984 amendments to RCRA (the amendments related to dioxin-
containing wastes, certain solvent mixtures and delisting criteria), it is effective in all states at
the same time but implemented by EPA until the states receive authorization.
As of January 1991, all states except California, Alaska, Wyoming and Connecticut
administered their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of EPA's pre-1984 regulations. In the
states not authorized to enforce the federal program, dual federal and state enforcement authority
exists. Most states mimic the RCRA definition of hazardous waste found in 42 USC section
6903. Many have adopted by regulation the identification, characterization and listing of
hazardous waste in 40 CFR Part 261.70
5.8.2 State Definitions of Hazardous Waste
Some states have expanded the number of substances regulated as hazardous waste,
including pesticides, by adding chemicals to the P and U lists, altering the federal criteria for
characterization or changing the mixture rule.71 The following illustrate this divergence from
the federal minimum.
California
California developed a hazardous waste program before EPA put RCRA regulations
into place and, as a result, operates a program that differs in many ways from the federal one.
Under this program, California relies primarily upon criteria, rather than listing, to identify
hazardous wastes.
Those criteria are toxicity73 (see box 5-E), persistence and tendency to bioaccumulate,
ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, including materials that result in a liquid when mixed with
water, extremely hazardous wastes (similar in concept to RCRA acute hazardous wastes) and
special wastes.
5-30
-------
BOX 5-E
Toxicity
California's criteria for toxicity include: Oral LDjo less than 5,000 mg/kg, acute
dermal LD^ less than 4300 mg/kg, acute inhalation LCM less, than 10,000 ppm as a gas or
vapor and acute aquatic 96-hoiir LCM less than 500 mg/1; whether any of 16 substances is
present at a single or combined concentration of 0.001% by weight; whether the substance
"has been shown through experience or testing to pose a hazard to human health or
environment because of its carcinogenicity, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, bioaccumulative
properties or persistence in the environment"; and whether the waste is listed in 40 CFR
Part 261.
California also has promulgated a list of 750 chemical names and a list of common
waste names. These lists identify materials that, if they appear as wastes or contain sufficient
concentrations of hazardous constituents, are likely to meet the criteria for identification as
hazardous waste.73 "Insecticides," "unrinsed pesticide containers," "unwanted or waste pesticides
(an unusable portion of active ingredient or undiluted formulation)," and "weed killers" are all
listed as potential hazardous waste on the common names list74 Application of the criteria
makes most pesticide wastes hazardous. Consequently, large growers in California are routinely
licensed as hazardous waste generators.
While EPA regulates under RCRA only certain specified categories of recyclable
materials, the California definition of "waste" includes all hazardous wastes capable of being
recycled.75 In particular. California includes all hazardous materials used in a manner
constituting disposal, including those used to produce a product that is to be applied to the land
as a fertilizer, soil amendment, agricultural mineral or auxiliary soil and plant substance.
California also includes materials that have been mislabeled or packaged in damaged containers.
If the mislabeling or damage is corrected within a certain period of time, the materials do not
constitute waste.
Georgia
The Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Act defines a "designated hazardous waste"
as any solid waste that the Board of Natural Resources concludes is capable of posing a
substantial hazard to human health or the environment and contains any substance listed on the
following:
list of hazardous constituents in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VHI;
• groundwater monitoring list in 40 CFR Part 464, Appendix DC;
• list of hazardous substances and reportable quantities in 40 CFR Table 302.4;
• list of regulated pesticides in 40 CFR Part 180;
• list of extremely hazardous substances in 40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A; and
5-31
-------
chemicals and categories in 50 Fed. Reg. 21168-21179, June 4, 1987.
As a practical matter, the Board of Natural Resources has not yet chosen to designate
substances as hazardous other than those in 40 CFR Part 261.
Oregon* ;
Oregon identifies pesticide residues or pesticide-manufacturing residues as hazardous
if a representative sample shows a 96-hour aquatic LQo equal to or less than 250 mg/1.76
"Pesticide residue" means substances produced by the use of pesticides, including, but not limited
to, unused commercial pesticides or spray mixtures, container rinsing and pesticide equipment
washings.77
For residues and empty containers not subject to Divisions 100-106 of the hazardous
waste regulations, the Department of Environmental Quality requires that other procedures be
followed to avoid environmental contamination. These are specified in Division 109,
Management of Pesticide Wastes.
Vermont
Following a spill at a bulk storage facility, Vermont defines any pesticide not able to
be used for its originally intended purpose to be hazardous waste.78 Vermont also requires that
obsolete, excess and mixtures of pesticides be disposed of according to regulations of the
Vermont Hazardous Waste Management law.
Washington
Wastes meeting any one of four dangerous waste79 criteria qualify as hazardous waste.
The criteria are:
toxic dangerous wastes, based upon acute aquatic LC^, acute oral LD^ acute
inhalation LCg, and acute dermal LDjo concentration levels below certain values.
The generator must establish the composition of the waste and concentration of
significant toxic contaminants;
persistent dangerous wastes;
carcinogenic dangerous wastes, including those substances containing more than
1% of a substance that the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
or the International Agency of Research on Cancer recognize as a human or
animal carcinogen or suspected carcinogen; and
dangerous wastes exhibiting characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity
or EP toxicity.
5-32
-------
Others
All states conducting pesticide collection programs have handled the pesticides, once
collected, as hazardous waste. This has occurred regardless of whether the active ingredients are
RCRA-disted wastes-or, if nested, would meet the characteristics for classification as hazardous
waste. ••"'•"' -- •-<•'••'•>- "*'• -.----•.-- -•--.: - Mvi-. • ••- . . .
Even in those states that regulate as hazardous waste a list substantially similar to the
federal list, waste pesticides may still elicit treatment different from other solid waste. Maine
designates pesticide waste that does not meet hazardous waste criteria as "special waste" and
directs its disposal to certain facilities. The hazardous waste/solid waste dichotomy threatened
to derail implementation of Maine's returnable container program in 1985. The Department of
Environmental Protection refused to allow triple rinsed (and inspected) containers (defined under
Maine law as non-hazardous) to be returned to most municipal landfills. Nor, after the
controversy developed, did most towns want to accept them.
Existing Louisiana regulations require commercial applicators to handle unused portions
of pesticides and rinsates resulting from application of pesticides that are hazardous upon disposal
in one of several ways,*0 including disposal in a surface impoundment Over the next year, the
Louisiana Department of Agriculture intends to revise its regulations completely to eliminate all
impoundments and has been notifying applicators that impoundments are not acceptable.
Currently authorized methods include subsequent immediate ^application in accordance with the
label, deposit in a closed containment system or other methods approved by the Commissioner
of Agriculture.
Oklahoma imposes requirements on commercial applicators similar to those of
Louisiana. Existing New Mexico regulations require animal waste dips to be kept in
impoundments or evaporation ponds. At present, however, dips are continuously reprocessed
until they can no longer be used and are then packaged and disposed of as hazardous waste.
Illinois divides pesticide wastes into three categories: special hazardous, special
non-hazardous and general refuse (triple rinsed containers).
Texas defines waste pesticides used in agriculture as industrial solid waste and permits
disposal only in Class I landfills. Wastes from non-agricultural application, PCOs and lawn care
companies, for example, fall under the definition of municipal waste and are not regulated as
stringently.
Farmers, Homeowners and Att Other Applicators: Disposal
Distinctions
State regulations, mirroring the distinctions in federal law, treat fanners, homeowners
and all other applicators as three categories of users, each of whom is subject to different disposal
restrictions for hazardous waste. Under RCRA and virtually all state statutes, a farmer "disposing
of waste pesticides from his own use which are hazardous wastes is not required to comply with
[hazardous waste regulations] for those wastes provided he triple rinses each emptied pesticide
5-33
-------
container... and disposes of the pesticide residues on his own farm in a manner consistent with
the disposal instructions on the pesticide label."81 This is known as the RCRA farmer
exemption.*2 Massachusetts hazardous waste regulations do not contain the farmer exemption.
Nevada includes ranchers in the exemption.*3 Iowa adopted the farmer exemption and expanded
ilby providing: "Other persons who use federally approved agricultural chemicals would.not be
in violation of Iowa CoW 4555.419 or this chapter (HW) if they comply with the requirements
of 4555.419 [triple rinsing]." New Hampshire adds to the exemption: "A fanner disposing of
waste pesticides from his own use which are hazardous wastes is not required to comply ... for
those wastes, provided he triple rinses each emptied pesticide container... and disposes of the
pesticide residues on his own farm in a manner consistent with the disposal instructions on the
pesticide label or by an equivalent method."84
Illinois has revised the exception by providing:
... No RCRA permit shall be required ... for any person engaged
in agricultural activity who is disposing of a substance which has
been identified as a hazardous waste and which has been
designated by [Illinois Pollution Control] Board regulations as
being subject to this exception, if the substance was acquired for
use by that person on his own property in accordance with
regulations or standards adopted by the Board.*3
Effective July 1, 1991, California revised its fanner exemption, which had been
identical to the RCRA exemption. The revised exemption states, in part
Waste pesticide, which meets the definition of hazardous waste,
including rinsate generated pursuant to subsection (b) [container
rinsate] of this section, generated as part of a commercial fanning
operation is not required to be managed in compliance with the
standards in this chapter or chapters 14, 15, 18 or 20 [hazardous
waste management requirements], provided the waste pesticide is
applied as part of a commercial fanning operation in a manner
consistent with the use instructions on the pesticide label.. .
Some commercial applicators unable to qualify for the farmer exemption may
nevertheless qualify for conditionally exempt small-quantity generator rules. These rules allow
applicators generating and storing no more than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste each month
or more than one kilogram of acute hazardous waste, to maintain reduced paperwork and dispose
of the waste in a facility licensed by the state for municipal or industrial solid waste disposal.*6
RCRA also contains special provisions for homeowners. Household waste is not, by
definition, hazardous for purposes of RCRA or most state equivalents of RCRA. In 40 CFR Part
261.4(b), household waste means "any material (including garbage, trash and sanitary wastes in
septic tanks) derived from households (including single and multiple residences, hotels and
motels, bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds and day use
recreation areas)."
5-34
-------
Storage, while an improvement over improper disposal, is not a
long term solution. Often waste pesticides are old and the
container is in bad shape or the pesticide itself is corrosive and the
container is deteriorating. Without proper and timely action, these
containers are likely to spill or leak and necessitate clean-ups that
will result in a costly remediation.
While site inspections and enforcement occur and may cause some
end-users to properly dispose of waste pesticides, it is impossible
to continuously inspect over 90,000 farms in Minnesota and the
businesses using pesticides. Pesticide end-users need sufficient
motivation to take waste pesticides from their storage areas and
dispose of them properly. The key to the success of the Minnesota
Waste Pesticide Collection Program is providing a safe, effective
and simple method for end-users to dispose of waste pesticides.
Twenty states have conducted and several others are preparing to implement, such
collection programs for non-household products that are no longer usable. In addition, several
states have conducted surveys to determine disposal practices of dealers and applicators (see box
5-G). These surveys may be used as the basis for evaluating the necessity of waste pesticide
collection programs. Both Montana and Maryland have conducted such surveys. Common
concerns for those who organize waste pesticide collection programs are:
(a) Pursuant to federal law and state law, those who hold waste pesticides may be
considered hazardous waste generators subject to RCRA generator requirements
or operators of hazardous waste storage facilities subject to RCRA storage
requirements. This requirement makes some holders reluctant to participate in a
collection program or even to reveal their existence, if the state might use its
authority to impose fines for violation of hazardous waste laws. As a result, even
anonymous surveys designed to assess the magnitude of waste pesticides tend to
underestimate the volume.93 Based on her experience accompanying farmers on
inspections of their facilities, Elaine Andrews of the University of Wisconsin
Extension Service believes surveys trad to under-report amounts of unwanted
pesticides. Holders have simply forgotten what pesticides they possess.
(b) Persons transporting pesticides considered to be hazardous wastes may need to be
licensed hazardous waste transporters.94 Transportation costs, if licensed
transporters are necessary, may be so high that the situation precludes participation
in state collection programs. In Maine, the Board of Pesticides Control has
obtained a transporter's license to collect waste pesticides from the individual
users. In Washington, legislation permits the Department of Agriculture to be
defined as the generator. Through its regulations, the department does not
officially declare pesticides waste until it has inspected the containers at a
collection site. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
amended its transportation requirements on an emergency and temporary basis to
allow unlicensed self-transporting by fanners participating in the waste pesticide
program in 1990. In others, the hazardous waste contractor is designated as the
5-37
-------
generator once holders have transported their unwanted pesticides to a collection
site. In Minnesota, participants usually transport to the central collection site
quantities below the threshold at which RCRA requires the generator to obtain an
individual identifying number, manifest the waste and transport according to
federal regulations. : -• ..- •<. .:•-.---
BOX5-G
Minnesota Survey of Disposal Practices
Participants in a Minnesota waste pesticide collection program who brought
pesticides to a central collection site were asked to participate in a written survey. In
response to the question, "Without this collection, what would you have done with the
waste pesticides you brought today? (circle all that apply)," 84% stated they would continue
to store, 14% would landfill wastes, 6% would burn them and 1% would bury them. Six
percent responded "other.'*'5
The Utah Extension Service noted in 1986* that "Any amounts of pesticides needing
disposal may be stored under environmentally safe conditions until an acceptable method or
facility for their disposal is available in Utah, however, this may involve several years and
environmentally safe storage may be costly and difficult to maintain."
The median age of pesticides collected during a 1986 one-day collection effort in
Michigan was 20.4 years. Maine's experience is similar.
Li response to a 1990 Montana Department of Agriculture survey, 14% of applicators
replied that they placed canceled/suspended products in long-term storage, 11% placed
damaged pesticides in long-term storage, 20% had pesticides and additional pesticide-
containing waste in storage. Of dealers, 20% placed canceled/suspended products or
damaged pesticides in long-term storage and 22% had pesticides and additional pesticide-
containing material in storage awaiting disposal.
Results of a participant questionnaire for the 1990 New Hampshire waste pesticide
collection program revealed that 78% of farmers would have continued to store their
unwanted pesticides if the collection program had not been available; 3% would have
disposed of them on their own property; 6% would have donated them to another fanner.
When asked whether they CApceicu io have unwanted pesticides in the future, 25% of New ||
(I Hampshire farmers replied in the affirmative and 26% said "maybe."97
(c) States must locate — usually by hiring a hazardous waste contractor who packs
and hauls pesticides to one or more disposal facilities of the contractor's choosing
— licensed hazardous waste disposal facilities willing to dispose of the waste
pesticides. For the majority of states with organized collection programs, this has
entailed out of state disposal by incineration. Most licensed hazardous waste
disposal facilities will not accept two products still commonly found — 2,4,5-T
and pentachiorophenois — because of dioxin contamination. When states can
locate a facility licensed to dispose of dioxin-contaminated materials, the disposal
5-38
-------
cost may be prohibitive. As a consequence, state programs may exclude these
products and others for which the disposal cost is disproportionately high. In
addition, the status of potential disposal facilities may change at the last minute.
(d) .States conducting collection programs must consider potential liability for spills
•: during collection. Illinois has recognized this problem by granting immunity to
all persons while participating in the program unless the release results from gross
negligence or intentional misconduct
(e) States should consider potential liability for contamination that later develops at
the hazardous waste disposal facility. In an informal opinion on the legal aspects
of the Washington collection program, the assistant attorney general for the
Department of Agriculture stated that the state and individual farmers could
become responsible parties liable for cleanup under federal Superfund (CERCLA)
legislation and the state Hazardous Waste Cleanup Act, 70.105B RCW, should a
release ever occur from the disposal site. Press releases highlighting the program
mention this possibility but characterize it as remote in a well-run program.
(f) States need to be creative in devising funding mechanisms that can survive a
legislative debate and appropriations committee. They have used or attempted to
use, general fund appropriations, county taxes, dedicated disposal funds derived
from mill taxes on pesticides or registration fees, hazardous waste fund monies,
dedicated disposal funds derived from collection programs, agency operating funds
and federal grants.
(g) Funding may be less than that necessary to collect and dispose of all waste
pesticides. States must decide (a) who will be eligible to participate (dealers,
commercial applicators, farmers, homeowners, etc.), (b) whether there will be
limits on the amount that any one person may dispose of, (c) whether holders
should be required to pay any fee for disposal and (d) whether certain products
should be excluded because of excessive disposal costs, unknown contents or other
reasons.
(h) Generally, more than one agency has jurisdiction over aspects of waste pesticide
disposal. Coordinating all of the appropriate agencies in a cooperative effort can
be tune-consuming and frustrating.
Each state has addressed these concerns in slightly different ways.98 The following
is a general summary of certain state pesticide collection programs and efforts.
Arkonsos
The state, in cooperation with the registrants of the canceled insecticide
chlordimeform, Ciba-Geigy; and Nor-Am Chemical, organized four collection days
in late August 1990 to collect chlordimeform. The registrants paid for collection
and disposal by incineration. Mississippi had a similar program in 1990.
5-39
-------
California
A.B. 563, introduced during the 1989 legislative session, proposed to
establish a one-time program for the collection of "banned or unregistered
agricultural waste" (pesticides canceled -or suspended by EPA or the state after
purchase by the user) held by small farmers, pest control operators, applicators and
'residential households. Each holder could dispose of quantities up to 500
kilograms. The bill required participating counties to survey persons who stored
up to 500 kilograms of banned agricultural waste to assess its amount and type.
Counties were also obligated to deliver education on proper container disposal procedures,
liability and the legal disposal of other hazardous waste generated by agricultural processes. The
bill proposed to exempt participants from the requirement that they obtain hazardous waste
facilities permits from the Department of Health Services and to exempt the waste itself from
hazardous waste fees and the superfund tax. Counties would have been immune to liability in
any cost recovery action brought for hazardous waste properly handled and transported to an
authorized treatment or disposal facility. An unspecified mill tax on pesticide sales was proposed
as the funding mechanism.
Controversy over the funding mechanism, but not die basic need to collect waste
pesticides, killed the legislation. In its place, Chemical Waste Management, a hazardous waste
hauler and disposal facility operator, organized a voluntary program in Kings and Tulare counties
in October 1989. About 450 people brought 20,000 gallons of outmoded products to three
collection sites at county landfills on two separate days. Chemical Waste Management charged
a minimal fee, $3-3.50 per gallon, for the cost of transporting the materials to its Chicago
incinerator.99
In November 1990, California voters rejected a comprehensive proposition, the
Environmental Protection Act of 1990 (popularly known as "Big Green"). Among the many
features of this proposition was a requirement that the Department of Food and Agriculture
develop a program to collect and dispose of any pesticide at the request of and no charge to, any
agricultural pesticide user.
In the 1990 legislative session, AJ3. 563 was resurrected, amended in several key
aspects and enacted as a mechanism to facilitate county collection programs but not to pay for
them. The legislation authorizes counties to develop a program for the collection of banned,
unregistered or outdated agricultural waste from eligible persons, Le.. persons who operate farms
for raising any agricultural or horticultural commodity and £tsre -s: niare chas 500 Mlsgrsms ©f
the wastes. The legislation requires counties to:
• receive collection site approval from the Department cf Health Services following
submittal of an application for an extremely hazardous waste disposal permit;
e act as die operator of the site;
5-40
-------
• include an educational program on procedures for disposing of the waste, liability
problems and legal disposal of other types of hazardous waste generated by
agricultural operations;
• . charge a fee to participants; •• • - .
•••":,}• " •--. -" . .-.i?'" " •
• exempt participants from payment of hazardous waste generation fees; and
• be exempt from liability in any cost recovery action for waste that has been
properly handled and transported to a treatment facility in compliance with the
requirements of the legislation.
The legislation also requires that participants transport waste, in amounts of 50 pounds
or less or five gallons or less, unless a variance is obtained, to the collection site in their own
vehicles and in accordance with regulations of the Highway Patrol. Participants generating more
than 100 kilograms of RCRA hazardous waste or 1 kilogram of an extremely hazardous waste,
must obtain EPA identification numbers and use a manifest The statutes also mandate that waste
be recycled rather than disposed of when feasible.
Connecticut00
In 1988, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection,
Pesticide Control Section, conducted pesticide collection programs in New London
and Middlesex counties, for farmers and commercial applicators (Le., lawn care
companies). The programs were funded through special legislative appropriations
and required matching funds from the holder on a sliding scale (free for disposal
of amounts under 100 pounds; 25% for amounts of 100 to 500 pounds; 50% for amounts over
500 pounds). After contacting the department to provide information on amounts and substances,
holders brought their waste pesticides to a central depot, a DOT maintenance garage, at
designated times where the materials were packed and then disposed of by a licensed hazardous
waste contractor. The programs collected about 1,000 gallons liquid and 6,000 pounds of dry
product The department used extensive advertising and sent survey forms to all likely holders
in the counties in order to encourage participation. Initially, fanners expressed some reluctance
to participate because of fear of liability. As the program proceeded and the state did not
prosecute anyone for violation of hazardous waste laws, that fear evaporated.
The department conducted three more county programs in 1990. Half the state has thus
far participated in one of the five programs. Further efforts have been stymied by lack of
funding.
5-41
-------
Delaware101
VOn November 1, 1991, the Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) had
planned to commence two collection programs for household and agricultural
.hazardous waste; In Sussex County, the DSWA will open a permanent facility for
receiving various hazardous wastes, including agricultural pesticides. The facility
is scheduled to be open and staffed during landfill operating hours five days a
week. The authority does not plan to limit volumes or substances and will store
pesticides containing dioxins. Still to be decided are whether the facility will
accept agricultural pesticides that are technically solid waste instead of hazardous waste and
whether the Delaware Department of Natural Resources will be willing to exempt fanners from
compliance with the state's hazardous waste laws to allow unlicensed transportation. The
authority plans to accept generator status. No preregistration is required for participation in the
program. The authority has not conducted a survey to attempt to determine the volume of
materials that might be deposited at the facility.
At the same time, DSWA, through a hazardous waste contractor, will begin a door-to-
door pick-up program for agricultural pesticides in Kent County.
Both programs are funded by a $2 hazardous substance surcharge on tipping fees at
DSWA waste disposal facilities (the authority also imposes a $2 surcharge for recycling).
Hawaii102
In 1988, the Hawaii legislature appropriated $250,000 for a one-time
collection program to dispose of canceled pesticides held by growers. This
program followed a feasibility study funded with seed money from EPA. The
Department of Agriculture, at a cost of about $40,000, sent letters to all private
applicators and generated other publicity to make farmers aware of the program. One of two
firms licensed in Hawaii as hazardous waste disposal firms collected the wastes and disposed of
them after fanners filled out hazardous waste generator forms. The hauler accepted some
containers in bad condition.
The Illinois EPA (IEPA) coordinated a one day-one county collection
program in June 1988 for unwanted and unusable agricultural chemicals, used oil,
solvents and waste veterinary Pharmaceuticals held by farmers. Farmers transported
their chemical wastes to the Adams County Fairgrounds, where the wastes were
overpacked and later disposed of by a hazardous waste contractor.
IEPA mailed precollection notification/commitment forms to 2,400 potential farm
owners soliciting their participation. When only 40 persons responded, Adams County Extension
personnel conducted a follow-up telephone survey. The survey generated several additional
participants. Information indicated that 20% to 30% of farmers held old chemicals. Responses
indicated that 30% of those surveyed had not responded to the pre-collection notice because they
5-42
-------
were apprehensive about getting on an JEPA list Forty-six farmers participated, 2% of the
potential participants, a figure that compared favorably with other Amnesty Day-type programs
in other parts of the country. Fifty-one percent of the 10,279 pounds collected were pesticides,
including large quantities of canceled pesticides (i.e., DDT, toxaphene, aldrin, dieldrin and
RandoxiT) and a significant quantity of currently registered pesticides that, for one reason or
another, were unusable. The program did not collect and dispose of any 2,4'5-T products but did
provide overpacking to four persons for these products. A majority of participants stated they
were willing to pay $l/lb for disposal if the service were offered commercially.104405'106
House Bill 1398, enacted in 1989,107 requires that the Department of Agriculture and
the IEPA develop a model program for the collection and disposal of unwanted pesticides from
fanners by units of local government and nonprofit agricultural organizations. Monies will be
appropriated from the Pesticide Control Fund and the Hazardous Waste Fund. Cost-sharing by
local communities is mandatory at a 50% rate up to $25,000 per event
Persons participating in the programs are protected from liability for releases occurring
during the course of the collection unless the release results from gross negligence or intentional
misconduct
On September 5, 1990, the Illinois Department of Agriculture and Monsanto held the
first pilot project pursuant to the new legislation. Eighty-nine farmers and landowners in Macon
County participated. A total of 623 gallons and 6,725 pounds (12,955 pounds) of unwanted
pesticides were brought to the Macon County Fairgrounds collection site in Decatur. Disposal
costs were $8.50/lb and totalled $110,180. The majority of participants stated that farmers would
be willing to share costs of disposal, that the state should share in disposal costs and that the
agrichemical dealers "had some kind of obligations to the fanner to assist with the disposition
of leftover chemicals."108 Upon completion of the program, the program supervisor suggested
that, to reduce the cost of future programs, the department should "state that rinsates cannot be
accepted and should ask the fanners to do their best to find someone who could use these
unwanted pesticides if they are still labeled for legal use."
Indiana109
In 1990, the Soil and Water Conservation District for Allen and DeKalb
counties in Indiana organized a collection program for waste pesticides and waste
oil held by farmers. The program also included persons who had inherited or come
into ownership of farms where pesticides were stored. The district mailed surveys
to fanners to identify the volume and types of materials stored on farms. The
contractor, Chemical Waste Management, used the respondents' names to send
letters notifying participants of the details of the collection effort The contractor
then destroyed the surveys to preserve anonymity of the participants. One day in March 1990,
farmers brought their unwanted pesticides and waste oil to a Chemical Waste Management
licensed hazardous waste transfer facility in Fort Wayne. Representatives of Chemical Waste
Management, the local Bureau of Health, the Soil and Water Conservation District and the local
hazmat team processed the pesticides at the site. The materials were shipped to a Chem Waste
incinerator. Safety Kleen processed the waste oil for rerefining in one of its facilities. Farmers
5-43
-------
brought in waste oil to abide by recent Indiana legislation prohibiting them from using it on farm
roads. Although Chemical Waste sent information to growers on proper packaging of materials
to be transported and offered to send a hazmat team to the site to package any leaking materials,
some fanners transported materials in improper condition. One farmer transported leaking bags
in a pickup truck. The program organizers hadio evacuate all volunteers irom the area and don
respirators to handle the product The majority of the pesticides collected were unusable because
they had been frozen or became wet, not because they were banned substances. Chemical Waste
Management did not accept any pentachlorophenol, 2,4,5-T or other products with dioxin. The
Allen County Board of Health did accept the products, reasoning that they would otherwise be
disposed of improperly. The Board of Health is storing these chemicals and others collected
periodically at its own storage facility, pending disposal by a method yet to be identified. The
counties used a county-imposed* tax to pay for the program and charged farmers a minimal fee,
about $ I/gallon. The program cost about $45,000. Seventy percent of those who had responded
to the county's survey of farmers participated in the collection program.
Kentuctf10
Kentucky enacted legislation effective July 1990 to provide technical
assistance related to disposal of surplus agricultural chemicals and containers:
The cabinet [Natural Resources and Environmental Protection] shall
implement a program to provide technical assistance to counties,
cities and urban-county governments that seek to develop programs
to accept and dispose of non-industrial surplus agricultural
chemicals and containers. The technical assistance shall include,
but not be limited to, availability of on-site analysis of chemicals
and containers, availability of regulated transporters and recycling
or disposal facilities and methods of increasing public
participation.111
Since then, the Farm Bureau and others, organized as the Coalition for Agriculture and
assisted by the Natural Resources Cabinet, Division of Conservation and Tennessee Valley
Authority, have organized collection programs in Marshall and Caldwell counties. The programs,
for farmers only, required transport of their waste pesticides to a central site. The Environmental
Protection Cabinet obtained generator identification numbers for the programs, analyzed
unidentified products and provided personnel on site in case of a spill. By limiting participation
to those fanners who qualified as small-quantity generators, the state avoided some of the RCRA
paperwork requirements.
Louisiana112
During the fall of 1990, the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Environmental Quality organized an Amnesty Day for obsolete and
banned/suspended pesticides on farm sites. Fanners brought their old pesticides to
a central location where they paid a nominal fee, about $3 per container, for
disposal. Encouraged by the success of the program, the Department of Agriculture plans to
5-44
-------
organize four or five programs for the summer of 1991 and thereafter to offer such a program
every other year. No 2,4,5-t or dinoseb was accepted. Fanners were required to prcregister and
provide an inventory and statement of condition. For containers that leaked, Chemical Waste
Management, the contractor, supplied overpacking materials that the farmers applied on site
before bringing the pesticides to the collection point The .impetus for the program came from
the success of Qba Geigy's Galecron collection effort in Louisiana. ;. , . ,
Mane*13
The Maine Board of Pesticides Control initially became involved in waste
pesticides collection activities in 1972, when the Maine Audubon Society collected
banned DDT and requested assistance from the board. From 1973-79, the board
collected obsolete pesticides in an unpublicized program and stored them at a
national guard site in Augusta. When hazardous waste regulations were changed,
the board obtained an interim generator license for storage .and eventually shipped
the pesticides for incineration or burial in a RCRA Class A landfill. The board collected obsolete
pesticides and, after obtaining a hazardous waste transporter's license, transported them to a
hazardous waste contractor for disposal. In 1984, the board amassed 9 tons of obsoletes from
homeowners, small farmers, dealers and large agricultural producers. The amounts ranged from
a pint to 2 to 3 tons and included primarily DDT, 2,4-D and cyclodienes. The board collected
only labeled containers and no aerosols. The board spent $36,000 from its operating funds.
In 1986, the legislature appropriated $30,000 from the state's general fund to continue
the program. As a result of regulatory changes, the board declined to pick up any 2,4,5-T or
pentachlorophenols. In 1989, the legislature again appropriated funds from the state's general
fund. The board spent $70,000 in a program that disposed of 22 tons of waste pesticides from
173 residents. The wastes were taken to an out-of-state hazardous waste facility. In early 1990,
the board collected and disposed of 400 gallons of 2,4,5-T from 26 holders whose requests for
indemnification from EPA had been refused. In the fall of 1990, the board collected and shipped
Dinoseb, banned in 1986, at no charge to growers. Because EPA funds for disposal of Dinoseb
cover incineration but not transportation, holders were required to pack, label, manifest and
transport the chemical via a hazardous waste hauler to Tennessee. The board characterized this
procedure as "extremely complicated and prohibitively expensive for the individual We hope
this program serves as an incentive for grower participation.""4 At the July 11, 1990 meeting
of the SFIREG working group on groundwater protection and pesticide disposal, state agency
officials echoed the Maine board's concerns, stating that growers would not participate in recalls
that obligated them to pay transportation costs.
The board asked the Department of Agriculture in 1990 to submit an appropriations
request for $70,000 to continue the program in 1991, knowing that some homeowners still have
substantial quantities of obsolete products. Given the state's budget constraints, however, it is
unlikely that any state funding for disposal would be forthcoming in the next several years.
Two features distinguish the Maine program from most others that have taken place.
First, board staff, licensed as hazardous waste transporters, travel to each storage site by prior
arrangement to collect die wastes. The process is labor-intensive, but guarantees that holders
5-45
-------
avoid exposure during collection and that the wastes are packed to minimize risk of spills during
transportation to the hazardous waste contractor. Second, Maine has serviced dealers and large
agricultural operations, as well as farmers and homeowners, at no cost to the holder.
Massachusetts1
'is.
After 18 months of negotiations with the Department of Environmental
Protection, in August 1990, the Massachusetts Farm Bureau and the Department of
Food and Agriculture sponsored five one-day pesticide collections around the state.
Participants included farmers, commercial applicators (including PCOs), golf course operators,
town departments of public works and dealers. Homeowners, who are able to take advantage of
household hazardous waste collection programs, were not included. The program was promoted
as a one-time opportunity. Holders overpacked any containers that required overpacking, using
Department of Transportation containers provided to the holders at cost The pesticides were
transported to the collection sites, where they were accepted by the hazardous waste contractor,
Clean Harbors. The contractor completed forms designating itself as the generator. The program
collected about 70,000 to 80,000 pounds of waste pesticides from more than 1,000 holders.
The Massachusetts program was unusual in several respects. First, all prospective
participants were required to attend one of seven four-hour informational meetings held
throughout the state. The Department of Food and Agriculture and the hazardous waste
contractor explained procedures for handling hazardous waste, the mechanics of the program and
overpacking of pesticides in poor condition. As an incentive for participation in the meetings,
growers obtained two hours of recertification credit
Second, participants paid the entire cost of disposal, a figure that ultimately amounted
to $400,000. By employing a competitive bid process for a large volume of waste, the state was
able to contract for disposal at about half the cost that individuals would have paid on their own.
The price, with bulk discounts, was an average of $3.60 per pound. Cyanides were considerably
more expensive and silvex, 2,4,5-T and pentachlorophenols were $600 per pound. Each
participant completed a form for the contractor identifying pesticides and quantities. The
contractor determined disposal costs using the forms and billed each participant Holders
participated, at least in part, out of fear of hazardous waste statute liability for holding the wastes.
At the same time, organizers of the program believe that the volume of pesticides collected might
have doubled, had the state been able to fund a portion of the cost
From August 1990 through March 1991, the Michigan Department of
Agriculture conducted a waste pesticide collection program that gathered 109,000
pounds from 322 farmers in 23 counties of 83 counties. Seven collection sites were
used for a day at a time. Having made prior appointments, farmers brought their
pesticides to a collection site. Pesticides containing dioxins were not accepted. The program
cost $200,000, or about $620 per person, and was funded from pesticide registration fees.
Fanners participated for free. Other small-quantity generators were able to make arrangements
with the hazardous waste contractor to participate at a reduced fee.
5-46
-------
At the same time, the state contracted with a different hazardous waste contractor to
complete EPA's dinoseb disposal program. The department determined that participation in the
federal program was not worth the cost of transportation for those persons holding less than 30
gallons. The department hired a contractor to work with holders to arrange disposal. The
contractor was present at the waste pesticide collection sites to receive dinoseb and also collected
dinoseb on site. ; -r
Minnesota!17
Minnesota is the only state that has created a permanent program with
dedicated funding (a portion of product registration fees) for waste pesticide
collection from end users. This program followed a two-year pilot study in
1987-88 directed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The study
assessed the types and quantities of waste pesticides currently in the state, ways to
collect and properly dispose of waste pesticides through temporary collection sites and defined
short- and long-term waste management needs. Through the same survey that the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture and MPCA used to identify needs for a container collection program,
the agencies identified as wastes 41,605 gallons and 61,059 pounds of solids. This was reported
by 475 users, averaging 87.6 gallons and 128.5 pounds for each user.
The MPCA held five collections, with assistance from counties, experimenting with
both door-to-door collection and temporary central locations. Some programs were free to
farmers, others included nominal fees. Dealers and commercial applicators could participate, but
had to pay the actual disposal cost The MPCA obtained hazardous waste generator numbers for
each collection site. When liquids could be bulked, the empty containers were triple rinsed and
disposed of as solid waste in landfills. Containers that could not be cleaned adequately were
managed as hazardous waste. The program did not collect 2,4,5-T or pentachlorophenols. It did
accept a limited number of unknowns that were kept for analysis prior to disposal The program
collected 7,782 pounds and 1,948 gallons from 188 persons at a cost of about $70,000.""
In Minnesota, waste pesticides collection has now been institutionalized through
legislation enacted in 1989"9 that provides:
The commissioner of agriculture shall establish and operate a
program to collect waste pesticides. The program shall be made
available to pesticide end users whose waste generating activity
occurs in this state.
The commissioner may obtain a United States Environmental
Protection Agency hazardous waste identification number to
manage the waste pesticides collected.
The commissioner may limit the type and quantity of waste
pesticides accepted for collection and may assess pesticide end
users for portions of the costs incurred.
5-47
-------
The commissioner shall provide informational and educational
materials regarding waste pesticides and the proper management of
waste pesticides to the public.
The commissioner >shall- develop the program in this section in
consultation and cooperation with the pollution control agency:
A waste pesticide account is established in the state treasury.
Assessments collected under subdivision 2 shall be deposited in the
state treasury and credited to the waste pesticide account Money
in the account is appropriated to the commissioner to pay for costs
incurred to implement the waste pesticide collection program .. .
The department held the first collection pursuant to the new legislation in November
1990. Four central-site county collection days for rural areas have been organized since then,
as well as two central-site collections for invited participants only; the program hopes to cover
12 to 15 counties by the end of 1991. The department also collected pesticides at the storage
site from 28 persons who held quantities above the trigger for RCRA small-generator status or
whose containers were in poor condition and could not be transported. The department has
secured all necessary federal and state hazardous waste identification numbers and taken on
generator status of the wastes collected. As of June 1991,444 persons had participated, bringing
60,000 pounds of unwanted products to the collection sites. Seventy percent of die participants
were farmers and 12% to 15% were farm-related businesses. Government agencies also
participated. As the program becomes established, the department intends to include metropolitan
businesses, such as hardware stores and golf courses. Household hazardous waste disposal
programs, funded separately through other statutory authority, will be available for homeowners
in the near future. As a result, the Department of Agriculture will accept from homeowners, even
though its waste pesticide collection program has not been advertised.
The collections have taken place at temporary sites staffed by Department of
Agriculture personnel, county personnel who act as volunteer traffic controllers and hazardous
waste contractor (currently Chemical Waste Management) personnel As the program becomes
established, permanent collection sites are planned Pre-registration, organized and publicized
by county personnel, has been required so program organizers can anticipate the volume and
identities of materials to be disposed of, determine site needs accordingly and can notify
prospective participants in advance of products that will not be accepted (2,4,5-T , pentachlo-
rophenols products and unknowns in large quantities). The department has accepted small
quantities, 5 gallons or 50 pounds, of unknowns that are tested prior to disposal, but has refused
to accept larger quantities at the site. The department also has accepted unwanted but usable
pesticides. The wastes are currently disposed of by incineration at Chem Waste's facility in
Sauget, Illinois. Suspended and canceled pesticides make up 46% of the poundage collected
Pesticides registered for use but unusable totalled 42%. Small quantities of unknowns or partially
identified pesticides made up 12%.
Disposal for the first 220 pounds, including the weight of the container, is free to
participants. Disposal fees for 220 to 1,000 pounds are $3 per pound about half the program's
cost Disposal fees for government agencies, regardless of volume and for other participants
5-48
-------
disposing of 1,000 to 2,200 pounds are $6 per pound. When asked whether they would
participate if required to pay and how much they would pay, 57% of participants said they would
not pay anything for disposal, 39% would pay up to $3/lb and only 4% would pay over that
amount
Participants must sign a disclosure form at the site giving name, address and complete
list of waste for disposal. This helps to keep the program geared toward small-quantity
generators, although it is suspected that it may have deterred some individuals from participating.
The Department of Agriculture has collected air quality monitoring data at each
collection site in order to determine the hazard associated with handling pesticides during a
collection. Thus far, the data indicate that the risk of chemical exposure is small and well within
OSHA standards.
Furnishing of information on the purchase of pesticides only in quantities needed,
timely use and disposal, appropriate storage and other practices minimizing the generation of
wastes also are integral parts of the program.
The collection program has been well received. Nevertheless, volumes collected
represent only about 25% of the department's estimates of the material being stored. The
discrepancy may reflect inaccurate estimates or other reasons. This participation rate equals 4%
to 5% of all fanners in the area served by the collection.
