Draft Product Stewardship Action Plan

For Pesticides

December 5, 2000

Summary

Pesticides can pose a risk to humans and the environment, are used and disposed of in significant quantities, and are very expensive to collect and dispose. This Draft Action Plan outlines possible strategies for state and local governments to pursue in order to achieve increased manufacturer responsibility for full life-cycle costs of pesticide products.

Table of Contents

Why Pesticides Are a Waste Management Problem…………………………………..……2

.

Product Stewardship Goal……………………………………………………….….…..…..2
Issues for Negotiation………………………………………………………….…...……….2
Appendix A:Background………………………………………………….……..….…….4

Appendix B:Opportunities and Barriers to Implementing Product Stewardship

Programs …………………………………………………………….……...6

Appendix C: Survey of Product Stewardship-Related Activities…………………………8

Appendix D:Major Industry Players…………………………………………………….12

Appendix E:Outstanding Research Questions………………………………………..…12

Why Pesticides are a Waste Management Problem

Pesticides can pose a risk to humans and the environment, are used and disposed of in significant quantities, and are very expensive to collect and dispose. Currently, there is a lack of collection programs due to the high costs of collection and the lack of funding to pay for these collections. There are numerous opportunities for pesticide manufacturers, retailers, and other industry stakeholders to join with government to reduce the impacts from pesticide manufacture, use, storage, and disposal.

Product Stewardship Goal

To reduce risks to human health and the environment from pesticide exposure through better education of consumers, the promotion of alternatives, and removal of waste pesticides and containers from the waste stream through proper collection and disposal without relying primarily on government funding. Negotiate an agreement with industry that results in manufacturers assuming a share of the financial and/or physical responsibility for the product at the end of life.

Issues for Negotiation

  • Formulation: [to be added]
  • Reuse: Develop national standards for the reuse of pesticides that includes, among other things, provisions for products being identified for age, content, and registration status. Such standards will include recommendations for proper labeling and consider issues of liability.
  • Storage: Develop national standards for the proper storage of pesticides.
  • Transportation: Develop national standards for transportation of unusable/unwanted pesticides to collection sites.
  • Consumer Education: Develop a joint marketing strategy to increase awareness among consumers of the importance of using pesticides responsibly according to label directions, and of the connection between pesticide misuse, risks to human health, and the contamination of environmental resources and drinking water supplies. Provide household consumers with better information on Integrated Pest Management, how to choose types and amounts of product needed for a given job, and how to choose lower risk pesticide products. Instruct consumers on how to properly store pesticide products.
  • Consumer Safety: Develop a timeframe for manufacturers to place childproof caps on all pesticide products and include clear storage information on the labels.
  • Labeling: All pesticides should be labeled to instruct users to contact their state and local waste management agency for proper disposal instructions.
  • Disclosure: Develop a timeframe for manufacturers to disclose the inert ingredients in their products.
  • Collection and Disposal: Provide businesses and residents with convenient, accessible, efficient collection options for pesticides and empty containers sufficient to meet a negotiated set of recovery rates and timelines, which may differ by pesticide type and user. Education programs and program evaluation mechanisms must also be a part of any collection option. Options may include:
  • Manufacturers set up their own recovery programs (e.g., permanent collection centers or other convenient opportunities) and take full financial responsibility for reuse and recycling.
  • collective responsibility
  • individual responsibility
  • Municipalities, retailers, charitable organizations, and/or other entities collect discarded pesticides, and manufacturers take responsibility for [any further] management costs.
  • collective responsibility
  • individual responsibility
  • Funding Options

(1)Manufacturers internalize management costs into the price of the product.

  • Funds are remitted to manufacturers (collectively or individually) to pay for recovery and management costs (cost invisible to consumer).

(2) Management fee on pesticides at the point of sale with fee remitted to industry (or government) to cover management costs (cost visible to consumer at point of purchase.).

(3) Management fee at the point of disposal.

(4)Deposit/refund system with revenue going to industry (or government) to fund management costs.

