EPA - 540/9-77-008
INCENTIVES FOR RESEARCH
AND
DEVELOPMENT IN PEST CONTROL
VOLUME I
DECEMBER 1976
FINAL REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This EPA Report has been reviewed by the Office of
Pesticide Programs and has been approved for publi-
cation. Agency approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products con-
stitute endoresement or recommendation for use.
For sale by the
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, Virginia 22151
-------
INCENTIVES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN PEST CONTROL
VOLUME I
DECEMBER 1976
Prepared by
Alfred E. Wechsler
Joan E. Harrison
Alan Burg
Donald Gibbons
Joanne Perwak
Robert Terry
for
Experimental Technology Incentive Program
National Bureau of Standards
and
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticide Programs
Strategic Studies Unit
Washington, D.C. 20460
Frederick W. Talcott
Project Officer
EPA- 540/9-77-008
Contract 68-01-3133
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This program was conducted by Arthur D. Little, Inc., under EPA
Contract 68-01-3133. Dr. Alfred E. Wechsler wa3 the project director,
MS. Joan E. Harrison the assistant project director. Other key partici-
pants at Arthur D. Little, Inc., included: Dr. Alan Burg, Ms. Paula
Didrlksen, Dr. John Funkhouser, Mr. Donald Gibbons, Mr. Robert Ludwig,
Dr. Hadi Madjid, Ms. Jane Metzger, Ms. Jeanne Perwak, Mr. Michael
Michaelis, Mr. Donalcl Senechal, Mr. Robert Terry, and Ms. Judith Varone.
Dr. William Matthews (MIT) was a consultant to the program.
The work was performed under the guidance and with the assistance
of Mr. Frederick W. Tnlcott (project officer) and Dr. Jay Turlm of the
Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA; and Mr. Dan Fulmer and Mr. Phil Kartcr
(project officers) and Dr. Jordan Lewis of the Experimental Technology
Incentives Program, National Bureau of Standards.
The ADL project staff gratefully acknowledges the contribution of
representatives of many U.S. pesticide companies whose cooperation and
valuable comments and critique made this work possible and meaningful.
Similarly, the extensive assistance and cooperation provided by the
staffs of EPA, USDA, and many other federal agencies, industry and farm
associations, and environmental groups was essential to the program.
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE 1
PART ONE: PROGRAM AND OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
I. PROGRAM SUMMARY 7
Purpose 7
Approach 7
Results 7
Conclusions 12
II. INTRODUCTION 15
A. The Incentive Program and Its Objectives 15
B. Identification of Incentives 15
C. The Program Participants 16
D. Background Information 17
III. APPROACH 23
A. Task I—Background Studies 23
B. Task II—Development and Evaluation of Incentives 25
IV. RESULTS 31
A. History of Pesticide Innovation 31
B. Problems to be Addressed by Incentives 32
C. Conceptualization and Development of Incentive
Framework 33
D. Initial Development and Evaluation of Incentives 34
E. Final Incentives 44
F. Other Promising Incentives 46
G. Future Prospects for Incentives 50
H. Incentive Conference and Workshop 52
I. Reactions of the Program Participants 53
PART TWO; FINAL INCENTIVE DISCUSSION PAPERS
Introduction 59
Incentive 1. Increase Availability of Minor Use Pesticides 61
Incentive 2. Increase Utilization of Integrated Pest
Management 69
Incentive 3. Decrease Regulatory Hindrances to R&D 79
ill
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS Cont'd
Page
Incentive 4. Increase Government Support of Basic Research 87
Incentive 5. Increase Information and Training for Users 95
Incentive 6. Lengthen Patent Life 107
Incentive 7. Improve Communication Between Pesticide
Industry and the EPA 113
Incentive 8. Advertise Safety on Product Label 117
Incentive 9. Reduce the Risk of Product Development by
Industry 121
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Current Outlook for Incentive Actions
Table 2. Purpose and Status of Selected Sections of FIFRA,
as Amended, and Regulations
Table 3. Criteria for Evaluation of Incentives
Table 4. Incentives That Received the Highest Average Rating
by Respondents from Industry, Government Agencies,
and Associations
Pa8e
11
19-20
35-36
39-40
Figure 1.
LIST OF FIGURES
Approach Taken in the Development and Evaluation
of Incentives for Pesticide R&D
Page
24
v
-------
PREFACE
Starting with the most general information and ending with the most
specific, this report is organized for those who have an overall interest
in the program. Part One presents an overview of the entire program in-
cluding the results. Part Two presents the detailed results of the pro-
gram, i.e., the incentives. The Appendices present the details of support-
ing and background information used in the development of these incentives.
Many readers, however, will have one or more specific areas of interest
and may wish to read only those related parts of the report. The follow-
ing topical index is provided to help readers locate the major areas of
interest.
The incentives:
An overview of those selected
Detailed discussion of those selected
An overview of other promising incentives
not selected
The initial incentive ideas
How the incentives were developed and screened:
An overview
Conceptual methodology
Criteria used in screening
What is an incentive?
The program participants:
Who participated?
Their general reactions to the program
Their ratings of the initial incentive ideas
Their comments on the initial incentive ideas
Background information:
History of pesticide regulations
History of pesticide R&D and factors that
currently influence it
Overview
Details
Why this program was initiated
page 43
page 57
page 45
Appendix E
page 23
Appendix B
page 34 and
Appendix D
page 33 and
Appendix C
page 16
page 52
Appendices K-M
Appendices
I and J
page 17
pages 18 & 31
Appendix A
page 15
1
-------
How alternative views of the future affect the potential
success of the incentives
Overview
Details
Issues that must be resolved before
implementing incentives
Specific incentive actions:
Brief summaries of each reaction of participants
Details in Part Two
FIFRA Section 3 Registration Requirements
Integrated Pest Management
Pesticides for Minor Uses
Patent Protection
Risks of R&D
Basic Research
OPP/Industry Interactions
Training of Users
Advertising of Safety on the Label
Proceedings of the Conference on Developing
Incentives for Pest Control, which have been
published separately,* contain the following:
Addresses given by representatives of govern-
ment, industry, and the ADL project team
Summaries of workshops held for discussion
of specific incentives
page 49
Appendix 0
page 37
pages 44-45
Appendices I-M
page 79
page 69
page 61
page 107
page 121
page 87
Page 113
page 95
page 117
Chapter II*
Chapter III*
Increase Availability of Minor Use
Pesticides
Increase Utilization of Integrated Pest
Management
Decrease Regulatory Hindrances to R&D
Increase Government Support of Basic Research
Advertise Safety on Product Label
Reduce the Risk of Product Development by
Industry
"Developing Incentives for Pest Control Methods." Proceedings of a
Conference. Arthur D. Little, Inc., under Contract 68-01-3133 to
Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
Experimental Technology Incentives Program, National Bureau of
Standards, 1976.
2
-------
Conference recommendations concerning general
actions to be taken by EPA and specific actions
with regard to certain incentiees
Reactions of conference attendees
Conference Program
List of Participants
Chapter IV*
Chapter V*
Appendix A*
Appendix B*
"Developing Incentives for Pest Control Methods." Proceedings of a
Conference. Arthur D. Little, Inc., under Contract 68-01-3133 to
Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
Experimental Technology Incentives Program, National Bureau of
Standards, 1976.
3
-------
PART ONE
PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
5
-------
I. PROGRAM SUMMARY
PURPOSE
National goals of ensuring an adequate supply of food, feed, and
fiber, and of disease prevention and control, have benefited greatly
from the development, production, and use of pest control methods. Equally
important goals of human and environmental health and safety may be ad-
versely affected by the same development. For over thirty years, various
agencies of the federal government have attempted to achieve an appropriate
balance of these considerations through pesticide regulation.
Industry, the principal innovator and developer of pest control
methods, feels that existing economic, technical, and regulatory barriers
can significantly inhibit the development of new pest control products.
The federal government desires to reduce or eliminate these barriers,
without compromising its congressionally mandated goals of preventing un-
reasonable adverse effects of pesticides on humans and the environment.
The purpose of this program is to identify, develop, and evaluate incen-
tives (externally applied influences) that the federal government can offer
to reduce these barriers and thereby encourage the continued development
of pest control methods by industry.
APPROACH
The work was organized into two major tasks. First, the history of
pest control innovation was analyzed and influences on current decision-
making concerning industrial pesticide R&D were studied to provide back-
ground for the development of incentives. For the second task, 64 pre-
liminary incentive ideas were devised and evaluated in accordance with a
conceptual framework. These incentives were screened and ranked according
to their feasibility, the acceptance by parties at interest in their imple-
mentation, and their potential contribution to realizing the objectives
of this program. Nine particularly promising incentives were developed
further and evaluated in several possible future scenarios. The insights
and comments of representatives of the pesticide industry and government
staff concerned with pesticide development and regulation were sought at
several stages in the development of incentives.
RESULTS
Recommended Incentives
The following incentives* are recommended for implementation by the
government as soon as possible.
jj|g
Incentives are listed by number as identified in Section IV and Part
Two of this report. They reflect ADL staff views and other inputs
received throughout the program. The incentives are generally consistent
with those recommended for implementation in the Workshop on Developing
Incentives for Pest Control Methods.
7
-------
#3 Decrease Regulatory Hindrances to R&D
• Give serious consideration to self-certification of efficacy by
applicants
• Give recognition to the need for a fixed set of data requirements
at the time of initial submission for registration
• Give serious consideration to limited marketing under provisional/
conditional registration
• Issue Section 3 guidelines as soon as possible and specify pro-
cedures for updating the guidelines which will reinforce their
stability, yet permit flexibility
• Continue opportunities for top level EPA-industry discussions
• Provide an information package for new registrants
• Add resources to EPA in the area of non-agricultural pest control
• Provide a weekly or monthly progress report with broad distribu-
tion concerning the status of regulatory activities
• Prepare a public statement relative to the current "log jam" in
the registration/reregistration process indicating, in practical
terms, the problems, interim policy and procedures, anticipated
long-term policy and procedures, and realistic schedules for the
registration/reregistration processes
#9 Reduce the Risk of Product Development by Industry
• Continue to develop and implement a stable regulatory plan which
addresses timely solution of administrative, legal, and political
as well as scientific issues
• Develop a commitment to top level EPA/industry communications and
mutual effort to resolve critical regulatory problems
• Develop and support a stable philosophy and policy for pesticide
regulation based upon scientific understanding and effective risk/
benefit analysis
• Devote efforts to developing specific stable criteria for pesti-
cide registration, adverse effects and benefits of pesticides
• Work with industry and other groups to resolve critical issues
•such as data validation, carcinogenicity policy, 3(c)(1)(D), etc.
8
-------
//I Increase the Availability of Minor Use Pesticides
• Clarify policies on minor use registration
• Implement self-certification of efficacy for minor use products
0 Develop and implement a crop grouping plan
• Encourage and participate in joint EPA/USDA/State efforts in
minor use pesticide planning and registration
• Integrate the activity of user groups, state government organiza-
tions and IR-4 at the state level
• Establish a full-time staff at USDA as a focus for minor use
activities
In addition, the following incentives are expected to have less
cceptance and impact but should nevertheless be considered for future
mplementation.
//6 Lengthen Patent Life
• Support industry efforts to lengthen the patent life of proprietary
pesticides by compensating for the time required for the registra-
tion process
#8 Advertise Safety on Product Label
• Implement changes in pesticide labeling practice, which help to
differentiate between the least hazardous pesticide products (to
humans) and others
#2 Increase Utilization of Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
Encourage the use of IPM where economical and effective in meeting
user needs through the following mechanisms:
• Increase federal funding for pilot programs
• Communicate results of pilot programs to potential users through
advertising, seminars, and/or training programs
• Conduct research on economic threshold levels of pesticide use
• Determine attitudinal barriers, and potential solutions, to use
of IPM
• Use pilot programs of limited duration and with specific objectives
as a mechanism for introducing more sophisticated methods of IPM
developed cooperatively by scientists and economists.
9
-------
#5 Increase Information and Training for Pesticide Users
EPA and USDA fund a program of expanded information and training
services in all areas of pest management
In order to proceed with these incentives, EPA and OPP policy makers
and staff (beginning at the highest level within the agency) should
initiate a sustained commitment to meaningful effective participation with
industry in addressing and solving mutual problems of pesticide registra-
tion and regulation. EPA should identify the senior individual(s) within
OPP responsible for interacting with industry. These individuals should
be given responsibility and authority to implement incentives and other
changes which result from this interaction.
As a next step, EPA should convene working conferences on specific
incentives and issues where pesticide user, industry and other federal
agency inputs are essential. EPA and other federal agencies should guar-
antee the attendance by top level decisionmakers and commitment to imple-
mentation of mutually acceptable actions developed in these meetings.
Industry should respond by providing appropriate top level staff and
commitment to resolve important issues.
Present Outlook for Incentives
During the development of incentives, several issues arose that re-
main unresolved:
Should and can EPA act as a promoter, as well as a regulator,
of pesticides?
Which federal agencies should sponsor incentives—EPA because
of its regulatory role or another agency with a perhaps more
direct interest in the problems to be addressed?
Issues such as these and others identified in this program must be addressed
by both industry and the government, and their resolution will influence
not only which incentives are selected for implementation but also in
what way they are implemented.
In spite of these uncertainties, the present outlook for nine incen-
tives examined in the program has been evaluated and is summarized in
Table 1, which rates the incentives in terms of major determinants of the
success: the feasibility, i.e., the ease of implementation and the cost,
and the importance and the likelihood of acceptance by the three major
parties at interest. Although none of the incentives satisfies all require-
ments and all viewpoints, they all appear to offer some chance for success.
Future Outlook for Incentives
Consideration of the incentives from a futures viewpoint led to the
following conclusions:
10
-------
TABLE 1
CURRENT OUTLOOK FOR INCENTIVE ACTIONS
POTENTIAL IMPORTANCE
OF PROBLEM AREA
POTENTIAL ACCEPTANCE
OF INCENTIVE
POTENTIAL FEASIBILITY
OF INCENTIVE
incentive/problem areas
Industry
Government
Pesticide
User
Industry
Government
Pesticide
User
Difficulty
in Imple-
mentation
Antici-
pated
Cost
I. Increase Availability of
Minor Use Pesticides
Low
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
2. Increase Utilization of
Integrated Pest Mange-
men t
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
High
Moderate
Low
Moderate
3. Decrease Regulatory
Hindrances to R&D
High
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
A. Increase Government
Support of Basic
Research
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
5. Increase Information
and Training for Users
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
6. Lengthen Patent Life
High
Low
Low
High
Low
Low
High
Low
7. Improve Communication
Between Pesticide
Industry and EPA
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
8. Advertise Safety on
Product Label
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Low
9. Reduce the Risk of
Product Development
by Industry
*igh
Low
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
-------
• Examination of several incentives in the context of possible
future scenarios for the years 1980, 1990, and 2000 suggests
that no single set of incentives will be appropriate.
• While the success of some incentives depends in large part on the
realization of particular future scenarios, the success of others
is future independent. Incentives involving registration changes
are the least dependent on specific future scenarios.
• Incentives promising short-term results will be the most accepted
by the parties at interest. Any long-term incentives for pesti-
cide R&D will achieve less acceptance in scenarios that include
rapid or major societal changes.
• The potential for acceptance and impact of incentives is "mixed"
at present, but is greater now than it will be in the future.
Reactions of the Program Participants
Reactions to the incentive program, the need for incentives, and
specific incentives have run the gamut from strong opposition or dis-
interest to enthusiasm. Most negative reactions stem from resistance to
any form of government intervention, however well-intended, and from a
disbelief in the feasibility of EPA achieving its diverse goals of balanc-
ing the costs and benefits of pesticide use. Positive reactions arose
from the viewpoint that certain incentive actions, properly implemented,
can solve specific problems and from the sincere desire of many industry
and government groups to resolve the issues of the pesticide conflict for
the public benefit.
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the results obtained in this program, several conclusions
can be drawn concerning the concept and feasibility of providing federal
incentives for R&D of pest control methods by industry.
1. Although government and university research led to many early
innovations in pest control, private industry is the major force in pesti-
cide development today. Thus factors that once brought about major
advance are no longer important, replaced by market pressures and oppor-
tunities, the competitive nature of the agricultural chemical industry,
and modern synthesis, analysis, and screening technology. Therefore, in-
centives have to influence these newer forces on pesticide R&D.
2. No single major incentive action can directly stimulate innova-
tion in pest control; rather a multiplicity of factors and incentive
actions by both industry and government must be combined before increas-
ingly innovative, safe, effective, and economical pesticides can be
developed. Short-term incentives are likely to be more easily accepted
md implemented, can demonstrate success of the incentive process, but
lay ultimately have only modest impacts on the R&D process. Long-term
ncentives may be difficult to implement because of the federal
12
-------
bureaucratic process, will require long, sustained, and probably expensive
efforts, but could have greater impact on R&D over time.
3. The problem areas to which incentives could be addressed are in-
herently complex. Without the close support, guidance, and real interest
of both the federal government, as incentive provider, and industry, as
incentive recipient, identification and evaluation of incentives is diffi-
cult at best, and effective implementation would be impossible.
4. Pesticide regulation is but one area for change. By themselves,
changes in regulations cannot ensure that the goals of industrial develop-
ment of innovative pesticides will be reached. Equally important are
changes in the attitudes and working relationships of the parties involved.
The acceptance and recognition of each other's position, the openness and
frequency of information exchange, and mutual respect for the competence
and reasonableness of the individuals involved are the key to successful
solution of common problems.
5. The process of developing a consensus on desired incentives
among the parties involved is tedious and time-consuming. Similarly,
consensus concerning proper implementation approaches to these incentives
will be difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, areas of agreement which
show promise of real beneficial impact to all parties can be found and
the projected benefits will be worth the effort.
6. The success of this and similar incentive programs, and other
programs sponsored by ETIP on government encouragement of technological
change depends upon firm commitment of the sponsors to implement recom-
mendations. Lack of commitment undermines current efforts to establish
the needed trust and confidence between government and industry.
13
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
A. THE INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ITS OBJECTIVES
The consequences of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA, as amended in 1972), and its implementation in tha following
years, are just now becoming apparent. It is in response to these conse-
quences that this incentive program was initiated. The program is based
on the assumption that further action may be necessary to deal with some
of the consequences of regulation. The challenge of this program has been
to identify federal government actions that address problems arising from
FIFRA, as amended, without compromising the original objectives of the
legislation. Conversely, an additional objective of this program has been
to identify actions that further the original objectives of FIFRA, as
amended, but do so in a way that does not aggravate the problems already
caused by previous implementation actions.
The identification of problems caused by regulations is difficult
because of the multiplicity of factors involved in the areas of potential
impact. For example, the development of new pesticides, the vitality of
the pesticide industry, and the availability of pesticides to the user
are all areas of potential impact, controlled and influenced by many factors
other than regulatory actions. It is difficult, if not impossible, to
isolate and measure the specific effects of regulations in broad areas such
as these.
More specific and direct effects, however, can be attributed to
regulations. For instance, an increase in the time and cost of pesticide
discovery and development has resulted from the testing and administrative
requirements for product registration. This has had the effect of making
companies less willing to register products for market areas offering a
small return, i.e., for so-called minor uses. This in turn has led to a
shortage of available registered products that can be used for these pest
situations.
The most widely discussed impact of FIFRA, as amended, and Its imple-
mentation is an expected long-term decrease in the productivity of R&D
efforts of pesticide companies, primarily because of the diversion of
R&D funds from product development to product registration. No such de-
crease is yet apparent (see Appendix B), however; because of the lag time
involved between the discovery and commercialization of a pesticide (5 to
7 years), another 5 to 10 years may be necessary before any reliable
trends in R&D productivity are indicated.
B. IDENTIFICATION OF INCENTIVES
A variety of possible incentives were explored and screened according
to a number of criteria (the incentives and criteria are presented in
detail later in this report). The following discussion briefly presents
some of the general criteria used in the screening.
15
-------
1. The actions had to act as incentives, i.e., stimulate desired
change, providing not only a solution to the problem at hand, but hope-
fully also progress toward further desirable activity. Incentive actions
were sought which would eliminate barriers, thereby allowing existing
pesticide, interests to bring about a desired result. This requirement
emphasized those activities—e..g., funding or regulatory actions—that
would stimulate the initiative of manufacturers, user groups, and other
parties at interest.
2. The incentive actions had to be feasible: i.e., acceptable to
those persons or groups whose participation was required for their imple-
mentation. Through consultation with many of these groups, this feasi-
bility requirement was used to eliminate grandiose schemes and bold new
approaches. It instead focused attention on small changes necessary for
acceptable solutions to specific problems.
3. The incentive actions had to meet one of the objectives of this
program without negating or interfering with the benefits of other actions
designed to meet other objectives. This requirement screened out those
actions that compromised the goals of FIFRA, as amended, even though the
actions may have been helpful in eliminating some of the identified
regulatory problems. It also eliminated actions that could be expected
to create additional regulatory problems or aggravate ones that already
exist.
Most of the incentive actions considered in this program deal directly
or indirectly with pesticide R&D. The innovative activity inherent in
pesticide R&D was the focus of this program for several reasons: (1)
pesticide innovation has the potential for satisfying several, sometimes
opposing, objectives, such as ensuring the continued availability of
pest control methods, decreasing the adverse effects caused by pesticide
use, and maintaining a vital pesticide industry. (2) As mentioned above,
the effect of regulations on pesticide innovation has been a subject of
concern to many groups and a decrease in innovative activity is seen by
some as a consequence of FIFRA, as amended. (3) Removing barriers to
innovation has the potential for long-term, continuing, and desirable
effects.
C. THE PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
A primary activity in this program was communication among the
parties at interest, i.e. , presenting the ideas developed in this program
to those who would be involved in their implementation, obtaining their
reaction, and revising the ideas, etc. This report represents a continua-
tion of this activity, presenting a smaller number of more developed ideas
to an even wider group of participants. In a sense, the reader of this
report is a participant in this program, since hopefully the reactions of
the readers will become a source of still further refinement of the
proposed incentives.
16
-------
The initiation of this program came from the Experimental Technology
Incentives Program (ETIP), sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards
of the Department of Commerce. ETIP desires to stimulate technological
change by encouraging the private sector to produce and disseminate new
technologies. The ETIP Program seeks to explore ways of identifying and
reducing barriers that prohibit the private sector from producing innova-
tions that can help solve the nation's social and economic problems. The
ETIP Program also seeks ways to stimulate civilian research and development
and to simplify and manage more effectively the government's role in the
process of research, of development, and of innovation.
ETIP has conducted a series of experiments with other federal agencies,
to help these agencies meet their current objectives while bearing in mind
the overall ETIP goals. ETIP presented EPA with the opportunity to
collaborate with one of these experiments, and they have participated in
the funding, defining, and monitoring of this program.
The Office of Pesticide Programs, which is the branch of EPA that is
implementing FIFRA, as amended, assumed the primary role in the develop-
ment and monitoring of this program. The primary objective of the Office
of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is to regulate the availability and use of
pesticides on the basis of risk/benefit balancing. As discussed in the
preliminary draft of the five-year strategy document prepared by OPP for
the implementation of FIFRA, as amended, OPP regulates "availability,"
allowing on the market only those pesticides that are safe and effective
when used as directed. In regulating "use," OPP promotes good application
techniques and limits access to the more hazardous pesticide products.
In total these efforts attempt to maximize the benefits of pesticides,
while minimizing the risks inherent in their use.
OPP recognized the opportunity that this program presented to further
their objectives, while at the same time responding to the consequences
of previous implementation actions. Throughout the program, OPP expressed
interest not only in helping to develop incentives, but also in taking
responsibility for implementation of those incentives directly related to
its program activities.
Other program participants included representatives from a range of
pesticide developers and manufacturers, user groups, government agencies,
and environmental groups. These individuals, about 50 in all, suggested
ideas for incentive actions, screened and evaluated those actions consider-
ed throughout the program, and helped refine those that were finally
developed as incentives and are presented in this report.
D. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
(1) The Regulatory Environment
The first federal regulation of pest control agents was the
Insecticide Act of 1910, which disallowed fraudulent efficacy claims and
17
-------
authorized the government to seize or ban compounds dangerous to health.
In 1947, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) was passed, preventing the interstate distribution or sale of
pest control methods that had not been shown to be safe when used as
directed and effective for the purpose claimed on the label. Residues
remaining on food after use could not exceed the safe tolerance level
established by the Food and Drug Administration. A series of amendments
passed in 1959, 1961, and 1964 significantly increased the test require-
ments and the clearance procedures.
In 1970, environmental considerations were emphasized in pesticide
regulation through PR Notice 70-15, which provided guidelines for environ-
mental studies required as part of, pesticide registration. In December
1970, the administration of FIFRA was transferred to the Environmental
Protection Agency, along with the authority to establish tolerance levels
for pesticides and their residues in food and food products.
Intensified concern with the condition of the physical environment,
increasing public concern about the longer-term health and ecological
effects of chemical pesticides, and continuing wide public discussion
of the adequacy of pesticide regulatory procedures were among the reasons
for passage of the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (FEPCA or
FIFRA, as amended)* in October 1972. FIFRA, as amended, added to the
existing concerns about human safety and product efficacy a broad consider-
ation of environmental health and safety in the production and use of
pesticides, A major goal of FIFRA, as amended, was to prevent unreasonable
adverse effects on the environment, taking into account the economic,
social, and environmental costs and benefits of pesticide use.
FIFRA, as amended, has set the stage for EPA to develop and promulgate
detailed regulations, guidelines, and procedures on pesticide registration
and use; for the administrative and judicial processes of pesticide regis-
tration, classification, cancellation, and suspension; for EPA internal
procedures to implement the law and regulations; and for the conduct of
government-sponsored research on pesticides and their regulation.
The purposes and status of some of the sections of FIFRA, as amended,
and regulations promulgated therefrom which may have a major impact on the
development of pesticide products by industry are summarized in Table 2.
(2) The Pesticide Research and Development Environment
Historically, the circumstances that have surrounded major technical
advances in pesticide development innovations have been highly variable;
they have involved concentrated research effort, luck, one-man promotional
efforts, and, sometimes, serendipity. However, at the time of innovation
Throughout this report, this legislation is referred to as "FIFRA, as
amended."
18
-------
TABLE 2
PURPOSE AND STATUS OF SELECTED SECTIONS
OF FIFRA, AS AMENDED, AND REGULATIONS
Section (Regulation)
3 Registration of Pesticides
40 CFR 162.40-162.96
3(c)(1)(D)
4 Restricted Use Pesticides,
Certified Applicators
5 Experimental Use Permits
6 Administrative Review
10 Protection of Trade Secrets
and Other Information
12 Unlawful Acts (a)(2)(G)
Use inconsistent with label
15 Indemnities
Purposes
Establish requirements, exemptions,
procedures, and classification of
pesticides for registration
Provide guidelines for registering
pesticides
Provide for compensation for use of
data previously submitted
Provide for a procedure for certifica-
tion of applicator of pesticides
Provide for an experimental use
permit for a pesticide
Provide for cancellation, change in
classification, suspension and public
hearings and review of pesticides
Maintain confidentiality of trade
secrets, commercial and financial
information
Prevent the use of pesticides in a
manner inconsistent with the label
Provide indemnity payments to persons
suffering losses resulting from
specific cases of suspension and
cancellation of pesticides to prevent
imminent hazards
Status
Final regulations issued
Special policy statement
issued; regulations forthcoming
Final regulations issued
Final regulations issued
"Rules of Practice" finalized
"Internal opinion" issued by
Office of General Counsel
Pesticide Enforcement Policy
Statements issued—no regulations
to be issued
No regulations to be issued
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Section (Regulation)
19 Disposal and Transportation
20 Research and Monitoring
Purposes
Status
24 Authority of States
Provide for procedures and regulations
for disposal and storage of pesticides
and containers
Provide for research necessary to carry
out purposes of FIFRA, as amended,
giving priority to research to develop
biologically integrated alternatives
for pest control
Permit states to register pesticides
for use within a state for special
local needs
Final regulations issued
No regulations to be issued
Regulations proposed
-------
three favorable circumstances have usually been present:
• A demand existed for a result produced by a pest control product.
• The required technology was available and its application was
recognized.
• Time and money to invest were available.
Demand for pesticides, as for all products, depends on the existence
of an unfilled need. However, it is important to recognize that the need
must be perceived as not being met by an existing pest control methods.
The perception that existing products satisfy needs has significantly
hindered the development of new products. As one example, innovative
activity in biological insect control dropped sharply at the onset of
chemical controls.* As another example, at least one company stopped
screening chemicals for insecticidal activity in the late 1950's because
of the assumption that nothing could be cheaper, more effective, and cover
a wider spectrum than DDT.**
A basic ingredient in innovation is the scientific and technical
capability that allows the innovation to occur in the first place. Prior
to World War II, chemical control was severely limited by the lack of
technical capability for synthesizing large quantities of organic materials
cheaply. The effort necessary to develop this capability was stimulated
by the exigencies of the war. Chemical controls now are commonplace.
Biological controls, however, are still limited, because our knowledge
of natural control mechanisms, on which these controls are based, is
still too skimpy to permit commercial manufacture of such products cost-
effectively.
Before an innovation can be successful, some mechanism must exist
through which the demand for the pest control method, the technology to
produce it, and the resources to produce the pest control methods can be
connected. This mechanism necessarily involves money and time, both of
which can come from government, private non-profit institutions (e.g.,
universities), or private profit-making institutions. Aside from some
Around 1950 some government researchers heavily involved in biological
control research were directed to stop that activity and begin work on
determining the correct application techniques for chemical controls.
Chemical insect controls appeared to be the final answer in insect control.
Both biological control research and insecticidal screening in this company
were stimulated by the environmental outcry against DDT in the early 1960's.
Only long-term unmet needs are significant "pulls" on innovation: short-
term needs like epidemics or foreign-pest outbreaks are responded to by
screening and "making do" with existing products.
21
-------
private commercialization of a few inorganic compounds, in the first half
of this century, most of the discovery, and much of the production and
distribution of pest control methods, was done by the federal government.
Government involvement climaxed from 1940-1945 to meet World War II pest
control needs.
After World War II, industry accepted the challenge of developing
and marketing pesticides on a large scale. This is a complex process in-
volving chemical or biological synthesis, screening, laboratory and field
studies, market research, production research, etc., the results of which
must be carefully evaluated and Integrated before an economically viable
product is ultimately developed. The process of development is long,
costly, and subject to risks and uncertainties not under the direct control
of the developer. Currently, government organizations and universities
contribute to basic research, understanding of pest physiology, pesticide
application and pest control methods, but do not alone have the resources
to bring the pesticide development process to successful completion.
More detailed background information is presented in Appendices
A and B.
22
-------
Ill. APPROACH
Figure 1 represents schematically the approach taken in the conduct
of this program.
A. TASK I—BACKGROUND STUDIES
The purpose of Task I was to set the stage for the development of
incentives. Specifically, a major goal was to determine the problems
that should be addressed by incentives and some of the parties involved
and circumstances surrounding these problems.
Initially, the work focused on innovation in pest control and poten-
tial problems in future pesticide development. The history of pesticide
development from 1900 to the present was examined through a review of
literature and by interviews with persons who had been involved in the
discovery and development of pesticides. This historical information was
analyzed from several perspectives:
(1) Periods of particularly intense innovative activity were
identified (primarily 1940-1945 and the late 1950's). The
circumstances surrounding innovations—such as the funding
sources, state of technology, and nature of pest control
demand—were examined in order to determine the most impor-
tant influences.
(2) Potentially important factors such as pest epidemics, state
and federal regulations, and increases or decreases in
government funding were examined in order to identify any
apparent effect of such factors on pesticide innovative
activity.
(3) Several specific case examples of pesticide innovation
were examined in order to identify the events that have
occasioned the innovations.
The results of this effort (see Section IV-A and Appendix A) suggested
that the factors relevant to pesticide innovation and development are
complex, unique to particular situations and, in general, not repeatable.
Thus, the work focus was changed to emphasize present day innovation
activities and the influences on decision-making concerning them. Because
almost all pesticide innovation in the last 15 years has taken place in
the commercial sector, representatives of 12 carefully selected small and
large companies actively conducting R&D were interviewed by project staff.
In most cases, interviews were conducted by staff members from ADL with
from two or three representatives of the company, usually including the
director of R&D. These interviews were directed at determining the factors
that influenced successful R&D, for example;
23
-------
Task I Background Studies
Task II Development And Evaluation of Incentives
Consideration of Key Issues
in Incentive Development and
Evaluation (Section IV—D)
Identification of Problems
To Be Addressed By
Incentives
(Section IV—B)
Examination of Current
Research & Development
Decision-making Factors
(Section IV-B; Appendix B)
Examination of History
of Pest Control Innovation
(Section (V—A; Appendix A)
incentive Conference &
Workshop
(Section IV—H)
Incentive Concept (Appendix C)
Incentive Framework
(Appendix C)
Criteria For Evaluation of
Incentives
(Section IV—C;Appendix D)
Conceptualization and
Development
of Incentive Framework
Ranking of Incentives (Appendices
K. L. and M)
Selection of Final Incentives
Development of Final Incentives
( Section IV—E; Part Two )
Development of Futures
Projection (Section IV—G;
Appendix O)
Final Development and
Projection of Incentives
Identification of 64
Preliminary Incentives
(Appendix E)
Initial Screening (Appendix F)
Preparation of Working Papers
(Appendix G)
Review of Incentives with
Government, Industry and
Interested Parties
(Appendices H, I & J)
Initial Development and
Evaluation of Incentives
FIGURE 1 APPROACH TAKEN IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
OF INCENTIVES FOR PESTICIDE R&D
-------
(1) The factors that "make or break" a pesticide in each stage
of development, i.e., which influence the corporate decision
to go pursue further development of the product.
(2) The factors that could be modified by external influences and
that, therefore, might be suitable for government incentives.
(3) Specific barriers caused by regulatory activities and other
external factors.
After each interview, the results of the discussion were summarized
and circulated among ADL team members for their review. A list of factors
of importance in pesticide R&D was assembled and sent for review to repre-
sentative companies at which interviews had been conducted (see Section
IV-B and Appendix B).
On the basis of the background material on pesticide innovation,
interviews with industry, the identification of the factors of importance
to pesticide R&D and through discussions among ADL and EPA staff, problem
areas that could be addressed by incentives were identified. A significant
effort was devoted to relating the divergent and somewhat opposing goals
of EPA to problems that could be addressed most effectively by incentives.
As a result, the multi-objective nature of the program evolved and the
challenge of meeting divergent goals through incentive actions was
identified.
B. TASK II—DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF INCENTIVES
This task was conducted in three phases:
• Conceptualization and Development of an Incentive Framework;
• Initial Development and Evaluation of Incentives; and
• Final Development, Evaluation, and Projection of Incentives.
ADL staff members with different backgrounds and expertise contributed
to each phase of the program. The core team consisted of nine staff
members experienced in biology and chemistry, pesticide regulation, agri-
cultural economics, public administration and political science, pesticide
research and development, pesticide industry and economics, and innovation
and incentives. Members were chosen to represent different skills and
interests of the parties concerned with the incentive program.
(1) Conceptualization and Development of an Incentive Framework
A first step in the process of incentive development was the creation
of a "theoretical framework" (see Appendix C). It was "theoretical" in
the sense that several assumptions were made:
25
-------
• The goals and objectives of various parties could be clearly
specified;
• The problems affecting these parties were relatively independent
of each other and could be identified and categorized;
• The actions that would aid in the solution of these problems
could be defined easily;
• The providers and the recipients of the incentives could be
clearly delineated; and
• The evaluation could follow a straightforward process in which
the incentive providers and recipients would be the principal
groups determining the acceptability, feasibility and effective-
ness of the incentive action.
As work progressed, these assumptions were not entirely validated.
First, difficulties were encountered in defining specific goals and
objectives of OPP, agriculture, ETIP, and industry with regard to pesti-
cides and the incentive program, and in resolving the major conflicts
among these goals and objectives. Furthermore the problems of pesticide
research and development caused by regulation are complex and interrelated.
Finally, the ultimate feasibility of the individual actions taken may
depend upon the reactions of many parties—agriculture, industry, the
public, Congress, OPP, other federal agencies, public interest groups—
and not just those of the specific incentive provider or recipient.
Therefore, effort was devoted to developing a practical framework
for incentives: one that specified the purposes and requirements of an
incentive action, identified the goals and objectives of the parties at
interest, and developed methods and criteria for evaluating incentives.
