Treatment and Disposal of Pesticide Wastes - ACS Publications

1 Regulation of Pesticide Disposal RAYMOND F. KRUEGER and DAVID J. SEVERN

Downloaded by PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on July 23, 2013 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: August 15, 1984 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1984-0259.ch001

Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,DC20460

One result of the annual use of millions of pounds of pesticide chemicals each year is the production of numerous empty containers and other pesticide wastes. When the potentially toxic characteristics of the many pesticide formulations that are used are taken into consideration, the possibility of injury to man and the environment due to improper disposal can be considerable. Information on improved disposal technologies has been published to provide better management of pesticide wastes but f a l l short in that they do not cover all wastes or disposal methods. Regulations that are intended to control improper disposal have been promulgated under FIFRA and RCRA which, in general, are intended to control disposal methods in common use today such as land disposal, incineration, open burning, certain physical/chemical methods, and some systems that u t i l i z e biological degradation. The RCRA regulations also provide standards for construction and operation of certain disposal f a c i l i t i e s . The regulations do not provide specific information to the pesticide user as to how to dispose of his wastes. One way to make such information readily available is to put it on the label of each pesticide product. Guidelines that establish data requirements to register certain pesticides have been published. Similar guidelines for disposal statements are being prepared the Environmental Protection Agency. H i s t o r y of D i s p o s a l Regulation In the l a t e 1960's, the seriousness of the hazard to human h e a l t h and the environment r e s u l t i n g from mismanagement of p e s t i c i d e wastes i n p a r t i c u l a r and hazardous wastes i n general became inThis chapter not subject to U.S. copyright. Published 1984, American Chemical Society

In Treatment and Disposal of Pesticide Wastes; Krueger, R., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1984.


4

T R E A T M E N T A N D D I S P O S A L OF PESTICIDE WASTES

créasingly c l e a r . As a part of t h i s general awareness, and as the use of p e s t i c i d e s continued to grow, r e s u l t i n g i n more and more empty containers and other wastes to be disposed of, the problem of p e s t i c i d e waste d i s p o s a l became a point of major concern. This focus of i n t e r e s t was heightened by an increase i n documented cases of p e s t i c i d e d i s p o s a l mismanagement such as i n j u r i e s to c h i l d r e n p l a y i n g with empty p e s t i c i d e containers or f i s h k i l l s r e s u l t i n g from s o - c a l l e d empty containers being c a r e l e s s l y dumped i n t o streams or ponds In 1972 Congress enacted the Federal Environmental P e s t i c i d e C o n t r o l Act (FEPCA) which amended the Federal I n s e c t i c i d e , Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to i n c l u d e , among other a d d i t i o n s , a t t e n t i o n to the p e s t i c i d e d i s p o s a l problem. Specifi c a l l y , Section 19 was added which says, "The Administrator s h a l l . . . e s t a b l i s h procedures and r e g u l a t i o n s f o r the d i s p o s a l or storage of packages and containers of p e s t i c i d e s , and f o r d i s p o s a l or storage of excess amounts of such p e s t i c i d e s , and accept at convenient l o c a t i o n s f o r safe d i s p o s a l a p e s t i c i d e the r e g i s t r a t i o n of which i s cancelled under s e c t i o n 6(c) i f requested by the owner of the p e s t i c i d e . " Section 19 was f u r t h e r modified i n 1978 to r e q u i r e information on d i s p o s a l to accompany a l l c a n c e l l a t i o n orders· On May 1, 1974, i n response to the mandate f o r procedures and r e g u l a t i o n s , the Agency published i n the Federal R e g i s t e r , " P e s t i c i d e s and P e s t i c i d e Containers, Regulations f o r the Acceptance and Recommended Procedures f o r Disposal and Storage of P e s t i c i d e s and P e s t i c i d e Containers" (40 CFR 165) (2). The Regulatory p o r t i o n makes up a r e l a t i v e l y small part of the t o t a l package, p r e s c r i b i n g the process owners of p e s t i c i d e s the r e g i s t r a t i o n s of which have been suspended and c a n c e l l e d , must f o l l o w i n order f o r the EPA to accept the products that q u a l i f y f o r d i s p o s a l . The remaining parts of the May 1, 1974, p u b l i c a t i o n provide general guidance on d i s p o s a l of p e s t i c i d e s and of empty containers. These are recommendations only and have no f o r c e or e f f e c t of law. The basic o b j e c t i v e s of the p u b l i c a t i o n were to meet the requirements of the law, to provide agency p o l i c y on p e s t i c i d e d i s p o s a l and to give guidance to the s t a t e s where none had e x i s t e d before. Another piece of l e g i s l a t i o n having impact on the hazardous waste problem i s the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Passage of t h i s act i n 1976 was stimulated by s e v e r a l episodes of severe mismanagement of hazardous wastes that received c o n s i d e r able a t t e n t i o n i n the news media. RCRA i s intended to provide c o n t r o l over management of hazardous wastes from point of generat i o n , through transport and to f i n a l treatment, storage or d i s posal. This "cradle-to-grave" coverage has had an impact on pesticide disposal a c t i v i t i e s . However, as w i l l be explained l a t e r , the r e g u l a t i o n s promulgated under RCRA do not cover a l l pesticides.