Appendix A

Background

  • Pesticide Types: There are five common types of pesticide products:
  • Insecticides – used to kill insects.
  • Fungicides – used to kill or otherwise inhibit the growth of organisms that cause mold, rot, and plant diseases.
  • Rodenticides – used to kill rats, mice, rabbits, and related animals.
  • Herbicides – used to kill or inhibit the growth of weeds, grass, or plants.
  • Antimicrobials – used to kill germs and other microorganisms. Such products include swimming pool algaecides and household disinfectants.
  • Other types of pesticides include repellents, desiccants, plant and insect growth regulators, and as ingredients in paint.
  • Pesticide Use Classification: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies all pesticides into two use categories:
  • General Use Pesticides – Pesticide products that may be purchased and used without any federal license or certification. However, most states require licenses for commercial applications of all pesticides, including general use pesticides.
  • Restricted Use Pesticides – Pesticide products which, under federal law, require a special certification to buy or use because of a particular hazard or risk posed by the product.
  • Pesticide Users: There are three basic types of pesticide users, from which unused pesticides are generated: (1) Agricultural (2) Residential; and (3) Commercial/ Institutional. According to the U.S. EPA, the overall total U.S use for all types of pesticide active ingredients is about 4.6 billion pounds per year[1].
  • Agricultural:Use of conventional[2] pesticides on farms was 770 million pounds of active ingredient in 1997.
  • Residential: It is estimated that 70 million households purchase 425 million pounds of home and garden pesticides each year in the United States (approximately 6 pounds per
    household).Use of conventional pesticides by homeowners is estimated at 76 million pounds of active ingredient for 1997 by EPA.
  • Commercial/Institutional: Conventional pesticide use in this category totaled 129 million pounds of active ingredient in 1997.
  • Other (unconventional) pesticide use figures in 1997 include 0.66 billion pounds for wood preservatives; 0.27 billion pounds for specialty biocides; and nearly 2.5 billion pounds for chlorine/ hypochlorites.
  • Health and Environmental Concerns:
  • Health Concerns: Pesticides are one of the more toxic products used and stored in our homes and businesses. In 1995, an estimated 79,000 children were involved in household pesticide-related exposure or poisonings, 22% of which were due to disinfectants[3]. Most poisoning incidents related to household pesticides in the United States are due to disinfectants. Long-term storage of unusable/unwanted pesticides can pose risks to the farmer as well as contaminate the farm as the containers degrade and pesticides are released.
  • Environmental Concerns: A recent United States Geological Survey study showed that pesticides are widespread in streams and groundwater sampled within the urban and agricultural areas of the nation. While average concentrations in wells and streams rarely exceeded standards and guidelines established to protect human health, at least one pesticide was found in almost every water and fish sample collected from streams and in about one-half of all wells sampled. About half of the wells with detected pesticides actually contained two or more pesticides.[4] Government scientists in King County, Washington, found five pesticides in local urban streams at levels exceeding standards set by the National Academy of Sciences to protect aquatic life. Residents purchased and applied four of these five pesticides. It is important to note that, currently, standards and guidelines exist only for a limited number of pesticides and do not account for mixtures of pesticides or pesticide metabolites
  • Quantities Sold, Used, Stored, and Disposed: Pesticides represent a significant percentage of the toxic portion of the waste stream. Use of conventional pesticides by agricultural operations was 806 million pounds by active ingredient in 1996 alone. According to an October 2000 EPA draft report, the total amount of pesticides collected by all states in Clean Sweep collection events since 1986 to date has been 22 million pounds. EPA estimates that home and garden uses of pesticides in the U.S. totaled 136 million pounds of pesticide active ingredientin 1997. (Home and garden pesticides tend to be less than 10% active ingredient.)
  • Residential: It is estimated that 70 million households purchase 425 million pounds of home and garden pesticides each year in the United States (approximately 6 pounds per household). In King County, Washington, pesticides comprise about 5 percent of the waste stream received at local hazardous waste sites, but 25 percent of the disposal costs due to the need to lab pack and ship to special landfills.
  • Agricultural: EPA estimates that agricultural uses of all pesticides in the U.S. totaled 944 million pounds of active ingredient in 1997.
  • Commercial/Institutional: EPA estimates that industrial, commercial, and governmental uses of all pesticides in the U.S. totaled 151 million pounds of active ingredient in 1997. Of Massachusetts’ 6,600 licensed pesticide applicators, Clean Sweep programs in 1998 and 1999 included 200 participants that brought in 60,000 pounds of unwanted and/or unregistered pesticides. Vermont has collected over 70,000 pounds of pesticides. from 1991-2000, and the annual amount collected continues to grow.
  • Disposal Cost: The cost to dispose of pesticides is significant, and most products cost less to buy than dispose. For example, in Massachusetts and Vermont, it costs $220 to dispose of a 55-gallon drum of most pesticides. For smaller quantities, the cost is $9 per gallon and $1.35 per pound. For pesticides that serve as a pre-cursor to dioxins when incinerated the cost is greater, at $12 per pound. Proper disposal of chemicals avoids expensive penalties for local and state waste management agencies. Local governments can face huge federal fines if their landfills are contaminated with chemicals such as household and garden pesticides. Thirteen communities in Southern California were recently ordered to spend over $32 million to clean up a contaminated landfill.