This practical framework embodied the concepts of the "theoretical frame-
work," but allowed the work, in subsequent phases of the work, to proceed
in the environment of the real world. The development of the practical
framework was an ongoing process; the approach was evaluated and modified
throughout the program as feedback was received from various parties and
the interim results were examined.
A major result of this effort was the development of evaluation
criteria for incentives, which were used throughout the program. A large
number of criteria was developed, relating to the goals and objectives of
the program, to the providers and recipients of the incentives, and to
the public interests (see Appendix D). These criteria were reviewed by
EPA, ETIP, and several pesticide companies. Condensed and refined, they
served as broad guidelines for or aids in considering the value of any
given incentive or category of incentives by ADL, ETIP, EPA, industry,
etc. (see Section IV-D).
26
-------
(2) Initial Development and Evaluation of Incentives
The first step in this process was the identification of a large
number of possible incentives and a brief description of each. These
incentives were based upon information obtained in the Task I study on
factors of importance to industry, problems posed and incentives suggest-
ed by industry and government staff, incentives suggested in the litera-
ture, and suggestions of the project core team. Through meetings and
discussions of ADL staff, incentive suggestions were combined, and revised,
to yield 64 preliminary incentives. These were divided into 12 categories:
• Insurance/Liability;
o IR-4;
• IPM;
a Registration Changes;
• Testing by Government;
• Government-Sponsored R&D;
• Education, Training and Information;
o Funding or Reimbursement of Industrial Development;
• Penalties;
• Market Stimulation/Product Demand;
• Product Protection/Proprietary Position; and
• Other.
Each incentive was described briefly in terms of its goal, the incentive
provider (sponsor) and the recipient, and the incentive action. (A
summary listing of these incentives can be found in Appendix E.)
The preliminary incentives were discussed at meetings of ADL and EPA/
ETIP staff, arguments were presented for and against each, and ADL/EPA/
ETIP staff judged each incentive as "good," "bad," or "questionable" with
respect to the evaluation criteria (see Appendix F).
Those incentives in the "good" and "questionable" categories were
futher examined by individual ADL staff members and in group discussion.
Short working papers were prepared on those incentives judged to be "good,"
each paper consisting of a summary, objective of the incentive, descrip-
tion of the incentive, its implementation, expected observable results,
and the requirements for success. Similar papers were prepared for a
majority of the "questionable" incentives. (As will be noted later,
several of the original Incentives that were not developed further are
given in Appendix G.)
An "Interim Working Document" was prepared for circulation to a broad
range of federal agencies, private companies, organizations, groups and
individuals for review and comment. The "Interim Working Document" con-
tained an introduction to the program (giving a brief overview of the
EPA/ETIP program goals and objectives), the list of criteria as an aid in
evaluating the incentives, a summary listing of the 64 preliminary in-
centives developed, and working papers on 25 of these incentives. The
"Interim Working Document" was sent to about 30 different groups with a
27
-------
request that they review the incentives and provide their reactions to
the incentive concept; the type and content of the specific incentive
actions proposed; and the desirability, feasibility and impact of specific
incentives; and that they suggest modifications to the incentives or new
incentives. Because of the amount of work that could be involved and the
other commitments of those individuals to whom the report was circulated,
any type of response that the group or organization was willing to make
was requested rather than a specific evaluation of each incentive with
respect to all criteria.
*
Thirty follow-up contacts (see Appendix H) were made with recipients
of the "Interim Working Document," breaking down as follows:
No.
• Organizations or units within EPA 7
• Departments or units within other federal agencies 5
• Agricultural associations 2
• Pesticide industry manufacturers or formulators 14
• Environmental groups 2
The nature of the contacts ranged from telephone discussions between one
ADL staff member and one outside contact to meetings of several hours'
duration with from one to three ADL staff members and from one to five
persons at the organization contacted. A brief presentation and comment
session was held with members of the Federal Working Group on Pest Mange-
ment.
The responses from the individuals contacted ranged from letters
indicating that the organization declined to comment to detailed numerical
rankings of each incentive according to specific criteria (see Appendices I &
J for representative comments on these incentives). The discussions
held and comments received were informative, provided Insights into the
feasibility and desirability of the incentives as perceived by various
groups, posed new problems to be addressed by incentives, and suggested
additional incentives for consideration. (See Appendix N for additional
incentives suggested by industry and government.) Strong reactions to
the program and individual incentives, both negative and positive, were
the rule rather than the exception (see Section IV-I).
Comments, suggestions, new incentives, and reactions of the outside
parties were summarized and circulated to the ADL core team, EPA, and
ETIP.
Contacts defined as a personal meeting; telephone discussion (or letter
response) with one or more persons from a single department of a federal
agency, a specific company, association, or group.
28
-------
(3) Final Development and Projection of Incentives
After review of the comments received from industry, government
agencies, associations, and public interest groups, discussions were
held among the project staff to select incentives for further development.
Two processes were used. First, on the basis of the comments received
from each organization that reviewed the incentives, a ranking was pre-
pared for each incentive on a scale from 0 to 4 as follows:
Ranking Comment
0 Can't abide or "live with" incentive
1 Unfavorable toward incentive
2 Neutral (or not necessary) toward incentive
3 Agreed with, but not optimistic about, incentive
4 Strongly support incentive
"blank" No opinion or comment obtained
(Appendices K-H give the individual and summary rankings.)
In the second process, those incentives that had received the highest
rankings were examined and discussed. Several were combined or modified
as a result of the comments, suggestions or new incentives from industry,
government and other participants.
More detailed papers were prepared on nine final incentives (in many
cases two or more related incentive ideas were combined into a single in-
centive paper). These papers present the view of the project core team
of the problems addressed, descriptions of the incentive actions and their
possible implementation and impact, and the requirements for success (see
Part Two).
An experiment was undertaken to assess the future impact of several
of the nine final incentives. With the method developed by Stanford
Research Institute for EPA,* the probable acceptance and impact of incen-
tives were examined in a workshop meeting, considering three scenarios
representing the different concepts of the political, economic, social,
energy, and environmental setting in 1980, 1990, and 2000 (see Section
IV-G and Appendix 0).
"Alternative Futures for Environmental Policy Planning: 1975-2000,"
EPA-540/9-75-027, Oct. 1975, prepared by Stanford Research Institute,
Center for the Study of Social Policy, Menlo Park, Calif.
29
-------
The process of final development and projection of incentives in-
cluded a synthesis of the information gained in various tasks and phases,
the views of the program participants, and the results of individual
tasks, subtasks and analyses conducted in the program.
The final phase of this program is the development and conduct of a
conference/workshop to review the program results and incentives and to
move toward implementation of those most desirable and useful (see Section
IV-H).
30
-------
IV. RESULTS
A. HISTORY OF PESTICIDE INNOVATION
Although the purpose of the historical investigation was to determine
if conditions accompanying pesticide innovation could be repeated through
incentive actions, definition of the causative agents was difficult. Most
innovations represented a unique nexus of conditions that could be gen-
erally grouped as follows:
• A specific need arose.
• Investment resources were available.
• Basic and applied research provided an adequate base for
development of the new product.
The pattern of the history of innovations In pest control is char-
acterized by a few important discoveries, followed by a flurry of synthesis
activity on similar chemical compounds. For example, the discovery of
DDT was soon followed by the related chlorinated hydrocarbons, the ureas,
and the triazines. The greatest concentration of innovative activity
occurred during World War II, when the three conditions (demand, invest-
ment resources, and available technologies) were adequately met.
The sources of funding of innovation have changed considerably. Many
early innovative efforts in the development of chemical and biological
pest control methods can be traced to government and university research.
USDA, NSF, the Rockefeller Foundation, and other sources of funds and man-
power continue to be important today, especially in regard to biological
controls. However, most of the innovations since 1950 have arisen from
industrial research. The European chemical companies were the forerunners,
introducing many of the organophosphates and the carbamates. The contri-
bution of American companies has become equally, If not more, important
in recent years.
Some of the factors and circumstances that led to innovation in the
early history of pesticide development—e.g., fallout from wartime develop-
ment efforts and major advances in physiologic and behavioral research—
are less important today. Instead, the impetus for commercial development
of pest control methods has been the high demand for pesticides, the
utilization of synthesis, analysis, and screening technology as well as
manpower and dollar resources, combined with the competitive nature of the
agricultural chemical industry and the financial rewards accompanying
successful product development. Increasingly the government has played
a role in new pesticide development in regulating pesticides and indirectly
affecting research and development. A more detailed account of the history
of pesticide development is given in Appendix A.
31
-------
B. PROBLEMS TO BE ADDRESSED BY INCENTIVES
Factors affecting innovation in industry were examined to point the
way for needed incentive actions. Such considerations as profitability,
size of market, and proprietary position were found to be critical to
industry in R&D decisionmaking. Factors important to industry in product
research and development are discussed in detail in Appendix B. The deter-
mination of these factors of importance to industry led to the identifica-
tion of problems in pesticide development. These problems were not only
related to innovation, but included other critical situations that might
be appropriately addressed by incentives in order to meet the goals of
this program.
Problems created by regulatory activities:
• The time required for pesticide development has increased due
to the tests required for pesticide registration, as well as the
time required for EPA's review of registration applications.
• Registration testing requirements have increased the cost of
pesticide development.
• The "climate" in which a pesticide is developed has become in-
creasingly unstable due to the uncertainties surrounding require-
ments for registration and reregistration.
Problems connected with market size:
• The high investment required (due to registration) and the low
return on investment in pesticides for minor crops often prevents
the development of pesticides for minor use alone.
• Liability is a potential problem in developing pest control
products for the protection of high-value, low-volume crops and
for the home and garden market.
• Company policy dictating the need for a "big winner" neglects the
smaller markets.
• The work of IR-4 is hampered by the unwillingness of many companies
to register products cooperatively, and by the large volume of
registrations requested each year through the IR-4 program.
Problems connected with proprietary position:
• The lack of protection for naturally occurring materials is
considered a barrier by many companies.
• The transfer to companies of ideas or products developed by the
government or universities is very difficult as a result of patent
problems.
32
-------
• The loss of patent life due to registration requirements for all
types of products, but especially innovative ones, is a problem.
Although these problems were mentioned by various sectors of industry,
there was little agreement within industry and within government concern-
ing the details of these problems. There is, however, general agreement
on several issues. Both industry and government believe there is a "minor
use problem" although they may disagree as to the nature of it. Most
parties will concur that registration requirements have affected the cost
and time of product development. Whether this has impacted innovation
is not clear. Other issues are even less clear. Does liability, although
often mentioned, affect manufacturers' decisions? Does a patent life,
shortened by registration requirements, prevent pesticide development?
These issues were all considered in the development of incentives.
C. CONCEPTUALIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF INCENTIVE FRAMEWORK
Developing the concept of government-sponsored incentives to aid in
the solution of these problems was the focus of most of this program.
Past government-sponsored incentives have ranged from slogans recommending
the purchase of government savings bonds, to cost-sharing of highways and
buildings under grant programs, to tax incentives.
In this program, an incentive was considered to be an action (or
behavior) taken by one organization or person—the incentive provider—
in order to attract or convince another organization or person—the
incentive recipient—to take other actions (or change behavior) so as to
meet some of the goals and objectives of both incentive providers and
recipients. In addition to incentive providers and recipients, inter-
mediaries often facilitate the implementation of the incentive, and may
obtain benefits which help meet their own objectives. Principal incentive
providers, intermediaries, and receivers considered in this program are
shown below:
Providers
Intermediaries
Receivers
Congress
EPA
Other
federal
agencies
State agencies—university
and agricultural experiment
stations
Industry and User
Associations
Federal agencies
Pest control industry—
manufacturer, formulator
Pest control R&D
sources—industry,
university, independent
laboratory
Pest control users
Several different types of incentives were considered:
33
-------
Administrative/regulatory
changes in administrative procedures,
regulations, guidelines, program
assignments, etc.
Funds
direct or indirect funding, credits
and subsidies
Service/function/facility resources offered in kind, e.g., use
of federal facility, federal testing,
etc.
Manpower/training
provision of personnel resources for
training or other purposes
Information/data
providing, organizing, or evaluating
data needed by recipients
Consumer/market
indirectly or directly aimed at
creating or changing market demand
Among these various types of incentives, some may be more appropriate
than others (and more successful) in addressing specific problems.
Further discussion of the incentive concept is given in Appendix C.
An incentive need not meet all goals of the providers or recipients,
and indeed these goals may be in conflict. However, for an incentive to
be successfully implemented, at least one specific objective of the pro-
vider and recipient must be met. Similarly, objectives of the various
parties usually vary, covering a range from simple, specific and, near-
term objectives to complex, broad, and long-term ones. An incentive may
address only a near-term objective but still have ultimate impact on a
broader, more long-range objective.
A successful incentive must also meet criteria such as those shown
in Table 3. These criteria were used to help evaluate the potential
acceptance and impact of proposed incentives. Additional criteria for
incentives are given in Appendix D.
D. INITIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF INCENTIVES
1. Preliminary Incentives
On the basis of contacts with government and industry—both under
this and earlier contracts with EPA—and as a result of Task I and the
development of an incentive framework, a set of preliminary incentive
ideas was developed. These were of considerable breadth and diversity,
reflecting the various perspectives and opinions of the many parties at
interest.
34
-------
TABLE 3
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF INCENTIVES
Does the incentive address the goals of improved environmental and human
safety of pest control agents and use practices—
• promote pest control methods that are increasingly
- non-toxic to non-target organisms
non-mobile and non-bioaccumulative
- narrow spectrum
non-persistent
• promote biological control, integrated pest management and
other non-traditional chemical pest control approaches
Does the incentive help maintain or develop an adequate supply and variety
of pest control methods for all important pest problems—
• increase variety and availability of pest control
methods by stimulating innovation
• encourage development of pest control methods for
minor crops and markets
• maintain viability of the pest control industry including
existing R&D resources
• maintain diverse resources for pesticide research and
development
Will the incentive help the pesticide industry—
• improve profitability and return on investment
• encourage new corporate entries
• enhance pesticide markets—size, penetration
• reduce the time and costs of pesticide registration
and/or development
Will the incentive help agriculture and other pesticide users—
• maintain or improve unit profitability of agricultural
production
• have increased access to effective pest control methods
for a minor use/crop application
35
-------
Table 3 Continued
• lower the risk of achieving profitable crop yields and/or
utilizing best management practices
• have access to more effective, safer, and inexpensive
pest control methods
In terms of feasibility, will the incentive:
• be simple to implement
• use existing organizational resources and mechanisms
• avoid prohibitive expenditures for any party
• achieve the desired goal, if implemented, or are there
significant risks or uncertainties
• be reasonably self-sustaining once initiated
• by itself have sufficient impact to warrant its adoption
Will the incentive be acceptable to the
pesticide manufacturer EPA
pesticide formulator USDA
pesticide distributor Congress
pesticide dealer public
pesticide farmer/user environmentalist
Will the real tangible benefits accrue to the
pesticide manufacturer EPA
pesticide formulator USDA
pesticide distributor Congress
pesticide dealer public
pesticide farmer/user environmentalist
Will the incentive
• be implemented in the near term (1-3 years)
• produce any useful results in the near term (1-3 years)
• produce worthwhile longer term results (4-10 years)
36
-------
Incentive ideas were discussed among the project staff, some sugges-
tions were revised and combined, and a set of 64 preliminary incentives
resulted. These were grouped into 12 action categories:
Insurance/liability
IR-4
Integrated Pest Management and Biological Control
Registration
Testing by Government
Government-Sponsored R&D
Education, Training, and Information
Funding and Reimbursement of Industrial Development
Penalties
Product Protection/Proprietary Position
Market Stimulation/Product Demand
Other
(The 64 preliminary incentives are listed and briefly described in
Appendix E.)
2. Initial Screening
Initial screening of these incentives consisted of discussion and
evaluation with respect to the evaluation criteria described above and
presented in Appendix D. ADL, EPA, and ETIP staff informally screened
the incentives by choosing those that seemed feasible and effective in
meeting a particular goal. The complete results of the initial screening
process are given in Appendix F.
3. Working Papers
The incentives that emerged from the screening process were explored
further; a working paper was prepared for each one in sufficient detail
to stimulate evaluation and discussion by ADL, ETIP, EPA, and outside
reviewers. The working papers on incentive ideas that were not incor-
porated in the final incentives developed in this program are given in
Appendix G. All working papers, along with background materials and
criteria for evaluation, were contained in an Interim Working Document.
4. Review of Incentives with Government, Industry, and Interested
Parties and Final Ranking
The Interim Working Document was distributed to 17 companies, 18
government agencies, and 9 other interested parties for review. (See
Appendix H for list of organizations who received the document.) The
specific comments received concerning the incentives proposed in the
Interim Working Document are listed in Appendices I and J. Based upon
these comments and discussions with the organizations, the program staff
prepared rankings by industry, government agencies, and associations
(see Appendices K, L, and M) on a scale of 0-4 indicating relative
acceptability as follows:
37
-------
0 can't abide or "live with" incentive
1 unfavorable toward incentive
2 neutral toward incentive
3 agree with, but not optimistic about incentive
4 strongly support incentive
Table A lists the ten incentives with the highest average rating by
industry respondents and the ten with the highest rating by representatives
of government agencies and associations.
Industry representatives were more enthusiastic about a smaller
number of incentives than were the respondents from government and
associations. Industry favored most those incentives dealing with costs,
time and uncertainity of registration, patent life and crop groupings.
Government and association rankings were more uniform and favored most
those incentives dealing with research, training, and ongoing government
programs. Several incentives were rated in the top ten by both groups—
reducing the time and cost of registration, crop groupings for minor
crops, supplemental funding for IR-4 program, and expansion of the
extension service.
A number of additional incentives were suggested during the discussions
with industry and government staff. Some of these were incorporated into
the final incentives developed in the program. Appendix N lists the
specific incentives suggested by those who reviewed the Interim Working
Document.
5. Critical Issues
In the process of developing and evaluating incentives, and in
considering methods for implementing them, a number of important issues
were raised with EPA/ETIP personnel and with government, industry and
other interest groups. Viewpoints differed considerably; many issues
could not be resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the various parties.
Assumptions had to be made concerning some of these issues in order to
proceed with the development of incentives. However, the actual
resolution of these questions will be a major determinant of what incentives
are implemented and, in some cases, in what manner.
• Who Should Sponsor Incentive Actions?
That the principal issues and problems can best be dealt with at
the federal level was a major premise of this program.
However, should EPA sponsor most incentives? One viewpoint is
that regulations have created many of the problems that are being
addressed by incentives and that EPA should be responsible for their
resolution. Furthermore, since EPA, by virtue of its pesticide regulatory
role, will ultimately have to deal with pesticides and their effects on
man and the environment, it should also influence future research and
38
-------
TABLE 4
INCENTIVES THAT RECEIVED THE HIGHEST AVERAGE RATING BY
RESPONDENTS FROM INDUSTRY. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. AND ASSOCIATIONS
Incentive Average Rating
Industry
20. Reduced Time and Cost of the Registration Process 3.9
19. Decreased Uncertainties of Registration Process for
Applicants 3.6
49. Modification of Patent Issue Date and/or Duration 3.6
9. Crop Groupings for Minor Crops 3.3
35. Definition of Standards for Safety 2.8
39. Improvement in the EPA Contacts with Congressional
Overseers 2.5
7. Supplemental Funding for IR-4 2.5
41. Research Investment Credit 2.3
58. Expansion of Extension Service Program 2.3
16. Reduced Registration Time for Safe Products 2.2
Government Agencies and Associations
58. Expansion of Extension Service Program 3.4
14. Reorganization of USDA Research on Biological Control 3.3
37. Independent Pesticide Research Foundation 3.3
60. Expansion of the Number and Role of Independent Pest
Management Consultants 3.3
36. Training of Farmers and Applicators 3.0
61. Safety Index 3.0
7. Supplemental Funding for IR-4 2.9
39
-------
TABLE 4 (Continued)
Incentive Average Rating
9. Crop Groupings for Minor Crops 2.9
20. Reduced Time and Cost of the Registration Process 2.9
43. Reimbursement of Registration Costs for Pesticides
for Minor Crops 2.8
44. Repayment Loan Fund for Pesticide R&D 2.8
40
-------
development efforts so that there are fewer regulatory problems in the
future. On the other side of the argument, regulation of pesticides may
be compromised by involvement in product development.
Another viewpoint is that the sponsor should be the federal agency
"closest" to the problem area. Since one criterion for the success of an
incentive is that direct benefits accrue to the sponsor, logically
different agencies should sponsor different incentives. For example,
USDA might sponsor incentives dealing with the use of pesticides or on
behalf of agricultural users of pesticides. The Department of Commerce
might best sponsor incentives dealing with generic industry problems,
such as patents, copyrights, and tjrade secrets, with EPA sponsoring only
those incentives concerned with pesticide regulation. This approach would
help ensure that the incentive sponsor is one who is "trusted" by and has
common goals with the recipient, and that a reasonable working relation-
ship exists or can be developed between sponsor and recipient.
• Should EPA be a Pesticide Promoter as Well as a Pesticide
Regulator?
One of the reasons often cited for transferring pesticide regulatory
authority from the USDA to EPA in 1970 was that the relationship between
the regulating agency and the regulated industry had been too "close"
and that a conflict had existed between USDA's regulatory objective and
its promotional objectives, i.e., increased agricultural production through
development and use of pesticides. EPA, on the other hand, is an executive
and regulatory agency, with OPP implementing a law that seeks to prevent
unreasonable adverse effects of pesticides on man and the environment.
Many persons believe that EPA should avoid a regulatory and promotional
conflict and that other agencies, not EPA, should provide incentives
that promote development of new pesticides.
However, FIFRA acknowledges that a balancing between the benefits
and adverse effects of pesticides must be considered in the regulatory
process, and some interpret this to mean that EPA/OPP must act to ensure
that the benefits of pesticides continue to be available whether through
regulation or through encouragement of the development of new pesticides.
• Should EPA Give Priority to Certain Products in its Regulatory
Activities?
There is much disagreement about whether EPA should treat "safer"
products preferentially. On one hand EPA's mandate is to ensure the
use of safe pest control methods, perhaps through the mechanism of giving
priority in registration to safer products and thereby discriminating
against other products that meet existing standards. The law requires
that OPP give priority in its research to the development of biologically
integrated alternatives for pest control. On the other hand, one cannot,
a priori, assume that biological controls are safer than other pest
control methods. Should OPP give regulatory priority to biologically
integrated alternatives in order to encourage private development of
these products?
41
-------
• Should the Government Conduct Research on or Test Pesticides?
A significant number of the incentives originally proposed in this
program dealt with government conduct or funding of research on pesticides
or tests required for pesticide registration. As anticipated, the general
reaction from both industry and government was that government funding
was better than government conduct of research and testing. Various
reasons were cited: inefficiency in government organization, delays in
testing, lack of motivatioi; for initiative efforts, etc., if the govern-
ment performed the functions. Industry was generally opposed to govern-
ment funding of tests required for registration, since this could result
in loss of control over the product development efforts, and most govern-
ment agencies also believe that industry should continue to be responsible
for testing.
The effectiveness of government-sponsored and conducted research
has been a subject of debate by many. The current view of many individuals
and groups (including ETIP's) is to have the research conducted by those
who have the greatest potential for reward from exploitation of the
research results. The past history,accomplishments, and structure of
the pesticide industry indicate that industrial research may lead more
directly to new pesticide products. Another viewpoint is that the govern-
ment should perform high-risk research that industry is reluctant to
perform or research that is necessary only because of government-created
needs.
• Are the Long-Term Risks to the Pesticide Industry Increasing?
Many pesticide companies and users and government representatives feel that
regulations and other factors Increase the long-term financial risks of
the pesticide business and thus lead to changes in the industry that may
adversely affect the country's economy and agricultural output.
The uncertain impacts of pesticide regulations on the quantity and
effectiveness of pesticide research and development have already been
discussed. EPA and OSHA requirements for control of air, water, and solid
waste effluents and the working environment have demanded changes in
manufacturing processes, waste treatment, and storage and disposal.
Other costly changes include:
• New data or personnel requirements, additional tests, review,
process changes, new label requirements, etc.
• Efforts devoted to defense of existing products, in suspension
and cancellation processes and litigation, and in responding
to the Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration (RPAR)
process, as well as in justifying reregistration of pesticides.
• Lost sales as a result of new experimental permit procedures,
state registration changes, delays in issuance of registration,
and suspensions or cancellations.
42
-------
These factors are believed by many to lower the potential for profit in
specific pesticide production and for specific pesticide companies. In
addition, the longer time required for registration and the higher
chemical construction costs increase the payout period (or reduce the
internal rate of return) on individual products or for company ventures.
An increasing financial risk in the pesticide industry may persuade
investors and managers to devote their efforts and funds to more secure
ventures.
The high cost of entering and maintaining investment in the pesticide
business also suggests that the industry is likely to consolidate—large
companies becoming larger, smaller organizations withdrawing from the
field or merging with others. This consolidation in itself may not be
detrimental, but some persons believe it can reduce innovative efforts
in pest control.
On the other hand, registered products that enter the marketplace
may have a greater profit potential and long-term return because of the
many products that are either not registered or are canceled. Thus,
the present processes and trends tend to make larger "winners" of fewer
pesticide products. Further higher costs of development and regulation
are countered by increases in sales resulting from the increased reliance
on insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, and from the users' willingness
to pay higher prices for them.
• Who Wants Incentives?
The purpose of an incentive is to cause a particular action or
reaction to occur. A recipient is more favorable if he perceives real
benefits from an incentive.
In general, the pesticide industry and particularly the larger
organizations are suspicious of accepting government-sponsored incentives
because of possible additional and unwanted government intervention or
regulation.
Federal agencies tend to favor providing incentives if they help
achieve the goals and objectives of the agency, can be used to develop
a new program or expand an existing one, can be accomplished within
reasonable budgets, and will improve the agency's public, congressional,
and executive image.
Pesticide users are most likely ambivalent to incentives, and may
not have significant influence over their adoption. They will be in
favor of incentives which can help provide them with the needed variety
of safe cost-effective products, and be opposed to those which decrease
pesticide availability or increase pesticide costs.
43
-------
• What Type of Interaction Is Appropriate Between Government
and Industry?
This issue is not unique to the pesticide industry or to pesticide
regulation; much has been written on the interactions of the pharmaceutical
industry and the FDA, the airlines and the FAA and CAB, etc. The comments
obtained from various parties suggest that an idealistic view of the inter-
action between the government (OPP as the regulator in this case) and
the pesticide industry would be one which: recognizes the divergent as
well as the mutual goals of the parties and respects each other's view-
points; establishes mutual confidence through utilization of staff with
appropriate skills, professionalism, and attitudes; is straightfoward and
open in intent, information transfer, and procedure; and considers the
views of other parties affected by the interactions. Some believe that
a strictly adversary approach is essential to assure a proper balancing
of all parties' interests and to bring issues to a definitive resolution.
• Who Should Pay for Incentives?
Almost any incentive that can be expected to have an impact on the
current problems of pesticides and pesticide regulation will cost money.
Funds will be required to administer the incentive, to pay for staff of
the agency or industry providing or responding to the incentive, or to
conduct the work required by the incentive. Those incentives with low
total cost are favored by Congress, government agencies, industry, and the
public, provided they also have significant benefits or impacts.
Although the general belief is that the costs should be borne by
those who benefit from the incentive, it is more difficult to identify
the beneficiaries and levels of benefits and allocate costs accordingly.
Furthermore, there is a question of transferring costs from one group to
another. If EPA embarks on a program of pesticide research, information
exchange, and change in regulations, the costs will most likely be paid
ultimately by the general public through taxation. Yet the government,
industry, and pesticide users will be the primary beneficiaries; the
public will be a secondary beneficiary through less potential for environ-
mental or personal hazards, maintenance of food supplies, etc. Similarly,
if industry responds to incentives by new research efforts, development
of new products, added test procedures, etc., the cost will ultimately
be transferred to the consumer'and the public. Although it seems
inevitable that the costs must be borne ultimately by the public, the
direct responsibility for funding has been suggested for each Incentive
developed in this program.
E. FINAL INCENTIVES
Nine incentives addressing specific problems were selected for more
careful and detailed consideration. Short essays have been prepared
exploring the problems addressed by, the background for the specific
actions In, and possible results of each of these nine incentives.
44
-------
Because collectively these papers are quite long, they are not presented
here, with the other results of this program, but rather separately in
Part Two of this report.
The reader is encouraged to peruse several (if not all) of these
nine incentive papers and the following brief descriptions are provided
as an indication of the problems addressed by them:
(1) Increase Availability of Minor Use Pesticides
A lack of pest control methods for some low-volume crops has resulted
from the high costs of product registration and concern about liability.
Suggested actions would administratively facilitate the registration of
pesticide products for minor uses and evaluate possible liability problems
further.
(2) Increase Utilization of Integrated Pest Management
Three action areas are suggested to further the use of an appropriate
combination of pest control techniques rather than exclusively chemical
means of control: expansion of the use of corrective pest control,
investigation of current obstacles to user acceptance of IPM, and funding
of projects utilizing diverse pest control techniques.
(3) Decrease Regulatory Hindrances to R&D
The implementation of FIFRA, as amended, is expected to hinder
industrial R&D of pesticides. Suggestions are made to reduce the time
(and costs) of the registration process, the costs of registration test
requirements, and the difficulty of R&D decisionmaking in changing
regulatory environment.
(4) Increase Government Support of Basic Research
Increased government funding of basic research is proposed as a
means of stimulating novel applied research concerning pest control.
(5) Increase Information and Training for Users
In order to Increase the market demand for improved pesticides, an
expanded program of information and training for pesticide users is
proposed to be coordinated at the state level through the USDA Extension
Service.
(6) Lengthen Patent Life
Because the registration process has effectively shortened the period
in which a company can recoup its investment in a pesticide product,
suggested changes in the patent laws would extend the patent life of
such products.
45
-------
(7) Improve Communications Between the Pesticide Industry and EPA
In order to achieve better mutual understanding and possibly increased
efficiency of pesticide registration, the establishment of informal joint
industry/EPA committees is suggested.
(8) Advertise Safety on Product Label
Suggested changes in the wording on pesticide product labels would
enable users to choose less toxic products and could lead eventually
to a greater demand for such products.
(9) Reduce the Risk of Product Development by Industry
Administrative and policy changes within EPA and increased participation
by industry and the public are suggested as a means of establishing a
climate in which R&D can have more certain returns over the long term.
F. OTHER PROMISING INCENTIVES
In the final stages of screening and evaluation, several other
incentives were believed to have potential for success. Some were
incorporated into the nine final incentives presented in Part Two.
Others were not developed further in order to concentrate on those with
greater potential. EPA and other organizations may wish to investigate
these more fully. Following is a brief description of six of these
incentives and some of the reactions of various groups.
(1) Research Investment Credit
The purpose of this incentive is to encourage additional investment
in pesticide R&D by private industry. On EPA's recommendation, Congress
would pass a tax abatement scheme similar to the current investment
credit, allowing companies to offset their income tax by a certain percent
(perhaps 10%) of all or certain of their research expenditures on pesticides
during that tax year.
In spite of generally favorable reactions by program participants
to its intent, this incentive was considered to have a low probability of
success. Several companies felt such credits would reduce some of the
cost of added R&D burdens; others were fearful that the implementation
would open the door to government direction of research. The problems of
allocation of research costs and the required bookkeeping and accounting
were considered drawbacks. Such a measure would have to be passed by
Congress and would probably have to include all highly regulated industries,
not only the pesticide industry. The probability of this happening is
low.
46
-------
Government agencies and environmental groups cited the difficulty in
administration, and the increase in complexity of the tax structure.
(2) Insurance/Liability
Several incentive actions were proposed to counteract the adverse
effects of "product liability" on pesticide research and deve]opment.
• Insurance for Minor Crops—The federal government would create
an insurance program to reduce companies' liability for product-
related damage to low-volume, high-value crops or for other
minor pesticide uses. A federally sponsored re-insurance
program was an alternative to compensate for catastrophic
losses on minor crops.
• Insurance for Farmers Using Improved Pest Control Methods—The
USDA would extend the crop insurance program to reimburse farmers
for crop losses resulting from the use of new, innovative pest
control methods, formulations or application methods.
• No-Fault Tolerance—USDA and State Experiment Stations would
develop "guaranteed" residue and phytotoxicity data which could
be used in registration. Companies would not be liable for
crop losses in a specified period after registration if these
data were used.
Most companies and trade associations and some government representatives
did not favor (or favored only limited) government-sponsored insurance
incentives because they believed:
• "liability" was a "proper risk" of doing business;
• such incentives might stimulate less than desirable performance
by industry;
• federal involvement could lead to a costly and complex program;
• gross misuse of such incentives, in the form of false claims,
could occur;
• any program would be difficult to Implement and administer; and
• existing re-insurance systems are adequate and catastrophic
losses are infrequent.
Some goverment groups consulted favored replacing "chemical insurance"
with "dollar insurance," believing that such incentives could help to solve
the minor use problem and could be added to existing crop Insurance programs.
47
-------
Further study is needed to quantify the impact of product liability
on availability of pesticides for minor use or on research and development
of new products.
(3) Government Generation of Environmental and Residue Data for
Minor Crop and Specialty Pesticides
The goal of this incentive is to extend the IR-4 program to provide
for government generation of environmental data, as well as residue data
in order to reduce development costs. Industry would be required to
develop toxicity and efficacy data prior to government testing.
The extension of the IR-4 program to address the minor use problem
is addressed by one of the final incentives. Industry reaction to this
specific approach was mixed. Companies disagreed concerning the effectiveness
of USDA as the sponsoring agency and whether testing should be performed
by independent laboratories, rather than government laboratories, or by
industry itself. Some felt that the current IR-4 program was sufficient
and such a process would increase registration time. Government reaction
was similarly also mixed.
(4) Government Funding of Research on Formulation and Application
This incentive calls for increased government-sponsored research
on methods of formulation and application under the direction of a USDA-
EPA committee, assisted by a user-industry advisory group. Research
projects, conducted by university and extension service staff, would
emphasize close cooperation among pesticide users, equipment manufacturers,
formulators, and the pesticide producers. This would hopefully lead to
better control of pesticide use, more cost-effective application, enhanced
applicator safety, and reduced environmental hazards.
Industry had mixed reactions to this incentive. Some companies
felt the research should be sponsored only by USDA and should be limited
to application methods. Others felt that this research was already
conducted by both industry (formulators) and government (states and USDA)
or that industry was best suited to do the research.
Government agencies generally favored the continuation of current
research practices, in which USDA, state agenices, and universities
conduct application research with most formulation research accomplished
by industry. Some government agency staff felt this work would constitute
interference in the market by government.
(5) Commercialization of Pesticide Products Developed by or for
the Government
Studies of pesticide innovation and factors of importance to the
pesticide industry suggested that new product research and development
conducted by the government was rarely "picked up" by industry, even
though significant expenditures had been made and some of the development
48
-------
risks had been mitigated. The objective of this incentive is to encourage
industry to exploit pesticide technology that has been developed by, or
under contract to, the government, through granting industry exclusive
licenses to government-owned patents or facility-development contracts
for limited pesticide production. Priority could be given to "biological
control" approaches.
Industry reaction was again mixed. Some companies favored the
incentive if: biological controls were not emphasized, potential
products were "sold to the highest bidder" or if products with real
potential could be developed by the government. Others were skeptical,
doubting that the incentive would have significant impact and believing
that new product development should remain in the domain of industry.
Government agencies generally favored the incentive, but felt that
the public would view the incentive as "subsidizing industry," although
any good potential product should be offered to industry for further
development.
(6) Expansion of the Number and Role of Independent Pest Management
Consultants
The role of the independent pest management consultant has been
increasing in the western states, particularly in California. Several
studies have been conducted on the benefits and costs of pest management
consultants.* The USDA or EPA would support, through training and
subsidies, an increase in the number of independent pest management
consultants who counsel farmers and growers, aiding in the selection and
application of pest control measures.
Some industry representatives favored this incentive if IPM were
not a requirement of the program, if USDA or the SBA (not the EPA) imple-
mented the incentive, and the expense to the taxpayers was minimized.
Others felt that it was the private sector's responsibility to develop
such services if they were needed. Some government representatives felt
that the only role for government was to provide information and that the
private sector should be responsible for using the information. Those
who favored the incentive felt that it should be implemented by USDA or
SBA, not EPA. Other groups felt that these services would be in direct
competition with the state extension services and inhibit both programs.
See,for example, Willey, Wayne R., "The Diffusion of Pest Management
Information Technology" (Ph.D. dissertation prospectus, University
of California, Berkeley, March 1974).