Mississippi?20
In the spring of 1990, the Mississippi Department of Agriculture, Division
of Plant Industry, initiated a cooperative program to collect stores of the canceled
pesticide chlordimeform. Chlordimeform was voluntarily canceled, effective
February 19, 1989, with an allowance that existing stocks could be used until
October 1, 1989. Weather conditions did not favor use of all existing stocks and
large quantities of the chemical remained after the deadline. In part because the
registrants indicated that some formulations may exhibit the characteristics of
ignitability, fanners transported, stored and disposed of the pesticide as hazardous waste.
In cooperation with the Mississippi Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of
Pollution Control, the Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service, the Mississippi Farm Bureau,
the Delta Council, the National Cotton Council and the two registrants, Nor-Am and Ciba-Geigy,
the Mississippi Department of Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry, developed an Amnesty
Day program at six sites in the state. For each site, the state developed contingency plans. The
hazardous waste contractor provided a vehicle with appropriate packing materials. Registrants
provided some manpower to assist in the collection. Growers transported their stocks to the sites
where the registrants completed all necessary documentation. The registrants paid for disposal
by incineration and reimbursed holders for unopened containers. One hundred and seventy four
persons returned 2,123 gallons and 6,570 pounds of chlordimeform. Neighboring states without
this governmental assistance apparently did not experience the same level of return.
5-49
-------
As an offshoot of this effort, growers are now exerting considerable pressure on the
Mississippi Department of Agriculture to develop a similar type of program for all canceled
pesticides.
New Hampshire™ -
In April 1990, using a $75,000 legislative appropriation from the New
Hampshire Hazardous Waste Cleanup Fund,122 the Department of Agriculture
sponsored a one-day, one-site pesticide collection for farmers only. Eighty growers
participated, bringing 5 tons of solids and 900 gallons of liquid, representing about
180 different active ingredients. The amounts varied from a few ounces of product
to 1,828 pounds of captan. The program required pre-registration, identifying type
and quantity of pesticide and condition of containers. About ISO farmers requested
preregistration packets and 108 returned them. The department used the
preregistration information to devise a request for proposals from hazardous waste contractors.
The department then negotiated the contract price with the winning bidder, Clean Harbors. The
department offered participating growers free disposal, but could not accept pesticides with a
disproportionately high disposal cost dioxin-containing substances and zinc phosphide. Fanners
transported their waste pesticides to the site, where they were met by the contractor. The
contractor prepared hazardous waste generator forms designating itself as the generator.
A major disappointment to program organizers was that several growers were turned
away at the site: one because the preregistration information did not accurately reflect the waste
contents so that projected disposal costs were prohibitive; several because the disposal facility
projected for zineb lost its license at the last minute; while several others tired of waiting in line.
The results of the program have been published as New Hampshire Department of
Agriculture, Division of Pesticide Control, Report of the Unwanted Pesticide Collection Program
for Fanners, June 1990. The report contains a number of documents valuable to other states
attempting to organize such a program (e.g., information on publicity, the bid procedure and price
negotiations, ways in which the program could have been improved). It also contains the
contract with the hazardous waste hauler, including the scope of services and the site safety, spill
response and emergency evacuation plan.
123
New Jersey
In 1985-86, the New Jersey Bureau of Pesticide Control, using a $50,000
grant from interest monies accrued in the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund,
organized a pilot pesticide collection program. Through extensive advertising, the
bureau encouraged homeowners, fanners and small-quantity generators (primarily
nurserymen) to bring out of date, illegal or unwanted pesticides to a county
collection site on a specified day. Seven county collection days were organized.
For each, the county contracted with a licensed hazardous waste hauler to handle
the pesticides at the collection site and to transport and dispose of them. The
program did not accept materials taken out of the original container, uniabeled materials, aerosols
or materials with silvex or 2,4,5-T. All wastes were incinerated rather than landfllled, although
5-50
-------
the cost was twice as great The Department of Environmental Protection believed that
incineration was the most environmentally sound disposal choice. The results of the pilot were
published as the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Research Report: New
Jersey Pesticide Disposal Project The booklet contains a summary of considerations for
organizing a pesticide disposal day, results of the participant questionnaire and sample
advertising. These programs are now operated out of the department's hazardous waste division,
implemented by counties and funded by county taxes. Not all counties have organized a
collection.
New York
In the early 1980s, local household hazardous waste (HHW) collection
programs allowed fanners to participate. Little information exists on the quantities
and substances collected during these programs. About 80 Household Hazardous
Waste (HHW) collection days now take place annually in the state, pursuant to
strict state guidelines. These guidelines define small-quantity generator status and prohibit
participation by persons, including fanners, who do not meet the regulatory criteria. New York's
definition of a small-quantity generator is more stringent than the federal. Since local
communities fund the collections with no financial help from the state, the organizers of the
programs generally want to avoid liability from possible misapplication of the small-quantity
generator rules and thus exclude fanners.
New York has, however, adopted hazardous waste transportation regulations designed
to facilitate the conduct of waste pesticide collection programs. New York's Rules on Collection
and Transportation of Industrial Wastes, section 364.1, exempt from the vehicle transportation
requirements "pesticides transported by the farmer who generated them, to a pesticide clean-up
day collection site."
North Carotina?34
Since 1980, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture has operated
a collection program for obsolete, canceled and suspended pesticides held by
homeowners and fanners. Disposal is free for those eligible. The department
limits disposal amounts to 300 pounds or 40 gallons per person per year, unless the department
approves a one-tune pickup for an amount greatly in excess of these limits. The department will
not collect any 2,4,5-T, pentachlorophenol products, any other products contaminated with dioxin
and fumigants except for EDB. (The department is only now disposing of 2,4,5-T it had picked
up in the 1970s). The materials must be in the original container with the original label in such
a condition that the active ingredients can be established. The containers must be sound or
overpacked in 5-gallon plastic pails. Opened fiber bags must be rewrapped. Containers of
liquids cannot exceed 5-gallons in size without prior approval. As in Maine, department
employees pick up the wastes from the storage site.
Wastes have been landfilled, exported, incinerated and chemically detoxified. From
1986 through 1989, the department disposed of 195,139 pounds at a cost of $492,141. Because
of financial constraints, the state announced in November 1990 that it would continue to collect
5-51
-------
data on unwanted pesticides from persons interested in being on a future disposal list, but would
no longer be able to collect and dispose of the waste.
The department arranges pesticide exchanges when products are still usable, but
requires that the donee sign-a statement agreeing to use the product in accordance with the label
and not to resell the product The department disclaims in writing any warranties for the
pesticides.
North Dakota?25
During the last 10 years, the North Dakota Department of Health and
Consolidated Laboratories has operated a small-quantity inventory program. The
department contracts with a licensed hazardous waste company to pick up small
quantities of hazardous waste, including pesticides, from individual homeowners,
fanners and schools. The contractor arranges for collection by contacting persons on a list the
department maintains. EPA funded four projects of this nature through grants of $60,000 to
$80,000 each.
In response to an EPA announcement that no further funding would be available for
such programs, the legislative assembly passed Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 4036 of March
1989, which directs the Legislative Council to "study the feasibility of establishing an unused
pesticide and pesticide container disposal program."
The Legislative Council concluded in November 1990 that it would proceed with a bill
to establish a container collection program, but would not seek funds to establish a waste
pesticide collection program due to costs and liability. The Commissioner of Agriculture also
told the council that EPA had informed his office that funds might be forthcoming for waste
chemical disposal
Oregoit2*
In 1991, the Oregon DEQ conducted a one-day pilot collection program
only for farmers in the Dalls. Participation was free for fanners and 42 participated
at a cost of $43,000 to the state for disposal DEQ did not set any limit on the
amount each farmer could dispose of, but did require preregistration. DEQ limited
participation based on the funds available. Had more money been available, the project manager
estimates that three times the amount could have been collected. The program was funded from
tipping fees on solid waste. DEQ was the designated generator for RCRA purposes.
Rhode Island27
In 1990, Rhode Island issued a request for proposals (RFP) for an
obsolete and suspended/canceled pesticide collection program. From information
gathered beginning in the summer of 1987, the Department of Environmental
Management, Division of Agriculture, has estimated that 3,500 pounds of DDT, 700
pounds of chlordane and 200 to 300 pounds of 10 or 12 other substances should be
5-52
-------
collected, primarily from commercial applicators. Farmers responded in very low numbers, less
than 5%, to the department's solicitation of participants. The department believes this may be
attributable to fear of liability. After the contract was awarded, the successful bidder doubled
its price, claiming that EPA's land disposal restrictions for hazardous waste increased disposal
costs substantially. The department had intended to reissue an RFP prior to the summer of 1991.
After the deadline for submission of requests to participate and now that the program
has received substantial publicity, many farmers want to join the program but will not be able
to do so at this time. The program is funded out of dedicated fees from pesticide registration and
will probably cost about $85,000.
South Dakota?28
Five years ago, the South Dakota Department of Agriculture, using a
special EPA enforcement grant and the Department of Water and Natural
Resources, funded with another federal grant, collected one 18- wheeler of obsolete
pesticides, primarily lead arsenate formerly used for grasshopper control, from
farmers and ranchers. The department was not able to collect all waste pesticides. As ranch and
farm bankruptcies and abandonments have increased since then, the Fanners Home
Administration has discovered a myriad of waste pesticides on old farm sites.
In 1989, the state legislature recognized the necessity of conducting another collection
effort and, in the Centennial Environmental Protection Act of 1989, section 67D, required the
Department of Water and Natural Resources to conduct a pilot program "to collect and dispose
of small amounts of wastes having hazardous or potentially hazardous characteristics that are
being stored in residences, schools, small businesses with five or fewer employees or on farms."
At the same time, the legislature did not allocate funds to the program.
Directed to do so by a Texas Senate Resolution, the Texas Water
Commission, the Texas Department of Agriculture and the Extension Service
conducted a pilot pesticide collection project in the 38 counties of West Texas
during May 1990 for agricultural producers (commercial applicators could not
participate). The area covered about one-fourth of the state. It is an agricultural
area, but not the area of the state with the heaviest pesticide use. The resolution did not carry
any funding. As a result, the three agencies appealed to industries in the state to donate their
services. Dow Elanco incinerated all wastes that could be handled at its hazardous waste
incinerator in Freeport Because the incinerator had been permitted only for Dow's wastes, the
Texas Water Commission had to grant special emergency permits for waste pesticides. Dow sent
field people to each of the five collection centers to give advice on proper packing of each
chemical and offered its laboratory to analyze containers with unknown contents. Technical
Environmental Systems provided transportation equipment U.S. Ecology, operator of a
commercial hazardous waste landfill in Robstown, donated disposal space for inorganics that
could not be incinerated. Some products, notably calcium arsenate/DDT in combination, are still
in storage at Technical Environmental Systems' hazardous waste storage facility because they can
5-53
-------
be neither landfilled nor incinerated. Chemical Waste Management in Port Arthur is testing
samples to determine what treatment technology may be appropriate. The Texas Water
Commission provided about 30 hazardous waste field personnel at each collection site and the
Department of Agriculture provided four. The program was voluntary, free to farmers and
encompassed pesticides -that were unwanted for any reason. The participation of the Extension
Service helped to build growers' confidence that they would not be prosecuted for hazardous
waste generator/storage violations. Fanners brought in 27 tons in all, some of which dated from
the 1930s. One purpose of the project was to determine whether such a collection service is
needed statewide. The Water Commission plans to write a report for the next session of the state
legislature recommending that the program be conducted statewide.
Ciba-Geigy also conducted a collection program in Texas in 1990 for chlordimeform.
The Water Commission helped to target areas for collection sites, to provide a list of contractors
and to obtain waste codes. The Water Commission also provided one or more staff members at
each collection center, but Ciba-Geigy was primarily responsible for the program. Chemical
Waste Management was the contractor.
Vermont30
Using a $50,000 EPA Region n special projects grant and a matching
amount from USD A, the Vermont Department of Agriculture conducted a waste
pesticide collection program during the summer of 1991. A total of 115 fanners,
primarily orchardists, participated A total of 12,000 pounds and 650 gallons of
pesticides were brought to five one-day collection sites throughout the state. The
collection sites were located at a technical college, a state airport, town water plant
and two other sites. DDT, lead arsenate, chlordane and dinoseb led the list of the
most common materials. Unlike most other state programs, the Vermont collection effort also
disposed of over 40 gallons of dioxin-containing materials such as 2,4,5-T and pentachlorophenoL
Dinoseb was collected in substantial quantities because farmers did not want to pay the
transportation costs for disposal in one of the facilities approved by EPA for dinoseb disposal
The collection program was free to participants. A few agricultural chemicals dealers also
participated. Clean Harbors of Massachusetts was the hazardous waste contractor and supervised
the collection sites.
Virguuet31
. | In 1990, on the recommendation of the Virginia Pesticide Control Board,
the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute, the Cooperative Extension Service, the Virginia Division of Waste
Management and the Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services analyzed unknowns prior to
disposal and local governments organized a pilot project to evaluate the amount of unwanted,
outdated and banned pesticide materials stored by agricultural producers, as well as the cost of
collecting and disposing of unwanted agricultural pesticides. Sixty-nine farmers in three regions
of Virginia participated in the June 1990 "Clean Day," disposing of 31,797 pounds of pesticides.
Those disposed of in largest quantity were DDT compounds, endrin, lead arsenate, copper
compounds, dormant oil, captan, dinitro compounds and parathion. Direct costs of collecting,
5-54
-------
packing, transporting and disposing of the material amounted to $158,977. This was a 49%
increase from the original bid amount because of an increase in the amount of waste from that
estimated by extension service surveys. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
assumed generator status.
The Department of Agriculture wrote a report recommending that a phased three- to
four-year program be conducted statewide with funding from the General Assembly. Among the
report's conclusions were:
(a) An accurate inventory of pesticide waste is critical.
(b) Locating unidentifiable pesticides in storage must be done early in the process.
The availability of analytical laboratory support for the analysis of unknown
pesticides is critical.
(c) The rapport and trust established between the grower and the county agricultural
extension agent was found to be a key element to the program's success.
(d) Some of the pesticides collected were currently registered products that may be
usable. The development of a pesticide exchange program would reduce the
quantities of unwanted pesticides.
(e) The cost of disposal of unwanted pesticides on a statewide basis will be
expensive. It is estimated that $6 million will be required to complete the
disposal effort in Virginia.132
Washington133
In 1987, the Washington Department of Ecology conducted a survey to
determine the extent of accumulation of waste pesticides and containers on farms.
This was done pursuant to Senate Bill No. 5026 which stated, "Currently, farmers
have no appropriate economically feasible means of legally disposing of small
amounts of hazardous wastes, including pesticides with uses canceled or restricted after
purchase." The survey indicated that 42 tons existed on farms, an amount which the Department
considered an underestimate due to the sensitivity of revealing information about waste pesticides.
A pilot collection project was conducted in Yakima with the assistance of the Washington
Agrichemicals Association.
In 1988, the state superfund statute was amended to facilitate the conduct of waste
pesticide collection programs. Pursuant to Chapter 70.105B and implementing regulations (WAC
16-228-157), the Department of Agriculture may become licensed as a hazardous waste generator
and take possession of pesticides that the department determines are no longer usable. The
department also may charge fees to offset program costs wholly or partially.
The department initiated the Waste Pesticide Identification and Disposal Program in
fiscal 1989 as a joint effort with county governments. Counties provide a collection site for a
5-55
-------
specified date and assistance with publicity. The program is available at present only to farmers,
including owners of private forests, Christmas tree growers and small hobby farmers, although
the legislation allows the program to be expanded to other users. Participants, after preregistering
with the department, bring their wastes to a specified site to be screened by the department for
acceptance as .a waste pesticide, Le., one that meets the statutory definition in 70.105B RCW.
A hazardous waste contractor is present at the site to package, transport and arrange for disposal
of the pesticide. Three collections were held in 1988 that gathered 25 tons from 137 participants
at a disposal cost of $160,760. The programs produced more material than the department
expected and at much higher disposal costs.
In 1990, the legislature approved a supplemental budget appropriation from the
hazardous waste tax to continue the program. The department was able to fund several collection
days in 1991. The program is still free to farmers; dealers and commercial applicators are still
excluded.
Wisconsin?34
In the spring of 1990, the state legislature enacted a recycling bill with
an addendum directing the DATCP, the Department of Natural Resources and the
Extension Service to conduct a one-year pilot waste pesticide collection program
and to report to the legislature in July 1991 on statewide collection needs.135 To
implement a collection program in time to meet the legislative study deadline, the
DATCP enacted emergency regulations governing grant agreements with local communities, Ag.
164. Sponsors managed to double the proposed appropriation on the floor, authorizing $100,000.
Collection was to have taken place in three communities, each of which was given $33,000, in
November 1990. One community has offered to contribute additional funds so more waste can
be accepted. Unlike most grant programs in Wisconsin, the state will directly supervise the
program. The program is directed to fanners, but the participating communities also solicited
information from commercial applicators, dealers and greenhouse operators. Disposal will be free
for quantities up to 500 pounds or 55 gallons. A per-pound charge of about $2 will be assessed
for amounts over the designated quantities. Some persons have commented that they will not
participate if charged any fee, although the projected fee for larger quantities is still substantially
less than individuals would have to pay on their own. The state has an existing contract with
Chemical Waste Management and was able to use that contract to derive costs of disposal for
the waste pesticide program. The state and communities have attempted to determine expected
volumes through surveys, publicity and meetings with grower groups. Preregistration is not
required The counties, not the contractor, have accepted generator status as a condition for
receiving the state grant money. The program will not accept any Dinoseb, 2,4,5-T or silvex,
waste oil, batteries or chemicals that may readily be disposed of through other collection
programs. Although the state and Chemical Waste Management maintain storage facilities with
some 2,4,5-T, both facilities are full.
5-56
-------
Wyoming136
The Wyoming Department of Agriculture is planning a waste pesticide
collection program for late November 1991 to dispose of unusable and banned
pesticides stored on farms and ranches in southeastern Wyoming. The state also
plans to accept unidentified materials, but may require sampling in advance of
collection. Total project cost is estimated to be $70,000, using a federal non-point source
pollution grant channeled to the state through the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
and a match from local conservation districts.137 The objectives of the pilot project are to:
(a) demonstrate an effective method to identify the type and amount of unused
pesticides being stored on farms and ranches;
(b) determine the most efficient means of collecting, transporting and disposing of
potentially hazardous pesticides in rural areas;
(c) provide information and education to rural land users concerning safe storage and
proper disposal of agriculture-related pesticides and containers; and
(d) use the information obtained from the project to develop a statewide agricultural
pesticide collection program and provide guidance for future collection programs.
Local county committees of conservation districts, extension service, weed and pest
districts and related agencies were formed to organize the program in each area. These
committees sent surveys to determine the volume and identity of waste pesticides. Most
respondents have provided their names and the local committees have made it clear that the
surveys will not be used for enforcement purposes. Local committees will keep records of usable
but unwanted products and lists of those who need the products so exchanges can be arranged.
The state is readying the RFP for a collection program contractor. The state also is
compiling a brochure that growers can keep for future reference on source reduction and banned
pesticides.
Canada1"
Several Canadian provinces have conducted or are considering implementing, a waste
pesticide collection program. In British Columbia, the provincial government is working with
the B.C. Federation of Agriculture to develop a pilot program. In Alberta, waste pesticides are
collected at special events called Toxic Roundups. There are 45 to 50 events annually, run by
Alberta Special Waste Management Corporation. Collection, packaging and transportation are
contracted out to companies licensed under the province's Hazardous Chemicals Act The
Saskatchewan Environmental Protection Fund provided monies for a waste pesticide collection
program in 1990 that gathered 32 tons of unwanted farm pesticides. A waste pesticide collection
day was planned for October 1991 in Nova Scotia, through the efforts of Environment Canada
and funded by Environmental Partners Fund. In November 1990, the Potato Producers
5-57
-------
Association, with funding from Environmental Partners Fund, organized a waste pesticide
collection day in Prince Edward Island. The collection netted 4,840 kg of solid material and
several thousand liters of liquid.
5.10 Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programs
A total of 3,400 HHW collection programs in 49 states had taken place as of August
1991.139
There are four main types of HHW programs. By far the most common is the one- or
two-day program at a temporary collection site. Homeowners bring unwanted hazardous
products, including pesticides, to the collection site, where they are sorted and packed by licensed
hazardous waste contractors. For example, in Minnesota, 2,014 participants brought an average
of 2.1 pounds to collection days from 1985-87. Three percent of the wastes were pesticides. In
Massachusetts in 1988, 9.5% of the 640 tons collected were household pesticides. In 1989 in
New York State, 16% of the 4,017 drums collected contained pesticides.140 In 1988, the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act141 authorized the IEPA to conduct a feasibility study on
collection and disposal assistance for pesticides held by homeowners.
These programs may be sponsored by the state, county or city, frequently under the title
Amnesty Days. The programs usually limit the amounts of waste that may be disposed of by any
one person. Fanners with waste pesticides in relatively small quantities have participated in some
of these programs, such as those in Florida and Hawaii, but HHW collections cannot generally
function as a substitute for pesticide-only collection programs directed to the volumes of wastes
found on farms.
A second type of program is one that provides a permanent collection site for HHW,
usually in connection with an existing landfill or wastewater treatment plant Thirty seven such
facilities had been established by early 1990, including one mobile permanent HHW collection
facility in King County, Washington, that will travel to 24 sites each year for stays of up to two
weeks. Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah and Washington have, or will soon have, permanent
facilities.
A third type of program, little used because of its expense, is a door-to-door collection
service.
A final type of HHW program is a telephone advice and referral service to promote
waste exchanges. This also can be part of both one-day and permanent-facility programs.
The states with permanent facilities and several other states have adopted separate
regulations under the state solid and hazardous waste laws to deal with the legal issues created
by HHW collection programs.142 Rhode Island intends to regulate its permanent HHW facilities
as hazardous waste large quantity generators; Wisconsin defines HHW as non-hazardous as long
as a municipality holds it for five days or fewer.
5-58
-------
HHW collection programs have been funded by federal grants, state grants, increases
in refuse collection fees, tipping fees at landfills, general tax revenues and tax revenues from
sewer and stormwater utilities.143
5-59
-------
State Index
Alabama 5-23,5-30
Alaska 5-30,5-58
Arizona r5-9>,;5-14, 5-19, 5-30, 5-58
Arkansas 5-20,5-25,5-39
California 5-5, 5-8, 5-12, 5-13, 5-15, 5-30, 5-31, 5-34, 5-35, 5-40
Colorado 5-30,5-34,5-58
Connecticut 5-23, 5-30, 5-41, 5-58
Delaware 5-8, 5-14, 5-30, 5-34, 5-41, 5-42
Florida 5-12, 5-14, 5-15, 5-23, 5-25, 5-26, 5-30, 5-58
Georgia 5-20, 5-22, 5-31, 5-36
Hawaii 5-12, 5-13, 5-17, 5-19, 5-42, 5-58
Idaho 5-8,5-16,5-17
Illinois 5-10, 5-14, 5-20, 5-25, 5-27, 5-33, 5-34, 5-39, 5-42, 5-43, 5-48, 5-58
Indiana 5-10,5-15,5-43,5-44
Iowa 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-25, 5-27, 5-34
Kansas 5-10,5-35
Kentucky 5-44
Louisiana 5-12, 5-14, 5-23, 5-30, 5-33, 5-34, 5-44, 5-45
Maine 5-9, 5-10, 5-12, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-23, 5-33, 5-36, 5-37, 5-38, 5-45, 5-46, 5-51,
5-58
Maryland 5-37,5-58
Massachusetts 5-23, 5-34, 5-37, 5-46, 5-54, 5-58
Michigan 5-10, 5-12, 5-38, 5-46, 5-58
Minnesota 5-4, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-10, 5-12, 5-14, 5-17, 5-20, 5-25, 5-36, 5-37, 5-38, 5-47,
5-58
Mississippi 5-27,5-39,5-49,5-50
Missouri 5-10,5-12,5-24
Montana 5-4, 5-9, 5-10, 5-15, 5-34, 5-37, 5-38
Nebraska 5-7, 5-10, 5-12, 5-14, 5-15, 5-17, 5-20, 5-25
Nevada 5-7,5-20,5-34
New Hampshire 5-6,5-15,5-34,5-38,5-50
New Jersey 5-15, 5-25, 5-34, 5-50, 5-51
New Mexico 5-10, 5-15, 5-20, 5-23, 5-33, 5-53
North Carolina 5-8, 5-14, 5-16, 5-23, 5-51
North Dakota 5-10, 5-12, 5-13, 5-20, 5-21, 5-52
Ohio 5-8, 5-10, 5-14, 5-21, 5-22
Oklahoma 5-33
Oregon 5-7, 5-14, 5-20, 5-21, 5-32, 5-52, 5-58
Pennsylvania 5-8, 5-14, 5-36
Rhode Island 5-12, 5-15, 5-37, 5-52, 5-58
South Carolina 5-8,5-11,5-15,5-23
South Dakota 5=7, 5=10, 5-13, 5-14, 5=19, 5=20, 5=53
Tennessee 5-39,5-44,5-45
Texas 5-8, 5-11, 5-15, 5-23, 5-33, 5-53, 5-54
5-60
-------
Utah 5-21,5-38,5-58
Vermont 5-8, 5-32, 5-54
Virginia 5-1, 5-11, 5-12, 5-14, 5-15, 5-19, 5-20, 5-54, 5-55
Washington 5-7,5-8,5-32,5-37,5-39,5-55,5-58
West Virginia 5-14,5-19,5-20
Wisconsin 5-10,-5-12, 5-14, 5-17, 5-23, 5-27, 5-37, 5-56, 5-58
Wyoming 5-10, 5-30, 5-56, 5-57
5-61
-------
Endnotes
1. Virginia Council on the Environment, Pesticide Management in Virginia, Special
Report, January 1989, at 10.
2. Montana Pesticides Act, section 80-8-305.
3. Department of Food and Agriculture Regulations, section 2458.9.
4. PR Notice 84-1, February 17, 1984.
5. Section 18B.01(31a), MSA.
6. South Dakota Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Regulations, section 12:56:01.
7. See, for example, Nebraska Hazardous Waste Rules, Chapter 1; Nevada Hazardous
Waste Management Regulations, section 444.8630.
8. Delaware, Idaho, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and
Vermont
9. 40 CFR Part 241 defines "sanitary landfill" as "A land disposal site employing an
engineering method of disposing of solid wastes on land in a manner that minimizes
environmental hazards by spreading the solid wastes in thin layers, compacting the
solid wastes to the smallest practicable volume and applying and compacting cover
materials at the end of each operating day."
10. Midwest Recycling Coalition, State of the Region Annual Report, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, 1989.
11. Section 101 of CERCLA defines "release" to include "Any spilling, emptying,
discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping or disposing into the environment
(including the abandonment or discarding of barrels, containers, and other closed
receptacles containing any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant)..."
Two recent U.S. District Court cases have held that municipalities may be responsible
parties in CERCLA actions, finding that ordinary MSW may contain CERCLA
hazardous substances. In the Murtha case, EPA asserted that municipalities could be
liable under CERCLA if they arranged for the transport or disposal of hazardous
substances. No case has determined the standard for apportionment of the
municipality's contribution. These cases have generated considerable lobbying activity
in Washington and at least one bill to exempt nr^n*r*p^lirirs from CERCLA liability.
B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Murtha, 745 F. Supp. 960 (D.Ct. 1991); Transportation Leasing
Co. v. California, 21 ELR 20826 (CD. Ca., Dec. 1990).
12. Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Program for the Handling and
Disposal of Used Pesticide Containers, at 2, 8.
5-62
-------
13. National Enforcement Law Journal, June 1988.
14. Maine Department of Environmental Protection, A Plan To Minimize and Dispose of
Household Hazardous Wastes, April 1989, at 72.
15. Senate Bill 530 (LR 2423-1, passed on May 17, 1990).
16. The Midwest Recycling Coalition has estimated remaining landfill capacity in the
midwest as follows:
Illinois: 132 landfills with average remaining capacity of 5.5 years
Indiana: 86 landfills with average remaining capacity of 8 years
Iowa: 82 landfills with average remaining capacity of 12 years
Kansas: 130 landfills with average remaining capacity of 10 years
Michigan: 80 landfills with average remaining capacity of 3-5 years
Minnesota: 89 landfills with average remaining capacity of 5 years
Missouri: 84 landfills with average remaining capacity of 7 years
Nebraska: 38 landfills with average remaining capacity of 8 years
North Dakota: 74 land disposal facilities. 66% will close within 3-5 years
Ohio: 110 landfills with average remaining capacity of 10-12 years
South Dakota: 360 land disposal sites (105 permitted). No estimate.
Wisconsin: 150 RCRA Sub. D sites with average remaining capacity of 5 years
Midwest Recycling Coalition, 1989 State of the Region, Annual Report
17. Conversation with Jim Bigelow, Wyoming Department of Agriculture.
18. U.S. EPA Groundwater Protection Strategy, 1984.
19. Minnesota General Technical Requirements for Solid Waste Facilities, section
7035.2535(5).
20. Virginia Solid Waste Regulations, section 8.0.
21. Final Report of the Agriculture Committee of the North Dakota Legislative Council,
pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 4036, November 1990.
22. Conversation with Bob Boesch, Hawaii Department of Agriculture.
23. Conversation with Gary Buttermore, Nebraska Department of Environmental Control.
24. Conversation with William Walls, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, November 1990.
25. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Minnesota Empty Pesticide Container Disposal
Report, March 1988.
26. Conversation with Betty Brousseau, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry,
March 1991.
5-63
-------
27. Leslie Legg, National Solid Wastes Management Association.
i
28. : The data on plants under construction and planning are from 1989. The number of
plants in operation is 1990 data.
29. ^Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Minnesota Empty Pesticide Container Disposal
Report, March 1988.
30. Zuelsdorff, "Environmental Contamination at Pesticide Mixing/Loading Sites," 1989.
31. Conversation with Gary Butterworth, Nebraska Department of Environmental Control.
32. Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania and
South Dakota.
33. See Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Program for the Handling
and Disposal of Used Pesticide Containers.
34. Conversation with Dave Scott, Indiana State Chemist, October 1990.
35. Conversation with Cathy Schnutt, New Hampshire Pesticide Control Board.
36. Conversation with Diane WQcox, Texas Water Commission.
37. Conversation with Brad Cowen, Texas Extension Service, November 1990.
38. McClelland, Norm Carolina Department of Agriculture, "A Study of Pesticide
Container Disposal Sites in North Carolina, 1981-1983," July 1983.
39. Idaho Farmer-Stockman, February 1991, at 14.
40. Buzicky, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Evaluation of Improperly Disposed of
Pesticide Containers on Minnesota Farms, draft, October 1990.
41. Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture, Pesticide Regulations, section
R3-10-313.
42. Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry,, Regulations section
4-66-55.
43. Department of Environmental Conservation, Rules and Regulations pertaining to the
Application of Pesticides, section 325.4.
44. South Dakota Department of Agriculture regulations 12:56:02:05.
45. West Virginia Department of Agriculture, Regulations pursuant to the West Virginia
Pesticide Use and Application Act, section 14.
5-64
-------
46. Arkansas Solid Waste Code, Section XI, Disposal of Spent Pesticides and Herbicide
Containers.
47. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Hazardous Waste Management Rules,
Chapter340, Division 109. ..... ...,
48. Utah Cooperative Extension Service publication, Pesticides No. 4.
49. Conversation with Betty Brousseau, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry.
50. Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, section 22a-65-l.
51. New Mexico Regulatory Order, adopted September 1978.
52. Wisconsin DATCP Regulations, Ag 29.15.
53. 55 Fed. Reg. 80, January 2, 1990. :
54. Ibid.
55. 55 Fed. Reg. 92, January 2,1990
56. IAC Chapter 44, section 44.10.
57. Minnesota Agri News, November 22, 1990.
58. U.S. v. White, No. CR 86-20015-01 (W.D. Ark.)
59. Florida Extension Circular 840.
60. United States v. Argent Chemical Laboratories, Inc. (WX>. WA. 1988).
61. Section 487.15.
62. Division of Plant Industry, regulations governing registration of economic poisons in
accordance with the Mississippi Economic Poisons Act, Rule 1, section 7.
63. Section 206.32 Iowa Code.
64. This discussion is not meant as an exhaustive treatment of the regulations, but as an
introduction to the issues.
65. Data from EPA Superfund Hotline.
66. Ibid.
67. 55 Fed. Reg. 11798.
68. 55 Fed. Reg. 11839.
5-65
-------
69. 54 Fed. Reg. 48372, November 22, 1989.
70. See, for example, hazardous waste regulations in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida and Louisiana.
71. The differences among various state regulations and the federal regulations are
described in Lennett and Greet, "State Regulation of Hazardous Waste," Ecology Law
Quarterly, VoL 12, 1985. Some of the specific information is out of date but the
analysis is useful.
72. Environmental Health Code, section 66696.
73. See Cooke, The Law of Hazardous Waste, Matthew Bender, revised as of 1989, section
2.05.
74. 'Environmental Health Code, section 66680.
75. California Health and Safety Code section 25124.
76. Hazardous Waste Rules, Division 101, Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste,
Additional Hazardous Wastes, section 340-101-033.
77. Ibid, section 340-109-002.
78. Vermont Regulations for the Control of Pesticides, section XHL
79. Washington Dangerous Waste Regulations, WAC 173-303-040.
80. Louisiana Administrative Code, Tide 7, Subchapter U.
81. 40 CFR Part 262.70.
82. See, for example, Colorado Waste Facility Siting Regulations, Section E; Delaware
Hazardous Waste Regulations, Section 122.1; Louisiana Hazardous Waste Rules,
Section 305(c)(3); Montana Refuse Disposal Rules, Section 16.44.103; New Jersey
Hazardous Waste Rules, Section 26-9.1(b)(5).
83. Nevada Hazardous Waste Regulations, Section 444.8770.
84. Administrative Rules of the New Hampshire Pesticide Control Board, Chapter 800.
This chapter is being completely revised to bring it up to date.
85. Illinois Environmental Protection Act, Chapter 111 1/2, paragraph 1021.
86. 40 CFR Part 261.5. Some states have reduced the quantities for qualification as small-
quantity generators.
87. California Environmental Health Code section 66300(g).
5-66
-------
88. Kansas Administrative Regulations issued pursuant to the Kansas Pesticide Act, section
4-13-29.
89. Managing Pesticide Wastes: Recommendations for Action, Summary of National
.. Conferences and Workshops on Pesticide Waste Disposal, July 1988, at 14.
90. Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) Environment Reporter, February 3, 1989.
91. BNA Environment Reporter, December 18, 1987.
92. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Agronomy Services Division, "The Minnesota
Waste Pesticide Collection Program, Program Summary, June 15, 1991."
93. Conversations with state agency personnel in Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Washington and Wisconsin.
94. An analysis of the state regulations affecting the ability of Massachusetts to run a
pesticide collection day on the basis that farmers transport their own waste is contained
in a memo from Peter Branson, Senior Deputy General Counsel, DEP, to Mary Ann
Nelson, EOEA, December 14, 1989.
95. Ibid.
96. Utah Extension Service, 1986 bulletin, Pesticides No. 4.
97. New Hampshire Department cf Agriculture, Report cf the Unwanted Pesticide
Collection Project, June 1990.
98. In 1991, MJS. Gilmore, National Fertilizer and Environmental Research Center,
Tennessee Valley Authority, surveyed states for information on HHW and waste
pesticide amnesty days. The report contains an analysis of the problems that states have
encountered in running these programs, suggestions for dealing with the issues, and
copies of the surveys returned by the states. Gilmore, Amnesty Day Experiences in
Various States, funded by U.S. EPA Interagency Agreement DW64945509-0, 1991.
99. See "Bargain Basement Cleanup,*1 Agrichcmical Age, December 1989 at 14-15.
100. Contact person: Bradford Robinson, Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection.
101. Contact person: Julie Wilkie, Delaware Solid Waste Authority.
102. Contact person: Bob Boesch, Hawaii Department of Agriculture.
103. Contact person: A.G. Taylor, Illinois EPA.
104. See A.G. Taylor, "A Summary of die Adams County Pilot Farm Chemical Collection
Project," EPA, 1988.
5-67
-------
105. Taylor, Letter to Eligible Participants in the Adams County Farm Chemical Collection,
"Project Procedures and Pre-Collection Notifications/Commitment Form," April 4,
1988.
1Q6. Jim Q!Brien to-A.G. Taylar.tfnemo re: "Adams County Telephone Survey," May 20,
- 1988;-cIEPA, "Recommended Safety Practices for Transporting Waste Material to the
Farm Chemical Collection Site," 1988; Adams County Farm Chemical Collection
Participant Survey, June 1988.
107. Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 5, paragraph 819.1
108. Memo from James Onken, Illinois Department of Agriculture, to John Rundquist,
Illinois Department of Agriculture, re: "Pilot Project for the Collection and Disposal
of Unwanted Pesticides," September 18, 1990.
109. Contact person: Candace Chulzik, Chemical Waste Management, Indianapolis.
110. Contact person: Steve Colman, Natural Resources Cabinet, Division of Conservation.
111. Section 224.0332 K.R.S.
112. Contact person: Betty Brousseau and Larry LeJeune, Louisiana Department of
Agriculture and Forestry.
113. Contact person: Bob Batteese, Maine Board of Pesticides Control
114. Board of Pesticides Control, Press Release, June 28,1990.
115. Contact person: John Bragg, Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation.
116. Contact person: Charles Cubbage, Michigan Department of Agriculture.
t
117. Contact person: Joe Spitzmueller, Minnesota Department of Agriculture. See Minnesota
Department of Agriculture, Agronomy Services Division, The Minnesota Waste
Pesticide Collection Program, Program Summary, June 15,1991." The report contains
a summary of the programs to date; the legislation enabling the programs; various
forms for participation in the program, including a Waste Pesticide Registration Form
and Disclosure for Waste Pesticide Disposal Management Plan; and results of the
survey taken of participants on their disposal practices.
118. See discussion of program in Palmer, "Minnesota Waste Pesticide Collection Pilot
Project", Agrichemicals and Groundwater Protection, Freshwater Foundation 1988.
119. Section 18B.065 M.S.A.
120. Contact person: Robert McCarty, Mississippi Department of Agriculture.
121. Contact person: Katherine Schmitt, New Hampshire Department of Agriculture.
5-68
-------
122. House Bill H.B. 56-FN-A, May 29, 1989. The bill required the collection program to
be managed according to New Hampshire hazardous waste rules.
123. Contact person: Ralph Smith, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
Bureau of Pesticide Control
124. Contact person: Jim Bumette, North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
125. Contact: North Dakota Legislative Council.
126. Contact person: Maggie Conley, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
127. Contact person: Liz Duguay, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
128. Contact person: Paul Bachman, South Dakota Department of Agriculture.
129. Contact person: Diane Wilcox, Texas Water Commission. The New.Mexico
Department of Agriculture had hoped to participate in the program but did not receive
funding to do so; nor did the disposal facilities have sufficient capacity.
130. Contact persons: Deborah Rogler and Alan Karnatz, Vermont Department of
Agriculture, Food and Markets.
131. Contact person: Dan Schweitzer, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services.
132. Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Office of Pesticide
Management, 1990 "dean Day" Pilot Program Report, 1990.
133. Contact persons: Art Losey and Glenn Smerdon, Washington Department of
Agriculture.
134. Contact persons: Elaine Andrews, University of Wisconsin Extension, and Ned
Zuelsdorff, Wisconsin DATCP.
135. Act 335 (1989), section 93.55.
136. Contact persons: Tim Link, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Solid
Waste section, and Jim Bigelow, Wyoming Department of Agriculture.
137. See grant application submitted to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
from the Department of Agriculture, "Reduction of Non-Point Source Pollution through
Agricultural Pesticide Education and Disposal."
138. Contact person: Neil Wandler, Alberta Environment, Wastes and Chemicals Division.
See copy of slide presentation for Ottawa meeting, August 1991.
139. Conference announcement for EPA Conference on Household Hazardous Waste
Disposal, Seattle, December 1991.