1.

KRUEGER AND

Current

SEVERN

Disposal

Regulation of Pesticide Disposal

5

Practices


P e s t i c i d e s have been used i n large q u a n t i t i e s f o r many years and during that time the wastes that have been generated were d i s posed of i n various ways. Past p r a c t i c e s have not n e c e s s a r i l y been s a t i s f a c t o r y , as p r e v i o u s l y noted; however, i t i s a l s o true that some of the d i s p o s a l methods that were used f i f t y years ago are s t i l l i n use today. According to a USDA survey done i n 1972 ( 3 ) , i n i t i a l d i s p o s i t i o n of empty p e s t i c i d e containers was done as f o l l o w s : Returned to dealer Burned Buried P r i v a t e Dump Comme r c i a l Dump Left i n f i e l d L e f t where sprayer f i l l e d Retained Other

3.1% 49.2% 5.8% 18.9% 0.9% 1.1% 8.4% 11.0% 1.6% 100.0%

The method of container d i s p o s a l given does not mean f i n a l " r e s t ing p l a c e " i n the environment of any o f the r e s i d u a l m a t e r i a l s t i l l i n the c o n t a i n e r . I t only i n d i c a t e s what farmers d i d with the container i n i t i a l l y . F i e l d surveys conducted as a part of an economic a n a l y s i s of p e s t i c i d e d i s p o s a l i n C a l i f o r n i a , Iowa, New York and M i s s i s s i p p i (4) showed a f a i r l y c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n . In C a l i f o r n i a , combustible c o n t a i n e r s , paper, p l a s t i c , e t c . , were g e n e r a l l y burned o n - s i t e . Metal and glass containers were disposed of i n sanitary l a n d f i l l s . Rinsing of empty c o n t a i n e r s , which i s required under some circumstances, was found to be a common p r a c t i c e . A s i m i l a r p a t t e r n was found i n Iowa and New York. M i s s i s s i p p i d i f f e r e d only i n that the s t a t e operates a r u r a l c o l l e c t i o n system. Trash c o l l e c t i o n containers are p o s i t i o n e d a t s t r a t e g i c l o c a t i o n s to accept empty c o n t a i n e r s . The contents a r e p e r i o d i c a l l y c o l l e c t e d and d e l i v e r e d to s a n i t a r y l a n d f i l l s that have been s p e c i a l l y designated by the State Health Department. Farmers a r e urged to r i n s e a l l containers p r i o r to p u t t i n g them i n t o the c o l l e c t i o n system f o r d i s p o s a l . The study a l s o noted that p e s t i c i d e s are handled i n bulk or i n 55 g a l l o n drums more f r e q u e n t l y i n the South than i n other parts of the country. The empty 55 g a l l o n drums a r e g e n e r a l l y made a v a i l a b l e to a drum r e c o n d i t i o n e r who c o l l e c t s them a t regular i n t e r v a l s . As a p r a c t i c a l matter, d i s p o s a l i s t i e d c l o s e l y with economics. For example, empty 55 g a l l o n drums have value to drum r e c o n d i t i o n e r s who f r e q u e n t l y seek them out to r e c o n d i t i o n f o r reuse. A l s o , during the mid-1970's when the p r i c e of scrap s t e e l



6


soared to unusual heights, empty f i v e g a l l o n cans were c o l l e c t e d and s o l d f o r scrap. When the p r i c e of scrap s t e e l dropped, the p r a c t i c e ended. In one case, about a quarter of a m i l l i o n cans that had been c o l l e c t e d f o r scrap were abandoned. The p i l e stood f o r s e v e r a l years as a monument to the volume of p e s t i c i d e s used i n that area. Although "high-tech" s o l u t i o n s to d i s p o s a l are r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e they are not put to use because of the cost f a c t o r . The more common d i s p o s a l methods are those that have been with us for some time. EPA

