EPA 910/9 86 139
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Alaska
Operations
Office
Fed Bldg.
701 C Street Box 19
Anchorage AK 99513
March 1986
EPA 910/9-86-139
<&ERA Alaska Pesticides Profile
* .*
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Overview/Historical Perspective... i
Pesticide Profile Goals and Objectives... i
Profile Limitations... ¦
PESTICIDE REGULATORY CONTROLS
State Statute and Regulations. . . page 4
Local Regulations. . . page li
State and Federal Roles. . . page 7
Cooperative Extension Service Roles. . . page M
U.S. Customs Service Roles-Pesticide Imports. . . page 10
Training Programs. . . page I I
Types and Quantities of Pesticides Use. . . page 12
Tables. . . pages 14-30
Time of Application. . . page 31
Maimer and Method of Application. . . page 32
Pesticide Purchases. . . page 32
of Way Vegetation Control. . . page 33
Railroad Maintenance. . . page 33
Highway Maintenance. . . page 34
Energy Corridor Maintenance. . . page 34
Timber Industry. . . page '•};>
Seafood Industry. . . page 3li
Biocide Use in the Oil Industry. . . page 37
Agricultural Uses. . . page 38
Military Uses. . . page 3!)
Golf Course Uses. . . page 40
Fish Hatchery Use. . . page 40
Mosquito Control Programs. . . paj>e 41
Millwork Industry. . . page 42
ieral Statute and Regulations. . . page 4
Program Implementation
Use Characteristics
MMiiaaualuila
¦lllllllllll
RXOOQOOlfi^b
-------
PESTICIDE USE (continued)
USGF GrOlipS (eont inued)
Commercial Pesticide Use. . . page 42
Herd Maintenance Use. . . page 43
Government Pesticide Use. . . page 43
Private Pesticide Uses. . . page 41
Pesticide Availability in Alaskan Communities. . . page ol
Public and Special Interest Group Concerns..
• pitg«- •>
Environmental Monitoring... page .>4
Improper Pesticide Use... w
Identified Pesticide User Needs... .a
-------
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the individuals and business that took the time and effort
to respond to inquiries regarding their pesticide use.
l or providing information a/id perspective on pesticide uses within the communities
they serve, we acknowledge the efforts of Cooperative Extension Service Agents and
Department of I aiv ironment al Conservation employees t hroughout the State.
Project Officer:
D inane Soderhuid
-------
INTRODUCTION
Overview/Historical Perspective
Historically, pesticide use in Alaska lias not been considered significant and as
such, interest in this program lias been relatively low. The responsibility for
regulation of pesticides in Alaska falls jointly to the Knvironinental Protection
Agency and the Alaska Department of Knvironmcnt al Conservation. Resources
dedicated to the pesticide program in Alaska by both agencies have remained very
static, with little change since the program was implemented nearly 10 yearsvago.
Currently, the State has one staff position for pesticides and KI'A has recently
placed a position in Anchorage. This is indicative of the fact that resource
agencies, regulator's and the general populace arc realizing the potential for, and
possibility of, significant pesticide uses within the State.
In reality, the use of pesticides in the State of Alaska has increased as
dramatically as the population over the last ten years, l ive years ago there were
approximately 20 pesticides frequently used in the State for pest control; now there
are well over KM). Pesticide use occurs in a large array of Alaskan industries,
including oil and gas exploration, seafood processing, aquaeulture, forest
management, and agriculture. There is significant additional use of pesticides by
private and government users for everything from home gardening' to large scale
vegetation control programs. Currently, there art1 no pesticide manufacturers or
forum tutors in the State, hut there are individuals interested in these activities as a
business vent ure.
Because of tlx* vast and remote nature of the State, pesticide regulation and
program development pose some unique problems. There are wide cultural
variations in the State, and major differences between the lifestyles of rural and
urban Alaskans, as well as those who follow more traditional native lifestyles. The
issues become further complicated by the travel limitations in the State. With a
very minimal road system, a large percentage of the State can only be accessed
through small plane travel. All of these factors dictate that traditional pesticide
regulation and training methods may he of limited value in the Alaska milieu, and
more creative means of program implementation may be called for.
Public interest in pesticide use runs high in Alaska. Issuance of pesticide use
permits by ADKC receives a great deal of scrutiny and often arises in well-attended
public hearings. Although pesticide use in Alaska does not compare with that of
many of the lower 48 states, the potential for increased use and the growth of
Alaskan industries indicate the need for increased attention to this program.
Pesticide Profile Goals and Objectives
The intent of this pesticide profile is to provide an accurate and specific
description of the current status of pesticide issues and uses in the State of Alaska.
Consequently, this document attempts to quantify pesticide uses by asking who's
applying them as well as determining types
-------
of substances used. (iovcrnment, private and industrial pesticide users were
identified and surveyed to achieve this goal.
Secondly, t he profile provides a narrative description of the pest icide program
and issues within tin; State. This includes a discussion of pesticide regulatory
cont rols, environment al concerns, future needs, and an assessment of the current
status of the program. Additionally, historical uses art; discussed, where possible, to
provide some feeling for pesticide use trends.
Profile Limitations
There are certain limitations with regard to the information and data
presented in this profile which should be kept in mind during its review.
A great deal of the pesticide use information for this document was collected
via mail survey letters. Unfortunately, in most inst ances t iine and resources did not
allow either follow-up letters or telephone calls to initial non-respondents (although
in many instances telephones are not available), follow-up may Imve increased the
response rate measurably, although the current data base is considered to be
statistically valid. Along these same lines, it should be noted that certain "user
groups" (i.e., limber, utility companies, military) had a much higher' response rate
than other groups. Naturally, the increased responses within a user' group provide a
st longer' dat a base.
In some instances telephone survey methods were used in lieu of letters. One
group, seafood processors, were surveyed during site visits by inspectors in the
water program. This approach resulted in nearly a l()()"/.» response, although a
smaller segment of the entire industry actually received requests for information.
This approach was taken after a preliminary distribution of letters to certified
applicators in the seafood industry received no response.
The survey information pertaining to wood preservative (penta, creosote,
inorganic arsenicals) use in Alaska is minimal. It appears that the general
population does not look upon wood preservatives as pesticides. As such, responses
to initial pesticide letters did not reveal any wood preservative use. During
subsequent mailings to user groups identified as potential wood preservative users,
informal ion on wood preservatives was specifically requested. Unfortunately, this
still yielded a very small quantity of data. Lack of public knowledge in this area
appears to have limit ed t he quant it y of dat a available.
Because of t his, wood preservat ive use data may be one inst ance where tin;
survey results do not reflect actual use conditions. This position is supported by
conversations with numerous ADIX' and Intension Service Staff throughout the
st at e.
This profile was also limited somewhat by t ime and resources. Certain types
of pesticide users such as hospitals, veterinarians, restaurants, and institutions were
not surveyed for their pesticide uses. These; facilities were considered likely to
utilize primarily
-------
disinfect ants ;uid cleaning solutions and these uses were not considered unique to
Alaska. Use data from these facilities could probably be collected from anywhere in
the United States and be applicable to Alaska facilities.
The profile also does not adequately address private use of pesticides,
especially in the urban areas, unless individuals fit into one of the listed user group
categories. Identifying private uses is a nationwide concern. In keeping with this,
private pesticide use information is currently being collected in the Seattle King
County area. This information could possibly be modified at a future date to reflect
Alaskan urban pesticide uses.
Lastly, quantitative data was received in in fifty different units. All data has
been converted to gallons or pounds. Primarily, respondents reported quantities in
terms of whole container weight or gallonage, but a handful of users did report use
in terms of active ingredients. For purposes of estimation, all quantities were
treated as whole weight.
Comparisons between the current survey and one completed by the
Agricultural Kxperiment al Station, University of Alaska (AKS) in 1978 deserve
ment ion here.
The AKS study primarily surveyed pesticide dealers in the State, whereas the
I984 data is based on information from pesticide users in most instances. The AKS
survey results appear to represent primarily commercial pesticide uses, with a
strong emphasis on agricultural and right of way pesticide uses. The LI'A study
focuses on user groups, which may or may not be commercially oriented.
Several important tacts did conn? to light during the comparison of these
reports. Perhaps the most interesting is that the 1978 survey reports a higher
pesticide use figure than those extrapolated for the 1984 calendar year1. Actual
comparison of the numerical values and a discussion of the possible reasons for1 the
differences can be found in the section covering Pesticide list?, Use Characteristics,
Types and Quantities of Pesticide! Use. Dot.li reports clearly have strong points, with
the 1978 report possibly providing more accurate informal ion for the agricultural
community and the 1984 data illustrating the versatility of pesticide uses in the
State within different groups.
It could be suggested that actual pesticide use in the State would most clearly
be represented by combining the two types of data collected from these reports.
The 1984 user' data indicates almost 50% of pesticides used in Alaska are mail
ordered. A dealer survey would be next to impossible for these out of state
distributors, especially considering the wide range of facilities involved. On the
other hand, the dealer survey within tlit; state provides a more comprehensive
picture of the associated uses. The comparison of these two lends itself to the
identification of certain trends discussed in those same Pesticide Use sections
mentioned previously. However, it is important to keep in mind that the pesticide
use data presented in this report should only be used as estimates of total
applications in the State and do not represent absolute values.
-------
PESTICIDE REGULATORY CONTROLS
Authority
Federal Statute and Regulations
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, ;md Rodent icide Act (FIFRA) provides lor
the protection of man and the environment from any adverse effects related to
pest icides or t heir use. This is achieved by assuring t hat pesticides are produced in
accordance with approved chemical formulations and applied according to
registration and labeling requirements. FIFRA is one of the oldest Federal
environmental laws in existence with its legislative; beginning's found in l!)47. The
law in its current form was passed by Congress in l!)72, with substantial amendments
occurring in l!)7f> and 1078.
Congress mandated KI'A to develop and promulgate implementation
reg'ulat ions to carry out the intent of FIFRA. These regulations can be found in
40CIR Parts l>0 to 18!). FIFRA reg'ulat ions address t he regist rat ion, manufacture,
transportation, and application of pesticides as well as training and certification
specifications, criteria for est ablishment of tolerance levels, importation and
exportation, worker' safety, administrative procedures, enforcement, and penalties.
The title of FIFRA is somewhat misleading in that the law covers the use of
all pesticides, which are defined in the Act as "Any substance or mixture of
substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any pest"
and, secondarily, "any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant
regulator, defoliant or desiccant." Therefore, FIFRA regulates not only
insecticides, fungicides, and rodent icides but also biocides, herbicides, wood
preservatives, repellants, and many other substances.
FIFRA stipulates that FPA can enter into cooperative agreements with the
states to I'urther the law's goals by allowing the states primary responsibility for
implementation of certain aspects of the Act. lu the State of Alaska, the
Department of environmental Conservation was designated as lead agency for
FIFRA responsibilities. These responsibilit ies include primary administration of the
pesticide applicator training and certification program under Section 4 of FIFRA,
and primary enforcement authority for any misuse or illegal sale of pesticide
products within the state under Section '2'}(a)(l) of FIFRA. These issues will be
addressed in more detail in the State and Federal Roles segment of the discussion of
Program Implement at ion.
Authority
State Statute and Regulations
The statutory authority for the Department of Fnvironmental Conservation
(AI)FC) to implement pesticide controls in the State of Alaska is found in Title
4li.():].02(). In this section the ADFC is granted the power to control pesticides use
within the State of Maska. Section 4fi.0:3.070 provides that "Mo person may spray or
apply, or' cause to be sprayed or applied, DDT, dieldrin or other pesticide or
broadcast chemical in a manner'which may cause damage to or endanger the healt h,
welfare or property of another person, or in such a manner as to be
4
-------
likely to pollute the air, soil or Witter- of the state without prior authorization of tin;
depart mentSection 4t>.03J33() further provides that State or local entities
conducting pesticide application as a public project or in public lands must obtain a
permit from ADKC, which involves a public hearing and public comment period.
Implementing regulat ions lor t he pesticide statute are found in Title 18,
Chapter 90, Sect ions KMiO. These sect ions address: Cert ificat ion required for'the
purchase or use of restricted use pesticides; required records maintenance;
exemptions; prohibitions; required insurance; permits required for pesticides
projects; and detinit ions.
Categories of certification and the specifics of the certification exam for the
purchase and use of pesticides arc found in the Alaska Pesticide Control Plan.
Currently there are 12 certification categories.
One aspect of the program which is of significant interest in Alaska
is the special local need registration progra.ni, as provided under section 24(c) of
KII'RA. This section allows for a state to register a pesticide product for uses
beyond the rederal registration as long as that registration has not been previously
denied, disapproved or cancelled by the KPA, and the product is only distributed
wit hin t lie st ate.
I.st ablishment of this program in Alaska is perceived to he critical by the
private and public sect or due to the unique climatic nature of the State and
therefore its special pesticide needs.
Current State of Alaska pesticide regulat ions do not ment ion or provide any
guidelines regarding the issuance of a special local need permit, which is allowed
under section 24(c) of NIKA. However, the Alaska Depart ment of I Environment al
Conservation staff do have in-house procedures which have been developed to deal
with 24(c) requests. These are as follows:
1. Requests for a 24(c) registration will only he accepted from an established
organization which, in I lie judgement of the Department, would most likely
be capable of complying with the 24(e) requirements. Tanners are
discouraged from applying;
2. Initially, the 24(e) proposal is submitted by Die applicant to the Pesticide
Specialist. The Pesticide Specialist then puts a package together and
submits it to tin; University of Alaska, which in turn provides tlit; proposal
to the Agricultural Kxperiment Station. Three professors art; then chosen
to review the proposal. Normally, if there is not unanimous agreement
that the 24(c) should be granted, the proposal is turned down. If (lit;
University staff recommend granting the 24(c), ADKC staff are notified
and the necessary revisions are made to t lie proposal in response to the
commcnl s received.
3. The Pesticide Specialist will then recommend approval or denial of the
project. If he recommends approval the proposal is submitted to the
Commissioner of ADKC for a final decision. If the proposal is denied, the
-------
applicant may appeal (lie decision, as allowed in 18 AAC 73. To dato this
has never been done.
4. Before final approval is given the applicant must provide a letter- from the
formulator or manufaeturer stating that they approve of the proposed
pesticide use and will cooperate on any labeling requirements. The
applicant must also provide a professionally made State label, preferably
printed on colored paper.
r>. The applicant can begin utilizing the pesticide concurrently with the 90 day
LPA review of the State decision. This realistically allows for use of the
pesticide for a full Alaskan growing season prior to LP A making a decision
on the proposal.
To date, ADLC has processed four requests for 24(c) Special Local Need
permits. OF these, none have been granted through the 24(c) process. One has been
approved tlu-ough the IR-4 program. ADLC staff concur-that it would be beneficial
in some respects to have guidelines and/or regulations covering the state 24(c)
process. By the saint* token, there are administ rat ive drawbacks that stem from the
current low level of resources dedicated to the ADLC program which would likely
have to be resolved.
Authority
Local Regulations
Of the major- cities in Alaska, i.e. Anchorage, Lair-banks, Juneau, and Valdez,
only Anchorage current ly has any type of local regulations pertaining to pesticide
use within the municipal boundaries. Other- communities rely upon the State
regulations promulgated and implemented by ADLC.
The Anchorage Municipal Code I o.Vo.010-070 requires that a permit be
obtained for commercial pesticide applications within the Municipality. In
Anchorage there has been a move, initiated by concerned citizens, to revise the
municipal code and place? additional restrictions on spraying of pesticides by
commercial applicators. The Municipal Assembly returned a proposal which
restricted all tree spraying to a height six feet back to the Health Department for
additional review in the spring of 1985. A local ad hoc committee was formed,
public meetings were held, and a second proposal is expected to go before the
Assembly prior to the 198(i spraying season. Alternate controls which arc being
considered include prior notification to neighbors that spraying will occur, no
spraying on property adjacent to that of objectors of spraying, spraying only during
low wind conditions, spraying only during early morning hours, and increased
enforcement. In all likelihood, the final recommendation will be a combination of
these options.
In other Alaskan municipalities, the local sanitarians do keep track of
pesticide applicators and ensure that they comply with state requirements.
Reportedly, there are only two companies which do business in Fairbanks and one
that servos the other communities mentioned. Anchorage has nine commercial
applicators doing business within the Municipality.
<;
-------
Program Implementation
State and Federal Roles
/\s discussed earlier, certain aspects of pesticide regulations under' KII'RA
have been delegated to the State Department of (Environmental Conservation
(ADEC). Alaska is different in this regard in that the pesticide program is handled
by the State environmental regulatory agency rather than the Division of
Agriculture, as is the ease in most other states. Program delegation for training arid
certification was completed July 8, 1977 alter submittal and approval of the Alaska
Pesticide Control Plan by ADEC, as allowed under section 4(a)(2) of TII RA. The
EPA provides a $15,000 grant annually to ADEC for the training and certification
program, (iraut monies provided to a state by EPA are provided on a two tier basis.
A base funding level is provided to practically every state. In addition, a formula is
applied to the funds which remain after' the base amounts have been allocated and
these are then distributed to the states per appropriate criteria. This formula takes
into consideration the estimated number of farms per state, the number' of certified
private applicators, and the number of certified commercial applicators. The base
funding for training and certification grants has remained at $15,000 for'a number
of years. Recausc Alaska is small in terms of farming and certifications relative to
lower 48 states, only $500 in additional "formula" funds are granted to ADEC. In
Region 10, tlx; largest training and certification grant goes to the state of Oregon in
the amount of $2°,700. This illustrates that even in a state with major agricultural
activities, the amount of funds provided does not increase dramatically. The intent
of these grant monies is to provide each state with a portion of the funds needed for
a training and certification program, rather than to fund the entire program.