49
-------
G. THE FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR INCENTIVES
1. Introduction
One of the goals of this program was to assess the potential impact
of the incentives on pesticide research and development in the next
25 years. The near- and long-term impacts of the incentives are difficult
to evaluate because of the complexity in assessing the acceptance of
incentives by various parties, the information that will be developed in
the future on the benefits and costs of pesticide use, and the potential
changes in the social, economic, agricultural, and environmental status
of the nation. Therefore, instead of extensive effort devoted to estimating
future impacts of incentives, the analysis of the period 1980 to 2000 was
limited to the potential acceptance and impact of several incentives and
the incentives program itself based on three scenarios* for the future
developed by the Stanford Research Institute. The scenarios cover three
major themes: relative industrial success with no major value or institu-
tional changes from the present; industrial distress that results in
social, economic, and political instability; and an industrial transformation.
The results are summarized below; additional detail is given in Appendix 0.
2. Analysis of Incentives
In the highly successful and industrial scenario, those incentives
that benefit industry the most will be accepted to a greater degree than
at present. This is entirely the expected trend. Incentives that lower
the power of regulation or place more emphasis on industry's meeting user
needs with minimum environmental concerns will be acceptable. The impacts
of these incentives will be equal to or smaller than at present because
of the power of the industrial establishment and the fact that pesticide
problems probably will be resolved through technology which will be
developed with or without incentives.
Under a scenario in which there is a major transformation from today's
values to those associated with a more frugal society, those incentives
that deal with individual choices, benefits to the small companies or
directly to users, and biologically integrated alternatives will be more
acceptable than at present. Such action will probably have a greater
impact because of the individualistic nature of society in this scenario.
SRI developed ten scenarios; the three chosen represent optimistic,
moderate, and pessimistic views of the future. They are referred to
by SRI as Hitting the Jackpot, the Dark at the Top of the Stairs, and
Journey to Transcendence.
50
-------
In a scenario that represents breakdown and ultimate failure of
our political and economic institutions, none of the incentives examined
in this analysis shows promise of greater acceptability or impact than at
present. Mare important problems will be faced by individuals, existing
industrial organizations, and society than the long-term aspects of develop-
ment of new pest control methods, even when food shortages occur. By
that time, immediate needs will take priority and little effort will be
devoted to future concerns.
The acceptability and impact of incentives in different scenarios
and in different time periods was examined. The results of this examin-
ation indicated no course of action that would be promising in all
scenarios. Thus it is not possible to design a policy of incentive
actions that is appropriate for all eventualities.
Conclusions that can be drawn from this analysis are as follows:
• There is some risk in implementing incentives no matter what
course EPA chooses but this risk can be reduced somewhat by
monitoring of signs that society is taking one path to the
future or another.
• The incentive actions least vulnerable to uncertainty are
changes to the registration process and the advertising of
safety on the label, but the uncertainty in these increases
toward the year 2000. This implies that action should be taken
now, if at all.
• General acceptance for the objectives of the incentives
program is mixed at present, uncertain in 1980, and becomes
negative in the year 2000. This strongly suggests taking
action now, if at all.
3. Examination of the EPA/ETIP Program
In considering the EPA/ETIP incentives program in the futures
concept, the acceptance of such a program is probably greatest now, under
the economic and societal conditions which presently exist. This is attributed
to the assumption that most of society believes there are still time
and methods available to solve problems of pest control costs and benefits.
The split in values today is such that persons with differing views and
values can see benefits from an incentive program, and thus can support
the program even though their goals may differ considerably. Thus, in
the absence of great food, energy, political or social crises, one can
expect strong support of government programs to improve the efficiency
of govenment, help industry meet some of its needs, and solve some public
problems.
51
-------
If a highly successful technical/Industrial society evolves, either
the problems of pest control will be solved or those individuals outside
this mainstream society will have neither the desire nor the power to
change the system via an incentives program.
In a society that involves transition to frugal values, there will
be less demand for a program which seeks to continue industrial develop-
ment of new pest control approaches. In the early years of this transi-
tion, a program of incentives aimed at the needs of individuals might be
accepted, but as individual needs change and as society changes with them,
both the government structure which can create incentives and the benefits
to be gained from such incentives will be of little importance and use.
Incentive programs might be useful in a future scenario in which
institutional degradation and social decay are evident, and could help
overcome such trends. However, if external variables are strong enough
to drive the society further toward the brink of social and economic
disaster, incentive programs will be of no value—much more important
survival and political issues will consume the energies of the public.
The public's attitude toward the individual goals of the ETIP/EPA
program may change. For example, alleviating the problems of regulation
will be highly acceptable in a technological/industrial society, but it is
doubtful that the pesticide regulations that would continue to exist in
such a society would pose significant problems for industry. Assistance
in the development of safer, biologically integrated products can have
greater acceptance and impact in a transformation scenario than in other
scenarios.
An incentive program has less importance, less acceptance, and
less impact as technology is able to meet the problems of pesticide use.
Where major societal changes take place rapidly, long-term programs—
e.g., incentives for R&D of new pesticides, which cannot be expected to
give results for at least ten years—will have less acceptance than at
present.
H. INCENTIVE CONFERENCE AND WORKSHOP
At a conference on October 26 and 27, 1976 in Gaithersburg, Maryland,
representatives of the parties at interest were assembled to examine and
evaluate the incentives that had been developed. Of the approximately
100 attendees, 75% represented the agricultural and chemical industries
and the remainder represented government agencies with some jurisdiction
over pest control. A series of workshops were held during which the
meeting participants evaluated specific incentives and attempted to
develop a consensus concerning implementation steps and the responsibilities
of specific agencies or groups.
52
-------
The proceedings of this conference/workshop and an evaluation of the
results of the discussions have been published separately.*
I. REACTIONS OF THE PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
Throughout this program, the staff received excellent cooperation
and extensive assistance from a broad range of industrial, government,
user, and public interest organizations and groups. Much of the informa-
tion they provided on factors of importance in pesticide development and
comments on specific incentives, has been incorporated in this report.
Appendices I and J provide the comments of various participants on each
of the incentive actions originally proposed. The following pages sum
up the reactions of the major participants to this program, prior to the
Incentives Workshop, both pro and con. (See Incentives Conference Summary
for reactions of the participants in the workshops to the incentives finally
selected for presentation.)
Reactions to the program, the need for incentives, and the specific
incentives were many and mixed. They ran the gamut from strongly opposed,
to neutral, to strongly favorable.
Many of the negative reactions are believed to result from some
combination of:
• A general disbelief that EPA really desires to balance the
benefits and costs of pesticide use.
• The inability of EPA (or our team) to convey the diversity
of its goals as a regulatory agency with regard to the need,
development, use, and regulation of pest control methods.
• The viewpoint that any government intervention in the "domain"
of industry, however well intended, is costly, ineffective,
and unnecessary.
• The belief by some environmentalists that EPA is "not doing
enough" to protect man and the environment from the dangers
of potentially hazardous substances such as pesticides.
On the other hand, many positive reactions stem from the sincere
desire of many groups to attempt to resolve the Issues of the "pesticide
conflict" for the public benefit.
"Developing Incentives for Pest Control Methods." Proceedings of a
Conference. Arthur D. Little, Inc., under Contract 68-01-3133 to Office
of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Experimental
Technology Incentives Program, National Bureau of Standards, 1976.
53
-------
1. Industry Reactions
In general, the reaction of 14 industrial participants contacted
was negative or "guarded" both to the incentives program and to most
incentive actions suggested. For example, two major pesticide companies
participated originally in the work on factors of importance to pesticide
R&D, but declined to comment on the incentives in later stages of the
program. One organization felt "the pesticide industry was thoroughly
capable of meeting reasonable regulatory requirements and that an incentive
program was not needed," and that "a government-managed program of
incentives was contradictory to the free enterprise system." They also
"do not believe EPA is sincere.in its proposed development of an incentive
program for the pesticide industry."
A second company declined to comment on the basis that it believed
"more regulations will follow any government-sponsored incentive program."
This company indicated "industry did not ask for such incentives, does
not need them, and does not want them, and that incentives would not solve
any problems resulting from overregulation." This company felt that
"industry needs most from government a cooperative effort in the develop-
ment of scientifically sound regulations realistically satisfying the
mandate of Congress coupled with the expeditious determination of compliance
therewith."
Another organization, indicated disappointment with the incentives
in general. It categorized most of the original incentives presented as
impractical, uneconomical, already being done, marginally helpful, and
only some as worth further evaluation. Another company staff expressed
dissatisfaction with the incentive program, felt that it should not be
conducted, and thought that EPA was causing great hardships for the
industry. Despite the negative responses, the latter two companies did
comment constructively on several specific incentive actions which we
proposed and suggested several new incentives.
Other reactions by industry were more moderate. Many organizations
carefully reviewed each incentive proposed, presented detailed comments
about their needs, and about the incentive's acceptance, benefits and
potential problems. They were anxious to cooperate in the program and
strongly supported Incentive actions concerned with: improvements in the
registration process, training and education, communication, patent
issues, liability, clarification of test procedures, resolution of
"proprietary data" problems, and changes in attitudes of regulatory and
industry staff. Several new incentives were suggested in these areas.
These organizations stressed the need for confident and competent decision-
making, risk-benefit analysis, openness of communication and information,
and separation of regulatory and promotional pesticide activities of the
government.
54
-------
However, they also expressed a general concern that many incentive
actions originally proposed would ultimately lead to more regulations and
more government intervention. They were suspicious of the "conflicting
and diverse goals" of EPA, of the promise to balance the costs and benefits
of pesticides, and of the likelihood that EPA could and would do anything
that could help industry. They doubted that many incentives would be
implemented by the government, even if they would help solve some current
problems. They did not support any incentives which addressed government
testing, direct government support of private research, programs financed
through taxation, or government intervention in marketing or stimulation
of product demand.
Finally, several organizations expressed enthusiasm for the incentives
program and for specific incentives. These groups believe that imple-
mentation of specific incentives could help them in overcoming some of
the problems resulting from regulations and could aid in some of their
R&D activities.
The response of industry associations was similar to that of the
larger individual companies, i.e., primarily negative towards or skeptical
about any benefits that could accrue to the pesticide industry.
2. Government Reactions
Most government agencies favored the incentive program and many
of the individual incentive actions. However, there was considerable
disagreement among the various agencies and to some extent within
different parts of EPA about the role of the different government agencies
in pesticide regulation, pesticide research and development, and information
and training related to pesticide use. Some strong arguments were presented
about the need to restrict EPA's role to regulation, with counter arguments
that all pesticide efforts should be focused in a single agency to foster
effectiveness and economy.
The conflicts among EPA and other agencies associated with the use
of and research on pesticides (e.g., USDA and Department of Interior)
was evident throughout our discussions with government agencies. This
conflict generated some of the same concerns and issues as described
above for industry, particularly whether or not EPA should pursue somewhat
divergent goals of strict pesticide regulation to protect against adverse
effects, adequate balancing of costs and benefits of pesticide use, and
encouragement of the use of more safe pest control products.
In general, government agency staff believed that:
• Incentives should not include changes in regulations or other
accommodations to industry that would lower or restrict environ-
mental standards;
• Incentives should encourage government-sponsored R&D that
would result in cost effective research efforts;
55
-------
• Incentives should not Increase government intervention in
pesticide R&D except through regulatory related areas—for
example, government testing of pesticides was not favored;
• Incentives should be low cost, and be able to be implemented
through a single federal agency if they are to be successful; and
• Incentives should be associated with training and education,
solution of the minor use problem, market stimulation, and
encouragement of IPM.
3. Reactions of Environmental Groups
Environmental groups, in general, were enthusiastic about the
incentive program, especially those incentives that would encourage the
use of safer products and biological controls. They disagreed with the
assumption that the pesticide industry needed incentives for the continued
development of pest control methods. They were particularly concerned
about the effect incentives would have on EPA's ability to maintain
a strict regulatory stance.
Some of their specific reactions were:
• Because of their familiarity with legislative activity, they
were particularly aware of the difficulties in obtaining
congressional funds for some of the incentives. They also
identified difficulties in defining terms and setting criteria
for decisions involved in these incentives.
• They were concerned about the possibility that these incentives
might "blur" the line between government and private enterprise.
Some of these incentives were perceived by environmental groups
as involving EPA too much in the activities of industry.
• Although they were enthusiastic about the biological control
incentives, they emphasized that the rigor of EPA's review of
these products should not decrease.
56
-------
PART TWO
FINAL INCENTIVE DISCUSSION PAPERS
57
-------
INTRODUCTION
In this part of the report, more detailed consideration is given to
incentives selected in this program for possible implementation and future
evaluation. Nine incentives are discussed:
(1) Increase Availability of Minor Use Pesticides
(2) Increase Utilization of Integrated Pest Management
(3) Decrease Regulatory Hindrances to R&D
(4) Increase Government Support of Basic Research
(5) Increase Information and Training for Users
(6) Lengthen Patent Life
(7) Improve Communication Between Pesticide Industry and EPA
(8) Advertise Safety on Product Label
(9) Reduce the Risk of Product Development by Industry
Many of these so-called incentives actually include several individual
actions, each of which might be considered to be an incentive for increased
R&D of pesticides, that address the same problem. It is expected that
several, if not all, of these incentive ideas might be implemented in
order to achieve the desired results.
Each incentive description includes the following topics:
A. Problems Addressed
B. Background
C. Specific Incentives
D. Possible Results and Impacts
E. Summary Outlook
59
-------
*
INCENTIVE 1. INCREASE AVAILABILITY OF MINOR USE PESTICIDES
A. PROBLEMS ADDRESSED
A pesticide use is considered minor if its market potential is in-
sufficient to justify the anticipated registration costs and other market-
ing expenses on the part of the registrant or manufacturer. These may
include uses for agricultural crops, as well as for ornamentals, forest
products, and waterways. At the present time, there are no control
methods available for some of these pest problems.
The problem with clearing registration of these uses has been magni-
fied in the past few years for a number of reasons. Primarily, the pro-
ducers feel that testing costs are so great that registration of minor
use products is no longer worthwhile. The high cash value of some minor
crops (such as strawberries or wild rice) may also prevent producers from
registering products because of liability concerns. In addition, the
avenue of state registration may not be as available for these uses as
it once was. The new legislation has had an impact on the user as well,
prohibiting "use inconsistent with the label." Thus many means of pro-
viding a pesticide or pest control method for a minor use have been
eliminated, at least temporarily, and have resulted in the lack of pest
control methods for minor uses, which is the problem addressed by this
incentive.
B. BACKGROUND
(1) Agency Involvement
Several government agencies have attempted to increase the avail-
ability of pesticides for minor uses.
• IR-4. The IR-4 project was initiated in 1963. This organization,
which is now funded by USDA ($500,000 in 1976), acts as a coordinator for
State Experimental Stations and regional laboratories, EPA and industry.
Each year IR-4 receives a list of requests with priorities indicated,
from state liaison and technical representatives. Last year, for example,
the IR-4 staff screened 2200 requests, 550 of which were pursued. These
requests are reviewed further with EPA to determine what kind of informa-
tion is necessary. The IR-4 staff then approaches the particular company
involved to assess the company's willingness to register the product for
minor use. Designated Leader Laboratories for the region are contacted,
and the regional coordinator arranges the necessary tests. With the
test results and other necessary material, IR-4 or the applicant petitions
Based in part on preliminary incentives 1 (Insurance for Minor Crops) ,
7 (Supplemental Funding for IR-4), 9 (Crop Groupings for Minor Crops,
and 19 (Insurance for IR-4).
61
-------
for a tolerance and for registration.
The IR-4 program has been well received but has had somewhat limited
results, obtaining only 40-50 minor use clearances per year. The effort
has been hindered in the past by lack of funds, lack of cooperation by
some pesticide companies, and difficulties in getting residue work done.
Funding is now available through CSRS, and the establishment of Leader
Laboratories is improving the coordination of residue work.
• EPA. EPA has taken several steps to alleviate the minor use
problem. Prior agreement generally is achieved concerning requirements
for minor use requests and the petition fee is waived. Experimental
permits often are not required for the testing, but if they are, an
abbreviated application form is available.
In addition, some latitude has been shown in relation to Section
12(a)(2)(G) of FIFRA, as amended, (use inconsistent with the label).
PEPS (Pesticide Enforcement Policy Statement) II allows use of a pesti-
cide for non-registered use by a PCO (Pest Control Operator) on a struc-
tural pest problem. PEPS V considers the use of a registered pesticide
for the control of pests not named on the label in agricultural pest
control. This vehicle may be used only if the pest-host relationship
is improbable, unanticipated, infrequent, or unprecedented in its occur-
rence, otherwise Section 24c (state registration for special local needs)
must be used. This regulation is also expected to help alleviate the
problem, and at this time a number of state plans for registering pesti-
cides have been approved by EPA.
In addition, EPA has appointed a Minor Use Officer in the Registra-
tion Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. The Minor Use Officer's
duties include coordination with IR-4, industry, USDA, and state agri-
cultural experiment stations; he acts almost as a product manager for
minor use pesticides.
• USDA. The USDA has also endeavored to solve the minor use
problem. As described previously, IR-4 was set up in 1963, and the State
Experiment Stations have cooperated by testing many of the requested
pesticides.
In 1974, the Office of National Coordinator was established in the
Office of the Secretary of the USDA. The coordinator serves as the USDA
contact point for EPA and IR-4. The office was originally set up to
serve as the collection point for all requests for minor use pesticides.
However, this function is still being performed by IR-4.
In 1976, USDA instituted a minor use expansion program. The funding
of $150,000 from CSRS supports four regional data collectors and a
coordinator in Washington. The data gatherers, with the help of IR-4
liaison representatives, will seek out and question many people concern-
ed with pest control to determine their needs. The purpose of this proj-
ect is to fill the gaps in the present determination of needs by IR-4 ,
62
-------
especially for the non-food uses. All of the requests will be funneled
to an office in Washington where a "National Needs List" will be compiled.
After the interest of industry in registering these products has been
determined, the needs list will be turned over to IR-4. This program is
now funded as a short-term project, expected to take about one year.
Two purposes are behind the institution of this project. First,
USDA is attempting to determine accurately the magnitude of the minor
use problem. Second, with this information, EPA and USDA, including IR-4,
will be able to assess their abilities to deal with the problem and the
needs for expansion of the respective offices.
(2) Minor Use Proposals
Many programs have been proposed to help alleviate the minor use
problem; however, few have had much success.
• Crop groupings. Some crop groupings exist for non-systemic
pesticides and for obtaining negligible tolerances.
In 1962, 27 groups were established for various crops for the pur-
pose of obtaining tolerances for non-systemic pesticides. The require-
ments are not specific: "it may be possible to make a reliable estimate
of the residues to be expected on each commodity in a group of related
commodities on the basis of less data than would be required for each
commodity in the group, considered separately."*
In 1967, crop groupings were instituted for establishing tolerances
for negligible residues. In this scheme, data for a representative
number of crops are sufficient for setting a tolerance for the group.
These groupings, although helpful, are somewhat limited.
Duggan and Duggan conducted a comprehensive study in 1973 to develop
food classes for pesticide residue group tolerances. Ten major food
classes contained 33 groups suitable for pesticide tolerances. These
groups in turn contain several "primary" crops, and a number of
"secondary" crops. For the establishment of a group tolerance, detailed
information for registration and tolerance setting must be available on
the primary crops and, in some cases, one or two of the secondary crops.
Although this proposal could aid the setting of tolerances for minor
crops, it would not provide for minor uses on major crops. In addition,
*FR. Dec. 5, 1962, 12093
Duggan, Reo E. and M. Bonner Duggan, Study to Develop Food Classes for
Pesticide Residue Group Tolerances, Contract No. 68-01-0774, Office of
Pesticides, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1976.
63
-------
EPA felt that Duggan did not consider the different ways the same pesti-
cide would be used on members of a group. As a result of these and other
problems, EPA rejected this proposal.
Martin Rogoff of OPP's Registration Division developed a system of
extending pesticide tolerances on the basis of "allowable daily intakes."
This proposal has not been acted upon because the EPA Science Advisory
Board feels a thorough review of EPA's tolerance setting procedure is
necessary before any action can be taken.
More recently, Dr. C. C. Compton of the IR-4 project has proposed a
grouping plan for ornamentals. EPA is in the process of implementing
this plan, although in a somewhat modified form.
• Reorganization and/or coordination. In 1975, EPA proposed a plan
for the registration of pesticides for minor uses utilizing available
resources at EPA, USDA and IR-4. Under this plan, the minor use needs
would originate at the state level as they have in the past; however,
the requests would be transferred to a regional USDA coordinator who
would review them for accuracy and gaps. The regional coordinator would
also collect any information already available in the region and submit
the package to the National Coordinator. In the past, IR-4 has received
numerous incomplete requests, and this proposal is intended to take some
of the burden off that office.
The National Coordinator in cooperation with EPA liaison staff would
determine if the product or any substitutes had been registered and
whether additional data were available from other sources. After this
review, the package would be sent to EPA for classification by the Minor
Use Officer and Science Officer of the Registration Division as follows:
1. Additional data not required. The coordinator will then contact
industry to determine their interest in registering.
2. Additional data is required—minor.
3. Additional data required—major. The National Coordinator will
contact industry concerning their interest in requests in both
Category 2 and 3. If they agree, the package is turned over to
IR-4, who, through their Leader Laboratories, arranges the tests,
obtains the tolerance; and then provides the data to industry.
4. Cannot be registered (suspect chemical, cancelled pesticides)—
the National Coordinator will suggest substitutes to the
Regional Coordinator.
However, this program in its entirety and fully implemented would
require a good deal of cooperation between EPA and USDA. As a result,
the plan as a whole has not been instituted and, as of now, IR-4 is
still carrying much of the responsibility.
64
-------
• Liability. Industry seems reluctant to register products for
minor uses because of possible liability. To date, no proposal has
been presented to deal directly with this problem.
C. SPECIFIC INCENTIVES*
Three major actions are proposed:
• Increase the efficiency (number of products registered) of IR-4.
Since IR-4 appears to work well, no new agency or group is needed. How-
ever, the efficiency of handling the requests should be increased, and
the initiation of the EPA-1975 plan drawn up by Fowler and Baker would do
this by instituting a screening process at the regional and national
levels, and at EPA, all before the requests reach IR-4. The plan also
frees IR-4 from its contacts with industry so it can concentrate on getting
the residue work done. (More personnel at the IR-4 project office at
Rutgers are also necessary to increase the number of clearances.) Effi-
ciency would also be increased by a better determination of needs in the
United States. This approach is embodied in the USDA plan for regional
data gatherers.
• Devise and institute a crop grouping plan, designed to include
minor crops.
• Initiate a survey or other effort to determine the need for a
program to deal with liability.
These three steps are all closely related; however, the implementation
procedures are quite different.
(1) Increase the Efficiency of IR-4
The USDA plan for Regional Data Gatherers is an attempt to determine
the magnitude of needs for minor use pesticides. Since the results of
this project may have some bearing on any kind of national program for
minor use, it seems reasonable to wait u.itil the results are in to set up
such a program. The EPA plan of 1975 started out well, and the reasons
for its failure are unclear; there appears to have been a basic conflict
between USDA-ARS and EPA, and the task force that set up this program is
now dissolved. The USDA staff feels that they are well aware of the need
for a national program and has undertaken such a program on its own in
the regional data gatherers. EPA staff were asked to cooperate, but de-
clined, feeling that USDA had rejected their national program and that
the data gatherers addressed only a small part of the overall problem.
There will obviously be some difficulty in setting up a national
program for minor uses, and some compromises will be necessary. The EPA
plan of 1975 was an attempt at compromise, however unsuccessful. Although
the National Coordinator, IR-4, and EPA played large roles in this plan,
State Experiment Stations and regional representatives were also crucial
to its success.
*Portions of this incentive were modified and amplified as a result of the
Conference on Developing Incentives for Pest Control Methods. The reader
is urged to examine the Conference Report for a discussion of these changes.
65
-------
As a result of the investigations in this study, the following steps
are suggested:
• Prepare the "National Needs List" as planned.
• Regroup the task force from EPA and USDA to examine the results
of the data gatherers.
• Reexamine the EPA plan of 1975 in light of the findings and alter
it as necessary to better solve the deficiencies evident.
The requirement for the success of these three steps is effective
interaction between EPA and USDA. Since no plan is definite yet, it is
impossible to predict the precise requirements, results, or impacts of it.
It is hoped that any program developed or revised will allow IR-4 to be
more effective.
(2) Crop Groupings
The grouping plan for ornamentals by Dr. Compton of IR-4 has had
favorable reactions from EPA. In 1976, one chemical has been reviewed
and the company involved is going to apply for an amendment to its label
to add the new uses included in the groupings. This plan is going to be
implemented chemical-by-chemical for about 20 products. Since this project
has been successful, it seems possible that an acceptable crop grouping
plan could be devised to include minor crops. The reasons for the rejec-
tion of the Duggan proposal by EPA are unclear. EPA's basic concern is
probably that scientific questions about tolerance setting need to be
resolved before the institution of any crop groupings. However, these
questions are very complex and will not be resolved for years and would
seem to be very useful in the meantime. The following steps are suggested:
• Establish crop groupings. EPA would set up or contract a group
of people to develop such a plan and make it compatible with the regula-
tions. It is likely that the crop groupings would at least be based on
the Duggan report. The plan will have to delineate what kind of data
would be necessary for each crop to obtain a tolerance and registration.
• Establish group tolerances using existing tolerances which agree.
The implementation of the crop groupings is not simple. Duggan and Duggan
reviewed tolerances to determine multiple tolerances presently on crops
within a group. Their review showed that group tolerances could be
established immediately for 20 of 56 pesticide chemicals under existing
tolerances. Additional crops not previously registered for the use could
be included in the tolerance presumably with some residue data. These
additional uses could be registered with some data on phytotoxicity.
These data requirements would be stated specifically in the crop grouping
plan.
• Rectify multiple tolerances. Some of these may have to be left
as exceptions, with the group tolerance probahly set at the majority
66
-------
tolerance. In some cases, companies may be willing to review these
tolerances to make them consistent. It is not clear yet how these differ-
ences will be reconciled.
The Duggan report proposed that the groupings would be enacted
through publication in the Federal Register as a Statement of Policy. It
also suggests that Title AO, Chapter 1, Subchapter E, Part 180 (describing
allowable pesticide residues in food crops), will have to be revised.
The requirements for the success of this incentive are not complicated.
Basically, the plan*developed must be acceptable to EPA. The Duggan report
is a good start towards a viable plan, but testing requirements for each
pesticide must be determined. EEA's favorable reactions to the grouping
of ornamentals suggest an optimistic outlook for this incentive. In
addition, comments from 13 people in various positions at EPA were all
favorable. However, some parties at EPA are not in favor of crop group-
ings. The Science Advisory Board, for example, has indicated that it
will not be favorable to crop groupings until the tolerance-setting pro-
cedure has been reviewed.
Other parties involved are IR-4 and pesticide companies. IR-4 staff
are interested in this incentive and have stated that it will be quite
beneficial to their activities.
Industry also appears to be favorable towards this incentive.
Representatives of six out of eleven pesticide companies who commented
on this incentive were positive about it, most feeling that it was feas-
ible and would facilitate registration for minor crops. Five of these
companies gave indications of being cooperative in the establishment of
crop groupings. One company did not want any of its products used on
crops it had not tested. However, a small amount of testing probably
would be required.
Crop groupings developed by the Food and Drug Administration before
the existence of IR-4 were not utilized extensively by industry. However,
the high costs Involved with development and registration of pesticides
would probably make crop groupings more attractive now.
D. POSSIBLE RESULTS AND IMPACTS
The impacts of this incentive could be quite broad. The development
of a crop grouping plan would probably take at least a year. This time
would represent a cost to EPA, either for its own staff or directly
through an outside contract. Hopefully, the plan could be implemented
within 1 1/2 years. At this time new pesticides could fit into this plan
immediately, as well as presently registered chemicals that are consistent
within the group and for which there are adequate data. Longer-term
changes would be recodification of Part 180, especially Subpart C, and
the review of multiple tolerances within a group.
67
-------
Once the plan had been set in operation, several parties would
benefit. The work load of EPA reviewers would be reduced, or at least
the review would become more efficient. IR-4 would be better able to
meet its goals of providing pesticides to farmers for minor crops.
Reduced costs of registering many pesticide uses would make pesticide
companies more willing to register products for minor uses.
The costs of this incentive would be primarily borne by EPA in the
initial stages. There may be some cost to industry in label changes and
the amendment of tolerances. Any such costs, however, should be small in
comparison to the benefits gained from utilizing crop groupings.
Liability has been discussed as a barrier to the development of pesti-
cides for minor use. However, discussions with industry failed to clarify
the magnitude of the problem, for which no solutions are readily apparent.
Therefore, it is premature to develop any solutions to this possible
problem.
E. SUMMARY OUTLOOK
The institution of a national program for minor uses is not likely
in the next year or so. After that time, the situation may improve, but
is highly dependent on the relationship between EPA and USDA. This pro-
gram cannot be set up in any meaningful way without the interaction of
these two agencies.
The outlook for crop groupings is much brighter and it is hoped that
EPA will establish a group to achieve this goal in the near future. Al-
though there are many scientific questions to be answered about tolerance
setting, the benefits of this program could be realized many years before
these questions are answered.
68
-------
*
INCENTIVE 2. INCREASE UTILIZATION OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
A. PROBLEMS ADDRESSED
The science of agricultural pest control has been expanded signifi-
cantly during this century and enabled U.S. farmers to increase greatly
their productivity. Current U.S. pest control practices:
• rely prelirainantly upon synthetic pesticides for pest
suppression;
• apply pesticides according to "cookbook" rules; and
• use cultural control techniques to a limited degree.
Although these practices have increased agricultural production,
they have also been responsible for or contributed to the:
• neglect of other, sometimes more appropriate, tools of pest
control;
• application of unnecessarily high dosages of pesticides;
• suppression of beneficial as well as destructive species;
• development of pest resistance to certain pesticides; and
• buildup of secondary pest populations.
This incentive seeks to promote the expansion of knowledge about and
the increased implementation of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques
(which includes the use of pesticides as one pest management tool) that
minimize the undesirable environmental and ecological effects of the above
phenomena and also control pests effectively and economically.
Since the phrase "Integrated Pest Management" conjures up different
impressions to different people, a definition of what is meant by this
term is essential. The definition of IPM used here is that set forth by
the Council on Environmental Quality:
•fa
Based upon preliminary incentives 11 (Government Support to Users of
a USDA IPM Service), 38 (Federal Marketing of Pest Control Approaches),
and 60 (Expansion of the Number and Role of Independent Pest Management
Consultants).
69
-------
"Integrated pest management is an approach that employs
a combination of techniques to control the wide variety
of potential pests that may threaten crops. It involves
maximum reliance on natural pest population controls,
along with a combination of techniques that may contri-
bute to suppression—cultural methods, pest-specific
diseases, resistant crop varieties, sterile insects, at-
tractants, augmentation of parasites or predators, or
chemical pesticides as needed. A pest management system
is not simply biological control or the use of any single
technique. Rather, it is an integrated and comprehensive
approach to the use of various control methods that takes
into account the role of all kinds of pests in their en-
vironment, possible interrelationships among the pests,
and other factors."
The practical elements of a functional IPM program, as defined here,
include at least the following:
• Regular monitoring of the infestation level of pest species
and beneficial species through field scouting or related methods;
• Estimation of when the economic threshold level for a given
crop/pest species/beneficial species complex has been reached
or is likely to be reached; and
• Suppression of the pest(s) by the most appropriate tool or
the proper combination of several tools at the most appropriate
time, if the pest infestation level is expected to exceed the
economic threshold level.
While many scientists believe that the IPM approach has the potential
to minimize significantly the detrimental effects caused by current pest
control practices, many changes must be initiated and much energy must
be expended before the full potential of IPM will be realized. This
incentive addresses ways of overcoming present obstacles and suggests
means of encouraging the fullest development of IPM.
B. BACKGROUND
(1) Historical Overview of Pest Control
Pest control has been a necessity for as long as man has cultivated
food crops. For centuries, however, all attempts at pest control were
physical or cultural—hoeing weeds, burning crop residues after harvest,
crop rotation, and plowing. Eventually chemicals—such as Bordeau mixture,
arsenic compounds, and lime-sulfur—were discovered to have pest-controlling
properties. Follwoing World War II, newer, more powerful synthetic chemicals
such as DDT, BHC, and 2,4-D were developed which proved to be of exceptional
*Integrated Pest Management, Council on Environmental Quality, November
1972, page 9.
70
-------
value in controlling agricultural pests. The development of these and
other compounds marked the beginning of a significant new era in pest
control—heavy reliance upon chemical means of control.
Very quickly pesticides became recognized as a powerful and reliable
tool for the management of agricultural pests. In many situations they
became the most effective, dependable, and economical method available
to the farmer for controlling bothersome insects, weeds, or plant pathogens.
Often no other tool of pest suppression could be implemented as quickly
or as easily. In fact, the use of pesticides is currently the only effec-
tive control measure for some important agricultural pests. Consequently,
some of the long-established cultural practices have been largely or
totally abandoned. However, evidence has gradually been accumulated to
show that excessive reliance upon chemical control methods has secondary
and tertiary repercussions that are detrimental to a sound ecological
balance and a healthy environment.
(2) Evolution of Integrated Pest Management
Other methods of pest control—such as development of pest-resistant
crop varieties, augmentation of natural enemies, and use of insect attrac-
tants and repellants and growth regulators—have been investigated for
decades. However, the idea of regular monitoring of pests for the purpose
of recommending the most appropriate combination of control techniques,
first received widespread attention in the 1960's. The idea gained
momentum with the initiation of government-funded pilot pest management
projects in 1971. These programs, funded in part by the USDA and in part
by the CES sought to transfer to the grower available technology which
would "establish multiple and alternative choice systems of pest control
that are effective, economical, and environmentally sound." This entire
program has grown from two projects in 1971 (one on tobacco in North
Carolina and one on cotton in Arizona) to 30 projects in 29 states on
15 crops.
During the first year of a pilot project, the costs of field scout-
ing are completely subsidized by the sponsoring agencies; the grower pays
only the cost of pest suppression. Over the next few years the farmer
gradually assumes a larger portion of the scouting costs. For the dura-
tion of the project, personnel of the local Agricultural Experiment
Station and Cooperative Extension Service recommend the most appropriate
pest control strategy based on the infestation levels of both harmful
and beneficial pests as determined by the field scouts. After 3 to 6
years, each pilot project is expected to become economically self-
sustaining with private pest management consulting firms or grower assoc-
iations providing the scouting and consulting services for a fee. If a
project is not capable of become self-sufficient, it is discontinued by
the USDA/CES.
(3) Current Status of IPM
Host pilot pest management projects sponsored by the USDA/CES have
thus far been primarily "prescription insecticide programs" rather than
71
-------
integrated pest management programsf Much less effort has been devoted
to controlling weeds and plant disease. Furthermore, most pilot projects
still rely predominantly upon chemical pesticides for pest suppression
although more judicious use of these compounds is usually recommended.
Thus, the scope and methods of control used in the most so-called IPM
projects are relatively simple.
The limited scope and approach in these pilot projects is partially
due to the fact that virtually all basic research in pest control has
been pursued along disciplinary lines. The structures of the State
Experiment Stations (SES) and the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) of
the USDA have reflected the structure of the Colleges of Agriculture
which emphasize the disciplinary approach to knowledge. Typically,
scholars in these institutions work either independently or in small
clusters within the bounds of entomology, weed science, plant pathology,
agronomy, soil science, agricultural engineering, and agricultural eco-
nomics. Interchange among experts from different disciplines appears to
be less than optimal. Efforts to the contrary not withstanding, the aim
of the SES and the ARS frequently appears to be basic rather than applied
pest control research. Rarely in any of these institutions is an ad hoc
"mission-orientftd" task force formed by experts from several disciplines
for the purpose of solving a very specific pest control problem encounter-
ed by a group of farmers.
The quality of basic research within the various pest control dis-
ciplines has generally been of a high caliber. The scientific research
conducted by the USDA and the Land Grant University System has greatly
increased our understanding of the life cycle of destructive and benefi-
cial insects, the nature of plant disease, and the botanical functioning
of weeds. Much of this knowledge has been utilized to develop more
effective pesticides. Although lack of communication and coordination
have kept some of this knowledge from being utilized optimally by U.S.
farmers, the fact remains that the caliber of basic research in entomology,
weed science, and plant pathology is outstanding.
