Clean Sweep Programs - US Environmental Protection Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NEW YORK AT A GLANCENew York counties play the key role in clean sweep collections in collaboration withthe Department of Environmental Conservation, and since 1993 they have collectedover 219,000 pounds of pesticides. EPA grants and the counties primarily fund thesecollections, although state funds have also been used.Collection HistoryProducts collected: Pesticides and household wasteYear of first collection: 1993Program Status:Intermittent, activeQuantity Collected (lbs.)140,000120,000100,00080,00060,00040,00020,0000Quantity of Pesticides Collected13,860Year59,300120,72424,610Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000960Amount collectedto date:219,454 lbs.Program FundingSource:EPA grants, county funds, and state fundsParticipant fee collected: Information not availableCost information: 1999 collection cost $50,708Collection LogisticsMethod of collection: Single day eventsDisposal method:Information not availableExchange program: Information not available1995 Universal Waste rule: Adopted, not yet authorizedPre-registration:RequiredSpecific pesticides reported: YesEligible participants: Farmers, commercial applicators, schools, parks,and the publicContainer CollectionExisting program:Information not availableContact InformationDave Vitale Tel: (518) 457-7337Department of Environmental Conservation Fax: (518) 457-1283Division of Hazardous Waste Regulationdxvitale@gw.dec.state.ny.us50 Wolf Road, Room 212Albany, NY 12333-7253Website: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/pesticid/pesticid.htm(Department of Environmental Conservation, Pesticide Program and HazardousWaste Program, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
Summary of New York Waste Pesticide Disposal ProgramNew York State’s counties have taken the initiative to organize and fund farm pesticide collectionprograms. Two examples are Erie County and a group of four counties operating a regional program,consisting of Genesee, Livingston, Orleans and Wyoming counties (GLOW).Erie CountyIn 1993, Erie County held a demonstration Clean Sweep project using EPA funds and county inkindcontributions. A total of 13,860 pounds of pesticide were collected from 54 participants. Thisexperience allowed Erie County to coordinate with and provide technical support to other counties a fewyears later.In 1996, Erie County, on behalf of EPA Region 2, announced the availability of Clean SweepProject applications for collecting waste agricultural pesticides from New York State Great Lakes Basinfarms. Six central New York counties participated in what was dubbed CS96 (Clean Sweep Projects1996) and consisted of three collection events, collecting over 65,800 pounds from 168 participants.Federal EPA Coastal Environmental Management funds of $46,700 leveraged $52,000 in combinedregional county funds to pay for the associated contractual collection and disposal charges. CS96 alsoprovided technical services to two other counties which were self-funded and state funded, respectively, andcollected 47,000 pounds from 74 participants. The counties held collections on different days and wereable to share contracted hazardous waste disposal services. While local project approach varied betweenproject groups, the end product that served the farmers was the same. Attention to safety, liability control,and regulatory constraints were priorities guiding all the tasks performed by Erie County’s Environmentaland Planning Staff and project manager. Erie County tried to simplify implementation by providing boilerplatedocuments and walking the project leaders through important processes. Erie County also obtained awaiver from the usual transportation requirements from the New York State Department of Transportation.Participants had to attend an information/registration session and pick up packing materials if needed.Drop-off times were assigned to avoid participants having to wait in long lines. Products which are nolonger registered made up more than half of those turned in. Dinoseb, a banned dioxin precursor, wasturned in at 1.5 to 2.5 percent of the collection weights despite repeated recalls as late as 1992. Mostproducts were in fair to good condition, indicating that they were responsibly managed.To protect the privacy of preregistered participants, applications were given to the Farm Bureau, aprivate organization which codified their identities. A pre-existing situation involving allegedly pesticidecontaminatedproperty caused interest in any information that could be obtained through the Clean Sweepprocess. The plaintiff’s motion to request the discovery documents they sought were denied in a local NewYork State Supreme Court, based upon the opinion that in the interest of public benefit and preserving theenvironment, farmers should be encouraged to participate and come forward with unwanted chemicalswithout fear of reprisals.CS96 made several recommendations. First, they stressed the importance of the preregistration orsurvey form, which vary significantly in format. It is important to remember that the survey form conveyspotential information only, and that the project leaders have the responsibility to translate, confirm, convertand summarize the information. This is very important because the project budget controls participation.
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 and 10:
Executive SummaryParticipants. Alth
Page 11 and 12:
Executive Summarypounds. States wan
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 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Section 2Clean Sweep Program Operat
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Section 3 Clean Sweep Program Resul
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Table 11 Total Amount of Pesticides
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
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: Summary of New Mexico Waste Pestici
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?