Clean Sweep Programs - US Environmental Protection Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Clean Sweep Reportprint” analyses, rapid field tests conducted to identifya chemical by pinpointing certain of its baselinephysical characteristics, such as flash point, todetermine compatibility of unknown chemicals.Contracts can vary greatly among states, but asample contract is provided in Appendix III. Table8 displays the unit costs for Minnesota’s currentcontract.Table 8: Typical Charges in Minnesota’s 1999-2002 ContractActivity Units Cost ($)Planning assistance per person per hour $0.00Mobilization/demobilization 1 per mile per person $1.68Incineration of hazardous waste per net pound $1.43Incineration of nonregulated,nonhazardous wasteFuel blending of hazardous,nonregulated or nonhazardouswasteIncineration of compressed gascylindersIncineration of F-coded dioxinbearingwasteper net pound $1.43per net pound $0.50each $750.00per net pound $2.00Landfilling per net pound $0.12Identification of unknowns per analysis $1,200.00Short term storage (less than 10days)per drum per day $3.00Long term storage (more than 10per drum per day $5.00days)Note: (1) Fee for traveling to and from the site, setting up the CleanSweep event, and dismantling.In 1997, North Dakota collected agriculturalchemicals and household hazardous waste tohelp clean up damage caused by the Red Riverflood. Table 9 lists costs for the collection,packaging, profiling, transportation and treatment ordisposal of the collected materials.States have a variety of methods forengaging hazardous waste contractors to collect anddispose of waste pesticides. For example,Michigan’s Department of Agriculture (DoA) doesnot enter into any contracts, but counts on its 15county grantees to initiate and manage the contractsfor household hazardous waste and Clean Sweepcollections. The grantees, usually county healthdepartments or occasionally landfill authorities, arereimbursed for their disposal costs. Michigan’sstrategy is a 3-way collaboration: Michigan DoApays for disposal, the local grantee initiates andmonitors the contract with a hazardous wastemanagement vendor, and the permanent sites wereestablished with EPA grants. While this systemsaves the DoA from managing the contracts, themain drawback to this strategy is price disparity,with disposal costs ranging from $0.75 per pound to$1.80 per pound from county to county. The largestcost disparity is for mercury disposal, which rangesfrom $1.50 to $12 per pound, prompting MichiganDoA to consider establishing a state-wide contractTable 9: Charges in North Dakota’s 1997Contract for a Combined HouseholdHazardous Waste and Clean Sweep ProgramActivity Units Cost ($)Mobilization 1 not applicable $28,000Agricultural chemicals andhousehold chemicalsHousehold lab packs 2 forincineration or landfillHousehold reactive lab packs 3for incinerationper net pound $1.90per net pound $2.60per net pound $6.80Motor oil per gallon $1.00Antifreeze per gallon $2.00Lead-acid batteries each $2.50Minimum contractual fee not applicable $85,000Notes: (1) Fee for traveling to and from the site, setting upthe Clean Sweep event, and dismantling. (2) Overpackdrums that hold small containers of non-reactive householdwaste. (3) Overpack drums holding small containers ofhousehold waste that show the RCRA hazardous wastecharacteristic of reactivity.27
Section 2 Clean Sweep Program Operationsfor mercury alone. The three most active counties(of 15 permanent sites) also run annual satellitecollections in areas which are distant from thepermanent centers.Minnesota’s strategy differs from Michigan’sin that the state contracts directly with the wastemanagement company and is able to use its servicesat any time, not only for scheduled collection events,but also for special runs as needed. Minnesota usesthe same contractor for Clean Sweeps and householdhazardous waste (HHW) collections and savesmoney because both kinds of waste are collected atthe same time and there is only one mobilization fee.Minnesota has learned that it is advisable to includea clause that allows the parties to extend the contractafter 1, 2 or 3 years. If legally acceptable, thissaves the considerable time and effort involved inrebidding a contract, particularly when the contractoris performing well.2.12 Which hazardous waste managementcompanies have been or areactively involved with Clean Sweepprograms?A limited number of contractors have beeninvolved with Clean Sweep programs becausehazardous waste vendors must have specializedknowledge, experience and equipment and must bidcompetitively for the state and county governmentcontracts. The following companies are listed forinformational purposes only. No endorsement ofany company is implied, and other companies are ormay soon be entering the field. In addition, the factthat a contractor has been awarded contracts forseveral years does not guarantee that the contractorwill continue to maintain quality control and winfuture contracts. States have used the followingcontractors:• Advanced Environmental Technical Services• Care Environmental Corporation• Clean Harbors Environmental Services• ENSCO Services• HAZ-M.E.R.T Inc.• Heritage Environmental Services, LLC• LWD, Inc.• MSE Environmental• Onyx Environmental Services• Philip Services Corporation• Safety-Kleen (Columbia, SC).Addresses, phone numbers and websites forthese firms are provided in Appendix IV. Thesecompanies can provide a starting point for stateswishing to identify potential hazardous wastecontractors, the types of services they offer and theirlocations.2.13 How can states reduce disposalcosts and improve programefficiency?The methods of collecting, identifying andpacking waste pesticides greatly impact theoperating costs and efficiency of Clean Sweepprograms. For example, a decision to move wastesto an incinerator versus stabilizing them and sendingthem to a landfill could increase disposal costs by afactor of three to five. Similarly, costs can easilydouble if a large number of partially filled metalcontainers are lab packed rather than decanted.Lab packs are overpack drums that contain smallcontainers of waste.A Clean Sweep program manager’s ideas forreducing program costs and improvingefficiency 2 are summarized below. Many of theadministrative strategies require considerablecoordination and planning between the manager and2This discussion is based on presentations by Roger Springman, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection,at the 1997 and 1998 Conferences of the North American Hazardous Materials Management Association.28
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 35 and 36: Section 2Clean Sweep Program Operat
Page 39: Section 2 Clean Sweep Program Opera
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?