For the most part, newer concepts of pest management have been
spread primarily through pilot tests projects. Many of these projects
have been highly successful in providing effective pest control, in re-
ducing unnecessary pesticide usage, and in improving per-acre net returns
to the grower. In many cases, farmers adjacent to a new pilot project
have subsequently begun to use field scouting in an attempt to lower
pesticide costs and improve profits. However, in view of the sheer size
of the potential market, pilot projects are an inherently limited means
of propagating these concepts of pest management.
At present there is virtually no regional or national promotional
campaign to arouse user demand for Integrated Pest Management (or
j|^
At the Conference on Developing Incentives for Pest Control Methods it
was recommended that the term "prescription" be changed to "corrective"
so as to eliminate any possible legal connotations and suggest the pro-
vision of advice on alternative methods rather than specification of
specific pest control methods. The authors agreed with this change but
have not reworded this incentive paper.
72
-------
prescription insecticide programs) in a similar manner to the advertis-
ing used to sell other goods and services to farmers. The U.S. pesticide
industry spends millions of dollars in advertising each year in an
attempt to influence farmers' decisions about pest control products.
Although commercial pest management consulting firms have recently been
established, none of them is large enough to finance a widespread pro-
motional campaign for IPM or a prescription pesticide program. Because
of the extremely unequal expenditures for promotion spent by the fledgling
pest management consulting industry and the well-established pesticide
manufacturing industry, newer concepts of pest management face a diffi-
cult struggle competing with conventional pesticide usage.
Efforts to implement newer concepts of pest management could be
more successful with more effective coordination. One reason for the
ineffective coordination is the disciplinary fragmentation of scientific
research and the resistance to modifying that approach. Another is the
slow dissemination of results from field tests for evaluation and subse-
quent program modification as needed.
Admittedly the ideal of Integrated Pest Management is difficult to
achieve because of the incredible complexity of ecosystems. But the best
method of approximating is through greater interdisciplinary effort and
more timely response to newly developed information.
C. SPECIFIC INCENTIVES* v
(1) Objectives of Incentives
The current prescription insecticide programs are a marked improve-
ment over the typical "cookbook rules" for the application of pesticides.
The Integrated Pest Management incentives outlined below are designed to
build upon and progress beyond the knowledge and experience developed to
date through these prescription programs. The actions identified below
have three overall objectives:
• To spread the current prescription pesticide programs as
widely as possible;
• To investigate the obstacles which inhibit the integration
of numerous techniques of pest suppression; and
• To gradually incorporate other methods of pest suppression
as obstacles are overcome and experience is gained.
The presumptions underlying the incentive strategy are that: (1)
changing grower practices from excessive application of pesticides to
a more judicious use of them is an obtainable short-term goal; and (2)
optimum integration of many techniques of pest control will require more
time and a better understanding of the difficulties of this approach.
Portions of this incentive were modified and amplified as a result of the
Conference on Developing Incentives for Pest Control Methods. The reader
is urged to examine the Conference Report for a discussion of these changes.
73
-------
(2) Propagating Prescription Pesticide Programs
Although the current version of the pilot pest management program
has much room for growth, the accomplishments of these projects have been
very worthwhile in both economic and ecological terms. Thus, the current
program should be continued and expanded to more growing areas, crops,
pest species, etc. In order to accomplish this objective, the following
actions are proposed.
• Allocate additional federal funds to increase the number of pilot
projects. The USDA now is allocating approximately $3 million and cooper-
ating State Extension Services are donating around $1 million annually
for the support of pilot pest management projects. All evidence indicates
that these funds have been used wisely, and are producing significant
results. A 50-100% increase in funding for these projects would signifi-
cantly increase the number of grower participants in these projects. The
EPA should consider allocating part of its budget to the USDA for the pur-
pose of spreading the projects to other growing areas, crops, pest species,
etc. Scientists in the USDA and the Land Grant University System should
make final decisions regarding which crops/pest species are most appropriate
for subsequent experimentation.
• Use generic advertising at the termination of a successful pilot
project. Under the current program, successful pilot projects are expected
to survive eventually without public funds. Typically, private pest manage-
ment consultants and/or grower associations are formed to perform the
services originally provided by the project. Growers then pay the entire
cost of field scouting, as well as the cost of pest suppression. At the
termination of the pilot project, public funding of generic advertising
on local radio and TV is proposed in order to explain the benefits of field
scouting and prescription pesticide application. At the conclusion of a
successful pilot project, generic advertising of this type would greatly
increase the number of participating farmers in subsequent years.
• Offer a seminar for farmers each autumn to review the season's
test results. The Cooperative Extension Service responsible for each
pilot project should quickly analyze the results of each year's experience
and present its findings to a conference of all participating and interest-
ed non-participating growers. A seminar of this type will serve to heighten
the participating growers' sense of involvement and increase their under-
standing of the successes and potential difficulties of the project. It
will also excite interest among non-participating growers who may sign up
to participate in the succeeding growing season.
• Publish project results on a timely basis for dissemination to
growers in other regions. In preparation for the conference mentioned
above, the State Extension Service should publish the results and findings
of each season's experience. This summary should also be distributed to
pilot projects in other areas that are experimenting with the same crops
or the same pest species. This exchange of information would broaden the
understanding of participating growers and Extension workers in other parts
74
-------
of the country. These printed results also could be used to generate
interest in these control techniques among non-participating growers.
• Prepare audio-visual aids to explain the benefits of prescription
pesticide application. Based upon the experience of well-established
programs (or newly initiated pilot projects), audio-visual aids should be
developed to document the economic and ecological advantages of prescrip-
tion pesticide programs. Movies, film-strips or other appropriate media
could then be used by State Extension Service personnel to develop interest
among growers for a new pilot project, or by newly formed pest management
consulting firms to demonstrate the benefit of their services. The
individual State Extension Services would be the most appropriate agency
to direct the development of such materials with funds from the state or
federal governments.
Prescription pesticide programs are a major improvement over more
typical pesticide application practices. The above actions are designed
to further encourage the use of pesticides only when needed and only to
the extent needed. Every effort should be made to spread this concept
as quickly as possible.
(3) Investigation of Obstacles Preventing Integration of Techniques
While many of the likely obstacles inhibiting the integration of
several pest control techniques can be identified, considerably more
information is necessary about most of them. For each possible obstacle
much more needs to be known about the extent to which each obstacle
inhibits IPM. Some of the obstacles to integrated techniques are as
follows:
• Insufficient scientific knowledge. For some crop/pest complexes,
not enough is known about the interrelationships within the agroecosystem
to permit commercial experimentation with several techniques. For some
pests, pesticides are the only known means of control. To assist in setting
research priorities and budgets, a review of the knowledge gaps is essen-
tial. As a result, a scope of work should be carefully defined so cooperat-
ing scientists can most efficiently pursue the answers to basic scientific
questions.
• Ease of pesticide application. In some cases, sufficient knowledge
already exists; however, growers still rely primarily on pesticides because
of their ease of application. Much more needs to be known about the extent
to which ease of application affects decisions of growers. In determining
the extent to which the convenience factor influences farmers, much could
be learned about possible ways of overcoming this obstacle.
• Speed of pesticide action. One of the advantages of pesticides
is the short time required to suppress a pest species. Again, little is
known about how influential this factor is in determining pest control
practices. If it is a major factor in grower decisionmaking, more
attention must be paid to demonstrating to farmers that field scouting
75
-------
provides an early enough warning to permit slower control techniques to
be used.
• Reliability of pesticide control. Although more recently the
occasional resistance of pest species to certain compounds has tarnished
the reliability of pesticides, for the most part, pesticides have demon-
strated a remarkable consistency of control. Since farmers are already
heavy risk bearers (most notably with regard to weather and market prices),
most of them are eager to reduce the risk from pest damage. The desire
to minimize this risk has caused some farmers to use pesticides as an
"insurance policy." Consequently, pesticides are sometimes applied when
they are unnecessary and uneconomical. The full extent of this practice
is not known, and a better understanding of it will yield better ways of
combating this excess.
• Grower ignorance of pesticide hazard. In some cases, farmers are
simply not convinced that excessive pesticide usage poses a potential
hazard. To such farmers, the suggestion of more complex methods of pest
suppression seems absurd. While farmers are gradually becoming more a-
ware of pesticide hazards, it is critical to know the extent to which
farmers remain unconvinced of the potential harm of pesticides.
• The economics of production. In many cases, pesticides remain
the cheapest method of control, and it is difficult to provide a suffi-
ciently attractive incentive. However, if more were known about the en-
vironmental conditions in which alternative control methods have proven
to be more economical, those situations which are similar enough to warrant
experimentation with IPM might be exploited.
On the basis of a greater understanding of the most significant
obstacles to the integration of numerous techniques, goals and priorities
can be determined to best cope with the obstacles. Only if the nature
and magnitude of the problems associated with full implementation of
Integrated Pest Management are grasped can its full potential be realized.
(4) Incorporating Other Methods of Suppression
Pilot pest management projects are now discontinued after several
years, either because they are unsuccessful or because they are success-
ful enough to be continued on a commercial basis with farmers paying the
full cost of all necessary services. When scientists believe several
control techniques can be integrated for reliable, economical, and
ecological control of pests, we propose that new pilot projects be start-
ed. They should enlist the support of growers who are already applying
prescription pesticides and who were part of a pilot project initiating
prescription pesticide application. These growers are likely to be more
progressive and consequently more receptive to experimenting with a
variety of techniques.
Because of the complexity of successfully integrating several tech-
niques, these more sophisticated pilot projects should be initiated only
76
-------
with a reasonable degree of assurance that success is likely. Several
unsuccessful projects may seriously retard grower acceptance of more
complex methods of control.
This incentive suggests that the pilot projects become an ad hoc,
but iterative, mechanism used by the USDA/CES to introduce new and better
methods of pest control on the grower level. Ecologically sound pest
control methods are likely to become more complex, rather than less com-
plex. Thus, something more sophisticated than a pesticide container
label is required to introduce future techniques of pest control.
D. POSSIBLE RESULTS AND IMPACTS
Although it is impossible to predict in great detail or with great
accuracy the future impact of the proposed incentive actions, it is
possible to describe in broad outline some of the more likely effects if
the above recommendations are implemented successfully:
• Within five years as many as 10 million acres could be treated
with pesticides on a prescription basis rather than a "cookbook"
basis.
• Within ten years 30-50 million acres could be treated on a
prescription basis.
• The proper goals and strategy for the full implementation of
IPM will be understood much better.
• Five years from now only a few pilot projects will approach
full implementation of Integrated Pest Management.
• The pest management consulting industry will grow rapidly over
the next several decades.
• In ten years pesticide residues in the environment in some
areas in which pesticide application has historically been
excessive will decline discernibly.
E. REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESS
Some of the more concrete requirements of these incentive actions
are:
• Commitment of funds over a long time frame for additional pilot
projects, generic advertising, and further scientific research.
• Acceptance by EPA that its role in this project is advisory.
• Increased ability of the USDA and CES to explore other methods
of pest control.
77
-------
F. SUMMARY OUTLOOK
The outlook for the widespread implementation of prescription pesti-
cide application practices is excellent. This concept has been success-
fully practiced in enough diverse agricultural situations to warrant the
belief that the idea is practical and economical. This is the most feasible
initial step toward the full implementation of Integrated Pest Management.
Within another decade this first step may become common practice among
U.S. farmers. However, the complete implementation of Integrated Pest
Management will require much more time and effort. Indeed its future is
not as certain since there has been little opportunity to evaluate the
economic viability of IPM, Even if IPM is or can become economically
competitive with current pest control practices, its implementation on
a commercial basis on a majority of U.S. cultivated acreage is not likely
to occur before the turn of the century.
78
-------
INCENTIVE 3. DECREASE REGULATORY HINDRANCES TO R&D*
A. PROBLEMS ADDRESSED
Among the objectives of the incentives program is the goal of
alleviating the problems caused by the regulatory activities of EPA.
The specific regulatory activities under discussion here are primarily
those contained in Section 3 of FIFRA, as amended, which requires that
pesticides be registered after a review by EPA before they can be used.
It gives EPA the power to register or not to register a pesticide, to
restrict usage of pesticides, and to require a pesticide to be reregister-
ed every five years.
The decisions involved in this Section are based on a set of tests
required to be performed and submitted by the registrant for review by
EPA. The tests are designed to assess the potential acute and chronic
toxicity of the pesticide to man and to non-target species, as well as
to assess the effectiveness of the pesticide.
As discussed earlier, the implementation of Section 3 is expected
to act as a barrier to pesticide R&D; the incentive described below is
designed to reduce some of the specific regulatory hindrances that make
up such a barrier. The identification of these hindrances is based
primarily on comments received from the pesticide industry. These comments
may be mere complaints, or attempts to "shout down" some regulatory re-
quirements; or they may be justifiable and valid. Because the decision
whether or not to invest in pesticide R&D is a complex one involving many
other factors besides regulatory requirements, it is almost impossible
to isolate the effect of regulatory requirements. For this reason, EPA
should not attempt to determine the validity of industry complaints
either on the basis of Section 3 as a whole or on the basis of specific
registration activities or requirements.
This lack of a means for validating complaints, however, should
neither cause EPA to act on all complaints nor cause it to dismiss them
entirely. Instead, as a compromise, the complaints should be screened
for coincidence with EPA's own interests. The set of incentive actions
described herein resulted from such a screen, i.e., they suggest improve-
ments which, although addressing industry complaints, can be made solely
in the interest of making the Office of Pesticide Programs a more effi-
cient, open, scientifically competent, and cost-effective regulatory
program. It should be noted that OPP has already made great progress in
Based in part upon preliminary incentives 16 (Reduced Registration Time
for Safe Products), 17 (Facilitate Registration Process for Innovative
Products), 18 (Reduced Registration Requirements for Biological Controls),
19 (Decreased Uncertainties of Registration Process for Applicants), and
20 (Reduced Time and Cost of the Registration Process).
79
-------
this area and its attitude toward continued improvement is reflected in
its involvement in this incentive program.
The incentive below then presents a series of suggested actions
that will improve the cost-effectiveness of the regulatory activities
at OPP, as well as address some industry grievances. This incentive is
meant to be a shopping list of actions from which OPP decisionmakers,
after discussions with those involved, can choose the set of changes
they feel can do the most good with the least depletion of resources or
deviation from legislative intent. Such a selection must result in a
critical level of change, i.e., a significant decrease in time require-
ments, cost, and uncertainties, etc., resulting from these actions. It
is not the number of changes that matters but rather a multi-faceted
approach; that is, some change should be made in each of the following
areas addressed by this incentive:
• The time (and therefore the cost) involved in EPA's review of
registration applications,
• The time and costs required to conduct the tests themselves
prior to submittal of a registration, and
• The difficulty in making R&D decisions because of uncertainty
about current and future Section 3 regulatory activities.
Each of these is discussed separately below, in terms of the previous
attempts to solve the problem, possible results and impacts, and require-
ments for success.
B. DECREASING THE TIME AND COSTS OF REGISTRATION REVIEWS*
(1) Background
Much effort has already been made within EPA to reduce the time re-
quired to review a registration application. Most of these changes have
been administrative: the product manager system has been instituted to
expedite the administrative flow of an application and to provide a
focal point for interaction with the applicant; the reviewability evalua-
tion team has been established to make sure only fully completed applica-
tions are reviewed; administrative personnel have been increased in the
past few years to about 125 in the Registration Division (compared with
about 75 scientists). Significant improvements have resulted from these
changes. About three years ago, the average time for application review
(from receipt to final decision) was 289 days, including the time that
the applicant took to obtain and submit any new information requested.
The average is now down to 166 days. "Cycles" of requesting additional
information and reviewing this information have been reduced from 3.8
cycles per application to 2.2.
While these changes have brought improvements, they also have raised
a number of issues involving the conflict between the efficiency of the
Portions of this incentive were modified and amplified as a result of the
Conference on Developing Incentives for Pest Control Methods. The reader
is urged to examine the Conference Report for a discussion of these changes.
80
-------
review and the scientific thoroughness of the review. These opposing
interests are manifested in the interaction not only between industry
and EPA, but also between the managers and the scientists within the
Registration Division itself, and recently between members of Congress.
On the one hand, congressional inquiries concerning the delays in the
review of a constituent's application are fairly common. Lately, on the
other hand, a congressional committee has also become concerned about the
possible 'assembly line' nature of the review process and has begun to
investigate the validity of the scientific data that has been passed
through the registration review. In order to ensure scientific validity
of registration data, the data submitted may be subject, in the future,
to "auditing," i.e., a random check of the raw data and test conditions.
The issue of whether or not to give priority to safer, innovative,
or otherwise more favorable products has also arisen as part of recent
efforts to improve the registration process. On the one hand there is
a desire to give quicker service to these applications as an incentive
for their development; on the other hand, it is felt that these products
should not receive favored treatment and possibly a less thorough review.
The basic conflict is: should EPA take applications on a first come,
first served basis, giving each equal attention without bias, or should
it use the registration process as a mechanism to encourage continued
interest in certain types of products? Currently, EPA has decided that
it will give priority to registrations that fulfill the unmet needs of
minor crops, but not to any other group of products.
(2) Specific Incentives
• The number of scientists available to review applications should
be examined in order to determine whether additional scientists could
significantly decrease the review time. The time an application spends
in each of the scientific review branches (e.g., toxicology, chemistry)
should be established, and any 'bottleneck' branches should receive added
attention when the number of positions to be allotted next year is deter-
mined. FurtHermore, if data auditing is instituted, additional scientists
will have to be hired for that purpose.
• Scientific reviewers should become more knowledgeable about
agriculture and pesticide usage. This would help ensure that any request
for additional data will be relevant to the potential use circumstances
of the pesticide. This increased knowledge could be acquired through
seminars given by pesticide companies and pesticide user groups. Train-
ing by USDA might foster a spirit of cooperation between the two agencies.
(This incentive action is an example of the small effort needed to im-
prove significantly EPA-industry/agriculture relations.)
• Mechanisms should be developed to notify an applicant that addi-
tional information is required. One possible mechanism is the institution
of a dual review by two scientists in each of the scientific branches.
Initial reviews by a less experienced scientist could enable the applicant
to receive early notification of the more easily seen gaps. Any requests
81
-------
for additional information (after the normally required information was
reviewed) would be left to a senior scientist. A dual review might
appear to lengthen a review process; however, this system is currently
practiced in the Chemistry Branch in the Registration Division and it
has not slowed the review or become a bottleneck.
• The possible disincentive to the development of biological controls
caused by difficulties in getting such products registered should be
examined. Companies involved in this development believe reviewers in
the Registration Division generally lack expertise concerning biological
controls, or have some experience but usually restricted to one or two
types (e.g., viruses) or biological controls. The total extent of
knowledge in the Registration Division of various types of biological
controls should be examined, and if already adequate, the persons with
this knowledge should be more clearly identified as being responsible
for biological control reviews. If the level of expertise is not adequate,
those interested in biological controls or having some familiarity in
particular areas, should be trained in the relevant information about
the whole range of biological controls, including information on the
mechanism of control, patterns of usage, and potential hazards.
(3) Possible Results and Impacts
If a number of the incentive actions described above are implemented,
several changes might occur. The incentive review may take less than the
current 166-day average. The number of cycles, i.e., the requests for
additional data, might decrease, and public and user confidence in the
decisionmaking ability of the registration division would increase. The
primary cost of implementing these incentives would be financial. In-
creasing the number of scientists on the staff would require additional
funds to be given to the registration division. Funds would also be
necessary to implement training programs to increase the reviewers'
knowledge of agricultural and pesticide usage, and to train some personnel
to become familiar with the various types of biological controls.
C. DECREASING THE TIME AND COST OF TESTING REQUIRED PRIOR TO
REGISTRATION
(1) Background
About a year ago the Section 3 Guidelines on the required tests
for registration were issued in draft form in the Federal Register. The
sum of the costs of the tests (where such information is available) is
$500,000. (The actual figure is probably higher since not all costs of
the tests are available.) In comparison, putting together the registra-
tion application and following it through costs about $30,000. Any
incentive, therefore, which seeks to decrease the time and costs of
regulatory activities must focus on the tests themselves as the primary
source of regulatory costs.
82
-------
Although consideration may have been given to the time and costs
required for each test when the Section 3 Regulations were drafted, no
further effort appears to have been directed toward finding cheaper ways
to get an equal amount of information relevant to decisionmaking.
Because no previous attempts have been made to address the problem
of the time and cost of the tests themselves, the incentive actions
which follow are designed to Initiate such action: to begin to incorporate
consideration of the costs of tests, both for individual products and
for pesticides as a whole, into the decisionmaking of those involved in
test requirements.
(2) Specific Incentives
• EPA should begin to keep track of the costs of the tests required
for individual products. When a company seeks guidance from EPA concern-
ing what tests it should be doing for its particular products, EPA should
add up the approximate anticipated costs of such tests. These figures
can come from previous studies on the cost of the registration require-
ments or can be based on information exchanged between the company and
EPA. Such a tallying effort would accomplish several purposes:
1. It would make the EPA reviewer requesting the information
conscious of the cost of the test, possibly leading to a
quick, mental, cost-benefit check on the part of the requester
of the information.
2. It would give EPA a data base from which to answer complaints
from congressmen and companies about the cost of registration
requirements.
3. It would provide the basis for checking the consistency of
reviewers in their requests for information.
• EPA should monitor achievements of other federal agencies in
the development of cheaper and faster tests for carcinogenicity.
Currently, the tests required by EPA involve two-year feeding studies,
ranging in cost from about $75,000 to $125,000. The duration of the
tests is more crucial than the cost since the two-year time frame re-
quires that they be started early in the development of a pesticide
while there is still more uncertainty as to whether the company should
go ahead with a product. If new tests become acceptable to and used by
other federal agencies, EPA should be ready to substitute new tests for
those currently required in the guidelines. It is unlikely that EPA
would, or even should, lead the way in adopting these new test procedures.
• Any additions to the tests that are required by the Section 3
regulations should be subject to a cost-benefit review that includes
consideration of any available alternative test approaches. EPA should
actively seek guidance from other agencies on these alternative
approaches,
83
-------
(3) Possible Results and Impacts
The time and cost of the test requirements for registration would
probably decrease gradually over a long time. In terms of the critical
thresholds of change mentioned for this entire incentive, this reduction
in the time and costs of the tests could represent the largest single
agent of change, especially for smaller companies that desire to develop
and register new pest control products but for whom the cost of test re-
quirements represents an insurmountable barrier.
(4) Requirements for Success
The major barrier to this set of incentives is EPA's hesitation
to reduce the amount of information submitted for review. Yet such a
cost-benefit consideration has been included informally in the design
of the individual test requirements in the Section 3 regulations (al-
though it appears that less consideration was given to the overall set,
or number of the tests). At present incorporating such cost considera-
tions, in individual cases or across the board, is subject to much varia-
bility because of the lack of an overall policy on just how much weight
cost considerations should have in these decisions. If this incentive
is adopted, the establishment of such a guidance policy would be a
necessary first step.
D. IMPROVING THE REGULATORY ATMOSPHERE WITHIN WHICH PESTICIDE R&D
IS CONDUCTED
(1) Background
Much effort has already been expended to open up the registration
process and make it more accessible and more understandable to the user.
The product manager approach has been particularly successful in doing
this. Yet a remaining perception of the registration process as
continually changing (partially in response to industry complaints),
causes uncertainty about future changes in the regulatory requirements.
Pesticide R&D decisionmakers must anticipate these changes today when
deciding whether to go ahead with products that will face registration
five or six years from now. Furthermore, in designating funds to be
used for R&D, company managers must be able to anticipate the future
regulatory environment and the effect it might have on products that
result from those R&D funds.
(2) Specific Incentives
• An ombudsman should be appointed within the Registration
Division to represent the users of the registration process, i.e.,
pesticide companies, and deal with their complaints and concerns. Al-
though the product manager approach is, to some extent, based on this
idea, the ombudsman would go one step further: he could hear complaints
from a number of applicants and, with this overview, suggest changes .
84
-------
to be made in the registration review system. At the very least he
could bring such across-the-board problems to the attention of the head
of the Registration Division, absorbing some of the complaints of indus-
try before they reach Congress. Such issues as surrounded the registra-
tion application for chlorobenzilate, for instance, might have been
resolved within the Registration Division rather than in Congress. This
mechanism also could ensure consistent reviews by scientists and product
managers, bringing any unfair treatment to the attention of administrators.
The authority of this ombudsman to make these grievances heard and to
bring about change would need to be clearly defined at the outset.
• Information on "what to expect" should be given to each potential
registrant on request. At present the information package that is
distributed to the potential registrant is primarily forms and instruc-
tions for completing the registration application itself. An informa-
tion package should be developed that describes the process of registra-
tion review, how a decision is made, etc. Additionally, upon receipt
of an application, EPA should assess its work load and give the applicant
some idea of the time needed to review the application.
• To enable companies to do longer-term planning and to make
decisions on products that may go to registration five years from now,
EPA should give some assessment of the stability of the present Section
3 Guidelines. EPA should indicate if it is planning a major review of
these regulations and possible update within the next five years. On
the other hand, if the registration guidelines will probably be changed
only as new information becomes available that points out the need for
additional tests, this attitude should be made publicly known. Indica-
tions given concerning the stability of the Section 3 regulations would
not be binding on EPA in any regulatory sense. Instead it would merely
give those responsible for making long-term R&D decisions the needed
input of EPA's current thinking on future registration requirements.
• EPA should provide some guidance on decisionmaking criteria to
help R&D decisionmakers decide whether or not to go ahead with a
potential product. To do this, EPA should analyze its past registration,
classification, and cancellation decisions and determine in general what
it will and will not allow on the market. This should be communicated
to pesticide R&D decisionmakers to give them an idea about where they
stand with a particular product. This kind of clarification would be
especially helpful if it included a description of EPA's balancing of
the risks and benefits of a pesticide.
• To help both long-term and short-term planning by companies in-
volved in biological control development, EPA should clarify its position
as promoter or non-promoter of these products. There is some confusion
within these companies about whether or not EPA will encourage the use
and development of biological controls and whether or not they can
expect some kind of encouragement by being given priority treatment in
85
-------
the registration process. As discussed earlier, the issue of whether
or not EPA should promote certain types of products, and if so whether
this promotion should involve priority treatment within the Registration
Division, is a basic conflict within EPA. The unresolved nature of
this conflict is felt particularly acutely by companies involved in
biological controls; this resolution would significantly decrease the
uncertainty in long-range planning by these companies.
(3) Results and Requirements for Success
Decreasing the uncertainty caused by the current implementation
of the Section 3 Guidelines would significantly improve the atmosphere
in which pesticide R&D is now conductfed. It would make long-range
planning and justification of R&D funding requests much easier, while
at the same time promoting an EPA image of reasonableness in the eyes
of Congress and the general public. The major efforts required to
implement these actions are administrative (on the part of EPA) and
involve clarification of internal expectations and policies.
F. SUMMARY OUTLOOK
Mot all of the actions suggested here will be implemented. Hope-
fully, however, this "list" provides enough of a choice to permit a
broad multi-faceted program of action to be implemented that eventually
should improve the potential for pesticide R&D in this country. Given
an extension of EPA's interest in this incentive program, i.e. , to in-
clude implementation of these suggestions which have resulted from it,
the outlook for reaching a critical threshold of change in the reduction
of regulatory hindrances is favorable.
It may be that the limits of such a "promotion" would be an elimination
of any disincentives inherent in the current review process as discussed
in the first part of this incentive.
86
-------
*
INCENTIVE 4. INCREASE GOVERNMENT SUPPORT OF BASIC RESEARCH
A. PROBLEMS ADDRESSED
The development of new pesticides requires applied pesticide research.
Although industrial organizations are expected to continue to perform the
majority of such research, all applied research depends upon fundamental
findings which spring from basic research activities. The less traditional
the applied research is, the more the need for supporting fundamental
data. Thus, there is logic in the expectation that increasing support
for basic research may act as an incentive to the successful performance
of novel applied research (which may yield novel pesticidal materials).
However, inherent in this logic is the assumption that the lack or pro-
jected lack of fundamental data is indeed a problem.
Basic research represents the ordered pursuit of new knowledge. It
is largely an individual effort without direct institutional consequences.
Only by being properly utilized do basic research results become important
in the elucidation of novel chemical pathways, the design of synthetic
programs by industrial organizations, the development of effective screens
for such agents, the devising of efficient test systems to allow registra-
tion, and the potentially useful and rational modification of applied re-
search programs. Basic research can never be directed to meet any of
these ends. Thus, if the solution of this problem is to have an impact
on novel pesticide development, all of the other incentives (existing and
potential) which stimulate the performance of goal-directed and productive
commercial research must be operational. Basic research results cannot
"push" pesticide innovation; they can only assist by decreasing investment
or risk in the early stages of the development process.
B. BACKGROUND
(1) Previous Attempts
The "use in basic research of organisms and ecosystems that
yield benefits to the science of pest control" is supported by number
of agencies. The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports approximate1.;-
$3 million of extramural research as part of its basic scientific programs.
The Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) supports $2 million
of fundamental entomological research to enhance basic knowledge and to
encourage the application of such knowledge to disease control.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) funds many programs which have
a basic research element. The Hatch Act required Agricultural Experiment
Stations to conduct original research bearing on and contributing to the
Based upon preliminary incentive 32 (Government Funding of Basic
Research).
87
-------
establishment and maintenance of a permanent and effective agricultural
industry. An implied objective under the Hatch Act was to maintain
resources for training and educating individuals to solve future agri-
cultural problems.
USDA funds support botanical and entomological research extramurally
and through the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). In 1972, USDA and
state Agricultural Experiment Stations spent $627 million for agriculutral
research, $132 million of it for pest control research. Of this, $26
million was classified as Target I. Such research is intended "to gain
knowledge of the taxonomy, biology, ecology, physiology, pathology,
metabolism, and nutrition of pests and host plants and animals" and may
appropriately be considered basic.
Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency has recently supported
research in accordance with the provisions of FIFRA, as amended, Section
20, which states, "The administrator shall undertake research....and give
priority to develop biologically integrated alternatives for pest control."
The basic research component of this work is expected to focus on food
chains involving insects of economic importance.
A significant body of basic research is now supported by the govern-
ment. Although the millions of dollars of "relevant" projects cannot be
fully isolated from the operating funds of the above agencies, the total
approaches $50 million per year. The magnitude of the existing effort is
reflected in the size of the academic staffs of the state and land grant
colleges, as well as in the proliferation of specialty scientific journals
to publish their output.
Given these existing programs, this incentive can have only a qualita-
tive rather than quantitative impact; it can increase the flow of funda-
mental data but in its absence, a $50-million stream will flow nonetheless.
The various agencies already involved have constructed the foundation for
this incentive. Its implementation can only build upon what already
exists.
(2) Current Issues
Three critical issues impinge directly on this area. The first is
the question of how money gets spent. Most funding of basic research now
employs a mechanism by which principal investigators receive grant support.
Much of this money really funds the growth of institutional laboratories,
the purchase of instruments and the training of manpower, rather than the
direct extension of the knowledge base. Is this a cost-beneficial means
of accomplishing the stated goals?
A second issue is the choice of projects to be funded. The academic
approach is to support those research proposals which encompass the most
creative scientific hypotheses and means of obtaining new knowledge. Often
such funding is allocated irrespective of the biological or chemical model
under investigation. Is this the best means to generate data of eventual
utility in the development of new pesticides?
88
-------
A third issue revolves around the funding source. In its report,
"Pest Control: An Assessment of Present and Alternative Technologies,"*
the Executive Committee of the Environmental Studies Board, National Re-
search Council, National Academy of Science, recommended that "the NSF
and othet agencies responsible for the support of basic sciences encourage
the increased use in basic research of organisms and ecosystems that may
yield benefits to the science of pest control; the USDA and other agencies
with a pest control mission should also be funded so that they can make
competitive extramural grants for basic research to qualified investigators
wherever they are located, in order to enlarge the scope and perspective
of research dealing with pest control problems." Apparently, a firm dis-
tinction is made between the NSF and USDA in their support of basic re-
search. Which agency would have the most impact on pesticide development
if given this incentive program as a charter?
(3) Other Background
The role of basic research is often misunderstood. As such this
area has not received dynamic support. From 1967 to 1974 government
support of basic research in life sciences did not increase (in terms of
constant dollars) over that period. In contrast, funding of applied life
sciences research experienced as real growth rate of 4%.** A few of the
reasons for this are worthy of discussion.
Basic research is generally considered to be research whose purpose
is to uncover new knowledge. It is an essential part of a three-part
process of innovation, the other two parts being application and develop-
ment. Successful innovations require balanced effort among these three
parts. Too much or too little basic research activity in relation to
applied research and development results in wasted effort. While a
scarcity of new knowledges makes it difficult for applied research to
move ahead as fast as it might, too much new knowledge not applied wastes
resources. At present the prevailing sentiment is that we need to
emphasize applied research and especially development. The tendency is
to solve problems by focusing at the very end of the innovative process
and to forget that the beginning may be just as important. It is quite
possible that in the present climate society has downgraded basic research
in its impatience to solve pressing social issues.
Since basic research is not carried out for immediate gains or ap-
plication, it is incorrectly considered as being equivalent to a long-
term investment in fixed capital, yielding a return a long time in the
future. However, basic research yields a flow of information from the
present into the future. A key idea can occur at any time, today or per-
haps ten years hence. The chief characteristic of the return from basic
research is that it is impossible to specify when a key idea will occur;
the returns are uncertain but they are neither short nor long term.
Pest Control; An Assessment of Present and Alternative Technologies.
Volume I. Contemporary Pest Control Practices and Prospects. National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1975.
Shapley, Willis H., Research and Development in the Federal Budget:
FY 1977. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington,
D.C., 1976.
89
-------
This way of viewing basic research suggests that we cannot neglect
to continue the flow of new knowledge even if it is politically expedient
to place a high priority on immediate results.
The future is uncertain particularly now when change is occurring so
rapidly. Neither scientists nor anyone else can possibly foresee what
the key issues will be even only a few years into the future. The danger
to the environment and human health caused by chemical pesticides came as
a dramatic surprise to most people in the 60's. Many future important
problems are bound to come as surprises. If we are to respond to these
problems quickly and effectively, an adequate body of knowledge must exist
at this time. We can neither predict problems nor foresee which avenues
of basic research will develop the new knowledge that will be applicable
to these problems.
The rationale for basic research that has been developed over the
years is based on a strategy suited to decisionmaking under uncertainty.
The strategy is akin to that of a general when he maintains some of his
forces in reserve to meet any contingency. Basic research provides a
reserve of new knowledge available for any contingency in the future.
Obviously, the cost-benefit of maintaining reserves can be appreciated
only retrospectively.
C. SPECIFIC INCENTIVES*
(1) Specific Objectives
The EPA, USDA, and/or NSF should fund a program of basic research
on insect and plant systems with the exception that information will be
gained which will be valuable to the long-range development of new pest
control methods. An annual expenditure of $10-25 million for the program
would result. The major recipients of the new funds would be academic
investigators in the United States and abroad. It is expected that 200
research projects would be initiated resulting in an average "productivity"
of 500 research papers per year.
(2) Description
The major pre-implementation step is to resolve the three issues
presented under Section B(2). In the course of this study, insufficient
input relative to basic research was received to resolve these issues.
However, for the prupose of the ensuing discussion the issues will be
considered to be resolved as follows:
• Funding will be in the form of grants available to non-profit
institutions, including government laboratories.
• Awardees will be selected by peer review committees organized by
scientific discipline and including USDA ARS scientific personnel.
• Programs will be administered by the National Science Foundation.
*Portions of this incentive were modified and amplified as a result of the
Conference on Developing Incentives for Pest Control Methods. The reader
is urged to examine the Conference Report for a discussion of these changes.
90
-------
Implementation steps will easily fit within the NSF's existing
structure. The availability of grants for basic research involving
"organisms and ecosystems that may yield benefits to the science of pest
control" will be announced. Peer review committees will be organized.
Funds will be allocated among the committees. Awards will be made. An
increased NSF administrative staff will administer the grants.
No formal monitoring process will exist. Rather, the grant renewal
process will serve as a means of quality control.
D. POSSIBLE RESULTS AND IMPACT
(1) Results
Depending upon the field in which basic research is conducted, a
duality of ends can be envisioned. Comroe and Dripps (Science, 192, 105,
1975) cite a Department of Defense study which concluded that the contri-
butions of university research to military weapons development are mini-
mal. Scientists, according to the study, contribute most effectively
when their effort is mission-oriented, and the lag between initial dis-
covery and final application is shortest when the scientists work in areas
targeted by a sponsor. If agricultural research is analogous to weapons
development, the funding of basic research would be ineffective.
