Clean Sweep Programs - US Environmental Protection Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Clean Sweep Reportchemical handling strategies include differentmethods of packing the collected pesticides fortransportation and disposal, which may decrease thecost of disposal. The administrative strategiesinclude specialized programs, regulatory options,and contract management tips that may be availableto Clean Sweep program managers.CLEAN SWEEP PROGRAM RESULTSNumber of states. Forty-six states haveconducted at least one Clean Sweep program.North Carolina initiated the first program in 1980;and until 1987, the only other states that startedprograms were Iowa, Maine and North Dakota.These states recognized early on that farmers wereaccumulating unwanted pesticides and that, withoutan affordable method of proper disposal, they riskedcontaminating their land and water when the storedproduct containers began to deteriorate.Program categories. Even though someprograms are conducted by individual counties, thisreport classifies the information by state. EPA isunaware of any Clean Sweep programs implementedby tribes or territories. The report dividesprograms into five funding categories, which reflectthe frequency or permanency of the program:permanently funded, continuous, intermittent, onetime,and never.Total amount collected. Based on dataprovided by the states, EPA estimates that CleanSweep programs have collected over 24 millionpounds of unwanted pesticides from 1980 through2000. A number of factors make it difficult torecord the exact amount of pesticides collected,such as variation on how states characterize partiallyfull containers, differences in how solids and liquidsare recorded, and the lack of precise data fromearly collections. In spite of these caveats, EPAbelieves that the overall estimate of about 24 millionpounds and the totals for individual states are a goodindication of the minimum amounts collected, andare probably underestimates. While 24 millionpounds is a substantial amount, it is significantlysmaller than the amount of pesticides sold and usedin the United States.Amount per participant. Thirty-one statesreported the number of participants in at least someof their collection events. The average amountcollected per participant in nearly three-quarters ofthese states was between 101 pounds and 400State Clean Sweep Programs by CategoryPermanently funded programs: Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,Vermont, Virginia, Washington, WisconsinContinuous programs: California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi,Nebraska, New Jersey, Oregon, West VirginiaIntermittent programs: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri, NewYork, South CarolinaOne-time programs: Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, WyomingNever held a program: Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahomaix
Executive Summarypounds. States want to know what quantities aretypical in order to estimate the people and resourcesthey and the contractor must mobilize for thecollection. The information may also help estimatehow much unwanted pesticide remains to becollected.Kinds of pesticides. Most pesticides soldin the United States have shown up at Clean Sweepprograms. Both canceled pesticides, some of whichhave not been sold in the United States for decades,and currently registered products are collected.Safety record. Information provided toEPA by the states indicates that few, if any, incidentsof exposure are associated with Clean Sweepcollections, due to the diligence and competence ofstate employees and contractors. This is particularlyimpressive considering the large quantity ofpesticides transported and collected and the fact thatmany products are in old or damaged containers.Many states provide guidance or training on specificprecautions for Clean Sweep program participants.CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIESThe challenges faced by Clean Sweepprogram managers include obtaining funding,complying with the hazardous waste regulations,addressing liability issues, getting information topotential participants, overcoming distrust ofgovernment programs, and managing problematicwaste streams. As states are trying to increaseparticipation in their programs, they are also workingto prevent the buildup of unwanted pesticide stocksin the future.Funding. Lack of funding is the principalreason noted by states for not operating a continuousClean Sweep program. Without a permanentfunding mechanism, the annual scramble for fundsdrains staff time and energy that could be used forprogram implementation.Regulations. Regulatory compliance is animportant challenge. The Universal Waste Rule, anamendment to the RCRA regulations, is intended toease the regulatory burden on states and businessesand reduce the hazardous waste content ofmunicipal landfills. Most states have adopted thisrule.Liability. Liability prior to and during acollection event is of concern to program managers,who employ a variety of methods to preventaccidents. Clean Sweeps are often set up so thatthe pesticide agency becomes the official generatorof the waste for the purposes of compliance withhazardous waste regulations. At the collectionevent, trained contractor and government staffunload and process the pesticides. After thecollection, the hazardous waste contractor isresponsible for stabilizing and securing the site andtransporting the waste for disposal. At permanentsites, trained government staff manage the security ofstored products.Public outreach. One of the biggestchallenges faced by Clean Sweep programmanagers is maximizing participation. Collectionprograms have tried a variety of advertising methodsand found that effectiveness varies. Therefore, mostprograms use multiple methods, such as newspaperads, posters at pesticide dealerships, letters,announcements on radio and television, efforts byextension agents, and word of mouth. States haverelied on public outreach and good relationshipsbetween extension agents and growers to graduallydiminish the perception by farmers that they couldbe fined or otherwise punished if it came to theattention of a government agency that they werestoring canceled pesticides on their property.Dioxin-containing wastes. The reportdiscusses the problem of disposal for pesticides thatcontain dioxin. Most states (and hazardous wastecontractors) accept dioxin-containing material only ifx
Page 1 and 2: ForewordThe states and some countie
Page 3 and 4: Table of ContentsSECTIONFOREWORDTAB
Page 5 and 6: List of Figures and TablesNumber Ti
Page 7 and 8: State IndexAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArka
Page 9: Executive SummaryParticipants. Alth
Page 14 and 15: Section 1 IntroductionFor the past
Page 16: The Clean Sweep Reportshort-term or
Page 19 and 20: Section 1 Introductionextensive and
Page 21 and 22: Section 1 Introductionfunded, conti
Page 23 and 24: Section 2 Clean Sweep Program Opera
Page 25 and 26: Section 2Clean Sweep Program Operat
Page 35 and 36: Section 2Clean Sweep Program Operat
Page 45 and 46: Section 3 Clean Sweep Program Resul
Page 51 and 52: Table 11 Total Amount of Pesticides
Page 57 and 58: 44Table 13 Specific Pesticides Trac
Page 59 and 60: Table 14 Quantity of the Most Commo
Page 61 and 62:
Section 4 Challenges and Opportunit
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Section 5 Observations5.2 The unit
Page 73 and 74:
Section 5ObservationsTable 17: Tota
Page 75 and 76:
Section 5 Observations5.3 Reliable
Page 77 and 78:
Section 5 Observationsamount annual
Page 79 and 80:
Appendix INOTES on STATE “ATA GLA
Page 81 and 82:
ALABAMA AT A GLANCESince 1994 Alaba
Page 83 and 84:
ALASKA AT A GLANCEAlaska conducts s
Page 85 and 86:
ARIZONA AT A GLANCEArizona does not
Page 87 and 88:
ARKANSAS AT A GLANCEThe Arkansas St