Section 4(a) of I'll'RA requires that users of restricted use pesticides he
certified. The ADEC has the lead role for t raining of non-agricult ural commercial
applicators and applicators of restricted use pesticides. ADEC works closely with
the Cooperative Extension Service in the training of private pesticide applicators.
However, due to resource cutbacks within the Extension Service, this specific role
has diminished somewhat in the last several years. [Their historical and current
roles are discussed more lully in the next section of this report.)
The State certifies pesticide applicators of restricted use pesticides in twelve
categories. The training sessions administered by the State are followed, usually on
the same day, by a cert ificat ion exam. Currently, if students have been attentive
during the training course, they are guaranteed certification for' their' user group.
Training courses are provided to specific user' groups, which is somewhat different
than administ rat ion of the program in other states, 'fix; training and certification
program in Alaska has several unique characteristics which are due in part to the
vastness of the State arxl the many remote locations where there is potential for
pest icide use.
Currently, tlx' State training and certification program provides training to
the pesticide user groups "on location", as opposed to requiring the users to attend
annual certification classes in major cities, as is the case with the lower 48 states.
This approach in itself creates significant logistical arxl economic problems. The
training program may provide general information on pesticide law and legal
authorities, reading of tlx' label, proper
7
-------
handling, st e>rage>, and disposal methods and sonic pesticide? applie-at ie>n information
specific to the group's interest and the certification categories. The training
usually occurs in the morning'and the exam is administered in the afternoon. The
exception to ttiis is aerial applicators, who have a two day training session.
Follow-up sessions will be provided upon request.
Hesiele the ADFC and Intension Service, other agencies administer smaller
scale training programs which deserve mention. The U.S. Forest Service administers
it s own applicator cert ificat ion and t raining progr am in Alaska. The State Division
of forestry is anticipating increased herbicide use in the upcoming years. As a
result of this, the Agency is looking for any training opportunities that exist and
may develop some materials of their own. This Ag'eney recently sponsored a
representative from Monsanto, manufacturer of Roundup, to come discuss the
chemical with foresters as well as private citizens. This program will likely be
expanded.
At the time of program delegation, ADIX' was also given responsibility for
certain aspects of pesticide enforcement within tin1 State, as allowed under'sect ion
23(a)(1) of ITI'RA. A Cooperative Knforccment Agreement was developed and
entered into by ADIX' and FI'A. This agreement, which is reviewed and updated on
an annual basis, delineates pesticide enforcement authorities and responsibilities
between t lit? two agencies to ensure adequate response to pesticide incident s w hi le
minimizing duplication of enforcement efforts.
Alaska State statutes provide; ADIX' with the authority to complete
inspections (use/misuse for agricultural and non-agricultural activities, pesticide
producing establishments, imports, marketplace, and incidents), monitor
experimental use permits, monitor' the State cert il ieat ion program, and complete
sample collection and analysis. The ADIX" commits to completing a specified
number of investigations and other- pesticide enforcement related activities in the
Cooperative Knforcement Agreement annually. Under the Agreement, ADIX'
maintains primary enforcement authority over use/misuse pesticide violations in
addition to performing the monitoring and surveillance functions necessary to assure
compliance with the State pesticide laws. FI'A retains primary enforcement
authority for product/formula! ion violations, including but not limited to
non-registration and misbranding violations. However', under the Agreement ADIX'
staff is responsible for all case [(reparation. In instances where evidence reveals
violation of the State and Federal laws, the presumption is that the State will puisne
the appropriate enforcement act ion under'St ate law. Alternatively, the Slate may
opt to refer' the case to FI'A for action. In instances where the activity is a
violat ion of only Federal law, the evidence will be forwarded to FI'A for possible
initiation of a civil or criminal enforcement action. FI'A may also initiate'
enforcement action in situations where I'.I'A determines an action taken by the State
is not appropriate.
I'.I'A provides analytical support for formulation samples collected by the
State to ensure product integrity or as support for other enforcement actions.
Compliance with FI'A specified sample collection, analytical procedures, and
protocol is required for all potential enforcement case's.
M
-------
Currently, ADEC does not receive federal grant monies for aclminist rat ion of
pesticide enforcement activities. funding I'oi" the State program would he
approximately $75,()()() annually.
The State of Alaska does not currently have a pesticide registration program.
Therefore, pesticides sold in the State require only federal registration. EPA
continues to issue federal experimental use permits for certain activities in Alaska.
In conclusion, EPA retains an oversight role with regard to some enforcement
activities and the training and certification program. In other aspects of pesticides
activities and issues EPA retains primary responsibility in Alaska.
Program Implementation
Cooperative Extension Service Roles
The Cooperative Extension Service plays a major' role in pesticide education
throughout the United States, including Alaska. Through its extension agents and
offices and the Master Hardener and I'est Scout programs, the Extension Service
disseminates a great deal of information on pests and pesticides. Additionally,
extension offices are responsible for (list rihut ing information on [test icicles and other
agricultural news as it is generated by the USD A and University Agricultural
Experiment St at ions.
The Pest icicle Coordinat or for t lie Extension Service is located in Anchorage.
Extension agents are located in t hirtecu communit ies throughout Alaska. As each of
the agents in these communities was contacted for this profile, it became obvious
that they had extensive knowledge of thier community's pesticide problems and
needs. Much of the information presented in the section of this report entitled
"Private Pest icicle Uses", is derived from discussions wit h extension agents.
Historically, the Agency has played a significant role in the training and
certification of private pesticide applicators in the State. In the original Alaska
Pesticide Control Plan, the- Extension Service was obligated to train all private
applicators and commercial applicators in tlu" agricultural category. The State
Cooperative Extension Service in Alaska receives approximately $10,500 annually
from EPA through the United States Department of Agriculture (USI)A) to assist in
the administration of this program. The process and criteria which USDA utilizes to
distribute giant funds is very si miliar- to that used by EPA for direct funding to the
state agencies for training and certification. The base grant amount for Extension
offices is $ I (),()()().
Training sessions were often conducted by Agency and Extension staff jointly,
with extension personnel providing training and ADEC personnel administering t he
cert il'icat ion exams.
In the past several years, the frequency of these joint training sessions has
diminished to almost none due to resource cuts within the Extension Service.
However, the Extension Service is still involved in training private applicators and
lias reached an agreement with ADEC that the Extension Service will administer the
cert ifical ion exams for private applicat ors. This will eliminate the need for ADE(
staff to be present at each training session. However, ADEC will continue to issue
formal cert il'icat ions, ['flic Extension Service has put EPA and ADEC on notice that
it does not
!»
-------
have adequate resources to train private applicators in the use of wood
preservatives, when these substances become restricted use pesticides.]
Program Implementation
U.S. Customs Service Roles - Pesticide Imports
There are ten Ports of Kntry into the State; of Alaska and five Customs
stations, all administered by the U.S. Customs Service. The Ports of Kntry art!
located in Ketchikan, WrangeU, Juneau, Sitka, Skagway, Dalton Cache (42 miles
from Haines), Port of A lean (on the highway), Valdez, Fairbanks, and Anchorage.
Commercial shipments of goods can only arrive through one of the ten Ports of
Kntry. The U.S. Customs Service is responsible for regulating' import at ion of all
commercial and private goods into the United States.
Customs agents in all 10 Ports of Kntry were contacted to determine the
extent and quantities of pesticides imported into Alaska. Their response was
somewhat surprising in that all of the agents reported no pesticide entries during the
1984 and most could not remember' any coming through during their tenure at the
various stations, which extended up to M years.
The areas most likely to receive imported pesticides were identified as those
with the ability to receive: Japanese or Canadian goods. Importation of Japanese
pesticides for use in the fishing industry and importation of Canadian products for
use in agriculture wore init ially identified as major concerns. However, according
to informal ion supplied by Customs agents in Seward arid (he Por( of Alcan, (his
type of commercial importation problem has not developed to date. According to
currently available information, only one shipment of Canadian-labeled pesticide
was ever detained at the. Port of Alcan—and that was several years ago. This
shipment was never' allowed into Alaska by U.S. Customs since the product was not
labeled for use in the United States. No such incident record exists for seafood
pesticide products. Canadian goods enl er via truck down the Taylor' Highway while
Japanese or other Pacific Rim Countries ship via seagoing vessel. The only other
means of importation is air' transportation.
According to Customs personnel, all types of commercial shipments, including
mail order goods, are very closely scrutinized, especially when the shipments are
being checked for other Federal agencies (as is the case with pesticides and KPA).
The commercial shipments must comply with all import restrictions and federal
laws. To ensure compliance a bond must be posted. However, non-commercial
shippers are not required to make formal entry into the United States.
Consequently, pesticide import at ion which occurs under these circumstances would
be scrutinized much less than the commercial counterpart. With regard to Canadian
label
It)
-------
pesticides, it is very likely that t lie most coiniiion mode of entry into Alaska would
be via private carrier. Northern Alaskan, i.e. Delta, agricultlire is in many ways
linked much closer' to Canada than to the contiguous United States. It is not
uncommon lor farmers to travel to Canada to pick up supplies which could include
pesticides. This scenario becomes even more plausible? when one considers that the
Canadians register' several pesticide products i'or agricultural use which are not
registered in the U.S. but which are considered desirable I'or the northern climate
i.e., Treflan, VitaVax. According to Customs personnel, there is a strong likelihood
that this type of small scale importation (i.e., pick-up truck load) would travel
through customs wit hout notice. The same type of situation may exist with regard
to seafood processing. As joint ventures bet ween foreign and domestic processors
increase, t he potential for use of a non-registered pesticide also increases.
However, the survey of pesticides use does not indicate this situation currently
exists.
Customs check points are an important regulatory control to prevent
importation and use of unregistered pesticides in the United States. The
effectiveness of this control depends in large part on the knowledge and experience
of the individual Customs officer. Customs officers were generally aware of the
pesticide registration and labeling requirements under LILRA. When asked what
they would do upon discovering a pesticide shipment, the common answer was t o
contact either the Anchorage or Portland Customs office for guidance. Agents also
receive a Car-go Criteria file Listing from the Pesticides Import Specialist in
Portland which flags an import needing LP A attention. If an import is suspected of
being a pesticide, Customs will detain the shipment and require that a Notice of
Arrival of Pest icides and Devices, LP A form number 3o4()-l, be completed by the
importer. This form is then sent to LPA along with a current copy of the product
label to determine if I) the product is a pesticide, and 2) whether it is properly
registered for use in the United States. If the answer to both questions is yes, LPA
notifies customs that it is acceptable to release the shipment.
Customs agents appeared to have adequate resources at their- disposal to deal
with an identified pesticide. However, in discussing what types of substances are
considered pesticides, it became apparent that additional definition needs to be
provided. When discussing pesticides, most agents confirmed that they do not think
of substances such as disinfectants and wood preserval ives as pest icides. It seems
appropriate to prepare and distribute a list of the types of materials considered
pesticides to the U.S. Customs Service for dissemination to their personnel. This
may assist the agents in identifying pesticides and preventing illegal imports.
-------
PESTICIDE USE
Use Characteristics
Types and Quantities of Pesticide Use
Id reviewing both t lit? number of reported uses and the tot ill quantities of
pesticides applied in Alaska, it becomes apparent t here are cert a in substances which
art? more prevalently used than others in the State. Additionally, in some instances
these uses can he identified by industry. The following is a short summary of tlx?
more prevalent use trends, for- a specific industry by industry discussion, please
refer to the section of this report entitled User (iroups.
The total amount of pesticide reported to have been used in the State in 1984
was approximately ol,l8o pounds and K2,I7I gallons. These values compare very
closely with the reported quantities purchased during the same time period.
Tht: most commonly used herbicide in agriculture is 2,4-1). Comparatively,
glypliosate is the most commonly used pesticide for overall vegetation control and is
more often used in smaller quantities for non-commercial purposes. I'remerge is
commonly used as a pre-einergent herbicide by both commercial and private
farmers. Malathion and pyrethrins are used in relatively large quantities by a wide
range of users for mosquito control. Dia/.inon is by far the most commonly used
garden insecticide, by hot h private and commercial applicators.
The most prevalently used pesticides in tht; seafood industry arc disinfectants,
including chlor ine and iodine compounds. Ill fish hatcliery operat ions, formaldehyde
and iodine compounds arc used almost exclusively.
The military uses a wide variety of pesticides, with the largest quantities
being 2,4-1) for dandelion control. Insecticides such as Havgon, lloric Acid, and
Chloropyrifos are used to control cockroaches and other insects.
-------
The majority of other industries use relatively little pesticide.
Estimated quantities of total pesticide use in the State were derived using
standard statistical methodology. Copies of this analysis will he provided upon
request. Due to the manner in which this information was provided to KPA,
pesticides use data is expressed in either gallons or pounds. These values should be
added together to reflect total pesticide use. Pesticide typos wort; divided into
seven categories, and total estimated uses were determined for' these groups, as
shown in the following table:
Group
Gallons
Pounds
fungicides
4,100
240
Wood Preservatives
.>00
Disinfectants
27,400
47,500
Hiocides (Oil Indust ry)
5!),(i()0
Rodent icides
480
Insect icides
7,300
3,800
Herbicides
7,000
58,000
The first two tables provided in the following section illustrate total reported
pesticide use in gallons and pounds. Subsequent tables illustrate pesticide use by
industry, where adequate date was provided. Tables ace not provided for the (iolf
Course, Mill working' and Herd Maintenance groups due to a general lack of reported
use. Additionally, no table is provided for the section entitled Pesticide Availability
in Alaskan Communities, as this is strictly narrative in nature.
Kach line entry on a table represents an individual reported use. Where a
common name appears once and numerous listings appear under the trade name
column, the substances all share the same common name and are categorized
t oget Iter.
-------
gallons of pesticides used
IN 1981*
Common Name
Tr ade Name
Purchased
Ut 11 ized
Super-Cidol
18.0 gal.
18.0 gal.
Vaposector
6.0 gal .
6.0 gal .
2(1 Methyletnoxy)phenol
methyl carbamate
Precor residual fogger
0.1 ga 1 .
0.05 qal .
2 ,4-D
2,4 0
83.75 gal.
83.75 gal.
2,4 D
112.5 gal.
112.5 gal .
2 ,4-D
26.38 gal.
26.38 gal .
2,4 0
75.0 gal .
75.0 gal .
2,4-0
125.0 gal.
125.0 gal .
2.4D
0 . 725 gal.
0.725 gal .
2 ,4-D
100.0 gal.
100.0 gal.
2 ,4 -D
200 .0 gal.
200.0 gal .
2 ,4 -D Amine
0.25 gal .
0.25 gal .
2,4 D Clover and
Chickweed killer
0.125 gal.
0.0 gal .
2 ,4 -D Eml .
100.0 gal.
100.0 gal .
2,4-D Eml .
198.0 gal
198.0 gal.
Amine 4
12.0 gal .
7.0 gal .
Cenex
10.0 gal .
10.0 qal .
Cenex 40A Weed Killer
24 5.0 gal.
245.0 qal
Lilly Miller Dandelion Killer
1.25 gal .
1.25 gal .
Amine 10
Amine 40
1000 gal . sold
1000 qal. sold
Argentyne
Ar gentyne
174.0 gal.
17
-------
GALLONS OF PESTICIDES USED IN 1984*
Conrion Name
Trade Name
Purchased
Uti1ized
Constrict
Constrict
5 .0 gal .
5.0 gal.
Creosote
Atco
100.0 gals.
100.0 gals
Cygon
Cygon
1.0 gal .
1.0 gal.
Cygon 2-E
Cygon 2-E
.01 ga1s.
.01 gals.
Pratt
.25 gal.
.125 gal.
0 TOX 4E
D TOX 4 E
9.0 gal .
9.0 gal .
Dexol
Systemic House Plant
Insectic ide
.06 gal .
.06 gal .
Di-Syston
Cole's Systemic House Plant
Insect icide
.06 gal .
.06 gal .
Dexol Systemic House Plant
Insect i c i de
.06 gal .
.06 gal .
Diazinon
.25 gal .
.25 gal.
AG 500
10.0 gals.
10.0 gals.
Diazinon
1 .0 gal .
1.0 gal.
Dlazi non
0.5 gal .
0.5 gal .
Diazinon
2.0 gal .
2.0 gal .
Diazinon
19.0 gals.
19.0 gals.
Dlazinon
.125 gal .
.125 gal .
Diazinon
0.125 gal .
0.05 gal .
D i azi non
0.25 gal.
0.25 gal .
Dla zlnon
0.25 gal.
0.25 gal .
Diazinon
0.125 gal .
0.125 gal .
Dlazinon
0.125 gal .
0.125 gal.
D iazinon
0.06 gal.
0.02 gal .
01azi non
4.0 gal.
4.0 gal.
Diazinon 4E
2.0 gal .
2.0 gal.
Diazinon 4E
4.0 gal
4.0 gal
0lazinon Eml.
478.5 gal .
478.5 gal.
Diazinon Powder
30.0 gal.
30.Q gal .
Diethyl PhosphorotSOte
1.0 gal
1.0 gal .
Namco
1.0 gal .
1.0 gal .
Ortho Diazinon liquid
0.5 gal .
0.5 gal.
Ortho Fruit and Vegetable
Insect Control
0.125 gal .
0.125 gal .
Dicamba
Banvel
5.0 gal
5.0 gal
D i c amb i a
Dlc ambia
0.125 gal .
0.125 gal .
0ichlor vos
D ichi or vos
633.9 gal.
033.9 gal .
Dimethylphosphorothiozte
Metasystox R2
2 3.0 gals.
23.0 gals.
Dinoseb
Premerge
18.7 gal.
18.7 gal .
Premerge
0.125 gal.
0.125 gal .
Premerge
1.0 gal .
1.0 gal.
Premerge
35.0 gal.
35.0 gal .
Premerge
15.0 gal
15.0 gal
Premerge
60 .0 gal.
60.0 gal .
Premerge
40.0 gal.
40.0 gal .