Guidance on

Disposal

EPA i s looked to f o r guidance i n the f i e l d of p e s t i c i d e d i s p o s a l ; however, i n the past a low p r i o r i t y was g e n e r a l l y assigned to development of waste management f a c i l i t i e s and systems. Minimal resources were a l l o c a t e d to the development of new d i s p o s a l technologies. To be required to spend money to throw something away i s not an acceptable s i t u a t i o n . Thus users of p e s t i c i d e s are i n c l i n e d to look f o r inexpensive ways of g e t t i n g r i d of p e s t i c i d e wastes. Strategies f o r waste management do e x i s t , but are often too expensive to be r e a d i l y accepted. Simple, inexpens i v e d i s p o s a l systems are not g e n e r a l l y a v a i l a b l e , l a r g e l y because there i s no one method that can be s a f e l y employed i n every situation. The complexity of choosing a d i s p o s a l method or providing safe guidance f o r the d i s p o s a l of a p a r t i c u l a r product becomes apparent when some of the f a c t o r s that must be considered i n evaluating a d i s p o s a l a c t i o n are l i s t e d : -Chemical, p h y s i c a l , b i o l o g i c a l and t o x i c o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the formulated products ; -Composition, c o n c e n t r a t i o n and q u a n t i t y of the waste; - S i z e , composition and numbers of waste c o n t a i n e r s ; -Geographic l o c a t i o n of the wastes; - A v a i l a b i l i t y , u t i l i t y and r e l a t i v e costs of d i s p o s a l methods and f a c i l i t i e s ; -Technical and economic f e a s i b i l i t y of r e c y c l i n g the wastes; - A t t i t u d e of the p e s t i c i d e i n d u s t r y , u s e r , and the general p u b l i c concerning waste d i s p o s a l ; -State r e g u l a t o r y requirements that a f f e c t the proposed d i s posal a c t i o n , such as d e p o s i t / r e t u r n laws. Given t h i s complex maze of information needs, the EPA i s expected to provide guidance on d i s p o s a l of p e s t i c i d e wastes i n a l l parts of the c o n t i n e n t a l United States as well as i n other parts of the world. This has created a serious challenge.


1.

KRUEGER A N D SEVERN


1


D i f f e r e n t options f o r g e t t i n g d i s p o s a l information to the p e s t i c i d e user have been t r i e d . For example, a number of manuals were published to provide advice on s p e c i f i c d i s p o s a l problems. These were intended to provide "how-to" information to the people i n the f i e l d who advise and r e g u l a t e p e s t i c i d e users. Each made a d e f i n i t e c o n t r i b u t i o n , but information gaps remained. "Guidelines f o r the D i s p o s a l of Small Quantities of Unused P e s t i c i d e s " (5), published i n 1975, was and EPA sponsored study by Midwest Research I n s t i t u t e . Most of the p e s t i c i d e s that were i n common use at the time were reviewed and grouped by chemical c l a s s . The report gave d i s p o s a l technologies that were described i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Although the report brought together a wealth of i n f o r m a t i o n on chemical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as t o x i c i t y , s o l u b i l i t y , and v o l a t i l i t y , a c t u a l d i s p o s a l advice was l i m i t e d . Another p u b l i c a t i o n , "Handbook f o r P e s t i c i d e Disposal by Common Chemical Methods" ( 6 ) , was a l s o published i n 1975 by EPA. This report evaluated 20 common p e s t i c i d e s and concluded that only 7 could be disposed of by a l k a l i and/or acid h y d r o l y s i s . A d e t a i l e d procedure f o r d i s p o s a l by h y d r o l y s i s of the s p e c i f i c p e s t i c i d e s was a l s o given. However, again, the information was of l i m i t e d u t i l i t y . A follow-up report covered another f o r t y pesticides (7)· An EPA r e p o r t "Disposal of D i l u t e P e s t i c i d e S o l u t i o n s " (8) summarized technologies used i n d i s p o s a l of such wastes. Another study e n t i t l e d "Economic A n a l y s i s of P e s t i c i d e Disposal Methods" (4) evaluated commonly used d i s p o s a l systems i n terms of c o s t . L o c a l , r e g i o n a l and statewide c o l l e c t i o n and d i s p o s a l s t r a t e g i e s were a l s o considered. Although each of these reports c o n t a i n v a l u a b l e information, they f a l l short of the target of p r o v i d i n g adequate information to p e s t i c i d e r e g u l a t o r s and users to draw upon i n day-today o p e r a t i o n s . Another approach to developing information was to study s p e c i f i c technologies with an eye toward development of s e l e c t e d d i s p o s a l methods. Some of the systems that were studied or are being s t u d i e d i n c l u d e i n c i n e r a t i o n , a c a t a l y t i c d e c h l o r i n a t i o n system u t i l i z i n g n i c k e l boride, ozone/UV r a d i a t i o n , and microwave plasma d e s t r u c t i o n . A summary of the research being done at the time was published i n August 1978 under the t i t l e "State of the Art Report: P e s t i c i d e Disposal Research" ( 9 ) . While much of t h i s work has produced needed research information, the problem of making p r a c t i c a l information a v a i l a b l e to the user remains. At the same time, an i n c r e a s i n g p u b l i c awareness of the problem was f o r c i n g a d e c i s i o n as to how the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r p r o v i d i n g d i s p o s a l information would be handled.