The paper by Comroe and Dripps also provides evidence that in the
biomedical area "clinical advance requires different types of research
and development and not one to the exclusion of another. Thus, the
problem is not either-or, but a question of how much support to one type
and how much to another. Our data compel us to conclude that a generous
portion of the nation's biomedical research dollars should be used to
identify and then to provide long-term support for creative scientists
whose main goal is to learn how living organisms function, without regard
to the immediate relation of their research to specific human diseases,
and that basic research as we have defined it, pays off in terms of key
discoveries almost twice as handsomely as other types of research and
development combined." If agricultural research is analogous to biomedical
research, the funding of basic research can be expected to produce signi-
ficant results.
In the absence of supporting evidence, a middle ground is taken
here. Research would probably flourish under this program, producing new
fundamental data. However, little of this fundamental data is expected
to have a major role in the development of novel commercial pesticides
in the next decade. The most optimistic estimate of the time required
for diffusion of basic research findings is contained in a report pre-
pared this year for the NSF Science and Technology Policy Office by the
New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell. In
this report, it is stated that the results of newly supported basic re-
search on pest and pesticide toxicology "with proper selection of study
areas....may have an important impact on pesticide development within
a three to five year period."
91
-------
(2) Impacts
The short-term costs of this program are minor. The sum of $10-25
million will cover both the administrative costs and operating costs of
the program. Other costs such as an increased friction between USDA and
NSF should be minor.
Unfortunately, the benefits to be expected from this incentive action
are also minor. Previous work for ETIP and the results of interviews in
this program indicate that this incentive would have little chance of
having a significant impact. Although the individuals contacted had no
quarrel with the concept that basic research activities are necessary for
efficient development of new pesticide compounds, they did disagree that
efforts to fund such programs could havfe much impact in meeting the goals
of the EPA/ETIP program.
There are two reasons for this disagreement. If it is envisioned
that such basic research programs have an application, they (according to
Industrial and governmental interviewees) become a political football;
that is, pressures are brought to bear by various agricultural and indus-
trial groups to have such programs support efforts leading to the direct
benefit of the lobbying group. However, if such basic research programs
are truly non-directed, the impact of the $10-25 million in additional
funding would be lost against the background of the existing basic research
establishment dnd the existing body of undigested basic research data.
The view has been expressed that at least one benefit would be an
increase in skilled researchers for industry (since part of this funding
would support the training of additional graduate students). However,
this effect cannot now be considered a positive aspect of this incentive,
because the NSF and Department of Labor already predict a surplus of
biologists over the next decade.
(3) Long-Term Consequences
Major long-term effects of this incentive cannot be predicted.
E. REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESS
(1) Barriers
No technical barrier is envisioned to the successful incentive imple-
mentation. A real barrier is envisioned at the political level. Given
the current mood of Congress, the poor justification for implementing this
program, and the absence of effective lobbying groups who would strongly
support it, it seems unlikely that Congress will authorize $100 million
($10-25 million for at least five years) to implement this incentive.
The other barrier which exists is political/administrative in nature.
It must first be resolved whether NSF, USDA, EPA or another agency will
control this program. Associated with this question is the concern that
the new $10-25 million program will subtly divert resources from those
agencies not involved.
92
-------
(2) Overcoming These Barriers
These barriers can be overcome only by accumulating information which
provides firmer justification for this incentive. Some of this new data
probably will also provide a firmer basis for placing this program under
a particular agency.
F. SUMMARY OUTLOOK
This incentive will probably not be implemented because of congressional
reluctance to allocate the necessary funding. If implemented, this incentive
could be expected to have only a minor impact in stimulating the develop-
ment of commercial innovative pesticides.
93
-------
*
INCENTIVE 5. INCREASE INFORMATION AND TRAINING FOR USERS
A. PROBLEMS ADDRESSED
Several types of changes in recent years—in scientific knowledge
of various pests, in pest control methods, and in governmental regula-
tion of pesticide use—have increased the difficulties facing farmers
and commercial applicators. In addition to learning about which pesti-
cide combats which pest, they must learn more about figuring dosage for
each crop or condition, using nozzles and other application equipment
properly, conforming with label instructions, identifying pests and
choosing control methods accurately, and disposing of containers safely.
They must also follow government regulations which require users of re-
stricted use pesticides, whether private or commercial applicators, to
be trained and certified. The training and certification programs re-
quired by FIFRA, as amended, will involve an estimated 2,000,000 private
and 200,000 commercial applicators; initial certification must be com-
pleted by October 21, 1977.** Often, the nature of new pesticides requires
that they be applied with more precise timing, which in turn demands more
scientific and managerial effort by farmers. In summary, because the use
of pesticides is becoming increasingly complex, the need for complete,
accurate, and timely information and training is increasing. Moreover,
USDA needs effective ways to inform growers and applicators of new, al-
ternative, and environmentally more acceptable pest control methods, and
EPA needs ways to inform them about both regulations and voluntary
compliance programs.
A variety of methods exist by which farmers normally learn about new
agricultural knowledge and practices developed in university labs. Each
method has distinct advantages and weaknesses:
• Experience, neighbors, and peers: Although time-honored and
least expensive, such learning is inherently slow and uneven;
it also lags rapid changes in agricultural science and
technology.
• General farm magazines, books, bulletins, radio-TV. and
demonstrations: These broadcast methods, while relatively
inexpensive, rely upon users to translate the information
to their own conditions.
Based upon preliminary incentive 36 (Training of Farmers and Applicators)
and 58 (Expansion of Extension Service Program).
"ft A
Bergman, Paul W., (entomologist, Extension Service, USDA), The Development
and Validation of a Standardized Achievement Test for Certification of
Commercial Pesticide Applicators. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Maryland,
1975, p. 4.
95
-------
• Meetings and training courses: Although the most effective
training is conducted by county extension agents working
individually with farmers right in their fields, classes at
extension centers are less expensive and still allow personal
contact between instructors and growers.
• Manufacturers' literature, dealers, salesmen, and labels:
In studies of various sources of information cited by growers;
these rank consistently high. Sales literature is typically
attractive and plentiful. Salesmen are motivated by a single,
clear goal—to carry their messages about their own products
right to growers. By contrast, state and county extension
agents typically have a broader range of material to bring to
the attention of farmers, and must be knowledgeable about farm
practices other than pest control. In some areas, commercial
dealers and salesmen outnumber extension agents by far.
• Independent pest management consultants: These relatively new
actors, playing roles similar to those of doctors and veteri-
narians, can offer objective and up-to-date counsel. But they
are still few in number, they must charge fees (if not salaried
employees of corporations), and hence they benefit mainly well-
to-do and sophisticated growers and agri-business firms.
• Extension specialists and agents: Guided by a long and honored
tradition, they can be both accepted and effective. But demands
on their time and knowledge are many. They can also feel torn
between their traditional goal of increasing productivity and
the new goal of checking environmental damages.
Of these several information-giving methods, the most effective one
available to government is the cooperative federal-state-county extension
service. The century-long record of extension work includes notable
achievements in transferring modern agricultural improvements from lab-
oratories to fields. Therefore, the network of county agents would seem
to offer the ideal way to train growers in the technology of improved
pest control methods.
The relationship between the USDA Extension Service/Cooperative State
Extension Services and the independent pest management consulting industry
is complex. Because the USDA pilot projects are relatively new (the
last A years), the relationship between the public and private sector in
this context has not yet been fully worked out; but it should and can
be complementary. Presently, many farmers are dubious about the economic
benefits of retaining independent consultants. Thus it is difficult for
private firms to establish themselves in business. And thus the extension
service performs a valuable service by subsidizing a project (on a limited
basis) which can serve to establish the effectiveness, reliability, and
economics of field scouting and judicious application of pesticides or
the use of other techniques if and when needed. After the value of these
techniques have been rather firmly established in a locality, experience
96
-------
has shown that the pest management consulting industry springs up as
farmers become convinced and willing to pay for consultant services.
However, without the 3-6 years of a pilot project's success to obtain
grower acceptance, private firms have difficulty surviving. Nonetheless,
there are signs that independent pest management consulting is establish-
ing itself as a small industry with a useful role to play in encouraging
both proper and effective use of pesticides.
Despite the need and demand for services in entomology, plant
pathology, and weed sciences, however, the extension system appears to
be handicapped in responding. Recent studies (the latest being that
conducted in 1974 for EPA for von Rumker and Horay*) have reported that
government extension agents and similar non-commercial sources are gen-
erally outranked by pesticide sales literature and dealers, each promot-
ing his own company's products, as sources of information and advice
used by growers. A study from Lousiana State University reports that
the amount of working time which Louisiana county agents devote to
entomological problems has declined markedly over the past two decades,
from up to 30% in 1956 to about 15% in 1974. Although about one-third
of all queries received by Louisiana county agents concern pest control
problems, only about 4% of the typical agent's college training has been
in entomology. Knowledge both about pests and about methods of control-
ling them has grown considerably more sophisticated over the two decades,
but the amount of college training given to county agents in Louisiana
has not changed appreciably.** Other observers suggest that not enough
of the good research being conducted in laboratories and experiment
stations is transmitted via the cooperative extension services to growers
and pesticide users. Finally, transmitting new research results in
entomology and other disciplines relevant to pest control requires skills
beyond those traditionally associated with agricultural county agents:
"...pest management programs are developing and the need for
a new class of trained personnel is evolving. These person-
nel must be trained in principles, such as biology, population
dynamics, economic thresholds, and sampling techniques for
pests. They must be capable of conducting an integrated
program of applied methods consisting of biological, cultural,
von Rumker, R. and F. Horay, Farmers' Pesticide Use Decisions and
Attitudes on Alternate Crop Protection Methods, EPA Report 540/1-74-002,
1974.
Alford, Arthur R., An Evaluation of the Role of Entomology in Louisian
Agriculture, Master's Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
1976. Similar studies showing similar findings from other states are
reported by Bergman, Paul W., The Development and Validation of a Stan-
dardized Achievement Test for Certification of Commercial Pesticide
Applicators, Ph.D. Thesis. University of Maryland, 1975. pp. 44-45.
97
-------
physical, mechanical, chemical, and regulatory practices, in
addition to using natural control factors in manipulationg pest
populations in a systems approach. Extension must adapt this
type of training to continuing education programs, refresher
courses, or post-academic education or training."*
This incentive outlines a program, both familiar and practical, by
which EPA and USDA can increase the information and training available
to pesticide users.
B. BACKGROUND
Recommendations about improved agricultural practices and technology
in general are transmitted from research laboratories to farmers via the
extension services. Pest control recommendations in particular flow a-
long a chain consisting mainly of the:
• research specialists in entomology, plant pathology, weed
science, and nematology, working on basic scientific problems
in laboratories at the state land-grant university;
• extension specialists, based at the state experiment field
station(s) to provide specialized technical assistance to
county agents and the public of the state (or several counties);
• county agents, the primary deliverer of the full range of
extension services to all farmers in one county; and
• farmers or commercial applicators who buy and use pesticides.
Others contribute to the information dissemination process, for example,
administrative managers of federal and state extension programs and in-
dependent pest management consultants. But the basic and most important
links in the chain are the four listed above.
However, the number of pest control specialists is not large in
relation to the demand for their services and the growing complexity of
the knowledge base. Moreover, the certification requirements of FIFRA, as
amended, changed significantly one aspect of traditional extension work;
whereas other programs are offered to farmers for them to accept or de-
cline voluntarily, the law makes their participation in the certification
program mandatory if they apply restricted-use pesticides.
"fc
Bergman, Paul W., (entomologist, Extension Service, USDA), "Review of
Current Extension Training Programs in Pest Control Technology," paper
presented at the Entomological Society of America meeting, December 1,
1971, p. 3.
98
-------
Recognizing the special needs created by FIFRA, as amended, Congress
appropriated $5 million over two years for a special program to encourage
and assist states to train applicators in pesticide use. This financial
aid was channeled from EPA through USDA to cooperating states, for the
purpose of stimulating states first to develop training programs and then
to continue them after federal funds expire. Not all states have re-
sponded enthusiastically or uniformly and not all potential applicators
have been trained. Moreover, the federal contribution is scheduled to
expire this year, and doubt exists whether states will supply funds to
continue this newly launched training.
One form of training assistance is a series of 13 manuals with
related audio-visual aids, designed jointly by EPA's Pesticide Opera-
tions Division and USDA's Extension Service. Two are core training
manuals, one for commercial and the other for private applicators,
which were completed and published only in 1976.* The remainder, now
in various stages of preparation, correspond to the categories of com-
mercial applicators designated in the FIFRA regulations, and are being
designed to bring applicators up to standards of competency, as specified
by regulation:**
1.
agricultural pest control—plant and animal,
2.
forest pest control,
3.
ornamental and turf pest control,
4.
seed treatment,
5.
aquatic pest control,
6.
right-of-way pest control,
7.
industrial, institutional, structural and health-oriented
pest control,
8.
public health pest control,
9.
regulatory pest control, and
10.
demonstration and research pest control.
Extra manuals will cover aerial application and food processing.
Their general purpose is to offer technical information to state
extension services, which in turn may adapt them to their own needs and
training methods. Written on contract by groups of university and ex-
tension experts, these manuals are intended to be authoritative statements
of principles of specific standards on environmental safety, user safety,
and labeling, which should guide all pesticide users. EPA, together with
USDA, may develop other manuals addressed to the special needs of pesticide
salesmen.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Agriculture, Apply
Pesticides Properly—A Guide for Commercial Applicators, Washington, D.C.,
1975, 35 pp; and EPA, Apply Pesticides Properly—A Guide for Private
Applicators, Washington, D.C., 1975, 24 pp.
Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 197, III, pp. 36450-2.
99
-------
Only a handful of training specialists work full-time out of EPA
headquarters, and occasional help for states comes from pesticide per-
sonnel in EPA's regional offices. However, these specialists are limited
not only by their small number, in relation to the number of states and
users, but also be federal policy which prohibits EPA from providing direct
training without charge. Thus EPA can only offer training support and
technical assistance, and mainly through the broadcast method of publi-
cations. However, EPA trainers can be detached for temporary duty with
USDA or a state extension service. Furthermore, EPA's facilities at
Cincinnati offer potential for becoming a national training center and
a base for producing instructional materials and supporting a larger
training staff.
Against this background, several issues stand out. The cooperative
extension system, with its tradition of accomplishment in modernizing
American agriculture, offers a ready network for training. The value of
the extension system's work is freely acknowledged by industry, which
strongly endorsed this incentive when first proposed. County agents are
now being trained for certification as commercial applicators, and will
in turn become trainers of farmers and commercial applicators. However,
this duty adds a heavy burden to men already overloaded with other re-
sponsibilities. The corps of extension specialists is the best and most
logical resource to supplement the efforts of county agents. But the
number of these specialists seem too small in relation to the task at
hand; moreover, the stability of long-term financial support at the fed-
eral level seems uncertain. It should also be noted that the need of
training is not a one-time-only phenomenon. The most immediate need
today is to train applicators for certification by the October, 1977
deadline set by FIFRA, as amended. But then a secondary or follow-up
stage will be needed to provide refresher training, for certified ap-
plicators, to keep them abreast of new developments, and elementary
training for new applicators entering the field.
C. SPECIFIC INCENTIVES*
This incentive proposes roles at the federal level both for EPA and
for USDA, because each has distinctive contributions to make. EPA has
the legislative mandate, organizational motivation, and special knowledge
needed to promote voluntary compliance related to environmentally accept-
able pest control methods; however, its role as educator and promoter is
likely to be curbed in the long run by its role as the enforcer of pesti-
cide regulations. USDA has the authority, tradition, and skills to use
the cooperative state extension services as vehicles for informing and
training users.
Portions of this incentive were modified and amplified as a result of the
Conference on Developing Incentive for Pest Control Methods. The reader
is urged to examine the Conference Report for a discussion of these changes.
100
-------
This incentive's long-range goal is to stimulate market demand for
improved pesticides. To achieve the goal requires increasing the inter-
est and willingness of growers to use pesticides with more precision.
It also requires transmitting more current information to educate pesti-
cide users about the increasing number of alternative pest control methods
and materials.
The incentive proposes increased federal funding to expand information
and training services in three specific ways:
• more extension agents specializing in entomology, plant
pathology, weed science, and nematology;
• more training materials to disseminate up-to-date knowledge;
and
• more training courses to serve various groups within the
pest control community.
One characteristic of this incentive is that it is incremental.
It does not propose new concepts or programs. Instead, it reflects
that consensus of our industry and government respondents that improving
present information and training programs will help increase both proper
use of pest control methods and grower demands for improved pesticides.
It would merely continue government's traditional role of promoting
better agricultural practices and greater output while also protecting
the health and safety of citizens. In this case, three kinds of safety
are included—immediate safety of the pesticide user while applying
toxic chemicals, longer-term safety of the user from build-up of toxic
materials in his working environment, and safety of consumers who ingest
food treated with pesticides. Thus, this incentive proposes only in-
cremental changes using existing legislative authorities, established
organizational relationships, and proven pedagogical methods.
Another characteristic is that this incentive works indirectly.
It does not offer dollars or skills or other resources to pesticide
manufacturers directly. Instead, it channels them from EPA and USDA
to state departments of agriculture, state land-grant universities,
extension specialists, county agents, and other extension workers
to the applicators and growers who buy pesticides from agrichemical
firms. Although this sequence is long, and may seem somewhat cumber-
some, its usefulness is dictated by tradition, economy, and effectiveness.
Moreover, it fits the familiar pattern of government providing the gen-
eral infrastructure services needed by the economy, including ports,
highways, education, and (the most successful example of them all) the
agricultural extension system.
101
-------
The main actors in this incentive are those in the sequence.
However, active or tacit approval would also be needed from Congress,
the Office of Management and Budget, state legislatures (because ex-
tension services are two-thirds funded and controlled by the states
and counties), extension service administrators, and the various interest
groups clustered around each step in the sequence.
The two most important links in the chain for transmitting new
agricultural technology are the extension specialist and the county
agent. They provide the primary links between the industrial and/or
scientific community and the farmer. The county agent's function is
to serve growers as the initial source of general information about
the value and use of new methods or technology. The extension special-
ist provides more detailed and specialized technical assistance on
pest control to the county agent and directly to the farmer. There-
after, the commercial firms, farmer-to-farmer or peer group communications,
and extension service education programs, are expected to provide day-to-
day information to applicators and growers.
Implementation of this incentive would be carried out in the
following basic steps:
• Needs assessment. Training specialists from USDA, EPA, and
cooperating states would jointly review present federal and state pest
control information and training programs to accurately assess needs
and objectives, both for initial certification as required by October,
1977 and for continuing education thereafter. Primary data inputs for
this review should come from state and county extension sources, to
reflect local training experience and local knowledge of grower needs.
The result of this needs assessment would include forecasts of required
number of various types of extension personnel such as application spe-
cialists, the costs and time required to bring them into active service,
and the priorities for serving geographic areas and functional needs—
for example, entomology, plant pathology, weed science, and pesticide
safety. This review should also assess the knowledge and demands of
the many audiences (Bergman's 1971 study identified 34) to be trained
and the resulting variety of training materials and formats required
(for example, meetings, demonstrations, correspondence courses, media
broadcasts, and short courses).
• Program planning. This needs assessment would provide the
data for developing program plans, which should build upon the present
EPA, USDA, and state training programs. These plans should propose
training materials and courses of sufficient variety and convenience
to attract the several target audiences. The plan should recognize and
exploit the natural potential for synergy between this general pest
control training program and the integrated pest management efforts.
102
-------
• Estimate and obtain funding. The program plan would become
the instrument for obtaining the necessary top-level support within
EPA, USDA, 0MB, Congress, and the participating state extension ser-
vices. Although the initial planning might be funded from discretionary
budgets within EPA and USDA, the full program over several years would
probably require congressional renewal of the appropriations due to
expire soon.
• State extension services. Each state would develop its own
plan (or refine its existing plan) to provide training tailored to
the needs of its own farmers and to staff the program properly. The
state plan would meet the requirements of the designated state lead
agency, typically the state department of agriculture, for pesticide
certification training. State and county extension personnel, using
the full range of both traditional and newly developed techniques and
materials, would provide continuous services to private and commercial
applicators about new and improved pest control methods. Extension
services should be backed by the skills and facilities not only of
the land-grant universities but also of manufacturers and trade asso-
ciations to update information about their products and techniques.
Moreover, they should enlist the cooperation of vocational education
schools in bringing pest control training into agriculture classes.
• USDA's role. USDA1s Extension Service would provide its normal
federal leadership function of supporting state extension services with
funds and technical guidance, as well as provide liaison required for
EPA and the states to work effectively together. In particular, USDA
would be the national clearinghouse for information and perspective
about extension training efforts for pest control. It would, for ex-
ample, provide data from which land-grant universities could estimate
future market demands for various types of specialists, and adjust their
enrollments and curricula accordingly.
• EPA's role. EPA would strengthen its training program by:
1. Increasing, as needed, EPA funds channeled to cooperating
states via USDA;
2. Stepping up production of those specialized training materials
which EPA is best qualified to create;
3. Providing technical specialists to assist USDA and partici-
pating states in conducting training;
4. Providing direct training not available from other federal
or state agencies; and
5. Training EPA's headquarters and regional personnel to improve
their knowledge of and efficiency in administering pesticide
regulation programs.
EPA's training efforts would focus on voluntary compliance and those
needs which cannot be satisfied better by other federal agencies, for
example, pesticide users in cities, industrial areas, and in such public
institutions as hospitals.
103
-------
• Monitoring and evaluation. Finally, EPA, USDA, and the several
states would periodically review the program's progress to assess
strengths and weaknesses and to take corrective actions.
This program would appear to satisfy several criteria for a good
incentive, namely significance, feasibility, acceptability, benefits
for a variety of parties-at-interest, visibility, and potential for
becoming self-sustaining.
D. POSSIBLE RESULTS AND IMPACTS
Estimating costs for this training program is difficult, because
operating data from its initial years are only now being assembled by
the states. Indeed, a major result of the first two steps—needs as-
sessment and program planning—would be a detailed and accurate cost
estimate. However, it seems likely that another $3-4 million would be
needed both to complete the initial certification training program and
to launch the recertification and continuing education program on a
stable basis. Thereafter, perhaps $1-2 million would be required
annually to maintain the coverage and standards envisaged by FIFRA,
as amended.
Evidence of success from this incentive would be difficult to
trace clearly, because of the long chain of required interactions and
the many external factors influencing the actors, in addition to the
usual difficulties of measuring educational outcomes and behavioral
changes. But some results of improved funding and organizational
delivery capacities would probably be seen within three to five years
in the form of rising market demand for some pesticides. Evidence of'
widespread adoption of improved pest control techniques could probably
be only implied. However, the historical record of the cooperative
extension system in speeding the introduction of new technology would
provide baseline data for at least estimating the degree of success.*
Various parties affected by this incentive would find in it various
benefits. For EPA, it would offer a vehicle for:
• Strengthening its present pesticide program,
• Improving or developing cooperative relationships with USDA
and state extension services,
• Learning more about user needs, and
• Disseminating a greater volume of accurate information about
environmentally safe pest control methods.
Bergman, op. clt., developed the methodology for measuring achievement
by student commercial applicators.
104
-------
For USDA and affiliated state extension services, it should offer a
means for:
• Gaining support of environmental groups for needed pesticide
programs,
• Increasing the expertise and sophistication of their staff, and
• Gaining favor with growers by providing the practical assistance
which they are demanding.
For private and commercial applicators, it should offer:
• Prompt and inexpensive introduction to new pest control methods,
and
• Knowledge of methods and pesticides which are both effective
and safe by EPA's standards.
For agrichemical companies, it would offer:
• A form of indirect Subsidy for marketing, especially of improved
pest control methods, and
• Possible erosion of demand for some established and environmentally
less acceptable pesticides.
E. REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESS
Although the program outlined above is already familiar and exists
in basic form, its full implementation and expansion would not be accom-
plished without some difficulties. These would be not so much technical,
as political and administrative. However acceptable this incentive might
be as a concept, its likely price tag (to be determined in detail by the
needs assessment) would throw it into competition with other programs for
the limited funds of EPA and USDA. Thus, the program plan must be well
developed and persuasive not only for pesticide training specialists,
but also in the eyes of the top-level generalist administration and bud-
get managers at USDA, EPA, and OMB. Only after their approval could it
be presented to congressional committees for legislative authorization
and funding. Moreover, since state extension service can opt in or out
as they choose, and since states would be expected to assume greater
responsibility for the program over a period of years, any program plan
would also have to be sold to as many of them as possible.
To overcome these barriers, the first step would be to accurately
assess needs and articulate a program plan with costs, deadlines, and
expected results. The program should emphasize training of high quality,
a variety of offerings to suit the special needs of various audiences,
and formats and schedules to suit the convenience of those audiences.
The next step would be to develop a persuasive inventory of benefits
which the program would bring, especially to farmers, commercial appli-
105
-------
cators, pesticide manufacturers, and national agricultural productivity.
This inventory would help to enlist the support of farm and industry
associations for gaining approval and funding by Congress. Although
such support has been lacking in the past, the ample evidence of user
demand for more training seems likely to reverse that early opposition.
F. SUMMARY OUTLOOK
This incentive has both merits and weaknesses. Its advantages
include being familiar in concept, enjoying broad support, building on
precedent and existing organizational patterns, and offering benefits
to various parties of importance to EPA and USDA. However, it would
cost money, attract less excitement and attention than a dramatically
new concept, rely upon action and cooperation by a long chain of par-
ticipants, and produce results that would be discernible only beyond
the immediate future, and thus be difficult to evaluate accurately.
On balance, this incentive embodies compromises: although not exciting,
it offers reliability; although familiar, its familiarity can be its
political strength; although requiring funds, expenditures can be con-
trolled and expanded slowly with experience; even if costly, investments
in extension education have historically contributed greatly to the
success story of modern American agriculture; and, although relying on
cooperation between EPA and the agricultural community, with their re-
cent history of antagonistic relations, it offers a means for building
harmony on the basis of mutual needs, including agriculture's needs for
safer and more effective pest control methods.
106
-------
INCENTIVE 6. LENGTHEN PATENT LIFE*
A. PROBLEMS ADDRESSED~
Pesticide manufacturing companies rely, more than most business
firms, upon patent protection. Their proprietary technology can be
developed only at great cost. If marketable formulations could merely
be copied by competitors for profitable products, their inventors and
developers would have no way of recouping their sizable investments.
Thus, a key element in the business strategy of a pesticide manufacturer
is legal protection of its proprietary technology for a period which is
known and guaranteed.
A patent, in effect, certifies a bargain. On one side, an innovator
reveals the secret of his technology to the public. In return society
acting through the government's patent office, gives him permission to
exclude others from practicing his invention for 17 years. During this
period, other innovators are challenged to improve upon the published
state of the art by inventing their own distinctly different and improved
technology. Thus, the patent device provides inventors with an incentive
to create new solutions to problems, and the patent system gives society
a continuous flow of new technology.
Recently, however, the fixed 17-year period of patents held by pesti-
cide manufacturers has, in effect, been shortened. This effective reduc-
tion of protection has resulted not from changes in patent policy and
law, but from the growing length of time needed by EPA to register each
new compound or use for marketing. Thus, the government is excluding
the manufacturers from practicing their inventions during the period of
registration delays.
Both the process and the time required to obtain registration pre-
sent pesticide manufacturers with difficult problems. Because EPA's
registration applications are open for inspection by the public and there-
fore by competitors, a manufacturer must apply for a patent before apply-
ing for a registration permit. Although the notice of "patent pending"
does not guarantee protection, it does show that an application has al-
ready been filed; this favors the first applicant because patent courts
require a greater burden of proof from later applicants; moreover,
"patent pending" warns potential competitors that if a patent is granted,
costly law suits may follow if they challenge the patent.
Based upon preliminary incentive 49 (Modification of Patent Issue
Date and/or Duration).
107
-------
Another problem for a manufacturer is timing. If he files patent
and registration applications early in the developmental stage of a pesti-
cide material, he runs the risk that problems will lengthen the time in
registration, and thus shorten the time available within the 17-year
patent life for marketing the product after approval. But if he delays
he runs the risk that a competitor will apply for patent protection for
the same product and thus gain the advantage of the first position.
To protect his proprietary technology, therefore, the pesticide manu-
facturer usually feels obliged to apply for a patent early in a product's
development, especially because of the review time needed by the Patent
Office before it decides. Frequently, the patent must be obtained two to
four years before the product or process can be sufficiently developed
and tested to permit registration and sale. Thus, the period of patent
protection is effectively reduced from its potential 17 years to 13-15 (or less)
years. This erosion in time available to recoup and profit from original
investment is generally assumed to be a deterrent to potential and some
present manufacturers.
B. BACKGROUND
One pesticide manufacturer's unsuccessful attempts to initiate
changes illustrate the several difficulties in the incentive concept. In
the late 1960*8, one of the company's products was affected by erosion of
its patent life. The company's legal counsel drafted a bill which, if
enacted by Congress, would have allowed the patent life of any proprietary
product to be lengthened by the amount of time lost from the normal 17-
year period because of regulatory procedures. The bill was drafted
broadly, on purpose, to include all proprietary products, so as to estab-
lish the principle of compensation, to forestall the rebuttal or exception-
alism, and to attract support beyond the pesticide industry, it did
attract support from members of the National Agricultural Chemical Associa-
tion. But it was opposed during discussion in the forum of the American
Patent Law Association by the drug industry, which was then preoccupied
with fighting more serious political threats in the Congress. Therefore
that draft bill died. Moreover, although other pesticide companies '
supported the proposal in general, none seemed to be willing to spend
resources or to push it actively, perhaps because none was being hurt
specifically.
Two years later, the company's counsel drafted a narrower proposal
this time singling out pesticide manufacturers for remedial compensation.
The company's statement recalled that:
"In 1968, we pointed out that owners of patents covering
products whose only substantial commercial use is in a
field of commerce subject to regulation by the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act are effectively
deprived of the full benefit of their patent whenever com-
pliance with said Act (as well as the related provisions
108
-------
of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act) and the regula-
tions issued thereunder compel postponement of commercializa-
tion beyond the issue date of the patent. This inequity
operates to reduce the patent incentive in precisely those
areas of commerce where the public interest demands that
the Incentive be fully maintained.
"We therefore suggested that the patent laws should include
a provision to the effect that when the only substantial
commercial uses of a patented product are uses subject to
regulation by FIFRA, and when commercialization of the
product is prohibited until regulatory requirements are met,
the term of the patent should be extended by a period of
time equal to the time lost in complying with such require-
ments ."
But difficulties existed in the idea. For example, what level of commer-
cial use would be "substantial," and in what forum would such questions
be resolved? Therefore, the second version proposed:
"To avoid these difficult subjective questions and at the same
time remedy the underlying inequity without improper enlarge-
ment of patent rights, an alternative approach seems feasible
and has been reflected in the attached draft bill. This
approach is based on the premise that if a patent owner be-
lieves that his patent is of little or no value to him in
fields outside that subject to regulation by FIFRA, he may be
willing to surrender his patent rights in such fields in ex-
change for an extension of the patent term in the regulated
field to compensate for time lost in the regulatory process.
This would not only remedy the inequity and maintain the full
patent incentive, but would have the added social advantage
of opening the patent to free exploitation by third parties
in other fields far earlier than would otherwise be possible."
This second draft thus sought a remedy which would allow third parties to
exploit the technology in fields beyond the concern of FIFRA far earlier
than normal. But when this version drew a strongly negative response
from the relevant committee of the American Patent Law Association, the
company dropped its initiative.
C. SPECIFIC INCENTIVES*
Two ways to preserve patent life by compensating for time lost in
the registration process have been suggested. One would be simply to
lengthen the period of protection available for pesticide manufacturers by
a fixed amount, perhaps by three years to total 20 years. The other would
be to lengthen the period by a variable amount, equal to the time lost
in complying with registration requirements for each compound or use;
in effect, protection would begin on the date when the Patent Office
Portions of this incentive were modified and amplified as a result of
the Conference on Developing Incentives for Pest Control Methods. The
reader is urged to examine the Conference Report for a discussion of
these changes.
109
-------
issues its patent, but the 17-year meter on exploitation would begin to
run only on the date when EPA issues its registration permit. Both
ways would require new legislative authority.
A bill proposing general reform of the patent system was easily pass-
ed by the Senate in 1971 (as S.2255) but no action was taken by the House
Judiciary Committee or the full House, and hence the bill died when the
94th Congress ended. The same or a similar bill may be introduced when
the 95th Congress convenes in 1977; however, changes in committee member-
ships would probably change the nature of debate and likelihood of pass-
age. S.2255 proposed to change the term of patent protection from 17
years from the issuance of the patent to 20 years from the date of filing.
While it is possible that this would extend patent protection, it would
be more likely to diminish it.
The proposed new system would require inventors to apply for patent
protection immediately upon making their discoveries or developing their
new technologies. This change would not only remove an element of discre-
tion from the strategies open to pesticide companies, but also leave the
life of their patents exposed to erosion by the time absorbed by EPA's
registration process.
This change would further reduce the present options available to
companies. They are allowed to initiate an unlimited number of continua-
tions, for example, to add newly developed information in support of the
initial application for a patent. Today's right of unlimited continua-
tions gives applicants a tool for delaying the starting date of patents,
and thus for offsetting delays which occur in obtaining EPA's registration.
The current effort of the Patent Office to reduce pendency time has of
necessity increased the number of continuation applications being filed.
The proposed system would limit the number of continuations which appli-
cants could request.
The bill proposed that applications be published within 18 months
of filing, which is current practice in Belgium, Germany, Holland, and
Japan. This proposal would make a company's new technology or formu-
lation known to the public earlier than is now the pattern. Potential
competitors would therefore be given information earlier upon which they
might either file a protest or commence research and development of a
different but better product to present a challenge in the marketplace.
Other provisions of the proposed system would increase documentation
requirements and legal work markedly. Some observers predict that the
resulting new fees alone would fall with special harshness on small firms.
Because small firms often depend upon patent protection for their early
existence and growth, they could be effectively priced out of such pro-
tection, and hence barred or driven out of the pesticide market. Thus,
the reform bill, if enacted, would be likely not only to reduce the options
presently available for delay, but also to add more barriers to those
already faced by small companies.
110
-------
Although the bill may not pass the House during this Congress, and
thus have to be refiled in the new Congress in 1977, its existence remains
a danger to various industries for various reasons. In these circumstances,
it seems unlikely that the pesticide industry can elicit much support for
the bill from other industries more worred about their own patent
problems.
D. POSSIBLE RESULTS AND IMPACTS
The expected results of so lengthening the life of a pesticide patent
in order to preserve its useful market life would be that companies would
be willing to invest the costs of registering their new products more
readily than under present circumstances. This effect would begin to
become apparent within two to four years after the practical patent life
was initially extended. The results of the encouragement to develop
new products would take longer and probably would not be apparent for six
to ten years. The duration of the effects, assuming to further changes
in the patent law, would extend indefinitely into the future.
E. REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESS
Obtaining the required legislation would be a lengthy process, even
under the best of conditions. Only Congress may grant an exception to
lengthen the life of a patent. This has reportedly happened only once,
concerning the then-unusual technology of atomic energy and during the
national emergency of World War II.
The normal time required for a major new proposal to be examined
and accepted by Congress is about five years. If EPA were to propose or
endorse such a bill, it would have to obtain clearance from the Office
of Management and Budget, where it might be questioned by Justice's
Anti-Trust Division. The legislative process includes hearings and votes
by subcommittees, full committees, Senate and House, and conference
committee, as well as approval by the President. No single company or
government agency acting alone would be likely to obtain such a change
in patent law.
To run such a proposal successfully over many hurdles would thus
require not only energy, skill, persistence, and luck, but also support
by a broad coalition of interests. These difficulties help to explain
why the concept of lengthening patent life, even though attractive as
an idea, requires sustained endorsement from pesticide manufacturers to
translate it into action. The concept did receive general support from
representatives of manufacturers who attended the October 1976 workshop
at the end of this study.
Other practical considerations are also deterrents. The lure of
longer patent life is the theoretical prospect of reaping larger profits
15 years or more in the future. But a new pesticide product carries no
guarantee of continuing to sell as strongly at the end of its patent life
111
-------
as at the beginning. Changing consumer needs, unexpected side effects,
competition from newer products, and other problems can be expected to
reduce a new product's potential span of maximum earning power to only
about ten years. Therefore, manufacturers naturally plan to recover
their investment, if possible, within the first few years after a product
enters the market.
A related financial consideration is that expected inflation makes
the present value of profits anticipated 15 years ahead relatively small.