Premerge
0.25 gal.
0.25 gal .
Premerge
25 . 0 gal.
25.0 gal .
Premerge
5.0 gal .
5.0 gal .
Premerge/Di Nitro Weed Killer
30.0 gal.
30.0 gal .
Diphenami d
Dlphenamid
0.125 gal.
0.125 gal .
Ethazol
'dexol Trueban
0.03 gal.
0.03 gal .
Science Trueban
0.07 gal.
0.07 gal .
Ferioc i 1
Fenocil non selective weed
killer
110.0 gal
110.0 gal
Fluazifop-butyl
Fusi11ade
1.0 gal
1.0 gal
Fogger
Fogger
2.5 gal.
2.5 gal .
Formal in
F ormaladehyde
5.0 gal.
55.0 gal .
For maldehyde
3.0 gal .
3.0 gal .
Formaldehyde
1703.0 gal.
1703.0 gal
'Data in these tables is
presented as it was reported to EPA
15
-------
GALLONS OF PESTICIDES USED IN 1984*
Common Name
Trade Name
Pur chased
Ut 11 lzed
For ma 1dehyde
20.0 gal
20.0 gal .
Forma 1dehyde
30.4 gal.
30.4 gal .
For ma 1dehyde
5.0 gal.
5.0 gal.
G1utaraldehyde
OFC B 649
1300.0 gal.
1300.0 gal
Glyphosate
Roundup
6.0 gal.
6.0 gal .
Roundup
1.0 gal.
1.0 gal .
Roundup
0.25 gal.
0.2 5 gal .
Roundup
5.0 gal .
Roundup
2.0 gal .
2.0 gal .
Roundup
30.0 gal
30.0 gal
Roundup
15.0 gal.
15.0 gal .
Roundup
2.0 gal .
0.0 gal .
Roundup
0.25 gal.
0. 125 gal .
Roundup
0.25 gal.
0.06 gal .
Roundup
3.0 gal
3.0 gal .
Roundup
0.25 gal.
0.25 gal .
Roundup
0. 125 gal.
0.125 qal .
Roundup
2.0 gal .
2.0 gal .
Ioc1de
Iocide
55.0 qal .
55.0 qal .
Iocide
55 .0 gal .
5 5.0 gal .
Ioc i de
100.0 gal .
100.0 gal
Ioclde
312.0 gal.
312.0 gal .
Iodine Disinfectant
Argentyne
50.0 gal .
50.0 gal .
Iodophor
Argentyne
18.0 gal .
18.0 gal .
IPC
Chemttoe
5.0 gal
5.0 gal
Isotox
Isotox
0.125 gal.
0. 125 gal .
Kelthane
Kelthane
0.05 ga 1 .
0.05 qal .
K1eenup
Kleenup
0.25 gal .
0.2 5 gal .
Knockout
Knockout
27b.0 gal.
2/6.0 qal .
Lilly Knockout
0.5 gal.
0.5 gal .
KXL
Agro
0.25 gal .
0.125 qal .
Lawn Weed Killer A
Lawn Weed Killer A
1.5 gal .
1.5 gal .
L indane
Isotox
4.0 gals.
4.0 ga1s .
Llndane isotox
L indane
14.0 gal
14.0 qal
Mai athlon
Cythion
10 0.0 gal.
100.0 gal .
Cythion Naled
.06 gal .
.06 gal .
Dowl Malathion
o.0 gal.
b. 0 qal .
Mai athion
16.0 gal .
16.0 gal .
Maiathion
1.0 gal .
1.0 gal .
Malathion
2 0.0 gal.
20 . 0 qal .
Malathion
19.0 gals.
19.0 qals.
Maiathion
1.0 gal .
1.0 gal .
Malathion
0.125 gal .
0.125 gal .
Malathion
34.0 gal .
34 .0 gal .
Malath ion
0.125 gal .
0.125 gal .
Malathion
0.125 gal .
0.025 gal .
Maiathion
0.125 gal.
0.125 gal .
Malathion
0.25 gal .
0.25 qal .
Malathion
1.0 gal .
1.0 gal .
Maiathion
0.25 gal .
0 .25 gal .
Malathion
0.06 gal .
0.06 gal .
Malathion 50
0.25 gal .
0.25 gal .
Malathion Eml.
663.5 gal.
663.5 gal .
Ortho
0 .06 gal .
0.06 gal .
Ortho
0.25 gal .
0.125 gal.
Malathion 95"'.
Cythlon
10.0 gal .
1.0 gal .
Marine Wood!ife
Marine Woodllfe
20.0 gals.
20.0 gals .
MCPP
Chipeo Turf
15.0 gal
15.0 gal
MCPS
MCPS
0.125 gal.
0.125 gal .
Metaldehyde
Deadline
0.125 gal.
0.125 gal .
Metasystox-R
Metasystox R
12.0 gal
12.0 gal
"Data in these tables is presented as it was reported to EPA.
16
-------
GALLONS OF PESTICIDES USED IN 1984*
Common Name
Trade Name
Purchased
Ut i1ized
Metasystox R2
Metasystox-R2
6.0 gal.
6 . 0 gal .
Methyl Bromide
Methyl Bromide
2.5 gal.
2.5 gal .
Methoxychlor
Methoxychlor
0.05 gal .
0.02 gal.
Nicotine Fumigant
Nicotine Fumigant
1.5 gal. .
0.75 gal .
Orthene
0.5 gal.
0.5 gal
Ortho
0.25 gal .
0.125 gal .
Ortho Rose Food & Systemic
Ortho Rose Food & Systemic
3.5 gal.
3.5 gal.
OSP Amine
Diathylamine/
Dichlorophenoxyoeetic
5.0 gal .
0.0 gal.
Parathion
Del Parathion
2.0 gal
2.0 gal
Pramitol 25E
Propazine
31.0 gal .
14.0 qal.
Prometon
Prometon Eml.
550.0 gal .
550.0 gal .
Pyrenone
Pyrenone
138.0 gal .
138.0 gal .
Pyrethr in
Ortho Rose and Flower Killer
0.19 gal .
0.19 gal.
Pyrenone
110.0 gal .
110.0 gal
Pyrethr in
6.7 gal .
6.7 gal.
Pyrethr in
30.0 gal .
30 . 0 gal .
Pyrethrin Eml.
122.0 gal .
122.0 gal.
Whitmire and Johnson's Bait
3.7 gal .
3.7 gal .
REPCO-TOX
REPCO-TOX
105.0 GAL .
105.0 GAL.
Resmethrin
Resmethrin
1.7 gal .
4.7 gal.
Resmethr in
0 . 56 gal .
0.56 gal .
T 60-5X
T 60 5x
275.0 gal.
275.0 gal
Ter raclor
Terraclor
90.0 gal .
90.0 gal .
Terraclor
30.0 gal .
30.0 gal .
Tree Killer
S 11v l qar 510
0.25 gal .
0.25 gal .
Tr ithion
Dowl Trithion
1.5 gal
1.5 gal
Vapam
Vapam
5.0 qal .
5.0 gal.
V 1 SCO
V 1 SCO
43.305.0 gal .
43,305.0 gal
White Fly Spray
White Fly Spray
0.06 gal .
0.06 gal .
Woodllfe II
Woodllfe II
20.0 gals.
20 . 0 gals.
Woodlife Wood Preservative
Roberts
20.0 gal .
20.0 gal .
X-CIDE
X CIDE
5000 .0 gal .
5000.0 gal .
Zep
2ep Eml.
1800 .0 gal .
1800.0 gal .
Zep Formula 50
Zep Formula 50
165.0 gal.
165.0 gal .
Zep Stop
0.4 gal . .
0 .4 gal.
Zep
3.12 gal .
3.12 gal .
"Data in these tables is presented as it was reported to EPA.
17
-------
POUNOS OF PESTICIDES USEO IN 198-1*
Common Name
Trade Name
Pur chased
Ut 11 i zed
Agrlmycin
Agrimycin
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Amizol
Ami zol
537.0 lb.
537.0 lb.
Annate XNI
Annate - XNI
14,000.0 lbs.
14,000.0 lb
Bait Blocks
b a G
30.0 lbs.
30 . 0 lbs.
Banvel XP
Vels icol
1150.0 lbs.
1150.0 lbs.
Baygon
Baygon (Bait)
20.0 lbs.
20.0 lbs.
Baygon Bait
4 0.5 lb.
40.5 lb.
Baygon/Vapona
Baygon/Vapona
14.0 lbs.
14.0 lbs.
Bayleton 25W
Bayleton 25W
2.0 lbs.
2.0 lbs.
Benomyl
Benlate
2.0 lb.
2.0 lb.
Benlate
10.0 lb.
10.0 lb.
Benlate 50 WP
14.0 lb.
14.0 lb.
Boric Acid
Boric Acid
611.0 lb.
614.0 lb.
Boric Acid dust
200.0 lb.
200.0 lb.
Bor 1C Ac i d PT 24 0
25.0 lbs.
25.0 lbs.
Bromacil/Diuron
Krovar I
500.0 lb.
500.0 lb.
Bromoxyn11
Buctril
0.25 lb.
0.25 lb.
Captan
Captan
10.0 lb.
10.0 lb.
Captan 50 WP
3.0 lb.
3.0 lb.
Captan Fungicide Powder
1.0 lb
0.2 lb.
Carbaryl
Sevin 5X
1.0 lb.
4.0 oz.
Chlorine
Bottled chlorine
1035.0 lb
1035.0 lb.
Calcium llypochloride
100.0 lb.
50.0 lb.
Gaseous Chlorine
300.0 lb.
300.0 lb.
HTH
10.0 lb
10.0 lb.
HTH Chlorine
400.0 lb.
400.0 lb.
Chioroban
Dursban
3.0 lb.
3.0 lb.
Chiorothalon i 1
Oaconil 2787
3.0 lb. al
3.0 lb. at
Chioroxuion
Chioroxuion
0.5 lb.
0.5 lb.
Chlorpyrifos
Dursban/Chlorban
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Lorsban
0.25 lb.
0.25 lb.
Chlorsulfuron
Glean
0.1 lb. al
0.1 lb. a l .
G1 ean
1.01b
1.0 lb
G1 ean
27.0 lb.
25.0 lb
Copper Sulfate
Copper Sulfate
2.0 lb.
2.0 lb.
Curry's Slug & Snail
Bait Curry's Slug & Snail Bait
2.0 lb.
2.0 lb.
Cycloprpoane carboxylate Amway Bug Spray
2.0 lbs.
2.0 lbs.
D Con
D Con
3.0 lb.
3.0 lb.
D-Phenothrin
O-Phenothrin Aer.
84 .5 lb.
84.5 lb.
O-Plus
D Plus Oust
42.0 lb.
42.0 lb.
D-Sect
D-Sect Aer.
130.0 lb.
130.0 lb.
OCPA
Dac thai
0.5 lb.
0.5 lb.
Dexol
Oexol Systemic
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
0 l az lnon
Dlazinon
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Dlaz inon
2.0 lb.
2.0 lb.
0lazinon
3.0 lbs.
0.5 lb.
Oiazinon Dust
0.12 lb.
0.12 lb.
Guerneys Lawn and Garden
Granular Insecticide
1.0 1b
1.0 lb.
Ortho Diazinon Granules
1.0 lb.
1.8 lb.
Ortho dust
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Ortho Vegetable Gurar Soil
Insect Killer
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
D ichiober i 1
Casoron
100.0 lbs.
100.0 lbs.
Dinoseb
Premerge/D mi tro
4 1.0 lbs.
41.0 lbs.
Or lone
Drione Aer.
151.0 lb.
151.0 lb.
Flc am W
Ficain W
40.0 lb.
40.0 lbs.
'Data in these tables
is presented as it was reported to
EPA.
18
-------
POUNOS OF PESTICIDES USED IN 1981*
Common Name
Trade Name
Purchased
Uti1ized
Ficam W
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Ficam W
7.0 lbs
7.0 lbs.
Fruit tree and Berry spray Science
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Fumarlm
AL RAT
30.0 lbs.
30.0 lbs.
Fung 1c1de
J & P Fungicide
25.0 lb.
25.0 lb.
Glyphosate
Roundup
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Roundup
1.0 lb.
¦1.0 lb.
Roundup
2.0 lbs.
2.0 lbs.
Golden Maiden
Golden Maiden
60.0 lb.
60.0 lb.
Hyvar X
Hyvar X
3376.0 lb.
3376.0 lb.
Hyvar X
300.0 lbs.
300.0 lbs.
Kinopr ene
E n s t a r
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Kr ovar
Krovar
50.0 lbs.
0.0 lbs.
Monobor-Chlorate
350 lb.
350 lb.
Linuron
Lorox
1.0 lbs.
4.0 lbs.
Lorox
L inuron
21.0 lb.
21 .0 lb.
Malathion, Captan,
Guerneys combination
Methoxychlor
fruit spray
l .0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Max Force
Max Force
115.0 lb.
I 15.0 lb.
Metrlbuztn
Metribuzm
0.5 lb. ai.
0.5 lb. ai.
Sencor
25.0 lb.
25.0 lb.
MSMA
G1owon
0.27 lb. ai.
0.27 lb. ai.
Phaltan
Phaltan
I .0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Pic 1 or am
Tordon
250.0 lb.
250.0 lb.
Tor don 1 OK
150.0 lbs
'150.0 lbs
Tordon 1 OK
faoo.o lb.
600.0 lb.
Tordon 1 OK
25.0 lb.
25.0 lb.
Povidone iodine
Weseodyne
110 lb.
110 lb.
Pramatol granular
Pr amatol
1000.0 lbs.
1000.0 lbs.
Pre emergent chickweed
Pre emergent chickweed
seed killer
seed killer
3.0 lbs.
3.0 1bs. granulat
Pr onamide
Kerb 50 -W
21.0 lb.
21.0 lb.
Kerb 50W
1.0 lb.
'1.0 lbs.
Kerb 50W
3.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Pyrethr in
Pyrethnn Aer.
1035.0 lb.
1035.0 lb.
Pyrethr m/Baygon
Pyrethrin/Baygon
52.0 lb.
52.0 lb.
Roach Rrufe
Roach Prufe
2.0 lb.
2.0 lb.
Rotenone
Rose 8 Floral Dust
l .0 lb.
4.0 OZ.
Rotenone
l .0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Simazine
Simazine
0.5 lb.
0.5 lb.
So 11dus t s
Miller's
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Sys tern
Sys-tem Grn.
180.0 lb.
180.0 lb.
Systemic
Science Systemic
3.0 lb.
3.0 lb.
Temi k
Temik
10.0 lb.
10.0 lb.
Terbacil
Subar
10.0 lbs
10.0 lbs.
Thiram 10 /
Methoxychl or S
Boxide Bulb Dust
2.0 lb.
2.0 lb.
Thiram 501 /
Methoxychl or 5":,
Science Bulb Dust
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Tr ef1 an
Treflan
10.0 lbs.
40.0 lbs.
Vapona
Vapona Aer.
79.0 lb.
79.0 lb.
Wa r f a r i n
War farm
5.0 lb.
5.0 lb.
Weed & Feed
Weed & Feed
27,301.0 lb.
27 , 301 .0 lb.
Zineb SI
Zineb 5'Y.
1.0 lb.
0.25 lb.
"Data in these tables is
presented as it was reported
to EPA.
19
-------
RIGHT OF WAY/UTILITY CORRIDOR PESTICIDE USE*
Corimon Name Trade Name
Purchased
Ut11ized
2,1-0
Amizol
Banvel XP
Constrict
Glyphosate
Hyvar X
Krovar
OSP Amine
Plcloram
Pramitol 25E
Amine 1
Amizol
Velsicol
Constrict
Roundup
Hyvar X
K rova r
Monobor Chlorate
Diathylamine/
Dichlorophenoxyoeetic
Tordon 1 OK
Pr opazine
12.0 gal .
537.0 lb.
1150.0 lbs.
5.0 gal .
2.0 gal .
33/6.0 lb.
50.0 lbs.
350 lb.
'Data in these tables is presented as it was reported to EPA.
5.0 gal.
450.0 lbs
31.0 gal.
7.0 gal .
537.0 lb.
1150.0 lbs
5.0 gal .
0.0 gal .
3376.0 lb.
0.0 lbs.
350 lb.
0.0 ga1 .
150.0 lbs
11.0 gal.
TIMBER INDUSTRY PESTtCIDE USE*
Common Name Trade Name Purchased Utilized
Creosote Atco 100.0 gals. 100.0 gals
Marine Woodlife Marine Woodlife 20.0 gals. 20.0 gals.
Woodlife II Woodlife II 20.0 gals. 20.0 gals.
Woodlife Wood Preservative Roberts 20.0 gal. 20.0 gal.
"Data in these tables is presented as it was reported to EPA.
20
-------
SEAFOOD PROCESSOR PESTICIDE USES*
Common Name
Trade Name
Purchased
Ut i11 zed
Aerometer
Ammonium chloride
Bacterlacide
Baygon
Break up
Chempt ocide
Chlorinated
Chlor mated
Chlorine
A1k.il 1
Sanitlzer
All Det
Anti Bac B
Big Red
Bolt P3610
Bolt- Water based
C 16 Chlorine (powdered)
Chempr ocide
Chemproclde
Chemproclde
Chlorine
Control
0 Con
DLP 787
End Bac II
Iocide
Iocide
Iocide
Ioc ide
Iocide
Iocide
Iocide
Iodine Scrub
Liq-U-Klor
Oxyban
20 -XX
60
60 XX
60 XX
Oust PT 210
Pace C 16
Pace T 20
Pace T 20 SX
Pace T 20 X
Pace T 20 X
Pace T
Pace T
Pace T
Pace T
Perma
Redi Prep
Roach Bait
Super Chlor
Super C idol
Thorlte
Tri-Samite
Vaposec tor
Wa r f a r i n
Wood Preservative
WT 21
WT 61
AeroMaster
Chemproclde
Zep Natural
Zepamine A
liq-U K1 or
Baygon 1 . 5
Break up
Chemproclde
Master Kleen
Anti Bac
Bottled chlorine
Chlor ine
Chiorox
CL 9
Gaseous Chlorine
HTH Chlorine
SC 16 Chlorine
Scan C 16
18.0 gal .
