Clean Sweep Programs - US Environmental Protection Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 18: Average Cost per Pound for Selected States (dollars per pound)State 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 TotalAL 1.39 2.40 1.28 1.33 1.65FL no data 1 2.10 no data no data no data 1.14 NA 2GA no data 2.00 1.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 3HI 4.01 3.46 3.86ME no data 4 no data no data no data 1.91 1.30 4.66 NAMD 1.50 2.07 1.75 1.75 2.83 1.76MS 3.13 1.21 1.02 1.45 1.21 1.24 no data 1.27 3NE 1.25 no data no data 1.30 NANH 3.75 3.75NY 2.29 5 no data 1.77 1.62 5 no data 1.79SD no data no data no data no data no data no data 1.67 1.30 NAUT 4.50 4.50 3.50 3.50 2.50 1.68 2.15 1.52 2.72VT no data no data no data no data no data 2.14 NAVA 5.00 3.94 3.26 2.81 2.80 1.90 1.16 1.26 1.19 1.27 2.34WV no data 2.50 1.57 no data no data NAAverage 6 4.01 3.46 4.52 3.94 3.27 2.62 1.50 1.60 1.45 1.22 1.16 1.23Notes: (1) No data = the state collected pesticides that year, but cost data are not available. Therefore, the cost per pound could not be calculated. (2) NA = notapplicable. If there were more years (or the same number of years) with no data than with data, an overall average cost per pound was not calculated because itwould be misleading. (3) This represents the average quantity for the years with data. (4) Maine does not have cost information available for 1982, 1984, and1986. (5) For New York in 1993 and 1999, this represents the cost of disposal per pound, not the overall cost per pound. (6) This is a weighted average that wascalculated from the total cost and total number of pounds for the states with data for that year.
Section 5 Observations5.3 Reliable estimates of uncollectedpesticides are elusive.No one knows how many pounds ofunwanted pesticides remain uncollected in the U.S.,and accurately estimating the total amount is difficultdue to several factors. First, many farmers arereluctant to fill out government surveys, particularly ifthey happen to have canceled pesticides stored intheir barns. Some people may fear that a survey,even if anonymous, may be tracked back to themand that they might be subject to a fine or penalty.Second, some stocks lie forgotten in barns for yearsuntil the owner dies and the barn is bought orinherited by someone who does not need thepesticides and wants to get rid of them. Third,unwanted pesticides continually accumulate. Ideally,all pesticides bought in a single year would be usedduring that year’s growing season. In reality, someamount may be left over every year and many neverbe used, if farmers change crops or need differentpesticides. Fourth, in recent years, some uses ofolder products have been canceled due to new riskassessments conducted under the Food QualityProtection Act. In such cases, a farmer may choosenot to use existing stocks of a specific pesticide.Several states have conducted surveys toattempt to estimate the amount of unwanted,uncollected pesticide. Georgia sent out printedsurveys in 1997 to help determine (1) if they shouldcontinue the Clean Sweep program and (2) if so,which areas of the state they should target. A coverletter explained the purpose of the survey andensured the recipient of absolute confidentiality,recording only the name of the county where thepesticides were stored. Postage-paid returnenvelopes were provided. A total of 4,741 onepagesurveys were sent to randomly selected farmsthroughout the state. A total of 1,446 responses(30.5 percent response rate) were received. Thesurvey consisted of the following questions:• What county do you live in?• Do you have unusable waste farm chemicals inneed of disposal?• Why have these chemicals become unusable?• Approximately how much do you have?• How long have you had these chemicals?• How far would you be willing to travel todispose of these chemicals?• Would you participate if you had to pay aportion of the disposal cost, and if so, check thehighest amount/pound you would be willing topay?• What is the best way to inform you if a programis started in your area?Georgia officials then extrapolated thesurvey results to estimate that 43,000 farms in thestate had approximately 544,000 pounds ofunwanted pesticides. The Clean Sweep advisorycommittee believed that this estimate was approximatelyhalf the actual amount. For comparison,between 1998 and 2000, Georgia collected morethan 710,600 pounds of pesticides.Florida’s Department of Agriculture andConsumer Services enlisted the collaboration ofother state and federal agencies, grower groups,environmental groups and other interested parties ina three-county pilot project in 1996. Countyagricultural extension agents conducted surveys andidentified over 5,000 pounds of unwanted agriculturalpesticide in the three counties. In the CleanSweep collection that followed, some growers hadapparently underestimated the amount they had fordisposal, while other growers who had not preregisteredfor the collection were accommodated.Over 7,500 pounds of pesticides, or 50 percentmore than estimated, were collected in the threepilot counties. All participants were satisfied withthe process, and the rapport and trust betweengrowers and extension agents were found to be keyelements in the success of the program.62
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 71 and 72: Section 5 Observations5.2 The unit
Page 73: Section 5ObservationsTable 17: Tota
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?