This inflationary factors as well as other uncertainties inherent in pro-
jections so far into the future is likely to reduce the effects of
lengthened patent life on current decisions about increasing expenditures
on R&D. Thus, even though the idea of extending patent life readily
gains approval from everyone, its results are likely to be only marginal.
F. SUMMARY OUTLOOK
Lengthening the life of patents in order to preserve the 17 years of
useful market life is an idea attractive to all, perhaps especially to
small companies. But it faces obstacles of some magnitude. In essence,
Congress may be reluctant to legislate an apparent exception to a major
principle of public policy for one industry which would surely lead to
requests for exceptions from many. Pesticide manufacturers could, of
course, try to mobilize a broad coalition of industries to support general
modifications. But such a campaign would be costly. Even though pesticide
manufacturers would welcome changes, the present patent situation may
not seem threatening enough to stimulate their concerted action in support
of major changes. However, the Executive Committee of the National
Agricultural Chemicals Association recently reaffirmed its endorsement
of the concept as an important incentive which the industry should support.
Changes in the Congress, the process for issuing patents, and EPA's
process for registering new products may eventually combine to make the
concept of compensating for erosion of patent protection politically
viable. The Patent Office has recently reduced the normal period between
application and award to about two years. If the registration period is
not also reduced, effective patent life will be shortened still more. To
the extent that this becomes a serious disincentive for companies to
invest in R&D, EPA should see merit in joining the industry in endorsing
the concept as part of a general revision of the patent system.
112
-------
INCENTIVE 7. IMPROVE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN
PESTICIDE INDUSTRY AND THE EPA*
A. PROBLEMS ADDRESSED
There Is a need for better communication between industry and the
EPA. Without question industry must be more sensitive to EPA's needs
and problems, and vice versa. Concern was expressed by several industrial
sources, one complaining that communication was "pretty one-sided." This
incentive could be implemented quickly and show beneficial results with-
out significant expenditure of funds or the need for administrative or
legislative action outside of EPA.
This incentive is closely related to the problem of removing the un-
certainties in the registration process and improving its efficiency and
speed.
Its long-term effect would be to improve the speed and effectiveness
of registration and would help remove many of the uncertainties and mis-
understandings that currently exist between the EPA and the pesticide
industry.
B. BACKGROUND
Communications between the EPA/OPP and the pesticide industry occur
primarily in the process of registration or reregistration of pesticide
products; in the providing of data and information required by current
regulations; in written documents such as proposed guidelines, regula-
tions, policy statements and strategy documents which are sometimes
circulated to industry in draft form prior to publication in the Federal
Register in response to these documents; and in public hearings and
adversary proceedings. Professional meetings in which EPA and industry
both participate are relatively few; informal communications and meetings
are few, but increasing. Industry meets more frequently with representa-
tives of the USDA, universities, state extension services, and other
groups who are in close communication with pesticide users.
EPA has recently announced an open information policy and has made
conscientious efforts to provide industry more information on its current
thinking and planning. In spite of EPA's role as a regulator, there
needs to be more frequent and open channels of communication on an informal
basis to help both parties gain a better understanding of each others'
and common problems, needs and potential solutions.
Based on suggestions by representatives of the pesticide industry
during review of the "Interim Working Document."
113
-------
C. SPECIFIC INCENTIVES
One means of improving communications between the EPA and the industry
would be to establish informal joint committees that would meet period-
ically to discuss common problems. This is the recommended approach.
There probably should be several committees, each made up of members
from industry and the EPA. These members should have equal levels of
authority or common policy or technical interests. A variation of this
approach has been used very successfully to improve communication between
the Food and Drug Administration and industry.
Rather than acting as another committee to duplicate the efforts of
the Pesticide Policy Advisory Committee, the proposed committee (or
committees) would have the objective of finding ways to understand the
problems EPA faces in dealing with pesticides and those faced by the
pesticide industry.
Members of the committee(s) should come only from these two groups.
With a better understanding of mutual problems, the committee(s) would
seek means of resolving the problems to the satisfaction of both interest-
ed groups. One would expect that in many instances the work would go
beyond merely the interchange of ideas, and possibly require ad hoc
subcommittees to research particular problems and recommend courses of
action to the committee. Even if some problems cannot be resolved, at
least the problem would be understood better, and better understanding
should lessen the adversary roles frequently encountered in EPA-industry
dealings. In many instances, however, these periodic meetings should
result in specific recommendations for action by the FDA, industry or
both.
Representatives of industry or the committees could be selected
through an industry association such as the Manufacturing Chemists
Association (MCA) or the National Agricultural Chemical Association (NACA).
Another approach might be to use currently established committees as
the nucleus of industry representation. For example, the Research
Directors Committee of the NACA or the Environmental Council of the
American National Standards Institute may be representative groups for
industry at the policy-making level, while the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Committee E-35 on Pesticides may be a promis-
ing pool from which committee members could be selected at the middle
and technical levels. EPA's representatives on the committee should
have sufficient authority within their activity to be able to make changes
in EPA procedures as recommended by the committee(s). Similarly, indus-
try representatives should be of such stature that their recommendations
to industry would be respectfully considered by other companies.
The proposed committee would enhance its value if it circulated
the mutually agreed upon synopses of each meeting widely within the EPA
and pesticide industry.
114
-------
Initially, the senior level committee should be set up, to be
followed if the need became clear, by one or two committees which would
focus on specific problems and their resolution.
D. POSSIBLE RESULTS AND IMPACTS
We expect the implementation of this incentive would lead, at the
very least, to a better mutual understanding of each group's problems,
and could lead to much improved efficiency in the registration procedure
and regulatory relationship with industry.
E. REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESS AND'EFFECTIVENESS
The requirements for success are primarily an open mind on the part
of both parties, the selection of appropriate representatives for each
group (e.g., large and small companies, those with chemical and biological
interests, the wide dissemination of the results of their discussions,
and willingness of all to implement mutually agreed upon recommendations.
F. SUMMARY OUTLOOK
The chances of success should be good. There is a recognized need
(certainly on the part of industry) for better informal exchange of views.
To the best of our knowledge, no regulatory or legislative requirements
need to be changed, and the economic and political cost to the EPA and
industry would be slight.
115
-------
INCENTIVE 8. ADVERTISE SAFETY ON PRODUCT LABEL*
A. PROBLEMS ADDRESSED
Pesticide labels display a large amount of information. For ex-
ample, the user may get some idea of the safety of a product by deter-
mining whether it is registered for restricted or general use. In
addition, pesticide products are put into toxicity categories based on
human hazard. Category I pesticides, the most toxic, bear the signal
word "Danger," the word "Poison" and a skull and crossbones on their
label. Category II pesticides are somewhat less hazardous and are
designated with the word "Warning." Both Category III and the least
toxic Category IV pesticides must bear the signal word "Caution."
Various other warnings and precautionary statements also provide some
clues as to a product's safety. For example, all pesticide product
labels must include the statement "Keep out of reach of children." Pre-
cautionary statements also warn the user about danger to humans, domes-
tic animals, beneficial organisms, and other non-target organisms.
Although Catetory I pesticides are well identified, the user may
be confused in determining the relative safety of products in other
categories, especially Category III and Category IV products which bear
the same signal word. The aim of this incentive is to eliminate this
problem by some minor changes on Category III and Category IV pesticide
labels.
B. BACKGROUND
No previous attempts have been made to specifically address this
problem. Before the Section 3 Guidelines were published, it was sug-
gested that no signal word would appear on the label of Category IV
pesticides. However, this was not done because of the belief by some
parties at EPA that all pesticides are hazardous and should bear a
warning.
Pesticide companies can petition EPA for the removal of the child
hazard warning from a specific pesticide label. However, the exact
criteria used in making these determinations are somewhat vague. The
requirement will be waived if the "likelihood of contact with children
during distribution, marketing, storage or use is demonstrated by the
applicant to be extremely remote, or if the nature of the pesticide is
such that it is approved for use on infants or small children."** It
does not appear that the child hazard warning has been removed solely
on the basis of toxicity.
*
Based in part on preliminary incentive 61 (Safety Index).
Federal Register 40(129):28279.
117
-------
Originally, the idea of a "safety index" was suggested. This in-
dex would rate pesticides according to their hazards in humans, and
this numerical value would appear on the label. The idea has since been
revised, because of the overwhelming problems in designing such an index
and educating the user to understand it.
C. SPECIFIC INCENTIVES*'
The specific goals of this incentive are to allow pesticide users
and producers to distinguish between Category III and Category IV pesti-
cides. In addition, the indirect goal of this incentive is to increase
the use of safer products, and to allow the possibility of users creating
a demand for the less hazardous products.
Two options are suggested:
• A pesticide company having a Category IV pesticide could peti-
tion to have the signal word removed from its label. Obviously,
before implementing this procedure, EPA must establish criteria'
for the waiver of the signal word. The only requirement might
be that the pesticide be in Category IV, although EPA could
make the restrictions even narrower. In any case, the criteria
should be specified in detail.
• A pesticide company having a Category IV could petition to have
the statement, "This is a Category IV pesticide, the lpast-
hazardous category (to humans) registered by EPA" nut nn
label. ~
The most probable means of implementing either option is through a
PEPS (Pesticide Enforcement Policy Statement). This vehicle has been used
for somewhat similar problems in the past. In addition, product managers
of Category IV pesticides could notify the respective registrants of the
possibility of label changes, and would also be in charge of reviewing
petitions.
In the evaluation of this incentive, the number of requests and
the number of waivers of the signal word would be monitored. This pro-
cedure would be relatively simple, indicating the success or failure of
this incentive in a short time. The long-term monitoring of the incen-
tive would be much more difficult. The change in companys' directions
or promotion of safer products could be monitored, but there would be no
cause and effect relationship.
D. POSSIBLE RESULTS AND IMPACTS
If implemented, this incentive would provide a means for registrants
to indicate by some slight label changes that their product is less
hazardous to humans than are other products. The short-term impacts of
these changes are not great. Since Category IV products represent approxi-
mately 5% of the total products, even if label changes were made on all
Portions of this incentive were modified and amplified as a result of
the Conference on Developing Incentives for Pest Control Methods. The
reader is urged to examine the Conference Report for a discussion of
these changes.
118
-------
of these products, the change would riot be overwhelming. On the other
hand, the incentive is simple in concept and would not require a great
amount of effort. The existing agency mechanisms (PEPS) should be ade-
quate for implementation, and the administrative burden of maintaining
the incentive would be minimal. The greatest burden to EPA would be
the establishment of criteria for the petitions.
Although there are no burdens to the users as a result of this
incentive, there are some costs to the registrant. Some may feel that
the cost of label changes would not offset the possible benefits they
would receive. In these cases, the effects of the incentive may not be
seen so rapidly, since the registrants may wait until registration of
the product to make the label changes.
Two parties could receive benefits from this incentive. The users
would be provided with additional information for their own cost-benefit
analyses. The registrants would be able to then present their products
to the consumer more accurately.
The long-term effects of this incentive are difficult to assess
because of the small changes made and the uncertainties as to the future
regulatory environment. The reaction of the consumers could be so posi-
tive that it would create a pull in the marketplace towards these less
hazardous products. The possibility of this happening is probably small,
due to the small number of Category IV products at the present time.
However, increasing environmental concerns may speed up this process.
The purpose of this incentive, however, is not primarily to change
trends in the development of products. The primary goal is simply to
allow the consumer to determine which product is safer to use,
E. REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESS
In order for this incentive to be successful, three requirements
must be met.
First, the incentive must be acceptable to and implemented by EPA.
This is probably the most problematic step in the success of this incen-
tive. Although these label changes seem to be consistent with EPA's
goal of increased safety of pest control agents, there is some resistance
to these types of changes. As mentioned previously, the removal of the
signal word from the label of Category IV pesticides has been suggested
and rejected. However, the removal as proposed here would be at the
registrant's request and could be based on somewhat stricter require-
ments than those delineating Category IV. The statement identifying a
Category IV pesticide should be acceptable to EPA. However, some EPA
staff may feel that the statement implies that the product is absolutely
safe. These label changes are, of necessity, a simplification of the
problem; they are meant to address only human hazard, and do not consider
hazards to wildlife and the environment. Hazards such as these may be
considered in the development of criteria for the removal of the signal
word.
119
-------
Second, the incentive must be acceptable to and utilized by at
least some portion of the pesticide industry. The probability for some
response is high, since similar measures were suggested by several com-
panies during this program. Many companies objected to the idea of the
safety index as mentioned above, because label changes would be neces-
sary for all products. In addition, many felt that information presently
on the label is sufficient. These companies, however, would be more
favorable to this incentive which addresses only Category IV pesticides,
and is not mandatory. Other companies (three out of seven commenting
on this incentive) were in favor of a safety index, and thus, they
would probably utilize this incentive.
Finally, the information provided by this incentive must be used
by the consumer. Many of the comments from industry and EPA on the
safety index suggested that extensive user education would be required.
The proposed label changes are easy to understand and can be used imme-
diately by the consumer in decisionmaking. The problem, however, is
still whether they will use the information provided in determining
which pesticide to buy.
The ultimate effect of this incentive will have on the decision-
making of either the user or the producer is difficult to assess. In
some cases, the consumer will have no alternative for the specific use
concerned. In other cases, the choice may be between two products, one
of which is less effective or more expensive than the other. Any indi-
cation of safety would probably not be used in these instances. However,
safety might be a factor in situations in which two or more pesticides,
similar in effectiveness and cost, are available for one use. In addi-
tion safety is apt to be a prime factor in the home and garden market,
where it might be considered above cost and efficacy. It seems that
this incentive will aid some users, with the possibility of the numbers
of users growing. The question also arises as to whether the magnitude
of the impact will affect the pesticide industry in their pursuance of
safe products.
The time required for the implementation of this Incentive is not
ereat or critical. The development of criteria and the issuance of the
policy statement would probably take about one year. The first requests
probably would be received within 1 1/2 years. After these initial
steps the incentive can continue indefinitely. There is the possibility
of unpredictable events, such as changes in EPA policy regarding labeling
and toxicity, which may affect this incentive. Barring such changes,
this incentive should be effective for many years.
F. SUMMARY OUTLOOK
The outlook for this incentive is good. It should be acceptable to most
parties involved and is not highly controversial. It is relatively
simple and inexpensive to implement and maintain. Most important, how-
ever, it serves the needs of all parties concerned, EPA, industry, and
users.
120
-------
INCENTIVE 9. REDUCE THE RISK OF PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT BY INDUSTRY*
A. PROBLEMS ADDRESSED
The history of pesticide innovation, research and development, and
the current trends in federal support of research and development suggest
that private industry must continue to provide the basis and impetus for
the development and use of new pest control products. Industry asserts
that major impediments to the conduct of necessary research and develop-
ment are the risks and uncertainties in the entire process of pesticide
development, production, use, and regulation including:
• Uncertainty in the goals, objectives, operational policies,
and attitudes of the regulatory agencies.
• Uncertainty in the future regulatory status of specific pesti-
cides and/or pesticides in general.
• Lack of a stable benchmark system to evaluate the acceptability
of pesticides with regard to safety and environmental concerns.
• Lack of a definitive policy of carcinogenesis, workable among
industry, regulatory agencies, and the public.
• Risk of unknown health and environmental consequences of
pesticides and their attendant liabilities.
• Risk of conducting unnecessary or unproductive research and
development activities, caused, in part, by requirements of
regulatory agencies.
These factors are interdependent. Collectively, they reduce the incentive
for expanded, or in some cases even continued, research and development
activities on pest control methods. Companies which have traditionally
been leaders in pesticide development face increasing costs of research
and development activities, greater uncertainty in the magnitude and
probability of potential profits, longer payback periods, and lower
internal rates of return, although they may experience less competition.
As a result, corporate planners and financial investors may seek other
activities for their available capital investment funds.
*Based upon preliminary incentive 35 (Definitions of Standards for Safety)
and suggestions by industry and government representatives during review
of "Interim Working Document."
121
-------
Just as some risks and uncertainties are increasing, the increasing
demands for pesticide products for cost-effective agricultural production,
structural, right-of-way, public health, and home and garden use result
in a potential for higher profits and larger markets. Individual companies
must base continued R&D investments on their own assessment of the risks
and uncertainties of the business and the potential returns on these
investments. The current trends are interpreted by industry as increasing
risks and uncertainties in pesticide development, reducing the return on
R&D investments, resulting ultimately in increased costs of pest control
and/or decreased availability of pest control methods.
The purpose of this incentive is to help reduce some of the uncer-
tainties over which the federal government exercises control, and thus
to help establish a climate in which industry-funded pesticide research
and development over the long term can have more certain returns.
B. BACKGROUND
The data that support the problems indicated above are widespread
in the trade literature, presented at various industrial meetings,
reported in testimony before the House of Representatives and Senate,
agricultural and environmental committees, and provided in response and
comments to regulations and guidelines proposed by the Office of Pesticide
Programs. Appendix B of this report presents both qualitative and
quantitative data and impressions gathered from discussions with industry
and government representatives on these problems; this information will
not be repeated here. Whether those problems are real or only perceived
by industry and the public is of secondary importance if the result will
be the lack of continued pesticide R&D efforts.
Since the passage of FIFRA, as amended, OPP has proceeded to implement
the law and its accompanying regulations. In the process, OPP has already
addressed some of these problems and explored several approaches to their
long-term solution.
A pesticide strategy document was prepared in May 1974 which pre-
sented EPA's policies and operational plans for implementing the new
legislation. Much of the law has now been implemented, but new regula-
tions and procedures are still being developed. EPA has issued a second
draft pesticide strategy document, which considers the regulatory issues
to be addressed in the next five years. Through careful consideration of
these issues and the approaches which EPA plans to take, industry and other
participants in the pesticide development process should have a better
overview of the regulatory environment and may be able to guide their work
accordingly. However, a five-year regulatory planning horizon is short
compared with the time for pesticide development or with the active and
profitable lifetime of a pesticide product. Thus pesticide developers
still face considerable uncertainty in their current research and develop-
ment efforts. Furthermore, both industry and government recognize that
even the best planned strategy cannot be expected to remain unchanged in
view of recent and anticipated developments of the environmental and
safety effects of chemicals.
122
-------
The uncertainty in the registration process and its impact on new
product R&D has been a major concern of industry. EPA has attempted to
reduce this uncertainty by involving various affected parties in the
development of registration requirements and guidelines, by publishing
detailed registration guidelines, and by adopting an open information
policy. Despite these efforts, registration and reregistration procedures
are still changing, and industry is skeptical of their long-term stability.
(See Incentive 3.)
The attitudes and relationships between the regulator and the
regulated have been fluctuating. During the period from 1960 to the
present, these relationships have changed from exchanges of scientific
and technical information, with an active policy toward pesticide
registration to litigation and adversary proceedings with an effort
(perceived by some parties) to delay or prevent pesticide registration.
Heated interchanges, emotional statements, less than impartial attitudes,
and mutual distrust have been accorded to both the government and industry.
Several attempts have been made by the government and by industry
to resolve or change some of the attitudinal problems. Open meetings
have been held, policy and procedures for registration and information
exchange have been changed, independent scientists and experts have been
used, the product manager concept has been introduced, and other actions
taken to reduce conflicts between the parties. Nevertheless there is
a belief by some government staff members that industry actively and
subversively attempts to circumvent, ignore, or cloud the regulatory
issues. Similarly, the attitude of some industry members is that the
government proceeds beyond its legal ground of regulation. Although
these attitudes are common in the process of federal regulation of
industry, additional efforts might well be expended to improve industry/
government relationships.
The current policy and attitudes of OPP towards safety, particularly
that related to carcinogenicity of pesticide products, lead to uncertainty
in pesticide R&D decisions. Considerable controversy exists over carcino-
genicity versus oncogenicity, threshold values for chemicals in the
environment, tolerances on food products with respect to dietary intake,
and the general question of "how safe is safe." The basic questions that
need to be resolved must address all chemicals in the environment and not
pesticides alone. Because a broad federal policy on carcinogenicity and
safety does not exist, and probably will not for several years, OPP has
had to make its own interpretations of environmental and human safety.
Industry questions whether the current policy is too strict; others
question whether the policy is too lax. As more data are accumulated
and as our understanding of carcinogenicity increases, the regulatory
agencies and industry must collectively and constructively work on such
a safety policy using the best available information.'
123
-------
Another area in which considerable controversy exists is the use
of risk-benefit analysis or cost-benefit analysis in the process of
pesticide registration. Industry believes that insufficient attention
has been paid to the benefits portion in cost-benefit analysis as com-
pared with the environmental and safety costs. Although these factors
are considered explicitly in the processes of cancellation and rebuttable
presumption against registration, other regulatory decisions may benefit
from a broader consideration of costs of pesticide use versus benefits.
EPA has sponsored work in this area to develop methodologies and ap-
proaches to use the cost-benefit analysis. Further, programs such as
the Substitute Chemicals Program have been initiated to obtain and re-
view data on costs and benefits of pesticides that may be used as sub-
stitutes for others. Such efforts can be expanded both for public in-
formation and benefit.
This discussion suggests that OPP has made considerable progress
in addressing some of the risks and uncertainties perceived by pesticide
developers. Continued and expanded efforts could have long-term impact
by ensuring a healthy viable industry capable and willing to make R&D
commitments that result in new products to meet market and regulatory
needs.
C. SPECIFIC INCENTIVES*"
The specific long-term goal of this incentive is to reduce the
risks and uncertainties of industry-funded pesticide research and de-
velopment. The incentive focuses on actions the federal government can
take to reduce risks in the development process, without direct involve-
ment in the R&D process itself. Further, the incentive is directed at
actions other than those related to registration of pesticides, address-
ing the creation of a working environment in which industry will con-
tinue to be willing to invest R&D funds in the development of new prod-
ucts that can meet corporate goals of profitability and return on in-
vestment and can meet user needs for specific pesticide products.
The incentive has several action areas:
• Develop, publish and implement a long-term (ten-year) pesticide
regulation plan, i.e., a strategy in the broadest sense. The plan
should reflect a management strategy, i.e., methods for addressing
pesticide-related issues and not specific operational strategies. Spe-
cific subjects in the plan should include:
(1) Well-defined objectives and goals of Office of Pesticide
Programs of EPA.
(2) Statement of the current and anticipated future roles, re-
lationships, and interactions among OPP, the EPA offices,
other federal and state regulatory and operational agencies.
*Portions of this incentive were modified and amplified as a result of
the Conference on Developing Incentives for Pest Control Methods. The
reader is urged to examine the Conference Report for a discussion of
these changes.
124
-------
(3) Procedures for interaction of OPP with industry and the pub-
lic.
(A) Statement of the long-term approach to the control of adverse
environmental economic and social effects of pesticides, in-
cluding identification of critical Issues and possible means
toward their long-term resolution.
(5) Outline of the decisionmaking processes to be followed by
OPP in the next ten-year period.
(6) Anticipated future regulatory changes and the probable se-
quence of those changes.
• Continue to create an environment of scientific and technical
information exchange, effective communications, working relationships
and attitudes between OPP and the pesticide industry. The attitudes
developed must recognize the multiple goals and objectives of OPP, the
regulatory role of EPA with relation to environmental and human safety,
the need to foster the development and registration of safe and effec-
tive pest control products.
• Provide for effective and extensive private, public, and inter-
agency participation in areas of pesticide regulation and decisionmaking.
Possible actions may include:
(1) Formation of science courts to assist in regulatory de-
cisionmaking.
(2) Use of inflationary, regulatory, or research impact
statements.
(3) Formation of an effective federal interagency working
group.
(4) Use of industry and university, as well as government,
resources to provide the scientific basis for regula-
tory procedures.
(5) Develop an effective industry/government interchange
program.
The goal of this effort is the most effective utilization of available
resources and information applied to the solution of current pesticide
problems, and not creation of an environment in which the regulatory
process of pesticide development becomes dependent upon or dictated by
selected interest groups.
125
-------
• Develop a stable internal organization within OPP in terms of
staff, organization, functions, and operations. The intent is to create
an organization with internal stability, appropriate talent and expertise,
and a structure which facilitates interaction with other agencies, the
public and industry and a view of confidence from both the public and
private sectors. Development of this organization may require addition-
al funding, staffing, training, organizational development effort, but
is not intended to be a need for total reorganization or restructuring.
(1) Pesticide Regulation Plan
The action proposed herein is to build upon recent efforts of OPP
in developing its latest draft strategy and to develop a more compre-
hensive, longer term, pesticide regulation plan. The plan will be a
benchmark for industry and public understanding of the future actions
of EPA related to pesticides. It will serve as input and guidance for
industry's research and development decisionmaking process. However,
the plan must necessarily maintain sufficient flexibility to allow EPA
to adapt or modify its policies and regulations in light of new data
and information on the costs and benefits of pesticides or changes in
direction provided by Congress and the courts.
OPP, through a working group with representation of Criteria and
Evaluation, Technical Services, Registrations and Operations Divisions,
OSPR, and the Office of the Associate Administrator, should develop a
hierarchy of goals and objectives to be accomplished in the next ten-
year period. Inputs should be obtained from the scientific community
(perhaps represented by the National Academy of Sciences), the legis-
lature, other federal agencies (e.g., USDA), the public, and industry.
The goals and objectives would be the focus of the pesticide regulation
plan and subject to public conment and review. Careful and explicit
formulation of the goals and objectives could assist in a development
of the remainder of the plan as well as provide a basis for long-term
stability within the agency. Methods for measurement of agency per-
formance and a timetable for meeting the goals and objectives should
be specified.
The second part of the proposed pesticide regulation plan would be
the delineation of the roles, relationships, contributions and inter-
actions of the many agencies, organizations and groups that must co-
operate to achieve OPP goals and objectives. Roles could include:
legal, regulatory, enforcement, informational, support of research,
advisory, training, etc. Relationships could be formal or informal,
should indicate responsibility and authority, and should convey an
organizational structure among those involved with pesticide regulation.
Specific contributions expected from agencies or groups—e.g., research,
development, information, data collection, legal services—should be
defined. Finally, the nature and frequency of the interactions among
the various parties should be spelled out. Present roles and relation-
ships, as well as trends or anticipated changes in the next ten years,
should be identified. Specific areas to be covered in this part of the
plan would include:
126
-------
• Establishment of roles, relationships, inputs of:
federal agencies: EPA-OPP, ORD, OGC; USDA, Dept. of
Interior, NSF, NIH, DOC
state agencies: state agricultural environmental
agencies, state universities
• Designation* of responsibilities and authorities of APPAC
(Administrator's Pesticide Policy Advisory Committee),
SFFIAC (State Federal FIIJRA Implementation Advisory Com-
mittee), and other formal or ad hoc committees.
• Differentiation between regulatory and support roles of
these groups and agencies.
Clearly, this part of the pesticide regulation plan could not be
accomplished by OPP, or even EPA, alone. It would require interagency
and congressional cooperation and approval. The development effort
would have to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the indi-
vidual agencies and the current mandate of OPP to implement and admin-
ister FIFRA, as amended.
Equally as important as defining the government role and interac-
tion in the pesticide regulation plan, is the definition of the roles,
relationships and opportunities for public and industry participation.
The pesticide regulation plan should define the types and levels of
interaction of industry with OPP and other agencies (for example, as
described in Incentive 7) the formal and informal contacts which are ex-
pected to occur and information channels to be followed, and the types
of information, needed for effective pesticide regulation, that are ex-
pected to be provided by industry and the public. Specific actions to
enhance public participation are discussed later in this incentive.
In developing the strategic plan, OPP should explain its long-term
approach to the solutions of any environmental and economic problems
anticipated from pesticide use. Key issues should be identified and
long-term approaches to their resolution should be suggested.
Because of the length of the pesticide R&D process, it is essential
that long-term planning be accomplished by both EPA and industry. For
example, there is considerable uncertainty concerning the position EPA
will take with regard to certain classes or types of pesticides. Recog-
nition of this problem and the approach EPA intends to follow could
point the direction for changes in industrial R&D. Recognizing that new
information and technology are still developing rapidly, and that changes
in our understanding of pesticide effects are inevitable, both industry
and government can benefit from carefully developed and disseminated
plans for regulating pesticide supply and use.
127
-------
Since decisionmaking is a major function of OPP—e.g., pre-
registration, registration, re-registration, suspension, cancellation,
civil and criminal penalties, hazard evaluation—the pesticide regula-
tion plan should provide a clear description of current and proposed
future decisionmaking approaches. Guidelines for pesticide registra-
tion, criteria for rebuttable presumption against registration, tbe sig-
naling process for pesticide hazard evaluation all represent decision-
making approaches OPP has been developing. A more comprehensive decision-
making plan should' be prepared, indicating the roles of the various di-
visions and offices within OPP, procedures for internal and external re-
view, use of advisory groups or-other agencies in the decisionmaking
processes, and the internal OPP procedures. The time frame for develop-
ing and implementing these decisionmaking processes, and the expected
timing (duration) of the decision processes, and the inputs required
from various parties should be identified. The decisionmaking processes
should be published in the Federal Register for comment from industry
and other groups. Alternative processes should be sought and evaluated.
Although the pesticide regulation plan would be followed for a long
period, new inputs, data, congressional, mandates, and information will
require regulatory and procedural changes. Thus, the regulatory plan
should specifically address the processes that will be used to plan and
make changes in regulations and procedures. Further, the plan should
identify, wherever possible, those processes, regulations and proce-
dures that will be most subject to change, and a time frame for the
changes.
The long-term pesticide regulatory plan would require considerable
effort in its development, would undoubtedly be criticized by various
interest groups. Nevertheless, the plan would establish a baseline from
which expectations of OPP's and other federal agencies' actions in pesti-
cide development could be developed.
The pesticide regulatory plan should be revised as needed, follow-
ing a thorough auditing of the implementation, effectiveness and time-
liness of the plan in relation to OPP goals and objectives.
(2) Open and Effective Communications and Information Exchange
The Office of Pesticide Programs has announced its adoption of an
"open information exchange" policy, which should foster communications
between the regulating agency and regulated groups, primarily industry.
This policy will be a major step in achieving a better relationship and
more constructive attitudes between EPA and industry. There is still a
need, however, for open and frank discussions and information exchange—
and, in some instances, a need to restrict information exchange to assure
confidentiality of proprietary data. Several specific steps that could
be taken to foster attitudes of mutual confidence and understanding, yet
not lead to relationships in conflict with an effective regulatory pro-
cess, are described below.
128
-------
• EPA/Industry planning conferences. Each year, and in the forma-
tive steps of any new program by the OPP, a .joint industry/EPA planning
conference of several days duration should be held to: provide an over-
view of current plans, identify actions to be taken in the near term,
request input from interested and informed parties, and provide a mech-
anism for communications in a non-adversary situation. Such conferences
can encourage industry, university and public participation to help
eliminate surprises which decrease positive agency/industry attitudes.
EPA has held open discussions on regulatory matters in various parts of
the country, and held briefings explaining new regulations or programs;
these should be continued and implemented earlier in the planning pro-
cess.
• EPA/industry/public technical workshops. A series of publicly
attended, planned and coordinated workshops on technical and scientific
issues relevant to pesticides should be sponsored by EPA and other fed-
eral agencies. These workshops would provide an awareness of current
technical information to all parties in the regulatory process, aid in
promoting the use of new techniques and approaches to pesticide re-
search investigations, and provide practical information for use by
regulatory officials. Sharing of non-proprietary information on pesti-
cide research development and use would be the focus of the meetings.
• Early circulation/review of EPA policy/procedure information.
The broad distribution to industry and the public of EPA information
and documentation related to future guidelines, policies and procedures
should be continued and expanded. Seeking constructive inputs can sig-
nificantly enhance mutual attitudes of EPA and industry.
• Clear definitions of proprietary/restricted data and informa-
tion. EPA, working with other federal agencies and industry, should
clarify and resolve current issues surrounding the "3(c)(1)(D)" provision of
FIFRA, as amended. Definitive procedures for identifying and handling
"trade secrets," proprietary data, data for which compensation is ap-
propriate, and public information in the context of FIFRA, as amended,
and the Freedom of Information Act should be developed and implemented.
• Use of EPA regional staff in pesticide regulatory matters. Pro-
cedures and practices for communications and information exchange be-
tween industry, the public and EPA at the regional level should be es-
tablished and their use encouraged. These would permit more effective
utilization of resources within EPA, as well as ensure that problems
and issues of local or regional significance are addressed. EPA has
considered the possible decentralization of activities and suggested
several approaches to utilize EPA regional pesticide staff in registra-
tion and other regulatory affairs such as enforcement, emergency exemp-
tions, abatement and control, etc. These suggestions should be examined
in more detail to establish that they can aid in the solution of regula-
tory problems, rather than in creation of new ones. Interagency inter-
action on pesticide issues at the regional level is a second level of
communication and information exchange that needs to be fostered.
129
-------
• Continued development of the Industry/government interchange
program. An important contribution to exchange of information among in-
dustry, universities and government can occur through strengthening of a
broad-based program to exchange staff among the various parties for spe-
cific purposes and/or time periods. Federal internships or industry-
sponsored fellowships are several approaches which should be tried more
extensively. New knowledge can be transferred, attitudes improved, and
avenues opened for a better working environment.
These steps require careful consideration and deliberate implementa-
tion in order to be effective.
(3) Public Participation in the Regulatory Process
A third action step involves increased public (including industry,
academia, and public interest groups) participation in the pesticide
regulatory process. It may be argued that more public participation
does not reduce the risks and uncertainties in the pesticide research
and development process. Further, many of the processes for public
participation are expected to lead to delays in the regulatory process,
and that uncertainty is compounded by any lengthening or increasing of
its complexity. However, another view is that the public ultimately
creates the demand for and uses pest control products; hence, the public
should equally play a role in ensuring an effective regulatory process
consistent with its interests.
The current process of publication of regulations and guidelines
in the Federal Register with opportunity for comment, public hearings
and adversary procedures dealing with suspension and cancellation can
be expanded by several means described below.
These action steps, and OPP's continued efforts to utilize a broad
range of government, university, industry, and independent resources to
aid in its policy- and decisionmaking can lead to a climate in which
informed and trusted interaction is the rule rather than the exception.
Caution must be exercised to ensure that the outputs of the processes
can be utilized effectively, and that additional problems are not pre-
cipitated because of the added public and private interaction.
• Environmental/inflation impact statements. For each major new
regulatory approach or program to be implemented by OPP, an environment-
al/inflation impact statement should be prepared with opportunities for
participation and comment by industry, public and other interest groups.
EPA's current policy is to prepare (voluntarily) Environmental Impact
Statements for its most significant regulatory actions.* EPA normally
* Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 204, October 21, 1974.
130
-------
will prepare an EIS for (1) cancellation of pesticide registration after
an adjudicatory hearing under Section 6(b) of FIFRA, as amended, and (2)
pesticide disposal regulations under Section 19 of FIFRA, as amended.
This policy should be extended to cover other major actions such as sig-
nificant changes in registration requirements, policies developed for
3(c)(1)(D), etc. The purpose of this impact statement will be to ensure that
both the benefits and the costs of proposed regulatory actions are
clearly evaluated prior to the implementation of these actions. Although such
impact statements might best be prepared by a federal agency apart from
the regulating agency; it is difficult to suggest an agency other than
EPA. Representatives of the parties impacted should assist in the prep-
aration of the impact statement, not only in its review. Subjects cov-
ered by the impact statement should include: the parties affected—
both near and long term, direct and secondary costs of the program and
its implementation, benefits to various parties, alternative approaches,
and other topics consistent with EPA and NEPA guidelines.
Inflation impact statements are also currently required for the
promulgation of regulations or rules by any executive branch agency.
Criteria for identification of rules for which such statements must be
prepared have been developed by the Office of Management and Budget.*
EPA's criteria are: impacts must be $100 million annualized incremental
cost (at the production level) or a 5% greater increase in the price of
any "major" product. Consideration should be given to lowering the
minimum required criteria for inflation impact statements or collecting
certain actions, with a statement prepared for several.
• Research impact statement. Suggested by Djerassi,**a research
impact statement should be incorporated into the inflationary impact
statement or prepared independently for new regulations or procedures
required by EPA which cause substantial additional research and develop-
ment efforts by participants in the pesticide R&D process. One of the
purposes would be to explore fully the impacts of the regulations on
the parties which must conduct the research effort. EPA should play a
major role in preparation of such impact statements but opportunities
for participation and comments should be available to those who will
participate in the research, be affected by its results, or bear the
cost burden. Again, such statements must be prepared on a timely basis
and not result in undue delays in the regulatory process.