6.0 gal .
sma 11
1imited
30.0 gal .
110.0 gal
1035.0 lb
300.0 lb.
100.0 lb.
500.0 lb.
300.0 lb.
48.0 gal.
55.0 gal .
55.0 gal .
60.0 gal .
150.0 lb.
300.0 gal
110.0 gal
60.0 gal .
18.0 gal .
b.0 gal .
55.0 gal
55.0 gal
25.0 gal
30.0 gal .
110.0 gal .
110.0 gal .
1035.0 lb.
20.0 lb.
300.0 lb.
100.0 lb.
"Data in these tables is presented as it was reported to EPA.
21
-------
SEAFOOD PROCESSOR PESTICIDE USES"
Comnon Name
Trade Name
Purchased
Uti1ized
C1eanser
C1eanser
400.0
D Con
D -Con
3.0 lb.
3.0 lb.
D - Sect
0-Sec t
Diazinon
Diazinon
0.5 gal.
0.5 gal.
Diphacin-1 10
01phacln 11 0
260.0 oz.
260.0 oz.
Disinfectant
Forward D.C.
Fogger
Fogger
2.5 gal.
2.5 gal.
Germicide
Envy
Glyphosate
Roundup
0.25 gal.
0.25 gal .
Ioc ide
Ioclde
55.0 gal.
55.0 gal .
Iocide
55.0 gal .
55.0 gal .
Iocide
100.0 gal .
100.0 gal
Iocide
312.0 gal.
312.0 gal
Iodaphor
Du -San
36.0 gal.
Iodine
Zep I Dine
Iotafore
Iotafore
Liquid Warfarin
Warfar in
Niclon 70-G
Niclon 70 G
Ortho-Tol ldine
Ortho to!ldine
Pace %-20-XX
Pace T 20 XX
Pace T-60-XX
Pacd T-60 XX
Sodium Hypochlorite
Liquichlor
Soilax
MikroQuat
T-60 5X
T-60 5x
275.0 gal .
275.0 gal
Warfarin
Wa r f a r i n
Water Treatment
Calcium Hypochlorite
Zep Formula 50
Zep Formula 50
165.0 gal.
165.0 gal
"Data in these tables
is presented as it was reported to
EPA.
OIL INDUSTRY BIOCIOE USE*
Common Name
Glutaraldehyde
VlSCO
X-C IDE
"Data in these tables
Trade Name
OFC B 649
Vl SCO
X -C IDE
is presented as it was reported to EPA.
Pur chased
1300.0 gal.
43,305.0 gal
5000.0 gal .
Ut i1lzed
1300.0 gal .
43,305.0 gal
5000.0 gal.
22
-------
ALASKAN AGRICULTURE PESTICIDE USE*
Common Name Trade Name Purchased
2,4-D
2,4-D
83.75 gal
2,4-D
112.5 gal
2,4-D
26.38 gal
2,4-D
75.0 gal.
2,4-D
125.0 gal
Chlorpyrifos
Lorsban
2.0 gal.
Chiorsulfuron
G1 ean
1 .0 gal.
Copper Sulfate
Copper Sulfate
2.0 lb.
Cygon
Cygon
1 .0 gal .
Dlazinon
AG-500
10.0 gals
Diazinon
2.0 gal.
Oiazinon
1 .0 gal.
Dinoseb
Premerge
1 .0 gal .
Premerge
60.0 gal .
Premerge
35.0 gal .
Premerge/Di-Nitro Weed Killer
30.0 gal .
Glyphosate
Roundup
5.0 gal .
Roundup
1.0 gal .
Roundup
15.0 gal .
Roundup
2.0 gal.
Golden Maiden
Golden Maiden
60.0 lb.
Linuron
Lorox
4.0 lbs.
Malathion
Malathion
1 .0 gal .
Pronamide
Kerb-50W
4.0 lb.
Terraclor
Terraclor
90.0 gal.
•Data in these tables is presented as it was reported to EPA.
Ut ilized
83.75 gal.
112.5 gal.
26.38 gal.
75.0 gal .
125.0 gal.
2.0 gal .
1.0 gal .
2.0 lb.
1.0 gal .
10.0 gals.
2.0 gal .
1.0 gal .
1.0 gal .
60.0 gal .
35.0 gal .
30.0 gal .
1.0 gal .
15.0 gal
2.0 gal .
60.0 lb.
1.0 lbs.
1.0 gal .
1.0 lbs.
90.0 gal
23
-------
MILITARY PESTICIDE USES*
Coirmon Name
Trade Name
Purchased
Ut i11zed
2 ,4-0
2,4-0
200.0 gal.
200.0 gal .
2,4-0
100.0 gal.
100.0 gal .
2,4-0 Eml.
100.0 gal.
100.0 gal .
2,4-D Eml.
198.0 gal
198.0 gal .
Ainnate - XNI
Annate - XNI
14,000.0 lbs.
14,000.0 lbs
Baygon
Baygon (Bait)
20.0 lbs.
20.0 lbs.
Baygon (Liquid)
31.0 gal .
31.0 gal .
Baygon 1 .5
3.0 gal .
3.0 gal.
Baygon Bait
40.5 lb.
40.5 lb.
Baygon Eml.
129.3 gal.
129.3 gal .
Baygon/Vapona
Baygon/Vapona
14.0 lbs.
14.0 lbs.
Boric Acid
Boric Acid
614.0 lb.
614 .0 lb.
Boric Acid dust
200.0 lb.
200.0 lb.
Bor ic Acid PT 24 0
25.0 lbs.
25.0 lbs.
BP-300
BP-300
4 . 0 gal .
4.0 qal.
Bromacil/Oiuron
Krovar I
500.0 lb.
500.0 lb.
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorpyrifos Eml.
281.5 gal.
281 . 5 gal .
Dursban
3.0 gal.
3.0 qal .
Dursban
2.3 gal.
2.3 gal .
Dursban 2E Eml.
429.5 gal.
429.5 gal .
Dursban Eml.
22.4 gal.
22.4 qal.
Dursban M
3.0 gal .
3.0 gal .
O-Phenothr m
O-Phenothrin
unknown
D Phenothrin Aer.
84.5 lb.
84.5 lb.
D-Plus
D Plus Dust
42.0 lb.
42.0 lb.
O-Sect
0 Sect Aer.
130.0 lb.
130.0 lb.
D-TOX IE
0 T0X 4 E
9.0 gal .
9.0 gal .
Diazinon
Diazinon 4E
2.0 gal .
2.0 qal .
Diazinon dust
0.12 lb.
0.12 lb .
Dlazinon Eml.
478.5 gal.
4 78.5 gal .
Diazinon Powder
30.0 gal .
30.0 gal .
Dichlorvos
Dichlorvos
633.9 qal .
633.9 gal .
Diphacin
Dlphac in
10.0 blocks
10.0 block:.
Drione
Drione Aer.
151.0 lb.
151.0 lb.
F icam W
F icam W
40.0 lb.
4 0.0 lb:,.
F i c am W
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Hyvar X
Hyvar X
300.0 lbs.
300.0 lbs.
Knockout
Knockout
276.0 gal.
276.0 gal .
Malathion
Maiath ion
16.0 gal .
16.0 gal.
Malathion
20.0 gal.
20.0 gal.
Maiath ion Eml.
663.5 gal .
663.5 gal.
Max Force
Max Force
115.0 lb.
115.0 lb.
Picloram
Tordon
250.0 lb.
250.0 lb.
Prometon
Prometon Eml.
550.0 gal .
550.0 gal .
Pyrenone
Pyr enone
138.0 gal .
138.0 gal .
Pyrethrin
Pyrethrin
30.0 gal .
30.0 gal .
Pyrethrln
6.7 gal .
6.7 gal .
Pyrethrin Aer.
1035.0 lb.
1035.0 lb.
Pyrethrin Eml.
122.0 gal.
122.0 gal .
Pyrethr in/Baygon
Pyrethr m/Baygon
52.0 lb.
52.0 lb.
REPCO-TOX
REPCO TOX
105.0 GAL.
105.0 GAL.
System
Sys tem Grn.
180.0 lb.
180.0 lb.
Vapona
Vapona Aer.
79.0 lb.
79.0 lb.
Warfar in
War far in
5.0 lb.
5.0 lb.
Weed & Feed
Weed 8 Feed
27,301,0 1b.
27,301.0 1b.
Zep
Zep Eml.
1800.0 gal.
1800.0 gal .
•Data in these tables
is presented as it was reported
to EPA.
24
-------
FISH HATCHERY PESTICIDE USE*
Common Name
Trade Name
Purchased
Utilized
Argentyne
Betadme
Chlorine
Formal in
Iodine Disinfectant
Iodophor
Povidone iodine
Argentyne
Argentyne
Betadine
Betadine
Calcium Hypochloride
HTH
Sodium Hypochlorite
Formaladehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde
Argentyne
Argentyne
Weseodyne
55.0 gal.
171.0 gal.
?.0 gal.
140.0 gal .
100.0 lb.
10.0 lb
12.0 gal.
5.0 gal.
20.0 gal
30.1 gal.
5.0 gal.
3.0 gal .
1703.0 gal.
50.0 gal .
18.0 gal.
110 lb.
55.0 gal .
171.0 gal .
I .0 gal.
140 .0 gal .
50.0 lb.
10.0 lb.
12.0 gal .
55.0 gal .
20.0 gal .
30.1 gal .
5.0 gal .
3.0 gal .
I703.0 gal .
50.0 gal .
18.0 gal .
110 lb.
•Data in these tables is presented as it was reported to EPA.
MOSQUITO CONTROL PESTICIDE USES*
Cormion Name
Bacillus Thuringensis
var. Isralensis
Malathion
Malathion 95%
Pyrethrin
Trade Name
Teknar BTI
Cythion
Cythion Naled
Maiath ion
Cythion
Pyrenone
"Data in these tables is presented as it was reported to EPA.
25
Purchased
ISO gal.
100.0 gal .
.06 gal .
31.0 gal .
10.0 gal .
140.0 gal .
Utl1ized
1S.0 gal .
100.0 gal
.06 gal .
31 . 0 gal .
I.0 gal .
IIO.O gal
-------
ACTIVE COMMERCIAL APPLICATOR PESTICIDE USES*
Comnon Name
Trade Name
Purchased
Lit i 11 zed
2-(1 Methyletnoxy)phenol
methylcar bamate
Precor residual fogger
0.1 gal .
0 .05 gal .
2,4-D
Lilly Miller Dandelion Killer
1.25 gal .
1.25 gal .
Baygon
Baygon
Bayleton 25W
Bayleton 25W
2.0 lbs.
2.0 lbs.
Benomyl
Benlate
.28 gal .
.28 gal .
Captan
Captan Fungicide Powder
1.0 1b
0.2 lb.
Chlorpyri fos
Dursban
Dursban IE
1.5 gal.
1.5 gal .
Lorsban
5.0 gal
5.0 gal .
Diazinon
.25 gal .
.25 gal .
Oiazinon
19.0 gals.
19.0 gals
Diazinon
4 .0 gal .
4.0 gal.
Diazinon
Diazinon
0.06 gal .
0.02 gal .
Diazinon 4E
4.0 gal
4.0 gal
Diethyl Phosphorotsote
1.0 gal
1.0 gal .
Dimethylphosphorothiozte
Metasystox R2
23.0 gals.
2 3.0 gals
Dinoseb
Premerge
40.0 gal.
40.0 gal .
P r eme rge
5.0 gal .
5.0 gal .
Fenoc i1
Fenocil non-select lve
weed killer
110.0 gal
110.0 gal
F icam W
Flc am W
7.0 lbs
7.0 lbs.
Fic am W
Glyphosate
Roundup
3.0 qa 1
3.0 gal.
Roundup
2.0 gal .
2.0 gal .
K il1master
Kl1lmaster
Lawn Weed Killer A
Lawn Weed Killer A
1.5 gal .
1.5 gal .
L indane
Isotox
4.0 gals.
4.0 gals.
L indane i sotox
L indane
14.0 gal
14.0 gal
Lorox
Linuron
24 .0 lb.
24.0 lb.
Malathion
Malathion
0. 125 gal.
0.125 gal
Maiath ion
19.0 gals.
19.0 gals
Ma lath ion
0 . 06 gal .
0.06 gal .
Metasystox R
Metasystox R
12.0 gal
12.0 gal
Metasystox -R2
Metasystox R2
6.0 gal.
6.0 gal .
Methoxychlor
Methoxychlor
0.05 gal.
0.02 gal .
Nicotine Fumigant
Nicotine Fumigant
1.5 gal ..
0.75 gal .
Orthene
0.5 gal .
0.5 gal
Picloram
Tordon 1 OK
25.0 lb.
25.0 lb.
Pramatol - granular
Pramatol
1000.0 lbs.
1000. 0 lb
Promar
Promar
Pronamide
Kerb 50 W
24.0 lb.
24.0 lb.
Resmethr in
Resmethrin
0.56 gal.
0.56 gal .
Talon
Ta 1 on
Tree Killer
Silvigar 510
0.25 gal .
0.25 gal.
Treflan
Treflan
40.0 lbs.
40.0 lbs.
White Fly Spray
White Fly Spray
0 . 06 gal .
0.06 gal.
Zep Stop
0.4 gal . .
0.4 gal .
Zep
3.12 gal.
3.12 gal.
"Data in these tables is
presented as it was reported to EPA
26
-------
GOVERNMENT PESTICIDE USES*
Coimion Name
Trade Name
Purchased
Ut i1ized
2 -(1 Methyletnoxy)phenol
methylcarbamate
Precor residual fogger
0.1 gal.
0.05 gal.
Agrlmyc in
Agrlmycln
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Agrochem
Agrochem
Bait Blocks
B a G
30.0 lbs.
30.0 lbs.
Benomyl
Benlate
10.0 lb.
10.0 lb.
Benlate 50 WP
11.0 lb.
11.0 lb.
Oexol Benlate
.012 gal.
.012 gal .
Benomy1e
Benlate
Unknown
Bromoxyml
Buct i ne
10.0 gal
10.0 gal
Captan
Captan
10.0 lb.
10.0 lb.
Captan 50 WP
3.0 lb.
3.0 lb.
Carbaryl
Sevin
Carboxin Thiram
Vitavax 200
55.0 gal
55.0 gal
Chiorothalonl1
Daconil 2787
3.0 lb. ai
3.0 lb. ai
Chlorpyrifos
Lorsban
5.0 gal
5.0 gal .
Chiorsulf uron
G1 ean
1.0 1b
1.0 1b
Diazinon
Diazinon 5%
100.0
400.0
Diethyl Phosphorotsote
1.0 gal
1.0 gal .
Dicamba
Banuel
5.0 gal
5.0 gal
Dichioberl1
Casoron
100.0 lbs.
100.0 lbs.
D inoseb
Premerge
15.0 gal
15.0 gal
Premerge
10.0 gal.
40.0 gal.
Premerge
25.0 gal.
25.0 gal.
Ethazol
*dexol Trueban
0.03 gal .
0.0 3 gal .
Science Trueban
0.07 gal .
0.07 gal .
Fenoc i 1
Fenocil non-selective
weed killer
I10.0 gal
110.0 gal
Fluazifop butyl
Fusi11ade
1.0 gal
1 .0 gal
Fumarim
AL RAT
30.0 lbs.
30.0 lbs.
Glyphosate
Roundup
30.0 gal
30.0 gal
Roundup
0.25 gal .
0.125 gal.
Roundup
3.0 gal
3.0 gal .
Roundup
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
IPC
Chemttoe
5.0 gal
5.0 gal
K inoprene
Enstar
l.0 lb.
l .0 lb.
Lorox
Linuron
21.0 lb.
21.0 lb.
Malathion
Malathion
I.0 gal.
I . 0 gal .
Malathion
0.125 gal .
0.125 gal .
Malathion Science
MCPP
Chipco Turf
15.0 gal
15.0 gal
Methly Bromide
Methly Bromide
2.5 gal.
2.5 gal .
Nicotine Sulfate
Nicotine Sulfate
6 bombs
6 bombs
(1 did not work)
none
Phaltan
Phaltan
1.0 lb.
l.0 lb.
Picloram
Toidon 1 OK
600.0 lb.
600.0 lb.
Tordon 1 OK
25.0 lb.
25.0 lb.
Pronamide
Kerb 50 W
21.0 lb.
24.0 lb.
PT 1200
PT 1200
I aerosol
container
Resmethr in
Resmethrin
4.7 gal.
1.7 gal.
Systemic
Science Systemic
3.0 lb.
3.0 lb.
Temik
Temik
10.0 lb.
10.0 lb.
Temil Bomb
Temi 1
5 bombs
5 bombs
Terbacl1
Sinbar
10.0 lbs
10.0 lbs.
Terraclor
Terraclor
30.0 gal.
30.0 gal .
Vapam
Vapam
5.0 gal.
5 .0 gal .
Zep Stop
Zep
3.12 gal .
3.12 gal .
"Data in these tables is
presented as it was reported
to EPA.
27
-------
PRIVATE PESTICIDE USES*
Cornnon Name
Trade Name
Purchased
Ut11lzed
1.0 qt.
1.0 qt.
2,4-D
2,4 0
1 bottle
1 bottle
2,4-D Clover and
Chickweed killer
0.12S gal .
0.0 gal.
Cenex
10.0 gal.
10.0 gal.
Cenex 40A Weed Killer
245.0 gal.
