Clean Sweep Programs - US Environmental Protection Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Clean Sweep ReportWhile the UWR eliminates the requirementfor participants to manifest pesticides beforetransporting them to Clean Sweep collection sites,compliance with the Department of Transportation(DOT) Hazardous Materials Regulations is stillrequired for transporting pesticides by road. Theapproaches taken by states to comply with DOTregulations vary. 1 The Massachusetts Departmentof Food and Agriculture developed an agreementwith the State Police whereby the police wouldrefrain from random road side inspections of carriersparticipating in the 1998 Clean Sweep event. InNorth Carolina, a two-year waiver from DOTregulations was secured by the Department ofAgriculture and Consumer Services to facilitatepesticide collections. In Maine, participants registertheir inventories with the Board of Pesticide Controlwhich then issues DOT shipping papers. InPennsylvania and other states using on-site pick-up,waste pesticide is collected by the contractor ateach participant’s site so participants do not have totransport it.4.2 What is the Universal Waste Rule?The Universal Waste Rule (UWR) is a set ofstreamlined hazardous waste management regulationsgoverning the collection and management ofcertain widely-generated wastes. 2 It was intendedto ease the regulatory burden on businesses;promote proper recycling or disposal of certainhazardous wastes which appear commonly in themunicipal solid waste stream, thereby reducing thehazardous waste content of municipal landfills; andprovide for collection opportunities for communitiesand businesses.EPA promulgated the UWR on May 11,1995 as an amendment to the regulations implementingRCRA (40 CFR 273), to facilitate theenvironmentally-sound collection, recycling ortreatment of batteries, certain hazardous wastepesticides, and mercury-containing thermostats. In1999, EPA published a rule adding hazardous wastelamps.The major benefits of the UWR for CleanSweep programs are that it eliminates the need forparticipants to obtain an EPA generator number andparticipants do not need a manifest to transport thepesticides to a collection site.When EPA issues a new RCRA rule, statesauthorized to implement the RCRA program mustadopt the new rule in a separate state rulemaking forit to be effective. 3 Because the UWR is lessstringent than the base or initial RCRA regulatoryprogram, state adoption is optional. EPA stronglyencourages state adoption, however, to foster bettermanagement of universal wastes in each state.Consistent programs among states will facilitate theimplementation of regional collection programs andinterstate transport of wastes. States may adopt theentire rule or portions of it, including generalprovisions; provisions for batteries, pesticides,thermostats and lamps; and provisions allowing theaddition of new universal wastes. In other words, astate may adopt all categories of waste included in1The information in this paragraph is taken from 1998 Massachusetts Pesticide Bureau Waste Pesticide General Clean Out: Final Report,prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture.2Universal Waste Rule web site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/univwast.htm3State authorization is a rulemaking process through which EPA delegates the primary responsibility of implementing the RCRA programto states in lieu of EPA. Currently, 49 states and territories have been granted authority to implement the base, or initial, program. Manyalso are authorized to implement additional parts of the RCRA program that EPA has since promulgated, such as Corrective Action and theLand Disposal Restrictions. State RCRA programs must always be at least as stringent as the federal requirements, but states can adoptmore stringent requirements.49
Section 4 Challenges and Opportunitiesthe EPA rule or choose only certain wastes andexclude others. Missouri’s website http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/deq/dap/pubs lists publicationsin PDF format, including The Universal Waste Rulein Missouri (Technical Bulletin PUB2058), whichprovides a good summary of the UWR.As of June 30, 2001, 41 states and theDistrict of Columbia had adopted the UWR and 22have been authorized by EPA to implement it. TheUWR went into effect immediately in states andterritories that are not RCRA-authorized, includingIowa, Alaska and Puerto Rico. Table 15 showswhich states have adopted the UWR, which havereceived authorization from EPA, and the effectivedate. States that have not adopted the UWR mustcomply with the full RCRA regulations regardingnotification, labeling, marking, accumulation timelimits, employee training, response to releases,offsite shipments, tracking, manifesting andtransportation.4.3 How can states deal with liabilityissues prior to, during, and aftercollection?Clean Sweep activities pose differentquestions of liability to participants, the owners oroperators of facilities that host single day events, thestate government and the hazardous wastecontractor. For example, if a pesticide is spilledwhen the participant is driving to a one-day event,who is responsible for clean up? If a spill occurs atthe location of the event, who must clean it up? Ifthe pesticides are improperly disposed, who isresponsible? If there is a problem with the disposalfacility where the pesticides are shipped, who isresponsible? Afull analysis of the legal implicationsof Clean Sweep programs is beyond the scope ofthis report. This section briefly describes howliability concerns affect the implementation of CleanSweep programs.Prior to a collection, program managersmake sure that participants are aware of the dangerof transporting old, unwanted pesticides in theirvehicles to the collection site. Using web sites andprinted material, program managers informparticipants of the procedures to follow. Forexample, Minnesota’s web site instructs participantsto load pesticides in sturdy containers on a truckbed (not a car), separated from each other bycardboard inserts and tightly strapped down toprevent sliding. Participants are cautioned to bringtheir completed product inventory and drive safely,as they are responsible for any spills along the wayto the collection site. Massachusetts’ site providesinstructions on how to repackage damaged orleaking containers and provides a transportationsafety checklist. The web sites of Idaho, SouthDakota, Texas and Washington also providedetailed information for participants. Some statesdistribute overpack drums, bags or other packingmaterial to participants for repackaging faultycontainers. As a precaution, three states requireparticipants to attend a pre-event training.At the collection event, trained contractorand government staff, not the participants, unloadand process the pesticides at the site. After thecollection, the hazardous waste contractor isresponsible for stabilizing and securing the collectionsite. At permanent sites, trained government staffmanage the security of the stored products.Clean Sweeps are sometimes set up so thatthe pesticide agency becomes the official generatorof the waste for the purposes of compliance withhazardous waste regulations. South Carolina hashad a few problems with liability due to the uniquestructure of the state’s pesticide regulatory agency,which is housed in Clemson University rather thanthe Department of Agriculture. The UniversityBoard of Directors did not want to be in the positionof incurring the role and liability of a generator. The50
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 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: Section 4 Challenges and Opportunit
Page 65 and 66: 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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?