Clean Sweep Programs - US Environmental Protection Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Clean Sweep ReportTABLE 4 Clean Sweep Materials Collected by Program CategoryEach cell contains (1) the number of states which collect the indicated material and (2) alisting of those statesMaterialsialsCategoryPermanentlyFundedContinuous Intermittent One-TimeNumberof StatesPesticides only 1(17) GA, ID,KS, KY, MI,MN, MT, NV,NC, ND, OH,PA, SD, TN,UT, VA, WA(9) CA, FL,IL, IN, ME,MD, MA,NE, WV(5) AR, CO,CT, LA, MO(3) NH, RI,WY34Pesticides and householdhazardous waste(2) IA, VT (1) NJ(4) AL, HI,NY, SC(1) DE 8Pesticides and other material (2) TX, WI (2) MS, OR 4Total 21 12 9 4 46Note: (1) All states collect agricultural pesticides. Several also collect pesticides from households (CO, ID,MI, MT and NC). Depending on allowable participants, states may also collect pesticides from other sources,such as golf courses, pest control operators and parks.and public outreach materials. ACRC enters intocontractual agreements with independent companieswhich consolidate containers from collection sitesand then ship them to facilities where they aregranulated and recycled into other products. ACRCalso conducts research to find more uses forgranulated plastic, such as plastic pallets forpesticide storage. The ACRC has helped states andcounties collect and recycle more than 46 millionpounds of plastic pesticide containers since it wasfounded in 1992. 12.6 Are all pesticides accepted in CleanSweep programs?While Clean Sweep programs accept abroad range of pesticides, most programs will notaccept pesticide-contaminated material such asrinsate, soil and debris. Also, many programs placelimits on pesticides that potentially contain dioxin,which include 2,4,5-T, Silvex, Ronnel and pentachlorophenol.Because of the difficulty indisposing of these pesticides (discussed in Section4.5), some states no longer collect them and othersonly collect small quantities, typically less than 5gallons, to avoid paying long-term storage costs.State policy may change from year to year,depending on contractor specifications and theavailability of an incinerator which accepts dioxincontainingmaterials. States are concerned aboutrejecting these pesticides, which might then bediscarded in an unsafe manner. However, states donot want to commit their limited funding to long-termstorage while awaiting the availability of anappropriate incinerator. Some states ask participantsto store the dioxin pesticides until furthernotice and provide overpack materials to facilitatetheir safe storage.1ACRC web site: http://www.acrecycle.org/19
Section 2 Clean Sweep Program OperationsSome programs reject certain products orcontainers. For example, South Carolina did notaccept gaseous fumigants or compounds containingmercury. Texas will not accept unrinsed orimproperly rinsed containers. Many programs willnot accept compressed gas cylinders, explosive orradioactive material, or large quantities of unknownmaterial.2.7 How is the material collected duringClean Sweep programs?There are three basic collection methods:Single day events: Single day events are welladvertised one-day Clean Sweep collections held atconvenient locations. The events are usuallycarefully coordinated with the local authorities anduse a hazardous waste management contractor tocollect and dispose of the day’s collections. Acentrally located site, such as a Department ofTransportation facility, a fairground or a dealership,is an ideal location.Advantages of one-day events include theeconomy of having all resources available andmobilized for a single well-advertised date, notneeding a permanent site, the ability to include nearbycounties in the collections, and the possibility ofcovering the whole state by scheduling one-dayevents in different regions. The main disadvantagesof single day events are time limitations and thepotential risk and regulatory issues which may arisewhen participants transport the material. Participantsunavailable on the scheduled day will miss theevent and other participants may be unwilling to waitin line. In addition, one-day events are likely to beheld outdoors and are therefore subject to weatherconditions. The potential for pesticide releasescausing contamination at a neutral site may be adisincentive for choosing this method. In spite ofthese disadvantages, single day collections are themost common collection method, and only seven ofthe states that have had programs, Colorado,Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, RhodeIsland and Virginia, have not used this method.Over half of the states with programs – 25 states –collect materials only at single day events. In stateswhich combine Clean Sweep programs withhousehold hazardous waste collection, the samecollection site is used but there is a separate line foreach waste stream.Permanent sites: Participants take their material toa “permanent” site, usually a household hazardouswaste collection facility, or in the case of Vermont, toa landfill. Out of the nine states that have usedpermanent collection sites, seven have permanentlyfunded Clean Sweep programs.Permanent sites allow maximum flexibility toparticipants who may not be available for single daycollection events and spread the volume collectedover time, which reduces waiting in lines. Apermanent site is more likely to be indoors or have acollection area protected from the weather. Apermanent site entails the need for a facility andpersonnel to staff and maintain it. However,because the volume is distributed over time, a smallstaff can manage the logistics compared to the largestaff needed to handle a one-day event. Even whenpermanent facilities advertise a collection event attheir site, there is little chance of being overwhelmedsince service is available year round. Permanentfacilities offer unique opportunities to sponsorchemical exchange programs and increase localhazardous waste education. Because these effortslead to improved pesticide management andreduced waste disposal costs, states and localgovernments use permanent facilities to provideextra educational programs and technical assistance.As with single day events, potential risk andregulatory issues may arise when participantstransport the material themselves. The fact that20
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 31: 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?