Clean Sweep Programs - US Environmental Protection Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AcknowledgementsThis report would not have been possible without the timely and thorough commentsprovided by state and local Clean Sweep managers. Some text from this report was borroweddirectly from the reports and conference proceedings penned by Clean Sweep managers. In particular,we are grateful for the contributions of Roger Springman of the Wisconsin Department ofAgriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, on the ways to reduce disposal costs and improveprogram efficiency and on the advantages of a permanent program. We appreciate the contributionsregarding contracts and emergency plans by Jack Knorek of the Michigan Department of Agriculture,Stan Kaminski of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Judy Carlson of the North DakotaDepartment of Agriculture, and Annie Macmillan of the Vermont Department of Agriculture, Foodand Markets. Special thanks are due to Wayne Holtzman, EPA contractor, who was the Office ofPesticide Program’s principal contact and correspondent for Clean Sweep managers for severalyears. We also thank the State of Tennessee for graciously allowing the use of its photographs ofClean Sweep operations for the report cover.In addition, we thank the following people who provided guidance and suggestions on topicsand issues to include during the early stages of developing the report:• Annie Macmillan, Vermont Department of Agriculture, Food and Markets• Roger Springman, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection• A.G. Taylor, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency• Mary Grisier, EPA Region 9• Margaret Jones, EPA Region 5• David Macarus, EPA Region 5• Janice Jensen, EPA Office of Pesticide Programs.APPENDICESAppendix I - State ProfilesAppendix II - Pesticides that are RCRA-Listed Hazardous WastesAppendix III - Sample ContractAppendix IV - Contact Information for Some Hazardous Materials ContractorsAppendix V - Number of Participants and Average Quantity of Pesticides Collected per Participant(pounds)Appendix VI - State Web SitesAppendix VII - Sample Emergency PlanAppendix VIII - Comparison of Pesticides Used per State versus Pesticides Collected at Clean Sweeps
Appendix INOTES on STATE “ATA GLANCE” PROFILESThe information in Appendix I is based on data voluntarily submitted by state Clean Sweep managers andstate reports and web sites as of October 2001. Inaccuracies can be corrected in on-line updates on EPA’swebsite.Program Status: Program categories are defined as follows:Permanently funded: Twenty-one states have continuous programs which are permanently funded. Acontinuous program is defined as one that has been implemented for at least three consecutive years.Permanent funding is defined as a mechanism that is reliable, consistent and in place year after year, e.g.,using a portion of state pesticide registration fees, access to a fund that pays for clean up programs, orconsistent state appropriations.Continuous: Twelve states have continuous programs, meaning a program that has been implemented forat least three consecutive years that does not have permanent funding. Although continuous means “withoutinterruption,” a program may still be classified as continuous even if it occasionally skips a year. Of thetwelve continuously funded states, ten have active programs, that is, they have been implemented for at leastthree years in a row and carried out a Clean Sweep program in 2000 or 2001. Two of the twelvecontinuously funded states have inactive programs, because they did not conduct a program in 2000 or2001.Intermittent: Nine states have programs which are not continuous but which have held more than onecollection event. There are four active programs (in 2000 or 2001) and five inactive programs.One-time: Four states have programs which have held one collection event. All of these events were heldin 1990 or 1992.Never: Four states have no existing program and have never held a collection event.If a state’s program is funded by participant fees only, it has not been included in the “permanent funding”category. Fees can be less predictable, and thus present additional issues for the state lead agency tohandle. Whether or not people are willing to pay for disposal depends on many variables, including the farmeconomy, weather conditions and pest infestations, although fee systems can be built to address theseissues.Quantity of Pesticides Collected: The bar graph and the total amount collected to date reflects collectiondata through year 2000. Although some states submitted data for year 2001, EPA decided, for the sake ofconsistency, to postpone 2001 updates until the EPA Clean Sweep web site has been established and all2001 data have been received.
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 27 and 28: Section 2 Clean Sweep Program Opera
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 and 74: Section 5ObservationsTable 17: Tota
Page 75 and 76: Section 5 Observations5.3 Reliable
Page 77: Section 5 Observationsamount annual
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?