245.0 gal
Ant Sticks
Ant Sticks
6 sticks
6 sticks
Bek Leaf White Fly and
Bek Leaf White Fly and
Mealy Bug Spray
Mealy Bug Spray
Unknown small
quantity
Benomyl
Benlate
2.0 lb.
2.0 lb.
Captan
Captan
Unknown small
quantlty
Carbaryl
Sev i n
0.5 gal.
0.25 gal .
Sevin 5%
1.0 lb.
4.0 oz.
Chlordane
Chiordane
1.0 gal .
1.0 gal .
Chloroban
Dursban
3.0 lb.
3.0 lb.
Chlorpyrifos
Dursban/Chlor ban
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Chlorsulfur on
Glean
1.54 gal.
1 . 54 gal .
Glean
27.0 lb.
25.0 lb
Curry's Slug and
Curry's SIug and
2.0 lb.
2.0 lb.
Snail Bait
Snail Bait
Cycloprpoane carboxylate
Amway Bug Spray
2.0 lbs.
2.0 lbs.
Cygon 2-E
Cyqon 2 E
.01 gals .
.01 qals.
Pratt
.25 gal .
.125 gal.
Deadline Slug Control
Deadline Slug Control
1 bottle
1 bottle
Dexol
Dexol Systemic
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Systemic house plant insecticide
.06 gal .
.06 ga1.
Di-Syston
Cole's Systemic House
Plant Insecticide
.06 qal .
.06 gal.
Dexol Systemic House
Plant Insecticide
.06 ga1 .
.06 qal .
Diazinon
4
4
Diazinon
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Diazinon
.125 gal .
.125 gal.
Dlazinon
0.25 qal.
0.25 qal .
Diazinon
0.25 gal .
0.25 qal.
D i azinon
0.125 qal .
0.125 gal
Diazinon
0.125 gal .
0.05 gal.
D iazinon
3.0 lbs.
0.5 lb.
Diazinon
2.0 lb.
2.0 lb.
Diazinon
0.125 gal.
0.125 gal
Guerneys lawn and garden
granular insecticide
1.0 lb
1.0 lb.
Namco
1.0 gal .
1.0 qal .
Ortho Diazinon Granules
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Ortho Diazinon liquid
0.5 gal .
0.5 gal .
Ortho Diazinon powder
Unknown smal1
quant lty
Ortho dust
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Ortho Fruit and Vegetable
Insect Control
0.125 gal.
0. 125 gal
Ortho Vegetable Gurar Soil
Insect Killer
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Dinoseb
Premerge
0.2 5 gal .
0.25 gal .
Ficam
F lcam
Fruit tree and Berry spray Science
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Fungicide
J & P Fungicide
25.0 lb.
25.0 lb.
"Data in these tables is
presented as it was reported to EPA.
28
-------
PRIVATE PESTICIDE USES*
Common Name
Glyphosate
Herbic ides
Isotox
Kelthane
Kleenup
Knockout
KXL
Malathion
Trade Name
Roundup
Roundup
Roundup
Roundup
Roundup
Roundup
Isotox
Isotox
Kelthane
Kelthane
Kleenup
Lilly Knockout
Agro
Dowl Malathion
Malathion
Malath ion
Malathion
Malathion
Malathion
Malathion
Malathion
Malathion 50
Ortho
Ortho
Purchased
25 gal .
25 gal.
125 gal.
2.0 lbs.
0.125 gal.
Unknown
0.05 gal .
25 gal.
5 gal.
25 gal.
0 gal.
125 gal
125 gal
125 gal
0.25 gal .
0.25 gal .
1.0 gal.
0.25 gal .
0.06 gal .
0.25 gal .
Ut i1ized
0.25 gal.
0.06 gal .
0.125 gal
2.0 lbs.
0.125 gal
0.05 gal.
0.25 gal .
0.5 gal .
0.125 gal
6 . 0 gal .
125 gal
025 gal
125 gal
25 gal .
25 gal.
0 gal .
0.25 gal.
0.06 gal.
0.125 gal
Malathion. Captan,
Methoxychlor
Guerneys combination fruit spray
1.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
Metaldehyde
Deadline
0.125 gal .
0.125 gal
Millers Systemic Fungicide
Millers Systemic Fungicide
Unknown small
quantlty
Orthene
Ortho
0.25 gal .
0.125 gal
Ortho Rose Food and
Systemic
Ortho Rose Food and Systemic
3.5 gal .
3.5 gal .
Parath ion
Del Parathion
2.0 gal
2.0 gal
Pre emergent chickweed
Pre emergent chickweed
seed killer
seed killer
3.0 lbs.
3.0 lbs.
Pronamide
Kerb-50W
3.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
PT 1300
PT 1300
3 aerosol containers
Pyrethr in
Ortho Rose and Flower Killer
0.19 gal.
0.19 gal.
Pyrethron
Unknown
Whitmire and Johnson's Bait
3.7 gal .
3.7 gal.
Raid Home and Garden
Roach Rrufe
Rotenone
Raid Home and Garden
Roach Prufe
Rose & Floral Dust
Rotenone
2.0 lb. 2.0 lb.
1.01b. 1.0 oz.
1.0 1b. 1.0 lb.
Safer's Insecticidal Soap Safer's Insecticidal Soap
Seek Parasitic nematode
Soildusts
Thiram 10 7„ /
Methoxychlor 5%
Thiram 50X /
Methoxychlor SX
Trlthlon
Weed B-Gone
Zineb 5%
Seek Parasitic nematode
Miller's
Boxide Bulb Dust
Science Bulb Dust
Dowl Trithion
Weed -B-Gone
Zineb 5%
1 bottle
2 vials
1.0 lb.
2.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
1.5 gal
1 small can
1.0 lb.
1 bottle
none
1.0 lb.
2.0 lb.
1.0 lb.
1 .5 gal
0.25 lb.
"Data in these tables is presented as it was reported to EPA.
29
-------
EXPERIMENTAL PESTICIDE USE*
Common Name
Trade Name
Purchased
Ut 11ized
2 .4 -D
2,4 D
0.725 gal .
0.725 gal.
2,4-D Amine
0.25 gal .
0. 25 gal.
Avenge
Avenge
25.0 gal.
25.0 gal.
Banvel
Banvel
0.78 gal.
0.78 gal .
Bromoxyni1
Bromoxyn i1
0.125 gal.
0.125 gal .
Buct r 11
4.4 gal .
4.4 gal .
Buctril
12.5 gal .
12.5 gal.
Buctril
0.25 lb.
0.25 lb.
Chloroxuion
Chioroxuion
0.5 lb.
0.5 lb.
Chlorpyrl f as
Lorsban
0.25 lb.
0.25 lb.
Chlorsulfuron
Glean
11.5 oz.
11.5 oz.
Glean
0.12 gal.
0.12 gal.
G1 ean
0.1 lb. ai
0.1 lb. ai.
DCPA
Qacthal
0.5 lb.
0.5 lb.
Dicambia
Dicambia
0.125 gal.
0.125 gal .
Dinoseb
Premerge
18.7 gal.
18.7 gal .
Premerge
0.125 gal.
0.125 gal .
Premerge/Din i t ro
41.0 lbs.
4 1.0 lbs.
Diphenamid
Diphenamid
0.125 gal.
0.125 gal .
Glyphosate
Roundup
6.0 qal .
6.0 gal .
Roundup
1.0 "lb.
1.0 lb.
MCPS
MCPS
0.125 gal.
0.125 gal .
Metribuzin
Metribuzin
0.5 lb. a i .
0.5 lb. a l .
Sencor
25.0 lb.
25.0 lb.
MSMA
G1owon
0.27 lb. ai.
0.27 lb. a i
Simazine
Simazine
0.5 lb.
0.5 lb.
"Oata in these tables is presented as it was reported to EPA.
30
-------
Based on the survey, there was an estimated 105,400 gallons and 108,520
pounds of pesticides used in Alaska during the 1984 calendar year'. Rodentieides,
herbicides and insecticides were used throughout the user group categories
identified in the following section. Disinfectants were used primarily in the seafood
category, fungicides primarily by hatchery operations and biocides only by tire oil
industry. Reported wood preservative uses were primarily by the timber industry,
but it must be recognized that this value does not represent private and other uses
of these substances.
As noted in the section entitled "Profile Limitations", pesticide values
reported for 1978 exceed those for- 1984 in certain categories. The 1978 study
reports pesticide list? at 220,2t>l pounds and 23,2(i2 gallons versus 1984 extrapolated
use data of 108,520 pounds and 105,400 gallons.
Over one-half of the total poundage? and slightly less than one-half of the
gallonage reportedly used in 1978 was herbicides, with over one-third of this total
amount being 2,4-1). Approximately two-thirds of the total pesticide use was
agricultural in nature with the remainder being used for vegetation control,
primarily on right of ways. In 1981, herbicides again comprised approximately
one-half the total poundage used but less than one-tenth the gallonage. Herbicide
use for vegetation control on right of ways was no longer significant. In 1984 only a
minimal amount of herbicides were used for right of way applications due to
rest rict ive state policies and negative public perceptions of the activity. In 1978,
herbicide use for' vegetation control was still practiced by numerous utilities,
pipeline companies and the Department of Transportation. With regard to the
agricultural values, it is not expected that actual use has declined significantly but
rather that larger farming entities in the State may not have responded to the
quest ionnaire.
fungicide and insecticide data also appear* to be skewed by the probable lack
of response from part of the agricultural and greenhouse community, fungicide uses
reported for 1984 were primarily the result of fish hatchery operations, whereas
those reported in 1978 were associated primarily with agriculture. In 1978, over
one-third of the total insecticides used were malathion and pyrethrins for mosquito
control, with the remainder primarily for commercial agriculture and greenhouse
uses. Once again, this difference is attributed to a possible change in attitude
regarding pesticide use with regard to large scale mosquito control programs.
The above information can be used to draw some conclusions regarding trends,
such as decreased herbicide use for right of way vegetation control. Additionally, it
may indicate underestimated use for agricultural activities. Again, this emphasizes
the need to utilize these numbers in relative terms as gross estimates of pesticide
use, rather than firm values for the given calendar year.
Use Characteristics
Time of Application
As one might expect, time of pesticide application and use depends a
-------
great (leal on the usee and industries involved, as well as the target pest.
Herbicide applications occur primarily during the months of May through
August, which is about the extent of the outdoor Alaskan growing season.
Correspondingly, the maximum use of insecticides in outdoor sit nations also occurs
during these same months. Insecticides use by private users is year-round, which
probably reflects indoor uses for luniseplants and greenhouses. Also, the military
uses pestieides year-round for control of insects. Cockroaches and other pests are
introduced by tin; transient military population.
Fish hatchery use of pesticides is generally year-round, while the majority of
pesticide use by the seafood industry currently occurs April through September-.
This trend will change as the seafood industry moves toward more year-round
processing.
Coif course uses are minimal arid will only occur in tlx; summer months, as is
also the case with the timber industry. Hiocide use is year-round.
Use Characteristics
Maimer and Method of Application
The majority of pesticides used in the State are applied via souk- type of
ground application method. There are approximately four aerial pesticide
applicators in the State, but their activilies are minimal. However, it appears that
aerial application of insecticides for' mosquito control is a future use trend. During,
l!)84 and l!)85, this method was not utilized.
Tree spraying is predominately conducted in Anchorage and other Sout hcent ral
Alaska areas for aphid control. However, as a result of Anchorage residents
concerns about spraying arid the associated drift, root injection, soil drenching or
pest icide implant at ion may become more common application techniques. Such a
change is further prompted by the relatively high wind conditions which exist in
Anchorage for a large part of a wor king day.
Other pest icide applicat ion methods arc fairly standard. Wood preservatives
sucli as Creosote and pent a are primarily painted on. There are no pressure treating
facilities for wood products in the State.
Use Characteristics
Pesticide Purchases
Location of pesticide purchases provides important insight into potential
control of pesticides sales in Alaska as well as tlit; effectiveness of a State
registration program. Of the ^'2 respondents noting purchase information for
specific pesticides, approximately 40".. said they mail ordered their chemicals
(versus local purchase). Some of these mail orders may have occurred in the State,
hut by and large t he
-------
pesticides were ordered from distributors in the contiguous United States. Tlx;
remainder of respondents either did not know where the pesticides they used were
purchased or they did not respond to the question at all. Currently, there are only
four or five dealers of restricted use pesticides in the State.
The consequence of the purchase information is two-fold. First, it is
questionable whether mail order distributors of restricted use pesticides check to
assure that the purchaser- is certified. Additionally, tracking of mail order
pesticides and potential problem use areas is much more difficult than with the local
purchases.
There also appear to be purchasing trends within different user- groups.
Private applicators purchased almost entirely from local pesticide dealers. On the
other hand, seafood processors, fish hatcheries, and the military purchased almost
exclusively by mail order. Other1 industries and users were split fairly evenly
between mail order and local pesticide purchases.
ly Vegetation Control
Railroad Maintenance
The Alaska Railroad (ARR) maintains more than (iOO miles of track in Alaska,
with the mainline running from Seward to Fairbanks and Whit tier to Portage,
liranch lines run to Palmer, Suntrana, Fairbanks International Airport and F.ilson.
This is the only railroad system in Alaska current ly operating. Management
objectives of herbicides use along the railway are the control of brush along the
right of way and maintenance of the roadbed in as vegetation-free a state as
possible.
In recent years railroad management has come under attack for herbicide use
along the tracks, especially in the small communities along the right of way. In
response to this the ARR has initiated an integrated program of hand clearing,
mechanical clear ing, burning and herbicide application.
For approximately !}() years the ARR has utilized herbicides as the mainstay of
their vegetation control program. However, due to a court order requiring ARR to
comply with National Fnvironment al Policy Act (NFPA) requirements and the
surrounding herbicide use controversy, no herbicides were applied to the track in
l!)84 or l!)8f>. In .January l!>8^, the ARR was transferred from Federal to State
ownership. Since the State has no comparable requirements to NFPA, there has
been some controversy over whether the Fnvironment al Impact Statement (I IIS)
process must continue. The ARR had decided to complete the FIS and this
environmental document is now available for public review. The ARR is required to
obtain a permit from ADFC for herbicide application.
In recent years ARK has utilized three primary herbicides for vegetation
control. Ilyvar X and Ainixol have been used as a mixture for roadbed maintenance
at ti pounds (4.8 pounds act ive ingredient), and I pound (().!) pounds active ingredient)
per 100 gallons, respectively. Tordon 101 Iras been used for right of way vegetation
cont rol at I gallon
>UDS
• >« i
•) • i
-------
(50% active ingredient) per 1,000 gallons, (larlon was tested in l!)80, 1.981 and 15)82 in
sm Mil quant it ies. Because of the unique situation which precipitated no herbicide
use along the tracks in 15)84 and 15)85, Table I provides use information I'rom 15)77-
15)83, which is more representative of use trends. Use information for this report
will reflect the I5J8:] year'.
The ARR had proposed to apply herbicides to the track in 15)85. Due to the
need to conduct a worst ease analysis of potential herbicide impacts and the lack of
data to complete this analysis for many substances, the railroad applied for- a permit
from ADCC to utilize hexazinone (Velpar) for* application to only the ballast area of
the railway. Velpar has been through the re-registration process with LI'A, and
therefore, the necessary data is available. However*, the unavailability of the
environmental document until fall of 15)85, coupled with negative public opinion,
forced the ARK to withdraw their application for the 15)85 calendar year-.
ay Vegetation Control
Highway Maintenance
'fhe Alaska Department of Transport at ion and Public I aeilit ies (A 1)()T I 'I') has
not utilized any herbicides for right of way vegetation control since 15)77. This is
due to a stale-wide ban of these materials for State agency use, imposed by t he
Covernor at that time and continued by the current State administration.
ADOTIM' individuals responsible for maintenance agree that this trend cannot
continue at a time when State budgets are being cut back and t he cost s of t he less
effective manual and mechanical brush cont rols are high. ADOTIM' did apply for a
fK'rmit to apply Watrol (active ingredient DiquaDtoa float plane basin near Homer
for aquatic weed control in 15181. This activity must be permitted as a public
pesticide project since the substance would be applied by the State on property
owned by 1? or more persons. After a public meeting the application was denied by
the Alaska Department of r.nvironmental Conservation. ADOTIM' will attempt to
remove the aquatic weeds by mechanical methods during 15)85. If this is
unsuccessful, ADOTIM' will likely reapply for* a permit to use herbicides in l!)8t>.
„ iy Vegetation Control
Energy Corridor Maintenance
Utility companies were identified as potential users of large quantities of
herbicides. The Alaska Public lit ilit ies Commission was contacted to identify utility
companies throughout the State. Seventy-nine letters were sent to utilities. The
return rate within the industry was very good, with fifty-eight responses
received—approximately a '/¦>"•> return.
Of these facilities, six report the use of herbicides, with seven substances
applied for a total of gallons and I , >()() pounds of
UDS
IS
J
-------
use. One utility, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, responded for lour of its
member companies who were independently surveyed. Since 1982, Alyeska has been
utilizing herbicides on the TransAlaska Pipeline (TAPS) corridor, which is the
longest pipeline in Alaska, running !K)() miles from IVudfioe Hay on Alaska's North
Slope to its terminus in Valdez. Pesticide use by Alyeska is expected to increase as
the pipeline corridor revegetates.
The majority of other utility company uses are more maintenance oriented,
and are expected to remain relatively stable. However, there am some utilities
which have identified a need for herbicides but have discontinued use due to public
pressure or because of previous lawsuits alleging pesticide misapplications. Some of
these utilities, like (iolden Valley Llectric Association in Fairbanks, arc attempting
to reinitiate herbicide vegetation control programs and arc encountering substantial
public opposit ion.
All utilities which reported herbicide use arc located in the more urbanized
areas of the State, and have had programs in place for a number of years. Of the
utilities that reported no pesticide use, a number noted that they si in ply did not
have enough vegetat ion in their areas to warrant control since many of the more
rural utilities are located in tundra areas.
stry
The commercial timber industry in Alaska current ly uses very few pesticides.