Appendix B

Opportunities and Barriers to Implementing Product Stewardship Programs

  • Variations in Risk:The number and variety of pesticide products makes a generic risk management approach difficult. In Massachusetts alone, there are 4,500 registered pesticides, each specified for a different use and, therefore, each has a different degree of risk associated with it. Concentrated pesticides are a greater risk to use than ready-to-use formulas. Significant quantities of out-of-date and banned pesticides are received at local hazardous waste collection sites, representing the greatest risk to consumers.
  • Container Labeling: Labels on pesticide products for use by consumers, which are governed by the U.S. EPA, currently instruct consumers to wrap left-over pesticides in newspaper and dispose of them in the garbage. This often contradicts state and local government policies and, at times, regulations. This current practice causes greater health and environmental risks due to the potential for accidental exposure to homeowners, trash haulers, landfill attendants, and others. Similar problems exist with labels on pesticide products that are used by agricultural, commercial, and municipal/institutional applicators. These labels may have disposal language that refers to local or state regulations but have no specific disposal directions.
  • Insufficient Collection Infrastructure:
  • Residential: In 1997, there were 442 permanent residential collection programs and 3,455 household hazardous materials collection events sponsored by local governments. Although this number has increased in the past three years, a significant number of communities do not offer residents or businesses the opportunity to dispose of their pesticides in a safe manner due to the cost of collection.
  • Commercial: According to a draft October 26, 2000 EPA profile, 21 states hold permanent collection programs, not all of which can cover the full cost of the pesticide disposal need. To date almost 22 million pounds of pesticides have been collected in state pesticide collection programs. Most of those states have adopted the universal waste rule. The rest of the states either hold no collection programs or intermittent collection programs. Many of the state sponsored programs only allow participation from the agricultural community.
  • Municipal/Institutional: In Massachusetts, a state contract for hazardous waste removal is currently in effect for state and municipal entities. It is unclear if the prices charged through this contract are sufficiently low enough for full participation.
  • Lack of Reuse Potential: There are a number of barriers to having sponsored exchange programs for pesticides. Barriers include: ensuring the product in the container is what the label states, ensuring the product exchanged is currently registered, and ensuring that the product has not broken down chemically due to poor storage or stability. King County, Washington, creates a list of pesticides that it doesn’t want people to use or reuse. These include pesticides on its Tier 1 list of most hazardous pesticides (see and pesticides that are found at high levels in local streams.
  • Lack of Container Collection Opportunities: Due to the lack of collection programs for empty pesticide containers, most are thrown out in the trash, adding to the solid waste disposal burden. While container recycling programs are a relatively low cost option for managing a waste stream, their success hinges on a number of factors, not least the willingness of local collection centers to participate and inspect containers. Many municipalities and states do not have the resources to make this happen. While an industry group, the Agricultural Container Research Council (ACRC), will properly dispose of triple rinsed agricultural pesticide containers once they are collected and consolidated, most municipalities and states do not have the resources to make this happen. Pesticide managers are also looking for a way to recycle these containers, especially plastics. Homeowner plastic containers are not always compatible with commercial jugs, making them difficult to triple rinse and recycle. In addition, program managers often do not want to recycle pesticide containers because of concerns over remanufactured uses, whereas commercial jugs go right back into new pesticide jugs.
  • Lack of Coordinated Regulations Covering Transportation: U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations inhibit the transport of pesticides to proper collection locations. While the Universal Waste Rule removes the need for manifesting of pesticides under hazardous waste regulations, compliance with DOT Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations is still required for transporting pesticides on roads. While these regulations have not caused any major problems to date, the trend towards permanent regional collection facilities will require a clear and consistent national approach towards this issue.
  • Sales Packaging Practices: Company sales practices price large quantities of a product at only a slightly higher cost than the smallest quantity. This practice often results in left-over pesticides requiring disposal.
  • Lack of Education
  • Residential: Household consumers lack information on selecting the appropriate pesticide for the job, as well as purchasing the right quantities. There is a lack of information available to help consumers identify pests and different methods of pest control, include integrated pest management. In addition, people are reluctant to use alternatives because they don’t think they will work, or they will take too long to be effective, or they don’t know how to use alternatives properly.
  • Agriculture, Commercial, Municipal/Institutional: Most pesticide users are educated in the proper selection and use of pesticides. However, some may be unaware of the potential impacts (human health, environmental, economic) that are associated with long-term storage and disposal of unusable/unwanted pesticides.
  • Product Revisions and Cancellations: EPA continually revises its list of registered pesticides and uses of these pesticides. Product registrations may be suspended, cancelled, and phased out to protect public health and the environment from undue risk. This practice can create a significant waste disposal problem. By 2006, EPA must review the safety of all existing pesticide tolerances(maximum residue limits) that were in effect when the Food Quality Protection Act, FQPA was passed five years ago. The law requires EPA to place the highest priority for tolerance reassessment on pesticides that appear to pose the greatest risk. In 1998, EPA accepted voluntary cancellations of many of the most significant food crop uses of methyl parathion. In 1999, EPA and the manufacturer of the pesticide Dursban, the most widely used household pesticide produced in the U.S, agreed to eliminate its use for nearly all household purposes and to move to significantly reduce residues of it on several foods regularly eaten by children.
  • Dioxin Disposal: Currently, only one hazardous waste facility, located in Aptus-Coffeyville in Kansas, is permitted to accept pesticides, which serve as pre-cursors to dioxins. The expected closure of the facility, which is owned by Safety Kleen, at the end of 2000 is likely to present problems for pesticide collection programs.