5-69
-------
140. Household Hazardous Waste Management News, Winter 1990.
141. Section 2230.
142. For example, see Massachusetts, "Special Provisions for Accumulation of HHW and/or
'< " Hazardous Waste (HW)generated by VSQG," 310 CMR 30.390.
143. One of the best sources of information on HHW programs is Household Hazardous
Waste Management News, a quarterly newsletter from the Waste Watch Center, 16
Haverhill Street Andover, Massachusetts. See also, Maine Department of
Environmental Protection, A Program Plan to Assist Persons Who Generate up to 1000
Kilograms of Hazardous Wastes per Calendar Month, and A Plan to Minimize and
Dispose of Household Hazardous Wastes, April 1989, for a review of HHW programs
nationwide..
5-70
-------
Chapter 6
Alternatives To Disposal
6.1 Collection and Application of Rinsates and Washes
6.1.1 Groundwater Contamination: Improper Mixing, Loading, Rinsing and Washing
Improper pesticide handling and disposal at mixer/loader, rinsing and washing sites has
caused soil, surface and groundwater contamination. The contamination derives from large
accidental spills, chronic day-to-day uncontained spillage, inadequate cleaning of spray equipment
or leaking spray equipment and inappropriate disposal of excess spray mix and container rinsates.
The Florida DER wrote to EPA Region TV in 1987, "Improper disposal of pesticide
rinsewater has been a source of soil, surface and groundwater contamination in several
department enforcement actions. A means of treatment of pesticide rinsewater has been identified
as a need by both a statewide group on pesticide waste and the recently held Southeastern
Regional Workshop on pesticide waste."1
IEPA, in testimony supporting regulatory proposals to require groundwater monitoring,
secondary containment and maintenance of written inventories, noted that:
Since 1984, thirteen complaint investigations had been conducted by IEPA where
the presence of pesticides in private wells was confirmed These instances were
attributed to handling of agricultural pesticides at retail facilities. Community
water supply sampling conducted by me IEPA since 1985 and by the Illinois
Department of Public Health confirmed improper mixing/loading and storage
operations as a significant cause of groundwater contamination.2
As of mid-1989, only a small percentage of the 1,900 commercial businesses in Illinois
that apply pesticides had implemented any spill and runoff controls at their business locations.
In Kansas in 1990, a municipal drinking water well became contaminated with pesticides
from mixing/loading operations at a local co-op. The co-op drilled a new well at its own expense
and moved to another location.3'4'9
A 1990 Minnesota study of improper container disposal found that the most severe case
of water contamination occurred where containers were disposed in the same location as leftover
tank mix.6
In California, at least two aerial applicator sites have been contaminated by repeated
equipment washes. The state's Department of Toxic Substances Control has experimented with
waste pile treatment to clean up the sites.7
6-1
-------
States have addressed potential groundwater contamination from rinsates and washes by
encouraging their application, rather than disposal. A few states require that mixing/loading,
washing or rinsing take place within operational areas constructed with impervious surfaces and
catch basins to contain any spills, rinsates and washes.
—/• r^Ts .-.-• •vii.rrr'-.:. ;::: •-.. b-. >-••:--.•- ^ .'..••._. • -._
6.L2 Label Statements on Use of Rinsates and Washes
PR Notice 83-3 divided non-household products into three categories for purposes of label
statements on pesticide waste disposal For products whose wastes are required to be designated
"acutely hazardous" or "toxic,"8 PR Notice 83-3 offers the following statement on using rinsates:
"Improper disposal of ... xinsate is a violation of federal law. If these wastes cannot be
disposed of by use according to label instructions, contact... "' For products that do not fall
into either the "acutely hazardous" or "toxic" designations, PR Notice 83-3 specifies that "Wastes
resulting from the use of this product may be disposed of on-site or at an approved waste
disposal facility."
Some states specify the amount of rinsate that can be used in a given application. For
example, Florida recommends limiting rinse water to 5% of the diluent Minnesota's bulk
storage regulations limit the volume of rinsates and sludges to no more than 5% of any total tank
mix for delivery rates of 40 gallons per acre or less and 10% for delivery rates of more man 40
gallons per acre. Washwater not contaminated with pesticides may be used undiluted.10
The Wisconsin DATCP has developed a policy that applying pesticide mixtures (mixed
using rinsates containing pesticides not labeled for the intended use site) is not contrary to label
directions, as long as the concentration of the use-incompatible pesticide is less than 1 ppm in
the final spray solution. This policy was developed after research demonstrated that major-use
pesticides present as cross-contaminants did not cause phytotoxicity or residue in treated
commodities. Therefore, this policy does not apply to any pesticide found to result in
phytotoxicity or illegal residues at these concentration levels.11
On the other hand, DATCP considers inadequate cleanup of pesticide spills and
inappropriate disposal of pesticides, rinsates and containers to be uses contrary to label
directions.13 DATCP has used mis authority and the DNR has employed its hazardous waste
management authority to investigate mixer/loader sites subsequent to groundwater or surface
water contamination findings.
The Wisconsin DNR, under its regulation Ag 29.15, also possesses authority to take action
to prevent groundwater contamination resulting from the seepage or leaching of pesticides
through the soil The department's rules or orders may restrict or regulate the storage, use or
disposal of pesticides in areas under die department's jurisdiction where contamination may
occur. Clean-up orders at problem sites have mandated installation or repair of containment pads,
modifications in application equipment handling, implementation of reporting procedures,
groundwater monitoring and environmental sampling and remedial cleanup of contaminated soil
and groundwater.
Hawaii, like Wisconsin, has used its authority to enforce label statements requiring on-
target deposition and prevention of contamination to require construction of containment systems
6-2
-------
at mixer/loader sites. In 1988-89, the Hawaii Department of Agriculture inventoried known
mixing/loading sites at sugar cane, pineapple and seed com plantations and sampled the soil at
several locations. The department found significant groundwater contamination. One reason for
the contamination was the sugarcane growers' practice of dipping cane in fungicides and placing
it on the -ground to drip dry. As a result, the Department of Agriculture negotiated consent
agreements with growers, directing each one to build a structure, of the plantation's own design,
sufficient to prevent future contamination.13
6.L3 State Regulations Governing Use of Rinsates and Washes
State regulations or state certification and training programs may promote the use of
rinsates and washes as diluents in subsequent spray operations or field application of rinsates and
washes rather than disposal This is accomplished in several ways:
(a) States may define application in accordance with the label as "use"_rather than
"discharge" or "disposal" Applicators who follow the label requirements for
application rate and site are under the jurisdiction of state pesticide statutes, rather
than state solid and hazardous waste laws. Vermont, for example, defines
"discharge" to include a "spill, leak, release or other emission of a pesticide," but
does not include "releases that are in accordance with label directions."14
Minnesota's bulk storage regulations define "disposal" to exclude pesticide use
allowable under Minnesota statutes and specifically provides for application of
sludges, rinsates and washwaters generated in pesticide inking or secondary
containment areas as a result of loading, washing, rinsing or clean up.19
(b) Through statutes or regulations, states may specifically authorize using rinsates
and washes as diluent or as a dilute spray. The recent Illinois Act to Create the
Lawn Care Products Application and Notice provides: "Washwaters and rinsates
captured in the wash area may be either reused as makeup water for dilution of
pesticides in preparation for application or disposed of in accordance with
applicable local, federal and state regulations."16 Illinois also permits field
application of dilute pesticides or use as makeup water for agricultural pesticides.
(c) States may require reuse to the extent feasible. Oregon requires a "person
producing pesticide residue . . . [to] make every effort to beneficially use or reuse
such residue."17 States also may specify adding rinsates to the spray tank as part
of the triple rinse (or equivalent) procedure.1* The 40 CFR Part 165.1 definition
of triple rinsing also specifies adding rinsates to the tank.
Many applicators already use rinsates and washes as diluent in subsequent spray
operations or apply rinsates and washes in the field, rather than dispose of them. A 1988 South
Dakota farm survey found that 43% of respondents applied rinsates and washes to the field, 7%
spot-treated weeds elsewhere on the farm, 3% dumped excess tank mix on the road or ground
and 67% add^d container rinsates to the tank.19
Rinsates, washes, spills, unused solutions and other excess pesticides that cannot be
applied in accordance with the label become waste subject to the state solid and hazardous waste
6-3
-------
laws (see discussion of state regulations on pesticide disposal). Accumulated sludges from
collection systems may present special problems because of their high pesticide content20
"[Analyses suggest] that some of the pesticides are concentrating in the sediment, precipitating
out or both. The practical implication is that frequent sediment removal from the mud pit and
collection tanks is important to prevent this accumulation or that agitation of the tank contents
prior to withdrawal is necessary to keep these small solids moving through the system."21
In some states, such as California, any such sludges likely would be required to be
disposed of as hazardous waste. In other states, such as Maine, their management would require
handling as special waste under rules administered by the state agency in charge of solid and
hazardous waste disposal
Minnesota's bulk regulations are the only containment regulations to refer specifically to
sludges. The regulations require that sediments be removed from the trap before it is half full
and authorize sludges to be used in tank mix at the same rate as rinsates.
Illinois requires, in its agrichemical facilities regulations, that all agrichemicals and
mixtures that cannot be used according to the label shall be disposed of as special or hazardous
waste.22
In its "Pesticide Rinsates: Management and Reuse Guidelines," Wisconsin's DATCP
advises, "Any pesticide discharge materials mat cannot be used for the original intended purposes
become 'wastes'," some of which may be regulated as hazardous under federal and state law.
DATCP also specifies mat all pesticide wastes must be disposed of according to all applicable
regulations. Waste materials generated at mixing/loading sites can include unusable spray
mixtures, sludge (soil and debris) recovered from the containment system and decontamination
solutions.
6.L4 State Regulations Governing Containment at Mixing/Loading, Washing and Rinsing
Sites
States with existing or proposed comprehensive bulk storage regulations23 require, as an
essential feature of the regulations, that all washing and mixing/loading at the bulk storage
facilities take place within containment areas that capture wastewaters for further application or
disposal (see figure 6-1). Ohio also requires containment in its bulk storage regulations, which
exempt loading, washing and rinsing in the field from their containment provisions.24
Apart from bulk storage regulations, only a few states currently mandate containment at
sites used for rinsing, washing, mixing or loading. Wisconsin's DATCP requires that if more
than 1,500 pounds of pesticide active ingredients are mixed or loaded during a calendar year at
any mixing/loading site, the operations must be conducted over a paved or lined surface and a
catch basin designed to catch pesticide spills. The regulations were effective as of 1990 for
operations conducted less than 100 feet from any well or surface water. Pesticide mixing and
loading immediately adjacent to or in the application site are exempt when more than 100 feet
from a well or surface water. Also, certain aerial applicator mixing/loading sites and operations
are exempt until January 1993.
6-4
-------
Through the development of voluntary BMPs for pesticides, these states and others may
recommend containment of rinsates and washes and containment at mixing/loading sites. In some
states, industry groups are helping to devise the guidelines. The Michigan Farm Bureau is
leading an effort involving the state's Cooperative Extension Service, Soil and Water
Conservatipn Service and others to study ways of addressing mixing/loading sites on farms. In
Kentucky, the Fertilizer and Agrichemical Committee, a trade association, is developing
guidelines for rinsate pads and storage facilities.
Through groundwater protection regulation, some states may require containment in
certain areas or at certain volumes of pesticide use, once state groundwater plans are developed.
The Florida Department of Agriculture has begun developing mixer/loader containment
regulations, as has the Washington Department of Agriculture. Colorado is developing
mixer/loader regulations for sites handling more than 55,000 pounds of tank mix annually,
pursuant to the 1990 Agricultural Chemicals and Groundwater Protection Act
In some situations, containment and reapplication of rinsates is impracticable because of
the time involved or uncertainty about residue levels in the rinse water. Responding to this
concern, the Florida DER and University of Florida Agricultural Engineering Department
developed a tank system that applicators can build for evaporation and degradation of rinse
waters.
In March 1991, AAPCO adopted final draft #3 of its Model Rule for Non-Bulk Pesticide
Operational Area Containment The model rule offers a comprehensive approach to mixing,
loading, rinsing and washing in areas where non-bulk pesticides are handled. The draft covers
temporary and permanent operational areas, containment construction and capacities and aircraft
operations.
6.2 Pesticide Exchanges Among Users
State lead agencies often receive inquiries about disposal from persons holding pesticides
they do not want to use. Frequently, persons discover upon moving to a new home, especially
if the home was once a farmhouse, mat pesticides are stored in the bam or basement The new
owner has no use for mem.
Sometimes these unwanted and unopened pesticides are legally able to be used by others
in the state. When that is the situation, state lead agencies frequently attempt to match the holder
with a user or simply recommend that the holder find someone legally able to use the product
For instance, state officials in Arizona, Maine, North Carolina, Oregon and South Carolina
have said that such transfers occur with their blessing. In New Jersey, the Bureau of Pesticide
Control recommends in its Guidelines for the Disposal of Pesticide Waste that homeowners
"consider using it legally or giving it to someone who can use it legally. Using the pesticide is
the most environmentally sound disposal method." For private and commercial applicators, the
bureau recommends that the best way "by far, to dispose of any pesticide is to use it legally or
give it to someone who can use it legally ..."
6-7
-------
In a poster advertising a pesticide collection day in Morris County, NJ, that state's
Department of Environmental Protection advised that there are two methods for disposing of
unwanted pesticides:
(a) If the pesticides are not banned or outdated, they may be given to someone who
can use them legally, according to the label instructions.
(b) If the pesticides are banned, outdated or restricted, it is best to bring them to the
pesticide disposal collection day.
Michigan Extension Bulletin E-1781 states that leftover products may be given to others
who can use them "ONLY if in the original, labeled containers and ONLY if precautionary
statements accompany them."
Generally, states do not aid the transfer of opened containers, but an exchange has the
advantage of avoiding die costs and attendant potential environmental harm of disposal The
Virginia Department of Agriculture has concluded that developing a pesticide exchange program
for growers would reduce the accumulation of large quantities of unwanted pesticides. During
one pilot project, some of the pesticides collected were currently registered products, some of
which were usable materials (some may have deteriorated or become contaminated). The
department warned, however, that establishing such a program would require the resolution of
liability issues.42
Pesticide exchanges among users are not without other risks. Since containers are not
dated and the state has no way of knowing the storage conditions, the state agency cannot
guarantee product integrity. For this reason, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture issues
a disclaimer of warranties for transfers mat take place under the aegis of its waste pesticide
collection program. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture has declined to take an active role
in arranging transfers because of possible liability, should the product be mislabeled or
misrepresented. The department has received complaints from persons who purchased such
unwanted products from another only to discover that die products were not what the holders
represented them to be. As an alternative, the department accepts unwanted pesticides in its
waste pesticide disposal program.
Washington state addressed the transfer issue in 1989 by amending the Washington
Pesticide Control Act The amendment allows pesticide users to distribute properly labeled
pesticides to another user legally entitled to use the product without obtaining a dealer license,
if die exclusive purpose of the distribution is to keep the pesticide from becoming hazardous
waste.43
6.3 Refilling, Reusing and Recycling Containers
6 J.I Federal and State Regulations Governing Refilling
The Suggested State Pesticide Control Act prohibits distributing, selling, offering for sale
or transporting any pesticide or device unless it is in the registrant's or the manufacturer's
6-8
-------
unbroken, immediate container. The container must have a label affixed to it and to the outside
container or wrapper of the retail package, if there is one. Alabama,44 Delaware43 and New
Mexico46 are among the states that enacted this act
Such a prohibition could be interpreted to preclude the use of dealer-refillable minibulks.
Indeed, the suggested act was written well before the advent of minibulks. Recognizing this,
some states, including Alabama,47 have amended the prohibition to authorize bulk sales. For
example, Missouri prohibits sales of "any pesticide, unless it is in the registrant's or the
manufacturer's unbroken immediate container or a bulk container sealed by the registrant.. ."**
Other states have adopted bulk storage regulations that imply repackaging and transfer
into refillable containers. Two states with bulk storage regulations, Iowa and South Dakota, have
defined the conditions under which repackaging may occur. Those conditions ensure that the
purposes of the registration requirements of FIFRA section 3 are maintained during the bulk
transfer of pesticides. The conditions also ensure that all facilities making such transfers comply
with the pesticide producing establishment regulations of FIFRA section 7. These two states
have, in effect, written into regulatory form the 1977 bulk pesticides enforcement policy
developed by EPA's Office of Compliance Monitoring (OCM).49 (See box 6-A.)
Iowa's bulk repackaging regulations require:
(a) compliance with FIFRA section 7;
(b) no change in pesticide product labeling, except for the addition of the required
EPA establishment number and net contents statement or identity of the party
accountable for the integrity of the product (the manufacturer or registrant) as
evidenced by the assigned EPA product registration number;
(c) a written letter of authorization from the registrant;
(d) repackaging only into containers that conform with the specified Iowa regulations
and that meet the approval of the pesticide seller;
(e) scales or meters used for bulk pesticide sales to meet the specifications, tolerances
and other technical requirements for weighing and measuring devices as specified
by Iowa's Bureau of Weights and Measures; and
(f) appropriate measures to be taken to prevent product contamination when meters
or other devices are used to dispense pesticides.90
AAPCO's Model Bulk Pesticide Rules, adopted in March 1990, are very similar. Section
n requires that:
(a) the establishment complies with FIFRA section 7 and has appropriate written
authorization from the registrant;
6-9
-------
BOX6-A
OCM Bulk Policy
OCM's bulk pesticides enforcement policy was developed to define when bulk
shipments and transfer practices would be allowed without a separate pesticide registration.
As the policy explains,
Before a pesticide is not encompassed within the terms of an existing
registration enters the channels of trade, a separate registration must be
obtained. Changes in the formulation of a registered product, changes in
accepted labeling, as well as any repackaging of a pesticide into another
container will activate the registration requirement, unless the purposes of
product registration would be fully met by carrying forward the Federal
registration of the constituent product
The policy defines "the repackaging conditions under which the purposes of
registration continue to be satisfied upon further sale and distribution of the pesticide.
These conditions were summarized in a question-and-answer document on the bulk
pesticide enforcement policy.91 A dealer must
"(a) register each of the repackaging sites owned or operated by him as a
'pesticide-producing establishment';
"(b) obtain written authorization from the product's registrant to repackage the
pesticide and use the registered label;
"(c) place the dealer's EPA-assigned establishment number on the product's label;
"(d) provide [the] product's label and labeling to the end-user;
"(e) keep records as required by section 8 of FIFRA (shipping and receiving,
sales, etc.); and
"(f) report annually to EPA the types and amounts of pesticides produced
(repackaged) by him."
(b) a representative of the receiving establishment is present both when the product
is received and when it is repackaged for sale or distribution;
(c) the container into which the bulk pesticide is repackaged is designed effectively
and constructed to hold bulk volumes of the pesticide being repackaged, is clean
and in a good state of repair and otherwise meets the approval of the seller, and
(d) there is no change in the pesticide formulation; the product labeling, except for the
addition of the assigned EPA establishment number and net contents statement;
and the identity of the party accountable for the integrity of the product
6-10
-------
EPA's original bulk pesticides enforcement policy provided that containers with capacities
of 55 gallons or less could not be refilled under the bulk pesticides enforcement policy without
a registration and that quantities of pesticides 55 gallons or less could not be placed into a
container larger than 55 gallons under the bulk pesticide enforcement policy without a separate
registration. A purchaser had to .buy an undivided quantity greater than 55 gallons, which was
placed into a container designed to hold more than 55 gallons. If an additional amount less than
bulk was necessary to complete a job, the dealer had to show, through written documentation,
that the second sale actually was made to complete the initial application.
SFIREG, AAPCO, dealer and grower associations and registrants expressed concerns that
the bulk enforcement policy encouraged purchasing more than necessary to complete end-of-
season applications. The policy also encouraged buying small-volume, non-refillable containers
and inhibited the development of minibulks smaller than 56 gallons that could be refillable by
dealers. In response, OCM approved a pilot project in Iowa for the 1990 growing season. The
project, conducted jointly by the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, the Iowa
Fertilizer and Chemical Association and EPA Region Vn, permitted the repackaging of pesticides
in quantities less than 56 gallons into 100-gallon or larger tanks under certain conditions.32
About 50 dealers participated
Based in part on the pilot project, EPA has changed its bulk pesticide enforcement
policy.93 Through an amendment dated March 4, 1991, EPA deleted the definition of bulk
(more than 55 gallons or more than 100 pounds) and amended the policy "to allow repackaging
of any quantity of pesticides into refillable containers, provided:
"(a) the container is designed and constructed to accommodate the return and refill of
greater than 55 gallons liquid or 100 pounds of dry materials;
"(b) either (1) the containers are dedicated to and refilled with one specific active
ingredient in a compatible formulation or (2) the container is thoroughly cleaned
according to written instructions provided by the registrant to the dealer prior to
introducing another chemical to the container in order to avoid
cross-contamination; and
"(c) all other conditions of the July 11,1977 policy are met"
With only a handful of exceptions, state regulations are silent on the issue of transferring
less than bulk quantities, neither explicitly endorsing nor prohibiting it However, effective
October 1, 1990, North Dakota Department of Agriculture regulations allowed repackaging of
amounts less than 56 gallons into bulk containers. The department changed its definition of bulk
pesticide to mean any volume of pesticide that can be accurately metered and that is transported
or held in an individual container capable of holding, in undivided quantities, 110 U.S. gallons
or greater or 200 pounds net dry weight North Dakota also defined repackaging as the "transfer
of a pesticide in bulk quantities and in an unaltered state from a container into a designated
refillable container."94
At the same time, Louisiana, one of the states that shows a trend to 175 gallons or larger
minibulks, specifically prohibited by regulation transfers in less than bulk quantities.99 During
6-11
-------
the past two years, registrants and dealers have approached the Louisiana Department of
Agriculture to change its regulations on bulk sales, asserting that partial refills minimize the
volume of waste pesticide containers. After consultation with EPA Region VI, the department
recently clarified its enforcement policy, authorizing dealers to refill a bulk container with less
than a bulk quantity, as long as the sale is made to complete an application and is fully
documented as such. This ^corresponds to the 1977 bulk pesticides enforcement policy.
6.3.2 State Regulations Governing Reuse and Recycling
Several states specifically define by regulation the uses for an empty container.
Regulations on reuse of pesticide containers in New Hampshire,16 North Dakota97 and Ohio58
are substantially die same as those of New York. Alabama99 prohibits reuse unless approved
in writing by the Commissioner of Agriculture. Oregon60 prohibits using or providing for use
empty or decontaminated containers to store food, fiber or water intended for human or animal
consumption.
Some states prohibit scavenging for pesticide containers in dumps. Arizona, for example,
prohibits scavenging in sanitary landfills unless the operator expressly authorizes the practice and
it is done safely. Nevertheless, containers are sometimes dumped in uncontrolled local dumps
and the containers entice scavengers. The New Mexico Department of Agriculture occasionally
has found containers in these sites and cannot trace them to their owners.61
Some states prohibit reuse for food, feed, water and storage of clothing or cooking
utensils and limit reuse to purposes approved by the regulatory agency. For example, New
York's regulations state mat no container may be:
(a) sold or used for any purpose that involves the risk of exposure to humans or
animals, including but not limited to storing human or animal food or water. Nor
shall such containers be used for storing cooking utensils, dishes or clothing; or
(b) used for any other purpose unless approved by the Department of Environmental
Conservation and properly decontaminated.62
Hawaii limits pesticide container reuse to refilling with the same product or some other
purpose prescribed by the Department of Agriculture.63 Maryland restricts reuse to the
originally labeled product, unless the product label states otherwise.64 Rhode Island prohibits
all use for any purpose other than pesticide storage, unless approved by the state and the
container properly cleaned.69
Several states encourage — or at least remove potential barriers to — recycling, refilling
or both, by explicitly allowing these forms of use.
Arizona
The Arizona Department of Agriculture allows recycling and refilling, but only when the
label provides for it
6-12
-------
Pesticide containers containing label provisions as returnable/reusable containers or
provisions for recycling or reconditioning may be shipped according to label directions to a
dealer, distributor or formulator or to approved reconditioning or recycling facilities.66
,r,, California
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control, a division of the newly created
California Environmental Protection Agency, has proposed regulations designed to encourage
reuse of containers that held hazardous materials. Under California law, most pesticides are
hazardous materials.
Emptied household pesticide containers of 5 gallons capacity or less would be exempt
from the new rule if the container is emptied using commonly accepted methods. Containers
generated by commercial farms also would be exempt from hazardous waste regulations and from
management requirements, if the containers comply with California's revised exemption for
farmers.67
The exemption holds that pesticide containers or their inner liners, when generated by a
commercial farming operation, would not be regulated as hazardous waste if the container or
inner liner is emptied and triple rinsed with a liquid capable of dissolving the pesticide the
container held and if the container or inner liner is properly disposed of, reused or recycled.
California's Department of Pesticide Regulation does not have any mandates for return
or recycling. In practice, a large percentage of agricultural land in the state is treated by
commercial aerial applicators. Some of these applicators generate a sufficient volume of emptied
metal containers for scrap metal recyclers to pick up on-site.
Louisiana
After triple rinsing, containers may be returned to the sales agent or manufacturer by prior
agreement, may be resold to a third parry for recycling or reconditioning or may be returned to
the person contracting for the application.68
Louisiana regulations also prohibit storage of empty containers by commercial applicators
for more than 90 days following the end of the spray season. However, the Department of
Agriculture has modified its application of this rule to facilitate recycling. Local salvage
companies can collect empty 55-gallon metal drums, but only in lots of 100 or more. One aerial
applicator collected his drums and those of several smaller applicators and stored them, for longer
than 90 days, until he had the requisite volume. The department allowed him to store the
containers beyond the regulatory date, but required that he keep the containers, inspected for
cleanliness and with bungs removed, in a separate, secure area pending removal by a salvage
company.
6-13
-------
Michigan
A Michigan Extension bulletin on disposal recommends that growers ask dealers about
returnable containers.69
' -..-'• . :.. '.C. ,;...•• ..o .. • ' u • - •
Minnesota
A Minnesota form for container return, recycling or disposal70 instructs users to recycle
metal and plastic containers, if possible. The form instructs users of 30- and 55-gallon metal
drums to offer them for reconditioning or, if unable to do so, to offer them for scrap recycling.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma's regulations are similar to_ Louisiana's.
South Dakota
Containers of organics and metallo-organics, except organic mercury, lead, cadmium,
beryllium, selenium and arsenic compounds, may be returned to the manufacturer for
reconditioning if the manufacturer agrees or may be sold for scrap if triple rinsed.71
Vermont
If practical, pesticide drums shall be shipped to recycling centers capable of handling
pesticide containers.72
Wisconsin
Wisconsin regulations prohibit reuse of any container for any purpose. However, this
does not prohibit recycling for scrap, reusing a container designed for that purpose in compliance
with the label or returning the container to the manufacturer, distributor or retail dealer.73
633 Label Statements on Reuse and Recycling
Except for labels on refillable containers, labels do not suggest return to the manufacturer,
the dealer or a state collection program if one is available.
Labels for products (other than household products) that incorporate the container disposal
language of PR Notice 83-3 explicitly authorize certain uses of some empty containers. Excerpts
from the container disposal statements specified in PR Notice 83-3 include:
(a) metal containers: ". . . offer for recycling or reconditioning or puncture and
dispose of...;"
(b) plastic containers: ". . . offer for recycling or reconditioning or puncture and
dispose of...;"
6-14
-------
(c) fiber drums with liners: "If drum is contaminated and cannot be reused, dispose
of in the same manner [in a sanitary landfill or by incineration if allowed by State
and local authorities.];" and
(d) -•compressed-gas cylinders: "Return empty cylinders for reuse (or similar
wording)."
Some labels explicitly prohibit reuse without making any reference to recycling or
reconditioning. For example, the label on Diquat H/A 1 gallon (Valent) states: "Do not reuse
container." Other labels prohibit reuse, but direct the holder to offer the container for recycling
or reconditioning.
6.3.4 Small Volume Returnable Containers
Several registrants currently market small (15-gallon), refillable containers in compliance
with federal and state law by substituting the registrant for the dealer as the source of the refill.
Using these containers, applicators may purchase less-than-bulk quantities. Several examples of
registrant-filled containers are discussed in this section.
One of the first of these containers to be developed was the FMC U-Turn container, a
returnable and refillable 15-gallon, beer keg-type container with valves preventing backflow, a
coupling that allows connection to volumetric measuring devices or other closed transfer systems
and tamper-evident seals. Upon completion of use, dealers and applicators may return the
container to FMC for refilling with the same product or for credit for any unused amounts. The
company is able to trace containers and to ensure return by numbering each container and
requiring a deposit The FMC U-Turn container is exempt from the Maine returnable container
program because it offers equivalent guarantees of proper container disposal Similarly,
Dow-Elanco offers a 15-gallon, refillable stainless steel container for Lorsban 4E insecticide.
The product is pumped directly to the tank.74
Registrants also may refill larger containers, such as 110-gallon minibulks, when dealers
do not stock the pesticide in bulk tanks. FMC, for example, takes back, cleans, stores and repairs
110-gallon minibulks containing its Commence herbicide. Other manufacturers repair but do not
clean containers.73
John Deere and American Cyanamid have introduced a closed handling system for
granular (dry) Counter insecticide that includes a 40-pound retumable/refillable container as an
alternative to bags.
6.4 Container Collection Programs
6.4.1 General Elements
Driven by the discovery of environmental contamination from open dumping, burial and
open burning of containers, the scarcity of landfill space and the prospect of conserving resources
through recycling, states and the agrichemical industry in the last several years have initiated
6-15
-------
more than a dozen container collection programs. The concept of collection programs was
endorsed in the 1986 National Conferences and Workshops on Pesticide Waste Disposal.
Participants advocated container collection programs whether containers are to be reconditioned,
recycled or disposed of, finding: "The main function of a container collection program is to
provide a secure, environment-controlled site where pesticide applicators can return their empty
containers. It is generally believed that pesticide applicators will return empty containers if such
sites are reasonably accessible to them."76
Conference participants listed eight criteria for establishing a container collection program:
"(a) States should pass "Good Samaritan"-type legislation to minimize liability risks
to persons or entities that organize and operate container collection programs.
"(b) Container collection sites should be located within a reasonable travel time for
_ ...,._-.- ,; pesticide applicators.. ....,,•
"(c) Private lands should be used for collection sites only with the consent of the
owner(s).
"(d) Container collection sites should be regulated on a limited basis to assure
environmental soundness and adequate security.
"(e) Collection sites should accept only containers mat have been properly rinsed,
cither by triple nnsing or pressure rinsing.
"(f) States should be responsible for inspecting returned containers and certifying that
they have been at least triple-rinsed and are acceptable for disposal
"(g) States should establish container collection programs, using whatever methods they
choose (such as container deposits or voluntary compliance) to ensure an
acceptable return rate.
"(h) Pesticide applicators and the pesticide industry should cooperate to initiate
demonstration programs in areas where no state-designated collection program
exists."77
Through the organizational efforts of stole agenda county e&tessisn sexless cn£
industry groups, 11 states7* have conducted or are planning to conduct pilot container collection
programs or statewide collection programs (see figure 6-2). The programs are statutory in
Illinois, Maine and Minnesota. The Maine program started in 1985 and remains the only
mandatory deposit and return program.
The National Agricultural Chemicals Association (NACA) has been involved with
container collection programs for several years. For 1991, NACA was planning to organize
collection programs in Mains, Vermont sad other states. IT. addition, sonic icgisinuiis, dealers
and commercial applicators collect empty containers either by contract or as a service to their
customers.
6-16
-------
States with container collection programs that are described in this report are shown in
figure 6-2. These state-run and/or industry-organized programs have three primary goals:
FIGURE 6-2
'__"_ Container Collection Programs
VT.
•• States described in this report that have conducted or are planning
to conduct pilot container collection programs or statewide
collection programs.
(a) ensuring that containers are disposed of in an environmentally sound manner,
(b) providing a practicable disposal method for applicators; and
(c) recycling containers when feasible, preferably in a system in which empty plastic
pesticide containers are reprocessed into new pesticide containers.
Generally, the programs have followed the criteria developed by the national workshops. None
of these states, however, has enacted Good Samaritan legislation.
The approaches that different programs have taken to minimize the risk of accepting
improperly rinsed containers include:
(a) rejecting immediately all containers not properly rinsed;
(b) requiring through regulation mat containers be punctured and dry and have caps
removed;
6-17
-------
(c) taking enforcement action against persons who return improperly rinsed
containers;
(d) requiring persons who return containers to furnish affidavits of triple rinsing;
(e) testing some of all containers for remaining residue;
(f) permitting return only at designated times to designated sites where a
representative of the state or organization conducting the program can inspect and
log in all containers; and
(g) ensuring that containers can be traced to the user.
Residue data developed to date for the container projects in Mississippi, Minnesota and
Alberta, Canada, indicate that ^containers collected and transported for reprocessing are
significantly cleaner when applicators have received training in triple or pressure rinsing and
when containers are carefully inspected and suspect ones rejected.
With one exception described in section 6.4.2 of this report, the container collection
programs have not accepted minibulks. They have instead concentrated on plastic jugs and metal
cans. Collecting and recycling or disposing of minibulks is an issue that will soon need to be
addressed, as many of the earliest reffllable containers are reaching the end of their useful lives.
Florida*
The state's DER organized a pilot container collection project in south Florida for late
1990. The objectives of the program were to:
(a) demonstrate the feasibility of recycling plastic pesticide containers using currently
available technology;
(b) determine the feasibility of collecting, processing and recycling plastic pesticide
containers in Florida;
(c) determine the level of pesticide residues that occur in pesticide containers offered
for recycling:
(d) recycle a limited number of containers that may have been stockpiled prior to the
beginning of the project; and
(e) develop instructional materials, including video tapes, on the proper way to
pressure rinse containers and handle the containers for recycling.
Four large growers (about 10,000 acres each) who had been trained by the state to
pressure rinse, properly rinsed and collected their containers on-site. Containers were required
to be pressure rinsed and stored out of the rain in a dry, secured facility with the caps removed.
6-18
-------
The program was organized as an on-site collection program since no one wanted responsibility
for a central collection facility.
United Agri Products, a private agricultural chemical supply company, purchased and
.movedlo-south Florida a granulator which it transported to each grower site. Representatives
of DuPont, the DER and United Agri Products inspected each container on-site prior to
granulation. The containers were sampled before and after granulation to determine residues
prior to processing into other plastic products. United Agri Products arranges the processing.
The program was expected to be expanded to northern and central Florida in 1991. The
Florida Extension Service and various trade associations will help train personnel in proper
rinsing techniques. The DER hopes that in the future, the agricultural industry will fund and
manage its own collection/recycling program because the state does not have the funds to
establish a permanent program.
During 1989-90, 14 different collection drives took place in southeastern Idaho, gathering
4,500 containers. In the summer of 1990, the Idaho Cooperative Extension Service, with the help
of the Idaho Agricultural Chemical Association and a grant from the Idaho DEQ, conducted a
mid-summer container collection program at the University of Southwestern Idaho Research and
Extension Center in CaldwelL The program, modeled after Mississippi's program, accepted both
metal and plastic containers that had been triple or pressure rinsed. Metal containers were
required to be punctured three times on each end. Plastic containers were required to be cut in
half. Growers also furnished affidavits attesting to proper rinsing. Association representatives
visually inspected containers and rejected ones mat were not clean.
Response to the program was less than its organizers had hoped; the grant terms required
that collection take place before the end of the summer, yet the money arrived too late to
generate interest through educational programs. The organizers also believe that "the status quo
attitude of some growers, [that] they seem content to just do what they have been doing over the
years," inhibited participation.*1
The Extension Service planned another program for southern Idaho in 1991 and
reorganized the collections to generate more interest About 10 temporary collection sites were
used, most at dealer facilities to encourage dealer support for the program. Using a 15-minute
video describing proper rinsing procedures, the Extension Service touted the program to about
2,000 attendees, grower meetings and certification and training sessions throughout the winter.
The Idaho Agricultural Chemical Association (now the Idaho Soil Fertilizer and Crop
Protection Association) is attempting to acquire a portable chipper so the containers can be
processed for recycling. The program has been promoted in part by reminding growers that
landfills charge a disposal fee, the container collection program is free and their old ways project
a bad image for agriculture.
6-19
-------
IWnois"
From 1979-82, the IEPA, the Department of Energy and Natural Resources and the
Illinois Farm Bureau conducted metal container collection and recycling projects in several
counties. Young Farmer committees of the Farm Bureau provided labor and management In
19?9, the recycling efforts collected and crushed 44,000 cans from four counties; or about 39%
to 62% of the cans sold in those counties during that year, according to dealer data.
In 1980, the program expanded to include 26 counties and 130,645 cans, or about 10%
of the 5-gallon cans sold in the state. (Custom applicators, who did not participate in the
program, accounted for 40% of the cans sold.) In 1982, the project collected 103,000 cans in 20
counties or 20% of the total. The program ended in 1984 due to a decline in the number of
metal containers.*3
Through legislation enacted in 1989, the Illinois Department of Agriculture and IEPA had
to design and implement a pilot container collection project to collect and recycle empty triple
rinsed pesticide containers, develop and promote proper container management and evaluate
current management by June 1991. During the pilot project, the Department of Agriculture was
to conduct surveys and collect information on proper and improper container storage and
disposal
During the summer of 1990, pre-pilot demonstration projects were held at three
dealerships in Illinois. Several thousand pounds of plastic containers were collected at one of
the sites. The containers were shredded by a portable granulator and processed by Envirecycle.
/-!*•
lowtf*
Using a $70,000 EPA grant for administration and environmental monitoring costs, the
Iowa Fertilizer and Chemical Association (IFCA) and the Iowa Department of Agriculture and
Land Stewardship jointly organized a pilot voluntary plastic container collection and recycling
program. It took place between May and August 1990.*5 The program's goals were to:
(a) provide an immediate option to landfilling of empty pesticide containers for an
estimated 10% of Iowa's pesticide containers (250,000 containers total) and
provide an option for improper open dumping;
(b) provide an immediate alternative to field burning of empty containers;
(c) educate users on proper rinsing;
(d) position a recycling program that would work both economically and
environmentally; and
(e) implement a program that can easily be built upon. A first-year goal was to
collect 10% to 20% of the containers used in the state, with capacity to expand
as open burning rules change to prohibit the practice.
6-20
-------
During the winter of 1989-90, before the program was finalized, the IFCA and Iowa State
University Extension began an educational campaign on pressure rinsing. The IFCA sent letters
to dealers, urging them to stock pressure rinsing nozzles; sent direct-mail information on pressure
rinsing to members of grower associations; contributed articles to the agricultural press; and
spoke at grower meetings.
IFCA distributed 1,500 pressure rinsing nozzles to dealers and farmers. American
Cyanamid distributed another 2,500 nozzles to its key accounts. IFCA and Extension also
prepared a four-color flyer with photographs of properly and improperly rinsed containers, "Guide
to Rinsing Containers to Acceptable Standards." The flyer demonstrated that containers with
residue spilled on the outside and dried on the inside bottom were not acceptable. The guide was
sent to dealers for distribution to their customers.
The collection and recycling program designated 31 collection sites, all of which were
located at licensed regional sanitary landfills. The sites consisted of a snow-fenced, unroofed
area near the landfill operator's office. Before deposit of any containers, an IFCA consultant took
soil samples at each collection site to have a baseline for later comparison and prepared landfill
permit amendment applications for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). The
IDNR required each landfill to obtain a permit to store the containers. The IFCA formulated
contingency plans and allocated funds to deal with potential site contamination, expecting that
should any contamination occur, it would be low enough to allow for direct land application of
the soil
A consultant trained the landfill operators in proper collection and inspection procedures.