Of twenty-six survey respondents only 2, or- 7%, use any pesticides whatsoever,
these consisted of commercially manufactured wood preservatives (i.e., creosote
and pent achlorophenol preparations). Included in the survey were private and
commercial logging activities as well as Native Corporations and joint ventures
between the U.S. I'orest Service and Native Corporations.
Log transfer facilities in Southeast Alaska do face a problem with Ambrosia
Beet les. However, at this point all of the facilit ies contacted have init iated best
management practices to deal with the Ambrosia Hectic problem, rather1 than apply
pesticides, these include yard management of the t imber t o ensure t imely delivery
of the material and no overwintering. Some facilities reported the use of
pheromone traps in the log yards to deal with the beetle problem. The major native
corporations involved in logging activities also report no pesticide use (This group
was surveyed by telephone primarily).
It was anticipated that within this group, wood preservative use would be
fairly high. However, survey results indicate that this is not the case. Pursuant to
follow-up conversations with some of these facility managers it was noted that most
lumber or1 other necessary building materials are purchased pre-treated from the
lower1 48 states. Very little wood is treated on site with the possible exception of
creosote use on marine pilings and dock construction.
Total reported wood preservative use for l!)84 was Hit) gallons for' this industry.
-------
User Groups
Seafood Industry
As with any large group of pesticide user's, it is difficult to determine a
quantitative value of pesticide use, even for a specific calendar year. In the case of
the seafood industry, a small part of the industry was initially surveyed by a mailing
to certified applicators. No responses were received from this group.
Consequently, rather than attempting to collect use information through written
correspondence, individual facilities were surveyed during compliance inspections
conducted by FOP A personnel. The group surveyed is considered represent at ive of
the industry. Twenty-three shore-based and float ing processors from eight general
locations around the State were surveyed for their pesticide uses, including Cordova,
Dutch Harbor, hodiak, Petersburg, Akutan, Dillingham, ("larks Point, and llristol
(Jay. Additionally, Alaska Department of I Environment al Conservation (AI)P(') and
U.S. Pood and Drug Administration (PDA) inspectors were asked to note any
pesticides they encountered during'their field activities which did not have proper
KPA registration or- labeling. No such incidents were reported from these agencies
for the 1985 calendar year. However, PDA does report that a large number of
Japanese food addit ives are used in Alaska 011 products for export, which legit imizes
concerns for the possibility of Japanese pesticide imports.
Total pesticide use by the group surveyed was approximately gallons and
1,773 pounds of pesticide products. Not included in this value is (lit? reported use of
1,335 pounds of pressurized gaseous chlorine. Pesticide use within this industry was
primarily for disinfection purposes. A number of processors reported the use of
standard cleaning and disinfect ing solut ions but did not specify types or' quantities.
Therefore, the total pesticide use value reported here is considered very
eonsei'vative. Over 78% of the total reported use was in the disinfection category,
including bactericides, fungicides, disinfect ant s, and hand and foot dips. Over 2;>%
of the total disinfectant use was for a product marketed under the name loeide,
which is commonly used by the industry as a hand and foot dip prior to entering
processing areas. It should he noted that nearly half of those reporting the use of
loeide did not quantify their list?. Chlorine, in one form or another, is probably the
most commonly used disinfectant by the seafood industry. However, in this case no
one, specific product name is prevalent and the data provided by the processors does
not always allow a determination the product's active ingredients.
llse of pesticides within seafood processing facilities is carefully monitored by
both PDA and the ADPC in an attempt to protect and insure product quality. Small
amounts of rodent baits and insecticides are also used by the industry; however, this
is minimal compared to that of disinfect ant s. More com monly, facilit ies will deal
with rodents and insects through management techniques such as curtains and
doorways in the processing areas and good sanitation practices. A large number of
processors do utilize ultraviolet light "bug zappers" to control flying insects in a
non-cheniical manner.
Almost all of the pesticides used by the seafood industry are mail ordered
from distributors on the West Coast. Over 4(»% of the pesticides
3t>
-------
used were purchased from Pacific Chemical out of the Seattle area. Many of the
company headquarters for Alaskan processors are located in the Seattle area. Only
one facility reported use of a Japanese manufactured pesticide. Follow-up
confirmed that this substance was registered for use in the United States. Use of
foreign manufactured pesticides not registered for use in the United States was
initially a major concern with this industry, since a large percentage of the
companies are wholly or partly owned by Japanese interests and representatives
from these countries are actively involved in the processing of seafood at their
plants.
For the majority of the seafood industry, pesticide use reflects a processing
season which will commonly last from six weeks to five months, depending on the
species being processed. However, there are plants which operate year-round in the
State, and process whatever seafood is in season, l or economic purposes,
year-round processing is the future trend within the industry. With this in mind,
pesticide use by seafood processors in Alaska will likely be on the increase.
User Groups
Bioeide Use in the Oil Industry
Use of bioeides by the oil industry is fairly routine for control of microbial
growth during well drilling operations and down hole activities. Three major
distributors of bioeides were identified as providing the majority of these chemicals
to the Alaskan market. Due to the sensitive nature of oil drilling activities and the
tendency on the part of the oil industry to consider most of this information
proprietary, it was decided that the distributors, rather than the users should be
contacted for- pesticide use information. For purposes of this report, the assumption
is made that all bioeides purchased during 15)84 were utilized during the same
calendar year1.
All three of the companies contacted responded with bioeide sales data for the
15)84 calendar year. This information is being presented in a formal which protects
companies' individual sales data.
A total of 45),gallons of bioeides were reportedly sold in Alaska during
15)84. Of these, the most commonly used bioeide agent is gluteraldehyde. This
substance appears on 5 of tin? 17 bioeide labels submitted by the distributors and
accounts for at least 5)0% of total bioeide use in the State. This number does not
include data from oik1 of the three bioeide distributors, as they did not provide a
chemical-specific breakdown of sales information for their products. Acetate
compounds arc the second most frequently sold bioeide product, but account for a
small percentage of total sales i.e., use. According to industry representatives, the
facilities with the heaviest use of bioeides are the seawater treatment plants
located in Prudhoe Bay. Currently, one of these facilities is operating and one is
scheduled to go on line within the year.
IJiocides are used to control or inhibit the growth of bacteria, fungus, slime
and other micro-organisms in oilfield operations. Use of bioeides in oilfield
operations is not unique to Alaska, and the
:]V
-------
companies report no special pesticide use problems. Biocides art: also used in
cooling towers, however this is noted by company personnel to be a very small use
compared to that of the oil industry. Information on cooling tower use was not
available from the companies. Also, geographical location of the pesticide use could
not be adequately determined.
Use of biocides in oilfield operations has become a controversial subject when
dealing' with offshore drilling. At issue is the ultimate discharge of the drilling muds
and cuttings, contaminated with biocides, into waters of the United States. This
issue is currently being dealt with through the National Pollutant Discharge
Llimination System (NPI)LS) permit program under the federal Clean Water Act.
User Groups
Agricultural Uses
Agriculture in Alaska is a growth industry, and there is a strong emphasis on
the continued development of agriculture in the State from both private and
government sect ors.
Currently there are approximately 1.3 million acres listed as farmland, out of
t he tot al St ate land area of 373 million acre's. It is projected that Alaska has '20
million acres of potential livestock grazing' land. Currently, the majority of
farmland in Alaska is used for grazing, with only 34,700 acres used for crop
production. The total number of farms in Alaska during IJ)83 (the last year for which
statistics are available) was 4;~>0, an increase of ItiO farms since IH78.
Crops include oats and barley for silage, hay, potatoes, cabbage, lettuce,
carrots, berries, and small quantities of other vegetables. Livestock and poultry
products include eggs, poult ry, beef, pork, mutton, wool, reindeer', and milk. I'arin
commodity cash receipts for- IM83 were SI8,3-k>,000.
As a rule, most of the Alaskan farms are located along the railbelt. The
Matanuska Valley is the major agricultural producing area, due to the good soils and
the most suitable agricultural climate in the State. There are 10 (Irade A dairies in
the State, with 8 of these located in the Matanuska Valley. The other two are
located in the Tanana Valley. The Tanana Valley is the second most important
agricultural area in the State. In this area there are more daylight hours per day
than in the Matanuska Valley, but the growing season is shorter. Most of the
reindeer product ion occurs on the Seward Peninsula and Nunivak and Urunnak
Islands, with a small number of village herds located on islands in the Bering Sea.
Other areas in the State i.e., kenai Penninsula, Kodiak, Aleutian ("bain and
Southeast Alaska, exhibit primarily maritime weather. The growing season in Kenai
is fairly short and frosting through mid-.June is common. In the other areas crops
are primarily affected by cloudy weather and frequent rains which delay crop
mat urit y.
As the above discussion illustrates, crops grown in the State must be especially
suited to cold soils, short growing season, and large
38
-------
temperature variations. These conditions determine which pesticides can he used
effectively in the State.
Herbicides are the most prevalently used pesticide in Alaskan agriculture, and,
in fact, the only substances reported as used by the commercial fanners who
provided information fortius profile. Pesticide use information for t lit? Delta
farming area is complete due to assistance from the University of Alaska, with
eleven out of the approximate 15 farmers in the area reporting use. Response rates
from the Matanuska Valley farmers were lower, as was anticipated, since this
information was requested via letter. Thirty-seven letters were sent, with L4
responses received and three letters returned as undeliverable.
From all agricultural areas a total of 70 pounds and t>7o gallons of pesticides
were reportedly used to cover approximately 4,020 acres of farmland. Of this,
approximately of the gallonage was 2,4-1) (which also had the highest reported
number of applicat ions), all of which was utilized in the Delta Agricultural area.
(Ilyphosate was second in terms of numbers of reported uses, although the quantity
applied was very small. Third in use was diaxinon, which is commonly used by
commercial fanners and private gardeners. The fourth most frequently used
pesticide was dinoseb.
Alaska fanners do face some unique agricultural problems. Perhaps the most
significant is the very short growing season. Late springs and ear ly winters occur
frequently and cause difficulty for t industry. Because of this, herbicide
applications must be timed precisely to achieve maximum effect ivencss while st ill
allowing adequate crop growth time. Identification of appropriate herbicides and
proper timing is a major' need of Alaskan farmers. Additionally, to diminish soil
erosion, farmers are exploring the use of no-till agriculture. With this approach,
there is an increased use of pesticides.
\nd last, other areas ha\e been identified as having a high potential for
agricultural development. When and if agricultural land increases in Maska, the
\enana area, between Anchorage and Fairbanks, will likely be the next area
developed, with according increases in the State's use of pest icicles.
User Groups
Military Uses
The Military in Maska is one of the largest users of pesticides in the State.
Pesticide use information was obtained from the two Air force bases, Kilson and
lilmendorf, and three Army bases, Ports Richardson, Wainwright and (irecley. Data
were obtained from the annual Pest Management Reports generated b\ the \ir
I'orce and the monthly Pest Control Reports maintained by the Army for each of its
three bases.
Reportedly due to the transient nature of the military population, there is a
significant use of indoor insecticides, primarily for cockroach control. These indoor1
uses occur year-round, flic lar gest outdoor use of pesticides is t he applicat ion of
2,4-1) for dandelion eont rol. <)nl\ one of the five facilities used a "weed and Iced"
formulation in lieu of 2,4-1). \pplicators report the use of t he low-volat ile ester
formulat ion
-------
of '2,4-1) tor the first time in 1084. The most common complaint was that the amine
salts of 2,4-1), when applied in accordance with the label directions, were not
effective due to cold soil conditions. Outdoor insecticide use was primarily aimed
at aphid and wasp, bee or hornet control. Other indoor- and outdoor pests are
treated on an as needed basis. Because of differences in the various bases methods
of reporting' quantities of pesticides used and their' concentrations, the following
total use numbers should be considered close approximations. An attempt was made
to clarify reporting methods and data with base personnel, but, at this point, not all
questions have been resolved.
Pesticide use from all Alaska military bases totaled 4,~)()ti gallons and 3,851!)
pounds. Additionally, 27,301 pounds of Weed and Feed and 14,000 of Animate were
also utilized. Reportedly, 1,800 gallons of a pesticide listed only as Zcp was
applied. This value was not included in the total due to the questionable nature of
such a large volume of use.
Golf Course Uses
Alaska currently has five active golf courses, located in the southeentral and
northern regions of the State. Of these, two are located on military bases, Moose
Run on Fort Richardson and I'.agle (Hen on Flmcndorf Air Force Rase.
Due to the short season and colder' Alaskan climate, pesticide use at these
facilities appears to be minimal. However, as the courses mature, pesticide use will
likely increase. < airrent lyone facility reported use of'approximately 8 gallons of
Tersan for fungus control and :} gallons of /.inch for slime mold control. These
quantities are based on the assumption that each of these substances is applied an
average of once per year on the greens. The fair ways are not treated. A second
golf course anticipated treatment for slime mold and fungus within a couple of
years. A third golf course manager- reported minimal use of Roundup for minor
vegetation control in and around new greens. Several golf course managers reported
an aphid problem, hut only one used any pesticide for control. This was a general
use pesticide manufactured by Ortho. Lastly, pesticide use for one of the military
golf courses was included in use reports for the entire base and could not he
segregated. Fertilizers were reportedly used on several of the golf courses, but t hc\
did not contain any pesticides.
It has also been noted that a new golf course is being planned by the
Municipality of Anchorage for1 opening' in 15)87. This may slightly increase the
quantities of pesticides used by this industry.
?ry Use
There are approximately o!) active fish hatcheries in the State of Alaska, all
involved in the spawning and rearing of salmonid species. Of these :}!• facilities,
seventeen (I 7) are operated under' the auspices of the Alaska Department of Fish
and (lame (AI)F(i). The remainder are
User Groups
is
10
-------
privately operated on a non-profit basis.
Species propagated in these hatcheries are primarily Pink and Chain Salmon,
with Sockeye, Chinook and Coho being raised in smaller quantities. The type of
pesticides used in these hatcheries is dependent on the salmonid species. The use of
pesticides is reportedly highest for hatcheries rearing Sockeye salmon, where
facilities must be kept completely sterile to minimize the risk of a devastating viral
infection.
Information on pesticides use for 1984 was obtained from the ADFC for the
hatchery programs they administer. Letters were sent out to twenty-three (23)
private hatcheries requesting' information on their pesticide use. To date seven
facilities have responded, one of which is not yet operational. Total pesticide use
within this industry is 170 pounds and gallons of chemical.
Certain pesticides are commonly used by most hatcheries in the State.
Formalin/Formaldehyde (37%) was used by 85% of the private hatchery operators
and most, if not all, of the State operated hatcheries. It is used for treating
parasites on hatchery fish, fungal infections on eggs, and disinfection.
Occasionally, a Formalin fog is used by ADFC. to fumigate the interior of a
hatchery building. A second pesticide commonly used by hatcheries is Chlorine
(Chlorox) or HTII. Approximately (>()% of private; hatcheries, as well as most of the
State operated facilities, utilize some form of chlorine. The chlorine is used as an
equipment disinfectant, for foot baths and occasionally to destroy disease infected
fish.
The other group of pesticides used in hatchery operations are iodine based
antiseptics, such as Argentine, Betadine, and Wescodyne. Approximately 85% of
private hatcheries use one of these chemicals.
ADIXi also reported minimal use of oxytetracyclene and Tricain Methane
Sulfonate during 1984.
All private hatcheries report mail ordering pesticides from a Seattle based
chemical company. The ADFC also reports purchase of a larger portion of
pesticides used from the same distributor.
User Groups
Mosquito Control Programs
As mentioned elsewhere in this report, mosquitoes are a problem for virtually
every Alaskan community. However, the manner in which coinmunities handle the
mosquit o nuisance varies. For the purpose's of this report, those communities that
utilize some type of area wide mosquito control are noted. Interest ingly enough,
this is a very small group relative to all the small communities within the State.
Communities that propose to initiate an area wide mosquito control program
must obtain a permit from the Alaska Department of Fnvironuient al Conservat ion.
Four communities, Calena, Fairbanks, Valdez, and Anderson, did spray during the
1984 calendar year. These cit ies used eit her1
41
-------
malathion or pyrethrins to control mosquitoes on over 8,000 acres. Two
communities used a total of 200 gallons of pyrethrins. The other two communities
used a total of 44 gallons of malathion (Cythion). All spraying was done from the
ground by either a fogging device or Ultra Low Volume (ULV) unit mounted on the
hack of pick-up trucks. Spraying generally occurs from late May to early
September, with the peak use in June and July. All communities reported spraying
approximately three times per week, with the exception of one that sprays on a
weekly or biweekly schedule.
The city governments report overwhelmingly favorable responses to the spray
programs. However, there are isolated incidents of residents protesting the
spraying, but by and large, the activity is applauded.
The trend towards community wide mosquito control spraying programs
appears to be on the upsurge. All of the communities that currently spray, report
that spraying activities will remain constant for the next few years or they have
plans to expand their programs. The city of Nenana, winch has not sprayed since
15)78, plans to initiate aerial application of malathion during 1985. Additionally, a
second community, McCrath, applied Bacillus thuringiensis din ing 1985 with some
apparent success. There is also a test project to control mosquitoes with the use of
liacillus thuringiensis in the kotxebue area which has been ongoing during 1984 and
1985. This project is discussed in more detail in the experimental use section of this
report.
Mi 11 working activities were identified as potential users of wood
preservatives. As such, an attempt was made to contact these facilities throughout
Alaska and quantify their pesticide use.
Letters were sent to six identified active millworking establishments, l our
facilities responded, and one additional letter was returned as undeliverahle. Of
these facilities, none reported any wood preservative or other pesticide use.
