Clean Sweep Programs - US Environmental Protection Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Clean Sweep Reportseveral years for Michigan to convince every centerto record the weight and identity (either by EPA orUSDA registration number or by common name) ofall products collected. In some cases, reimbursementwas withheld until the information wasprovided. North Carolina recently began to trackquantities of 15 to 20 different pesticides. Containersof these pesticides are placed aside as they aredropped off and the quantities are tallied duringdown times at the collection events. In Virginia,participants provide detailed information about thequantity and identity of the individual pesticideswhen they register. The Virginia Department ofAgriculture and Consumer Services maintains thisinformation in a data base. While the actual amountcollected differs from the amount that is registered,the data base provides a good estimate of thepesticides collected.In an effort to encourage states to trackspecific pesticides in 2000, EPA offered small grantsto states which already had Clean Sweep programsbut did not record amounts of individual pesticides.Minnesota, Kentucky, New York and Massachusettswere awarded small grants.Minnesota had already been trackingspecific pesticides for ten years but had not analyzedthe cost of its data collection and management.Therefore, the state proposed to explore ways tomore efficiently manage the data. Minnesotacompared the state’s current, hand written methodof data collection by volunteers to three principaltypes of data management: optical recognition ofcontainer bar codes, scanning drivers’ licenses atcollection sites, and telephone number identification.The bar code option required a preprogrammedscanner and proved to be both timeandcost-prohibitive, since it involved communicatingwith all the chemical companies about informationthey were hesitant to share. Even if existing codescould be used, many containers are old and from thepre-bar code era. Minnesota believes that bydeveloping a bar code for each of the mostfrequently-collected pesticides, it would be possibleto use scanners without the container actually havinga compatible bar code. For this to occur, theproduct would have to be identified and then locatedon a product name sheet with the correct assignedbar code. A three-ring binder containing the barcode sheets would need to be carried while takinginventory at on-site collections. Sheets of bar codesrepresenting only numbers would also be necessaryto scan in the weights of each pesticide collected.Minnesota’s program maintains a databaseof participants’ names and addresses, and theyinvestigated ways to make the data entry moreefficient. They tried several methods, including oneused by county household hazardous wasteprograms which scan drivers’ licenses, and anotherusing software from telephone companies. Neitheroption was considered practical, because theywould require constant upgrading.Minnesota also evaluated various equipment(scanners, software, hardware) with the latesttechnology which could be used under fieldconditions at collection sites under conditions ofextreme weather conditions, dust, grime, heat, cold,and rain. The investigators concluded that thesensitivity and limited mobility of scanners would bea problem, but that the bar code scanning option haspotential for the future. They developed a trialprogram with bar codes identifying about 50pesticides, but the budget did not allow for a trial.Minnesota concluded that, currently,entering the information longhand is the mostappropriate, practical, reliable and least timeconsuming (especially when several hundred barcodes are involved) method of collecting theinformation, provided the penmanship is legible.55
Section 4 Challenges and OpportunitiesIn Kentucky’s program, a Department ofAgriculture employee visits the participant’s site toassess the pesticides or to pick them up if theyquantity is small and doesn’t require specialcontainment. Most pesticides are placed intooverpack drums. To track certain pesticides, theDepartment of Agriculture employee followed thesame procedure, but separated the trackedpesticides from the others in either overpack bags,drums or pails depending on the amount. Thisallowed the state to measure and record the weightof the tracked pesticides. Kentucky collected usefulinformation, but the process added additional effortand time to the process and required additionaloverpack material.4.8 What are states doing to preventfuture accumulation?States are trying to prevent the futureaccumulation of waste pesticides by providingtraining and outreach for good managementpractices and promoting integrated pest management(IPM). States may provide comprehensiveguidance on good management practices, either ontheir websites or in published documents, for storingand disposing unwanted pesticides, managing emptycontainers, and avoiding the accumulation ofunwanted pesticides. Appendix VI lists statewebsites with information about pesticides anddisposal, and some that provide Clean Sweepspecificinformation. Examples of websites whichaddress good management practices for preventingaccumulation of unwanted pesticides are Florida,South Dakota and Washington. North Dakota’swebsite 4 gives guidance on prevention andemergency response on pesticide storage concernsduring a flood. State and county extension servicescontinue to offer advice and training in IPM tofacilitate farmers’ informed decisions aboutpesticides.4http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/flood/pestidhb.htm56
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 and 62: Section 4 Challenges and Opportunit
Page 67: 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?