Landfill operators, wearing safety equipment and using the flyer as a guide, visually inspected
containers before unloading. Fanners and dealers brought their containers to a designated fenced-
off area at the landfill site during normal operating hours.
A survey of the operators at the end of the program disclosed that about 50% of the
containers were rejected during inspection. This rejection rate illustrates the need for more
education on proper rinsing procedures, especially the necessity for rinsing at the time of mixing
and for targeting growers and dealers who function as custom applicators. The rejection rate also
reflects splashback of some yellow products that are not water-soluble which can cause stains on
the outside of the container, as well as the inability to rinse clay-based formulations from the
handles of some containers.
At the end of the season, several persons voluntarily used their own trucks to collect the
containers from the 31 sites and transport them to eight sites. There, the containers were
shredded with a portable granulator, reducing the volume by a ratio of 50:1. The chips were
delivered to Restoration Plastics, which processed a portion for DuPont's use in making pesticide
containers for the 1991 season.
The program collected just 64,000 containers, considerably less than the original goal.
This was due to the high container rejection rate, the late date of announcing the program and
the distance to landfill sites in some areas.
6-21
-------
The final report concluded that Iowa currently uses 500,000 to 750,000 containers
annually and that 25,000 containers per site is essential for an economical program. On costs,
the project found:
\ — IowaJbas not received any revenue for the plastic collected to date.
We anticipate some "reimbursement but have been willing to
- cooperate because we understand this project is very much in the
research phase. We believe the long-term economics of container
recycling will dictate that recycled plastic must be competitive with
virgin plastic at $.45-.60 per pound. Our goal is to be able to
collect and granulate for $.10-. 12 per pound, leaving the balance
($.35-.40) for transportation and processing the plastic.86
Analysis of the soil samples revealed that some of the collection sites had detections of
pesticides, although none will require remediation. In general, the sites where containers were
granulated HSFmore detections than the other collection sites.
IFCA planned to continue and expand the program in 1991, and also continue site
sampling.
As an outgrowth of the bulk packaging pilot study conducted during the summer of 1990,
the Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, IFCA and Monsanto are considering a
project to dispose of old minibulks, possibly by granulating them for shipment to an energy
recovery facility.
Maine!"
In 1981, it was reported to the Maine Board of Pesticides Control reported that containers
were being dumped openly, particularly in the rural northern part of the state. Through aerial
surveillance, the board discovered and forced clean up of 400 open dump sites during the
following two years.
To prevent improper burial, burning and open dumping, in 1983 the Maine legislature
enacted a mandatory deposit and return program for state restricted- and limited-use containers.
Maine has its own list of RUPs which includes products not on the federal restricted-use list
"Limited use" is a state designation for products such as lindane and dylox that require a case-by-
case permit for use.
The board's regulations require that dealers affix alphanumeric stickers on each restricted-
use or limited-use metal, glass or plastic container greater than 1/2 pint in volume. Dealers also
must collect a deposit of $5 on each container up to 30 gallons and $10 on each container over
that capacity.
After triple rinsing or pressure rinsing the containers, users must return the containers to
designated collection sites. The containers must be accompanied by an affidavit stating that they
have been rinsed and designating the sticker numbers of the containers returned. Board staff
6-22
-------
recycle, they did not have another option for disposal and the collection was convenient and
accessible.
The rejection rate at the three sites in 1990 ranged from 14.5% to 26.7% of the 8,300
containers collected and inventoried. The department concluded that most of the rejected
containers were not rinsed immediately after emptying. At one site, the inspection official
noticed that containers with hollow handles were rejected more frequently than others (see figure
6-4 for an example of properly rinsed and accepted containers). This finding may correspond
to those in Iowa, where program officials also discovered problems with residue removal from
hollow-handled containers.91
The Department of Agriculture had planned to
conduct several more collection programs before September
1991, using a variety of collection methods and sites:
county fairgrounds, county garages, DOT buildings,
recycling facilities and fertilize dealerships. Plastic
containers of 15 gallons or less were to be shredded at most
of the sites, using a portable shredder supplied by NACA.
Metal cans with capacities of 5 gallons or less were to be
crushed for scrap. Thirty- and 55-galion containers of both
plastic and metal were planned to be stored for
reconditioning.
The department has prepared an operations
manual92 for local personnel planning collection programs
for the 1991 season. The manual describes the roles of the
Minnesota Department of Agriculture, the responsibilities of
the local planning group, funding, staffing, training,
equipment, publicity and data collection. It also describes
the requirements of the central site:
• a traffic receiving and holding area;
• an area to unload and inspect containers;
FIGURE 6-4
Containers accepted at one
1990 Minnesota collection site
Ptuto Credit: Uuuteioa
Department of Agriculture
• a staging area to prepare waste for packing (a limited-access area for department
personnel, contractor staff and certain volunteers);
• a processing zone accessible only to the contractor and department staff or other
specially trained persons where containers are granulated or crushed; and
• an education/departure area where information and educational material are
offered.
The manual also outlines a safety plan which requires a site layout diagram to designate
traffic flow and location of emergency equipment, requirements for personal protective clothing,
decontamination procedures for clothing and persons and emergency contingency plans. The
6-25
-------
department also provided an agreement and attendance certificate for program volunteers, a
cooperator survey, job descriptions of various collection personnel and a form for notification of
container rejection.
..: , ;-• In 1991 department personnel were notable to inspect .containers at all collection sites,
unlike 1991. For ^this Reason, the department published a training manual on inspection
procedures.93 Those procedures.require trained volunteers to wear protective clothing, to place
containers on impermeable surfaces pending inspection, to examine the outside and the inside of
each container, to reject improperly rinsed containers, and to provide instructions to the holder
on rinsing and use of rinsates.
The Department of Agriculture prepared a report for the legislature in 1991, analyzing
information on the quality of containers, the quantity of containers and economics of each
collection program. The report recommended the best method of conducting container collection
in Minnesota.
Mississippi"
During the summer of 1989, the Mississippi Department of Agriculture, with the
assistance of NACA, DuPont, Id Americas, the Mississippi Farm Bureau, the Mississippi
Department of Natural Resources, the Delta Council at Mississippi State University, local
governing boards in Washington County, the state's Cooperative Extension Service and the EPA
conducted a pilot project in Washington County investigating the feasibility of recycling HDPE
pesticide containers into drainage tile, fence posts and containers. These containers could not be
burned legally in Mississippi. They could be landfilled, but landfills are increasingly unwilling
to accept them (see box 6-B).
BOX6-B
Landfill Container Disposal
are less and less willing to take these containers," points out one
participating applicator. "Even if a landfill takes the containers, we've been facing at least
a 10 mile drive one way to the nearest landfill and it's in the next county."95
Id Americas provided many cotton growers with a pressure rinsing nozzle that fits the
tanks used for diluting pesticides and instructed applicators in its use. Farmers hauled the
containers to eight collection sites made available by aerial applicators. The HDPE containers
were then crushed by a cotton gin, collected by Washington County employees and trucked by
DuPont to a recycling facility in Ohio. Metal containers were hauled to a metal work plant in
Greenville, Mississippi
With the cooperation of NACA and DuPont, the plastic containers were segregated by
type and tested for residue at various stages in the recycling process: shredded containers with
no additional cleaning; shredded containers after a hot wash with detergent; and washed plastic
that had been heated to 200° Celsius and extruded into pellets. Samples from each stage were
returned to each pesticide's manufacturer for additional testing.96
6-26
-------
FIGURE 5-6
Containers discarded in a field
This definition allows
pesticides from residences to be thrown
in the trash regardless of chemical
constituents. When the same products
are disposed of by a non-homeowner,
(for example, a discount store that must
dispose of rain-damaged merchandise),
the wastes may be hazardous under
RCRA and state hazardous waste laws.
Amitrole, 2,4-D, warfarin and
naphthalene are all products commonly
used by homeowners that are included in
the RCRA U list California excludes
from its definition of hazardous waste
only those "emptied household
hazardous material and pesticide
containers of one gallon or less in
capacity, which are drained until there is
no continuous flow of liquid."*7
Regulations implementing
FIFRA do not establish categories of use
sites for registered products, but do use
the term "household." 40 CFR Part 158,
Appendix A, lists various types of
household uses for the purpose of
requesting requisite registration data. A
product may be registered for use in
homes, but the same product also may
be registered for use on sites not usually
associated with homes. Products
registered for uses other than "household
use" may still be disposed of as non-hazardous waste if they are discarded from a household.
The RCRA household waste exemption focuses on the source of the waste, rather than on its
chemical constituents.
Several states have defined "household products." For example, Kansas, for the
purpose of pesticide dealer registration, defines these as general-use products to be applied
undiluted and to be applied by the homeowner in and around the family dwelling and related
structures.
5.9 Waste Pesticide Collection Programs
Participants in the 1987 National Conferences and Workshops on Pesticide Waste
Disposal concluded that organized free or low cost collection programs are essential if waste
pesticides resulting from both agricultural and home-use products are to be disposed of safely.*9
Photo Credit: Polyfraeeauig Company
5-35
-------
At least one regulatory official, Ron Conley, Georgia Department of Agriculture, believes that
the continued existence of products on farms, in warehouses and homes that cannot be used
legally is the most serious environmental issue regarding pesticide use. Conference attendees
responded to evidence that substantial quantities of waste pesticides remain unattended on farms,
in homes and businesses and that, without collection programs, some holders devise illegal (but
expeditious) means of disposal (see box 5-F). :
BOX 5-F
Illegal Disposal Practices
In the last several years, states have unearthed a number of illegal disposal efforts
for waste pesticides (see figure 5-6). In 1988, the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Regulation uncovered several containers of outdated pesticides, including
lead arsenate, sodium arsenate and 2,4-D, at a country club. The greens superintendent,
who directed employees to bury the containers, was sentenced to pay $25,000, placed on
probation for a year and ordered to perform 30 hours of community service.90
In November 1987, Orlando city workers digging a ditch unearthed two leaking
drums of lindane and DDT, one 25 gallons and one 55 gallons. The leak had contaminated
300 cubic yards of soil The fumes were so strong mat nearby residents had to be
evacuated for several hours after the discovery.91
The Maine Board of Pesticides Control has found that pesticides, placed on a
waiting list for collection and disposal in a state program to be held at an undefined time,
occasionally vanish between the time the holder requests collection and the time that the
Board notifies the holder mat it has funds available to collect the wastes.
Other holders continue to store pesticides for long periods of time. In a 1991 report,
the Minnesota Department of Agriculture*2 echoed the earlier recommendations of the 1987
conferences:
Large amounts of waste pesticide are stored in Minnesota and
waste pesticides continue to be generated. This large and growing
potential of intentional or unintentional releases of the waste
pesticide is an important environmental safety and human health
issue demanding attention.
The need for waste pesticide collections is supported by the large
amounts of waste pesticide encountered during the collection.
Assigning responsibility for the existing problem is difficult,
however, because of the many factors involved in waste pesticide
accumulation. Pesticide end users are reluctant to undertake full
responsibility and related expense. They continue to store waste
pesticides as the least difficult option.
5-36
-------
FIGURE 6-1
A containment pad that slopes to a sump to collect rinse water.
Photo Cndil: VS. EPA
For lawn care companies, Illinois requires by 1992 construction of impervious
containment areas to capture spills, washwatcrs and rinsates generated in servicing vehicles and
rinsing containers.35 Recently enacted Illinois groundwatcr protection rules adopt by reference
the technical standards (including containment specifications) of the bulk storage regulations for
commercial applicator storage and handling facilities and for dealer warehouses, when the
facilities are located within a setback zone or recharge area.26
Louisiana requires that commercial applicators immediately reapply the unused portion
of the pesticide or rinsate according to label directions or capture it in a closed containment
system, if the pesticide is classified upon disposal as hazardous waste.
In 1990, the California Regional Water Quality Board, Central Valley Region passed
Resolution 90-0034, Conditions for Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements at Pesticide
Applicator Facilities. The resolution's goal is to achieve zero discharge. It establishes acceptable
waste management practices for pesticide rinsates and washes, unrinsed or ineffectively rinsed
pesticide containers, leaks and accidental spills.27
A proposal expected to become effective in January 1992 would raise wastewater
discharge permit fees in California to $10,000 annually. It is hoped that this would encourage
aerial applicators, growers, Pest Control Operators (PCOs) and all others subject to Resolution
90-0034 to take steps, such as installation of a concrete pad, double-lined sump and poly tank
above ground, that would enable the applicators to obtain a waiver from wastewater discharge
permit requirements.18
6-5
-------
In Oregon,39 persons who produce pesticide residue at a public-use airport, pesticide
dealership or other permanent base of operation and who do not beneficially use or reuse the
residue, must manage it in a facility with a Water Pollution Control Facility permit The
pesticide residue management must meet various performance standards, including containment
by physical (natural or man-made liners) or chemical means (adsorption-absorption layers).30
Persons producing pesticide residue at a temporary base of operation in Oregon and who
do not beneficially use or reuse the residue must manage it either at a permitted facility or by
spraying it on the ground.31
Nebraska, in its proposed bulk storage regulations, requires all custom applicators to do
mixing/loading/washing in contained areas equivalent to the areas required of bulk storage
facilities. -
A few states regulate the location and procedures for mixing/loading and rinsing by
reference to a.general non-contamination standard that does not prescribe containment -North
Carolina, for example, in its aerial pesticide regulations, requires that rinsing be conducted in an
area "where an environmental hazard will not be created by the drainage or disposal of waste
materials and conducted with methods which will not create an environmental or human hazard.
... The loading area shall be kept reasonably free of pesticide contamination."32
Minnesota has general authority over practices at application sites, in addition to authority
governing regularly used mixer/loader sites: "A person may not allow a pesticide, rinsate or
unrinsed pesticide container to be stored, kept or to remain in or on any site without safeguards
adequate to prevent an incident"33 Similarly, Wisconsin provides that pesticides and then-
containers that are temporarily held at loading/application sites shall be kept covered or otherwise
secured to prevent access by children, the general public or wild animals and to prevent water
contamination.34
States may require washing without requiring containment For example, New Jersey's
Pesticide Control Code35 requires aerial equipment to be rinsed thoroughly after each operation.
Several states, including Minnesota, North Carolina36 and North Dakota, offer rinsate pad
designs to applicators but do not yet require installation of the facilities. Texas' certification and
training program now recommends use of pads for mixing and loading.37 Four professors31
from various midwestem universities have written a handbook on storage facilities that addresses
secondary containment and pads.39 One of the professors, Ron Noyes of Oklahoma State, has
developed draft specifications for rinsate pads.40
Utah, in a Cooperative Extension Service brochure, advises that all residues and rinsates
be collected and used according to their labeled application method or be used to mix similar
solutions of the pesticide. To make solution collection simple, some large-volume applicators
mix and load solutions, rinse sprayer tanks and wash off equipment on an asphalt or concrete pad
equipped with a tank to collect runoff. Others do most of their work in the field by equipping
the spray tank with a flush tank of clean water. They can rinse the spraying system with water
from the flush tank and spread or apply this rinsate right in the field.41
6-6
-------
The statute followed a study conducted by the Department of Agriculture in 1987-88 pursuant
to legislation, S.F. 1516, that required the Commissioner of Agriculture and the director of the
Pollution Control Agency to develop a program for pesticide container deposit and return of triple
rinsed pesticide containers.
After conducting a survey of practices and attitudes of fanners, other users and dealers,
the commissioner developed regulations for a deposit and return program, but recommended that
such a program "should not be implemented due to the projected difficulty and expense involved
with the volume of containers and in consideration of the viability of other options."*
During 1989, the Department of Agriculture, with the help of the Minnesota Pesticide
Container Advisory Committee, a coalition of representatives from industry, farm, environmental
and university groups and federal and state agencies, implemented an extensive statewide
educational program to publicize proper rinsing procedures. Under the theme "Rinse and Win,"
the department sponsored eight field demonstrations showing methods of rinsing and the proper
use of protective clothing while rinsing.
In 1990, the Department of Agriculture organized four container collection programs that
included six counties. The programs also evaluated a program held in another county that was
run by dealers and the county solid waste officer.
In the former program, containers were required to
be rinsed, dry, have the labels, caps and other attachments
and packaging removed and have the bottom punctured.
Users brought their containers to central sites, where they
were inspected by department staff wearing protective
clothing. If the containers were not clean, department
personnel instructed the applicator in proper rinsing
techniques. In several cases, the user returned previously
rejected containers after properly rinsing them.
Envirecycle provided a mobile granulator for each
collection site and then transported the plastic material to its
plant in St. Joseph, Missouri for processing (see figure 6-3).
Pellets were forwarded to DuPont for analysis and
manufacturing into new pesticide containers.
Fewer than 1,000 metal containers were collected.
Following visual inspection, these were crushed and
processed as scrap metal.
At each site, participants were asked to complete a
survey concerning methods of container management,
attitudes about collection and recycling and demographic
information. The surveys revealed that participants brought
containers to the collection sites because they wanted to
FIGURE 6-3
Containers shredded in a
mobile granulating unit in the
Minnesota Collection Programs
Photo Crtda: Uuvtejota
Department of Agriculture
6-24
-------
inspects the containers at the return sites. After accepting the containers, applicators may receive
a return of the deposit or a credit from the dealer.
The program collected 13,036 containers in 1986; 7,464 in 1987; 8,979 in 1988; 14,510
in 1989 and 17,767 in 1990. •. In 1989, 14 collection sites scattered throughout the state were open
for orieday each; in 1990, Acre were 19 sites. -The sites included pesticide dealers, municipal
garages, farms and disposal facilities. The board uses a can crusher to reduce the volume of
waste, but does not have a shredder.
Because of landfill operators' fear of liability and the scarcity of landfill space meeting
Department of Environmental Protection criteria for accepting pesticide containers, finding waste
disposal facilities willing to accept the containers is an ongoing problem. In 1989, the containers
were sent to one of two commercial landfills in the state: a regional public landfill in the county
where pesticide use is heaviest and a regional public incinerator in that same county.
The program is now well accepted in the industry and has been successful in preventing
open dumping. Rejection of improperly rinsed containers and selective enforcement actions for
improper rinsing have increased the percentage of containers that are properly rinsed.
NACA, working with the Central Aroostook Soil and Water Conservation District and two
of the largest dealers in Aroostook County, organized a voluntary collection program for the
summer of 1991. The program covered general-use containers which are not covered by the
board's collection program. NACA provided a portable shredder, supervised the operators and
arranged for reprocessing the plastic into pellets by Envirecycle. Ultimately, the pellets were
made into new pesticide containers manufactured with 50% recycled content For any material
not able to be used in this manner, NACA arranged incineration for energy recovery. The Soil
and Water District handled publicity and mailings and inspected containers. Biweekly collection
at various sites throughout Aroostook county were planned for the summer.
The Maine Board of Pesticides Control collection program and the NACA program were
planned to be combined so that material from both restricted-use and general-use products could
oe processed i
Minnesota?*
In 1989, Minnesota adopted container collection legislation that is almost identical to thai
The legislation seqsired that the Depntmem ©f Agrisaltsse,, alsag with the Mimiesots
Pollution Control Agency and die Minnesota Extension Service, design and implement a pilot
container collection project by June 30, 1991."9 By November 1991, the department was
required to report its conclusions from fee project to the legislature, wilfe fsesramendatiens for
additional legislation or rules governing containers.
The Minnesota statute is the only one to require that any persons distributing, offering for
sale or selling pesticides must accept from end users the empty containers and the unused
portions of pesticide which remained in the original container. Tuis leqanement is ir. effect for
pesticide purchased after July 1994 and if the county has no sites designated for container return.
6-23
-------
FIGURE 5-3
A container dump site
Photo Crtdit: Polyfroctaing Company
While most labels no longer specifically recommend or require container burial, many
states still allow the practice, apparently following the guidance of 40 CFR Parts 165.2 and 165.9
(a) and (b) (see Figure 5-4).
40 CFR Part 165.2 (e)
Recommended pesticide and pesticide container disposal procedures
shall not apply to containers of pesticides used on farms and
ranches where disposal by open-field burial of single containers is
undertaken with due regard to the protection of surface and
subsurface water.
40 CFR Part 165.8
Combustible containers which formerly contained organic or
metallo-organic pesticides, except organic mercury, lead, cadmium
or arsenic compounds [may be] buried singly by the user in open
fields with due regard for protection of surface and subsurface
waters. Non-combustible containers which formerly contained
organic or metallo-organic pesticides, except organic mercury, lead,
cadmium or arsenic compounds, should first be triple rinsed . . .
All triple rinsed containers may be crushed and . . . buried in the
field by the user of the pesticide.
5-18
-------
sites on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land have been cleaned up at
taxpayer expense only to be refilled by area farmers."
"What we're going to see is the lockup of some federal lands," C. Stanley
- ... .Rasmassen, the DEQ'.s hazardous waste compliance officer, said in an interview
• : ; r- ~ for a documentary video about the disposal program. "Taxpayers are not going
to stand idly by while we spend millions of dollars cleaning up sites that just get
contaminated again.39
In 1990, using a FIFRA special enforcement grant from EPA Region V, the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture (MDA) conducted a study of improperly disposed of pesticide
containers. Among the conclusions of the study were:
Pesticide container dump sites are a problem throughout Minnesota
(see figure 5-3). It was not difficult to locate 7 sites and the MDA __
had notification of additional sites continuously; therefore the
potential .number of sites in rural Minnesota is immense. The
containers tend to be located in woodlots with other farm and
household trash, usually in out-of-sight depressions which may
periodically contain water . . . The sites were located in very
sensitive soil and geologic areas of the state. Pesticide containers .
were found within open wells, buried in sinkhole sediment, 1 foot
above subsurface water on sandy soil and floating within surface
water... There is the potential for pesticide resident in improperly
rinsed and disposed containers to adversely impact surface and
groundwater resources. Depending on the geographic location of
the dump site, contamination of the local environment may be
inevitable. Efforts should, therefore, be made to locate and "clean
up" pesticide container dump sites before they impact local water
resources.
5.6.2.6 Burial
Burial, in contrast to open dumping, is the placing of pesticide wastes and containers
under soil cover in a site that does not qualify as a sanitary landfill. It was and still is, a
common method of container disposal on farms. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture study
of container disposal found that 27% of farmers, 9% of licensed applicators and 8% of dealers
buried some containers on site. Information cited in the study indicated that 33% of fanners in
Nebraska in 1982 and 32% of fanners in Wisconsin in 1985 buried on site. .-. re-
in Hawaii, some large sugarcane and pineapple plantations maintain on site dumps
because there are no sanitary landfills easily available to which to take containers. As plantations
are turned to resorts, developers have discovered container dumps during site excavations. The
Maine Department of Environmental Protection and EPA Region I are investigating the extent
of groundwater contamination from two sites where the University of Maine fruit experiment
station in Monmouth buried containers in the early 1970s.
5-17
-------
The Division of Plant Industry expanded the program during the summer of 1990 and
produced a video describing rinsing procedures and the Mississippi recycling program.97 That
year, the program covered three entire counties and portions of eight others and collected about
250,000 plastic containers. Although this represents a high rate of return for a voluntary program
— perhaps 50% — this number is still only a small fraction of the containers used in Mississippi,
which may approach 14 million to 15 million annually.
In the fall of 1990, a task force met to develop criteria that any county in the state could
use to operate a pesticide container recycling program. Subcommittees of that task force
addressed topics such as collection, processing, inspection, education and publicity.
The success of any additional county programs is limited by the market for pesticide
container plastics.98 The Division of Plant Industry is currently determining markets for the
plastic it has collected.
The Mississippi program was the initial effort of the NACA task force on pesticide
containers.
North Carolina
For six weeks during the summer of 1990, the Pitt County Agricultural Extension Service,
with the help of the Pitt County Engineering Department, conducted a plastic container collection
and recycling program. The Extension encouraged fanners to purchase pressure rinsing devices
and purchased 100 of its own. About 60 farmers participated, bringing 7,000 pounds of HDPE
containers to five dealer sites serving as collection centers. The containers were hauled to the
East Carolina Vocational Center in Greenville, where they were separated by color and baled.
Plastic Materials Group, a manufacturing company in Fayetteville, purchased the containers for
processing into field drainage tile.
Oregon
Since 1984, Die Oregon Agricultural Chemical Association (OACA) has collected and
recycled containers from growers at no cost to participating farmers. The Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality has reviewed the program for compliance with state law, but does not
provide any funding or personnel. Each year the program has expanded the number of containers
collected, reaching 22,000 in 1988 and 45,000 in 1990.
On specified collection days, growers return triple rinsed or pressure rinsed containers to
the collection sites, which may be dealer premises. Plastic containers must be rinsed, dried and
have the caps and plastic sleeves removed. Metal containers must be rinsed, dried and crushed.
Containers are inspected visually by OACA personnel, cataloged by the name of the grower and
type of container and separated into metal and plastic. Both metal and plastic containers are
recycled
The program began in response to Farm Bureau plans to initiate legislation requiring
fertilizer and chemical dealers to accept empty containers from fanners. Since then, OACA has
6-27
-------
used the existence of the program to convince the legislature that mandatory deposit and return
programs are unnecessary.99
Vermont
In April 1991, NACA offered to implement a plastic pesticide container collection and
recycling program. The Department of Agriculture agreed, knowing that in Vermont:
At best, pesticide containers have been disposed of in landfills after they have
been properly rinsed. More commonly they are buried or burned on the
applicator's property (in the case of private applicators). The potential problems
associated with this practice include continuing reduction in landfill space,
contamination of soil, ground and surface water and the potential for the illegal
re-use of containers.100
~i •.*;,-.
The department informed private applicators of the program through posters, newspaper
ads and post cards. On the return day, inspectors from the department were present at four
participating dealer sites to collect containers and inspect them upon arrival The inspectors used
a common set of standards and rejected containers not meeting specifications. The program
originally was designed to collect containers from dealers and custom sprayers. The bulk of the
containers came from the four participating dealers who had been rinsing and collecting
containers during the spring.
Envirecycle supplied a granulator, which was trucked from site to site. Representatives
of Envirecycle, the Department of Agriculture and DuPont supervised granulation.
The effort collected 3,860 containers at an estimated weight of 2,900 pounds. Ten percent
of the containers were rejected at one site and a minimal percentage at the other sites — a better
percentage man in other first-year programs. Unclean containers were rinsed by the participating
dealers in their own fill and wash areas, where the rinsate was collected or the containers were
returned for rerinsing to the participants.
The department offered the following comments and suggestions for improvement: It
became apparent through the inspection process that every individual has a different idea of what
a container should look like after it has been rinsed. The biggest problem seemed to be with the
flowable materials which have been allowed to dry before they have been rinsed."101
The Department of Agriculture also concluded that
(a) More community outreach in the form of intense advertising during the winter
would generate more interest
(b) More drop-off sites would generate a higher return rate. This would require
training more inspectors and possibly using Extension Service personnel, solid
waste district personnel and, potentially, dealers.
6-28
-------
(c) Dealer and custom sprayer participation needs to be increased to nearly 100% to
make the program successful in the future. The best program for the future would
be a dealer-organized system of collection and granulation, which could pay for
itself.
-------
growers to establish a voluntary return and recycling program that would allow growers and
non-agricultural applicators who now use landfills to return their containers. (Many aerial '
applicators have established arrangements with recyclers.)
6.4.2 Collection Programs Offered by Registrants, Distributors, Dealers and Commercial
Applicators '~— - - r; - / '-
Registrants and dealers may offer container collection programs as a service to their
customers. Applicators may make their own arrangements for recycling. For example:
(a) In the forest products industry, a distributor collected empty herbicide containers,
primarily 30-gallon HOPE containers from its forestry products customers in the
northeast and south. Users pay a deposit for each container. After rinsing, users
return the containers to the distributor from whom the pesticides were purchased
and receive credit for the deposit The distributor was not satisfied with the return
percentage from an earlier program that did not require a deposit DowrElanco
has started offering a similar program, without a deposit, for forestry herbicides.
Railroad Weed Control, a commercial applicator and distributor, offers to leave
a tractor trailer body at the herbicide application base of large operations so empty
containers can be stored there. At the end of the season, the company removes
the trailer and hpniy the containers to recycling facilities.
(b) In 1990, Service and Supply Co-op, a pesticide and fertilizer distributor in
Missouri, set up container collection sites for plastic containers at its dealerships
in New Florence and Vandalia, Missouri and at another dealer site in Troy,
Missouri. Seven thousand containers were collected (S oz. to 15 gallons in size),
mostly from the dealers themselves. At two sites, the containers were stored in
a service trailer and at one, they were stored outdoors in a secure area. Company
employees inspected them and rejected 3% to 4% of them. They were also
inspected by Envirecycle, which rejected an additional 3%. Envirecycle
granulated and processed the plastic after removing labels, plastic sleeves and
caps. Service and Supply Co-op plans to hold meetings with fanners before the
next growing season to interest them in the program.
(c) In early 1990, Qba-Geigy organized a collection program for minibulks that the
company had introduced in 1986. Qba-Geigy offered to collect the containers and
replace them with new containers of a different design for no charge, provided
that farmers brought the triple-rinsed containers to a dealer. Ciba-Geigy did not
find a problem with residues in the containers. However, the company found that
stains on the «ninihniicg from dinitroaniline (DNA) products rtuwgrd a perception
problem. For this reason, Ciba-Geigy said it would not accept any containers that
had been filled with a DNA product at any time.1**4*5 The containers were
ground up and recycled into other plastic products. As of mid-1990, Qba-Geigy
had obtained 40% to 50% of the containers manufactured in 1987-88. For two
years, the company also has engaged in a program to replace, at a small charge,
large tanks (1,000 gallons) at dealer sites that show signs of stress or poor
condition. Generally, these tanks are 5 to 6 years old.
6-30
-------
(d) In Iowa, some dealers offer to accept containers from their customers with no
specific arrangement for return to manufacturers. Iowa farmers returned 24% of
herbicide containers to dealers, according to a 1985 survey.106
As of 1988,:about. 17% of Minnesota, fanners returned some or all of their containers to
dealers.107
Large aerial applicators in New Mexico and right-of-way users, such as the Santa Fe
Railroad, generally contract with recycling firms for disposal of their pesticide drums, removing
much of the impetus for the state to institute its own collection program.108
6.5 State Solid Waste Reduction Programs
Minimizing waste pesticide containers is a subset of the much larger issue of
comprehensive waste reduction and recycling. Ideally, minimizing pesticide container waste
should dovetail with other waste reduction and recycling programs. The following legislation
may provide a vehicle for integrating pesticide and pesticide container programs into those efforts
or may affect programs already under way to minimize pesticide waste.
Thirty-three states109 (see figure 6-5) have enacted comprehensive waste reduction and
recycling programs that require detailed statewide recycling plans and/or separation of recyclables
and contain one or more other provisions to stimulate recycling.110 Most set a goal of 25% to
50% reduction in solid waste by the mid- to late 1990s. Six states mandate source separation
of certain recyclables and six others mandate municipal separation through means of the
community's choosing. Most require development of educational materials and information on
markets for recyclables and offer grants, loans or tax credits to stimulate waste reduction and
recycling.
The 1990 Delaware Recycling and Waste Reduction Act specifically lists "pesticide and
insecticide containers" as recyclable material and requires that the Waste Management Authority
consider, as part of its source-separated recycling and waste reduction program, recovery and use
of household paint, solvent, pesticide and insecticide containers.111
Several states have banned packaging that cannot be recycled or given state agencies the
power to ban such materials. For example, under Iowa's Groundwater Protection Act,112 the
Department of Natural Resources may investigate complaints regarding packaging materials that,
when discarded, are incompatible with the state's solid waste management policies. These
policies promote, in order of priority:
(a) reducing the volume of solid waste;
(b) recycling and reuse;
(c) combustion with energy recovery and refuse-derived fuels;
(d) combustion for volume reduction; and
6-31
-------
(e) disposal in sanitary landfills.
This hierarchy of waste management is common in state waste reduction programs.113
If informal complaint negotiations fail, the Department of Natural Resources may prohibit the
packaging. The Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship has taken the position that this
legislatioriprbvides a vehicle for the state to encourage pesticide registrants to develop containers
that conform to the state's waste disposal hierarchy.114
FIGURE 6-5
Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs
: States that have enacted comprehensive waste
reduction and recycling vcozrams
; JSgyJntjgws 2d ^feSSSCJiSSettS teSJI ffM Qjjjjjj!E»niii, gftfflgiR £jul '
containers and all single-polymer plastics from disposal facilities. At the urging of a coalition
of environmental groups, 11 state legislatures119 in 1991 considered model legislation regarding
packaging. The model, which originated in Massachusetts with she Massachusetts Recycling
Initiative, requires all packaging used in a state to meet minimum environmental standards for
reusability, recycled material content or recycling. Environmental Action, a coordinator of the
campaign for die model legislation, described the effort as follows: The movement for
packaging reform is sweeping the country... Li the absence of federal leadership, these eleven
states are putting the packaging industry on notice that it is time to change its wasteful
ways.*
6-32
-------
As of mid-1990, 15 states117 facilitate recycling by requiring the labeling of plastic
containers with a code for resins.118 Several other states also were considering legislation to
adopt coding.
The Maine statute is typical:119
On or after July 1991, no person may distribute, sell or offer for
sale any plastic bottle [plastic container with a neck smaller than
the body and capacity not less then 16 ounces nor more than 5
gallons] or rigid plastic container [container with capacity not less
than 8 fluid ounces nor more than 5 gallons] without a molded,
imprinted or raised label indicating the type of plastic resin used to
produce the plastic bottle or rigid plastic container.
In addition, the container labels120 must appear on the bottom of the plastic bottle or
rigid plastic container and be clearly visible. The label must consist of a number with letters
placed below it For high-density polyethylene, the letter-number combination is "HDPE" and
the number 2.
These statutes may apply to pesticide containers, particularly those purchased by
homeowners and nonrefUlable containers (1 quart to 2.5 gallons in capacity) used by licensed
applicators. As of early 1990, at least one registrant was considering adding an additional letter
to indicate that the container held pesticides.121
As of mid-1990, eight states122 had adopted toxicity reduction standards for packaging
that may affect the constituents of pesticide packaging. The legislation prohibits the use of inks
and dyes to which lead, cadmium, mercury or hexavalent chromium have been added
intentionally during manufacture or distribution. The legislation also limits the permissible
concentration of these substances. They are used in red and yellow pigments and in plastics as
stabilizers.
6-33
-------
State Index
Alabama 6-9,6-12,6-29
Arizona 6-3,6-7,6-12,6-13
Arkansas 6-31
California frl, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, £ 13; 6-29, 6-31, 6-33
Colorado 6-7
Connecticut 6-31, 6-33
Delaware 6-3, 6-9, 6-29, 6-31
Florida 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-7, 6-16, 6-18, 6-19, 6-31, 6-32, 6-33
Georgia 6-29, 6-31, 6-33
Hawaii 6-2,6-3,6-12,6-31,6-33
Idaho 6-3,6-16,6-19
Illinois 6-1, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 6-16, 6-20, 6-23, 6-31, 6-32, 6-33
Indiana 6-4,6-29,6-31 , - ...,.,-•
Iowa 6-1, 6-4, 6-6, 6-9, 6-11, 6-16, 6-20, 6-21, 6-22, 6-25, 6-29, 6-31, 6-32, 6-33
Kansas 6-1
Kentucky 6-7,6-29
Louisiana 6-3, 6-5, 6-11, 6-12, 6-13, 6-14. 6-31
Maine 6-3, 6-4, 6-7, 6-15, 6-16,6-22, 6-23, 6-31, 6-32, 6-33
Maryland 6-12,6-31
Massachusetts 6-31, 6-32
Michigan 6-3, 6-4, 6-7, 6-8, 6-14, 6-29, 6-31, 6-33
Minnesota 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-6, 6-8, 6-14, 6-16, 6-18, 6-23, 6-24, 6-25, 6-26, 6-31,
6-33
Mississippi 6-3, 6-16, 6-18, 6-19, 6-26, 6-27, 6-29
Missouri 6-9,6-24,6-30,6-31,6-33
Montana 6-29
Nebraska 6-4,6-6
New Hampshire 6-12,6-31,6-32,6-33
New Jersey 6-6,6-7,6-31,6-32
New Mexico 6-9,6-12,6-31,6-32
New York 6-3, 6-12, 6-31, 6-32, 6-33
North Carolina 6-6, 6-7. 6-8, 6-16, 6-27, 6-31, 6-32
North Dakota 6-3, 6-6, 6-11, 6-12, 6-29, 6-33
Ohio 6-4,6-12,6-26,6-31,6-33
Oklahoma 6-3,6-6,6-14,6-31
Oregon 6-3, 6-6, 6-7, 6-12, 6-16, 6-27, 6-28, 6-29, 6-31, 6-32
Pennsylvania 6-3, 6-31
Rhode Island 6-12,6-31,6-33
South Carolina 6-3, 6-7
South Dakota 6-3,6-9,6-14,6-32
Tennessee 6-31
Texas 6-6,6-29,6-32
Utah 6-3,6-6
Vermont 6-3, 6-4, 6-14, 6-16, 6-28, 6-31, 6-32, 6-33
Virginia 6-8,6-31
6-34
-------
Washington 6-7, 6-8, 6-16, 6-26, 6-29, 6-31
West Virginia 6-31
Wisconsin 6-1, 6-2, 6-4, 6-6, 6-14, 6-31, 6-33
6-35
-------
Endnotes
1. Letter from Florida DER to EPA Region IV, July 14, 1987.
2. A.G. Taylor,. Illinois EPA, Testimony in Support of Regulatory Proposals Regarding
Agrichemical Storage and Handling Facilities," PCB R89-5, 1989.
3. Conversation with Alex Hawkins, Kansas State Board of Agriculture, March 1991.
4. See also Zuelsdorff, Wisconsin DATCP, "Environmental Contamination at Pesticide
Mixing/Loading Sites," 1989.
5. See also Fawcett, "Big Spring Revisited," Agrichemical Age, October 1989. The author
asserts that point source pollution, not pesticide field application, causes groundwater
pollution in Iowa. "Over 80% of these wells [private wells with detected pesticides] have
a known potential point source, usually a pesticide loading and mixing facility, near the
well. These pesticide dealers and custom applicators have not been knowingly negligent
They have just not realized the threat to groundwater that results from mixing and
loading, and especially from rinsing sprayers in the same place for 20 years."
6. Buzicky, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, "Evaluation of Improperly Disposed of
Pesticide Containers on Minnesota Farms," draft, October 1990.
7. Conversation with Bob Labelle, California Department of Toxic Substances Control,
October 1991.
8. This statement in PR Notice 83-3 applies to products that are not intended solely for
household use and contain active ingredients that (a) appear on the "Acutely Hazardous
Commercial Pesticide Products List" (RCRA E List) in Appendix B; (b) are assigned to
Toxicity Category I on the basis of oral or dermal toxicity or skin or eye irritation
potential; (c) are assigned to Toxicity Category I or n on the basis of acute inhalation
toxicity, (d) appear on the Toxic" Commercial Pesticide Products List (RCRA I List) in
Appendix B (or the products contain inert ingredients that appear on this list); or (e) meet
any of the criteria in Subpart C, 40 CFR Part 261 for a hazardous waste (or the products
contain inert ingredients mat meet any of the hazardous waste criteria).
9. Agricultural uses according to the label require mat the labeled rates not be exceeded and
that pesticides be applied only to labeled sites and crops.
10. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Storage Rules, section 1505.3090(3)(C).
11. Wisconsin DATCP, "Pesticide Rinsates, Management and Reuse Guidelines," 1986.
12. See also Zuelsdorff, Wisconsin DATCP, "Environmental Contamination at Pesticide
Mixing/Loading Sites," 1989.
13. Conversation with Bob Boesch, Hawaii Department of Agriculture.
6-36
-------
14. Vermont Department of Agriculture, Food and Markets, Regulations for Control of
Pesticides, section I.
