Clean Sweep Programs - US Environmental Protection Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section 5 ObservationsUsing a variety of approaches, Clean Sweepprograms in 46 states have collected and disposedof more than 24 million pounds of unwanted pesticides,which may otherwise have seeped out ofdeteriorated containers and contaminated soil andgroundwater. Using predominantly state resources,11 states have collected over a million pounds ofpesticides, and the 21 states with permanent fundinghave collected more than 70 percent of the wastepesticides collected nationwide. Participation hasexpanded from exclusively farmers and ranchers toinclude residential and institutional pest controloperators, government agencies, golf course ownersand others. Although many of the collected pesticideswere canceled years ago, currently-registeredpesticides are the most commonly collected materials.After examining the states’programs, EPAhas made observations about several major issuesfacing these programs nationwide. This sectiondiscusses the advantages of permanently fundedprograms, the costs of Clean Sweep programs, theamounts of unwanted pesticides still needingdisposal, the relationship between quantities usedand quantities disposed, and the continued need forClean Sweep programs.5.1 Permanent funding has manyadvantages.The 21 states with permanently fundedprograms have collected over 70 percent of all thewaste pesticides nationwide while conducting over60 percent of the annual collections. The obviousprincipal advantage of permanent funding is thatprogram managers have predictable funds everyyear or every few years, and can, therefore, devotetheir energy to program implementation. Withpermanent funding, managers can think long-term,can plan for phased state-wide collections, and canestablish long-term contracts with waste haulers.An established, funded program builds trustin the community and gives farmers and otherparticipants a sense of confidence that Clean Sweepprograms are beneficial to participants and theenvironment. Participants learn through theexperiences of neighbors, and program staff canplan successful outreach efforts and target differentgeographical areas each year so as to cover anentire state.Permanently funded programs give programmanagers greater waste management contractingflexibility, including options to negotiate long-termcontracts. As discussed in section 2.13, theadministrative strategies that allow for programefficiency require considerable coordination andplanning between the manager and the contractor.The more stable the program and vendor relationship,the greater the chance that the advantages ofadministrative options can be fully realized. Whenmanagers have the time to research and understandadministrative options, they can move from low-bidcontracts to “request for services proposals.”Short-term contracts leave little room for vendors towork toward more efficient, long-term solutions, andput the burden on program managers to identify allneeds in the bid documents.Also, program managers of well-fundedprograms have the flexibility to alter or expandservice formats. For example, satellite sites,permanent sites, combined household and agriculturalcollections, multi-county and multi-daycollections, and on-site pick ups to reduce customertravel time and increase convenience are optionsavailable only to those states with established,assured funding.57
Section 5 Observations5.2 The unit costs (on a per poundbasis) of Clean Sweep programshave decreased over the pastdecade.The cost of a Clean Sweep program (andthe way cost is calculated) varies from state to stateand over time. In some cases, programs may citeonly the cost of the contractor, while the considerableinternal expenditures, including agency in-kindand personnel costs, may be omitted from thereporting. The major contractual costs are usuallythe mobilization fee (cost attributed to thecontractor’s expenses in arriving at the site andsetting up for the collection), collection and disposalcosts, and the analysis of unknown substancesbrought to the collection. However, the cost ofClean Sweep programs is minor compared to thecost of cleaning up the pollution resulting fromimproper disposal of unwanted pesticides.Some states have provided yearly costinformation on their Clean Sweep programs and thatinformation is provided in Table 17. The data fromthese states are incomplete, making it impossible toanalyze the total cost of Clean Sweep programs inthe U.S.Another way to evaluate the cost of CleanSweep programs is to consider the cost per poundof disposed material. Based on the data from fifteenstates provided in Table 18, the cost per pound hasdecreased significantly over the past decade. WhenUtah’s Department of Agriculture and Food beganits Unused Pesticide Collection Program in 1993,the state paid $4.50 per pound to dispose of thecollected material. In 2000, due to theDepartment’s ability to get various disposalcompanies on a state contract, the cost was reducedto $1.55 per pound, a decrease of over 65 percent.Using vendors that were on a state contract savedmore than $230,000 in four years, and decreasedboth cost and paperwork for farmers and ranchers.Similarly, Ohio’s disposal costs went from $6 perpound in 1993 to $1.25 per pound in 2000. Thecost per pound over time for Georgia, Maryland,Mississippi, Utah and Virginia is shown in Figure 19. 1In states with successful long-term programs,the current per pound cost ranges from$1.98 per pound in Washington to less than $1.00per pound in North Carolina, with other states inbetween, for example $1.80 in Wisconsin, $1.60 inMinnesota, $1.30 in Nebraska, and $1.21 in Texas.The unit cost for Clean Sweep programs in 1999and 2000 in 26 states averaged $1.56 per poundand ranged from $0.85 per pound to $2.98 perpound.In its Progress Report for OperationCleansweep of March 2001, the Florida Departmentof Agriculture and Consumer Servicessummarized the benefits of Clean Sweep programsand analyzed the difference in cost between their2000/2001 state-run program and the cost thatwould have been incurred if each of the 374participants had contracted and paid for disposalseparately.The collection and proper disposal ofunwanted pesticides provides a benefit to both endusers of pesticides and citizens of the state.1Note: EPA believes that this cost decrease is due partly to increased efficiency by the programs and partly to the general changes inincineration costs over the decade. Although data from the early 1990s was not available, the Environmental Technology Council web site(http://www.etc.org) lists the average cost for disposing of lab packs at commercial incinerators (on a per pound basis) as follows: $2.17in July 1999, $2.42 in January 2000, $1.62 in September 2000, and $1.63 in May 2001.58
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 69: Section 4 Challenges and Opportunit
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?