8

T R E A T M E N T A N D DISPOSAL O F PESTICIDE WASTES


RCRA/FIFRA Although r e g u l a t i o n s covering broad areas of hazardous waste treatment, storage and d i s p o s a l have been promulgated, the d i s posal of p e s t i c i d e wastes i s not t o t a l l y under RCRA c o n t r o l . There are s e v e r a l reasons f o r t h i s . Under RCRA, p e s t i c i d e wastes are treated as any another waste and many f a i l to q u a l i f y as hazardous under the standards s e t f o r t h i n the r e g u l a t i o n s . This could be due to a combination of s m a l l amounts and low t o x i c i t y . For example, 2,4-D or DDT wastes i n q u a n t i t i e s of l e s s that 1,000 kilograms per month would not be regulated under RCRA. P e s t i c i d e products r e g i s t e r e d f o r household use are simply not addressed by RCRA and are t h e r e f o r e not r e g u l a t e d . Empty c o n t a i n e r s a r e not regulated as hazardous wastes" under RCRA; however, f o r c e r t a i n h i g h l y t o x i c wastes, i n c l u d i n g some p e s t i c i d e s , the c o n t a i n e r must be t r i p l e r i n s e d ( o r given an equivalent treatment) before i t i s considered "empty" and thus not subject to c o n t r o l r e g u l a t i o n s (40 CFR 261.7). A l s o , i n order to reduce the enormous r e g u l a t o r y workload promised by the burden of e n f o r c i n g the r e g u l a t i o n s , a s p e c i a l exemption f o r farmers was w r i t t e n i n t o the r e g u l a t i o n s (40 CFR 262.51). This exemption provides that a farmer who t r i p l e r i n s e s h i s empty containers and disposes of them on h i s own property w i l l be exempt from the requirements of RCRA. Commercial a p p l i c a t o r s do not enjoy such an exemption. lf

Given the complexity of the problem of s e l e c t i n g a s a f e , e f f e c t i v e waste d i s p o s a l s t r a t e g y from the r e l a t i v e l y s o p h i s t i cated array o f d i s p o s a l systems that a r e a v a i l a b l e , and g i v e n the RCRA farmer's exemption, there needs to be a way of providing d i s p o s a l i n f o r m a t i o n d i r e c t l y to the p e s t i c i d e user. One such method would be to put i t on the l a b e l . Why put i t on the l a b e l ? One reason i s that i t would make compliance with the requirements of the d i s p o s a l statement mandat o r y . Section 12 ( a ) ( 2 ) (G) o f FIFRA says i t i s unlawful to use any p e s t i c i d e i n a manner i n c o n s i s t e n t with i t s l a b e l i n g , and d i s p o s a l has been determined to be part of the use process. This means that the a l a b e l d i s p o s a l statement would be, i n e f f e c t , a r e g u l a t i o n . Another reason i s that the d i s p o s a l d i r e c t i o n s can be t a i l o r e d to f i t the e n t i r e package, the c o n t a i n e r , the chemic a l i t contains, and the s i t e and mode of use. An appropriate d i s p o s a l statement can be extremely important as one p e s t i c i d e manufacturer ( r e g i s t r a n t ) found out. There i s a s t o r y c i r c u l a t e d i n EPA concerning the r e g i s t r a n t who submitted a s p e c i a l l a b e l f o r a p p r o v a l . The comments contained i n the response from EPA g r a n t i n g approval advised the r e g i s t r a n t to i n c l u d e a statement on the l a b e l to provide guidance f o r d i s p o s a l of the empty cont a i n e r which read: "Crush and bury, do not re-use". The r e g i s t r a n t was heard to complain that he had intended to use the l a b e l on a r a i l r o a d tank c a r .


1.



The Label Statement and


9

Labeling

Placing the d i s p o s a l statement on the l a b e l means that development of the l a b e l statement becomes the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the r e g i s t r a n t who created the product i n the f i r s t place. Given h i s knowledge of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the chemical formulation, he i s i n the best p o s i t i o n to provide an environmentally s a f e d i s posal method. Indeed, he i s o f f e r e d the opportunity to use a broad range of s o p h i s t i c a t e d technologies rather than the f a m i l i a r "Crush and Bury, Do Not Reuse". This could assume c o n s i d e r able importance i n the f u t u r e given changing container economics and d i s p o s a l c o s t s . Since the l a b e l accompanies the product, necessary and s p e c i f i c information i s placed d i r e c t l y i n the hands of the user. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important f o r farmers i f they wish to a v a i l themselves of the exemption provided by RCRA to avoid the extensive r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s attached to being a "generator" of hazardous waste. In the foregoing d i s c u s s i o n as w e l l as what f o l l o w s , the term " l a b e l " i s not l i m i t e d to the p r i n t e d matter attached to the c o n t a i n e r . More c o r r e c t l y , the term " l a b e l i n g " should be used which r e f e r s to the p r i n t e d information on the container as w e l l as any i n f o r m a t i o n that may accompany o r r e f e r to the product such as pamphlets, books, or other p r i n t e d m a t e r i a l even though i t may not be p h y s i c a l l y attached to the c o n t a i n e r or i n c l o s e proximity. It i s p o s s i b l e that r e l a t i v e l y l o n g , d e t a i l e d d i s p o s a l i n s t r u c t ions could be developed and included i n the l a b e l i n g , but as a p r a c t i c a l matter, o n l y guidance on d i s p o s a l of the empty container w i l l appear on the package. Information on d i s p o s a l of l e f t - o v e r tank mixes, d i l u t e s o l u t i o n s or unwanted product would be s u p p l i e d i n the l a b e l i n g or accompanying l i t e r a t u r e . In t h i s way r e l a t i v e l y complex d i s p o s a l procedures, complete with s a f e t y i n s t r u c t i o n s , can be provided to the user of the p e s t i c i d e . FIFRA Regulatory