Appendix C

Survey of Product Stewardship-Related Activities

Government Activities

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste: In 1995, EPA issued its Universal Waste Rule, which reduced the regulatory burden, and cost, for collecting and managing waste pesticides, mercury thermometers, and hazardous waste batteries. To date, 35 states have EPA authorization to regulate pesticides under the Universal Waste Rule.
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides: On June 14, 2000, EPA issued a Draft Pesticide Registration Notice, which proposes to change pesticide container label language to provide greater control to state and local officials. The draft would direct consumers to local waste management officials for disposal instructions, or to a toll-free telephone hotline. EPA received over 700 support letters from state and local government officials, an effort coordinated by the North American Hazardous Materials Management Association. EPA is expected to issue the final notice shortly. EPA also leads an ongoing Consumer Labeling Initiative, which is a voluntary cooperative project among EPA, other federal and state agencies, industry, and private groups to study, gather information, and evaluate the labels on consumer products with the goal of improving those labels.
  • State Efforts on Pesticide Transport: The approaches taken by states to address the effect of DOT regulations on pesticide collection programs differ considerably. The Massachusetts Pesticide Bureau developed an agreement with the State Police that the police would refrain from random road-side inspections of carriers participating in this event. In North Carolina and the Erie County region of New York State, temporary waivers from DOT regulations were secured. In Maine participants register their inventories with the Board of Pesticide Control, which then issues them DOT shipping papers. In Vermont, the Department of Agriculture considers the pesticides to be a waste only when the farmer reaches the disposal site. In Pennsylvania the issue is avoided by providing a pick-up service at each farm so the farmer does not have to transport the pesticides at all.
  • Massachusetts: In 1996, Massachusetts became one of the first states to retain EPA authorization to manage pesticides and mercury products under the Universal Waste Rule. That same year, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs issued its first Plan for Managing Hazardous Materials from Households and Small Businesses, which outlined a strategy for collecting pesticides and other toxic materials at local, permanent collection centers, or at small regional centers. In 2000, Massachusetts passed legislation that greatly limits the types of pesticides that may be used in schools, daycare centers, and school-age childcare programs, and on school property. Massachusetts also has a statewide collection contract for ongoing collection of pesticides from residential and commercial sources. Massachusetts is also developing a comprehensive pesticide use reporting system to collect and report information on the use of pesticides in each major category of use, including homeowners.
  • Washington: The Washington State Department of Agriculture collects leftover and waste pesticides from commercial, government, and agricultural sources. Millions of pounds of unwanted pesticides are collected and disposed of properly every year.
  • Vermont: Vermont has developed a homeowner education program, a collection program for unwanted/cancelled pesticide collection and disposal, and a training program for pesticide dealers to attend trainings to learn more about IPM, and to encourage the use of least toxic alternatives. The state also airs Public Service Announcements annually on IPM, and the safe use of pesticides.

Florida: The 2000 Florida Legislature authorized the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to partner with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs (DACS) funding of $300,000 for a Cleansweep pesticide collection. Cleansweep will cover seven counties in Central Florida during December of 2000. Next year additional funding will be requested for entire state coverage. DEP and DACS were unsuccessful in finding any interest from the pesticide manufacturing industry to help fund this effort.

  • All states have integrated pest management (IPM) programs and Pesticide Applicator Training Programs that provide education and training for commercial and agricultural pesticide applicators. These programs are typically not available for residential and municipal/institutional applicators. All states also have licensing requirements for both commercial and agricultural pesticide applicators.

Industry Activities

  • Container Recycling: ACRC facilitates the operation of agricultural pesticide container recycling programs. Empty triple-rinsed pesticide containers are collected at no cost to participants and recycled into valuable end uses such as jugs for agrochemical, fuel, industrial pallets, construction site mats, speed bumps, fence posts, hazardous waste drums, and commercial truck/manure spreader deck boards. Municipalities must pay for collection.
  • Buy Back Programs: Some manufacturers have instituted buy-back programs for commercial pesticides. Under such programs, farmers and other users may return unused product to dealers at the end of a season for a refund.

Appendix D

Major Industry Players

  • American Crop Protection Association (ACPA)
  • Chemical Specialty Manufacturers Association (CSMA)
  • Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment
  • Farm Bureau
  • Retailers
  • Ortho
  • Monsanto
  • Bayer
  • Clorox (indoor pesticides only)
  • Retailers (Wilbur-Ellis)

Appendix E