15. Minnesota Department of Agriculture Bulk Pesticide Storage Rules, section 1505.3090.
16. Illinois HB 1328, section 5, Public Act 86-358, 1989.
17. Oregon Administrative Rules, Hazardous Waste Management, Division 109, section
340-109-010.
18. Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South
Dakota and Utah are among the states that define the procedure this way.
Delaware further requires that pesticide rinsates resulting from cleaning the containers of
products that are to be used undiluted must be disposed of according to regulations of the
Departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation.
Maine also requires that for pesticides that are to be used undiluted, the applicator must
follow label directions on rinsate disposal
19. South Dakota Department of Agriculture, "South Dakota Farm Survey," 1988.
20. Taylor, Hanson and Anderson, "Recycling Pesticide Rinsewater," Proceedings of the
National Workshop on Pesticide Waste Disposal, EPA 600/9-57/001. EPA, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1986.
21. Ibid.
22. 8 Illinois Administrative Code, section 255.110.
23. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Vermont and Wisconsin.
24. Ohio Department of Agriculture Regulations, section 401:5-11-05.
25. Illinois HB 1328, An Act to Create the Lawn Care Products Application and Notice,
August 1989.
26. 35 Illinois Administrative Code, section 615.601, et seq. (existing facilities) and section
616.601 et seq. (future facilities).
27. Resolution 90-0034 defines acceptable waste management practices in California as:
(a) no discharge of pesticide rinse water to any surface water, groundwater, or
subsurface disposal system in the state;
(b) no disposal or storage of pesticide rinse waters or unrinsed or ineffectively rinsed
pesticide containers where residual pesticides can affect water quality by
percolation, runoff or soil erosion;
6-37
-------
(c) facilities that generate, collect, or store pesticide rinse waters do not allow
percolation to underlying soil or ground water,
(d) disposal or treatment areas for pesticide rinse waters, pesticide containers, and
wastes from spills or leaks comply with Subchaptcr 15, Chapter 3, Title 23,
California Code of Regulations (CCR). In particular, there is no on-site treatment
or disposal of "hazardous waste" without a permit from the California Department
of Health Services, if such a permit is required by law or regulation;
(e) waste management facilities are designed and managed to prevent nuisances and
to provide for controlling access to the facilities; and
(f) if wastewater containing pesticides is applied to fields, the application must
comply with regulations in Tide 3, CCR (Department of Food and Agriculture
regulations).
28. The Water Quality Board had granted only three waivers, all to aerial applicators, as of
October 1991. The board has decided to concentrate its initial enforcement efforts for this
resolution on aerial applicators; growers and ground applicators will be targeted
subsequently.
29. Information for this section was taken from Oregon Administrative Rules, Hazardous
Waste Management, Division 109, section 340-109-010.
30. Other performance standards include:
(a) detoxification by physical (solar radiation), chemical (hydrolysis) or biological
(microbial degradation) means;
(b) volume reduction by evaporation, evapo-transpiration, or use for makeup of a new
product; and
(c) protection of groundwater and surface waters by system design, construction
materials, and/or a groundwater monitoring program.
31. Spraying the residue on the ground is permissible, provided that:
(a) the residue is sprayed under pressure through a nozzle moving sufficiently fast to
avoid saturating the ground with waste;
(b) the person doing the spraying owns or controls the management of the ground or
receives permission from the manager, owner or controller of the ground;
(c) the spray site location will not endanger surface water or groundwater or pose a
hazard to humans, wildlife (game and non-game animals) or domestic animals;
and
6-38
-------
(d) if applied to agricultural land, the pesticide residue will not result in excessive or
prohibited residuals in current or subsequent crops.
32. North Carolina Administrative Code, TO2:09L.1000.
33. Minnesota Pesticide Control Law, section 18B.07(4).
34. Wisconsin Administrative Code, Ag 29, section 29.15.
35. NJAC section 7:30-10.5.
36. Minnesota developed one of the first interagency-approved mixing/loading rinsate
collection systems. North Carolina distributes the Minnesota design through its
Cooperative Extension Service.
37. Conversation with Diane Wilcox, Texas Water Commission, October 1990.
38. Handbook "Designing Facilities for Pesticide and Fertilizer Containment" was prepared
under the direction of the Pesticide and Chemical Storage subcommittee of the Midwest
Plan Service:
D.W. Kammel, Chair, University of Wisconsin;
R.T. Noyes, Oklahoma State University;
G.L. Riskowski, University of Illinois; and
VJL Hofman, North Dakota State University.
0
39. The handbook, "Designing Facilities for Pesticide and Fertilizer Containment," can be
obtained from the Midwest Plan Service at the following address and telephone number
Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Department
122 Davidson Hall
Iowa State University
Ames.IA 50011-3080
(515) 294-4337.
40. Noyes and Kammel, "Modular Concrete Wash/Containment Pad for Agricultural
Chemicals," Paper No. 891613, ASAE meeting presentation, December 1989.
41. Utah Cooperative Extension Service, Pesticides No. 4, "Pesticide and Pesticide Container
Disposal," December 1986.
42. Office of Pesticide Management, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, "1990 'dean Day' Pilot Project," at 9.
43. Revised Code of Washington 15.58.180(5).
44. Alabama Pesticide Act, section 2-27-14(a)(2), Code of Alabama.
6-39
-------
45. The Delaware Pesticide Control Act, section 3-1224, Del. C.
46. The New Mexico Pesticide Control Act, section 76-4-5, NMSA.
47.,. Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries, rules governing sale and use of
pesticides, section 80-1-13-03.
48. Missouri Pesticide Registration Act, section 263.280, Mo. Rev. Stat
49. EPA Office of Enforcement, Enforcement Policy Applicable to Bulk Shipment of
Pesticides, July 1977.
50. Chapter 44, IAC. See also Rules and Regulations of the South Dakota Department of
Agriculture, section 12:56:14:05.
51. EPA Region VII, Questions and Answers Concerning Bulk Pesticides, Repackaging and
Custom Blending, March 1989.
52. Memo from Phyllis Flaherty, OCM, to Leo Alderman, EPA Region Vn, May 10, 1990;
memo from Iowa Fertilizer and Chemical Association re. EPA Pilot Project on "56
Gallon" Rule, April 30, 1990.
53. OCM, "Amendment to the July 11, 1977 Enforcement Policy Applicable to Bulk
Shipment of Pesticides," March 4,1991.
54. Rules and Regulations of the North Dakota Pesticide Control Board, section 60-03-01-02.
55. Rules and Regulations of the Louisiana Department of Agriculture, Subsection J.
56. Administrative Rules of me New Hampshire Pesticide Control Board, section 802.01 and
802.2.
57. Rules and Regulations of the North Dakota Pesticide Control Board, section
60-030-01-06.
58. Ohio Administrative Code, section 901-5-11-05 (also applies to containers that held
treated seed).
59. Alabama Pesticide Regulations, section 80-1-13-03.
60. Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340, Division 109, DEQ Regulations.
61. Conversation with Lonnie Matthews, New Mexico Department of Agriculture.
62. 6 NYCCR 325 J.
63. Regulations of the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, sections 4-66-55 and 11-58-5.
64. Maryland Department of Agriculture Regulations, section 15.05.01.02E.
6-40
-------
65. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, regulations relating to
pesticides, General Rule O.
66. Arizona Pesticide Regulations R3-10-314.
67. California Health and Safety Code, Title 22, section 66262.70. Fanners.
68. Rules and Regulations of the Louisiana Department of Agriculture, section 13169.
69. "Hazardous Waste Disposal on the Farm," Michigan Extension Bulletin E-1781, June
1984.
70. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, "Proper Rinsing Verification," revised April 1989.
71. Rules and Regulations of the South Dakota Department of Agriculture, section
12-56-02-05.
72. Vermont Department of Agriculture, Food and Markets, Regulations for Control of
Pesticides, section XDI(3).
73. Wisconsin DATCP Regulations, Wisconsin Administrative Code, Ag 29.15(5).
74. See Ritter, "Pesticide Packaging: New Trends for the '90s," The Fanner, January 1990.
75. Agrichemical Age, August/September 1990, at 31.
76. Managing Pesticide Wastes: Recommendations for Action, Summary of National
Conferences and Workshops on Pesticide Waste Disposal, July 1988, at 4.
77. Ibid.
78. Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon,
Vermont and Washington.
79. Contact person: Steve Dwinell, Florida DER. See Dwinell memo, "Pesticide Container
Recycling Demonstration Project," August 29,1990.
80. Contact person: Danyl Bolz, Idaho Cooperative Extension Service.
81. University of Idaho, Cooperative Extension Service, Final Report on Pesticide Container
Collection Project, April 5,1991.
82. Contact person: A.G. Taylor, Illinois EPA.
83. From 1978 to 1982, the number of 5-gallon steel cans sold decreased significantly in
favor of minibulks and plastics. For a study of the programs, see Mergen, Jim: "The
Illinois Farm Bureau Pesticide Can Recycling Project," 1979-1982, June 3, 1983.
6-41
-------
84. Contact person: Dan Frieberg, Iowa Fertilizer and Chemical Association. See his report
of the collection project, Final Report: Iowa Pesticide Container Recycling Project, A
Cooperative Project between the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
and The Iowa Fertilizer and Chemical Association, 1991.
••.A Tt« :•..",•.-!.•-• •^••' ' . : . . ,
85. Conversation with Dan Frieberg of the Iowa Fertilizer and Chemical Association. Metal
containers are rarely used in Iowa.
86. Final Report: Iowa Pesticide Container Recycling Project, 1991.
87. Contact person: Henry Jennings, Maine Board of Pesticides Control.
88. Contact person: Rick Hansen, Minnesota Department of Agriculture.
89. Chapter 18B.135 MSA. -*-w
90. "Minnesota Empty Pesticide Container Disposal Report," March 1988.
91. A report of the 1990 program is available: Hansen and Palmer, Minnesota Department of
Agriculture, "Minnesota Pesticide Container Collection and Recycling Project," 1991.
92 "Minnesota Department of Agriculture-Empty Pesticide Container Collection: Operations
Manual" Revised April 1991.
93. "Minnesota Department of Agriculture-Empty Pesticide Container Collection: Inspections
Manual" Revised April 1991.
94. Contact person: Robert McCarty, Mississippi Department of Agriculture.
95. Taylor, "New Life for Old Jugs," Soybean Digest, December 1989.
96. See Drapala, "Disposal Project Gets High Marks," Farm Chemicals, November 1989.
97. The video is available from Robert McCarty of the Division of Plant Industry.
98. Conversation with Robert McCarty, Division of Plant Industry.
99. The program is described in Stephens, "The Oregon Pesticide Container Initiative,"
Agrichemicals and Groundwater, Freshwater Foundation, 1988.
100. Vermont Department of Agriculture, Food and Markets, Final Report, "Pesticide Container
Recycling Pilot Project," 1991.
101. Ibid.
102. Ibid.
103. Conversation with Brad Cowen, Texas Extension Service, October 24,1990.
104. Conversations with Jerry Zeller and Don Paulson, Qba-Gcigy.
6-42
-------
105. Ciba-Gcigy supports the concept of dedicated containers so farmers will not be
responsible for cleaning containers and therefore Gba-Geigy has control over the
containers' contents.
106. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, "Minnesota Empty Pesticide Container Disposal
.Report," March 1988 at 3.
107. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, "Minnesota Empty Pesticide Container Disposal
Report," March 1988 at 13.
108. Conversation with Lonnie Matthews, New Mexico Department of Agriculture.
109. Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia and Wisconsin.
110. National Solid Wastes Management Association Special Report, "Recycling in the States:
Mid-Year Update 1990." This provides an excellent survey of the status and general
content of state recycling legislation.
/•
111. Title 7, section 6450 et seq., Del C
112. Chapter 455B.312, Iowa Statutes.
113. See, for example, South Dakota Centennial Environmental Protection Act of 1989, section
3; and the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act, article 4477-7(3)(e).
114. See Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, "Program for the Handling
and Disposal of Used Pesticide Containers," January 1988.
115. Florida, Illinois, Maine (L£>. 1371,1991), Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Vermont
116. Lincoln Filene Center, New England Environmental Network News, Spring 1991, at 3.
117. California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois (effective 1991), Iowa, Maine
(effective July 1991), Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota (effective 1991),
Ohio, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.
118. The coding system was developed by the Society of the Plastics Industry.
119. 32 MRS A section 1721-26/1722.
120. 32 MRSA section 1721-26/1723.
121. Conversation with David Lindsay, Formulogics, February 1990.
6-43
-------
122. Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and
Wisconsin.
6-44
-------
Chapter 7
Miscellaneous Regulations
Affecting Storage and Disposal
7.1 Container and Equipment Design and Operation Regulations
Section 24(b) of FIFRA preempts state pesticide packaging regulations that are in
addition to or different from federal regulations. For this reason, state statutes may allow the
lead agency to regulate packaging, with the condition of uniformity with federal regulations.
Colorado's Pesticide Act, for example, circumscribes the authority of the Commissioner of
Agriculture:
The Commissioner is authorized to adopt all reasonable rules and regulations
for the administration and enforcement of this article, including . . .
restricting or prohibiting the use of certain types or sizes of containers or
packages for specific pesticides, except that the Commissioner shall be
guided by federal regulations concerning pesticide containers.1
Only a few states have adopted any pesticide packaging regulations. Washington
enacted regulations in 1976 requiring that
Containers ... in which pesticides are sold, offered for sale or transported
within the state of Washington shall be of sufficient strength and of such
construction as to alleviate danger of spillage or breakage. Pesticides found
to be packaged in unsafe containers shall be placed under 'stop sale' order
* • •
California, as part of its supplemental data requirements for state registration, has
adopted a regulation directed at wettable and soluble powders in toxicity category I that, because
of excessive dustiness, are likely to cause safety hazards to persons handling these products in
pest control operations. These pesticides must be prepared for sale or use in a manner to
eliminate the safety hazard. This preparation may be accomplished by:
(a) using water-soluble packaging;
(b) reducing dustiness of the product to a level found satisfactory by certain tests; or
(c) changing the physical characteristics of the product3
California is known for requiring closed system compatibility for state registration for
all liquid pesticide products carrying the signal word "Danger" (toxicity category I). A closed
7-1
-------
system is a procedure for removing a pesticide from its original container, rinsing the emptied
container and transferring the pesticide product, mixtures, dilutions and rinse solution through
connecting hoses, pipes and couplings that are sufficiently tight to prevent exposure of any person
to the pesticide or rinse solution.
California's regulations requiring closed systems were first adopted in 1977 and later
modified because of practical difficulties in implementation. The regulations require employers
to provide closed systems for employees who mix or load liquid pesticides in toxicity category
I or employees who load diluted liquid mixes derived from dry pesticides in toxicity category I
to produce an agricultural commodity. In addition, the system's design and construction must
meet certain closed system criteria.4
The above requirements do not apply to:
(a) employees who handle a total of 1 gallon or less per day of pesticides in
toxicity category I exclusively in original containers of 1 gallon or .less; or
(b) regulatory personnel collecting samples of pesticides according to official
sampling procedures.
7.2 Regulations Addressing Product Degradation
Under EDFRA Section 12(a)(l)(C), a product failing to meet registration specifications
for composition cannot legally be distributed or sold and, unless reformulated for use, will
ultimately require disposal Several states and EPA have documented that certain unopened
pesticides may deteriorate during storage and may degrade into products more toxic than the
original formulation:
(a) The North Carolina Department of Agriculture, through its marketplace
formulation sampling program, has found degradation of dimethoate,
oxydemeton, disulfoton, diazinon, malathion and DDVP. In 1988, for
example, the department found mat 27% of the malathion sampled was
deficient in active ingredients. In 1989, the department found that 37% of
1 the malathion sampled was deficient.9
(b) The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has
documented chemical deficiencies in samples produced in Texas.6
(c) In 1989, EPA analyzed 22 diazinon samples and found contamination by
O.S-TEPP in six samples and by O.O-TEPP in seven samples. Both
contaminants have high acute toxicities.7
States have pursued various approaches to regulate and limit the generation of such
wastes.
7-2
-------
Colorado
Colorado's8 label requirements mimic 40 CFR Part 156.10(a)(6).
Hawaii
Hawaii's9 label requirements also mimic 40 CFR Part 156.10(a)(6).
Louisiana
Louisiana10 authorizes its Commissioner of Agriculture to require that pesticide
shipping containers carry a label revealing the lot or batch number from which the date of
manufacture can be determined.
Maine
The state's Board of Pesticides Control, in proposed regulations titled Chapter 24,
Pesticide Storage Standards for Distributors, would require rotation of all products on shelves in
self-service sales areas.
Mississippi
The Mississippi Division of Plant Industry can impose a surety bond on registrants
whose products have been found consistently below label guarantees."
In 1971, Mississippi adopted a regulation requiring that formulators of malathion and
methyl parathion code the dale of manufacture on retail containers and provide the state's
Department of Agriculture with the key to the code.13
North Carolina
North Carolina has issued stop-sale orders to prevent distribution of any batch or lot
that does not meet specifications. In addition, state policy provides for canceling the registration
of any product for which three separate batches are found deficient. In some cases, "this process
has proven effective in motivating manufacturers to remove old products from North Carolina
and has in some cases resulted in modification of manufacturing... processes to better ensure
proper formulation."13
Wisconsin
Wisconsin has addressed product deterioration for hypochlorite sanitizers mat degrade
to chlorine gas by requiring that retail establishments rotate stocks so mat the oldest products will
be used to replace stock sold.14
7-3
-------
13 Certification and Training
Pesticides classified as "restricted use" under FIFRA section 3 can be purchased or used
only by a "certified applicator." 40 CFR Part 171 distinguishes between "commercial" and
"private1' applicators, according to business activities.
For commercial and private pesticide applicators, all states except Nebraska and
Colorado conduct certification and training programs relating to pesticide use that meet or exceed
federal minimum guidelines.15 The statutes and regulations typically mimic 40 CFR Part 171,
which for certification requires training in the proper identification, storage, transport, handling,
mixing and disposing of pesticides and used pesticide containers, as well as other aspects of
pesticide use.
During the past several years, state certification and training programs increasingly have
emphasized container rinsing, residue management and other issues related to pesticide storage
and disposal. For example, recent Minnesota legislation requires the state's Commissioner of
Agriculture and Cooperative Extension Service to develop training programs on pesticide
disposal16 The Wisconsin DATCP, after finding that many facilities with spill pads did not use
the pads properly, adopted regulations requiring commercial applicator licensing for all persons
mixing and loading materials for commercial application.17 The DATCP and the University of
Wisconsin are drafting training materials. The Texas Department of Agriculture and the Texas
Water Commission, recognizing that recycling demands proper container rinsing, have begun
training programs demonstrating triple rinsing and pressure rinsing techniques to growers.1*
7.4 Recordkeeping Requirements
Recordkeeping serves a variety of purposes supporting waste minimization and safe
storage and disposal of pesticides. Records of inventory allow appropriate responses to be made
in the event of fire or spill emergencies. Records of container ownership facilitate tracking to
ensure proper refilling and ultimate disposal Recordkeeping by dealers can help locate holders
in the event of a recall.
7.4.1 Reporting by Registrants
FIFRA section 7 requires reporting of pesticide production information to EPA.
Several states require registrants to report annually the volume of each registered product sold
in the state. For example, Minnesota provides:
The registrant must annually report to the Commissioner the amount and type
of each registered pesticide sold, offered for sale or otherwise distributed in
the state... The information furnished shall include the brand name, amount
and formulation ... but the information collected, if made public, shall be
reported in a manner which does not identify a specific brand name in the
report.19
7-4
-------
7.4.2 Recordkeeping and Reporting by Pesticide Dealers
Forty-eight states have adopted some form of dealer registration or licensing that
includes recordkeeping and reporting. Most states require dealers to record and make available
upon request to the lead agency, restricted-use sales information. This information includes: date
of sale; product name and registration number, amount sold; and name, address and license
number of purchaser. Generally, the state lead agency has authority to specify the information
that must be maintained and could require, for example, that dealers record serial numbers of
minibulks sold and/or filled For example, North Carolina provides:
The Board shall require licensees to maintain records with respect to the sale
and application of such pesticides as it may from time to time prescribe.
Such relevant information as the Board may deem necessary may be
specified by regulation. Such records shall be kept for a period of three
years from the date of the application of the pesticide to which such records
refer and shall be available for inspection by the Board or its agents at its .
request20
In Maine, to track containers mat should be returned under its returnable container
regulations, the state requires dealers to affix numbered stickers to the containers and record the
numbers. The numbers can be matched to those containers returned at designated collection
sites.21 Mississippi requires dealers to keep records of quantities returned to the manufacturer
and quantities lost due to theft, spillage or other reasons.22 New York requires holders of
commercial permits (RUP dealers) to keep records pertaining to the acquisition, sale or disposal
of restricted products for two years.23
Few states have attempted to impose similar recordkeeping requirements on general-use
products, although gross sales figures are sometimes furnished as part of pesticide sales taxes or
for collecting information on volumes of use. Vermont requires Class A dealers (licensed to sell
RUPs) to maintain records of product name, EPA registration number, size and number of
containers sold, and, for both restricted-use and non-restricted products, county of intended use.
Dealers must submit annual sales reports to the state, regardless of whether restricted-use
products were sold.24
Following legislation enacted in 1989, dealers in Maine must keep and maintain records
of annual pesticides sales for all liquid products sold in containers of 1 quart or greater capacity
or solid products weighing 5 pounds or more. Those records must include the name of the
pesticide, the concentration of active ingredients and the quantity sold. All general-use dealers
must submit annually to the Maine Board of Pesticides Control a report showing total sales
volumes and weights of each pesticide as required by this legislation. Certain household
products, including antimicrobials and aerosols, are exempt29
Except in states that have adopted comprehensive bulk storage regulations,
recordkeeping of inventory is not required in pesticide statutes. Community right-to-know
statutes may require recordkeeping and reporting of inventories of some pesticides.
7-5
-------
7.43 Recordkeeping by Applicators
All states, including those in which EPA administers certification and training
programs, require commercial applicators to log applications of restricted-use pesticides and make
die records available upon request to state agency personnel. These records typically include:
the" name of the applicator, location, time and date of application; product used and at what rate;
and, frequently, the target pest Six states36 require reporting to the state without a request
Wisconsin recently amended its recordkeeping requirements to add the location at which the
pesticide was loaded into application equipment or a nurse tank (prepackaged retail containers
are exempt).27
Twelve states28 limit recordkeeping by commercial applicators to RUPs. The rest of
the states require commercial applicators to record applications of general-use pesticides, as well
as restricted-use products (see figure 7-1).
. / -
• *' While many states require recordkeeping by private applicators of restricted-use
applications, only a handful of states require private applicators to keep records of general-use
product applications. Minnesota is one of the few states mandating recordkeeping by commercial
and non-commercial applicators of all pesticides applied.29 The California Department of Food
and Agriculture recently strengthened its pesticide reporting system to require that "persons who
use any pesticide for agricultural use; those engaged for hire in the business of pest control;
persons who use outdoor industrial and institutional pesticides that are listed on the Groundwater
Protection List; those who use restricted use pesticides; and those who apply pesticides for any
post-harvest commodity treatment to food or feed commodities" maintain and report use data to
county commissioners.30 This is the most comprehensive state reporting system in the country.
(Much of this information is already maintained by growers who must be able to furnish it to
food processors.)
Washington requires all licensed pesticide applicators and persons applying pesticides
to more than 1 acre of agricultural land in a calendar year (including public entities engaged in
roadside spraying) to keep records of all pesticide applications and maintain the records for seven
years. Owners of dairy farms are exempt from reporting pesticide applications to the farm.
Maine, as part of its drift regulations, requires that applicators maintain records of all applications
of non-granular products by powered equipment31
The Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (the 1990 Farm Bill)
instituted recordkeeping for private applicators, but placed regulatory authority for implementation
under the USDA. According to section 1491 of the Farm Bill, the USDA, in consultation with
EPA, requires certified applicators of RUPs to maintain records comparable to those maintained
by commercial applicators of pesticides in each state. If there is no state requirement for
maintaining records, the applicator must maintain records mat contain the product name, amount,
approximate date of application and location of application of each pesticide for two years after
the use. The records are to be made available to state agencies that handle pesticide use, but use
of the data is limited. In no case may a government agency release data, including the location
from which the data was derived, that would directly or indirectly reveal the identity of individual
producers.
7-6
-------
FIGURE 7-1
Recordkeeping Regulations
States that require reporting to the state without request
: States that limit lecoidkeeping by commercial applicators
toRUPs.
= States mat require commercial applicators to record
applications of general-use pesticides, as well as
RUPs.
* Wisconsin amended recordkeeping requirement to
add location at which pesticide was loaded.
None of the state reporting systems requires applicator recordkeeping of purchases,
storage conditions or disposition of containers, rinsates, residues and other waste products, except
for those states listed in the following subchapter of mis report
7.4.4 Miscellaneous Recordkeeping Relating to Disposal
Florida
Florida requires its Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services to file a report with the DER when a persistent pesticide has been applied
for emergency purposes. The report must include the method of container disposal and of
7-7
-------
equipment cleaning.32 A persistent pesticide is one that will persist in the environment beyond
one year from its application date.33
Hawaii
Hawaii requires experimental use permittees to submit information on disposal methods
in mandatory follow-up reports.34
Oregon
Oregon's Forest Practices Rules require pesticide operators to keep daily records of
insecticide and herbicide applications to forest lands, including records of disposal method and
container location.33
Virginia
Virginia requires commercial applicators to maintain records of RUP applications for
two years. The records must include the disposal method of unused pesticides or empty
containers.36
Wisconsin
Wisconsin, in a regulation similar to Hawaii's, authorizes the DATCP to require
reporting related to disposal of unused pesticides and containers when an experimental-use permit
is issued.37 In addition, for emergency-use permits, DATCP may impose special controls or
precautions for disposing of the pesticide.
Other
States that allow sodium fluoroacetate (Compound 1080) collars or sodium cyanide
(M-44) capsules for livestock predation control impose recordkeeping requirements that track
each collar or capsule from the time it is purchased to the time it is discharged or lost However,
the regulations do not require keeping record of the disposal of used or unusable collars, capsules
and related contaminated material.38 Some of the recordkeeping requirements for these products
are dictated by the label and federal registration standards.
Solid waste disposal facilities may maintain some records of pesticide disposal For
example, New Jersey requires mat solid waste facilities, other than those operated by a
municipality and receiving only waste generated within the municipality, must record daily the
source and amount of dry waste (including dry non-hazardous pesticides) and bulk liquids and
semi-liquids (including pesticide liquids).39 Minnesota's solid waste management facilities must
develop plans for managing empty pesticide containers.40
7-8
-------
7.5 Inspections
States have authority to perform routine inspections of dealer facilities, commercial
applicator facilities and private applicator premises to determine compliance with state
regulations. Many states have adopted a provision similar to AAPCO's Model State Pesticide
Use and Application Act 'Some' states, like Arkansas, have adopted AAPCO's enforcement
provision that states, in part, "For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act, the [ ]
may enter upon any public or private premises at reasonable times, in order to ... inspect storage
or disposal areas ..."
To track storage and disposal, New York inspectors use a preprinted form, "Inspection
Report of Registered Pesticide Business," whenever they inspect applicator facilities. This form
collects information on the storage and disposal of pesticides, whether warning signs are posted,
if the storage is locked, where surplus mixed pesticide is disposed, how surplus pesticide is
disposed and where pesticide containers are disposed. Under the "personnel safety and
equipment" checklist, the form asks: "Are service containers properly labeled?" and "Are you
destroying old containers?"
7.6 Spill Reporting and Clean-up Requirements
As of November 1991, Arizona,41 Arkansas,42 Indiana,43 Iowa,44 Pennsylvania45 and
Virginia46 required reporting of significant pesticide accidents or incidents mat constitute a threat
to humans or the environment In addition, some state Superfund programs may have a
mechanism for cleanup of sites contaminated with pesticides. Most state Superfund programs^
however, encompass only a limited number of pesticides.47
In 1988, Illinois amended its Superfund legislation to include environmental releases
of all pesticides, not just those defined as CERCLA hazardous substances.48 Under the Illinois
statute, persons liable for cleanup include:
(a) owners and operators of facilities from which there is a release;
(b) persons who, at the time of disposal, transport, storage or treatment, owned
or operated the facility from which there is a release or substantial threat of
a release;
(c) persons who arranged with another party for transport, storage, disposal or
treatment at a facility from which there is a release or threatened release; and
(d) persons who accept pesticides for transport to disposal, storage or treatment
facilities from which there is a release or threatened release.
Illinois defines a pesticide release as any release resulting in pesticide concentrations
in state waters that exceed levels for which:
7-9
-------
(a) EPA has determined a maximum contaminant level or the Illinois Pollution
Control Board has determined a maximum allowable concentration;
(b) EPA has issued a health advisory on an interim basis;
--•' (c) the Illinois Pollution Control Board'adopted a standard pursuant to the
Illinois Groundwater Protection Act; or
(d) the IEPA, absent the other advisories or standards, developed an action level
using guidance or procedures issued by the federal government for
developing health-based levels.49
Community right-to-know statutes, emergency management statutes and state or local
fire codes may also require reporting and clean up of releases of pesticides listed in the
regulations implementing EPCRA (and state versions of EPCRA), if the releases meet designated
reportable quantities.10
A recent Minnesota survey reported that nearly half of the responding states were aware
of pesticide-contaminated sites. A few — including Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin — have
taken aggressive measures to experiment with clean-up technology. These three states have
studied land application of contaminated soiL51
Illinois and Minnesota also have enacted legislation to finance clean up. In 1990, the
Illinois legislature enacted PX. 861172, the Incident Response Fund, to help dealers faced with
environmental cleanup after a catastrophe. The fund offers a 10% deductible, after which the
dealer will be reimbursed for up to $500,000. Initially, the program will be a two-year trial,
voluntary for dealers, with an annual fee of $500 per facility.
Minnesota, as part of its comprehensive groundwater legislation of 1989, enacted the
Agricultural Chemical Response and Reimbursement Law. Funded through surcharges on the
pesticide registration fees, inspection fees, dealer license application fees and applicator
application fees, the legislation created an Agricultural Chemical Response and Reimbursement
Account that assists in the cleanup of moderate-sized spills. The account reimburses eligible
persons (a responsible party or an owner of real property) for 90% of cleanup costs up to
$100,000 with a $1,000 deductible. Clean-up costs between $100,000 and $200,000 are fully
reimbursed. Any amount over that is the eligible person's responsibility. Reimbursement is
available only if the person seeking reimbursement reported the incident In this way, prompt
reporting and clean up are encouraged. If a violation of state pesticide regulations caused the
incident, then reimbursement is permitted only for the amount of clean-up costs not attributable
to the violation.
7.7 Liability and Insurance
Much of the impetus for improved pesticide storage and disposal practices derives from
the possibility of statutory or common-law liability for environmental contamination. An analysis
of the pollution liability insurance industry and the effects of liability concerns on corporate and
7-10
-------
individual behavior is beyond the scope of this report However, a few examples illustrate the
importance of this pressure:
(a) The National Agrichemical Retailers Association has been attempting to
increase the availability of pollution insurance for dealers by demonstrating
that dealers are upgrading facilities to lessen risks associated with fire and
spills. At the same time, companies that do underwrite pollution liability
coverage for dealers investigate each client very carefully to evaluate whether
the risk is worth assuming, considering such factors as location and
improvements in containment92
(b) In Florida, buried containers are likely to preclude issuance of a mortgage
upon a sale of property, encouraging growers to dispose of their containers
in another way.53
(c) Agrichemical Age profiled an aerial applicator in Nebraska who, applying the
philosophy of adopting strict safety measures or risking a loss of business,
installed state-of-the-art loading facilities on a concrete pad.94
(d) Qba-Geigy has announced a pilot project in Illinois to provide an
environmental assessment program for its bulk dealers who store products
under the manufacturer's custom warehousing program. This third-party
assessment wfll include written recommendations and will involve
examination of storage and diking facilities and general housekeeping
procedures, such as rinsing and disposal.93
Occasionally, state pesticide regulations assign liability for storage and disposal Texas
provides that the applicator, the owner of the pesticide, and/or the person in control of the mixing
site shall be liable for proper storage and disposal of pesticide containers and their contents.
Parties involved are to assume liability for compliance.96
7-11
-------
State Index
Alaska 7-6
Arizona 7-9
Arkansas 7-9 •-. •••-• •
California 7-1,7-2,7-6
Colorado 7-1,7-3,7-4
Florida 7-2,7-6,7-7,7-11
Hawaii 7-3,7-6,7-8
Illinois 7-6,7-9,7-10,7-11
Indiana 7-6, 7-9
Iowa 7-9
Kentucky 7-6
Louisiana 7-3
Maine 7-3, 7-5, .7-6
Michigan 7-6
Minnesota 7-4,7-6,7-8,7-10
Mississippi 7-3,7-5
Missouri 7-6
Montana 7-6
Nebraska 7-4,7-6,7-11
New Hampshire 7-6
New Jersey 7-8
New York 7-5,7-6,7-9
North Carolina 7-2, 7-3, 7-5, 7-6
Oregon 7-8
Pennsylvania 7-6,7-9
Rhode Island 7-6
Texas 7-2,7-4,7-8,7-11
Vermont 7-5, 7-6
Virginia 7-6,7-8,7-9
Washington 7-1,7-6
Wisconsin 7-3,7-4,7-6,7-8,7-10
7-12
-------
Endnotes
1. Colorado Pesticide Act, section 35-9-118.
2. WAC 16-228-145 Adequate Containers.
3. California Department of Food and Agriculture Regulations (now Department of
Pesticide Regulation), Title 3, section 6193.
4. Ibid, section 6000.4.
5. Letter from James Burnette Jr., North Carolina Department of Agriculture, to Douglas
Campt, EPA, July 26, 1989.
6. Memo from Robert Murphy, EPA Region VI, to Richard Dubose, EPA Region IV,
August 29, 1989.
7. NCAMP Technical Report, October 1989.
8. Colorado Department of Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry, Rules and Regulations
Pertaining to the Administration and Enforcement of the Pesticide Act, Regulation
9. Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry, Regulation 4-66-15.
10. Louisiana Pesticide Law, La. R.S. section 3:3221(F)(2).
11. Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce, Division of Plant Industry,
Regulations Governing Registration of Economic Poisons in Accordance with the
Mississippi Economic Poisons Act, Rule 1, section 7.
12. Ibid, section 8.
13. Letter from James Burnette, Jr., North Carolina Department of Agriculture, to Richard
DuBose, EPA Region IV, September 22, 1989.
14. Wisconsin Administrative Code, Ag 29, section 29.12(6).
15. Colorado licenses commercial applicators, but EPA runs the private applicator program.
In Nebraska, EPA runs the certification and training program for both private and
commercial applicators.
16. Minnesota Statutes, section 18B.035, 1989.
17. Wisconsin Administrative Code, Ag 29, section 29.159(7).
18. Conversation with Diane Wilcox, Texas Water Commission, October 1990.
7-13
-------
19. Minnesota Statutes 186.26(3).
20. North Carolina Pesticide Law of 1971, section 143-466(a).
21. Regulations of Maine Board of Pesticides Control, Chapter 21, Pesticide Container
Disposal and Storage.
22. Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce, Division of Plant Industry,
Regulations Governing Registration of Economic Poisons in Accordance with the
Mississippi Economic Poisons Act, Rule 4, section 6.
23. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Pesticide Regulations, section
326.3.
24. Vermont Department of Food, Agriculture and Markets, Vermont Regulations for the
Control of Pesticides, section V(5).
25. 22 MRSA section 1471-W.
26. California, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont
27. Wisconsin Administrative Code, Ag 29, section 29.11.
28. Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana( Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania flnd Virginia.
29. Minnesota Statutes, section 18B37.
30. California Code of Regulations. Hie regulatory package encompasses sections 6000,
6562, 6568, 6570, 6619, 6621, 6622, 6623, 6624, 6626, 6627, 6628.
31. Regulations of the Maine Board of Pesticides Control, Chapter 22, Standards for
Outdoor Application of Pesticides by Powered Equipment in Order to Minimize
Off-Target Deposition.
32. 31 F.S. section 487.031(9).
33. 3! F.S. section 487.021(34).
34. Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry, Hawaii Pesticide
Regulations, sections 4-66-48,4-66-50.
35. Oregon Forest Practices General Rules, section 629-24-207.
36. Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Rules and Regulations for
Enforcement of the Virginia Pesticide Law, VR 115-04-03, section 23 (1986).
37. Wisconsin Administrative Code, Ag 29, section 29.07.
7-14
-------
38. See, for example, Texas Department of Agriculture, Texas Pesticide Regulations,
sections 7.32-7.33.
39. New Jersey Solid Waste Rules, section 7:26-2.13.
40. Minnesota General Technical Requirements for Solid Waste Facilities, section
7035.2535(5).
41. Arizona Pesticide Regulations, R3-10-403, require that:
a) a bulk release of a pesticide must be reported by the applicator to the commission
by telephone as soon as possible, but no later than three hours after the bulk
release. When the bulk release is on a public highway or railway or results in the
death of a person, the applicator must immediately report the release to the
Arizona Department of Public Safety duty officer by telephone and to the
commission as soon as possible; and
b) within five days of the bulk release, the applicator must provide a written report
to the commission listing all details of the release, including the location and
amount of the releases, the reasons for the release, the disposition of the pesticide
released, the measures taken to prevent unauthorized entry to the site, and any
measures taken to prevent further contamination.
Arizona Pesticide Regulations, R3-10-101, define "bulk release" as "the emergency or
accidental release of any pesticide or mixture of pesticides, in volumes greater than
those which are prescribed by the product label for a target crop or field. The product
dripping from a spray nozzle or minor splashing during mixing is not a bulk release."
42. Arkansas Pesticide Use and Application Act, section 14.
43. Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, section 20.
44. Iowa, Chapter 206.14, allows the Secretary of Agriculture to require reporting of
significant accidents to a designated state agency.
45. Pennsylvania Pesticide Regulations, section 128.101. The Department of Agriculture
is to receive reports of all significant pesticide accidents.
46. Virginia Pesticide Control Act, sections 3.1-249.56, 3.1-249.63.
47. In 1989, the Environmental Law Institute prepared an analysis of state superfund
programs for EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. "An Analysis of
State Superfund Programs: 50 State Study, EPA/540/8-89/011, September 1989"
summarizes state superfund programs. It includes an overview of cleanup activities
and capabilities, statutory authorities and provisions, hazardous waste site maps,
penalties and punitive damages, state cleanup policies and criteria, and state public
participation and procedures.
7-15
-------
48. Pesticide Release Law, Amendments to Illinois Environmental Protection Act, 1988,
section 3.70 et seq.
49. Ibid, section 3.71.
50. See section 304 of EPCRA for reporting of releases.
51. Conversation with Greg Buzicky, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, October 1991.
52. See, for example, Simmonds and Brosten, The Gap," Agrichemical Age, January 1991
at 8.
53. Conversation with Steve Dwinell, Florida DER, November 1990.
54. "Pro-Active Applicator Strives for Safety," Agrichemical Age, April 1991.
55. Agrichemical Age, June 1991 at 17.
56. Texas Department of Agriculture, Texas Pesticide Regulations, section 7.21.
7-16
-------
Chapter 8
State Transportation Regulations
Following the AAPCO Suggested State Pesticide Control Act and Suggested Pesticide
Use and Application Act, most states have enacted a general prohibition against unsafe
transportation and provided authority to the lead agency to regulate transportation. (See
discussion in Chapter 2.3.) However, like EPA, which for the most part defers to DOT
regulations on transportation, state pesticide agencies generally have not adopted and do not
enforce comprehensive regulations governing transportation of pesticides. This is left to state
equivalents of the federal DOT.