Page 89 and 90:
CALIFORNIA AT A GLANCESince 1989 Ca
Page 91 and 92:
COLORADO AT A GLANCEAn EPA grant an
Page 93 and 94:
YearColorado Table 1 - Quantity of
Page 95 and 96:
Summary of Connecticut Waste Pestic
Page 97 and 98:
Summary of Delaware Waste Pesticide
Page 99 and 100:
Summary of Florida Waste Pesticide
Page 101 and 102:
GEORGIA AT A GLANCEGeorgia has cond
Page 103 and 104:
HAWAII AT A GLANCEHawaii conducted
Page 105 and 106:
IDAHO AT A GLANCEIdaho’s permanen
Page 107 and 108:
ILLINOIS AT A GLANCESince its first
Page 109 and 110:
Illinois attempted a swap program i
Page 111 and 112:
Summary of Indiana Waste Pesticide
Page 113 and 114:
IOWA AT A GLANCESince 1991 Iowa has
Page 115 and 116:
YearIowa Table 1 - Quantity of Pest
Page 117 and 118:
Summary of Kansas Waste Pesticide D
Page 119 and 120:
KENTUCKY AT A GLANCEKentucky conduc
Page 121 and 122:
LOUISIANA AT A GLANCELouisiana coll
Page 123 and 124:
MAINE AT A GLANCEMaine conducted it
Page 125 and 126:
MARYLAND AT A GLANCEThe Maryland De
Page 127 and 128:
MASSACHUSETTS AT A GLANCEMassachuse
Page 129 and 130:
MICHIGAN AT A GLANCEMichigan’s pe
Page 131 and 132:
MINNESOTA AT A GLANCESince 1989 Min
Page 133 and 134:
Minnesota Table 1 - Quantity of Pes
Page 135 and 136:
Summary of Mississippi Waste Pestic
Page 137 and 138:
Summary of Missouri Waste Pesticide
Page 139 and 140:
Summary of Montana Waste Pesticide
Page 141 and 142:
Summary of Nebraska Waste Pesticide
Page 143 and 144:
Summary of Nevada Waste Pesticide D
Page 145 and 146:
Summary of New Hampshire Waste Pest
Page 147 and 148:
Summary of New Jersey Waste Pestici
Page 149 and 150:
New Jersey Table 3 - County-by-Coun
Page 151 and 152:
Summary of New Mexico Waste Pestici
Page 153 and 154:
Summary of New York Waste Pesticide
Page 155 and 156:
churches, schools and businesses. P
Page 157 and 158:
NORTH CAROLINA AT A GLANCENorth Car
Page 159 and 160:
North Carolina Table 1 - Quantity o
Page 161 and 162:
Summary of North Dakota Waste Pesti
Page 163 and 164:
Summary of Ohio Waste Pesticide Dis
Page 165 and 166:
OKLAHOMA AT A GLANCEOklahoma does n
Page 167 and 168:
OREGON AT A GLANCESince 1991 Oregon
Page 169 and 170:
PENNSYLVANIA AT A GLANCEIn 1993 Pen
Page 171 and 172:
RHODE ISLAND AT A GLANCERhode Islan
Page 173 and 174:
SOUTH CAROLINA AT A GLANCESouth Car
Page 175 and 176:
SOUTH DAKOTA AT A GLANCESince 1993
Page 177 and 178:
TENNESSEE AT A GLANCEThe Tennessee
Page 179 and 180:
TEXAS AT A GLANCESince 1992 Texas h
Page 181 and 182:
YearNumberof SitesTexas Table 1 - Q
Page 183 and 184:
UTAH AT A GLANCESince 1993 Utah has
Page 185 and 186:
VERMONT AT A GLANCEVermont first co
Page 187 and 188:
VIRGINIA AT A GLANCEVirginia conduc
Page 189 and 190:
YearQuantity ofPesticides(pounds)Vi
Page 191 and 192:
Summary of Washington Waste Pestici
Page 193 and 194:
Summary of West Virginia Waste Pest
Page 195 and 196:
Summary of Wisconsin Waste Pesticid
Page 197 and 198:
WYOMING AT A GLANCEIn 1992 Wyoming
Page 199 and 200:
Appendix II - Pesticides That are R
Page 201 and 202:
Appendix IIU044 chloroform U080 met
Page 203 and 204:
Appendix IIIB. Availability Contrac
Page 205 and 206:
Appendix III4. Federal Hazardous Ma
Page 207 and 208:
Appendix III22. INDEPENDENT CONTRAC
Page 209 and 210:
Appendix IIIContractor further agre
Page 211 and 212:
Appendix III33. CONTRACTOR’S DUTI
Page 213 and 214:
Appendix IIIC. Any deviation of mor
Page 215 and 216:
Appendix III45. MERGER CLAUSEThis a
Page 217 and 218:
Appendix IVOnyx Environmental Servi
Page 219 and 220:
State Pre-89 1989 1990 1991 1992 19
Page 221 and 222:
State pre-89 1989 1990 1991 1992 19
Page 223 and 224:
Appendix VILouisiana: Division of P
Page 225 and 226:
Appendix VII - Sample Emergency Pla
Page 227 and 228:
Appendix VIIICOMPARISON OF PESTICID
Page 229:
StateEstimated(lbs. A.I.)Total Used
show all

Clean Sweep Programs - US Environmental Protection Agency

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?