• Cost-benefit analysis. Cost-benefit analyses are being con-
ducted by EPA as part of the procedure for cancellation of pesticide
registration and as part of the rebuttable presumption against registra-
tion process. Cost-benefit analyses should also be considered for other
portions of the OPP regulatory process where such analyses would aid in
the decisionmaking process. For example, they may be a part of the re-
search or inflationary impact statement or part of emergency or local
* Executive Order 11821, Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 231, November
29, 1974.
Djerassi, C., Christina Shih—Coleman, John Diekman, "Insect Control of
the Future: Operational and Policy Aspects," Science, Vol. 186, p. 596.
131
-------
use requirements. They must be conducted independently as part of addi-
tional requirements for registration of selected pesticides. Cost-benefit
analyses should not be required for every pesticide registration, nor
should they be used to discriminate among several pesticides proposed
for the same use. They should be carefully considered for pest control
measures that have possible adverse environmental effects, as defined
by criteria developed and specified by OPP and reviewed by others.
One purpose of the cost-benefit analysis would be to allow OPP to recog-
nize when not to cancel a pesticide due to hazard considerations. The
results of cost-benefit analysis will make the cost and benefits better
known to the concerned and informed public so that a greater understand-
ing of the decisionmaking can occur.
Cost-benefit analysis must be placed in perspective. Not all ac-
tions of OPP should be subject to cost-benefit analysis. Reasonable al-
ternative actions must exist for such analyses to be useful. For many
of OPP actions, risks and hazards will undoubtedly be examined first,
and for those areas where there are high risks or hazards, cost-benefit
analysis should be conducted.
• Science court/board. Proposed by Kantrowitz,* the use of a
science court (or board) for assistance in policy and regulatory deci-
sions by OPP should be explored. Both industry and government prefer
that scientific and technical questions be judged by those trained in
appropriate disciplines and not be resolved only on legal considera-
tions. Thus, a science court might be used when scientific or technical
data are limited and scientific judgment is needed to clarify issues.
Conversely, where social values and non-technical criteria are in ques-
tion, a court (or board) of scientists will probably be no better (or
worse) than another concerned and Informed group in aiding regulatory
decisions. The science court does not obviate the adversary procedures
now encountered in OPP decisions, but places responsibility for some of
the decisions with those Vho are well qualified to debate and judge the
scientific merits of the individual cases,
• Formation of a new interagency pesticide working group. The
Federal Working Group on Pest Management functioned primarily in an ad-
visory or information role and has been disbanded. There is the need
for a new Interagency Pesticide Working Group that is concerned with,
interested in and active in pesticide management. The working group
should be reevaluated and given a new structure, organization and mis-
sion to provide specific data, information and assistance in the pesti-
cide regulatory process. Specific goals, objectives and assignments
(for example, formulation, review, and coordination of research programs
in specific areas such as biodegradation, pesticide disposal, monitor-
ing)—with appropriate responsibility—should be given to the group and
its committees. This can broaden federal participation in the entire
pesticide regulatory process.
* Science, Vol. 192, p. 129, July 9, 1976.
132
-------
(4) Internal Organizational Stability
In planning for its future role in the regulation of pesticides, OPP
should build, strengthen, and stabilize its staff and organization. Al-
though some organizational changes will be demanded by new programs and
priorities, and although staff will change as a result of new hires,
terminations, retirements, etc., a well-conceived organization and per-
sonnel management plan will enhance OPP's relationship with other fed-
eral agencies and with industry. A first step might be an audit of the
current organization, responsibilities, skills and staff. The objec-
tives, requirements and any deficiencies of internal administration,
communication and work performance channels would be delineated. This
information, combined with clear presentations of the goals and objec-
tives of OPP, should set the stage for staff and skill additions or
consolidations, establishment of work centers or program offices, or
organizational development activities.
This does not suggest a reorganization or restructuring of the
agency. It provides for an organizational plan which will help OPP
meet its obligations under the law and will help keep a skilled and
dedicated staff interested in the most effective long-term resolution of
pesticide-related problems. Specific steps such as upgrading salary
levels of registration staff and adding necessary support allocations,
have already been mentioned in other incentives. Such a staff and or-
ganizational development program could enhance the image of OPP with
both industry and the public and help create, in both perception and
function, a stable and effective organization.
D. POSSIBLE RESULTS AND IMPACTS
The incentives listed above represent a collection of actions that
EPA should consider for deliberate implementation over the long term.
Several actions are independent of the others both in concept and in
timing; others can be most effective when coordinated with others.
If successfully implemented, the actions could lead to a more ef-
fective working relationship between industry and government agencies
responsible for pesticide regulation, and to the establishment of an
economic and regulatory climate in which industry will seek to invest
in research and development of new pest control products. The incen-
tives could lead, over the long term, to achievement of EPA goals of
removing some of the obstacles or hinderances to pesticide development
caused by regulation. They could lead to a more direct control of
pesticide policy by the public, informed of current issues, and capable
of weighing the costs and benefits of pecticide use and regulation. It
is possible that they would ultimately lead to the industrial develop-
ment of biologically integrated pest control approaches, but this cculd
be an indirect result of the incentive actions.
133
-------
Although the ultimate objectives of this incentive are long-term,
short-term benefits and costs should be observable and measurable. The
development, publication, and initial implementation of a long-term
pesticide regulation plan could be accomplished within one year. It
could serve to clarify OPP objectives and goals, set the stage for fu-
ture actions, and permit EPA to take a more definite position on major
issues. The development of an effective operational strategy and plan
would follow and require additional time and effort. A measurable re-
sult could be establishment of interagency agreements specifying fed-
eral and state agency roles and interactions within a two-year time
frame. Interagency conflicts could decrease and coordinated cooperative
efforts could increase. Another measure of implementation of the incen-
tive could be the establishment and use of methods for improved OPP/
industry interaction, increases in productive working conferences, open
meetings, planned workshops, etc. The content of these interactions,
as well as the participants' attitudes, could show changes in the first
few years.
A measurable result of the identification of critical issues and
planned approaches to resolve these issues, could be a perceptible de-
crease in the number of crisis situations within EPA. The number of
major regulatory changes and the frequency of occurrence could de-
crease within several years.
Within several years the attitudes of the various parties in-
volved in pesticide regulation could change from the present tendency
of distrust, polarization, and uncooperativeness to one of mutual under-
standing and reasonableness. This could be evidenced by changes in
public statements of industry and government representatives, fewer
complaints to Congress, fewer lawsuits and adversary hearings, and
fewer comments on proposed regulations or OPP programs. Effective use
of inflation, regulatory, or research impact statements could lead to a
better understanding of the consequences of OPP programs and a smaller
financial Impact on industry. Use of science boards, and diverse
scientific bases for regulation could result in fewer contested deci-
sions in regulatory affairs. Other impacts, such as internal OPP sta-
bility could be observable by the public, Congress, and industry with-
in several years.
Indirect, but broad and long-term, measures of the success of im-
plementing the incentive could be increases in the proportion of in-
dustrial R&D devoted to new product development and corresponding de-
creases in defensive and regulatory R&D, and decreases in the numbers
of penalties, fines, suspensions, and cancellations issued by EPA.
Clearly some costs are associated with implementation of these
incentives. Increased public and industry participation in the regu-
latory process, changes in agency staffing or required interactions,
industry/government interchange programs, strategy and planning by OPP
will require additional funds. Countering these increases could be
the decrease in funds spent on unproductive research, lengthy adversary
proceeding, industry/government regulatory confrontations, etc.
134
-------
The costs of implementation of this incentive would be more in the
commitment of human resources than in dollar spending. Government and
industry staff are already devoting their efforts to pesticide regula-
tory problems; rechanneling of some of these efforts may be the major
change required.
E. REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESS
A principal requirement for success of this incentive is the de-
sire, commitment, and determination on the part of government and in-
dustry managers to participate in a rational and reasonable program of
balancing the benefits and costs of pesticide use. A sustained effort
that recognizes the probability of short-term set-backs, the difficul-
ties of meeting the needs of diverse interest groups, the requirements
for compromise, and the need for perserverance and patience of all
parties is essential.
F. SUMMARY OUTLOOK
The outlook for the successful implementation of these incentive
actions is mixed. Idealistically, many parts of the incentive could be
successfully implemented in several years. Pessimistically, the cur-
rent conflicts and diversity of interests would not permit resolution
of important issues, changes in attitudes and significant reduction in
the risk of pesticide development. Realistically, a few of the pro-
posed incentive actions could be accomplished successfully through
dedicated government, industry, and public efforts.
In any case, this incentive should be initiated and its develop-
ment continued, in spite of any short-term set-backs and difficulties en-
countered.
135
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Phase read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1 . REPORT NO.
EPA-540/9/77/008
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOI*NO.
4, TITLE AND SUBTITLE
INCENTIVES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN PEST
CONTROL VOLUME I
S. REPORT DATE
-DECEMBER, 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. author(s) WECHSLER, HARRISON, BURG, GIBBONS, PER.WAK,
TERRf. ,
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
78167
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-3133
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Pesticide Programs
Strategic Studies Unit
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AcENCY CODE
EPA/500/01
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer:
16. ABSTRACT
Frederick Talcott, Phone 202-755-0958
17.
This proijrar.; identified, developed, and evaluated incentives
(externally applied influences] that the federal government can offer
to reduce barriers to innovation and thereby encourage the continued
development of pest control methods by industry. The history of pest
control innovation was analyze, and influences on current decision-
making concerning industrial pesticide FSD were studied to provide
background for the development of incentives. Then, 64 preliminary
incentive ideas were devised and evaluated in accordance with a
conceptual framework. These incentives were screened and ranked
according to their feasibility, the acceptance by parties involved
in their implementation, and their potential contribution to
realizing the objectives of this program. Nine particularly
Eror.iicing incentive areas were developed furthei and evaluated in
several possible future scenarios. P-ecomnended incentives included
specific actions designed to decrease regulatory hindrances to RSD,
reduce the risk of product development by industry, increase the
availability of rinor use pesticides, lengthen patent, life,
advertize safety on the product label, increase utilization of
Integrated Pest Management, and increase information and training
for pesticide users. The insights and comments of representatives of
the pesticide industry and government staff concerned with pesticide
development and regulation were sought at several stages in the
development of incentives.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Regulation
Environment
Pesticides
Research
Patents
Toxicology
IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDEDTERMS
Crop groupings
Minor Use pesticides
Integrated post management
Regulatory hindrances
Alternative futures
Enteipreneurial risk
Product testing
Information and training
Product labeling
R£D incentives
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
cosati Field/Group
06/F 06/ J
14/F 05/C
07/A 02/B
21 . NO. OF PAGES
141
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
136
-------
E3BD
f\r -e> ^ W
•C T— CO
CO < O >
3 QL CO
'^3
55 <-2 LANCY LABORATORIES
_S£~ DIVISION OF DART INDUSTRIES, INC.
ZELIENOPLE, PENNSYLVANIA, 16063
o §>
c:
t/5
o
CX
CP
<£>
O-
library.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
THE NEED FOR WASTE TREATMENT 1
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS 3
SOURCES OF WASTE . 5
TYPICAL METAL FINISHING PROCESSES, REQUIRING
IN-PLANT OR WASTE TREATMENT CONTROL 12
COMMONLY USED WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS 18
Batch Treatment 18
Continuous Treatment 27
Integrated Treatment 31
Ion Exchange Treatment 34
PROCESS SOLUTION REGENERATION AND RECOVERY
METAL RECOVERY 42
Ion Exchange 42
Evaporative Recovery 43
Reverse Osmosis 46
METAL RECOVERY WITH THE "INTEGRATED WASTE
TREATMENT" SYSTEM 47
ACID PICKLING AND ETCH SOLUTION REGENERATION BY
CRYSTALLIZATION OR ELECTROLYTIC CONTINUOUS
MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS 48
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 50
REFERENCES 53
APPENDICES
TABLE I - COMMON WASTE DISCHARGES DUE
TO ACCIDENTS IN METAL FINISHING
PLANTS 54
TABLE II - COMPARISON TREATMENT TOTAL COST 55
LIST OF FIGURES 56
-------
METAL FINISHING WASTE TREATMENT ENGINEERING
The Need for Waste Treatment
The processing of metals in manufacturing includes a number of finishing steps
improving and conditioning the surface for further processing for the intended
final purpose of an article. Most of these finishing steps employ wet processes
and require rinsing steps. Water pollution is caused by the deliberate or acci-
dental discharge of the processing solutions and the contaminated rinse water.
The process may be directed towards:
1. Cleaning, which is the removal of surface oils,
greases, buffing compounds, etc.
2. Removal of oxides, rust, scale, etc.
3. Electrochemical or chemical processing to
provide the basis metal with a surface coat-
ing consisting of a plated metal or a chemi-
cally deposited, so-called conversion coating,
such as phosphate, oxide film as in blackening,
etc.
In general the aim is to change the surface of a product in such a manner that
the corrosion resistance is improved, or the appearance is changed to a more
pleasing appearance, improved hardness is imparted; wear resistance is in-
creased; surface conductivity changed; finishes to either improve the appear-
ance or suit specific engineering applications. It is evident that the first
1
-------
steps in the process - that is, the cleaning and oxide removal — are maiply pre-
paratory steps for good adhesion and receptivity for the subsequent finishes to
be employed, and while these preparatory steps may be similar to the procedures
used in the primary metal manufacturing industries, or the manufacturers of
certain finished products, such as automobiles and appliances, these preparatory
steps are a major part of the activity in an electroplating plant, while they are
of relatively minor importance for the manufacturer.
An electroplating plant may also be engaged in mechanical finishing activities,
such as polishing and buffing, sandblasting, or wire brushing, or it may also
have cleaning or painting processes employing solvents, the main activity being
with various chemical solutions, using water as a solvent for the chemicals and
water as a rinsing medium between the various process solutions, through which
the work progresses.
With an activity centered around the use of various processes employing water
as a solvent material, it is evident that water pollution problems will be en-
countered whenever an effluent is discharged. The severity of the pollution
naturally will depend on the source of waste, the type of process employed,
the size of the installation, the relative concentration of the effluent, etc.
2
-------
Engineering Considerations
Waste treatment processes aim to eliminate from the effluent stream the pollution
causing ingredients. An engineering function selects and coordinates the various
treatment steps, decides the required size of equipment to be utilized, selects
the best site to meet plant requirements, and provides the necessary plans, speci'
fications, operating information, aiming for a treatment plant, which, when prop-
erly operated, will insure that the effluent will meet the design criteria.
The engineer designing a metal finishing waste treatment plant has to have mfor-
mation from many sources to be able to meet these objectives.
Each plant uses a finishing program, unique to this one plant.
The processes utilized and make up of processing solutions is highly variable.
The processing equipment employed will have its own individual features, drain-
age rates, foundation, floor contours, age of the equipment, these are all factors
to be considered. The production volume, type and shape of the articles will
determine the anticipated surface area to be processed and the anticipated drag-
out rates per unit of surface area.
3
-------
The various finishing processes contain a variety of contaminants.
These will have to be known to judge the type of material that will have to be re-
moved from the waste stream. The applicable chemical processes have to be selected
to insure the desired reactions.
As the economy of the manufacturing process is affected, the
treatment plant and its anticipated operating costs are of paramount importance.
Process solution regeneration, chemical and metals recovery, water reuse and water
savings, operating and supervisory labor costs are all factors to be considered.
The flow rate in the receiving stream, the capacity of the
municipal sewage treatment plant, the applicable federal, state, and local require-
ments will have great bearing on the design criteria to be formulated for the
effluent to be discharged.
Plant safety, OSHA regulations, and such specific needs as
meeting, as an example, the Pennsylvania "Pollution Incident Prevention Plan"
have to be all considered.
4
-------
Sources of Waste
Dumping of waste process solutions- The cleaning and descaling process solutions
are so formulated that they will have the ability to remove soil or scale, surface
metal film, and will hold the removed material without depositing it back on the work
that is being processed. Naturally, slowly the capacity for additional soil or metal
removal will be reduced in view of the soil or metal content acquired by the cleaning
solution, and the time will be reached when the particular cleaning solution is con-
sidered spent. At this time the process solution is dumped. The dumping can occur
as a batch waste discharge or perhaps a continuous, slow wastage to maintain a
certain uniform concentration of active cleaning compounds or acids and maintain
a uniform contaminant loading or metal concentration to avoid the necessity of
batch dumping.
These batch discharges occur periodically; the relative volume of waste is usually
not large, but as the chemical concentration is relatively high, the pollution effect
may be considered also relatively serious.
The cleaners employed in metal finishing are usually compounded with various
alkali phosphates and relatively high concentrations of wetting agents to provide
fast and complete oil, grease, and soil removal. The various acid solvents for
5
-------
metal removal may contain higher acid concentrations than normal in the primary
manufacturing industry in view of the greater demands regarding utmost cleanliness
of the metal film for subsequent processing and also because the usual demands
for bright finishes require high concentrations of acid solutions and frequent dump-
ing to maintain a low metal contaminant level in the acid cleaners in use.
Most of the electrochemical process solutions in use, such as electroplating and
anodic treatment processes, can be maintained in working order by periodic or
continuous filtration, purification, or additions of various chemicals for replenish-
ment, but many process solutions employed in finishing either cannot be completely
purified, or the purification is uneconomical, in which case the process solution
itself will reach a point where dumping is necessary and a new process solution
has to be made up. Under this category would come, as an example, chromium
plating solutions contaminated by iron, copper, nickel, etc., anodizing solutions
for aluminum processing, some of the cyanide-type plating solutions, and chromat-
mg or phosphating type conversion coating processes.
From a pollution hazard standpoint, these wasted process solutions may be con-
sidered primary subjects for waste treatment. In view of the periodic or infrequent
discharges, the relatively small volume, and ample time available for proper
6
-------
treatment, the waste treatment effort is relatively small. As the pollution effect, in
view of the high concentrations of chemicals to be discharged, can be. most severe,
it will be evident that the chemical consumption for treatment may also be signifi-
cant. The considerable time available between batch discharges and the usually
small total volume to be treated, on the other hand, may allow small-sized equip-
ment.
Accidental discharges of process solutions - The second most severe pollution
hazard in connection with metal finishing operations is accidental discharges of
key process solutions. The concern shown for the treatment of the periodically
dumped process waste should be multiplied with regard to the accidental loss of
process solutions, because this hazard not only is on hand for the few process
solutions that are assumed to have finite life, but may affect the contents of pro-
cessing vats which under normal conditions could be maintained by the usual
purification maintenance practiced in the particular plant.
Nearly every process solution in the plant is prone to be discharged through an
accident, mainly because in the past an engineering effort was never directed
toward the avoidance of these accidents. The usual plant is so laid out that the
7
-------
entire processing area drains on the floor and the floor is only an extension of the
sewer system leaving the area.
While it is not common that a plating tank would spring a leak of such magnitude
that the entire plating solution could leak away undetected, many plants are operated
on a haphazard basis so that a slow leak amounting to a solution loss of 1 to 2 in./day
could go undetected for months. Also it is common practice to make up evaporation
losses by adding water with a hose to a process solution or turning on a spigot and
returning to the process tank only after it is overflowing the rim of the tank for a
while.
Filter hoses, heat exchanger connections, and pumped process lines are all prone
to leak, hoses deteriorate, etc. Waste treatment engineering would anticipate a
certain frequency of accidental spillage, depending on the general maintenance
in the particular plant.
Steam coils or heat exchangers undergo slow corrosion reactions, and it may be
anticipated that pinpoint corrosion or a corrosion cracking perforated the barrier
between the process solution and heat exchange medium, that is, steam condensate
or water. As the steam condenses, vacuum forms in the heating coil or in the jacket
8
-------
of the heat exchanger, drawing in the process solution through the voids created by
the corrosion action. Proper waste treatment engineering would therefore concern
itself with the accidental contamination of either the steam condensate or the cool-
ing water utilized in the particular process.
Some state codes require containment of the most toxic process solutions, such as
cyanide and chromic acid plating vats, by requiring a surrounding outer container
capable of holding the entire volume of the process solution in case of accident.
No doubt these state codes reflect on experience accumulated with various plating
operations. The falacy of these regulations is that, as enumerated above, there are
many additional ways for serious accidents to develop, causing severe pollution con-
ditions for which the containment for the process vat would have been no insurance.
The fact that there is protection for the least common occurrence, a serious leak in
the process tank itself, has only added to the cost of the installation of a plant but
did not provide the insurance required. On the other hand, the awareness of the
regulatory agencies of some of the potential hazards with the so-called "accidents"
in a metal finishing installation should help in a waste treatment engineering effort
aiming for the utmost safety considering the particular plant and processes under
scrutiny. Pennsylvania regulations require that the engineer submit detailed plans
for each installation storing, using, or processing toxic or potentially harmful
materials to satisfy the Pollution Incident Prevention Program.
9
-------
This naturally requires the incorporation of facilities and value judgment regarding
not only the processing area, but lagoons, containment sumps, chemical storage
tanks, storage areas, etc. In California, Japan, and Mexico, earthquake hazards
should also be considered.
Table I lists some of the more common accidental discharges together with methods
for detection and prevention or correction.
Contaminated rinse water effluent - When generally discussing waste treatment in
connection with metal finishing processes, one normally assumes that the topic
will be the elimination of the toxic constituents from the rinse water effluent. As
discussed above, the most severe hazards are not with the discharge of an un-
treated rinse water effluent.
Metal finishing requires copious quantities of water to wash away the remaining
chemical film on the work surface dragged out from one process solution before it
enters the next process. The reason for this is that water is the common solvent
for the remaining chemical films carried by the workpieces. Secondly, the removal
of this tenaciously adhering chemical film can be more easily accomplished with
fast-flowing water, providing agitation around the work surface. A chemical film
dragged out from one process and remaining on the surface may react with the next
10
-------
process solution, with which it may precipitate on the metal surface insoluble salts
as barriers for good adhesion, causing subsequent roughness, etc. The chemicals
that may be dragged from one process into the other could cause contamination of
the subsequent process solution due to the slow accumulation of dragged-in im-
purities, chemical constituents of the previous process. The need for good rinsing
is also due to the fact that any chemicals remaining in the pores of finished work
may lead to later discoloration, tarnishing, or corrosion, destroying the desired
finish.
The rinse water effluent from a metal finishing plant will carry the various dis-
solved solids originally contained in the film carried out on the work surface leav-
ing the manyfold chemical processes employed in the finishing sequence. The
drag-out from alkali cleaners by now is mixed with the drag-out from acids, pickling
solutions, and the various plating processes. While the total dissolved salt concen-
tration in the water may not have increased appreciably, the effluent carries, as
either dissolved or precipitated suspended solids, the various metal salts, cleaning
compounds, and anions of the acids utilized and possibly a small quantity of the
oils and greases originally removed by the cleaners from the work surface.
The relatively large volume of the effluent discharged makes the treatment of the
rinse water effluent the major problem. An additional complication is the fact that
11
-------
after all the various process rinses are mixed, the proper chemical treatment becomes
much more complicated or maybe even impossible. In these cases, it may be necessary
to segregate the rinse waters into various chemical groupings to be able to provide
proper treatment. Mixing of the total effluent occurs only after the segregated effluent
waste streams have previously received specific chemical treatment.
Typical Metal Finishing Processes, Requiring In-Plant or Waste Treatment Control:
a. Effluents containing only solid, mechanically-produced impurities,
such as rolling or annealing scale, sand, or sludge.
b. Effluents containing liquid impurities which are immiscible with
water, such as greases, oils and their solvents including kerosene, benzene, trichlor-
ethylene, and similar solvents.
c. Effluents from acid pickling solutions for ferrous and non-ferrous
metals. Effluents from chemical or electropolishing solutions formulated with mineral
acids such as phosphoric, sulfuric, chromic, nitric, and organic acids such as acetic,
citric, gluconic, etc., with high concentration of dissolved metals. Effluents from
phosphating solutions which contain phosphoric acid and metals such as iron, zinc,
or manganese.
12
-------
d. Effluents from alkaline pickling solutions for aluminum and zinc,
including the alkaline cleaners.
e. Effluents from various types of electroplating solutions, including
acid, alkaline, and cyanide solutions from which various metals may be deposited.
f. Effluents from chromic acid and chromate solutions in the form
of electroplating, etching and anodizing solutions, including chromating solutions
for magnesium, zinc, and aluminum, and electropolishing solutions.
g. Effluents from metal heat treatment such as cyanide hardening
operations, quench waters after brazing, metal and paint stripping, water-wash paint
spray booths, metal etching, typographical and rotogravure operations and electroless
plating systems used for metal deposition on non-conductors.
Almost all of the chemical processing solution must be discarded, due to the build-
up of foreign metal impurities. Electroplating solutions, as a general rule, are seldom,
if ever, discarded. When it is necessary to discard spent processing solutions, these
are generally batch treated prior to disposal. The rinse waters following these proces-
sing operations usually contain impurities in dilute form. Except in the case of purely
mechanical contamination, most of the contamination constituents are highly toxic and
13
-------
these toxic effects usually persist even at low concentrations. Even with large
volumes of water it is impossible to sufficiently dilute the contaminate below the
toxic levels. As an example, the normal commercial chromic acid plating solutions
which may, on the average, contain 300 g/1 chromic acid, would require a dilution
by a factor of about one million to meet United States Public Health Service drinking
water standards which, for chromium, is less than 0.05 ppm.
a. Effluents Containing Solid Impurities from
Mechanical Operation.
To obtain a good quality final finish in a metal processing operation, whether it be
an organic, metallic, or a chemical coating, it is imperative that the surface of the
workpiece be completely free from oils, greases, and rust or other oxide films. Thus,
this requirement makes it obligatory that certain cleaning operations be performed
prior to subsequent chemical processing. Often, it is necessary to initially subject
the workpieces to a mechanical operation, such as tumbling, blast cleaning, polish-
ing, or buffing, prior to the chemical processing steps. These mechanical operations
can produce an effluent which contains solid impurities.
14
-------
Water discharged from the dust collectors, tumbling, vibratory finishing after the
solids separation, may contain impurities requiring chemical or biological treatment.
b. Effluents Containing Liquid Organic Impurities.
The work pieces when received in a metal finishing plant are often covered with
oils and greases, due to machining operations or to protect their surface during
storage and shipping. Oils and greases are usually removed by subjecting the work-
pieces to the action of organic solvents and/or inorganic alkaline cleaning solutions*
Effluents are generally contaminated with these water-immiscible materials, due to
dragover or batch dumping of the processing media.
The solvents used in vapor or the immersion types of degreasing such as the non-
flammable chlorinated hydrocarbons or the flammable solvents such as kerosene
used in emulsion cleaners, can form emulsions in water or a floating film which
not only detracts from the appearance of the water but also presents danger to all
living organisms. In addition, these organic contaminants in effluents may be in-
flammable or liberate toxic gases, which would also prohibit their discharge to a
storm or sanitary sewer system. The B.O.D. content may be sufficiently high to
require biological treatment.
15
-------
c. Effluents from Acid Pickling, Polishing, or
Phosphating Solutions.
The effluents from pickling operations, due to rinsing following processing or the
dumping of spent processing solutions, yield large quantities whenever any type
of metal is processed. The pickling solutions are usually strong acids. The acids
are consumed by the dissolution of oxides and metals processed. The acid must
be replenished and metal ion content controlled for an effective operation. In most
pickling operations the solutions cannot be controlled and must be discarded. The
effluent due to batch dumping or the rinsing following processing is toxic because
of the acidity or the metal ion content. Exposure to acid water will cause damage
to masonry and iron structures. The metal ion content of the effluent from pickling
areas may be high in copper, zinc, nickel, cadmium, iron, and other heavy metals,
which are dangerous poisons to all living organisms and may be fatal at low con-
centrations.
d. Effluents from Alkaline Pickling Solutions.
Alkaline pickling solutions are used primarily for etching aluminum and zinc. These
solutions are generally highly caustic and must be neutralized with acid or spent acid
16
-------
pickling solutions to a slightly alkaline pH for the precipitation of the metal ions.
e. Effluents from Electroplating Solutions.
Effluents from many of the alkaline plating solutions contain complex metal cyanides
which must be treated to destroy or remove the cyanide radical, and the heavy metals
must be removed before the effluents can be safely discharged. The primary toxic
constituent of the non-cyanide containing processing solutions, whether they be acid
or alkaline, is the heavy metal ion content. The heavy metal ions must be removed by
alkaline precipitation, electrolysis or ion exchange. The processing solution formula-
tion may contain complexing agents which will not allow the complete precipitation of
the metal salts upon neutralization.
f. Effluents Containing Chromium Ions.
Chromium-containing chemicals are used in many processing solutions for plating,
etching, anodi2ing, electropolishing, and chromating. The chromium ion content of
many of these processing solutions are quite high and, consequently, the rinse
effluents following processing are high in chromium ion, which is toxic even in the
most dilute of concentrations and, thus, must be reduced to a safe level. Some of the
more acceptable methods are reduction and alkaline precipitation, ion exchange, and
evaporation.
17
-------
g. Quench Water Following Cyanide Metal Hardening
These waters usually contain ferrocyanides in addition to the simple cyanides, requiring
the treatment of both of these compounds. Paint and metal stripping solutions and electro-
less plating systems may contain a wide variety of organic acids and salts, complexing
agents and cyanides. Both chemical and biological treatment may be required and the
complexity of the problem may require consultation with the supplier of the process or
waste treatment specialist.
Commonly Used Waste Treatment Systems:
Batch Treatment
For dumped processing solutions containing high concentrations of chemicals, batch
treatment may be the best system. Usually dumps are infrequent and sufficient time
is available for the slow addition of the needed chemicals. Rapid treatment of con-
centrates may generate considerable heat and this again may cause the release of
toxic fumes. With collected floor spill, the time needed to analyze for the contents
and to provide the necessary chemicals for treatment, indicates the suitability of
batch handling.
18
-------
Concentrated piocess solutions containing cyanides will be most economically handled
1. 2, 3
through a batch electrolytic destruction treatment and subsequent chemical pro-
cessing. High cyanide content waste solutions should be otherwise diluted to provide
a waste containing less than 1 oz./gal. CN, to avoid overheating and the release of the
highly toxic CNC1 gas. Also some of the metal cyanide complexes cannot be treated
rapidly with the usual chlonnation. Nickel and silver cyanides, as an example, require
a long time for treatment and as the solubilizing free cyanide is destroyed in the
chlorination, there is danger that the metal cyanides will precipitate as the insoluble
salts and are not available for further chemical destruction. Sludges containing slowly
soluble metal cyanides would then ensue, making the solid waste discharged by the
plant unsuitable for land disposal.
For rinse water treatment, in view of economical considerations, and because the in-
soluble metal precipitates cannot be easily separated from the treated waste water,
batch treatment should be considered only for small-sized plants. Filtration is com-
plex in view of the gelatinous nature of the metal hydroxides and decantation easily
disturbs the precipitated flocculent particles separated from the water in quiet
condition.
19
-------
Batch treatment is suitable for the neutralization of acidic and alkaline effluents and
also for the treatment of cyanide — or chromium-containing wastes.
A. Cyanide-Containing Effluents
The dilute cyanide wastes from the rinse waters following plating tanks, cyanide dips
or other cyanide-containing processing solutions are drained to a treatment tank of
large enough capacity to hold the waste accumulated in one shift plus the volume of
treatment chemicals. With two tanks, waste can be collected in one while treatment
is taking place in the other. Each tank is baffled to provide adequate mixing and to
prevent short circuiting during treatment, and each can be equipped with high - and
low-level alarms.
During all stages of the treatment, the contents are continously circulated and/or
vigorously stirred to provide rapid and intimate mixing of the reaction mass. When
the level alarm signals that a treatment tank is full, the waste flow is diverted to
the other tank. If plating or concentrated processing solutions are dumped very
frequently, a separate holding tank should be provided. The concentrated waste
from the holding tanks would be bled into the dilute waste treatment tanks by means
20
-------
of a metering pump. The size of the holding tank is determined by the frequency
of dumping.
Treatment consists of first, elevation of the pH by the addition of caustic, and
4, 5
second, simultaneous addition of chlorine and caustic or sodium hypochlorite.
After treatment, the contents of the tank are discharged.
1. Manual Batch Cyanide Waste:
A typical manual batch system for cyanide waste is shown in Fig. 1. In operation,
the circulating pump is started and the pH of the waste is adjusted by adding caustic
to the system through the caustic feed pump. The pH is checked at approximately 10-
minute intervals using either universal or narrow range pH test paper. When the pH
reaches 11.5, the caustic feed pump is stopped. A sample of the waste must then be
collected for a determination of the cyanide content in order to establish the ap-
proximate additions of chlorine or sodium hypochlorite required. The treatment
chemicals are fed continuously for a predetermined time. At the end of this time,
the chemical feeds are stopped, but circulation of the batch is continued. At the
21
-------
end of forty-five minutes, a sample of the batch is tested for residual chlorine or
cyanide. If cyanide is still present, the chemical treatment is continued by start-
ing the chemical feed pump. The batch is then tested at approximately 15-minute
intervals until it has been determined that all cyanide is destroyed. When the
absence of cyanide has been confirmed, the pumps are stopped. The treated batch
may then be dumped to a clarifier for settling the precipitated metal salts, prior
to the discharge of the treated effluent.
When the second tank has become full, the waste flow is diverted to the now empty
first tank and the batch in the second is then treated in the same manner.
2. Instrumented Batch Cyanide Waste:
In the instrumented batch system, semi-automatic control is provided by the
6
addition of pH and Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP) controllers. Its operation
is as follows* With the pH controller switched to manual control, caustic soda is
injected by the caustic feed pump into the untreated waste as it is pumped into
the circulation system. The pH is raised to 11.5 initially. When the pH has been
adjusted, the booster pump is started and sodium hypochlorite or chlorine is
added at the desired flow rate.
22
-------
At the same time, the pH instrument is switched to automatic control and, under
the proportional throttling control of the pH instrument, the caustic feed pump
continuously adds enough reagent to maintain a pH of 11.5 during the reaction.
The pH controller is equipped with a low pH limit switch for alarm and is inter-
locked with the booster pump to stop chlorine or sodium hypochlorite feed in the
event of a low pH condition.
The progress of the chlormation is continuously indicated by the ORP recorder-
controller. When this instrument senses that the endpoint of the reaction has been
reached, after about an hour, it shuts down the booster pump through a limit switch.
It also signals the operator.
The batch continues to circulate and if, after thirty minutes, the ORP recorder
still shows the reaction to be complete, the treated waste can be dumped. Should
the reaction be incomplete after thirty-minute mixing period, the chlorine booster
pump is started and continues to feed chlorine or sodium hypochlorite until the
limit switch on the ORP controller is again tripped, indicating that the reaction
is complete. The pH recorder-controller will automatically maintain the proper
pH during chlormation.
23
-------
7 8
3. Kastone Process '
A process developed by the DuPont Company and recommended for the treatment of
sodium, potassium, zinc, and cadmium cyanide only. The solution pH is adjusted to
10.0-11.5, the solution heated to 120-130° F, and hydrogen peroxide and formalin are
added according to recommendations of the supplier, depending on a previous analysis.
In approximately sixty minutes, the treatment is completed and the waste may be
checked for unreacted cyanide. If it is established that all the cyanide content is
treated, the waste may be decanted or filtered and discharged. The filterability of
the metal solids is improved in this process, but there is greater danger for entrap-
ment of the insoluble metal cyanides in the sludge. The chemical costs are some-
what higher with this process, but on the other hand, there is no danger of generating
cyanogen chloride gas during treatment. The effluent requires biological treatment,
so it has to be discharged to a sanitary treatment facility.
B. Chromium-Containing Effluents
The batch treatment of chromium is handled in a similar manner to cyanide batch
treatment. The chromic acid wastes from the rinses following plating solutions.
24
-------
bright dips, and conversion coatings are collected in two duplicate receiving tanks,
alternately used for collection and treatment. As in the case of cyanide, it is de-
sirable to provide a third tank for holding dumped spent processing solutions and
a metering pump to bleed a pre-determined portion of the solution from this tank into
the treatment tanks containing dilute wastes.
Treatment consists of first, lowering the pH by addition of acid, second, addition
of sulfur dioxide or sodium metabisulfite to reduce the hexavalent chromium, and
third, elevation of pH by addition of caustic to precipitate the trivalent chromium.
1. Manual Batch Chromium Waste-
In operation, the circulation pump is started and concentrated sulfuric or hydrochloric
acid added to the batch manually or by means of the acid feed pump. The pH is checked
at frequent intervals and, when it reaches 3.0, acid addition is stopped. A sample of
the waste must then be collected for determination of the hexavalent chromium content
of the waste in order to establish the required feed rate for sulfur dioxide or sodium
metabisulfite. A procedure can be set up for this purpose, using a color comparator.