Occasionally state pesticide regulations or statutes incorporate DOT regulations by
reference. Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota and Vermont have done this in their pesticide
container regulations.
A handful of states have adopted pesticide regulations to minimize the danger of
accidents and applicator exposure during transportation. The most comprehensive are those of
Washington and New Jersey (for service vehicles). Washington requires that:
(a) highly toxic pesticides (Toxkaty Category I and labeled with the word
"Danger") should not be transported in the same compartment of the vehicle
or other equipment together with clothes, food, feed or any other material
intended for consumption by humans or animals. Any vehicle or other
equipment should be inspected by the owner or authorized agent for
contamination before reuse. In instances where leakage or spillage has
occurred, the shipper of the pesticides must be immediately contacted for
instructions about the best method for removing the contamination. Vehicles
or other equipment which have been contaminated must not be returned to
service until the contamination has been removed;
(b) pesticide containers should be secured during transit by use of side or end
racks, bracing, chocks, tiedowns or other means to prevent their sliding,
falling, tipping, rolling or falling off the vehicle with normal vehicle
acceleration, deceleration or change in direction;
(c) valves should be tightly closed and manhole covers should be secured on
cargo or portable tanks used for transporting pesticides, whether the tanks are
full or empty;
8-1
-------
(d) portable tanks should be secured to prevent their sliding, falling, tipping or
rolling with normal vehicle acceleration, deceleration or change in direction.
Ends, sidewalls or doors of van bodies should not be relied upon for
securernent; and
(e) pesticides should not be delivered to a pesticide consignee unless the
consignee or authorized agent is present to sign for and accept delivery of
the pesticides and the pesticides are secured in a proper storage.1
New Jersey2 regulates storage and transportation of pesticides in service vehicles3 as
follows:
(a) the service vehicle must prominently display signs on at least two sides of
the vehicle, clearly identifying it as a pest control service vehicle. The
lettering must be a minimum of three inches high;
(b) all containers smaller than 5 gallons must be securely stored to prevent
spillage or direct contact with other containers;
(c) glass containers of any size must be securely padded to avoid breakage;
(d) five gallon or larger containers must be secured to a structural part of the
service vehicle to prevent or reduce movement resulting from a sudden stop;
(e) the service vehicle should have a supply of absorbent material to soak up any
possible spills and a shovel to help contain the spill;
(f) the service vehicle must have a regulation fire extinguisher,
(g) the pesticides must be stored in a compartment separate from the driver,
(h) all pesticides, pesticide containers or portable application equipment must be
locked or secured to the vehicle to prevent removal by unauthorized persons,
when they are located at any open, accessible area on the service vehicle;
and
(i) the hatch or door on any service vehicle tank containing a pesticide must be
equipped with a cover that will prevent spillage when the vehicle is in
motion.
The remaining states with pesticide transportation regulations are:
Arkansas
Dealers must not store or transport 2,4-D or other hormone-type herbicides in the same
room or vehicle with seeds, insecticides, fungicides or fertilizers except in leak-proof containers.
8-2
-------
The containers should not be opened while in storage and all other precautions necessary to
prevent contamination of these products must be observed.4
California
California prohibits transportation of pesticides "in the same compartment with persons,
food or feed" and requires that "pesticide containers shall be secured to vehicles during
transportation in a manner that will prevent spillage onto the vehicle or off the vehicle. Paper,
cardboard and similar containers shall be covered when necessary to protect them from
moisture."3
New Mexico
New Mexico requires of service vehicles that "any container or portable application
equipment containing pesticides or pesticide residues shall not be left unattended on a service
vehicle unless the container or equipment is in a locked compartment or secured in such a
manner so as to render it inaccessible to an unauthorized person."6
North Dakota
North Dakota requires mat*
(a) all pesticides must be transported in their original containers and transported in
such a manner to avoid breakage of containers, spills or any other manner of
contamination;
(b) pesticides should not be transported with foodstuffs, feed or any other product or
material which could be a hazard to humans, animals or the environment; and
(c) equipment contaminated in die transportation of pesticides must be cleansed prior
to any other use.7
South Dakota
South Dakota's provision, pertaining to commercial carriers only, states that "Pesticides
shall not be transported by a commercial carrier in the same compartment of the vehicle with
clothes, food, feed or other materials intended for use or consumption by humans or animals."8
Several states include provisions on the transportation of bulk pesticides with bulk
storage regulations.
Iowa
Iowa's regulations incorporate applicable state and DOT standards.9
8-3
-------
Louisiana
Louisiana's bulk storage regulations require that containers meet applicable standards
of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, they be properly secured and
the label accompany each shipment10
Ohio
Ohio provides, in part, that bulk pesticide containers meet all applicable standards as
specified by label instructions and state and DOT regulations. Also, bulk pesticide containers
must be secured to prevent significant movement during transportation.11
South Dakota
South Dakota has regulations similar to Ohio.
The AAPCO Model Bulk Pesticide Regulations adopted in March 1990 are similar to
the Ohio regulations, but contain four significant additions. Those are:
(a) containers and any attendant marking and placarding should meet all applicable
standards of the appropriate state regulatory agency and DOT;
(b) containers should be secured to prevent significant movement, shifting or
discharge during transportation, including transportation between facility locations
and customer sites;
(c) a label for the registered pesticide product must accompany each shipment of bulk
pesticides; and
(d) in case a discharge has occurred, the operator must contact the appropriate state
regulatory agency, and, if possible, the pesticide manufacturer for guidance.
8-4
-------
State Index
Alabama 8-1
Arkansas 8-3
California 8-3 .
Iowa 8-4
Louisiana 8-4
New Jersey 8-1, 8-2
New Mexico 8-3
North Dakota 8-3
Ohio 8-4
South Carolina 8-1
South Dakota 8-1, 8-3, 8-4
Vermont 8-1
Washington 8-1, 8-2
8-5
-------
Endnotes
1. Washington General Pesticide Rules, WAC 16-228-160.
2.;. ..,..... New Jersey Pesticide Control Code, NJAC, Subchapter 9, sectionJ7:30-9.4.
3. New Jersey Pesticide Control Code, NJAC, Subchapter 9, section 7:30-9.4 defines a
"service vehicle" as a motorized vehicle used by commercial applicators to hold or
transport pesticides to an application location:
Any motorized conveyance owned or operated by any person registered
or required to be registered by the Department to apply or supervise the
application of pesticides, and used to hold and/or transport a pesticide
from any place to an application location; except the following:
(1) Vehicles used to hold and/or transport pesticides by private pesticide
applicators; providing, the vehicles are operated solely within the
boundaries of property owned or controlled by the private applicator; or
(2) Vehicles used to hold and/or transport a pesticide to an application
location which is owned or controlled by a private pesticide applicator
performing or supervising the pesticide application; providing, the
pesticide being held and transported is wholly contained within the final
holding tank from which the application will be made; or
(3) Vehicles not normally and customarily used in business operations to
hold and/or transport pesticide to an application location, providing (a)
the pesticide is transferred at the application location to a vehicle subject
to the service vehicle requirements; (b) the person operating such
vehicle making the delivery and transfer does not apply the pesticide;
and (c) the maximum quantity of pesticide being transported is five
gallons liquid or 50 pounds dry formulation.
4. Arkansas State Plant Board, Circular 9-A, as adopted under Acts 389 and 410 of 1975,
"Regulations on 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T and other Hormone-Type Herbicides."
5. California Department of Food and Agriculture Regulations, subchapter 3, Pest Control
Operations, section 6682.
6. New Mexico Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Control Act, Regulatory Order No.
5.
7. Rules and Regulations of the North Dakota Pesticide Control Board, section
60-03-01-06(4).
8. South Dakota Department of Agriculture Regulations, section 12:56:03:02.
9. IAC Chapter 44, section 44.9(206).
8-6
-------
10. Louisiana Administrative Code, Title 7, subchapter J.
11. : Ohio Department of Agriculture Regulation 901:5-11-05.
8-7
-------
Chapter 9
Conclusions
Regulation of pesticide storage, disposal and transportation is a legal octopus with
tentacles in a variety of state agencies and environmental statutes. Regulation in these areas is
also fluid. Many states are developing regulatory approaches to pesticide-related issues and many
others are refining existing programs.
This report (1) analyzed state statutes and accompanying regulations affecting pesticide
storage, disposal and transportation; (2) briefly reviewed state air pollution, water pollution and
waste disposal regulations as they affect pesticide storage, disposal and transportation; and
(3) discussed regulatory implementation issues in the states.
The scope of the report was ambitious because the subject matter is complex and federal
and state regulatory issues are intertwined and changing rapidly. As the issues and activities in
this report evolve, EPA plans to revise and update the information periodically, pending
availability of funds. Based solely on voluntarily submitted written comments from readers, the
State of the States Report will continue to:
(a) highlight state creativity in finding ways to approach the problems of pesticide
waste minimization, storage, disposal, transportation and container management;
t
(b) facilitate information exchange among states and the regulated community so they
may improve their own programs; and
(c) assist EPA in gauging the impact of current and future pesticide management
policies and regulations.
9-1
-------
APPENDIX 1
ACRONYMS
AAECO ..Association of American Pesticide
• " - •••;'.-. Control Officials
API American Petroleum Institute
ASTM American Society of Testing Ma-
terials
BAT Best Available Technology
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BMP Best Management Practice
SNA Bureau of National Affairs
BOCA Building Officials and Code Ad-
ministrators
CCR California Code of Regulations
CERCLA .... Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (Superfund)
DATCP Department of Agriculture. Trade
and Consumer Protection (WI)
DEQ Department of Environmental
Quality
DER Department of Environmental
Regulation
DHEC Department of Health and Envi-
ronmental Control
DNR Department of Natural Resources
DOT ILS. Department of
Transportation
DSWA Delaware Solid Waste Authority
EPA US. Environmental Protection
Agency
EP Toxicity ... Extraction Procedure (RCRA
toxicity criteria)
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Commu-
nity Right-to-Know Act
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act
HOPE High density polyethylene
HHW ... Household Hazardous Waste
HW Hazardous Waste
IDNR Iowa Department of Natural Re-
sources
IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
IFCA Iowa Fertilizer and Chemical
Association
LEPC Local Emergency Planning Com-
mittee
MDA Minnesota Department of Agricul-
ture
MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
MSDS
MSW .
NACA
NCAMP
NFPA
NPDES
NSPS
OCM .
OSHA
PCO..
POTW
PSES .
PSNS
RCRA "P" List
RCRA" IT List
RCRA
RFP
RUP
SARA
SFIREG
TCLP ..
USDA .
USPIRG
UST,
VOC
Material Safety Data Sheet
Municipal Solid Waste
National Agricultural Chemical
Association
National Coalition Against the
Misuse of Pesticides
National Fire Protection Associa-
tion
National Pollutant Discharge Elim-
ination System
New Source Performance Stan-
dards
Office of Compliance Monitoring
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
Pest Control Operator
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Pie-Treatment Standards for Exist-
ing Sources
Pie-Treatment Standards for New
Sources
"Acutely Hazardous" waste list
commercial products
Toxic" commercial pesticide
products list
Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery Act
Request for Proposal
Restricted-Use Product
Superfund Amendments and Reau-
thorization Act
State-FIFRA Issues Research and
Evaluation Group
Toxicity f tm«?^fCTistic Leaching
Procedure
ILS. Department of Agriculture
ILS. Public Interest Research
Group
Underground Storage Tank
Volatile Organic Compound
A-l
-------
APPENDIX 2
REFERENCES
Statutes
dean Water Act (CWA), 33 USCA,
section 1251 et seq.
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), 42 USCA section 9601 et seq.
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 42
USCA section 11001 et seq.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 USCA section
136 et seq.
Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade
Act of 1990, S. 2830.
Regulation of Underground Storage Tanks,
42 USCA sections 6991 through 6991L
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, subtitle C,
Hazardous Waste, 42 USCA sections 6921
through 6939b.
Solid Waste Disposal Act. 42 USCA
sections 6901 to 6992
Regulations
40 CFR Part 156, Labeling Requirements
for Pesticides and Devices.
40 CFR Part 157, Packaging Requirements
for Pesticides and Devices.
40 CFR Part 158 and Part 158 Appendix
A, Data Requirements for Registration.
40 CFR Part 162, State Registration of
Pesticide Products.
40 CFR Part 165, Regulations for the
Acceptance of Certain Pesticides and
Recommended Procedures for the Disposal
and Storage of Pesticides and Pesticide
Containers.
40 CFR Part 170, Worker Protection
Standards for Agricultural Pesticides.
40 CFR Part 171, Certification of Pesticide
Applicators and Proposed Changes to Part
171 published in 55 Fed. Reg. 46890,
November 7,1990.
40 CFR Parts 257 and 258 (proposed).
40 CFR Part 261, Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste.
40 CFR Part 262, Standards Applicable to
Generators of Hazardous Waste.
52 Fed. Reg. 11332, April 8,1987.
Procedures for submission of claims for
indemnification and disposal of 2,4,5-T
and Sflvex Pesticide Products.
53 Fed. Reg. 34077 September 2, 1988.
Approval and promulgation of state
implementation plans; South Dakota.
54 Fed. Reg. 48372, Proposed Land
Disposal Restrictions for Third Scheduled
Wastes, November 22,1989.
A-2
-------
55 Fed. Reg. 80, January 2, 1990.
Effluent Guideline Plan.
55 Fed. Reg. 11798, Hazardous Waste
Management. System; Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste; Toxicity
Characteristics Revisions, March 29,1990.
55 Fed. Reg. 50460, December 6, 1990.
Identification and listing of hazardous
waste; wood preserving.
56 Fed. Reg. 29367, June 26, 1991,
Existing Stocks of Pesticide Products:
Statement of Policy.
Regulatory Interpretations. Notices and
Memoranda
Region VJJ EPA, Questions/Answers
Concerning Bulk Pesticides Repackaging
and Custom Blending, March 15, 1989.
U.S. EPA, Office of Compliance
Monitoring, Enforcement Policy
Applicable to Bulk Shipments of
Pesticides, July 11, 1977.
U.S. EPA, PR Notice 84-1, Notice to
Manufacturers, Formulators, Distributors
and Registrants of Pesticides, February 17,
1984.
U.S.EPA, PR Notice 83-3, Notice to
Manufacturers, Formulators and
Registrants of Pesticides, March 29,1983.
Miscellaneous
Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA, title
m, List of Lists, Consolidated List of
Chemicals Subject to Reporting under title
n of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986.
Model Codes and Municipal Ordinances
Association of American Pesticide Control
Officials (AAPCO)
P.O. Box 1249
Hardwick, Vermont 05843
Tel: (802) 472-6956
• Suggested State Pesticide Control Act,
Official Publication 1973-1974
• Suggested State Pesticide Use and
Application Act, Official Publication
1973-1974
• Model Bulk Pesticide Rules, adopted
March 1990
• Model Rules for Non-Bulk Pesticide
Operational Area Containment,
adopted March 1991.
Building Officials and Code
Administrators International (BOCA) 4051
W. Flossmoor Road
Counry dub Hills, Illinois 60478-5795
Tel: (708) 799-2300
• BOCA Fire Prevention Code, rev.
1987
• BOCA Building Code, rev. 1987
Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, International Code of
Conduct on the Distribution and Use of
Pesticides, 1986
Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, International Code of
Conduct on the Distribution and Use of
Pesticides.
Via delle Terme di Caracalla,
00100 Rome, Italy
National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA)
Batterymark Park
Quincy, Massachusetts 02269
Tel: (617) 770-3000
A-3
-------
Plum, Pennsylvania, Ordinance No. 431,
An Ordinance for the Borough of Plum
Regulating the Storing, Handling, Use and
Processing of Hazardous Materials and
Hazardous ^Materials Constituents within
the Territorial Limits of the Borough of
Plum, 1989
Plum, Pennsylvania, Ordinance No. 432,
An Ordinance for the Borough of Plum
Requiring and Establishing Permits under
the BOCA National Fire Prevention
Code/1987, 7th Edition , as Amended,
1989
Southern Building Code Congress
International (SBCQ)
900 Montclair RoadBinrangham, Alabama
3213-1206
Tel: (205) 591-1853
• Standard Fire Protection Code, rev.
1990
Standard Building Code, rev. 1990
State Agency Publications and
Memoranda
For State contacts see Appendix 3
California
California Senate Office of Research,
Regulation vs. Practice: A Review of the
California Department of Food and
Agriculture's Pesticide Registration
Process, February 1990.
Florida
Florida Cooperative Extension Service
Bulletin 242, "Evaporation/Degradation
System for Pesticide Equipment Rinse
Water."
Florida Cooperative Extension Service,
Circular 840, "Proper Disposal of Pesticide
Waste," 1989
Dwineli, S.t Florida DER, Memorandum,
"Pesticide Container Recycling Project,"
August 29, 1990
Idaho
University of Idaho, Cooperative Extension
Service, "Final Report on Pesticide
Container Collection Project," April 5,
1991
Illinois
A.G. Taylor, Illinois EPA, Hanson and
Anderson, "Recycling Pesticide
Rinsewater, " 1986
A.G. Taylor, Illinois EPA, "Testimony in
Support of Regulatory Proposals Regarding
Agrichemical Storage and Handling
Facilities." PCB R89-5,1989
Illinois EPA, Agrichemical Facility
Investigations Involving Groundwater
Contamination
Illinois EPA memoranda on Adams County
Pilot Farm Chemical Collection Project,
1988:
• Adams County Farm Chemical
Collection Participant Survey,
June 1988
• IEP A, "Recommended Safety
Practices for Transporting Waste
Material to the Farm Chemical
Collection Site," 1988
* O'Brien to Taylor, Memorandum
re "Adams County Telephone
Survey," May 20, 1988
A-4
-------
• Taylor, "A Summary of the
Adams County Pilot Farm
.Chemical Collection Project"
• Taylor, Letter to eligible
participants in the collection,
"Project Procedures and
Pre-Collection Notifications/
Commitment Form," April 1988
Onken, Illinois Department of Agriculture,
to Rundquist, Illinois DoA, Memorandum,
"Pilot Project for the Collection and
Disposal of Unwanted Pesticides, "
September 18, 1990
Iowa
Frieberg, Iowa Fertilizer and Chemical
Association, Final Report: Iowa Pesticide
Container Recycling Project, A
Cooperative Project Between the Iowa
Department of Ag and Land Stewardship
and the Iowa Fertilizer and Chemical
Association, 1991
Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land
Stewardship, Program for the Handling
and Disposal of Used Pesticide Containers,
1988.
Kansas
Kansas Department of Health and
Environment, "Right to Know Program,"
1988
Maine
Maine Board of Pesticides Control, Press
Release, June 28, 1990
Maine Board of Pesticides Control,
Community Right-to-Know and
Agricultural Operations: A Guide to
Understanding the Reporting Requirements
of the Maine Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act, February
1991
Maine Department of Environmental
Protection, A Program Plan to Assist
Persons Who Generate up"' to 1000
Kilograms of Hazardous Wastes per
Calendar Month and A Plan to Minimize
and Dispose of Household Hazardous
Wastes, April 1989
Minnesota
Buzicky, Kelly, Hines, Minnesota
Department of Agriculture, Evaluation of
Improperly Disposed of Pesticide
Containers on Minnesota Farms (FIFRA
Enforcement Special Project prepared for
the US-EPA Region V office), October,
1990
Hansen and Palmer, Minnesota Department
of Agriculture, "Minnesota Pesticide
Container Collection and Recycling
Project," Winter 1991
Minnesota Department of Agriculture,
"Central Collection Participation Survey,"
1991
Minnesota Department of Agriculture,
Empty Pesticide Container Collection:
Operations Manual, revised 4/91
Minnesota Department of Agriculture,
Minnesota Empty Pesticide Container
Disposal Report, March 1988
Minnesota Department of Agriculture,
Empty Pesticide Container Collection:
Inspection Manual, revised 4/91
Montana
Montana Department of Agriculture,
Montana Agricultural Business Association
and Montana Aviation Trades Association,
A-5
-------
Summary of Pesticide Applicator and
Dealer Disposal Survey, November 1990
New Hampshire
New Hampshire 'Department of
Agriculture, Division of Pesticide Control,
Report of the Unwanted Pesticide
Collection Program for Fanners, June
1990.
New Jersey
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Pesticide Control,
Research Report Pesticide Disposal
Project, 1986
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Pesticide Control,
Parti, Guidelines for the Disposal of
Empty Pesticides Containers, and Part U,
Guidelines for the Disposal of Pesticide
Waste, 1986
New York
Abrams, Attorney General of New York,
Testimony before the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee,
Subcommittee on Toxic Substances, March
1990
Office of the Attorney General, New York,
Pesticide Fires: Preventable Disasters,
August 1987
North Carolina
McClelland, North Carolina Department of
Agriculture, Pesticide Section, "A Study of
Pesticide Container Disposal Sites in North
Carolina, 1981-1983," July 1983
North Carolina Department of Agriculture,
Food and Drug Protection Division,
memoranda re pesticide disposal pickup
program:
• Criteria for Pesticide Disposal
Pickup_ _._
• ' Pesticide Transfer Form
• Pesticide Disposal Program
Summary
• Pesticide Disposal Assistance
Record
• Disposal Inventory Form
North Dakota
Agriculture Committee of the North
Dakota Legislative Council, Final Report
pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution
No. 4036, November 1990
North Dakota Cooperative Extension
Service, "Storage and Disposal of
Pesticides and Containers on the Farm,"
AE-897, July 1986
North Dakota State University Extension
Service, "Safe Storage, Handling and
Disposal of Pesticides and Containers,"
AE-977, June 1989
Ohio
Ohio Department of Agriculture, "Pesticide
Safety: Storage and Disposal," Bulletin 581
Pennsylvania
Brown and Hock, Penn State, Pesticide
Education Manual: A Guide to Safe Use
and Handling
South Carolina
South Carolina Cooperative Extension
Service, demson University, Pesticide
Information Program Information Sheet,
"Properly Rinse Pesticide Containers,"
draft August 1990
A-6
-------
South Carolina Cooperative Extension
Service, Qemson University, Pesticide
Information Program Information Sheet,
"Disposal of Pesticide Containers in South
Carolina," rev. March 1990
South Carolina Cooperative Extension
Service, Qemson University, Pesticide
Information Program Information Sheet,
"Pesticide Disposal," September 1989
South Dakota
South Dakota Department of Agriculture,
"South Dakota Farm Survey," 1988
Virginia
Virginia Council on the Environment,
Pesticide Management in Virginia, Special
Report, January 1989
Virginia Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, Office of Pesticide
Management, 1990 "Clean Day" Pilot
Project Report, 1990.
Wisconsin
Zuelsdorff, Wisconsin DATCP,
"Environmental Contamination at Pesticide
Mixing/Loading Sites," 1989
Wyoming
Wyoming Department of Agriculture,
"Grant Application to the Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality:
Reduction of Non-Point Source Pollution
through Agricultural Pesticide Education
and Disposal" 1991
Articles. Reports. Journals and Treatises
1989 State of the Region Annual Report,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
AAPCO, "Financial Survey of the
Cooperative EPA and State Pesticide
Regulatory and Educational Programs,"
August, 1989
Agrichemicais and Groundwater
Protection: Resources and Strategies for
State and Local Management, Proceedings
of a Conference held October 24-25,1988,
Freshwater Foundation, 1989
Bureau of National Affairs (BNA)
Environment Reporter, Washington D.C.
Braun, Morrow, Ripley and Frank,
"Efficiency of Water Rinsing for the
Decontamination of Used Pesticide
Containers, " Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology, 1983
BNA
Distribution Service Center
9435 Key West Avenue
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Tel: 1(800) 372-1033
Clifford and Nies, "Organophosphate
Poisoning from Wearing a Laundered
Uniform Previously Contaminated with
Parathion," JAMA 262(21)
Cooke, The Law of Hazardous Waste,
Matthew Bender, 1989
Crop Protection Chemicals Reference
Chemical and Pharmaceutical Publishing
Corporation
27 East 39th Street
New York, New York 10157-0503
Ebner, The Role of Pesticide Enforcement
in Toxic Tort Litigation," National
Environmental Enforcement Journal, June
1989
ICF Inc. and SHR Communications &
Design, Pesticide Label Criteria and
A-7
-------
Recommendations: Report on Findings of
Focus Group Discussions, 1988
Improving On-Target Placement of
Pesticides, Report of a Conference
sponsored by the .Agricultural Research
Institute, 1988.
Lennett and Greer, "State Regulation of
Hazardous Waste," Ecology Law
Quarterly, Vol. 12, 1985
ME. Gilmore
National Fertilizer and Environmental
Research Center
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxvffle, Tennessee 37902
Tel: (615) 632-2101
McCabe, "Pesticide Law Enforcement: A
Blueprint for State Action," National
Environmental Enforcement Journal* June
1989
Midwest Recycling Coalition
P.O. Box 14792
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414
Attn: Mr. Bill Dunn, President
Miles, Harris and Morrow, "Assessment of
Hazards Associated with Pesticide
Container Disposal and of Rinsing
Procedures as a Means of Enabling
Disposal of Pesticide Containers in
Sanitary Landfills, " Journal of
Environmental Science and Health, B18(3)
Minnesota AgriNcws, November 22,1990
National Coalition Against the Misuse of
Pesticides, (NCAMP)
701 E Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C
National Solid Wastes Management
Association
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C 20036
Tel: (202) 659-4613
Noyes and Kammel;, "Modular Concrete
Wash/Containment Pad for Agricultural
Chemicals, "Paper NoV 891613, ASAE
Meeting Presentation, December 1989
Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response
U.S. EPA, An Analysis of State Superfund
Programs: 50-State Study,
EPA/540/8-89/011, September 1989
Pesticides andGround Water Strategy
EPA 21 T-1022, October 1991
U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
Washington, D.C 20460
"Pesticide Containers: A Report to
Congress"
EPA 540/09-91-116, May 1992
U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs
Washington, D.C 20460
"Pesticides on Fire,"
15,1985
Maine Times, March
Public Citizen's Congress Watch
215 Pennsylvania Avenue, S£.
Washington, D.C 20003
Tel: (202) 546-4996
"State's Budget Woes Crimp Program for
DDT Disposal," Bangor Daily News,
October 13, 1990
Stensvaag, Hazardous Waste
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
215 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C 20003
Tel: (202) 546-9707
U.S. EPA, Summary of National
Conferences and Workshops on Pesticide
A-8
-------
Waste Disposal, Managing Pesticide
Wastes: Recommendations for Action,
July 1988
Waste Watch Center
16 Haverhffl Street ^
Andover, Massachusetts 01810
Tel: (508) 470-3044
West Publishing
P.O. Box 64833
610 Opperman Drive
St Paul, Minnesota 55164-1803
Attn: Government Services
A-9
-------
APPENDIX 3
STATE AGENCIES
STATE
PESTICIDE USE
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION
WATER POLLUTION
AIR POLLUTION
WASTE DISPOSAL
Alabama
Department of Agriculture and Industries
Division of Agricultural Chemistry
P.O. Box 3336
Montgomery, Alabama 36109-0336
(205) 242-2631
Advised by a Pesticide Advisory Committee of
Departments of Agriculture, Public Health,
Conservation, Extension Service. Farm Bureau,
Alabama Pesticide Institute
Department of Environmental Management
1751 Congressman WX. Dickinson Dr.
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
(205) 271-7700
(205) 271-7861 (air)
(205) 271-7736 (HW)
(205) 271-7823 (water)
Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation
P.O. Box 2309
Palmer, Alaska 99645
(907) 745-3236
Alaska also has a Division of Agriculture within the
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Environmental Conservation
P.O. Box 0
Jnneau. Alaska 99811-1800
(907)465-2600
(907) 465-2666 (HW and air)
(907) 465-2634 (water)
Arizona
Arizona Department of Agriculture
AffffGuitpfy Citcnuc&l &nd EnwomncntBl Services
Division
1688 West Adams Phoenix, Arizona 85007
(602) 542-3579
Structural Pest Control Commission 1150 South
Priest Drive
Tempe, Arizona 85281-5261
(602) 255-3664
Department of Environmental Quality
2005 Norm Central Avenue
Phoenix. Arizona 85004
(602) 257-2300
(602) 257-6917 (air)
(602) 257-6917 (water)
Contains!
Office of Air Quality
Office of Waste Programs
Office of Water Quality
Arkansas
State Plant Board
Division of Feeds, Fertilizer and Pesticides
P.O. Box 1069
No. 1 Natural Resource Drive
Little Rock. Arkansas 72203
(501) 225-1598
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology 8001
National Drive
P.O. Box 9583
Little Rock, Arkansas 72209
(501) 562-7444
A-10
-------
STATE
PESTICIDE USE
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION
WATER POLLUTION
AIR POLLUTION
WASTE DISPOSAL
California
Department of Food and Agriculture
Division of Pest Management
1220 N Street
Sacramento, California -95814
(916) 322-6315
Department of Consumer Affairs
1430 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, California 95825
(916) 920-6089 (structural pest control certification)
The Governor is implementing a restructuring plan
to create an Environmental Protection Agency and
transfer the pesticide regulation functuions of the
Department of Food and Agriculture to the new
agency.
Department of Health Services
(916)324-3773 (hazardous waste)
Air Resources Board
P.O. Box 2815
Sacramento, California 95812
(916) 322-2990
Water Resources Control Board
901 P. Street
Sacramento, California 95801-0100
(916)445-3993
Waste Management Board
1020 9th Street
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 322-3330
Colorado
Department of Agriculture
Division of Plant Industry
700 Kipling Street
Lakewood, Colorado 80215-5894
(303) 239-4140
Department of Health
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
(303) 331-8500 (air)
(303) 331-4830 (waste)
(303) 331-4530 (water)
Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection
Pesticide Management Division
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
(203) 566-5148
Connecticut also has a Department of Agriculture.
Department of Environmental Protection
165 Capitol Avenue
(203) 566-4924 (hazardous waste)
(203) 566-2110 (air)
122 Washington Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
(203) 566-3245 (water)
(203) 566-5847 (solid waste)
Delaware
Department of Agriculture Pesticide
Compliance Supervisor
2320 South DuPont Highway
Dover, Delaware 19901
(302) 739-4811
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
89 Kings Highway
Dover, Delaware 19901
(302) 73^4403 (air)
(302) 736-4764 (water)
(203) 736-4781 (waste)
A-ll
-------
STATE
PESTICIDE USE
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION
WATER POLLUTION
AIR POLLUTION
WASTE DISPOSAL
Florida
. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Division oHiu
3125 Conner Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650
(904) 488-7447
Advised on sale, use and registration by Pesticide
Review Council composed of Departments of
Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environmental
Regulation, Health and Rehabilitative Services.
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.
Department of Health and Rehabilitation Services
P.O. Box 210
Jacksonville, Florida 32241
(904) 798-4594
(structural pest control certification)
Department of Environmental Regulation
7600 Plairttone Road • • <•<
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
(904) 488-6221 (water)
(904) 488-0300 (solid waste)
(904) 488-3601 (hazardous waste)
(904) 488-1344 (air)
Georgia
Department of Agriculture
Entomology and Pesticide Division
19 Martin Luther King Drive, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
(404)656-4958
Department of Natural Resources
Floyd Towers East
205 Butler St. S£.
Atlanta. Georgia 30334
(404) 656-4708 (water)
(404) 656-2833 (waste)
(404) 656-6900 (air)
Hawaii
Department of Agriculture
Division of Plant IDOUSD^
1428 South King Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96814-2512
(808) 548-7122
Department of Health
Box 3378
1250 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
(808) 548-4139 (water, waste, air)
Idaho
Department of Agriculture
Division of Agricultural Technology
P.O. Box 790
Boise, Idaho 83701-0790
(208) 334-3243
Department of Health and Welfare
450 West State Street
Boise, Idaho 83720
(208) 334-5840 (air)
(208) 334-4250 (water)
(208) 334-5879 (waste)
Section 22-3413 of Pesticide Law provides that
containers and pesticides are to be disposed of in
accordance with DJLW. regulations.
A-12
-------
STATE
PESTICIDE USE
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION
WATER POLLUTION
AIR POLLUTION
WASTE DISPOSAL
Illinois
Department of Agriculture
Plant and Apiary Protection
State Fairgrounds
P.O. Box 19281 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9281
(217) 782-3817
Department of Public Health
Pesticides and Vector Control
535 West Jefferson Street
Springfield, Illinois 62761
(217) 782-4674
Illinois Pollution Control Board
104 West University
Urbana, Illinois 61801
(217) 333-5573
Adopts regulations governing the state's
environmental protection programs. Regulations are
implemented by other agencies.
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62702
(217) 785-5735
Hazardous Waste Center
1808 Woodfield Drive
Savoy, Illinois 61874
(217)333-8941 (hazardous waste)
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
325 West Adams Street
Springfield, Illinois 62704
(217) 785-2002 (solid waste)
Pesticide activities are conrtmatnd by a non-
regulatory Interagency Committee on Pesticides.
Indiana
Indiana State Chemist Office
Department of Biochemistry
1154 Biochemistry Building
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-1154
(317)494-1587
Department of Environmental Management
105 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, T^'ana 46206-6015
(317) 232-5028 (water)
(317) 232-4473 (solid waste)
(317) 232-4458 (hazardous waste)
(317) 232-8389 (air)
State Board of Health
105 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
(317) 232-8217 (air)
Iowa
Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
Pesticide Control Section
Wallace Building
DCS Moines, Iowa 50319
(515) 281-8591
Department of Natural Resources
E. Ninth and Grand Avenue
Wallace Building
DCS Moines. Iowa 50319-0034
(515) 281-5385 (water)
(515) 281-8693 (waste)
(515) 281-8852 (air)
A-13
-------
STATE
PESTICIDE USE
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION
WATER POLLUTION
AIR POLLUTION
WASTE DISPOSAL
Kansas
State Board of Agriculture
Plant Health Division v
109 S.W. 9th Street
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1281
(913) 292-2263
State Department of Health and Environment
Rubes Reid Topeka, Kansas 66620
(913) 296-1535 (water, SW)
(913) 296-1593 (air)
(913) 296-1607 (HW)
Kentucky
Department of Agriculture Division of Pesticides
500 Metro Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
(502) 564-7274
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
Cabinet
ISRefflyRoad
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
(502) 564-3410 (air. water)
(502) 564-3350 (HW)
(502) 564-6716 (SW)
Louisiana
Department of Agriculture and Forestry
Division of Pesticide and Environmental Programs
P.O. Box 3596
Capitol Station
Baton Rouge. Louisiana 70821-3596
(504) 925-3763
Structural Pest Control Commission within DoA.
DoA has jurisdiction over establishment of program
for monitoring pesticide wastes, investigation and
clean up of pPSticMf- waste sites, monitoring for
01
Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box
44091
P.O. Box 44091 (water)
P.O. Box 44207 (waste)
P.O. Box 44096 (air)
Pfltrpn Rouge, Lo11*"*"*?! 70804
(504) 342-6363 (water)
(504) 342-1216 (waste)
(504) 342-9047 (air)
TSD facility regulations must be developed with
Department of Health and Human Resources,
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; pesticide
disposal must follow Department of Agriculture
regulations or be subject to Department of
Environmental Quality regulations.
Maine
Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural
Resources
Board of Pesticides Control
State House Station 28
Augusta, Maine 04333
(207) 289-2731
Department of Environmental Protection
State House Station 17
Augusta, Maine 04333
(207) 289-2811
A-14
-------
STATE
PESTICIDE USE
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION
WATER POLLUTION
AIR POLLUTION
WASTE DISPOSAL
Maryland
Department of Agriculture ..
Pesticide Regulation Section -
SO Harry S. Truman Parkway
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
(301) 841-5710
Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway •-<•
Baltimore, Maryland 21224
(301) 631-3255 (air)
(301) 631-3304 (HW, SW)
Water Management Administration Health and
Mental Hygiene Department
201 W. Preston Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(301) 225-6300
Secretary of Agriculture must review rules for
hazardous substance spills and clean up when
pesticides are the hazardous substances at issue.
Massachusetts
Department of Food and Agriculture
Pesticide Bureau
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
(617) 727-3020
Department of Environmental Protection
(formerly Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering)
One Winter Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
(617) 292-5636 (water)
(617) 292-5856 (air)
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
(617) 727-3260 (SW.HW)
Michigan
Department of Agriculture
Pesticide and Plant Management Division
P.O. Box 30017
Lansing, Michigan 48909
(517) 373-1087
Registration decisions required to be made
cooperatively by Departments of Agriculture,
Natural Resources, Public Health and Michigan
^r flier Resources Commission >
Department of N&tund Resources
608 West Aliegan
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
(517) 373-7917 (solid waste)
(517) 373-2730 (hazardous waste)
(517) 373-2329 (water)
Department of Public Health
P.O. Box 30035
Lansing, Michigan 38909
(517) 373-3720 (air)
A-15
-------
STATE
PESTICIDE USE
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION
WATER POLLUTION
AIR POLLUTION
WASTE DISPOSAL
Minnesota
Department of Agriculture
Agronomy Services Division
90 West Plato Boulevard Street
Paul, Minnesota 55107
(612) 296-8547
Pollution Control Agency
1520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul. Minnesota 55155
(612) 296-7282 (SW)
(612) 296-7331 (air)
Office of Waste Management
1350 Energy Lane Street
Paul, Minnesota 55108
(612) 649-5750 (HW)
Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Road
St Paul, Minnesota 55155
(612) 296-4800 (water)
Mississippi
Department of Agriculture and Commerce
Division of Plant Industry
P.O. Box 5207
Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762
(601) 325-3390
Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 10385 (air. water)
P.O. Box 10485 (waste)
Jackson, Mississippi 39209
(601) 961-5100 (air. water)
(601) 961-5062 (solid waste)
(601) 961-5000 (hazardous waste)
Missouri
Department of Agriculture
Plant Industries Division
Bureau of Pesticide Control
P.O. Box 630
Jefferson City. Missouri 65102-0630
(314) 751-2462
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 176
City, Missouri 65102
(314) 751-4817 (air)
(314) 751-3176 (waste)
(314) 751-1300 (water)
Montana
Department of Agriculture Environmental
Management Division Capitol Station, 6th and
Roberts Helena, Montana 596204205
(406)444-2944
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
Cogswell Building
Capitol Station Helena, Montana 59620
(406) 444-2406 (water)
(406) 444-2821 (waste)
(406) 444-3454 (air)
Department must coordinate its activities with
programs administered by the Department of
Agriculture under the Pesticide Act
Nebraska
Department of Agriculture
Bureau of Plant Industry
301 Centennial Mall
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
(402)471-2394
Department of Environmental
Control 301
Centennial Mall
Lincoln. Nebraska 68509
(402)471-2186
A-16
-------
STATE
PESTICIDE USE
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION
WATER POLLUTION
AIR POLLUTION
WASTE DISPOSAL
Nevada
Department of Agriculture
Division of Plant Industry
350 Capitol Hill Avenue
P.O. Box 11100
Reno, Nevada 89510-1100
(702) 688-1180
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
"Division of Environmental Protection
Capitol Complex, Nye Building
201 S. Fall Street
Carson City, Nevada 89710
(702) 885-4670
New Hampshire
Department of Agriculture
Division of Pesticide Control
10 Ferry Street
Caller Box 2042
Concord, New Hampshire 03302-2042
(603) 271-3550
Department of Environmental Services
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
(603) 271-3503 (water, solid waste)
(603) 271-4608 (hazardous waste)
(603) 271-4582 (air)
New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Pesticide Control
380 Scotch Road, CN 411
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609) 5304123
New Jersey also has a Department of Agriculture.
Department of Environmental Protection
401 E. State Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609) 292-8879 (solid waste)
(609) 292-5383 (air)
(609) 633-1408 (waste)
(609) 984-3156 (water)
New Mexico
Department of Agriculture
Division of Agricultural and Environmental Services
P.O. Box 30005 New Mexico State University Las
Graces, New Mexico 88003-0005
(505) 646-2133
Department of Agriculture is responsible for
enforcement of regulations regarding generators of
hazardous agricultural waste. H.W. Regs section
74-4-4.1.