Requirements

The r e g u l a t i o n s f o r l a b e l i n g p e s t i c i d e s are found i n 40 CFR 162.10. These r u l e s r e q u i r e that d i s p o s a l information be a part of any proposed statement. The c u r r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n s to r e g i s trants on d i s p o s a l statements are contained i n PR Notice 83-3 ( P e s t i c i d e R e g i s t r a t i o n Notice 83-3). This n o t i c e advises r e g i s trants that the l a b e l s of a l l products must contain updated d i s p o s a l statements. The s p e c i f i c statements that are provided cover most types of products such as home and garden or a g r i c u l t u r a l and most of the c o n t a i n e r s , metal, p l a s t i c or paper. A t y p i c a l recommended statement, such as one f o r metal c o n t a i n e r s , reads as f o l l o w s : " T r i p l e r i n s e (or e q u i v a l e n t ) . Then o f f e r f o r r e c y c l i n g or r e c o n d i t i o n i n g , or puncture and dispose of i n a s a n i t a r y l a n d f i l l , or by other procedures approved by s t a t e and local authorities".




10

The O f f i c e of P e s t i c i d e Programs recognizes that the d i s posal statements i n t h i s n o t i c e may not be appropriate f o r every p e s t i c i d e . Registrants have the o p t i o n of proposing a l t e r n a t i v e language for p e s t i c i d e d i s p o s a l statements. Registrants proposing a l t e r n a t e language must submit proposals to EPA and r e c e i v e approval before using any a l t e r n a t i v e language. Under FIFRA r e g u l a t i o n s r e g i s t e r e d products must have a d i s p o s a l statement that i s s e t apart and c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from other d i r e c t i o n s f o r use. The r e g u l a t i o n s also r e q u i r e that the d i s p o s a l i n s t r u c t i o n s be grouped together and p r i n t e d i n a s p e c i f i e d type s i z e , depending on the s i z e of the l a b e l f r o n t panel. PR n o t i c e 83-3 i s an attempt to improve and standardize the l a b e l statements on d i s p o s a l . Although the statements provided meet the r e g u l a t o r y need, they c l e a r l y f a l l short of p r o v i d ing the t e c h n i c a l d i r e c t i o n to the user that i s required to assure a high degree of environmental p r o t e c t i o n . For example, minimal guidance i s provided to the farmer that wants to take advantage of the RCRA exemption and dispose on h i s own p r o p e r l y . Although FIFRA r e g u l a t i o n s r e q u i r e data to support proposed l a b e l statements on d i s p o s a l , the statements are now provided by EPA and such data i s not r e q u i r e d . C l e a r l y , before a data r e q u i r e ment could be imposed, the r e g i s t r a n t must be thoroughly advised as to what data he must submit. This i s the o b j e c t i v e of the Regis t r a t i o n Guidelines· Registration

Guidelines

A considerable h i s t o r y i s attached to r e g u l a t i o n of the present r e g i s t r a t i o n process as regards p e s t i c i d e d i s p o s a l statements. On July 3, 1975, the Agency promulgated f i n a l r e g u l a t i o n s , 40 CFR part 163, Subpart A (10). These r e g u l a t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d the b a s i c requirements f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n of p e s t i c i d e products. During the period extending from 1975 to 1981, EPA i s s u e d or made a v a i l a b l e s e v e r a l subparts of the g u i d e l i n e s f o r r e g i s t e r i n g p e s t i c i d e s i n the United States which described, with more s p e c i f i c i t y , the kinds of data that must be submitted to s a t i s f y the requirements of the r e g i s t r a t i o n r e g u l a t i o n s . These guidel i n e s included s e c t i o n s d e t a i l i n g what data are required and when, the standards f o r conducting acceptable t e s t s , guidance on the e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g of data, and examples of acceptable protocols· In October of 1981, EPA decided to reorganize the guidel i n e s and l i m i t the r e g u l a t i o n to a concise presentation of the data requirements and when they are r e q u i r e d . Therefore, data requirements f o r p e s t i c i d e r e g i s t r a t i o n p e r t a i n i n g to a l l former subparts of the g u i d e l i n e s are now s p e c i f i e d i n part 158 (40 FR 53192 November 24, 1982) which s p e c i f i e s the kinds of data and



1.