Commercial Pesticide Use
Comparatively speaking, Alaska does not have a large number of commercial
pesticide applicators doing business in the State. Letters were originally sent to all
certified pesticide applicators, both private and commercial. Of the total responses
in these two categories, 18 out of 114, or nearly I(>'%>, were from commercial
applicators. Of these, approximately half reported use during 1984, for a total of
approximately 30t> gallons and 1,1:?'? pounds of pesticides.
However, not all of the individuals listed as commercial applieat ors conduct
business in the true sense of the word. Some individuals are certified as commercial
applicators but only apply pesticides for their employers (not pest control
businesses) or privately. Using the Slate
Millwork Industry
Dser Groups
-------
certification mailing list, there was no way, in most instances, to identify a person's
affiliation with a business. Tins led to some duplication of effort in contacting
individuals.
In an attempt to quantify pesticide uses by commercial applicators in the
business of pest control, a second mailing was undertaken. Letters were sent to
fourteen commercial pesticide companies identified through the State certification
process and community telephone books. Nine of the commercial applicators in
business are located in Anchorage and a handful! of these dominate a large section
of the market in Anchorage and the other- communities they serve. In many
instances, several follow-up conversations were initiated with the larger businesses
to request response's to the original l(!tters. Regardless of this approach, responses
from this group were very low, with three businesses responding and one letter-
returned as undeliverable. The businesses that did respond were involved in outdoor
pest control only, and used a total of (io gallons of pesticides during 1984. All of the
substances used were insecticides applied primarily during the months of May, June,
July, and August. Disposal practices noted by these businesses were sicceptable.
Unfortunately, these responses are considered to represent a small fraction of the
total pesticide? use by commercial applicators in t he State;.
enance Use
Reindeer propagat ion in Alaska has he'en a stable? Alaskan industry sine*e'
approximately 1891. Currently, re;inde;e;r herds e*an he' found on the' Seward and
Baldwin Penninsulas and the' Aleutian, St. LawreMie-e, St. (ieorge, arid Nuriivak
Islands. The curre'nt re'inde;e;r population in the State' is approximately 20,000
animals.
Pest icide\s use'd in herd maintenaiu'e are» primarily for treat nuMit of warble' fly,
nasal hots, intestinal parasite's, and Rruccile)sis. Ben-anse' tlie'se' substance's are' use'd
oil animals dcsignaletl lor human e-oiisunipt ion, most of tlu; pe-st ie*ide;s use'el must be-
re'gistere-d by USI)\.
Ree-e'iitly, Ivarme'ctin was approved by USD A for use; on rtnndeer, partially
through the channels of the' IR-4 program. This substane-e; is used for treatment e>f
Hies and bots. Re;se;are*h is also etngenng to ele;vclop a lirucedlosis vae-e-ine; sine*e;
t raelit iemal e-at t le vaccinations do not e-ffeet ive-ly treat this dise;ase; in re;inde;e;r
populations.
l igure'S on tlu' ae-tual amount of pe'stie-icler use'd in this e-ategory sire; not
available-, although total quantities are likely very small.
Government Pesticide Use
(iove'rnme'iit use of pe'st ie*ide's on hoth a State' and IVderal le;ve'l is alme>st
none'xisle'nt in Alaska (cxe-ept ing military useis). This is significant because' a large'
pere-e'iitagc of land in Alaska is eit he>r Tede'rally or- St at e e>wne>el. This is pact ly due*
t o ne'gat ive puhlie-
is
User Groups
4:]
-------
perceptions of pesticide use in Alaska and partl.y due to specific policies developed
by involved agencies. On a State level, the previous (iovernor prohibited the use of
pesticides in an executive order dating hack to 1977. The current (Iovernor
continues to support this policy; therefore pesticides are rarely used by State
agencies. Use by the federal government reflects a similar history. because of
negative public opinion, as well as other factors, pesticide use in Alaska has never
been extensive. And with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 1084
requiring worst east; analysis of pesticide impacts prior to application, use has been
discontinued almost entirely. Therefore, the majority of pest ieide uses report ed by
this group were from cities and municipalities, hospitals, and public service
organizations (such as the Tanana Chiefs Council).
Agencies considered potential users of pesticides were contacted either by
telephone or letter to determine the extent of their pesticide use. Respondents
included school districts, cities and municipalities, the Public Health Service, Fish
and Came, U.S. l-'ish and Wildlife Service, State and Federal foresters, the
Department of Fnergy, and a correctional center as well as the other agencies noted
in the following discussion.
At the Federal level, the Forest Service was considered to be one of the
largest potential users. Individuals were contacted in the main offices in Anchorage
and Juneau, as well as district offices. Fight timber staff offices from the
southeastern part of Alaska, where the majority of the State's logging activities
occur, all reported no use of pesticides by the Forest Service for at least five years.
Prior to that time, they reported minimal use in some districts. The research
branch of the Forest Service is responsible for coordinat ing all pesticide use by the
agency or by private parties on Forest Service land. This includes use by Forest
Service land manager's and road construction and maintenance crews as well as small
private logging enterprises. They report no use since the late l!J7()'s except by the
nursery in Petersburg and some small experimental plots which are discussed
elsewhere in this report. Additionally, all wood preservat ives were collect cd from
the districts approximately three years ago and have not been used since. All
treated wood was purchased from out of slate.
Almost without exception, forest Service employees report ed t hat there is a
strong need for herbicide use in Alaska timber management. Alder and Salmonhcrry
are the main competitors for the desired crop production. Without herbicide use, it
reportedly takes 15-20 years for trees to overgrow the pest species, whereas, with
herbicide use, it takes only five years. Manual vegetation removal met hods cannot
be economically used to provide an adequate level of control. One Forest Service
employee estimated that 10,000 to :¦(),()()() acres of high value forest ry sit es never'
have been reforested because of herbicide use problems. The considered opinion is
that without access to herbicides, reforestation is not economical.
Although the Spruce Beetle has generated concern and does represent the
number one forestry and urban forestry insect post in the State, as a whole, insects
are not considered a major forestry problem in most of Alaska.
44
-------
The Rureau of I,and Management (HLM) reported no pesticide use in Alaska by
the agency, except for small quantities of insecticides used in coastal field camps
for mosquito control. Private entities with easements on BLM owned land must
obtain permits for application of pesticides from HLM. Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company, the management entity for the 900 mile long TransAlaska Pipeline, does
request herbicide use permits annually. Alyeska pesticide use is discussed in the
utility company portion of this report.
The National Park Service; reported no pesticide use in any of the 13 Alaskan
National Parks, monuments and preserves which cover approximately r>5 million
acres.
The Federal Aviation Administration also reported no pesticide use for airport
maintenance in lf)84 or any anticipated use in the future. However, there has been
both insecticide and herbicide use by FAA in the past, primarily for maintenance of
rural air-ports and runways. The agency has reportedly inventoried and disposed of
l)l)T which was widely used for mosquito control throughout Alaska.
Similarly, the Army Corp of Fngineers has not used pesticides in previous
years. However, the ag'ency is currently proposing herbicide use for vegetation
control and dike maintenance on the Chena River flood control project near
Fairbanks. The agency is proposing to test plot the three herbicides, hexazinone
(Velpar), ammonium sulfate (Animate \-NI), and glyphosate (Roundup) next year.
The effectiveness of these three substances will he evaluated and soil sampling,
persistence, mobility, and half-life testing will be completed. Full scale
application, if considered feasible, would be conducted sometime after l!)8<>.
The Public Health Service (PIIS) docs not utilize any pesticides in Alaska. PIIS
personnel do receive training and certification from ADFC in order- to he prepared
for and to be able to recognize pesticide incidents if they should occur. This is
normally the same situation with Agents of the Cooperative Fxtcnsion Service.
The Plant Protection and Quarantine Divison of the Department of Agriculture
used aerosol resmethrin for aircraft disinfection. The amount utilized annually
remains fairly constant, with 4.7 gallons applied during 1984. This agency also
participates in a National (iypsy Moth Surveillance program. Pheromone traps are
set in several locat ions t hroughout the State to detect any (iypsy Moth activity. To
date none has been found.
The only pesticide list; by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is discussed under
the experimental use section of this report.
At the state level, personnel from both Southcentral and Southeast offices
reported that the Divison of Forestry utilized no pesticides previous to and including
l!)84. However, tin; agency indicated there would he increased herbicide list; as a
vegetation management tool. During the 1085 season, the agency planned on
utilizing glyphosate on some test plots. This proposed use is expected to expand
over tlx; next several years. As with other agencies, the State Division of Forestry
typically
4r»
-------
used management practices to deal with the Ambrosia Beetle.
The State Division of Agriculture also had 110 pesticide list;, although personnel
may oversee or recommend pesticides to farmers. Pesticide use by private farmers
is reported in the Agricultural section of this report.
Pesticide use hy the State Department of Transportation is discussed under the
Right of Way section of this report.
The Alaska Department of Fish and (iame reported pesticide use only for State
hatchery programs. Again, this use is discussed elsewhere in the report.
The State Department of Corrections did have some pesticide use, primarily
for insect and vegetation control associated with indoor and outdoor gardening
activities. The total acreage covered hy the pesticides used was approximately 2(>
acres, with 20 of these in potato production. The pesticides are purchased locally.
There was some pesticide use hy the forest Service nursery in Petersburg, the
IJSDA Plant Materials ('enter in Palmer, and the University of Alaska greenhouse in
Fairbanks. These uses are not experimental in nature. While there was a broad
range of pesticides used by this group, the total quantities of substances applied was
very small. The majority of pesticides used by this group are included in the
accompanying printout, but in souk1 instances the quantities are so small that they
are not specified. These are primarily substances used at the University greenhouse
and include Milban, Karat hane, Pentac, Resmethrin, Pietram, Benlate, Piperon,
Truban, Orthene, and triforine. Small quantities of pesticides were also used on
University horticultural crops. These include Pre merge, Temeran, l.orox, Caparol,
Atrizene, Treflan, Roundup, Triboul, Ventilate, Ronalan, and Lorsban.
Dser Groups
Private Pesticide Uses
When dealing with Alaskan private pesticide use on a general level, the State
can be divided into two regions: Southeast, and Soulhcent ral/Northern areas.
Furthermore, the Sout hcent ral/Nort hern areas should he separated into urban and
bush (rural) areas. In all of these categories there are both striking similarities and
differences with regard to pesticides needs and uses.
Probably the most common pest throughout Alaska is the mosquito. With '233
million acres of wetland area in the State, the potential problem is obvious.
However, the manner in which people and communities deal with mosquitoes varies
significantly. By I'm' tin; most common treatment, is personal use of pesticides.
Very few areas attempt to deal with this problem on a community wide basis, with
either aerial or land based treatment. Those that do are discussed elsewhere in this
report along with the quantity of pesticide applied.
4t>
-------
Because of Alaska's climate, the broad spectrum of insect pests that exist in
the contiguous United States and Hawaii are not found here. But there are some
specific problems that do affect large areas of the State.
There are 13 IISDA Extension Service offices in the State of Alaska. Agents in
each of these offices were contacted in person or by telephone. Household pests do
not appear to be a major problem in the State of Alaska. However, the area of the
State which has the most insect problems is Southeast Alaska, where termites and
ants are more prevalent. Chlordane is the pesticide used for these problems.
The most ubiquitous garden pest in the State is the root maggot. Diazanon is
the chemical of choice for treatment almost without exception. However, some
agents report a trend towards the trse of Lorshan. Aphids are also a very prevalent
problem in Southeentral Alaska. Malathion and Cygon 2E are very commonly used
to treat these pests. When spraying is conducted for the control of mosquitoes,
malathion and pyrethrin are the two substances used on a large scale basis.
Southeast Alaska has additional problems with slugs, fimgus, moss and various
blights. Due to the dry climate these problems are not as prevalent elsewhere in tin;
State. Slugs appear to be treated primarily with Deadline. Moss is treated with
copper sulfate products, arrd fungus and mold primarily with Maneb ;uid Zineb.
Weeds are a significant problem in Alaska, as elsewhere in the ll.S. What
appears to make Alaska's problems unique in this regard is the reported
ineffectiveness of herbicides in the colder' climate. Reaction to this by the
extension agents is varied. Some affirm that decreased effectiveness of the
herbicides is due to colder soils. It was rioted that the optimal soil temperature for
herbicide effectiveness is 70 degrees T, and Maska weed problems emerge when the
soils are 10 to 20 degrees lower than this. Other factors may be pll and soil organic
level differences. I'octol was noted for possible use on soils of 40-50 degrees I".
Other agents suggest that this decreased effectiveness may be due to inappropriate
and/or poor application timing. Currently, there are arguments that could support
each position; unfortunately, no firm data is available either way. Regardless, this
claim of ineffective herbicides often precipitates abuse of pesticides by homeowners
changing the quant it ies and timing of applications. Agents indicated that abuse of
pesticides by homeowners is one of their major concerns. There generally appeared
to be a lot of faith in the abilities of the larger farms and pest control operators,
although it was acknowledged that abuses also occur in this group. All agents report
that home gardening is on the rise in their areas, which gives additional weight to
the above mentioned concerns regarding individual gardener's. Historically, 2,4-1)
has been the most commonly used herbicide. The trend now, however, is for
increased use of glyphosate (Roundup) by a large and versatile segment of the
populat ion.
There were several common concerns among the Extension agents. Many
agents felt that additional general pesticide information, pesticide use, and
equipment calibration training should be ongoing throughout the State. Agents in
the agriculture community were especially concerned about poor equipment
(~alibrat ion and subsequent misapplication of |>est icidcs. It was noted that in many
instances there
47
-------
are blocked nozzles and no agitation. Other concerns wore the use of Canadian
labeled products in Alaska, such as Vita Vax, or the following of a Canadian label
rather than the U.S. label, such as with Cygon 2K. This issue is dealt with elsewhere
in this report. There is also not an extension service or University entomologist in
the State, which is considered a major void by many individuals.
The most common wood preservative used by the homeowner is
pentaehlorophenol. There are no wood treatment facilities in the State. As such,
construction lumber, etc. is either treated in the lower 48 states prior to purchase
or treated by the user in Alaska. Creosote is used to a lesser degree for treatment
of piling's, docks, and animal pens. There was no reported use of inorganic
arsenicals. One individual with horses estimates houses 10 gallons of creosote per1
year' for maintenance purposes on barns, fences, etc. lie stated that he knew of at
least 100 other individuals who had similar uses.
To deal with pesticide poisoning problems, an extension agent in Southeast
Alaska has developed an information packet describing proper pesticide application
techniques and cleaning practices. Emphasis is placed on the laundering of clothing
in the home environment.
User Groups
Experimental Use
Fxporimental use of pesticides in Alaska appears to be a growing activity
within the State. Primarily, this research is being done by the universities through
various programs and by State or federal agencies. Additionally, private groups or
corporations are involved in some State research projects.
Actual pesticide quantities used in experimental projects in the State for the
1984 calendar year are provided in this report. However, this discussion will address
experimental use before and after 1984 and research projects in an attempt to more
accurately define and illustrate trends and activities within the State.
The IR-4, or InterRegional Research Program, has been extensively used in
Alaska as a source of funding in the weed control area. Major experimentation has
already been completed in an attempt to develop adequate weed control techniques
for barley and rapeseed crops. Publicat ions ent it led "Post mergence Hroadleaf Weed
Control in Barley" and "An Evaluation of Herbicides for liroadleaf Weed Control in
Rapeseed" are currently available through the University of Alaska. (Research for
these studies was conducted 1981-1983 and 11)78-1982, respectively).
The IR-4 program is administered by Jeffrey Conn, State Liaison with the
University of Alaska-Fairbanks agricultural experiment station. The thrust of the
IR-4 program is to conduct research to gain information on toxicology, efficacy, and
other areas required by KPA to establish tolerance limits and register a product.
The IR-4 program basically provides subsidized registration on a national
48
-------
level lor minor crops because the costs of registration are too large for the
chemical manufacturer given the limited market for the pesticide. The IR.-4
program is jointly funded by LPA, FDA, SAMS and USDA-CSRS, and ARS.
To date, the IR-4 program in Alaska has concentrated on herbicides, with one
exception. The major IR-4 sponsored research programs initiated in Alaska, with
the goal of product registration, include the use of Treflan for weed control in
iiipeseed, and the use of Warbex/lvarmect in for insect control in commercial
reindeer herds. The Ivariuectin has been registered, but the Treflan has not. There
is a frustration on the part of Alaskan researchers that the United States prohibits
the use of Canadian data in the United States registration process. In fact, much of
the Canadian data is considered more applicable to the Alaskan climate than the
information generated in the lower 48 states. Concern was expressed that the
United States pesticide industry docs not understand Alaskan pesticide needs and is
apprehensive of Alaskan users.
There have been research projects started under the IR-4 program which were
later assumed by the chemical manufactures. An example of this is the use of Kerb
for foxtail barley control. It is the number one weed in pastures and hay I and in
Alaska and is also a problem in Montana and Wyoming, liecause of the potential for
a commercial market for Kerb beyond Alaska, the manufacturer has now taken over
the registration process.
The University weed science program also provides for herbicide screening to
determine the most effective pesticides for Alaska which can be used in accordance
with the existing labels.
The Cooperative Lxt ension Service, also a part of USDA, has the role of
disseminating information, generally completed by other research entities, to the
public. I lowever, on occasion, t he I-xt ension Service may become involved in small
research projects, which arc generally orchestrated by the local extension agent,
l or instance, in l!)8o one extension agent participated in a small herbicide? weed
control project in I'almer, in response to complaints by farmers that herbicides,
when used in accordance with the manufactures label, are not effective in Alaska.