Department of Health and Environment
725 St. Michael Drive
P.O. Box 968
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0968
(505) 827-2850 (waste)
(505) 827-2793 (water)
(505) 827-0070 (air)
DoA regulations shall be consistent with regulations
of Environmental Improvement Board (Department
of Health and Environment). Water Quality Control
Commission and U.S. EPA.
New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Hazardous Substances Regulation
Bureau of Pesticide Management
Room 404
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-7254
(518) 457-7482
New York also has a Department of Agriculture
and Markets.
Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233
Contains:
Division of Air Resources:
(518) 457-3446
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation:
(518) 457-5861
Division of Water
(518) 457-3446
Division of Hazardous Substances Regulation:
hazardous waste, pesticides, radiation
(518)457-3446
Division of Solid Waste:
(518)457-3446
A-17
-------
STATE
PESTICIDE USE
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION
WATER POLLUTION
AIR POLLUTION
WASTE DISPOSAL
North Carolina
Food and Brag Protection Division and Structural
Pest Control Division
P.O. Box 27647
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-0647
(919) 733-3556
(919) 733-6100
(structural pest control)
North Carolina Division of Health Services
P.O. Box 2091 _'•'"•.'
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
(919) 733-2178 (waste)
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development
Environmental Management Division
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
(919) 733-7015 (air, water)
Department of Human Resources
SW Management Section
401 Oberlin Road
Raleign, North Carolina 27605
(919)733-4996
Container disposal subject to rales of Departments
of Agriculture, Health Services (sections 10 NCAC
10F on hazardous waste, and 10G on solid waste)
and Environmental Management (section 15A
NCAC 2d, air pollution).
North Dakota
Department of Health and Consolidated
P.O. Box 937
Bismark. North Dakota 585024)937
(701) 221-6149
Department of Agriculture
Capitol Building
Bismark, North Dakota 58505
(701)224-4756
(certification)
Department of Health and
1200 Missouri Avenue
Bismark, North Dakota 58501
(701) 224-2348 (air)
(701) 224-2366 (Division of Hazardous Waste
Management and Special Studies)
(701) 224-2354 (Water Supply and Pollution
Control Division)
Ohio
Department of Agriculture
Division of Plant ladustty
Pestidds
8995 last Main Street
Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068-3399
(614) 866-6361
Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
1800 Watermark Drive
Coiumbas, Ohio 43266-0149
(614) 481-4310 (air)
(614) 644-2917 (HW, SW)
(614) 644-2856 (water)
Oklahoma
Department of Agriculture
Plant Industry Division
2800 North Lincoln Boulevard
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 7310*4298
(405) 521-3864
Department of Health
1000 N£. Tenth Street
P.O. Box 53551
Oklahoma City. Oklahoma 73152
(405) 271-2540 (water)
(405) 271-5338 (waste)
(405) 271-5220 (air)
A-18
-------
STATE
PESTICIDE USE
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION
WATER POLLUTION
AIR POLLUTION
WASTE DISPOSAL
Oregon
Department of Agriculture^
Plant Division
635 Capitol Street. N.E.
Salem, Oregon 97310-0110
(503) 378-3776
Department of Environmental Quality
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 229-5696 (air. hazardous waste, water)
State Department of Forestry
2600 State Street
Salem, Oregon 97310
(503) 378-2560
(pesticide use on forestlands)
Pennsylvania
Department of Agriculture
Division of Agronomic Services
Bureau of Plant Industry
2301 North Cameron Street
Hanisbnrg, Pennsylvania 17110-9408
(717) 787-4843
Storage and disposal of pesticides and containers
shall follow regulations of DJEJt and US. EPA.
Section 128.103, Pesticide Regulations.
Department of Environmental Resources
Fulton Building
Hanisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 787-2666
(Bureau of Water Quality Management)
(717) 787-6239
(Bureau of Waste Management)
C717) 787-9702
(Bureau of Air Quality Control)
Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management
Division of Agriculture and Marketing
22 Hayes Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02908
(401) 277-2782
Department of Environmental Management
75 Davis Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02908
(401) 277-2808 (air. SW. HW)
Division of Water Resources
291 Promenade Street
Providence. Rhode Island 02908
(401) 277-2234
South Carolina
Department of Fertilizer and Pesticide Control
256 Poole Agricultural Center
Clemson, South Carolina 29634-0394
(803) 656-3171
South Carolina also has a Department of
Agriculture headquartered in Columbia.
Department of Health and Environmental Control
J. Marion Sims Building
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
(803) 7344608 (air)
(803) 734-5360 (water)
(803) 734-5213 (hazardous waste)
Disposal of unwanted pesticides and containers
shall folllow DJLE.C. regulations. Section
27-1082, Pesticide Regulations.
South Dakota
Department of Agriculture
Division of Regulatory Services
445 East Capitol
Pierre. South Dakota 57501-3188
(605) 773-3724
Department of Water and Natural Resources
Joe Foss Office Building
Pierre. South Dakota 57501
(605) 773-3151 (water)
(605) 773-3329 (waste, air)
A-19
-------
STATE
PESTICIDE USE
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION
WATER POLLUTION
AIR POLLUTION
WASTE DISPOSAL
Tennessee
Department of Agriculture
Division"ofPIarit Indiisnies ~
P.O. Box 40627. Melrose Station
Nashville, Tennessee 37204
(615) 3604)130
Department of Health and Environment
2nd Floor, TERRA Building (water)
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
(615) 741-6610 (water)
Department of Health and Environment
4th Floor, Customs House (waste)
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
(615) 741-3424 (waste)
Department of Health and Environment
6th Floor. TERRA Building
Nashville. Tennessee 37204
(615) 741-3931 (air)
Texas
Department of Agriculture
Environmental Programs Division
P.O. Box 12847
Austin. Texas 78711
(512)463-7440
Structural Pest Control Board
9101 Bornet Road
Austin. Texas 78758
(512) 835-4066
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Onpitol St&tioo
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-7760 (water, hazardous waste)
rtment of Health
1100 North 49th Street
Austin. Texas 78756
(512) 458-7271 (solid waste)
Air Control Board
6330 Highway 290 East
Austin, Texas 78756
(512)451-5711
Utah
Department of Agriculture
Division of Plant Industry
350 North Redwood Road
Salt Lake City. Utah 84116
(801) 538-7189
Department of Health
288 N. 1460 West
Salt Lake City. Utah 84116-0700
(801) 538-6159 (water)
(801) 538-6170 (waste)
(801) 538-6108 (air)
Vermont
Department of Agriculture
Plant Industry. Laboratory and Standards Division
116 State Street
Montpefier. Vermont 05602
(802) 828-2435
Department of Environmental Conservation
103 South Main Street
Waterbmy, Vermont 05676
(802) 244-6951 (water)
(802) 244-8731 (solid waste)
(802) 244-8755 (hazardous waste)
(802) 244-8731 (air)
Disposal of obsolete, excess and mixtures of
pesticides shall be in acordance with regulations of
the Hazardous Waste Management Law, 10 VSA,
chapter 10. ~
A-20
-------
STATE
PESTICIDE USE
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION
WATER POLLUTION
AIR POLLUTION
WASTE DISPOSAL
Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Office of Pesticide Management '""
P.O. Box 1163
Richmond, Virginia 23209
(804) 371-6558
Department of Waste Management
101 N. 14th Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 225-2667 (waste)
Air Pollution Control Board
801 9th Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 786-6035
State Water Control Board
P.O.Box 11143
Richmond, Virginia 23230
(804)257-6384 -
Washington
Department of Agriculture
Pesticide Management Division
406 General Administration Building, AX-41
Olympia, Washington 98504
(206) 753-5062
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 829
Olympia, Washington 98504
(206) 459-6143 (water)
(206) 459-6316 (solid waste)
(206) 459-6253 (hazardous waste)
(206) 4459-6256 (air)
Department of Agriculture has authority to
implement waste pesticide collection program.
West Virginia
Department of Agriculture
Regulatory and Inspection Division
Capitol Building
Charleston, West Virginia 25305
(304) 348-2209
Division of Waste Management
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston. West Virginia 25311
(304) 348-5935 (waste)
(304) 348-5929 (HW)
Air Pollution Control Commission
1558 Washington Street East
Charleston, West Virginia 25311
(304)348-2275
Department of Health
1800 Washington Street East
Charleston, West Virginia 25305
(304) 348-2981 (water)
Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection
Agricultural Chemical Management Bureau
801 W. Badger Road
Madison. Wisconsin 53708-8911
(608) 266-7129
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
(608) 266-8631 (water)
(608) 266-1327 (waste)
(608) 266-0603 (air)
A-21
-------
STATE
PESTICIDE USE
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION
WATER POLLUTION
AIR POLLUTION
WASTE DISPOSAL
Wyoming
Department of Agriculture
•Pesticide Control "
2219 Carey Avenue
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002-0100
(307) 777-6590
Environmental Quality Department
'122 W.25fh Street
Herschler Building
Cheyenne. Wyoming 82002
(307) 777-7781 (water)
(307) 777-7752 (SW)
(307) 777-7391 (air)
(307) 777-7096 (HW)
A-22
-------
APPENDIX 4
STATE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
STATE
STATUTES
REGULATIONS
Alabama
Alabama Pesticide Act of 1971, as amended,
section 2-27-1 et seq., Code of Alabama (Ala.
Code)
Alabama Pesticide Use and Application Act, as
amended, section 2-27-50 et seq.. Code of
Alabama (Ala. Code)
Department of Agriculture and Industries,
Agricultural Chemistry, chapter 80-1-13, Rules
governing sale and use of pesticides
Alaska
title 46, sections 46.03.320 through 46.03.330
and sections 46.03.710 through 46.03.900, Alaska
Statutes
Regulations of the Department of Environmental
Conservation, title 18, Environmental
Conservation, chapter 90 Pesticide Control, 18
AAC 90.010
Arizona
title 3, Article 5, Pesticides, section 3-341 et seq.,
Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS)
title 3, Article 6, Pesticide Control, sections
3-361 et seq., Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS)
title 3, Article 6.1, IPM, section 3-381 et seq.,
Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS)
Arizona Commission of Agriculture and
Horticulture, Pesticide Regulations, Article 1-6,
R3-10-101 et seq.
Arkansas
Arkansas Pesticide Use and Application Act,
chapter 20, subchapter 2, section 20-20-201 et
seq., Arkansas Statutes Annotated (Ark. Stat
Ann.)
Arkansas Pesticide Control Act, chapter 2,
subchapter 4, section 2-16-401 etseq^ Ark. StaL
Ann.
Arkansas State Plant Board, Regulations under
Act 389 of 1975 (Arkansas Pesticide Use and
Application Act)
Arkansas State Plant Board Regulations on 2,4-D,
2-4,5-T and other hormone-type herbicides
Arkansas State Plant Board, Regulations under
Arkansas
California
West's Annotated California Food and
Agriculture Code
Department of Food and Agriculture Regulation,
title 3 Administrative Code
Colorado
Colorado Pesticide Act, title 35, Article 9,
Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS)
Colorado Pesticide Applicators Act, title 35.
Article 10, CRS
Colorado Chemigation Act, title 35, Article 11,
CRS
Colorado Department of Agriculture, Division of
Plant Industry, Rules and Regulations pertaining
to the administration and enforcement of the
Pesticide Act
Colorado Department of Agriculture, Division of
Plant Industry, Rules and Regulations pertaining
to tile administration and enforcement of the
Commercial Pesticide Applicators Act
A-23
-------
STATE
STATUTES
REGULATIONS
Connecticut
Connecticut 'Pesticide Control Act, chapter 441,
sections 22a-46 through 22a-66z. 23-61a, 23-61b
through 23-61d, 23-61f, Connecticut General
Statutes (C.G.S.)
Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies:
Sec. 22a-54-2
Sec. 22a-65-l
Sec. 22a-66-l
Sec. 22a-66-2
Sec. 22a-66-3
Sec. 22a-66-5
Sec. 22a-66z-l
Sec. 19-300t
Delaware
Delaware Pesticide Law. title 3 Part n, chapter
12, Delaware Code (Dd.C.)
Delaware Department of Agriculture, Rules and
Regulations issued pursuant to the Delaware
Pesticide Law
District of Columbia
District of Columbia Ordinances, sections 1010,
1011,1308,1309
Florida
Florida Pesticide Law. title 31, chapter 487,
Florida Statutes (RS.)
Florida Pest Control Act, title 31, chapter 482,
F.S.
Rules of the Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, Florida Administrative Code
title
Rules of the Department of Environmental
Regulation, Florida Administrative Code, title 17(
Georgia
Georgia Pesticide Control Act of 1976, as
amended, Article 2, sections 2-7-50 through
2-7-73. Georgia Statutes (OCGA)
Georgia Pesticide Use and Application Act of
1976, as amended. Article 3, sections 2-7-90
through 2-7-111, OCGA
Rules of the Georgia Department of Agriculture,
Pesticide Use and Application, chapters 40-11-12,
40-21-1 through 40-21-8
Hawaii
Hawaii Pesticides Law, chapter 149A, Hawaii
Revised Statutes (HRS)
Pest Control Operators, chapter 460J, Hawaii
Revised Statutes
Department of Agriculture, Division of Plant
Industry Regulations, title 4, subtitle 6, chapter 66
Pesticides
Idaho
Idaho Pesticide Law, title 22, chapter 34, section
22-3401, et seq., Idaho Code
Idaho Chemigation Statute, title 22, chapter 14,
section 22-1401 et seq., Idaho Code
Pesticide Use and Application Rules and
Regulations issued pursuant to chapter 34, Idaho
Department of Agriculture, sections 1-22, as of
11/90
Chemigation Rules and Regulations issued
pursuant to chapter 14, Idaho Department of
Agriculture, sections 1-7
A-24
-------
STATE
STATUTES
REGULATIONS
Illinois
Illinois Pesticide Act, as amended, chapter'5."
paragraphs 802, et seq., SHA
Illinois Solid Waste Management Act
Amendments, chapter 111 1/2, paragraph 7057,
SHA
Lawn Care Products Application and Notice Act
title 8 Illinois Administrative Code, chapter I,
subchapter I, Pan 250, Illinois Pesticide Act
title 8 Illinois Administrative Code, chapter I,
subchapter i. Part 255, Agricnemical Facilities
Indiana
Indiana Pesticide Registration Law, 1C 15-3-3.5
Indiana Pesticide Use and Application Law, 1C
15-3-3.6
Indiana Herbicide Law, 1C 15-3-1.1
Indiana Administrative Code, title 357,
Registration title 355, Primary and Secondary
Containment of Pesticides (proposed)
Rules and Regulations under the Indiana Pesticide
Use and Application Law
Iowa
Pesticide Act of Iowa, sections 206.1 through
20632, Iowa Code (IQ
Rules and Regulations of the Iowa Department of
Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Iowa
Administrative Code (IAC), Agriculture and Land
Stewardship
Kansas
Kansas Pesticide Law, as amended, title 2,
Article 24. sections 2-2438a et seq., Kansas
Statutes
Kansas Agricultural Chemical Act of 1947. as
amended, title 2, Article 22, sections 2-2201 et
seq.
to the Kansas Pesticide Act, sections 4-13-1, et
seq.
AflnunistrBtivc Rcfful&iiofis issued pu^susnt
to the Agricultural Chemical Act. sections 4-1-2 et
seq.
Kentucky
Kentucky Pesticide Use and Application Act of
1972, as amended, chapter 217B, Kentucky
Revised Statutes (KRS)
Kentucky Pesticide Control Act of 1974. KRS
217.542 through 217.630,217.998
Kentucky Administrative Regulations. 302 KAR
31:005, et seq.
Louisiana
Louisiana Pesticide Law, section 3-3201 et seq.,
Louisiana Revised Statutes
Rules and Regulations of Louisiana Department of
Agriculture, and Forestry Advisory Commission
on Pesticides, Louisiana Administrative Code, title
7
Maine
Maine Pesticide Control Act of 1975, as
amended, 7 MRSA sections 601, et seq.
Maine Board of Pesticides Control 22 MRSA
sections 1471-A, et seq.
Maine Board of Pesticides Control, Pesticide
Regulations, chapter 1 et seq.
A-25
-------
STATE
STATUTES
REGULATIONS
Maryland
Pesticide Applicator's Law, title 5, sections
5-201, et seq.. Agriculture Code, Annotated Code
of Maryland
Maryland Pesticide Registration and Labeling
Law, title 5. sections 5-101, et seq., Agriculture
Code, Annotated Code of Maryland
Maryland Department of Agriculture, Regulations
Pertaining to the Pesticide Applicators Law, title
15, subtitle 05. Pesticide Use Control
Massachusetts Pesticide Control Act, as
amended, chapter 123B, Massachusetts General
Laws
Rules and Regulations of the Massachusetts
Department of Agriculture, 333 CMR 1.00, et seq.
Michigan
Michigan Pesticide Control Act, section 286.551
et seq., Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated
Rules and Regulations of the Michigan
Department of Agriculture, Plant Industry
Division, Michigan Administrative Code, Rules
285.633.1 et seq, 285.636.1 et seq.
Minnesota
Minnesota Pesticide Control Law of 1987, as
rmrnfaj chapter 18B, section 18BA1 et seq.,
Minnesota Statutes (MSA)
Agricultural Chemical Liability, Incidents and
Enforcement, chapter 18D. sections 18D.01 et
seq., MS A
Agricultural Chemical Incident Payment and
Reimbursement, rhaptw 18E, factions ISEjOl et
seq., MSA
Rules and Regulations of the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture, Pest and Disease
Control, chapter 1505
Mississippi Pesticide Law of 1975. as amended,
section 69-23-1 et seq., Mississippi Code
Annotated (Miss. Code Ann.)
Mississippi Pesticide Application Law. section
69-23-100001 et seq.. Miss. Code Ann.
Regulations of Mississippi Department of
Agriculture and Commerce. Division of Plant
Industry
Missouri
Missouri Pesticide Use Act. section 281.010 et
ieq~ Revised Statutes Mtssonri (MQ, Rev, stst)
Missouri Pesticide Registration Act. section
263269 et seq.. (Mo. Rev. StaL)
Regulations of the Missouri Department of
Ajfffjfipltiyyy^ PsSJlt fnHtrg^y^^g Tjjy*g*g*^ PTJfKSj £
Pesticide Control. 2 CSJL 7C 2.C1C & seq., 2
CS JL 70-25.010 et seq.
Montana Pesticides Act, title 80. chapter 8.
section 80-8-101 et seq.. Revised Code of
Montana (RCM)
Montana Pesticides Act Administrative Rules,
Administrative Rules of Montana. Volume 2
A-26
-------
STATE
STATUTES
REGULATIONS
Nebraska
Nebraska Pesticide Law, title 2, Article 26, "
section 2-2601 et seq., Nebraska Revised Statutes
Rules and Regulations of the Nebraska
Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant
Industry, Nebraska Administrative Code, title 25
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control,
Rules and Regulations pertaining to Agricultural
Chemical Containment, title 198 (proposed)
Nevada
Custom Application of Pesticides, chapter 555,
section 555.021 et seq., Nevada Revised Statutes
Nevada Pesticides Act. chapter 586, section
586.010 et seq., Nevada Revised Statutes
Rules and Regulations of the Nevada Department
of Agriculture, Nevada Administrative Code,
chapter 555 (NAC 555)
New Hampshire
Pesticides Controls, chapter 430, section 430:28
et seq.. Revised Statutes Annotated
Administrative Rules of the Pesticide Control
Board, New Hampshire Code of Administrative
Rules
New Jersey
Pesticide Control Act of 1971, as amended, title
13. chapter IF. section 13:1F-1 et seq.. New
Jersey Statutes Annotated (NJSA)
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Pesticide Control Program, New Jersey
Pesticide Control Code. NJAC title 7. Chapter 30
New Mexico
Pesticide Control Act. chapter 76. Article 4.
section 76-4-1 et seq.. New Mexico Statutes
Annotated (NMSA)
Rules and Regulatory Orders issued by New
Mexico State University and the New Mexico
Department of Agriculture pursuant to the
Pesticide Control Act
New York
Environmental Conservation Law, Article 15,
title 3 Article 33, titles 1.3.5.7,10,11.13,15
Article 71, title 29
Department of Environmental Conservation. Rules
and Regulations Relating to the Application of
Pesticides, 6 NYCRR Pan 325
Department of Environmental Conservation,
Restricted Pesticides, 6 NYCRR Part 326
North Carolina
North Carolina Pesticide Law of 1971, as
amended, chapter 143, Article 52, General
Statutes of North Carolina
Rules and Regulations of the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture, 2 N.CA.C. 9L
North Dakota
North Dakota Pesticide Act of 1975, as amended,
chapter 4-35. section 4-35-01 et seq., North
Dakota Century Code (NDCQ
Rules and Regulations of the Norm Dakota
Pesticide Control Board, Article 60-01 et seq.
Ohio
Ohio Pesticide Law, chapter 921, section 921.01
et seq., Ohio Revised Code
Regulations adopted by the Ohio Department of
Agriculture pursuant to the Ohio Pesticide Law,
Rules 901:5-11-01 et seq., Ohio Administrative
Code
A-27
-------
STATE
STATUTES
REGULATIONS
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Pesticide Law, title 2, Article 13,
section 3-61 et seq., Oklahoma Statutes
Oklahoma Pesticide Applicator Law, title 2,
Article 13, section 3-81 et seq., Oklahoma
Statutes
Rules and Regulations issued by the Oklahoma
Department of Agriculture pursuant to the
Pesticide Law, section 3-222 et seq.
Rules and Regulations issued by the Oklahoma
Department of Agriculture pursuant to the
Pesticide Applicator Law, section 3-380
Oregon
Oregon State Pesticide Control Act, chapter 634,
section 634.006 et seq.. Oregon Revised Statutes
Rules and Regulations of the Oregon Department
of Agriculture, chapter 603, Division 57, Ore
Rules and Regulations of the Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality, Hazardous Waste
Management Rules, chapter 340. Division 109,
Oregon Administrative Rules
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Pesticide Control Act of 1973. as
amended, title 3. section 11121 et seq.,
Pennsylvania Statutes
Rules and Regulations of the Pennsylvania
Department of Agriculture. 7 Pennsylvania Code
chapter 128
Rhode Island
Rhode Island Pesticide Control Act of 1976, as
amended, chapter 23-25, section 23-25-1 et seq..
General Laws of Rhode Island
Rotes and Regulations of the Department of
Environmental Management, Rules and
Regulations relating to Pesticides, Rote A et seq.
South Carolina
Sooth Carolina Pesticide Control Act, title 46,
chapter 13. section 46-13-10 et seq.. Sooth
Carolina Code 1976
Department of Fertilizer and Pesticide Control.
Ctemson University, Rules and Regulations for the
Enforcement of die South Carolina Pesticide
Control Act. section 27-1071 et seq.
South Dakota
Sooth Dakota Insecticide. Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act of 1947, as amended, chapter
38-20A, section 38-20A-1 et seq.. Sooth Dakota
Compiled Laws (SDCL)
Agricultural Pesticide Application, chapter 38-21,
section 38-21-14. et seq.. SDCL
Rotes and Regulations of the Sooth Dakota
Department of Agriculture, Article 1236,
Pesticides
Tennessee
Tennessee Application of Pesticides Act of 1978,
as amended, section 62-2101 et seq., Tennessee
Code Annotated (TCA)
Commercial Aerial Application of Pesticides Act,
section 43-9-101 et seqn TCA
Tennessee Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act, section 43-8-101 et seq.. TCA
Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Laws and
Regulations Governing Pest Control Operators and
Applicators of Restricted Use Pesticides
A-28
-------
r
STATE
STATUTES
REGULATIONS
Texas
Herbicide Regulation, chapter 75, section 75.001
et seq., Yemen's Annotated Civil Statutes
Texas Pesticide Control Act, chapter 76, Texas
Agriculture Code, section 76.001 et seq.,
Yemen's Annotated Civil Statutes
Texas Structural Pest Control Act, Article
135 b-6. Texas Civil Statutes
Texas Department of Agriculture, Texas Pesticide
Regulations, chapter 7.1 et seq.
Utah
Utah Pesticide Control Act, title 4, chapter 14,
section 4-14-1 et seq., Utah Statutes
Utah Department of Agriculture. Rules Pertaining
to the Utah Pesticide Control Act, R68-07
Vermont
Insecticides, Fungicides and Rodenticides, title 6,
chapter 81, section 911 et seq., Vermont Statutes
Annotated
Control of Pesticides, title 6, chapter 87, section
1101 et seq., Vermont Statutes Annotated
Department of Agriculture, Food and Markets,
Vermont Regulations for Control of Pesticides in
Accordance with 6 V.S A. chapter 87
Virginia
Virginia Pesticide Law, section 3.1-189 et seq..
Code of Virginia
Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services. Rules and Regulations for Enforcement
of the Virginia Pesticide Law, VR 115-04-03
Washington
Washington Pesticide Control Act, title 15 .
chapter 15.58, section 15.58.010 et seq.. Revised
Code of Washington (RCW)
Washington Pesticide Application Act, title 17,
chapter 17.20, section 1720.010 et seq., RCW
Rules and Regulations of the Washington State
Department of Agriculture, WAC 16-228-003 et
seq. WAC 16-231-001 et seq.
West Virginia West Virginia Pesticide Control Act of 1990, as
amended, chapter 19, Article 16 A Code of West
Virginia repeals and replaces :
West Virginia Pesticide Use and Application Act
of 1975, as amended. Article 16B, section
19-16B-1 et seq.. Code of West Virginia
West Virginia Administrative Regulations, State
Department of Agriculture, chapter 19-16B, Roles
and Regulations dealing with pesticide use,
licensing of businesses, pesticide applicators and
dealers.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Pesticide Law, chapter 94, Plant
Industry, section 94.67 et seq., Wisconsin
Statutes
Rules and Regulations of the Department of
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection,
chapters Ag 29 and Ag 163, Wisconsin
Administrative Code
Rules and Regulations of the Department of
Natural Resources, chapters NR 80 and NR 107,
Wisconsin Administrative Code
A-29
-------
STATE
STATUTES
REGULATIONS
Wyoming
Wyoming Environmental Pesticide Control Act
of 1973, as amended. Division 3, Environmental
Pesticide Control, section 35-7-350 et seq.,
Wyoming Statutes
Wyoming Department of Agriculture, Applicator
Certification Rules and Regulations
A-30
-------
APPENDIX 5
STATE BULK CONTAINMENT REGULATIONS
'SlaU
AAPCO
Model Bulk Pesti-
cide Rules, adop-
ted March 1990
Applicability
Facility or site
where bulk pesti-
cides are stored
for more than 30
consecutive days
per year in quanti-
ties Beater j^**"
300 gallons liquid
or 100 pounds dry
for purposes of
irnarsraffinr
Operational Area
For mixinc/loadinc/
washing/ rinsing:
structure or system
effectively A*T*B"M*
MM! «wt«*nw*Mi trt
intercept and con-
tain discharges.
•vu*infini0 mttainrr
or equipment wash
water, nnsates, and
rain water and to '
prevent escape, run-
off and leaching
Secondary
Containment ~'
Required for *fl
bulk storage facili-
ties:
Made of sufficient
thickness, density
and comDosition
to i^mtf^iii dis-
charges and liquid
tight
Capacity of 110%
of largest single
container + vol-
ume displaced by
containers and
other afipnrtenajtr- •
area for outdoor
storage
Capacity of 100%
of largest con-
tainers-volume
displaced by con-
tainers •*"* other
ooder loof
Sloped floors or
oouraged to facfli-
Ute removal of
nmwater and
other liquids;
acceptable only if
^•••iMB l»Jla»t»m
wiuun rnmani-
tnent
' RecoriUceeping
ContemDOianeous
inspection and main-
tenance reports:
- weekly inspec-
tions of bulk
Storage gnntajp..
enduring use
season
- monthly inspec-
tion of secondary
MVffitafnmrni
. monthly for
operational areas
Records of discharg-
es into operational
area or secondary
Volume:
- ncoras of vol-
ume at time of
filing or dispens-
ing from contain-
er
records of vol-
utes delivered,
sold, used
- by weighing, me-
tering or direct
Container
SpecBIcatlons
Containers to be
constructed, iniul-
]M| fful ftiiintainrd
to prevent a dis-
charge and shall be
of «*i«t»g^«i« and
construction com-
patible with pesti-
cide stored and
conditions of stor-
•«* tn/»lM«4tn0 lahrl-
ing specifications
THIS TABLE ROUGHLY HIGHLIGHTS STATE REQUIREMENTS -
CONSULT STATE/LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND UPDATES ON REQUIREMENTS
A-31
-------
sUacate Management
Discharges and rainwa-
ter disposed of as pro-
vided oalabcl when . •-«•-.
fm^-SH^t^gt,*li '. 1^...
ed or unfit for use or
lli^""^*l j_ rril MtlAll
for guidance
Water from contain-
ment areas may be used
for ftff«tt«« or i^bfr
appropriate use if rea-
sonably free of residue
Rainwater it"* other
\jrwniAm ]Mf tft •^•^•••rti-
«_^«M •— *— — ~~~^^^~ ..
late to point where
ounimnm containment
•UK mititaiiuH
1
1
1
SpID Response
Operator most have
wnOen emergency and
• *"*«Bf* ntf^g*f plm
affaoility and at local: '
fire and police deput-
fnaiti
Facility must have
equipment needed to
tnitigate and recover
discharges
Emergency and dis-
charge response nam-
ing for all employees
^.a.--. i-ji^ji «ui hef|v»
».<4. UKUM
Opentor to contact
state agency for gold-
••««•• ' ••!••!•• tm t^llmmf
if possible; if iTitrtlnM*
quantity, operator to
notify National Re-
sponse Center
Scotrtty
Locking devices re-
quired on ccotainen;
Hg*tiiij or fencing
maybe required
Dry Bulk Storage
Comments
f fTfitaM** trsnsponation
requiremenu
fVpit»f^« kmlV- 1n/f
non-bulk repackaging
requirements to comply
with FIFRA Sections 3
and 7. including speci-
fications for refilling
dedicated non-bulk
container and specifica-
tions for refilling bulk
container for end users
Underground storage
bulk pesticides, pesti*
rid?' containing rintr
water or dischuges
prohibited
Cute
prior to saiaal ship-
ment and/or facility
registry
l-MOixn in rnimtinu.
with local, atate. feder-
al regulations; appro-
safeguanls when locat-
ed m fsoodplam.
ground water rechaige
areas, near weDs or
water
THE TABLE RCUGHLY KIGKLiGKTS STATE REQuTREMEras -
CONSULT STATE/LOCAL AXTTHCMUnES FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND UPDATES ON REQUIREMENTS
A-32
-------
State
Florida
Rules of the De-
nanme&t of-.Envi-
IrTr^f??^*? 3f f ^p *•
tKin Chapter
17-762. Above-
ground Storage
Tank Systems.
adopted 3/12/91
Applicability
Owners and opera-
ton of stationary
aboveground stor-
age tank systems
lor liotud pountsnts
cides) with storage
capacity over 550
gallons
Standards for con-
struction, installa-
tion, maintenance.
registration, remov-
al and disposal
Exempts:
• tmntMiW tank
otowod to Qiffcr*
ent location at
least every 180
days
- evaporationAiegn
danon system for
ffmtfai^f. eqnip-
iff**** nnsewatefs
- any storage tank
system located
entirely within an
enclosed baflding
ter from reaching
tank and with
impervious floor
with no drain
- storage tank sys-
tem for temporary
storage of mix*
tores and pesti*
cides and aJbeot
sismam *** scjaj1-
plicrtion
Operational Area
Loading areas to
hp"r ipflf contain-
ment system to pre-
vent discharge *of
pollutant transferred
Secondary
Containment
Piping in contact
with soil must have
secondary fntitain-
ment -i ---.
For tank: impervious
secondary conuin-
ment designed to
direct release to
monitoring points or
treatment system or
NFPA 30. ch. 2-23.
and be impervious to
pesticides stored or
liner of concrete.
compatible synthetics
clay meeting DER
specs
fixiftfai? tanks mav
have tmpervions
interior coati&g in-
stalled inttfstf of
secondary contain-
ment undemeath but
must have secondary
tank
Capacity of at least
110* volume of
I-.— -,! taftV •.•il.* .1
largest ISJIIK wiuun
tank is contained in
enclosed concrete
vault or doable wall
tank
Pump if not ptotect-
ed from rainfall
Recordkeeptaig
Records of repairs
Mruurrmrnti snH
r^XMKiliitwn of
inventory
Results of monitor-
ing
DM*«** «tfffM*tt«W
system performance
clahnt
Dates of upgrades
Results of monthly
inspection and main-
tenance
Results of pressure
tests and others on
tank systems
f^fmiir gjgf Jim* iitt
Cnttfifatifin iff fi-
nancial iTHMMuihtl-
ity
Container
SpcdflcaUons
New tanks to meet
certain industry codr
specs (AJM.) and be
infillfrf fntfiftrnt
with NFPA 30
Supported on well
drained stable foun-
dation
Exterior coating to
prevent corrosion and
deterioration
Overfill protection:
no more than 95%
filled if less than
5.000 gallons and
ntiiw ntifitul tansV*
"""••'O avsja«««««sj«»«si«st >>***wa>B.
Piping in f-ffnttrt
with sofl to be con-
•tmcted of ipcdfic
material and meet
tr^fififA f*pApt (inc.
NFPA 30)
Piping not in contact
with solid to be con-
structed in accor-
dance with accepted
and NFPA 30. ch. 3
THIS TABLE ROUGHLY HIGHLIGHTS STATE REQUIREMENTS -
CONSULT STATE/LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND UPDATES ON REQUIREMENTS
A-33
-------
Kiottte Maaageacsjt
Sunnwater or waste-
water from secondary
enl nquiicmenu be*
fote discharge; stoan-
waier to IK ili>»ii tff
within one week
SplU ReapsjMt
Reporting toDERor
local aMDCV under
m**^mm ^p«M*w^ waMmw
gaDooj on pervioui.
100 gattooj or impervi-
|1M1> CfV) »itrt ajLjuijL«4«rv
^»*M pM%»ffit vjthin 24
boon
RsSpoftuu of positive
" • I "• • ^^ ar
rr*r~**** of leakdetec-
Metfaod of release de-
lectian feqotred; facili-
ties minfi Miill Mewtn-
v^w ^^MMQ ^^»B* J»»»-™««
QH Pan 112 must
• I mtm ill
nptfaoe
Reqoitemeats f or iv-
pain
hnmedute effort! to
^2^BBIOI*'"blte
r^l*t
Se«rtry
, ». - ->< - 1* -«t»- I,-. -;•**-"
Dry Bulk Storage
Comments
Registration of cadi
regulated lank system
Ndificaliai mm '
for changes in statos
feooifements for clean
op and third party
liability - SI million
far «<4i ifl/^/f^nf «7
ffnillinn Annnal •««•«_
Praoeduics for taking
tanks ant of service.
Rtilacinp tanki nr
instaHinff secondary
Munmiaii^nt irnt
Provisions for approval
of alienate pracednies
Detailed iwnvuimi far
tekase detection, un-
like other bulk storage
legs
THE TABLE ROUGHLY KGKLIGKTS STATE REQISSEMBNTS -
CONSULT STATEULOCAL AUTHOUTIHS FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND UPDATES ON REQUIREMENTS
A-34
-------
State
Illinois
ff filtnoii Admmif-
tnlive Code, Cn.
I, Section 255,
Facilities
AppUcabUltj
Agrichff*1**^ facilt-
lies: for commer-
cial purposes bulk
prstiridrs noted in
tingle container in
excess of 300 gal-
lons liquid or 300
pounds dry for
more than 30 dayi
per year or more
than ?00 f ill""'
liquid or 300
pounds dry are
mirof rmr^'ir*^1
Noo-commeicial
agrichemical facili-
ties: site pttnf for
storing pestkides
secotive days in
sM«flt» container
h^j^ftiff in fnififffft
of 300 gallons li-
quid, or 300
pounds dry and
JAAfiJIIV/HMYMKr/
repackaging at a
more man 45 days
• -.-- •?•!•• 8—
m quantities m
excess of 300 gal-
lant lianid 100
pounds dry and the
non-commr trial
amdiRatifVi irf imti-
cides
Operational Area
For •nnPtg/loadttlg/
washing/rinsing: with
fk>0T», cprht,-^aOf of
coacrete or other -
cnmpatiMr matfrialt
andaealed
Storm water diverted
away
luadififf aTRS* canaci-
ty equal to volume of
largest tank to be
loaded + 6 inch rain
(if not protected from
stomwater)
Unloading area: 25
••mflVwi •ifl.iii.iittiBMi
ing* cnifoifif trT other
means to catch apiU-
•fe
Washing area: may
be in loading aica or
Kparattr area dflaije-
nated to catch spffl-
•8*
Secondary
Contalnmeot
For noomobile liq-
uid:
wafl required: of
earth, sled, •.
Concrete, solid ma-
sonry.