information that must be submitted to EPA t o support the r e g i s t r a t i o n of each p e s t i c i d e under t h e FIFRA. The standards f o r conducting acceptable t e s t s , guidance on e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g of data, f u r t h e r guidance on when data are r e q u i r e d and examples of protocols are not s p e c i f i e d i n part 158. This information c o n s t i t u t e s the g u i d e l i n e s and i s a v a i l a b l e as a d v i s o r y document a t i o n through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). Guidelines were published i n 1982 under such t i t l e s a s : Sub d i v i s i o n D Chemistry Requirements: Product Chemistry; S u b d i v i s i o n F Hazard E v a l u a t i o n : Humans and Domestic Animals; Subpart G Product Performance; S u b d i v i s i o n Ν Chemistry Requirements: Environmental Fate, among others. S u b d i v i s i o n P: Disposal Data Requirements was reserved f o r future p u b l i c a t i o n . The b a s i c purpose of each of these g u i d e l i n e s i s to provide EPA with data to evaluate: 1. D i r e c t hazard to humans and domestic animals; 2. D i r e c t hazard to f i s h and w i l d l i f e ; 3. P o t e n t i a l f o r contaminating ground water; 4. P o t e n t i a l f o r m a g n i f i c a t i o n i n the food chain; 5. P o t e n t i a l uptake by r o t a t i o n a l crops. S p e c i f i c data requirements are based on use patterns and are l i s t e d i n Section 158. For example, i n S u b d i v i s i o n N: E n v i r onmental Fate, use patterns f a l l i n t o the categories of t e r r e s t r i a l uses, aquatic and aquatic impact uses. T e r r e s t r i a l uses i n c l u d e domestic outdoor, green house, non-crop, orchard crop, e t c . , and data required v a r i e s with the use s i t e . Depending on the s i t e of use, s t u d i e s on degradation, metabolism, m o b i l i t y , d i s s i p a t i o n , and accumulation might be r e q u i r e d . The general g u i d e l i n e format i s as follows : a. b. c.

d. e.

Purpose When r e q u i r e d Test standards (1.) t e s t substances (2.) t e s t procedures Reporting and e v a l u a t i o n References

The Subpart N, Environmental Fate Guidelines (11) w i l l probably provide much of what i s needed to support many of the d i s p o s a l statements that would probably be proposed. However, many of the studies would have to be conducted a t " d i s p o s a l r a t e s " , that i s hundreds of pounds o r p o s s i b l y tons per acre as opposed to "use r a t e s " of ounces or a few pounds per a c r e .


12 Disposal

TREATMENT AND Technologies and

DISPOSAL OF PESTICIDE WASTES

Data Requirements


Based on use patterns and s i t e - o f - u s e , s p e c i f i c data are r e q u i r e d by the Section 158 r e g u l a t i o n s f o r each product r e g i s t e r e d . Depending on the d i s p o s a l technology s e l e c t e d , the information needed to support the l a b e l d i s p o s a l statement may w e l l be a d d i t i o n a l to that required by Section 158. The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n covers a few of the many d i s p o s a l systems that might be candidates for l a b e l statements and some of the kinds of data that might be required. Land d i s p o s a l . Land d i s p o s a l i s the most widely used, l e a s t expensive, most often a v a i l a b l e d i s p o s a l system at the present time. The term land d i s p o s a l includes s a n i t a r y l a n d f i l l s , s u r face impoundments, evaporation ponds and land farming. Land d i s p o s a l i n a s a n i t a r y l a n d f i l l , s p e c i a l l y permitted to accept such wastes, can be expected to be the method of choice f o r the majority of the l a b e l statements proposed. Empty c o n t a i n e r s , waste p e s t i c i d e s and other wastes are commonly disposed of i n a s a n i t a r y l a n d f i l l or buried at the s i t e of use. The s o i l i s a complex and h i g h l y v a r i a b l e mixture of components, c o n t a i n i n g many types of l i v i n g organisms b a c t e r i a , f u n g i , algae, i n v e r t e b r a t e animals - and supporting the l i f e of h i g h e r p l a n t s , i n v e r t e b r a t e and v e r t e b r a t e animals. The a d d i t i o n of a p e s t i c i d e to a s o i l may therefore have e f f e c t s on many l i v i n g organisms, and may i n turn be a f f e c t e d by them. The p e s t i c i d e i s also a f f e c t e d by the nature of the s o i l and by the climate v a r i a b l e s that a f f e c t the s o i l . Data on these f a c t o r s and t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s must be developed before any land d i s p o s a l method that may impact those functions can be f u l l y evaluated. An example of the kinds of data required f o r land d i s p o s a l options would be information on s o i l / p e s t i c i d e i n t e r a c t i o n s to determine the e f f e c t of the p e s t i c i d e on the s o i l and s o i l on the p e s t i c i d e . The p h y s i c a l composition of the s o i l and the p h y s i c a l properties of the p e s t i c i d e and i t s formulation w i l l determine the adsorption, l e a c h i n g , water d i s p e r s a l , and v o l a t i l i z a t i o n of the p e s t i c i d e which, i n t u r n , determine the m o b i l i t y of the p e s t i c i d e i n s o i l . Even p e s t i c i d e s of c l o s e l y r e l a t e d s t r u c t u r e s may have very d i f f e r e n t s o i l r e t e n t i o n p r o p e r t i e s . Much of t h i s data w i l l be a v a i l a b l e from that developed to meet other r e g i s t r a t i o n data requirements with the exception that d i s p o s a l rates are o f t e n orders of magnitude h i g h e r than normal a p p l i c a t i o n rates and the d i f f e r e n c e must be considered. Other considerations would i n c l u d e ; data on adsorption and leaching or other movement of the p e s t i c i d e i n the s o i l ; the e f f e c t s of the p e s t i c i d e on microorganisms i n the s o i l under aerobic and anaerobic conditions ; e f f e c t s of microorganisms on the p e s t i c i d e ; e f f e c t s of the p e s t i c i d e on higher plants and