U.S. Forest Service - State and Private Forestry
The USI'S conducted one experimental project involving pestieides during
1984. Monosodium Methane Arsenate (MSMA), marketed under the trade name
(ilowon by l.aters Chemical Ltd. of Canada, was used as a toxicant in a lethal trap
tree test. This substance; is resist ere >el in the U.S. but not for use on Hark Bee»tle,
the? target pe?st in this instance. The' material was applied with a squeev.e bottle? to
twenty tre'e?s over a '2-o acre are>a. Approximately 100 grams of active' ingre?die?nt
was use?d on this project. During 15)8;) the'
4f)
-------
project will be expanded lo determine if let lull traps can he effectively used to
reduce beetle populations.
The forest Service appears to be fairly active in pesticide research, initiating'
projects 011 an annual basis. The primary intent of this research is to obtain data
concerning efficacy and timing for distribution to potential users. In 1983 I'acillus
thuringiensis (HT) was tested for its effectiveness in controlling large aspen tortrix.
Lindane and Sevin were also tested and compared for their effectiveness in
preventing spruce beetle attacks on white spruce. The use of 2% Sevin is being
tested as a replacement to Lindane. The Forest Service expects that use of Sevin
will protect trees for two years and is not as persistent as Lindane.
Throe other experimental projects are slated for the l!)8r> season. Orthene and
I'.ydrine will be tested as protective sprays for prevent ing < lie spruce bud midge from
infest ing white spruce terminals. Additionally, Ort bene, Sevin and two formulations
of liacillus will be used to determine effectiveness in controlling a two year
budworm. Lastly, glyphosate will be applied on 1/lM) acre plots to determine
efficacy and timing in Alaska. Three locations will be treated to determine
effectiveness on grasses, Sahiioiibeny and Alder during in id-sum mcr and fall
applications. During t he next live years, it is ant icipat ed that coordinated research
efforts between the Forest I'est Management Staff (iroupand the Forest Insect
Research Croupat Fairbanks will undertake more joint research st udies which will
be expanded into field tests. The Forest Service reports that generally no more than
I pound of act ive ingredient, or' in rare insl a rices "-•> gal Ions of concent rat e, will be
used per project.
Other
Occasionally, other agencies also become involved in Alaskan research
projects. During the summer of I'I8>, the Plant Materials Center from Madison,
Wisconsin, part of 11SI) \, is planning t o conduct a double diffusion t real ment study
lor wood preservation of Alaskan tree species (Sitka Spruce, Hemlock, and White
Spruce). A similar study was conducted out of the Palmer research center several
years ago. Test chemicals included copper sulfate, sodium arsenate, sodium
chromate, and sodium fluoride.
Additionally, in |f)8;> the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be experiment ing
wit 11 the list1 of Compound 1080 single lethal dose baits for effectiveness in the
eradication of Arctic Fox on kiska Island in the Aleutian Chain. This activity will
receive a Federal permit from FI'A.
University System Experimental Farms
The (Experimental farm at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks does have some
pest icide use. In l!)84 Prcmerge, Buetril, and Avenge were used in an attempt to
control wild oats in crops. Scncor is ntili/.ed for chiekweed control and °, l-l) and
Clean were used for control of broadleafs. (ilyphosate is being tested for its
effectiveness on quack grass.
Herbicides (2,4-1) and Lnide/Diphenamid) are also being t est ed on greenhouse
cold crops. If the market evolves, there is a potential for large scale use in this
area. Uses of insecticides in the University
• >()
-------
greenhouse are aimed at control rather than experimentation.
Private Uses
[Experimentation to determine the effectiveness ot' Bacillus thuringiensis lias
been eondueted near Kotzebue for the last three years. The substance, a larvieide,
has been applied at different times and temperatures to determine maximum
effect iveness.
A random review of pesticide products available in Alaskan communities has
been completed over the last nine months.
(ienerally speaking, the range of general classification pesticides available in
Alaskan communit ies is somewhat less than those available in the lower 48. This
situation can be attributed to a number of factors including a colder climate, and
significant difference in lifestyles. As out? might suspect, there is also wide
variability between pesticides available in urban versus rural Alaskan communities.
On the whole, rural or bush community pesticide stocks in stores consist
primarily of numerous mosquito repellents and devices, fly insecticides and traps,
rodent baits and traps, and indoor' house plant pesticides. All of these substances
are found in the general store. In rare instances, wood preservatives and marine
anti-louling paint were also available. There is little or no landscaping in these
rural communit ies so lawn care product stocks are almost nonexistent. While
gardening is on the rise, few pest icides are currently used in this area.
In urban Alaskan areas, the selection of pesticides, and the numbers of stores
distributing them increases dramatically. In these stores the inventory is expanded
to include more outdoor' pesticides for garden and landscaping use. However, even in
tin- ui'ban setting, garden and lawn/landscaping pesticide uses are minimal due to the
short growing season and limited species of pests.
Pesticide Availability In Alaskan Communities
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
Public and Special Merest Group Concerns
Pesticide use in Alaska is surprisingly controversial. Much of the debute
between use and noil-use over the last several years lias centered on the Alaska
Railroads (ARR) vegetation control program, tree spraying and associated drift
problems in Anchorage, and herbicide use by (iolden Valley lllect rie Association.
For tlu; most part, these arguments have been confined to the use of herbicides.
Use of insecticides does not seem to generate this same level of concern except
with tree spraying in Anchorage, perhaps because the quantities used are much less.
The arguments seem to focus on whether there is a dear need for-chemical
versus manual vegetation control. A significant portion of the general population,
including property owners adjacent to right of ways, and organized environmental
groups contend that manual methods of vegetation control are just as cost effective
-------
The Alaskan public has also echoed concerns which have been expressed on a
national level, pertaining to the entire pesticide registration process. I he small
number of pesticides which have gone through reregistration, generation of
registration data by private; corporations, and testing procedures have all been
questioned by individuals in the course of data collection for this profile.
The public also expressed concern regarding groundwater contamination by
pesticides, especially since the use of root injection or soil drenching techniques
may be on the rise.
Pesticide Disposal
In tlu; State of Alaska there do not appear to be any consistent or standard
procedures for disposal of empty pest icide containers or excess, illegal or unwanted
pesticides. There are a number of possible explanations for this which, realistically,
all contribute to the existing situation. Lack of adequate disposal sites for
unwanted pesticides is a major contributing factor. Locating and maintaining
secure, waste landfills in Alaska is a difficult problem due to high water tables and
little or no topsoil. Costs of shipping wsist.es to approved disposal sites in the lower
48 states arc considered prohibitive; for many, especially small, users. These all
contribute; to illegal or improper-disposal practices. Additionally, lack of awareness
or-education regarding proper disposal methods on the part of even certified
pesticide users is a problem.
Kighty-three applicators responded to the portion of the survey about disposal
practices. Of these, over half reported that they rinse or triple rinse pesticide
containers prior to disposal. Over half also reported that they utilized the local
dump or landfill to dispose of these empty containers. A large percentage of this
group also reported punct ur-ing or crushing containcrs prior to disposal.
Based on the above information, disposal of empty containers is generally
handled appropriately in the State. However, it should be noted that many small
communities have no approved landfill available to them. In this instance the
pesticide user- is laced with no ideal disposal options, and must determine the best
disposal option considering the situation.
Disposal of excess mixed pesticides, tank rinse water, or illegal pesticides are
probably the most significant disposal issues in the State. Responses from
applicators did not indicate any consistent way of dealing with this issue. Lleven of
the responses described inappropriate or highly questionable disposal practices
including watering of roadways for dust control, spraying in undeveloped areas, and
discharge into local sewer- systems and private; landfills. These inappropriate
elisposal prae-t ice>s e>ce*ur at the' private1 and commercial use;r letvels. (iovcrniuent,
utility companies and other related interests did not indie-ate* the same; lae*k of
proper elisposal prae-t ie-e-s. Ile>we'ver, erne; agency re;ports elisposing of excess mixe'd
pe'.st ie-ide's by digging tre-ne-he's in se-le'cte-d remote arenas and refilling the; trvnch after
dispe>sal is e-ennplet e. Ot hen- applieat e>rs
-------
(lid report using excess rinse w;«ter on the target area or holding rinse water for use
in mixing the next day. Only one applicator reported having a washing pad lor
equipment with an appropriate water collect ion system. This was a government user.
Ten of the respondents reported using the annual Hazardous Waste Cleanup
week (sponsored by ADLC and local municipalities) as the means of disposing of
unwanted excess pesticides. Drop off sites are maintained in Juneau, Anchorage and
Fairbanks for the disposal of small quantities of hazardous wastes, including
pesticides. The program has been operating since l!)8o, and is growing steadily.
Wastes such as ehlordane, dieldrin, arsenic acids, DD T, malat liion, paraldehyde and
2,4-1) have been turned in by private and government users. However, larger
generators may not use this service if they have more pesticides than can be
accepted. In this situation, it appears these wastes arc4 kept in storage at the
facilities indefinately. The potential quantity of pesticide waste lor' urban areas
such as Anchorage could be quite high. In Seattle, the City estimates 1 pounds of
waste per household. In Sacramento, this value is II pounds. Mused on these
figures, Anchorage could generate from :}!),()()() to 107,000 pounds of pesticide waste
annually.
The military, a large pesticide user in the State, has its own property disposal
system to deal with hazardous wastes, including pest icicles. These wastes ultimately
find their way to approved sites in the contiguous United States. The rederal
Aviation Administration has also encountered caches of DDT t hroughout the State
from past runway construction activities. These wastes have been, or will be,
shipped out of the State.
Environmental Monitoring
Knvironment al monit oring for pesticide residues and contamination in Alaska
has historically been a relatively small program. My far, the bulk of monitoring that
has been conducted has been done by the U.S. I'ish and Wildlife Service (IISFWS)
under both national and local monitoring programs. This section is intended to be a
summary of monit oring which has been completed in Alaska to date, or is current ly
planned. This sect ion does not include experiment al uses of pest icicles.
Under the National I'estieide Monitoring Plan, fish t issue analyses have been
rout inely conduct ed on species from both the Chena River, near Fairbanks and the
Kenai River, near Soldotna (National Trend Analysis Data). The analysis were
conducted for organochlorine residues. This data is available from |!)t;!l-I!)78 and
l!)82. It is anticipated that additional sample's will be collected during the upcoming
year. Results of this study show that relatively low concent rut ions of DDT and its
metabolites were present. ()t her suhst ances were for the most part nonexistent,
with the exception of toxophene, which was identified in several of the Kenai River
fish.
Other- sampling projects USI WS has been involved in include fish tissue
analysis from Wasilla Lake and the Delta Clearwater River' and Lake
• ) I
-------
System for Dinoseh, Banvel and 2,4-1) in 1077. This sampling program was expanded
in 1978 to include Badger Slough, a tributary to the Cheua River near Fairbanks, and
Cabin Lake. Resident birds from t he Delta agricultural area were also collected for
analysis. On an ongoing basis, contaminant analysis has been performed on dead
bald eagles.
Since 1969, USFWS has sampled for DDT in Pereguine laleon populations on
several interior Alaska river* drainages on a sporadic basis. Beginning in 1981 a
program was established for continued monitoring of this species on the Yukon and
Colville Rivers. In 1980 a small sample of wild Bison in tin; Delta agriculture area
were analyzed for agricultural pesticides. Additional sampling of fish and wildlife in
the Delta area was conducted in 1982. Of these, only the longnose Sucker showed
any detectable levels of organochlorines.
In the case of the Delta agricultural project, other agencies have also been
involved in the ongoing monitoring programs. A cooperative monitoring study has
been organized between the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation,
Alaska Department of fish and Came, and U.S. Pish and Wildlife Service to
determine possible runoff effects of pesticides into the Delta Clearwater drainage.
Sampling efforts were completed in 1983 and 1984.
Additional studies conducted in 1982 by U.S. I'ish and Wildlife Service include
analysis for toxophene and other organochlorines from Peterson Creek in .Juneau.
Peterson Lake was I rented wit h toxophene in 1967 by Al)t'&(i for* fish removal. A
walrus contaminant program was initiated in 1982. Walrus blubber from various
native villages was analyzed for fourteen organochlorines, including ten pesticides.
Two pesticides, DDT and dicldrin, were reported present.
The extent of other research and monitoring pertaining to pesticides in Alaska
is relat ively small and appears to he centered primarily around agricultural uses of
pesticides. In 1981 the University of Alaska publication, Agrohorealis, printed a
piece entit led "Persistence and Movement of Agricultural Chemicals in Soils in the
Delta-Clearwater area." Both 2,4-1) and Treflan were addressed in this report.
Also in 1981, the results of a small scale study on "The Persistence of the Herbicides
2,4-1) and Piclorani in Alaskan Soils North of Latitude tit) " was published in
A^roborealis. Other1 than the reports generated from the experiment al use of
pesticides discussed elsewhere in this document, these studies appear to be the
extent of monitoring completed in the State of Alaska.
Many of the above mentioned monitoring programs arc ongoing. In addition, in
1985 the Environmental Protection Agency conducted groundwater monitoring for
pesticides at eight sites in Alaska. Sampling locations were selected in Palmer and
Wasilla in primarily agricultural areas. One sample was also collected near'a
landfill and one near t lit' Alaska Railroad r ight of way.
Last ly, during I98S the Alaska Health Project conducted a literature search
and completed the Alaska Hazardous Materials Incidents Survey. This document
covins the period of July I, 1983 to .June 30, 1984.
-------
Findings indicated only one pesticide incident out of 1330 incidents reported.
However, some sources of pesticide incident information, such as ADKC, were not
utilized. Details of these studies can he obtained through the responsible agency.
While conducting the survey and compiling this report, several incidents of
pesticide misuse have been revealed.
One of the most blatant pesticide misapplications is an ongoing problem which
occurs primarily in the Anchorage area. Aphids are a major insect pest on
residential birch trees. Spraying wit It malathion, Isotox or Metasystox has
traditionally been the method of treatment for (best) pests. However, as individual
property owners have become more educated regarding pesticide use and more
sensitive to the problems of drift, there lias been a large scale move to identify
other treatment methods. One method which appears to be very popular* is to [taint
the concentrated form of C.ygon 2K onto the tree trunk. Unfortunately, this
substance is not registered for this use in the United States, although this is a legal
applicat ion in Canada. A large? commercial greenhouse; in the Anchorage area has
reportedly been verbally recommending the1 use of the' Canadian applie-ation for
several ye»ars. On visiting this greenhouse* in August, a sign (which was removed at
our insist eMiee) was found hung above the* Cygon 2K whie-b provided dirce't ions for use
under the* Canadian label. Additionally, this method was elescribed in a garde'ii
column in the local newspaper*.
As noted e'arlieM', the* farmers in the Delta Agricult ur al area are close- to
Canada, and ofte-n pure-base1 goods via this mute. Reporte'dly, farmers have
purchased a Canadian seed treatnieni product marketed as Vita Va\. One
commercial shipment of Vita Vax was retained by U.S. Customs and ultimately
shipped bae'k te> Canada. Ilowe'ver, shipments in private* vehie*les (i.e., pickup true-ks)
would be> metre* likely te> pass customs unne>tie-ed. The concerns with regard to
impeM'tation of Canadian-labe-led pe*st ieides go be-yond the illegality of t his aeM ivity.
Heeause* the* substanees in que'Stieui are not registered fe>r use* in the* United States,
there? are ne> records on file which dise lose* pejtential health effects and
environmeuttal harm, e*sse*nt ial if an accident or* misapplies! ion oce-ur*s.
Consequent ly, rece)tnmend(d treat me*nt or* e-le>an-up proeedures would not be* resdily
avaialable?.
In l!)84 tlcre were several reported instances of pe*st icide misapplies! ion
asseciated with e-euimiercial ae*t ivit ie>s. Tlcse* included t he* apparent fatal pestie-ide
poisoning of a de>g frenn a rode;nt ie-ide1, re*pe)rts of illne*ss from exeessive* drift
asseciated with tree1 spraying, and an apparent illnesse*s due to menu fogging and
indoor pe'stie-ide*
-------
application for control of plant pests. In the previous year there was an incident
involving the spraying of penta which resulted in apparent pesticide poisoning
symptoms by several Lower Kuskokwim School District employees.
According to Kxtension Service Agents and other individuals closely involved
with private pesticide users, there is a lot of misuse in commercial pesticide use.
Individuals may operate under the philosophy that if a little is good, more is better,
which results in over-application. A second problem is poor timing of the application
which results in ineffective treatment of the target pest and, again, increased
pesticide use.
Another prevalent misuse occurs in bush communities in Alaska where
mosquitoes are a major pest. Residents burn "mosquito coils" almost constantly
indoors in closed environments. The label directions on (best; substances specifically
prohibit indoor use in restaurants and other enclosed areas. Public Health Service
personnel are concerned with potential health effects resulting from this activity,
and yet then; is no apparent way of stopping this use in these remote locations.
Individuals expressed a need for more accessible and understandable pesticide
information. Some have asked for access to and explanat ions of FPA registration
data and information on the process by which registration decisions are made at the
federal level.
Users of herbicides want cold climate research conducted to ident ify effect ive
herbicides for use in Alaska. In addition, application rates and timing need to he
described for Alaskan conditions.
Foresters, utility companies, and road maintenance personnel want the ability
to utilize herbicides in situations where they judge other methods to be unsuitable.
The contention is that current methods, or lack of control altogether, which is
brought on by the no herbicide policies, costs the State and its residents significant
sums of money and cannot continue. In situations where there is downed or dying
timber, the threat of Hark Beetle infestation is very real, and historical control
techniques are not always effective. Research to identify alternate methods of
dealing with this problem, such as use of MSMA in lethal trap trees or pheromone
traps, must cont inue.
Applicators, extension agents, government employees and private cit ixens
have all expressed a need for additional and ongoing pesticide training. This request
was reflected in responses to letters, telephone calls and private conversations.
Longer and more struct tired training courses, hands-on training experiences, better
learning aids, and increased dissemination of information were all requested.
Lxtension Agents and other individuals indicated that farmers should be
provided additional training in pesticide application practices.
o7
------- |