Compatible synthet-
ics + liner of con-
hie synthetics
Or prefabricate facili-
ty meeting certain
Or damage and
hsisin facflitv which
diverts storm water
Capacity of 6-inch
rainstorm (25 yr. 24
hi) 4-100% volume of
largest tank •«• vol-
mufc displaced by the
bates of other tanks
protected from pro*
cjpitatioo)
Capacity of 100%
tank + vohmK dis-
placed by bases of
other tanks wrthin
stractnic
POT niimbiulu ware*
Boused? waftnousmg
tainmrnt equal ID
voaurac to largest
Recordkeeptng
For conuncrnal
agrichemical facili-
ties onlv: dot nlan
showing 'Stroctnies,
waten and runoff.
tank specifications,
secondary and oper-
ational area contain-
ment pl^TU
Mannfacnirrr*s com-
patibility *t*>^tiavfnt
Oprrafionil plant
for containment
areas
Storage and han-
dlifisT initnictinnf frw
each pfitictrff
Discharge repoiu oo
all reporuhle spflli
Stale inspection
reports
InHfiiwn am' fnain~
tenance reports
Container
Specifications
Resistant to corro-
sion, puncture, crack-
ing; nonreactivt with
pesticide stored
Metals fittings com-
patible with metals in
container
Designed to handle
Appurtenance! pro-
tected against acci-
dent
Ifnonmobile,
anchored to prevent
instability
device:
external sight gauge
prohibited
THIS TABLE ROUGHLY HIGHLIGHTS STATE REQUIREMENTS -
CONSULT STATE/LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND UPDATES ON REQUIREMENTS
A-35
-------
pli^^j- MasugaMMSit
D_^ • • .
xTiecipuaiuu icmoveo
not dischanjed ar mn-
' off unles* containment
iUucmres ckeanedand
nmr4 and disfhirge
win not cause water
Quality violation or
pesticide discharge
Cl»m MJM Ju at ••ffivwvn*
ricMt mfpfy ••• «gniDuDi*
ic ntes. wed in liquid
mixing opentionor
disposed of: field appli-
natiMft Qf dfltf*^ «Jl|n*
lions iffflppiaH^ if total
•nflnfl] AmJ^ut^m
^" "' *W*" m •*•'
amounts do not exceed
u»u«i ^»ii^tL~ rgtf
^m»_» ^7^^ -
rinsate* and washes
may be used as mirrnp
mixture if mixture does
not exceed labeled nte
No disposal urongb
aewen
Dispose of aa special or
haxardous waste if not
applied
Saffl ftavMBtac
•*!»»•• ^•«»f^«w««^
Spill* aWto •^^(•uiflfv
wpUa* awfHV •^WBMMfjr
containment to be IT*
«WIM«IK*| •MWMw^li/
covecu promptly •-•
* "i- Iji.- ,. --.: . ^- ." '
Sp1P« into openticnal
area to be H*****1.
tinted; area also
cleaned at end of «e»-
•00
SnUft «mtfide ontun-
nf^n* immediately con*
tatned. materials fecov*
J81BU| ^..|J ^ff^ flr^nnJ'
reponable to Dliaois
Emergency Services
when over 3 pooDos
uniecoveied dry active
RQ for EPRCA pnmos-
es
Seearttr
•••*•• ^/
Valves locked or
otherwue secnied
- 1'. .".- — ..... -•- •
BoOdings or stroc-
lures Infsrd
Dry Balk Storage
Comments
Facility leitistfatioQ for
•11 •titling (as of Janu-
ary 1990) and phase in -
j-^^1L_ j* ti
Permits for new facili-
ties
B^P^fimnrtal peimits
allowed for new con-
tainment nf^XTSSf 1 OT
techniqnes
Regulations Kovefninfi
open burning at
mjui miB^ " * •
commereial
aBiichemical fa^fljij^f
(pffmissthlf at com*
nun :_1 unit man
1995)
Underground storage
prohibited, except for
sumps or wet weHs for
tiansferof spOkd
lionids and nnsates
Re
-------
State
Indian*
355 IAC.4 adopted
Applicability
over 55 gallons or
100 pounds)
Does not include
storing for less than
15 days if inciden-
tal to loading or
ers 1°****^^ other
than on property
owned by owner or
operator of storage
of less than 55
gallon containers
Operational Area
For mixing/loading/
washing/rinsing at
liquid storage, facility:
paved pad, curbed : '
and sloped to drain to
to handle foreseeable
ip^tt«tw« grots t****f
^omprnfnti mobue
container and motor
vehicle; minimum of
10 feet wide and 20
feet long; catch basin
to contain at least
750 gallons
Container! and ap-
purtenancei to be
protected against
risks of damage tram
vehicles
Alternative portable
Secondary
Containment
Wall required: of
steel, concrete or
•/ilid M*««M*U And
' designed to withstand
fail hydrostatic head
of any discharge +
liner required: of
asphalt, concrete or
other approved
or
prefab facility
or
»li*ph»nt ting con-
tainment for contain-
ers 3000 gallons or
less
For existing, effec-
tive 5/7/93: capacity
equal to 110% great-
est volume which
could be discharged
er + volume dis-
placed by all other
j-j-j-j* ....-I- jMiiiji>_
up to safe design
level of dike ••• free-
botvd of six ai>fh*fl
(six inches not ir*
protected fran nin~
tall)
Tfle dninage under-
lying area to be
Specs for catch Tf*ttn
Recordkceping
levels in each con-
tainer at least
monthly ~'
Monthly inventory
reconciliation for
dry and liquid
Inspection and main-
tenance records
required, including
weekly inspection of
valves, monthly of
vents
Record of aban-
doned underground
Container
Specifications
Resistant to corro-
sion, puncture.
M»fjrip£' nooreac-
•tive with pesticide
stored; no pvc or
ferrous metal (un-
less stainlrn steel
or protective lining
or other approved)
Metals fittings com-
patible with metals
in container
Designed to lnmHf
all operating stresi
Appurtenances:
shntoff vahve pro-
tected against van-
dalism or accident,
wetted parts and
stainless steel or
other approved
material
Anchored to prevent
instability
Filled to no more
than 95% unless
trolled ormmibulk
(56 to 400 gallons)
Conservation vents
Liquid level
gauging device:
external sight gang-
es prohibited
CTflin i Mitinl IT vitb
nutcfisls ftfltcd and
nMntsincd to pre-
vauspiOl
Protected from acci-
dett by vehicles
THIS TABLE ROUGHLY HIGHLIGHTS STATE REQUIREMENTS -
CONSULT STATE/LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND UPDATES ON REQUIREMENTS
A-37
-------
Rte.*. !«»._-<
No rinaate/waihwater
disposal
..--tBToagh.stomi> seven
'• - through amituy eew-
en withont NPDES
or priflt approval ox
treatment plant and
in accordance with
pietrea&nenl limita-
tions
P«tir cantainen to be
cleaned prior to nfiDins!
•ml^fl MaUal «w jfaulical-
edie
meat mooitared and
mmiffd
Dispose of in accord-
ance willi label
If — t~-i~t~l wife
j-""rBTfftiHf pesticide.
contact IDALS
SftO RefpOBSC
Discharge to aecondaiy
eentatantent promptly
tatiminl In """-"•"«
***••*• poanbatt' notify
IDNR within 6 boon
Operator must have
adequate protective
equipment as required
by label emergency first
aid accessible
Security
Lodcing devices on
-------
Slate
Louisiana
TljiLiil-mujt gf
AgricnlmreKbki
and Regulation!.
I iffliiita11* Adoiiii-
isuative Code
ThlcV.Sobcfaapter
J, Bulk Pesticides
(1984, being re-
vised)
Applicability
Bqflc ttongc facili-
ties far distribution
of pesticide*
.-,--. .. . - .--—..
OpcratkNul Area
be stoned oo fouodi*
ti0B
-------
Rftnate Maftagancnt
RtfttttC •nH •nfllaffV
must be dupoted of m
when fMStbU or stored
fynem
If classified as hazard-
aai W*Sle Upon dispos-
al rt**" disPfMftd rf tn
waste facility
^flntimrn moit br
deaned. tiijde imse or
equivalent, prior to
tefiDed with came
pesticide
SpiD RefpMMe
liimif diatr inHifintioii
to director of fcfiicidei
•ml Ii«niiiiMuiMiil*l
Proymii! PiipamBrttf
in writni^ within 3 days
-
•"•-=• . I — . M-
Sccortty
ConUtnrn with Indn
aod flthr r aiiiMiHTriiir
... i , . «)«j« KA
footing or lighting to
ACCCU
Dry Balk Stance
- ..-
Comments
^9/ntun notification to
date of all f*"1"ift
butioo of icstricted we
Location: suitable dis-
tance from buildings.
property lines, access
toads
Container! most have
label
Underground storage
prohibited
THIS TABLE SOUGKLY KGHLIGKTS STATE REQUIREMENTS -
CONSULT STATE/LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND UPDATES ON REQUIREMENTS
A-40
-------
Stele
Nebraska
Deputtnent oc
Environmental
Control, Title 198:
Rule* mil Regula-
tions Pertaining to
Agricultural
Oinntaal dwtnin-
ment, (proposed)
Applicability
Stooge facility at
which hnlV lionid
"" " ••*••• •*T"mir
pesticide is «ored
in itiUcpaiy boo*
tainen in aggregate
auantittes cfcater
•|«^-»««"l-« ^•"w**
than 500 gallOQS
• -
Operational Area
Tirtr ***t-*4n<»A|M|4tnff/
•m«Kttig/fm«ing! of
*•• III! 104 •••••••1^* *^»
coocrete, aiphilt or
oiber mpcnttCAbfe to
withiuod weight of
vehicles coife* or
other nmns to prc~
veot Rleuet doped
to collection point
Capacity of at lead
1800 gallons: if no
fixed stooge «"•"""-
er and no mobile
storage facility and
the operational area
has a capacity of
more than 1.200
gall^fif , then mini-
mom capacity if U5x
Ingest stonge con*
tainer or largest mo-
bile container, which-
ever is larger
Secondary
Containment
Wall and base re-
quired: of metal.
concrete, solid ma-
sonry, mmpallhlf
synthetic and de-
signed to withstand
full hydrostatic head
of any discharge
Capacity equal to
HIMifWn |»««»ibl*
discharge from larg-
est container -> 10%
vomme of largest
container + volume
displaced by all other
containers, structures
-and equipment within
area + volume to
contain 25 yr 24 hr
stonn (if not totally
coveied or enclosed)
Empty contaiDers not
to be stored in area
TOii**f-t ancboicd
Sloped to collection
point
Rccordkeeplng
Date of inspection
and description of
condition of facility
(weekly inspection
of containers and
•pp»ri»n«i^»f)
Level of each con-
tainer monthly
Quarterly inventory
reconciliation
Maintain for 3 years
Container
Specifications
Resistant to corro-
sion, puncture, crack-
ing; nonreactive with
pesticide stored
Appurtenances pro-
tmpd •P*?TIC' pc™-
dent and supported
No pipes through or
uri^f r CTOitainmrnt
TOSS TABLE ROUGHLY HIGHLIGHTS STATE REQUIREMENTS -
CONSULT STATE/LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND UPDATES ON REQUIREMENTS
A-41
-------
Riaaaie MaMfaoMBt
(VvitarniniTT'if rnatrfial
removed duly from
eal(releasei not recov- -
ered or hazardous waste
generated may result in
facility being classified
Mffenenior)
Use or dispose of ac-
ooiding to label or Hale
regulation!
iinnpiHaminatrd ttomt-
watermay be pnmprd
to nonnal drainage
tyttem
Disposal prohibited:
- to tionn wweror
witcr
• to tm&Dcoi syitBoi
Spill RMDOMM
SniDi in opvntional
area to be promptly
reoovered andmedor
diipotfd of according
to label or state itgi
Segregate pesticide*
inoonipatible for use on
SpiDs in secondary
coBtaiooicflt |Q fof
prammly ncwmd to
!l™I!!r':....-.. exftnt
feasible
Releatei reported to
DEC immediately
Security
Fenced or otherwise
second
Vahe*4ocked when
muftcndtTif
Dry Balk Storage
. . ...
COQUIMOtS
Permit required prior to
or storage facility;
construction plans for
all areas and manage-
ment program for
•.•rum.. .iititljmi. and
relents must be sub-
fni>Trrf
Permit required for
frxislhip facilities
Regolationi do no per-
tain to dry pesticides
I^cttim requirements;
set backs from water
with Boning coofor-
nunce with 100 year
Undergitxind storage
pconioited ff^CTf* for
Public water supply
coanection nquoc-
label
•FOK TABLE ROUGHLY HIGHLIGHTS STATE REQUIREMENTS -
CONSULT STATE/LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND UPDATES ON REQUIREMENTS
A-42
-------
State
Norm Carolina
North Carolina
AilininittriiFVT
Code, Section
TO2.-09U0800
Applicability
Owner of balk
container or storage
tsfik
: .-... . • -
Operational Area
. . ;
• ' - . •••. - :Tr.--.-7-«v
Secondary
Containment
-: . .
- . ;-.- - - *- .
Reeordkeeplng
Purchaser of balk
pesticides to post
near oontainen
record of date, car-
rent volumes
Container
Specifications
Containers to be on~
allerated, leak proof.
capable of being
sealed
Drain ping or drain
basin to finlMtir
complete drainage
Filler or access port
at least 10 indies in
en 1000 gallons or
leu, IS inches on
greater; ports locked
when not in ose
All new containers of
stainless steel, alumi-
num, mfld steel.
glass, reinforced
plastic
A
-------
*
SpU Response
Scanty
at entrance* topic-
Dry Bulk Storage
Comments
Purchaser to take title
at designated stotagr
site
Manufacturer to notify
NCDA at least 24
noun prior to delivery
of any bulk pesticide
Containers most have
federal label; signal
words on all sides
ffupfffftf to view
Located on sites least
and his environment;
NCDA to be notified
of plans for relocation
of container at least ten
days prior to relocation
NCDA of location of
each container or stor-
age tank prior to fitting
to that DoA may in-
spect
Geneal safety and
to be followed within
THIS TABLE ROUGHLY HIGHLIGHTS STATE REQUIREMENTS -
CONSULT STATE/LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND UPDATES ON REQUIREMENTS
A-44
-------
Sutc
Sooth D*1"**
South Dakota
Department of
AgriculOirc Regu-
lations, Chapter
12:56:13. Bulk
Petlicide Storage,
12:56:14. Bulk
Diitributionof
Pesticides,
12:56:15, Han-
dimp md IiMnling
(various portions
effective in 1985,
1986. 1987)
Applicability
Bulk pesticide
Mange facility: site
of permanent bulk
pesticide atorage
of holding more
;K«n 300 gallant
Operational Area
Balk peaticide* han-
dled and loaded in
manner to prevent
apfllage
Secondary
Containment
Secondary contain-
ment required for
(forage of cpnuinco .
over 300 galloni:
walls and base of:
synthetic, steel, con-
crete, croas- linked
polyoleiin, designed
to withstand full
hydrostatic head
Capacity of 110%
volume of largest
container •«• volume
of base of all other
imkf inii4r rorrtiin-
ment
Recordkeeplaf
Container
Spedncations
Distribution system,
containers, appurte-
nances of materials
compatible with
peaticide and condi-
tions of storage
THIS TABLE ROUGHLY HIGHLIGHTS STATE REQUIREMENTS -
CONSULT STATE/LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND UPDATES ON REQUIREMENTS
A-45
-------
Rlatitr Minigansmt
Bulk containers be
thoraoflhlv **i»M*»Mt
••' "O J •' •"' "
tnrer's specs prior to -•
or dedicated renaable
container and refilled
with product bearing
tame label
Minor spills of pesti-
cide or rintate in sec-
area to i*****^ if mfuatn-
inated, follow disposal
procedures of 1256.02
Splfl RaflDOBSe
fjafnfluv
if rvifTf flf ffpill fluff iflr
containment of 25
g^liTi?* orSOO piBwt4t
dry within 3 hours
See-Hty
Dry Bulk Storage
Comments
not in area where spill-
will tfrf»flt*« water not
in area subject to
flooding
Permit required from
Department of Agricul-
ture: periodic inspec-
tions required
By rt«r (cnnnroctn)
of concrete block prior
to 1985 may be con-
sidered for approval);
and she plans must be
Nfltificatirai try rrgis-
tnmt or manufacturer
prior to delivery of
pytnl •«•».! hnlt
shinmait
i
prohibited except for
temporary collection of
runoff or rinsates
Coosamen most have
feitvral label
Bulk repackaging re-
quirements in accor-
dance with Section 7
FIFRA
THE TABLE ROUGHLY HIGHLIGHTS STATE REQUIREMENTS -
CONSULT STATE/LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND UPDATES ON REQUIREMENTS
A-46
-------
State
Vermont
Vomuvit TVMrt.
» Ti«--in •!•"••- .-
ment of Agricul-
ture, Food and
Markets, Vermont
Regulations for
Control of Pesti-
cides, Section Xffl
Applicability
Storage facilities
for bulk pesticides
owned or operated
by persons who
»•* p)f|fifijff««i^w **"
distribute pesti-
cides: liquid larger
than 210 gallons or
dry more than 100
pom
Containers for
fixed itonge: in-
cluding nil car.
nurse tank, portable
container used for
storage for more
than 15 consecu-
tive days
Operational Area
^.nixing/loading/
washing/rinsing at
rrtiiim»iif jml aonli-
' • • ^T •
cation and itonge
facilities: paved pad.
curbed or sloped to
dnin to fitff1 t**«i»i
•Am*tnmt» to contain
* ——••——•
125% capacity of
lane ftmhfle contain-
er used
PrfHffffcd •ff^>nft
moving vehicles
Secondary
Containment
Wall required: of
earth, steel concrete
rVt solid masonry and
-designed to withstand
full hydrostatic head
of any discharge +
liner required: of
asphalt, concrete.
approved synthetic.
soil
or
prefab facility
Capacity equal 'to
110% greatest vol-
ume which could be
viffiiiig^v from
largest container •*•
volume displaced by
aunmeraed DOttions
MUWKIgCU punHMU
of all containers
No other commodity
and no cnspty con*
tainers to be stored
n> __LJLi±:iLJLLJlll
Recordkeeplng
Record of all dis-
charges
Liquid pesticide
levels in each con-
tainer weekly
Monthly inventory
reconciliation
Inspection and main-
tenance records
Manufacturer's com-
patibility statements
Record of aban-
doned underground
tanks
Container
Specifications
Resistant to corro-
sion, puncture, crack -
mgj nonreactive with
pesticide stored
Metals fittings com-
patible with metals in
container
Desisned to handle
all operating stress
Appurtenances: shut-
off valve protected
against vandalism or
accident
Anchored to prevent
instability
Filled to no more
than 95% unless
temperature con-
trolled
Vents for mesiure
relief
Liquid level
ganging device:
external tight gauges
prohibited
THIS TABLE ROUGHLY HIGHLIGHTS STATE REQUIREMENTS -
CONSULT STATE/LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND UPDATES ON REQUIREMENTS
A-47
-------
RJanff MaaaffOBeat
• -". - **
* "
Spill ReapOBSe
„
Piuupt recovery of
discharges
If use as originally •..
intended is pf*^ feasible
then dispose of dis-
charged pesticide and
dean op material* as
haTanlffnF waste
C^ifwmtnr miut have
written discharge re-
sponse plan at facility
and at local fire sad
department
Operator most have
access to pomps, recov-
tive eooipnientt absorb-
ents used for spffl tc-
aponse
TfamiHg Mr employees
potnant to i^tf^fnrg*
plan
S««Ht,
tJutfliHtf stonge con-
lainen and contain-
ment f»«ltts»« within
pennanent fraoBd - ".
are* or equivalent to
pievent nnanthofiTird
^fppgg vandalism
Valves to be locked
or otherwise seemed
Dry Bulk Storage
Tl«ul*r l f Jl Jiplil
under raox except
doling liradhi£
'If outdoors, in stor-
age MifitMiieji On
pattets or raised
concrete platfonn
with drainage
Seemed against
imutthrtfivMi mtfv
Comments
Exemption xran any
pans if not technically
frfliiM* and alternative
Pmvul** mlMt^^i«l|Y
similar protection to
waters of state
Containers most have
federal label
Underground stonge
prohibited
-
THIS TABLE ROUGHLY HIGHLIGHTS STATE REQUIREMENTS -
CONSULT STATsVLOCAL AUTHORmES FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND UPDATES ON REQUIREMENTS
A-48
-------
State
Wisconsin
Wisconsin -
DATCP Regu-
lations, Ag. 163,
Pesticide Bulk
Storage (1986,
rev. 1989)
Applicability
Manufacturers and
distributors storing
pfsticidgt in undi-
vided quantities of -
greater than 55
gaDons liquid or
100 pounds dry in
at facility up to 15
days, no exemption
at facility without
•ccondw ***»"*«MI-
• «•• •• j
ment
Bulk pesticides
includes use solu-
tions and rinsates
from bulk pesti-
cides and bulk
f erred to smaller
Operational Area
Wall required: of
earth, steel, concrete
.and designed to with-
stand full-hydrostatic --
head of any discharge
+ liner required: of
approved synthetic,
soft
or
prefab facility
Capacity equal to
greatest volume
which could be dis-
charged from largest
container + 25*
capacity of largest
container for outdoor
storage or 10% ca-
pacity of largest
container for indoor
storage + volume
displaced by sub-
merged portions of
aBoontainen within
the area were filled to
capacity with dis-
charged liquid
to nul can periodical-
ly moved and empty
containers not over
400 gallons
Secondary
Containment
Record of all dis-
charges over 1 qt
concentrate or 5
-gallons field m'T
Liquid pesticide
levels in each con-
tainer weekly
Monthly inventory
reconcfliatioo
Inspection and main-
tenance records
Manufacturer's com-
patibility statements
Record of abandoned
Records kept for 3
yean; discharge
records for 5 yean
Recordkeeping
Resistant to corro-
sion, puncture,
cracking; nonreac-
tive with pesticide
stored; no pvc or
ferrous metal (unless
stainless steel or
protective lining or
other approved for
wood preservative
industry)
Metals fittings com-
patible with metals
in container
Designed to h«»>di»
all operating streu
Affmnftmannes' ahm-
off valve with wet-
ted puts and con-
nections of stainless
steel (except for
minibulksX valves
protected against
vandalism or acci-
dent
Anchored to prevent
instability
Pines miKHtled
CflWMVM \**1 VTiMf
(except for wood
preservatives)
Liquid level
gauging device
Container
Specifications
Management Guide-
charges
Into containment
areas by:
- ttta*BHrninrf of
equipment
• mining conect
aiuouots
-operating proce-
dure* to reduce
need to rinse (dedi-
cated equipment)
- in-field rinsing of
equipment
Minimize wastes
(mixtures that cannot
be field applied) by:
- prompt recovery of
discharges and
segregation
portions of contain-
ment system fol-
lowing discharge
- periodic decontami-
nation of pad/sys-
tem
Storm water
treat as rinsate when
system not decontam-
uiidffigrmid cnntain-
er within 48 boon;
delivery away from
pad; construct roof ;
direct discharge of
unrofitaminated per-
missible
THIS TABLE ROUGHLY HIGHLIGHTS STATE REQUIREMENTS -
CONSULT STATE/LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND UPDATES ON REQUIREMENTS
A-49
-------
Rlawate Management
• _.^.
^Aacoaiytt to be jecov*
end promptly to maxi-
'under authority, of DNR
written ditfiitfTr fr-
spoose plan at facility
mnA ft local file and
Opentor most have
access to pomps, recov-
ery containers, pnxec-
live equipment, absorb-
ents used for spin re-
sponse
Training for employees
m diacbanje icsponae
ponoant to discharge
plan
SplU RwpOMe
- *" _- '
Stcnttj
Under nofezoeot
daring i««««i«n
If oauloon«-in ator*-
age containers on
,^11^^^ _. wmtff^t
cooaete pUtform
with drainage
Secured against
unauthorized entry
Record of discharges
to be kept
Dry Bulk Storage
Underground storage
prohibited, except for
catch *««•"« for
Temporary collection
for mooCF or rinsates
Provisions for defin-
tnB AtM««lM|f||Mt« •llfl
removing abandooed
ttodeigromd and
above ground con*
tainen
Containers, ""*i"*t»"g
scrvtcc oontamen,
most have federal
label
Comments
THIS TABLE ROUGHLY HIGHLIOHTS STATE RBQUniBKENTS -
CONSULT STATE/LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND UPDATES ON REQUIREMENTS
A-50
-------
APPENDIX 6
CONTAINER RESIDUE REMOVAL PROCEDURES
STATE/ENTITY
- •; •
Pesticide Regulations,-
R 3-10-313
Cilifomi»
Department of Food
and Agriculture
B»«ti«
-------
STATE/ENTITY
Delaware
Florid*
No. MO
APPLICABILITY
Hindus mmiwUtntv t
n^Zll IllZl- 4U1-J •
• Not applicahlr to paper, aerosols
*wiflt^fii»Yy fettuned to
maimfarinrrr fnr rrffll tvniif
and garden use pesticides and
pesticides conuinen ( most be
wrapped in paper prior to
disposal in trash)
- Rinsing mandatory far
cans prior to disposal
PROCEDURE
Triple rinse (equivalent allowed):
_ aitfajyi for at least 30 seconds after
mt»mAv flnair K«« nmmm^A tfittS*11v
' and drops are evident
- fin to 10% with solvent, usually
water specified by manufacturer
and capable of removing residue
- flgjftit". shake or roll vigorously to
dislodge residues from top. bottom.
sides
- diain for at least 30 seconds after each
nnse, until drops are evident
- add rinsate to tank or if pesticide
applied without Hjintinn dispose of in
accordance with DNREC regs
- repeat steps. 2-5 two more times
- removal inner liner is equivalent (liner
mutt be rinsed prior to disposal if
from pesticide that is a hazardous
waste)
Triple risue:
-fill to 20-25% with water
• add rinsate to spray tank unless
allow to drain for a few aeoonds
• icpcat §BBPJ 2*4 two move ^i*11^*
- add water to tank to bring to needed
level
ALTERATION
- Puncture prior to
disposal if meUtl
or plastic and not
to manufacturer or
r»/*rww1 it im iti M
-
- Puncture
rinsing to prevent
reuse
f?^r hft^tt*
shake dean
A-52
-------
STATE/ENTITY
APPLICABILITY
PROCEDURE
ALTERATION
Idaho
Guideline! for
fjPtmiiftfr Collection
Pfogmn •
• For all containers collected in
collection prognm
Triple rinse:
- remove cover, empty container and
drain for 30 seconds into spray tank
- fill with water or spray diluent to
20%-25%
- replace cap and shake vigorously
and swirl for 30 seconds
- *««nty contents into spray tank and
drain for 30 seconds
- repeat steps two more times using
clean water or diluent each time
-replace cover
Pressure rinse:
- remove cover, empty container and
drain for 30 seconds into spray tank
• hold container over spfay fa>»^
- insert nozzle into bottom of
- rinser for length of *••*>** i
by manufacturer, 30 t^rmu^f or more
• Puncture cans
with three boles in
bottom
• Plastic containers
cut in naif
• Caps, bungi, labels
removed
Department of Agriculture
Recnlsfttionft
13169
• Triple rinse or equivalent
mandatory immediatery opon
•Applicable to <
applicators
•Applicable to an metal, glass.
Triple risre
• CD to 10% with solvent capable of
removing the pesticide
- agitate thoroughly, manually or with
co^npneot approved by f*Tp*>*ffft*i>>
* place rimMe in ooDtainmQit taoJc for
reuse if rinsate can be need in
reducing effecthreness or place in
. Puncture iHrtal
and plastic at both
ends before
- repeat steps 1-4 two i
1m
aanitary hntifiH
- Cot and flatten
bags prior to
ifitrtrttl in Iit**fil1
For paper aad
- remove pesticide
to flMITlilllUHl
when initially
mixed
- cm aide* and open
folly without folds
on • flat surface.
A-53
-------
STATE/ENTITY
MAINE
Pesticide RcffulfttioDft
Chapter 21 (deposit
' *mi retnni 'nreffnnYf
piugiuu
Michigan
pql«^«i^fl Ibillrtin
D 17B1 /1OB4\
B-l/el (19M)
APPLICABILITY
- Mandatory twiT»»»^li«t»ly "p**i
removal of pesticide
. Annlu^M* iA fWfttlMMf •i»jM»*t«*«
- Applicable to restricted or limited
ttfr Frftifii^f in ntffi] flitt
or more in volume (e.g-
ronl«inrn (object to
depot h/iBimn piognoi)
- Not ipplinHr to presumed
PROCEDURE
Triple riatt (eqalTmlemt mllowed:)
- drain for «1 kut 30 seooDdi after
Heady flow has ceased initially
and drops are evident
- CD to 10% with solvent, usually
water fTrrrififd by ntannftrnirrr
and capable of removing residue
- agitate, shake or roH vigorously
to dislodge residues from top.
failffim_ sides
- diain at least 30 «>«-ory
-------
STATE/ENTITY
Minnesota
Flyer for Rinse and
vi m Program? Proper *
Rinsinfl 'Verification'
Form (4/89)
Mississippi
Leaflets distributed
for container
cxjsfrtion program
APPLICABIIJTY
- Triple rinse applicable to plastic.
.-— .Pressure nnsc applicable to
- Mandatory at •*"»« of use
PROCEDURE
Triple riase:
- drain for ^A sf4?o&4t fi"ti*HY
- fill to 10-20% with water or rinse
solution
• secure cover and swirl container to
rinse all inside surfaces
- remove cover, add rinsale to spray
tank and let drain for 30 seconds
or more
- repeat steps 2-5
- replace cover and dispose of
container according to label
Pressure rinse:
- drain for 30 seconds initially
- hold rv*a*mrr over lank so rinsale
runs to tank
- insert nozzle through bottom of
container
time, generally 30 seconds or more
- replace cover
Triple rsuc:
• ^"ftif"1 for 30 fr^tut* initially
• fin to 10-20% with water or rinse
sosntion
- secure cover and swid container to
rinse aU inside fifrrf
- remove cover, add rinsaie to spray
tank and let dram for 30 seconds
or more
- repeat steps 2-5
- replace cover sod dispose of
container according to label
• A«fri fop 30 «^t«"mfp initially
funstotank
- SsttTnu^faciurer-. recontmended
time, generally 30 seconds or more
- replace cover
ALTERATION
- Puncture metal
and plastic at
container bottom
and crush' if
offered for
reconditioning
- Remove bungs
and puncture
drums if
unable to recondi-
tion
A-55
-------
STATE/ENTITY
National Acricnhtiial
Chemicals Association
Empty Cooiamrr
Disposal Safe Ptaoice*
for Agricoltnral
Chemical Uaen,
biDchoie 1986,
reprinted 1990
New HamDshire
Section 801.03
(outdated; not bring
enforced pending
revision)
NewYotk
R^nTfilatvmfl snf fiif*
Enviranmental
OmfmttMn Srctrm
325.4
APPLICABILITY
- Triple liming applicable only to
orgsnnofihosphatrt in metal
iPTntfihirrt
- Other containers to be rinsed at
least twice with salable solvent
and rintates buried
- Cleaning mandatory prior to
lense tor any other purpose
- For applicaton
- Triple rinse msfidstory for
•M^^-^LJuliiuirMs* t*m*mJMULtm
pHOf 1O QUOwUU
- *">•«»••••• with pesticide wed
ondOnted need only be drained
fof 30 ""^f^T
* AiffriktN* fE ffttififit
nM*sJ lumtft* m
•IT*" •'"•*
PROCEDURE
Triple Hue:
. bold in vertical positica for at least 30
f«*^^nf« and diain •>i>rt spray tank
-fin with water or other recommended
dame to 25*
_ close container, thtipp or roll to rinse
interior areas
- drain into spray tank
- repeat two more times pressure
PrsMore rinse:
- tila{*r cmtainrr in vertical nosittm tc
drain into spray tank
- thrust nook into bottom of container
- rinse for at least 30 seconds
Triple rinse:
- for one gaOon: ffll with one pint water
and household detergent, rotate
- for 5 gallons: fill with 2 quarts, lye.
and detergent
-for 30 gallons: fill with 3 gallons, lye,
detergent
- bury rinsates
Triple rinse:
. dnun for 30 ffitiiiff initially
* UBB NUU WM4>4 VI vMnCl M#AU£ HlCTi
Iaoait/oDe ««ii«»i «»»•«••«•> C25%)
^^^M^^^w ^^M^WVB ^^««^^^H«V» \^nr nrj
1 ff^fif^fnff gallflfl ffniitiinfr (20%)
5 ca]lonsy30 or 55 j«lVp» container
- rinse material should be easily
- dain for 30 seconds sato spmy tank
before CUing lank or into container
ior use as ^•^aip*>t for fomre
fonmdatians of the same pesticide
- repeat steps 2-4 two more times
ALTERATION
- Puncture plastic or
*t*»t«i triple rinsed
*vnHff"*r* to prevent
reuse
- Crush contsmrr to
reduce volume
"* PQ&CtDIC ADO
crush prior to
burial
1
A-56
-------
STATE/ENTITY
North Dakota
B-MTP"«n« Brochure
10SAF-2,
13-AENG-5-3
Oklahoma
Africoltnre
30387
APPLICABILITY
applicators prior to disposal by
burial or landfiHing
• Triple nose orcoinvuent
removal of pesticide
applicators
- Applicable to metal, (lass.
PROCEDURE
Triple rinse:
• dnun completely
- fin 20-25% full with water or oil
- close *«
-------
STATE/ENTITY
APPLICABILITY
PROCEDURE
ALTERATION
Oregon
D.E.Q. Regs. Chapter
340. Dhriiioo 109
• Mandatory for rigid «~n.higr.
prior to disposal as ordinary
solid watte
• Not applicable tahousebold nie
• Verification of finning dfltF* by
observing no ifsidnc on mtenor
or no tmfoidity Qest than 5
Ncphelametric units) in sample
when diluent which does not
aolubilize residue is placed in
container to 5% of volnme and
agitated for 30 seoondt
One of the following required:
Multiple rtutc:
- fill with appropriate solvent to at least
10%
. agitate to rinse aU interior surfaces
- open mnliinrr and dnin, at least 30
sft*raidi after drips stait
- repeat slept 1-3 at least two more
Jet rinse:
- inseit node so that all surfaces can
be rinsed
. rinse thoroughly using appropriate
solvent
Aeration for volatile substances
(fumlgants)
- Puncture or
remove both ends
of rigid conuinrn
prior to disposal
l|y^|^y« tynff*fl*ylly
reused
- Crash conuinen
smaller than 30
gallant
• Remove valve
from gas cylinders
to allow venting
(comment- use
extreme cautions
in altering
containers that
held flammable
pesticides of
solvent*)
Pesticide Education
,1988
Triple rinse:
- dnin empty conUinrr for 30 seconds
- fin to approximately 10% with water
• replace li^ and votate container ao all
- dnin into spray tank for at least 30
* DFBuc. puoctuic or
crash to render if
container will not
be recycled
through recycling
facility or dealer
• vepeat two note 1
•mask container to indicate tripk
imiing nas been done and date
Pff-30 (dnftX PIP-IS-
21-89. PDM5
• Mandatory for applicaton
•pnytank
- fin to 25% with water or aaprapri
- dose and shake vigorously for at least
for at kast 30 seconds into spray
tank (leave room in tank to fin tank
after pesticide is pot in and rinsate
added)
- repeat steps 2-4 two more times using
dean water
• dnin into spray tank for at lean 30
tflfflKfT
• puncture with mntsinrr over spray
——•—"^ time, at least 30
. Pnnclnre or crash
metal and plastic
unless recycled
PHMS41.S9
-CotXorHin
bags (FTP-IS)
Fwbagr
-empty into spray
tank, open both
ends
-tap bags to
dislodge panicles
or rinse bags PIP-
IS-21-89
A-S8
-------
STATE/ENTITY
APPLICABILITY
PROCEDURE
ALTERATION
South Dikou
Department of
Agncnluife
Regulations, Section
12:56.-01.01
tory for applicatofv
prior to disposal of contamen
that held organic toetauy, lead,
cadmium, beryllium. selenium,
anenic or inorganics in taniury
landfill (mimed mntainrn may
go to specifically designated
laadfiU)
• Pitiaing mandatory prior to
telling foricnp
Triple rtese:
- fin with nonnal diluent to 20%
- add rinsate to cpny mix or dispose of
by method prescribed for the
petticide in Chapter 12:36:02
- repeat steps 1-2 two more times
• Puncture prior to
dtspoaal in tinitaty
landfill
Utah
Cooperative
Bitfniions Service
Bulletin, Pestkade
No.4, Dec 1989
• Metal glass, plastic mrtiinfn
should be triple rinsed (or
equivalent) prior to disposal
• Not •rr"~y« to nocmal
hmmhnLl prodncu (op to 1
gaUoo liquid, S pounds dry)
wbicfa may be wnpped in
absorbent material and disposed
of in Hash
Triple Hue:
- empty and drain for 30 second* into
spray tank
-ffflto25«
-rime thoroughly
- poor rinsate into apny tank and drain
for 30 seconds
> repeat steps 2-4 two more times
Jet tpnj rlne:
- rime lor 60 seconds with jet apny
device or rig hoae and apny rinser,
rime and put rinsate into tank
For paper bags:
- empty thoroughly
Regulations for
Control of Pesticides.
Chapter XIII(3)
• Triple rinsing mandatory for
•PpUCMlOH pROT tO flttptTMl
materials other man paper
A-59
-------
APPENDIX 7
STATE OPEN BURNING REGULATIONS
State
UeatkHi
Typeftf Container!
Ataojpherfc CondUoni
Vohime
Applicability
Arizona
Air Regolitioiu.
R1S-2-402
Pesticide Regulations,
R 3-10-313
In open isolated tie* downwind
from populated «reiu
Prohibited for containers Out
held Inorganics, lead, cadmium,
organic meicuiy, arsenic (air
• 50 pounds/day
Permissible for if ricultura] men
to bam ill inorganics containers
but thote out held inorganic
neicuiy, KAO* c*tdiniiiin( Arsenic
(pesticide regt)
For eni|Xj' combuitible M(t ttid
In accordance with lUte and
local fegulattont
Peitidde Re|olatlont,
tection lff.01
iTohibited for oontainerf that
held ddoralei, lead, cadmium.
orfaiiic nieiuuiy, arsenic
Due regard to wind
direction to protect ciops,
people* anfanalf
• 50poundt/day
By user
IB accordance with stale i
local regulations
Florida
Open Burning and
Frost Protection Hies
Regulations, section
17-5.01, itt seq.
On site
200 feet from farmworkers or
buildings
100 feet from road
1000 yards from any other
concurrent burning site
Burning in pit or
noncombustible container
Person in attendance at all times
Permissible for original
container only
Permissible for containers mat
held Group 1 pesticides when
label allows burning for triple
rinsed containers or emptied
bags
Does not produce
emissions that create a
nuisance
Ignited after 9:00 a.m. and
extinguished before sunset
No more man 500
pounds/day at one site
By owner of crops
By owner's employee
By applicator hired by owner
-------
SUto
Illinois
Department of
Agriculture
Regulitiom. lection
255.170
low.
Air Regulations,
section 23.2
New York
Pesticide RfftuiaofUt.
section 325.4
North DtkoU
Camntive Exteiulcn
Service, Storage and
DiipoulofPeiticidei
•DO Conbuncn on the
Farm. 10 SAP-2. July
1986; alio: Air
Pollution Regulations
ch. 33-15-10
Ohio
Air Regulation!,
teetion 3745-19
Location
- On lite (permissible at agchem
facility until January 1995)
• More than 1000 feet from
residential or populated areas
- On site
- 1/4 mile from buildings.
livestock areas, water sources,
wildlife areas
- On site by end of day when
emptied
- h isolated areas
- h dear area to prevent forest or
grass fires
- Keep fire attended
• bi unrestricted area (outside
municipal boundaries plus
buffer)
- 1.000 feet from inhabited
building not on premises
Tjpet tf Container*
• For containers triple rimed or
emptied to extent feasible
- For an agrichemical containers
• riUfifbneo for containers mat
held organic beryllium,
selenium, mercury, lead.
cadmium, arsenic
• For paper or plastic pesticide
containers and seed com bags
• Prohibited for containers mat
held volatile hormone neiuiciaes
• rot empty combustible
containers
• For paper or cardboard
Atmospheric Conditions
- Contaminants will be
readily dissipated
• No visibility hazard
created to roads, railroads,
airfields
• Where creates nuisance,
state may require
relocation of burning site
• Keep out of smoke
- Do not leave until
containers completely
burned
- Contaminants will be
readily dissipated
- No visibility hazard
created for roads, railroads,
airfields
Volume
• 40 items at a time (for
agchem facilities)
- 1 day's accumulation or 50
pounds, whichever is less
Applicability
- When burning ii most efficient
disposal method
- When burning does not csuie air
pollution as defined by Illinois
EPA
- Inrlaccordance with itate and
local regulation!
- At agchem facilities, aOowed
only untO January 1995
- Ashes and residue disposed of in
accordance with EPA regt
(agchem facilities only)
- PetmisiiMe to bum containers
from farming activity only
- In accordance with regulations
under Public Health and
Environmental Conservation laws
- When allowed by Ubel and not
prohibited by local ordinance!
- For fanners only, not commercial
applicators
- Prohibited unless manufacturer
hai identified open burning ai
safe disposal procedure
i
A-61
-------
Stele
Oregon
DEQ Regulations,
chapter 340, Division
109
LcsatfoB
• On site on day Degeneration <
fit nan thereiftei n fusible
types af Container*
- For empty non-rigid pesticide
containers, including paper,
paper-laminated and paper-
laminated fofl (MS*
Atmospheric Ctndltlona
Doei not emit dense
smoke, noxious odor or
ctdtc public HQiuAOiS
Volume
- Less dun 50 pound lots
Apphcabllty
h sccoidince with kxal fire
district regulations
Not permissible for public use
airport, dirtributonhip, or other
peiiiuuient base of opention
h such manner ai to protect
public health and the
environment
Ash and foil liners to be buried
after burning
Pesticide Regulations.
section 128.103
Prohibited for containen nut
held organic mercury, cnlontes.
lead, cadmram, arsenic
Due regard to wind direc-
tion to piutect people.
ennulf t ctops
50 pounds/day
In accordance with state and
local regulations
South Dal ota
Pesticide Regulations.
section 12:56:02:05
Fcnnif tiDiQ for cort
------- |