1.


KRUEGER AND SEVERN

13

animals; e f f e c t s on d i s p o s a l f a c i l i t i e s , such as l i n e r s or other s t r u c t u r a l m a t e r i a l ; and such other c o n s i d e r a t i o n s that may be needed to determine i f the proposed p e s t i c i d e can be s a f e l y and e f f e c t i v e l y disposed of by land d i s p o s a l means (12)(13). If the p e s t i c i d e to be disposed of i s s p e c i f i c a l l y c o n t r o l l e d under RCRA, then a very s p e c i f i c s e t of r e g u l a t i o n s i s i n f o r c e (40 CFR 261 to 270) that r e q u i r e s management i n a permitted f a c i l i t y . I n c i n e r a t i o n . A " p e s t i c i d e i n c i n e r a t o r " i s defined as "any i n s t a l l a t i o n capable of the c o n t r o l l e d combustion of p e s t i c i d e s , a t a temperature of 1000 C (1832 F) f o r two seconds dwell time i n the combustion zone, or lower temperatures and r e l a t e d dwell times that w i l l assure complete conversion of the s p e c i f i c p e s t i cide to i n o r g a n i c gases and s o l i d ash r e s i d u e s " ( 2 ) . In a d d i t i o n , an i n c i n e r a t o r must meet the performance standards promulgated under RCRA (40 CFR 264 Subpart 0) i f p e s t i c i d e s regulated under RCRA are to be burned. This means that an i n c i n e r a t o r must be capable of d e s t r o y i n g or removing 99.99% of the p e s t i c i d e put i n t o i t . Test burns that are f u l l y monitored are normally r e q u i red to determine whether t h i s performance standard i s achieved. A r e g i s t r a n t planning to suggest i n c i n e r a t i o n on a d i s p o s a l statement would need to observe these requirements. I n c i n e r a t i o n of p e s t i c i d e s and/or containers r e q u i r e s s p e c i a l equipment that i s not widely a v a i l a b l e . Due to the h i g h l y s p e c i a l i z e d nature of an i n c i n e r a t o r that can meet the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s necessary to d e s t r o y complex p e s t i c i d e formulat i o n s , plus the energy requirements, the process can be very expensive and not g e n e r a l l y the method of choice f o r s m a l l quanti t i e s that may be generated by a farmer, f o r example. On the other hand, i t can be a h i g h l y e f f e c t i v e means of d i s p o s i n g of unwanted m a t e r i a l (14).


x

X

Open burning. "Open burning" i s d e f i n e d as combustion of a pesticide or p e s t i c i d e c o n t a i n e r i n any f a s h i o n other than i n c i n e r a t i o n (2^). Open burning i s u s u a l l y done by the simple act of p i l i n g up empty paper bags or p l a s t i c jugs and s e t t i n g them on f i r e and i s commonly used to dispose of combustible empty c o n t a i n ers where l o c a l r e g u l a t i o n s permit the p r a c t i c e . I t i s sometimes p r o h i b i t e d by Regional A i r Q u a l i t y r e g u l a t i o n s . Where i t i s permitted open burning represents an inexpensive and convenient way of d i s p o s i n g of the combustible containers that are commonly used to package p e s t i c i d e s . The p r a c t i c e can, however, present hazards to worker h e a l t h and to other persons, and to p l a n t s and animals that may be i n the v i c i n i t y . The impact upon the environment i s mainly through d i s p e r s a l of combustion gases, smoke and fumes i n t o the atmosphere and through contamination of s o i l s and waters by ashes and p a r t i a l l y burned containers h o l d i n g t o x i c r e s i d u e s . Data would be r e q u i r e d to address these i s s u e s .



