Clean Sweep Programs - US Environmental Protection Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Clean Sweep ReportOther grants: Texas has successfully garneredfunds and partnerships from state agencies andprivate organizations including the South TexasAgricultural Chemical Association, the ACRC, theTexasAgricultural Extension Service, the TexasDepartment of Agriculture, and local environmentalgroups. Alabama and Mississippi have receivedgrants from the Tennessee Valley Authority for theirprograms.Figure 3 Ohio Funding SourcesState-based fundsEPA grants2.3 To what extent has EPA providedfunding to Clean Sweep programs?EPA has funded only a small percentage ofthe total cost of Clean Sweep programs. Sincedetailed cost and funding data for every state’sClean Sweep program are not available, it is notpossible to provide the total amount and proportionof EPA funding. However, information on Ohio’sfunding is available and is typical of other states.From 1993 through 2000, Ohio spent more than$1.5 million to collect and dispose of over onemillion pounds of pesticides. With the exception of$80,000 received from EPA under the CoastalEnvironmental Management Program for collectionsin Lake Erie counties, the Ohio Department ofAgriculture has paid all program costs. The majorityof the project funding was generated from statepesticide registration fees and the EPA grantcomprised less than 6 percent of Ohio’s totalfunding, as shown in Figure 3.The limited EPA funds used to support stateand locally run Clean Sweep programs generally fallinto one or more of the following general categories.Providing Seed Money. In several cases, EPA hasfunded pilot projects, which were intended todemonstrate the necessity and effectiveness of CleanSweep programs to government officials and thepublic. An EPA grant of $75,000 under the CleanWater Act for a pilot project was coupled withState-based funds (mainly pesticide reg. fees):$1,420,000 (94.4%)EPA grants: $80,000 (5.6%)Colorado’s commitment of a $50,000 in-kind matchto fund the state’s first Clean Sweep in 1995. Sincethen, participant fees have funded three years ofcollections in Colorado. Similarly, Georgia receivedan EPA grant in 1993 of $48,000 for a pilotcollection, and a second grant of $40,000 for a1996 collection. These events were so successfulthat the Georgia Department of Natural Resourcesprovided a solid waste grant of $50,000 to conductthe 1997 collection. State funds have fundedsubsequent collections and the Georgia GeneralAssembly plans to allocate up to a total of $2.5million. Maryland’s Clean Sweep program began in1995 with an EPA grant of $75,000 and state fundscarried the program through 1999. EPA’s Region 5provided seed money for Clean Sweep programs inthe late 1980’s, and now most of the Region 5 states– Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin –have programs that are funded through statepesticide registration fees.Satisfying Criteria in Cooperative Agreements.FIFRA gives EPA authority to enter into cooperativeagreements with and to provide grants to states toimplement federal pesticide regulatory requirements.15
Section 2 Clean Sweep Program OperationsThe grants support enforcement and complianceefforts on the use of pesticides and field programs.There are three examples of field programs: (1)applicator certification and training; (2) ground waterprograms; and (3) worker protection efforts. If astate meets the standards set by the cooperativeagreement, it has the discretion to request funds foractivities outside the normal scope of the agreement,provided the activity furthers the overall goal ofprotecting public health and the environment frompesticides. Some states have taken this opportunityto request funds to supplement their Clean Sweepprograms.Supporting the Goals of Another EPA Program.As described in section 1.2, the objectives of CleanSweep programs are consistent with the goals ofseveral existing EPAprograms, including removingPBT chemicals from the environment and protectingthe nation’s waters. Occasionally, these other EPAprograms have supported state Clean Sweep effortsbecause EPA determined that such assistance wouldbenefit the environment and support the specificprogram’s goals. For example, Kentucky’s CleanSweep program, which has been continuouslyfunded since 1995 by pesticide registration fees,received almost $17,000 of EPA funding in 1999from the PBT Initiative. This incremental funding,less than ten percent of Kentucky’s total funding,provided an incentive for Kentucky to begin trackingquantities of certain PBT pesticides collected in thestate’s Clean Sweep program. The Great LakesInitiative accomplished specific environmental goalsand seeded new programs through its funding ofClean Sweeps. In 1992, Region 5 providedassistance ranging from $27,000 to up to $174,000to counties in the Great Lakes Basin and areasaffected by the Mississippi River flooding. Inaddition, EPA’s Coastal Environmental Managementfunds under the Clean Water Act provided anadditional $210,000 for assistance to the entireregion.Supporting Special Needs. Occasionally, EPAprovides funding to states in an area that suffered anatural disaster. In the Midwest, EPA goals havebeen achieved by funding Clean Sweeps in areas ofconcern in the Great Lakes Basin and along theMississippi River during flood years.2.4 Who may participate in CleanSweep programs?Since Clean Sweep programs are defined asthe collection of unwanted or waste agriculturalpesticides, they are directed – at least initially – atfarmers. In eight states, the programs are limited tofarmers and ranchers. Five states limit participationto farmers and households. The other states allowbusinesses other than farmers to participate,although some businesses must pay at least part ofthe disposal cost. Kansas allows dealers, manufacturersand distributors to participate on a cash-ondeliverybasis and Maine and Florida requirepayment of the contracted disposal rate ($1.30 to$2 per pound). In Colorado and Oregon, largerbusinesses and retailers may participate and mustpay the same fee as farmers and other pesticideusers.Other participants allowed by various statesinclude golf courses, pest control operators,government agencies (county, state and federal),greenhouse and nursery operators, schools, andparks. Permanently funded programs allow a widerange of participants. As shown in Table 3 andFigure 4, all of the 21 permanently funded programsallow farmers and at least three other kinds ofparticipants in their Clean Sweeps. Seven, or 58percent, of the continuous programs also allow awide range of participants. The majority ofintermittent and one-time programs allow onlyfarmers or farmers and households.16
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: Section 2 Clean Sweep Program Opera
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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?