For each installation, curves can be plotted for the quantity of chemical required
versus hexavalent chromium.
25
-------
When the required chemical feed rate has been determined, the pump is started and
the previously dissolved sodium metabisulfite is added or the sulfur dioxide feed
rate set on the sulfonator. The batch is then continuously circulated for about 3
hours. At the end of this time the sulfonator booster pump is stopped, but the
batch is circulated for another 15 minutes.
At the end of the 30-minute period, a sample of the treated batch is tested for hexa-
valent chromium. If the test indicates that hexavalent chromium is still present, the
treatment is continued, adding more chemicals from the sodium metabisulfite stock
solution tank, or by starting the sulfonator booster pump again. The batch is then
tested at 15-minute intervals until all the hexavalent chromium has been reduced,
at which time the sulfonator booster pump is stopped. Caustic is then added
manually or by means of a caustic feed pump until the batch attains a pH of 8.0,
at which point the trivalent chromium will precipitate out of solution. The treated
batch can then be discharged to a clarifier, or decanted to the sewer.
When the second tank has become full, the waste flow is diverted to the now empty
first tank and the batch in the second tank is then treated in the same manner.
(Fig. 2)
26
-------
2. Instrumented Batch Chromium Waste-
A semi-automatic batch treatment system can be provided by the addition of pH and
9
ORP controllers. In operation, the pH controller is switched to acid control and acid
is injected by the acid feed pump into the untreated waste as it is pumped into the
recirculation system. The pH is lowered to 3.0, at which point the acid feed pump is
cut off. The chromium booster pump is then started and sulfur dioxide fed at a pre-
set flowrate, maintained constant by the manually-set sulfonator. Using sodium
bisulfite or ferrous sulfate as a teducei, requires controlled additions of acid to
maintain the pre-set pH.
The progress of the reduction reaction is continuously indicated by the ORP
recorder-controller. When this instrument senses that the endpoint of the reaction
has been reached, it automatically shuts down the booster pump. The pH recorder-
controller is then switched to aklali control and the caustic feed pump is started.
When a pH of 8 is reached, the pH controller cuts off the caustic feed pump. The
trivalent chromium will precipitate and the batch can be discharged to a clanfier to
settle the precipitated chromium salts.
Continuous Waste Treatment
In contrast to batch treatment, continuous treatment for rinse water effluents allows
27
-------
closer instrumental control, better mixing of the reacting chemicals and a uniform
rate of flow pre-requisite for the successful performance of a clanfier, usually
following the chemical treatment as the first step in the liquid-solids separation
to remove the precipitated metal salts.
The rinse water streams are separated according to the various chemical treat-
ments needed, each segregated stream passing through a reaction tank of suitable
size with mixing and reaction chambers and instrumentation to allow the required
chemical feed, and retention time to provide the optimimum conditions for the com-
pletion of the intended reaction. Subsequently the treated individual rinse water
streams are mixed for self neutralization, final pH control, possible polyelectrolyte
dosing for best flocculation, and discharge to a clanfier or lagoon to settle the
precipitates and skim potential floating solids.
A. Continuous Cyanide Treatment
The dilute wastes are drained directly to the first reaction tank. A separate holding
tank is provided for concentrated wastes, which are slowly bled into the first reaction
tank by means of a metering pump. The reaction tank is baffled to assure positive
mixing and prevent short circuiting of the waste through the tank. In the first reaction
tank, the cyanides are converted by the chlorine addition into cyanogen chloride,
which will hydrolyze to cyanate in 10-15 minutes, at a pH of 11-11.5. The pH is
maintained constant by the injection of caustic through the metering pump which
is proportionally controlled by the pH recorder-controller. Chlorine is fed to the
28
-------
system by a chlorinator, or added from a sodium hypochlorite stock solution tank
through a control valve. As mentioned, the first reaction, cyanide to cyanate, takes
place at a pH of 11.5. If required, the cyanate may be completely broken down to
nitrogen and carbon dioxide gases in a second reaction which occurs more rapidly
at pH 7.5-8.0. The pH reduction is accomplished by the addition of concentrated
mineral acid. The acid is fed to the reaction tank by a control valve.
From the pH adjustment tank the waste flows to a larger, baffled tank where the
complete destruction of the cyanate is accomplished. Either chlorine and caustic
are added to this tank, controlled by pH and ORP instruments, or sodium hypochlorite
solution is fed by the ORP controller. The effluent from this final reaction tank is
discharged from the plant directly to a settling tank or lagoon.
B. Continuous Chromium Treatment
As in the case of cyanides, continuous treatment of chromate wastes is more
practical than batch treatment for plants handling large amounts of dilute wastes.
The continuous system for the treatment of chromates is basically similar to that
for cyanide treatment. In operation, the dilute wastes are drained directly to the
reaction tank. Concentrated wastes from the holding tank are slowly bled into the
tank by means of a metering pump. The hexavalent chromium is converted to the
tnvalent state in the reaction tank by the addition of a sodium metabisulfite solution
29
-------
or sulfur dioxide. The reaction is virtually instantaneous at a pH of 8.0 or less.
The pH is maintained constant by the addition of mineral acid through a control
valve regulated by the pH recorder-controller. Sulfur dioxide may be fed to the
system by an S02 feeder.
From the first reaction tank the flow of the waste is directed to the small pH ad-
justment tank. Here, the pH is increased to 8-0 by alkali addition. The pH recorder-
controller automatically maintains the pH constant by the addition of the caustic
soda solution. From the pH adjustment tank, the waste can be discharged to a
settling tank for separation of the precipitated solids. Figure 2 shows the schematic
arrangement for continuous treatment of a cyanide and chromium containing effluent.
The advantages of the continuous system are:
a. Simplicity of design. Assuming the presence of only conven-
tional metal finishing processes with well-known chemical
treatment requirements, engineering problems are minimized.
b. With proper instrumentation and incorporation of safety features,
the supervisory attention is minimal; therefore, no separate waste
treatment operator is needed.
The disadvantages are:
a. Minimal opportunities for water saving or reuse.
b. The precipitated metal salts are mixed, eliminating the
opportunity for economical metal recovery from the sludges.
c. Chemical costs are high because with the metal precipitation,
also water hardness, has to be precipitated and the chemicals
30
-------
for pH adjustment for the various treatments can become
significant.
d. Unless care is exercised and complexing agents are rigor-
ously kept out of the rinse water, meeting of effluent limits
may be marginal or not possible.
Integrated Waste Treatment10'11
This system was devised primarily to meet the need of the plating industry for im-
proved rinsing, and to create savings to offset the costs of waste treatment. The
basic concept of the integrated system is the segregation and treatment of the waste
at the source. To accomplish this, the liquid film of plating solution which adheres
to the part as it is removed from the bath is simultaneously treated and removed from
the plated or processed part. The waste treatment is integrated into the processing
sequence and no separate treatment plant is required. The system can be employed
following any processing step which would result in toxic waste carryover, regard-
less of its position in the processing line. Its simplicity and reduced space re-
quirements make Lt easily adaptable to existing processing lines.
In operation, a treatment wash tank is substituted for the first rinse tank following
the plating operation. A treatment wash solution is continuously recirculated through
this tank and physically removes the dragout, at the same time reacting chemically
with it. The part is then rinsed with fresh water in the subsequent rinse tank. The
31
-------
effluent from this rinse tank is now uncontaminated with toxic dragout or precipitated
metal hydroxides and requires no additional treatment.
The treatment solution is continuously recirculated between the treatment wash tank
and a larger reservoir. The reservoit tank serves three major functions:
1. It is the all-important buffering component in the system
which neutralizes the shock load caused by sudden and
irregular changes in the quantity of plating or processing
solution dragout treated.
2- It serves as a clarifier, settling out the insoluble metal
oxides and hydroxides formed in the first stage of the
reaction.
3. It serves as a retention tank, providing adequate time for
the desired chemical reaction, such as oxidation of cyanates
to carbon dioxide and nitrogen, treatment of nickel cyanide,
silver cyanide complexes, etc., which take hours for completion.
Only one reservoir tank is required and several treatment wash tanks can be served by
a common reservoir tank. Various metal wastes should not be mixed if metal recovery
from the sludges is the aim.
The integrated system can be completely automated, but in smaller plants operates
without the need for close control since high excesses of treatment chemicals are
used in the closed loop. Relatively simple paper and spot tests are sufficient for
control of the treatment process. Treatment chemicals are added either continuously
32
-------
or batch-wise as they are consumed by the toxic materials. A typical integrated
system is shown in Figure 3.
The system has many advantages, such as:
a. Equipment costs are low, the equipment is integrated into
the finishing line, occuping a minimum of floor space, and
requiring no separate waste treatment plant.
b. Ease of supervision and control, because control is restricted
to simple checks to ascertain the availability of excess treat-
ment chemical in the system.
c. Better rinsing, elimination of staining, and reduction in rinsing
rejects. Reduced quantities of water are used in view of the
pre-nnse with chemicals, allowing 80-90% reuse of the waste
waters, since the contaminating chemicals are kept out of the
rinse water flow and no treatment chemicals are added to in-
crease the salt content of the waste water.
d. Minimum waste treatment chemical cost, since one of the
major chemical consumption factors, the addition of caustic
or acid to bring the waste rinse water into the correct pH
range for treatment, is eliminated.
e. Sludge handling is simplified. The chemical system is so
formulated that the precipitates are densely settled. The
metal sludges are segregated, allowing simple and economical
recovery of the metal values.
f. The individual chemical rinse stations operated with high
content of excess reacting chemicals provide a fast and more
complete treatment. Only the dragout from the treatment rinse
reaches the rinse water, therefore it is easier to meet effluent
quality requirements.
33
-------
The disadvantages of the system are:
a. Additional rinse tanks may be required where such are
presently not used, unless one of the rinse tanks in a
double rinse system can be converted to chemical
rinsing.
b. While the integrated rinse, if properly maintained, leads
to a quality improvement in the finish, the improperly
operated plant may affect the desired finish quality and
may be the cause for re-works.
c. The metal finisher is made responsible for waste treat-
ment and has to attend to the maintenance of additional
process solutions, while it would be more convenient to
leave these problems to a remote waste treatment plant
operator.
Ion Exchange Treatment
Ion exchange is one method of concentrating the chemical contaminants in rinse
waters so that they can be treated more easily. It also makes possible the recovery
of valuable materials. As a by-product, ion exchange produces deiomzed water
which is useful in rinse tanks and in preparing new plating solutions.
Basically, ion exchange is a system for removing one ion from solution and sub-
stituting it with another ion to produce a solution that has a more desirable compo-
sition than the one being treated. The basic material involved is a granular solid
known as an ion-exchange resin, which has the property of exchanging one of its
34
-------
ions for one of those in the solution being treated. The process itself is cyclic.
The solution being treated passes through the exchanger until it exhausts the resin.
In essence, the resin itself can be used indefinitely. Ion exchange can be used to
concentrate rinse water wastes that must be neutralized prior to discharge or, when
economics dictate, it can be used to recover metals and regenerate process solutions.
Theoretically, it is possible to continuously remove the chemicals contained in the
drag-out from the process solution from the rinse water effluent and to recover these
chemicals in a useful form when backwashing the ion-exchange column. The back-
wash waters, since they are usually more dilute than the original process solution,
would have to be only reconcentrated by evaporation before returning them to the
process. At the same time, the rinse waters that have been passing through the
ion-exchange column would be returned for repeated rinsing. Waste treatment op-
erated in this manner becomes a closed cycle, greatly reducing the quantity of
water that has to be purchased, but at the cost of chemicals that are required to
backwash the ion-exchange column—that is, to free the ion-exchange resin of the
process chemicals that were picked up while the waste rinse water was purified.
When an ion-exchanger installation is used for the purification of rinse water
effluent from various processes, the reclamation of the process chemicals con-
tained in the backwash water cannot be utilized any more for return to the
original process from which they originated. In an installation of this type, the
-------
mam function of the ion-exchange installation is to avoid waste treatment of large
volumes of rinse water effluent and, by backwashing the exchanger, all the chemicals
that would have required treatment become available in a far more concentrated form
for waste treatment. The functions of the ion-exchanger in an application of this type
would aim to return nearly all the rinse water to the process for repeated usage and
allow a simplified waste treatment with regard to the volume of the total waste to be
treated. The chemical and maintenance cost of the ion-exchange installation would
have to be balanced against the water savings.
Consideration has to be given in a system of this nature to the fact that the ion-
exchange resin bed is capable of repeated regeneration without deterioration if it is
loaded with chemicals which the resin can release on simple backwashing with the
chemicals utilized for this purpose. With a mixed rinse water waste stream, careful
engineering is required to insure the success of the installation. Oil that may be
carried by the rinse water after cleaning should be removed. Some wetting agents
and organic brighteners may also foul the resin bed. For this reason, it is best
to insert a carbon filter into the recirculation system to remove all deleterious
organic materials before passing the waste rinse water through the ion-exchanger.
Another problem is the precipitated water hardness and metal hydroxides clogging
the rpsin bed. Considering a pool of mixed rinse water effluent, the pH, of the
stored water will determine to what extent the metal salts in the waste may have
been precipitated. The ion-exchange resin is capable only of removing ionized
36
-------
substances; therefore, solids such as precipitated metals, soaps, etc., will mechan-
ically clog the resin bed. Some compounds may not be released as easily by some of
the ion-exchange resin materials as some other resin formulations. It is necessary,
therefore, to consider all the possible organic and inorganic materials that will be
contained in the rinse water and select the resin that is least affected and easiest
to regenerate for a successful installation. Figure 4 provides a schematic presenta-
tion of an ion-exchange installation of this type.
Assuming that the precipitated metal salts are removed by previous pressure filia-
tions, and the organic content of the waste stream was purified through the use of a
carbon filter, of all the materials suspected of fouling of the ion exchange resin bed,
the rinse water as is passed through the ion-exchanger is freed of all salt content and
the water can be reused in a closed loop. The cation bed will remove all cations until
exhausted and similarly, the anion exchanger will remove the anions. As an example,
sodium, calcium, the metal ions, and trivalent chromium would be retained on the
cation resin, while the anion exchanger retains the sulfates, chlorides, etc., hexa-
valent chromium, and cyanide complexes.
Each-ion-exchange resin column has a certain capacity to combine with equivalent
weights of the various chemicals contained in either the process solution or in the
37
-------
rinse water. Calculations have to be conducted for each installation to establish
the volume of resin that should be utilized to provide a reasonable length of time
for usage between backwashings. Normally, parallel ion-exchange systems are
used for waste water treatment to allow the backwashing of one while the other is
on stream. The size of the installation will depend on these calculations and a
certain percentage of deterioration in time should be calculated to allow for a
20-25% efficiency drop in the utilization of the ion exchange column.
As the capacity of the exchanger is based only on the chemical equivalent weights
of the various chemicals to be removed from the recirculated rinse water, the volume
of water being recirculated is immaterial. This allows the accelerated water recircu-
lation for better rinsing without economical detriment. While the fact that the recircu-
lated water entering the rinse tank is desalted may not be of significant value because
desalted water doesn't have buffering capacity, the fact that the flow rate can be ac-
celerated is an advantage.
The performance of the ion-exchange system usually is monitored with a conductivity
controller. When the exchange capacity of the system nears exhaustion , the salt con-
tent increases the conductivity of the water. This breakthrough of dissolved salt in
38
-------
the recirculated effluent is an indication that the system requires regenera-
tion. Usually dilute hydrochloric acid is used for the regeneration of the cation
exchange column, while caustic soda solution is used for the regeneration of the
anion exchanger. Cyanide and wetting agents may not be completely retained and
may be present in the recirculated rinse water, while the complete release of
chromic acid from the anion bed can be another difficulty to guard against.
The regenerant and backwash waters carry all the salts earlier retained on the
resin. Usually a batch waste treatment system is used to treat this mixed waste.
Since the acid and alkali values are near balance, the regenerant and backwash
waste is mixed. After cyanide treatment the chromium is reduced and precipitated
in the alkaline range and the metal salts are precipitated, settled, and the clear
effluent decanted to allow the separation of the solids from the water.
The chemical treatment of these batches have to be tailored to the particular
installation, and the anticipated constituents of the mixed waste. Process
changes and variable processing in the finishing plant may require variations
in the treatment process. Complex salt formation is always a danger if the po-
tential of iron cyanide and nickel cyanide formation is on hand; the cation and
39
-------
anion regenerant waters may have to be segregated. Complexing agents should be
kept out of the effluent in a similar manner as indicated for continuous or batch
treatment. Sometimes it is necessary to pass the treated effluent through a secon-
dary cationexchanger to remove the metal salts that could be only incompletely
precipitated in the treatment.
Dumped processing solutions and floor spill are batch treated, sometimes mixed with
the regenerate and backwash from the ion exchanger system. Inconsiderate mixing of
these wastes may make the treated effluent or sludges, or both, unacceptable for dis-
charge. The potential hazard of creating a sludge high in slightly soluble metal
cyanides, insoluble iron cyanides, soluble metals that cannot be precipitated or
separated from the water phase, is extremely great.
Moving bed ion exchange systems are from a theoretical concept similar to the fixed
12
bed installations. Their advantage may be obvious when large capacities are needed.
As shown on Figure 5 schematically, the resin is recirculated in pulses and only a
short column length is used for absorption, while simultaneously at other areas re-
generation and backwashing take place. Beside potentially large capacity, the
greatest advantage may lie in the fact that since resin is in the loading cycle only
40
-------
for a few minutes, subsequently it can be washed, then regenerated, and washed
again-the chances of clogging the bed with insoluble precipitates and fouling with
organic compounds being greatly reduced.
The advantages of the ion exchange treatment system are:
a. Significant water savings up to 90% in view of water
recirculation. At the same time, sewer rental charges
are equally reduced.
b. The volume of the effluent discharged is greatly reduced,
thereby allowing potential reduction of the polluting
substances.
The disadvantages of the ion-exchange type treatment are:
a. Design considerations have to be very carefully
weighed.
b. Batch treatment chemical costs, labor, and supervisory
expenses, also equipment maintenance, ate high. Sludge
handling can be expensive since the metal separation can
be complex.
c. The investment in equipment and installation is relatively
high.
41
-------
Process Solution Regeneration and Recovery. Metal Recovery.
Ion Exchange
The best opportunities for ion exchange systems in metal finishing waste treatment
13
may lie in the field of valuable metal recovery or regeneration of process solutions.
As an example, when rinse waters after chromium plating are passed through a cation
exchange column, the system may serve the function of recovering the valuable chrom-
ium chemicals by removing the impurities, such as trivalent chromium, copper, zinc,
nickel, and iron, in the cation exchange column, the backwash waters from which would
go to waste treatment. An evaporation system allows the reconcentration of valuable
chemicals and reuse of the rinse waters.
An example of the maintenance of a process solution would be the removal of aluminum
from a chromic acid anodizing bath, avoiding the necessity of periodic disposal of the
bath]4 Chromic acid, as a strong oxidizer, will deteriorate the resin to some extent
and, therefore, concentrated chromic acid solutions should first be diluted with water
before regeneration through an ion-exchanger is attempted.
An ion exchanger receiving rinse waters from only one process can retain the desired
cation or anion in a sufficiently pure condition so that the regenerant could serve as
replenishment source back to the process, especially after reconcentration by evapora-
tion. Nickel sulfate, as an example, can be reclaimed in this manner.
42
-------
Process solution regeneration is, perhaps, the field which, from economical con-
siderations, is best suited for the use of ion-exchangers. The limited capacity of
the ion-exchange systems and the necessity for large installations to provide the
necessary salt absorbancy between backwashings has limited to some extent more
common use of this type of equipment. Moving bed ion exchange columns overcome
the common limitations assumed regarding the capacity of ion-exchange installations
(Figure 5). Successful installations indicating good economy have been accomplished
with this type of system for such process solution recovery as bright dip solutions
used for aluminum which require resins to be able to accept high-strength oxidizing
acids and have removal rates of large quantity of aluminum, maintaining the process
solution at the optimum aluminum concentration.
Evaporative Recovery
There are basically two systems used in the recovery of chemicals by the evapora-
tion technique.
One is the vacuum evaporator, concentrating the process solution waste at reduced
temperature by depressing the boiling point, maintaining a vacuum in the evaporative
vessel.15 Reducing atmospheric conditions and temperature, the oxidative breakdown
of cyanide compounds may be reduced. The atmospheric evaporator uses forced air
through a chamber into which the processing solution is sprayed to accelerate
43
-------
evaporation rates and remove water vapor with the air that is discharged through a
stack. The water removed by the vacuum evaporator can be recondensed and reused
for rinsing.
Two modes and their variants are usually employed, depending on the number of
countercurrent rinse stations available and the water flow rate required for good
16
rinsing.
A. Closed Loop System
The closed loop system is an effective way to recover cyanide, metal cyanides,
chromium-and other metal-containing chemicals from plating operations so that
chemical treatment of rinse water is eliminated or minimized. This technique is
applied only to processing lines using countercurrent rinsing. In a typical system,
Figure 6, a single effect evaporator concentrates flow from the rinse water holding
tank. The concentrated rinse solution is returned to the plating bath and the dis-
tilled water is returned to the final rinse tank.
In the closed loop system, no external rinse water is added for makeup except that
required by atmospheric evaporation. The only chemicals added to the plating bath
are those required for replacing what is actually deposited on parts and any spillage
44
-------
or accidental losses. The system is designed to recover 100 per cent of the plating
chemicals normally lost in dragout, for reuse in the plating cycle.
B. Open Loop System
The open loop system is adaptable to those plating installations where there is an
insufficient number of countercurrent rinse tanks, and is a system for partial recovery
of plating chemicals. A small portion of the chemical dragout that accumulates in the
final rinse tank is not circulated to the evaporator for concentration. The circulation
loop through the evaporator is opened by creating another flow path for the chemical
dragout. This small fraction of dragout solution not returned to the evaporator can be
treated by an appropriate chemical method before disposal. A typical example of an
open loop system with only two rinse tanks can be operated economically. In this
system a small percentage of the dragout is lost, which must be treated.
45
-------
Reverse Osmosis
Functionally, the reverse osmosis applications in metal finishing are very similar to
the opportunities available by evaporation. Theoretically, reverse osmosis aims to
apply high pressure to a suitable thin membrane, overcoming the osmotic pressure,
passing water through the membrane which at the same time rejects the salt molecules,
and thereby separates a relatively salt-free water stream and a salt solution at a higher
concentration than the original input was.
Rinse waters from a specific process can thereby be treated, the water product re-
turned for rinsing, and the concentrates, possibly after further concentration by evapora-
tion, returned to the process. If the recovered water stream is sufficiently free of the
dragout salts, and a sufficient number of counter-current rinse stations are available,
the level of the original contaminant concentration can be sufficiently reduced so that
a last rinse doesn't require treatment. Otherwise the configuration is similar to the
17 18
"Open Loop System" as shown for evaporative recovery.
Suitable membrane materials for cyanide and chromium type rinse water reconcentration
are not yet commercially available.
46
-------
Care has to be exercised with reverse osmosis systems so that the rinse water doesn't
contain precipitated salts; otherwise, these may in time reduce the permeability of the
membrane.
Metal Recovery with the "Integrated Waste Treatment" System
As discussed earlier with the various Waste Treatment Systems available, the "Inte-
grated Waste Treatment" aims to follow closely the processing step and is segregated
with respect to the general metal treatment process. The design theory assumes that
only the metal is worth recovering, both from an economical standpoint, to reduce the
sludge volume and to avoid returning contaminants to the process and unduly increas-
ing the metal content of the solution.
A. Electrolytic Recovery
19
After certain processes, such as for example gold, silver, tin, a dragout solution is
maintained as a suitable electrolyte to allow the continuous recovery of the metal in
the process and maintaining the electrolytic system at such metal level that the dragout
loss of the metal into the following treatment wash system is of negligible economical
consequence.
B. Metal Recovery Values from the Sludges
The relative "Integrated" closed loop segregates the metal in a dense sludge collected
47
-------
in the respective reservoir tank. Since the sludge is uncontaminated, it has a good
market and can be sold to the suppliers of the plating chemicals or anodes for nearly
the full value of the metal content. Especially for smaller plants this provides a
simple and unsophisticated means to recover the dragout losses from, as an example,
20,21
nickel and copper plating installations. A significant metal loss also occurs at
times of purification of these plating solutions and from filter drains. All these
wastes can be easily recovered up to 100% with this technique.
Larger installations may avail themselves of further savings by recovering the full
metal values with highly economical automatic electrolytic recovery plant, operating
at near 100% efficiency, to reclaim all the nickel and copper lost. This is an obvious
step, for instance, for the non-ferrous metals processing plants, even though some
waste sludges are mixed, as an example copper sludge containing zinc, tin, nickel,
22
etc.
Acid Pickle and Etch Solution Regeneration by Crystallization
or Electrolytic Continuous Maintenance Programs
Processes depending on cooling or heating of the acid solutions to avoid dumping
and recovering the crystallized metal salts have been known for many years. Their
wider use may come in the future with added emphasis on the need of recycle and
increasing costs of sludge handling. We may mention here, as an example, the
48
-------
crystallization recovery for pickling solutions for steel, removing ferrous sulfate or
the regeneration of ammonium persulfate copper-etch solutions as used for printed
circuit boards. The removal of the copper-ammonium sulfate extends considerably
the usefulness of the processing solution.
Continuous electrolytic maintenance of a desired metal concentration has been
practiced for many years for pickling acids in non-ferrous metal manufacturing
plants. With greater emphasis on waste treatment, the processes expanded, re-
cycling the metal that was dumped earlier with significant reduction in acid
handling costs and improved processing.
49
-------
Economical Considerations
From the foregoing, it will be obvious that waste treatment costs will be greatly de-
23
pendent on many factors. Under plant management control are such, as an example:
drag-out control, economical water usage, good housekeeping, and the selection of
processes from the standpoint of waste treatment needs also. Investment for solu-
tion, regeneration, purification, reduction of dumping rates, closer chemical control
of processing systems are all issues that require a new look from the waste treatment
cost angle.
The engineer in charge of waste treatment design should consider this question from
many angles also.
(a) The design should consider meeting not only today's requirements, but
the best treatment in view of the mounting restrictions anticipated in the future, and
the safest possible margin for his client.
(b) Water consumption and sewer rental charges should be considered as
much part of the overall cost as the chemicals used in treatment.
(c) Savings achieved in water reuse opportunities, chemical and metal re-
covery steps built into the waste treatment scheme, may allow economies to offset
24
treatment costs, reducing the overall operating costs.
50
-------
(d) Increasing the supervisory and operating labor costs can be avoided
only if the waste treatment system is integral or at least close to the processing area.
(e) An extensive and expensive waste treatment plant does not necessarily
insure better treatment, more flexibility, or freedom from upsets.
(f) Design criteria should not be established solely on the basis of the needs
of the receiving stream or the leniency or restrictive attitudes of the local Regulatory
Agency.
25
A case history reported elsewhere in detail is presented as an illustration. The report
covers cost comparison between three types of general waste treatment systems as re-
lated to the cost of rinse water treatment for the same size plants with identical drag-
out rates, production volumes, and other basis costs. The report is specific regarding
a plating process consisting of cyanide copper strike, followed by acid copper, nickel
and chromium plating. The cost comparison is tabulated in Table II.
The following general conclusions may be drawn from this example:
1. (a) Water costs and sewer rental charges were the most significant
cost factor.
(b) Sludge handling was the second important cost item, followed by
(c) Amortization charges.
51
-------
2. Chemical costs for the treatment erf the drag-out are not a major
item. When large volumes of water are processed, the precipita-
tion of water hardness may exceed the chemical cost of treating
the chemicals from the drag-out. The study does not reflect what
the chemical costs of treatment would have been if solution dump-
ing and excessive floor spill would have to be treated. Chemical
costs could be a major item in a sloppy operation.
3. Treated rinse water due to water reuse options may cost less than
the untreated rinse water and sewer rental charges.
4. The cost comparison study did not take into consideration that all
the copper and nickel is recovered in the plant under study. The
actual savings far exceed the reported values. We may say, there-
fore, that suttable waste treatment design in many installations
may significantly reduce operating costs.
52
-------
REFERENCES
1. R. W. Oyler, Plating 36, 341 (1949).
2. R. W. Oyler, Proc. 4th Indust. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ., 250 (1949).
3. J. M. Conrad 8c G. P. Beardsley. Metal Finishing, 59, #5, 54 (1961).
4. J. G. Dobson, Sewage Works J., 19, 100 (1947). Metal Finishing, 45 #2, 78;
45, #3, 68 (1947).
5. B. F. Dodge & W. Zabban, Plating, 38, 561 (1951), 39, 385 (1952).
6. L. E. Lancy, W. Zabban, ASTM - STP No. 337, 32 (1962).
7. B. C. Lawes, E. I. DuPont, U. S. Pat. 3,617,582.
8. B. C. Lawes, L. B. Fournier, and 0. B. Mathre, "A New Peroxygen Method for
Destroying Cyanide in Zinc and Cadmium Electroplating Rinse Waters," 58th
Annual Convention, American Electroplaters' Society, Inc., Buffalo, N. Y. (1971).
9. W. N. Greer, Sewage & Indust. Wastes 25, 930 (1953).
10. L. E. Lancy, U. S. Pat. #2,725,314
11. L. E. Lancy - Sewage & Indust. Wastes 26, 1117 (1954)
12. I. R. Higgins, U. S. Pat. #3,492,092
13. R. Kunin, Products Finishing (April, 1969)
14. J. Thompson and V. J. Miller, Plating 58, 809 (1971).
15. J. M. Culotta, Plating 52, 545 (1965)
16. J. M. Culotta and W. F. Swanton, Plating 58, 783 (1971)
17. A. Golomb, Plating 57, 1001 (1970)
18. A. Golomb, Plating 59, 316 (1972)
19. L. E. Lancy, U. S. Pat. #3,431,187
20. R. Pinner, IMF, Symposium Rep. 14, 272 (1968)
21. W. Nohse & D. Wystrach. "Nature of the Effluent Sludge from Lancy Treatment
of Rinse Waters from Acid Copper Plating." Electroplating and Metal Finishing
19, 146 (1966)
22. Water Pollution Control Research Report #12010DPF 11/71
23. L. E. Lancy - Plating 54, 157 (1967)
24. R. Pinner, V. Crowle - Electroplating and Metal Finishing, March, 1971
25. L. E. Lancy, W. Nohse, 8c D. Wystrach - Plating, 59, 126 (1972)
53
-------
TABLE I - COMMON WASTE DISCHARGES DUE TO ACCIDENTS IN METAL FINISHING PLANTS
Source
Method of Detection
Correction or Prevention
1. Process tank overflow
a. Unattended water additions
b. Leak of cooling water into
solution from heat exchanger
or cooling coil
2. Process solution leakage
a. Tank rupture or leakage
b. Pump, hose, pipe rupture or leakage,
filtration, heat exchanger, etc.
c. Accidental opening of wrong valve
3. Normal drippage from work-pieces
during transfer between process tanks
4. Process solution entering cooling
water (heat exchanger leak)
5. Process solution entering steam
condensate (heat exchanger or
heating coil leak)
6. Spillage of chemicals when making
additions to process tanks or spillage
in the chemical storage area
1. High-level alarms in floor
collection system to signal
unusual discharges
2. Integrated floor spill treatment
Same as above
Inspection
1. Conductivity cell and bridge
to actuate an alarm
2. Use of the cooling water as
rinse water in a process line
where the contamination will
be immediately evident
Conductivity cell and bridge to
actuate an alarm
Make the solution maintenance
man responsible for chemical
additions
1. Provide proper floor construction
for floor spill segregation and
containment (curbs, trenches,
pits)
2. Provide treatment facilities for
collected floor spill
3. Integrated floor spill treatment
system
4 Use of spring-loaded valves for
water additions
5. Provide automatic level controls
for water additions.
Same as 1-3 above
1. Provide drainage pans between
process tanks so that drippage
returns to the tanks
2. Collect floor spillage
3. Integrated floor spill treatment
Use conductivity controller to
switch contaminated condensate
to a waste collection and treatment
system
1. Careful handling and segregation
of chemical stores
2. Segregation and collection of all
floor spillage
3. Integrated floor spill treatment
-------
TABLE II
- COMPARISON TREATMENT TOTAL. COST
ION EXCHANGER
CONTINUOUS
TREATMENT
INTEGRATED
TREATMENT
Fresh Water
187
28,894
165
Ca , Mg, Precipitation
21
4,597
-
pH Correct, for ORP Control
4,367
—
Neutralization
2,784
79
Sewer Rental Charges
157
24,143
138
Deionized Water
289
289
289
Treatm.Conc.Sol.& Sludge Hdlg.
33,589
27,981
2,588
Electric Energy
1,289
3,405
960
Chemicals
6,759
1,743
6,084
Wages
3,863
4,0 17
2P08
Amortization
31,091
16,966
4,809
Maintenance
3,999
1 2,767
1,443
Cost Per Year #
81,244
131,953
18,563
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Manual Batch Cyanide System
Figure 2
Continuous Treatment of Cyanide and Chromium
Figure 3
Integrated Treatment System
Figure 4
Ion Exchange System
Figure 5
Moving Bed Ion Exchange System
Figure 6
Evaporative Recovery Closed Loop
56
-------
TO CLARIFIER
RINSE WATER
CONTAMINATED WITH CYANIDE
MIXER
MIXER
SODIUM
HYPO-
CHLORITE
CAUSTIC
SODA
TREATMENT TANK NO. I
TREATMENT TANK NO. 2
Fig. I. Manual batch cyanide system.
-------
RINSE WATER RINSE WATER
CONTAMINATED
WITH CYANIDE
CONTAMINATED
WITH CHROMIUM
SODIUM
HYPO-
CHLORITE
SODIUM
BI-
SULFITE
CAUSTIC
SODA
SUL-
FURIC
ACID
~~l
ALL OTHER
RINSE WATER
MIXER
MIXER
CYANIDE TREATMENT TANK
CHROMIUM TREATMENT TANK
SUL-
FURIC
ACID
CAUSTIC
SODA
MIXER
TO CLARIFIER
pH ADJUSTMENT TANK
Fig. 2. Continuous treatment of cyanide and chromium.
-------
REUSE WATER
CYANIDE SOLUTIONS
rR -A
PWAO OUT
CYANIDE
WASTE
TREATMENT
WATER
RIN8E
CHROMIC
ACID
PROCESS
80DIUM
HYPOCHLORITE
PEED
PUMP
1 I
CHROMIC
ACID WASTE
TREATMENT
-txJ-
CYANIDE WASTE
TREATMENT RESERVOIR
t
¦0
-04-
WATER
RINSE
>4-
TO pH CONTROL
CLARIPIER
WATER REUSE PUMP
WATER BLOW DOWN
TO SEWER
R
o-
1
CHROMIUM WASTE
TREATMENT RESERVOIR
FEEO
PUMP
SODIUM CARBONATE
8001UM HYDRO-
SULFITE
¦Q
TO SLUDQE BED
Fig. 3. Integrated treatment system
-------
TO CLEAN WATER
RESERVOIR AND
PROCESS RINSE
WASTE FROM
CONTAMINATED
RINSE OVERFLOW
WASTE WATER
RESERVOIR
CARBON
FILTER
CARBON
FILTER
FILTER
FILTER
KT
AXXA
CATION
ANION
CATION
ANION
tLJf nV
Fig. 4 Ion exchange system .
Lo
CAUSTIC
HYDROCHLORIC
SODA
ACID
i—Cw
C)
TO WASTE
TREATMENT
-------
RESIN RESERVOIR
RESIN
VALVE
BACKWASH WATER" IN"-^_
CONDUCTIVITY PROBE
HYDRAULIC PULSE FOR
RESIN MOVEMENT
RESIN REOENERANT IN
PULSING CHAMBER
PROCESS WASTE 'bUT
REOERATION COLUMN
REGENERATION OF
PROCESS SOLTION
PROCESS WASTE IN
RESIN REGENERANT
AND
BACKWASH WASTE "OUT
RESIN
valve
Fig, 5 "Moving bed" ion-exchanger
-------
PLATING
SOLUTION
CONCENT-
RATE
OtSTlLLATE
HOLOING
TANK
PLATING TANK
WIN8E
RINSE
RINSE
COO UNO WATER "OUT'
WATER RINSE
HOLDING TANK
CQNDENSOW
EVAPORATOR
FLASH BOILER
DISTILLATE
PUMP
STEAM CONDENSATE
CONCENTRATE
RETURN PUMP
Fig. 6 Evaporative recovery - "closed loop"
------- |