14

TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF PESTICIDE WASTES

Thermal degradation s t u d i e s might be required to determine the decomposition c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of of the s u b j e c t p e s t i c i d e when heated alone o r i n the presence of o x i d i z e r s and/or binders i n both closed and open systems and a t various temperatures. Data required could cover the amounts and kinds of r e s i d u a l s that might be found i n the off-gases or remain i n the ash. The i g n i t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of c o n t a i n e r m a t e r i a l s and t h e i r maximum burning temperatures must be t e s t e d under c o n d i t i o n s s i m u l a t i n g the a c t u a l open burning c o n d i t i o n s seen i n the f i e l d . Data on the r e s u l t s of burning s m a l l q u a n t i t i e s of a s u b j e c t p e s t i c i d e i n a sample of the packaging m a t e r i a l might also be r e q u i r e d . Such s t u d i e s could be designed to show the composition of the endproduct gases produced by combustion a t temperatures normally achieved by burning wood, paper, cardboard, or p l a s t i c s . Informa t i o n on any s p e c i a l procedures that might be required or recommended would a l s o be u s e f u l i n determining i f open burning of the subject product would be s a f e . P h y s i c a l / c h e m i c a l methods. Chemical d e a c t i v a t i o n / d e t o x i f i c a t i o n provides the opportunity to reduce a t o x i c chemical to a non-toxic state. I t i s a procedure that i s not c u r r e n t l y used to any s i g n i f i c a n t degree i n common d i s p o s a l systems even though there are many chemicals that can be s u c c e s s f u l l y degraded when mixed with an a l k a l i or a c i d s o l u t i o n or i n some cases a s p e c i a l l y prepared enzyme. The p r i n c i p a l use would be i n r i n s i n g containers i n s i t u a t i o n s where the r i n s a t e cannot be added to the mix. Data requirements here would be d i c t a t e d by the chemical involved and the s i t e of use as i s the case i n many other r e g i s t r a t i o n s i t u a tions . Developing l a b e l statements on d i s p o s a l that are informat i v e and f u l l y supported by sound data w i l l take time but the e f f o r t i s expected to be w e l l worth while. P r e p a r a t i o n of g u i d e l i n e s i s underway by EPA and input from any and a l l i n t e r ested p a r t i e s w i l l be most welcome.

Literature Cited 1. 2.

3.

Report of the Secretary's Commission on Pesticides and Their Relationship to Environmental Health, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare. December 1969. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pesticides and Pesticide Containers, Regulation for Acceptance and Recommended Procedures for Disposal and Storage. Federal Register, 39(85):15236-15241, May 1, 1974. Fox, A.S. and A.W. Delvo, 1972. "Pesticide Containers Associated With Crop Production," Proceedings of the National Conference on Pesticide Containers, New Orleans, November 28, 1972, Published by the Federal Working Group on Pest Management, Washington, D.C.


1.

KRUEGER AND SEVERN


15


4.

Arthur D. Little, Inc. Economic Analysis of Pesticide Disposal Methods. Cambridge Massachusetts, Strategic Studies Unit, March 1977. EPA/540/9-77/018, 181 p. 5. Lawless, E.W., T.L. Ferguson, and A.F. Meiners. Guidelines for the Disposal of Small Quantities of Unused Pesticides. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, June 1975. EPA/670/2-75/057, 342 p. (Available from the National Technical Information Service as PB-244 557) 6. Shih, C.C. and D.F. Dal Porto. Handbook of Pesticide Disposal by Common Chemical Methods. TRW Systems, Inc., Redondo Beach, California, December 1975. EPA/530/SW-112c, 109 p. (Available from the National Technical Information Service as PB-242 864) 7. Lande, S.S. Identification and Description of Chemical Deactivation/Detoxification Methods for the Safe Disposal of Selected Pesticides; Contract No. 68-01-4487, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio May 1978. 183p. 8. Day, H.R. Disposal of Dilute Pesticide Solutions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, 1976. EPA/530/SW519, Day, 18 p. (Available from the National Technical Information Service as PB-261 160). 9. Wilkinson, R. R., E.W. Lawless, A.F. Meiners, T.L. Ferguson, G.L.Kelso and F.C. Hopkins. State of the Art Report on Pesticide Disposal Research. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, September 1978. EPA/600/2-78-183, 225 p. 10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide Registration: Proposed Data Requirements, Federal Register, Vol 47, No. 227, November 24, 1982. 11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision N, Chemistry, Environmental Fate, October 1982. EPA-540/9-82-021, 12. Sanborn, J.R., B.M. Francis, and R.L. Metcalf. The Degradation of Selected Pesticides in Soil: A Review of the Published Literature. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/600/9-77/022, 635 p. 1977 (Available from the National Technical Information Service as PB-272 353) 13. Ghassemi, M. and S. Quinlivan. A Study of Selected Landfills Designed As Pesticide Disposal Sites. EPA Publication No. SW-114c, 1975. 14. Ferguson, T.L., F.J. Berman, G.R. Cooper, R.T. L i , and F.I. Honea. Determination of Incinerator Operating Conditions Necessary for Safe Disposal of Pesticides. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, December 1975. EPA/600/275 /041, 415 p. (Available from the National Technical Information Service as PB-251 131) RECEIVED

April 26,

1984


Treatment and Disposal of Pesticide Wastes - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents