-------
Foreword
The states and some counties voluntarily provided information on their waste pesticide collection and
disposal programs, i.e., Clean Sweep programs, to the Office of Pesticide Programs in the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). This allowed EPA to compile a nationwide summary of Clean Sweep programs.
The Office of Pesticide Programs thanks the states and counties for providing this information and, more
importantly, for the hard work and accomplishments of their Clean Sweep programs. The point of this report
is really to acknowledge and publicize the great work they have done.
The report includes information that EPA received as of October 23,2001, and includes pesticide
collection totals through 2000. There is a clear need to update the information in this report periodically as
Clean Sweep programs continue to collect more pesticides and the programs evolve over time. To check for
updates, please go to http:www.epa.gov/pesticides or call 703-305-7102.
-------
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE
FOREWORD i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES iv
STATE INDEX vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 What are the goals of this report? 1
1.2 How do Clean Sweep programs mesh with EPA's priorities and programs? 1
1.3 What laws and regulations apply to Clean Sweep programs? 5
1.4 Why do Clean Sweep programs exist? 6
1.5 What have Clean Sweep programs accomplished? 7
1.6 How has EPA categorized Clean Sweep programs? 7
1.7 What information is included in this report? 8
SECTION 2 CLEAN SWEEP PROGRAM OPERATIONS 9
2.1 Who organizes and oversees Clean Sweep programs? 9
2.2 What are the sources of Clean Sweep program funding? 10
2.3 To what extent has EPA provided funding to Clean Sweep programs? 15
2,4 Who may participate in Clean Sweep programs? 16
25 What materials are collected in Clean Sweep programs? 18
2.6 Are all pesticides accepted in Clean Sweep programs? 19
2.7 How is the material collected during Clean Sweep programs? 20
2.8 Do participants have to register before the material is collected? 23
2.9 How is the material disposed of? 24
2.10 Can usable pesticides be exchanged or donated to a party which needs 25
or can use them?
2.11 What is involved with establishing a contract between the lead agency and a 26
hazardous waste management company?
2.12 Which hazardous waste management companies have been or are actively involved 28
with Clean Sweep programs?
2.13 How can states reduce disposal costs and improve program efficiency? 28
ii
-------
The Ciean Sweep Report
SECTION 3 CLEAN SWEEP PROGRAM RESULTS 31
3.1 How many and what type of Clean Sweep programs have been implemented? 31
3.2 How many pounds of pesticides have Clean Sweep programs collected? 33
3.3 How many pounds of pesticides are collected from each participant? 42
3.4 Which pesticides are collected at Clean Sweep programs? 43
3.5 What are the safety requirements and procedures of Clean Sweep programs? 45
SECTION 4 CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES 48
4.1 How do states design their Clean Sweep programs to comply with the 48
regulatory requirements?
4.2 What is the Universal Waste Rule? 49
4.3 How can states deal with liability issues prior to, during, and after collection? 50
4.4 How can states increase participation? 52
4.5 What are the disposal options for dioxin-containing wastes? 53
4.6 What are the benefits of tracking specific pesticides? 54
4.7 How do states track specific pesticides? 54
4.8 What are states doing to prevent future accumulation? 56
SECTIONS OBSERVATIONS 57
5.1 Permanent funding has many advantages. 57
5.2 The unit costs (on a per pound basis) of Clean Sweep programs have 58
decreased over the past decade.
5.3 Reliable estimates of uncollected pesticides are elusive. 62
5.4 Only a fraction of the pesticides used in states is disposed in Clean Sweep programs. 63
5.5 Clean Sweep programs will continue to be needed for the foreseeable future. 63
APPENDICES
Appendix I - State Profiles
Appendix II - Pesticides that are RCRA-Listed Hazardous Wastes
Appendix III - Sample Contract
Appendix IV - Contact Information for Some Hazardous Materials Contractors
Appendix V - Number of Participants and Average Quantity of Pesticides Collected per Participant (pounds)
Appendix VI - State Web Sites
Appendix VII - Sample Emergency Plan
Appendix VIII - Comparison of Pesticides Used per State versus Pesticides Collected at Clean Sweeps
iii
-------
List of Figures and Tables
Number Title Page
Table 1 Clean Sweep Lead Agency by Program Category 9
Figure 1 State Clean Sweep Lead Agencies 10
Table 2 Clean Sweep Funding Sources by State 12-13
Figure 2 Clean Sweep Funding Sources by Source 14
Figure 3 Ohio Funding Sources 15
Table 3 Clean Sweep Participants by Program Category 17
Figure 4 State Clean Sweep Participants 17
Figure 5 State Clean Sweep Materials Collected 18
Table 4 Clean Sweep Materials Collected by Program Category 19
Table 5 Clean Sweep Methods of Collection by Program Category 22
Figure 6 State Clean Sweep Methods of Collection 22
Table 6 Requirement for Clean Sweep Collection Pre-Registration by Program Category 23
Figure? State Requirements for Clean Sweep Pre-Registration 23
Table 7 Clean Sweep Methods of Disposal by Program Category 25
Figure 8 State Clean Sweep Methods of Disposal 26
TableS Typical Charges in Minnesota's 1999-2002 Contract 27
Table 9 Charges in North Dakota's 1997 Contract for a Combined 27
Household Hazardous Waste and Clean Sweep Program
Figure 9 State Clean Sweep Programs by Category 32
Figure 10 Number of States with Clean Sweep Programs per Year 33
Figure 11 States with Clean Sweep Collections for at Least Seven Years 34
Table 10 Status of State Clean Sweep Programs 35
Table 11 Total Amount of Pesticides Collected by Clean Sweep Programs Each Year 37-38
(in pounds)
Figure 12 Amount of Pesticides Collected per Year 39
Figure 13 Cumulative Amount of Pesticides Collected 39
Figure 14 Cumulative Clean Sweep Collections by Program Category 39
Figure 15 Amount of Pesticides Collected by the States with More Than 40
One Million Pounds
IV
-------
.ne u^san bweeo
Figure 16
Figure 17
Table 12
Figure 18
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Figure 19
Table 17
Table 18
Amount of Pesticides Collected by Selected States through Year 2000
Quantity of Pesticides Collected by State
Average Quantity of Pesticides Collected Per Participant
Clean Sweep Quantity (pounds) per Participant for Selected States
Specific Pesticides Tracked in Minnesota's Clean Sweep
Programs 1988-1998
Quantity of the Most Common Pesticides Registered in Virginia's
Clean Sweep Program from 1992 through 2000
Status of Adoption and Authorization of the Universal Waste
Rule re Pesticides
40
41
42
42
44
46
51
Outreach Methods Responsible for Participants' Knowledge of Collection Event 52
Cost (per pound) of Clean Sweep Collections for Selected States 59
Total Program Cost per Year for Selected States (in dollars) 60
Average Cost per Pound for Selected States (dollars per pound) 61
-------
State Index
Alabama 13,15,60,61
Alaska 31,50
Arizona 31
Arkansas 10,13
California 11,12,34,39,40,63
Colorado 11,13,15,16,18,20,21,24
Connecticut 11,13
Delaware 11,13,20
Florida 11,12,16,17,21,24,52,56,58,59,60,61,62
Georgia 12,15,58,59,60,61,62,63
Hawaii 13,60,61
Idaho 12,18,34,45,50,63
Illinois 12,17,24,26,34,45
Indiana 13,34,64
Iowa ix, 11,12,24,33,34,38,40,50
Kansas 12,16,26,54
Kentucky 12,16,20,21,26,34,55,56
Louisiana 13,14,24
Maine ix, 13,16,33,34,38,49.60,61
Maryland 13,15,20,21,58,59,60,61
Massachusetts 11,13,45,49,50,53,55
Michigan 11,12,15,18,20,21,27,28,30,34,53.54,55
Minnesota 3,12,15,21,22,24,27,28,34,40,43,44,45,47,50,52,55.58,63
Mississippi 10,13,15,18,34,45,58,59,60,61
Missouri 13,50
Montana 11,12,18,45
Nebraska 13,39,40,58,60,61,63
Nevada 12,26
New Hampshire 13,60,61
New Jersey 9,11,13,31,34
New Mexico 31
New York 9,11,13,31,45,55,60,61
North Carolina ix, 7,9,10,11,12,18,21,33,34,38,40,45,49,55,58,63
North Dakota ix, 12,24,27,33,34,38,40,45,52,56
Ohio 12,15,26,34,40,45,53,58,63
Oklahoma 31
Oregon 11,13,16,18,24,34,45
Pennsylvania 12,26,34,40,49,63
Rhode Island 13,20,21
South Carolina 13,14,20,24,50
South Dakota 12,34,45,50,56,60,61,63
Tennessee 11,12,24,45
Texas 11,12,14,15,18,20,26,34,40,42,45,50,58,63
Utah 12,26,34,45,58,59,60,61
Vermont 12,20,21,26,54,60,61
Virginia 12,20,21,34,42,43,45,46,55,58,59,60,61,64
Washington 11,12,21,24,34,40,42,45,48,50,56,58
West Virginia 13,24,60,61
Wisconsin 9,12,15,17,18,21,24,26,28,29,34,40,42,45,53,58
Wyoming 13
NB: The above includes mention of the state in figures, tables, and table footnotes. In addition, every state is included in the
tables or boxes on pages ix, 7,31,35,37,38,51.
vi
-------
Executive Summary
Over the past 20 years, states have been
actively promoting environmental protection and
pollution prevention by conducting collections of
waste chemicals, including agricultural pesticides and
household hazardous waste. Since many household
hazardous waste programs prohibit farmers from
participating, most states have developed programs
specifically for farmers. This report is an effort to
compile state data into a single document, focusing
on collections of unwanted agricultural pesticides,
which many states refer to as "Clean Sweep"
programs. The report is based on information in
existing documents and data voluntarily submitted by
state and local governments. The main goals of the
report are to:
• Recognize the proactive efforts of state and local
governments;
• Document the history and achievements of
Clean Sweep programs; and
• Establish a baseline of information in a standard,
up-datable format as a resource for those
wanting to initiate or improve programs.
Clean Sweep programs are consistent with
EPA's mission to protect human health and the
environment by preventing potential contamination in
air, water, or land. Clean Sweep programs are also
consistent with EPA's draft strategy to address
persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT)
pollutants, and with the Convention on Persistent
Organic Pollutants (POPs). Many of the 12
substances covered in the POPs Convention are
canceled pesticides that are commonly collected and
disposed during Clean Sweep programs.
Clean Sweep programs must comply with a
number of federal regulations, including those
implementing the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Clean Water Act.
In addition, regulations issued by the Department of
Transportation establish standards for the movement
of hazardous materials.
This report covers various aspects of Clean
Sweep program operations, including the lead
agencies, funding sources, participants, materials
collected, methods of collection and disposal, and
contractual issues. The report also summarizes
Clean Sweep program results, including yearly totals
of pesticides collected for each state, types of
pesticides collected, numbers of participants,
quantities per participant, and program safety
records.
CLEAN SWEEP PROGRAM OPERATIONS
Lead agency. In nearly 75 percent of the
states with Clean Sweep programs, the state
department of agriculture or the pesticide regulatory
agency has the lead and takes the initiative and the
responsibility for organizing and overseeing the
program. Regardless of who has the lead, the
collection is nearly always a cooperative effort
involving the state extension service, other state
agencies, county and local governments, industry
associations, and other interested individuals.
Funding. Clean Sweep programs are
funded, to varying degrees, by state pesticide
registration fees, other fee-based funds, state general
funds, participant fees, EPA grants, county funds, in-
kind services, and other grants. EPA funds have
comprised a small percentage of the total funding for
Clean Sweep programs, and have been used
principally to 1) provide seed money for new
programs; 2) implement targeted programs after the
criteria in cooperative agreements were satisfied; 3)
support the goals of other EPA programs or
international treaties, or 4) support special needs, for
example, under the Clean Water Act.
vn
-------
Executive Summary
Participants. Although Clean Sweep
programs are sometimes, at least initially, limited to
farmers and ranchers, states are increasingly opening
programs to include other participants, such as pest
control businesses, pesticide dealers, golf courses,
government agencies (county, state, and federal),
greenhouse and nursery operators, schools, parks,
and homeowners.
Materials collected. Most Clean Sweep
programs only collect pesticides. However, some
states also collect household hazardous waste and
several programs collect other materials, such as
empty pesticide containers, batteries, and wastes
from small businesses. These states have found that
collecting several waste streams as part of their
Clean Sweep programs is more cost effective, since
mobilization fees and staff time are reduced by the
combination.
Clean Sweep programs have few limits on
the pesticides they accept, although most programs
will not accept pesticide-contaminated material such
as rinsate, soil, and debris and many place limits on
pesticides that potentially contain dioxin. Many
programs will not accept compressed gas cylinders,
explosive or radioactive material, or large quantities
of unknown material.
Method of collection. There are three
principal methods of collection: single day events,
permanent sites, and on-site pick up. Single day
events are the most common method and have been
used by nearly all of the states. About one-third of
the states use more than one collection method, and
the methods chosen by a state can change over time,
particularly as collection volume increases. Many
permanent facilities have created satellite sites to
encourage people residing far from the permanent
site to participate.
Registration. Having participants register
before the Clean Sweep event is essential for
programs using on-site pick up and very useful for
other collection methods. Most programs require
preregistration, although a few states encourage but
do not require it. Preregistration allows the
contractor to know in advance how many stops
must be made and the volume of pesticides that will
be collected at each site, in order to determine the
number of trucks and personnel needed. However,
registration does deter people who prefer anonymity
from participating in Clean Sweep programs.
Disposal method. Most collected material
is disposed in high temperature hazardous waste
incinerators, although materials which cannot be
incinerated are sent to permitted hazardous waste
landfills. For unopened, legally-usable products, a
few states have tried various alternatives to disposal
such as product exchanges, redistribution tables, and
recycling centers.
Contractors. State or local governments
hire a hazardous waste contractor to transport the
material for disposal, hi nearly ah1 programs, the
contractor provides all materials and services for
collection, including manifesting, packaging,
transport, and disposal, and in many cases,
collection at end-user locations if containers are
deteriorated enough to make transport dangerous.
The contractor assumes all responsibility as the
generator of the waste. Some states depend on
county grantees to initiate and manage the contracts,
while others contract directly with the waste
management company and use its services as
needed. State program managers have provided
contact information for many of the contractors who
are currently or recently active in Clean Sweep
programs.
Decreasing costs and increasing effi-
ciency. States have found many innovative ways to
reduce disposal costs and improve program
efficiency, comprising both chemical handling
strategies and administrative strategies. The
vui
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
chemical handling strategies include different
methods of packing the collected pesticides for
transportation and disposal, which may decrease the
cost of disposal. The administrative strategies
include specialized programs, regulatory options,
and contract management tips that may be available
to Clean Sweep program managers.
CLEAN SWEEP PROGRAM RESULTS
Number of states. Forty-six states have
conducted at least one Clean Sweep program.
North Carolina initiated the first program in 1980;
and until 1987, the only other states that started
programs were Iowa, Maine and North Dakota.
These states recognized early on that farmers were
accumulating unwanted pesticides and that, without
an affordable method of proper disposal, they risked
contaminating their land and water when the stored
product containers began to deteriorate.
Program categories. Even though some
programs are conducted by individual counties, this
report classifies the information by state. EPA is
unaware of any Clean Sweep programs imple-
mented by tribes or territories. The report divides
programs into five funding categories, which reflect
the frequency or permanency of the program:
permanently funded, continuous, intermittent, one-
time, and never.
Total amount collected. Based on data
provided by the states, EPA estimates that Clean
Sweep programs have collected over 24 million
pounds of unwanted pesticides from 1980 through
2000. A number of factors make it difficult to
record the exact amount of pesticides collected,
such as variation on how states characterize partially
full containers, differences in how solids and liquids
are recorded, and the lack of precise data from
early collections. Li spite of these caveats, EPA
believes that the overall estimate of about 24 million
pounds and the totals for individual states are a good
indication of the minimum amounts collected, and
are probably underestimates. While 24 million
pounds is a substantial amount, it is significantly
smaller than the amount of pesticides sold and used
in the United States.
Amount per participant. Thirty-one states
reported the number of participants in at least some
of their collection events. The average amount
collected per participant in nearly three-quarters of
these states was between 101 pounds and 400
State Clean Sweep Programs by Category
Permanently funded programs: Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,
Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin
Continuous programs: California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi,
Nebraska, New Jersey, Oregon, West Virginia
Intermittent programs: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri, New
York, South Carolina
One-time programs: Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Wyoming
Never held a program: Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma
IX
-------
Executive Summary
pounds. States want to know what quantities are
typical in order to estimate the people and resources
they and the contractor must mobilize for the
collection. The information may also help estimate
how much unwanted pesticide remains to be
collected.
Kinds of pesticides. Most pesticides sold
in the United States have shown up at Clean Sweep
programs. Both canceled pesticides, some of which
have not been sold in the United States for decades,
and currently registered products are collected.
Safety record. Information provided to
EPA by the states indicates that few, if any, incidents
of exposure are associated with Clean Sweep
collections, due to the diligence and competence of
state employees and contractors. This is particularly
impressive considering the large quantity of
pesticides transported and collected and the fact that
many products are in old or damaged containers.
Many states provide guidance or training on specific
precautions for Clean Sweep program participants.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
The challenges faced by Clean Sweep
program managers include obtaining funding,
complying with the hazardous waste regulations,
addressing liability issues, getting information to
potential participants, overcoming distrust of
government programs, and managing problematic
waste streams. As states are trying to increase
participation in their programs, they are also working
to prevent the buildup of unwanted pesticide stocks
in the future.
Funding. Lack of funding is the principal
reason noted by states for not operating a continu-
ous Clean Sweep program. Without a permanent
funding mechanism, the annual scramble for funds
drains staff time and energy that could be used for
program implementation.
Regulations. Regulatory compliance is an
important challenge. The Universal Waste Rule, an
amendment to the RCRA regulations, is intended to
ease the regulatory burden on states and businesses
and reduce the hazardous waste content of
municipal landfills. Most states have adopted this
rule.
Liability. Liability prior to and during a
collection event is of concern to program managers,
who employ a variety of methods to prevent
accidents. Clean Sweeps are often set up so that
the pesticide agency becomes the official generator
of the waste for the purposes of compliance with
hazardous waste regulations. At the collection
event, trained contractor and government staff
unload and process the pesticides. After the
collection, the hazardous waste contractor is
responsible for stabilizing and securing the site and
transporting the waste for disposal. At permanent
sites, trained government staff manage the security of
stored products.
Public outreach. One of the biggest
challenges faced by Clean Sweep program
managers is maximizing participation. Collection
programs have tried a variety of advertising methods
and found that effectiveness varies. Therefore, most
programs use multiple methods, such as newspaper
ads, posters at pesticide dealerships, letters,
announcements on radio and television, efforts by
extension agents, and word of mouth. States have
relied on public outreach and good relationships
between extension agents and growers to gradually
diminish the perception by farmers that they could
be fined or otherwise punished if it came to the
attention of a government agency that they were
storing canceled pesticides on their property.
Dioxin-containins wastes. The report
discusses the problem of disposal for pesticides that
contain dioxin. Most states (and hazardous waste
contractors) accept dioxin-containing material only if
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
a permitted dioxin disposal facility is available, which
is not always the case. However, rejecting such
pesticides on collection days creates ill will and the
potential that such products will be indiscriminately
dumped by the participants.
Tracking specific pesticides. Some states
track and report the individual pesticides collected.
Although tracking costs more staff time and effort,
some states want to know exactly what wastes they
are collecting in order to assess trends and plan
future collection strategies. Data on the specific
quantities of canceled and unregistered pesticides
also helps document the magnitude of the problem
so that funds might be budgeted for Clean Sweep
programs. In addition, EPA uses information on the
amount of specific pesticides to gauge the impact of
certain regulations and to demonstrate the country's
commitment to certain international treaties.
Preventing future accumulation. States
are actively trying to prevent the future accumulation
of unwanted pesticides by providing training and
outreach in good management practices and
promoting integrated pest management.
OBSERVATIONS
Compiling the information on the structure,
funding, and accomplishments of the Clean Sweep
programs in all of the states provides an opportunity
to make observations about these programs
nationwide.
Permanent funding has many advan-
tages. The 21 states with permanent funding have
collected over 70 percent of all the waste pesticides
collected nationwide. The principal advantage of
permanent funding is that program managers tend to
have predictable funds every year or every few
years, and can devote their energy to program
implementation. With permanent funding, managers
can think long-term, can plan for phased state-wide
collections, and can establish long-term, rather than
short-term contracts with waste haulers.
The unit costs of Clean Sweep programs
have decreased over the past decade. Based on
data from fifteen states, the cost per pound to
dispose of unwanted pesticides has decreased
significantly over the past decade. The major
contractual costs are usually the mobilization fee, the
collection and disposal costs, and the analysis of
unknown products. However, the cost of Clean
Sweep programs is minor compared to the cost of
cleaning up the pollution that can result from
improper disposal of unwanted pesticides.
Reliable estimates ofuncollected
pesticides are elusive. No one knows how many
pounds of unwanted pesticides have yet to be
collected in the U.S. The difficulty in accurately
estimating the total amount is due to several factors.
First, many farmers are reluctant to fill out govern-
ment surveys, particularly if they have canceled
pesticides stored in their bams, and fear that the
survey may result in a fine or penalty. Second, some
stocks lie forgotten in barns for years until the owner
dies and the barn is bought or inherited. Third,
unwanted pesticides are continually accumulating,
due to overestimates of pest populations, changing
crop patterns and new products. Fourth, in recent
years some uses of older products have been
canceled due to new risk assessments conducted
under the Food Quality Protection Act.
Only a fraction of the pesticides used in
states is disposed in Clean Sweep programs. For
the immediate future, assuming pesticide manage-
ment practices are consistent across the country, it is
reasonable to expect that the higher a state's
pesticide usage, the higher will be its quantities of
unwanted stocks. States which use the most
pesticides have permanently funded or continuous
XI
-------
Executive Summary
Clean Sweep programs, indicating that these states Clean Sweep programs will continue to
recognize and are addressing the potential problem be needed for the foreseeable future. The amount
of unwanted pesticide stocks. States with longer- of unwanted pesticide collected per year depends
running programs generally have collected higher on many factors, such as funding, the number of
quantities of pesticides and a larger proportion of the collection events, the organization and timing of the
amount of pesticides used since 1961. Data show events, and the categories of people who are
that the quantities of unwanted pesticide collected allowed to participate. Since even states with long-
and disposed by Clean Sweep programs is only a term, comprehensive Clean Sweep programs are
fraction of the pesticides used. still collecting pesticides, EPA believes that Clean
Sweep programs will continue to be needed for the
foreseeable future.
XII
-------
Section 1 Introduction
For the past 20 years, state and local
governments have collected and safely disposed of
more than 24 million pounds of unwanted pesticides.
These efforts, now commonly called "Clean Sweep
programs," focus on agricultural pesticides but may
also include other pesticides, such as those used by
homeowners, golf courses, or highway departments
along their rights-of-way. There is no federal
statutory requirement or mandate to conduct these
collections. Clean Sweeps are state and local
initiatives, and the states have adopted a variety of
approaches to finance and implement their pro-
grams. However, all of the states have the same
goal: fostering environmental protection and pollu-
tion prevention by removing these potentially haz-
ardous materials from the environment.
This report is a salute to the states' success-
ful and largely unheralded contribution to cleaning up
the environment.
1.1 What are the goals of this report?
Tell a great story of environmental protection.
The potential for soil and water contamination due
to the improper management of waste pesticides is
high and is widely documented. Many state and
local governments recognized and addressed this
possible problem and have removed and disposed
of over 24 million pounds of potential contaminants.
Recognize the efforts of state and local
governments. State and local governments have
taken the lead and largely used their own resources
to develop procedures for the safe collection and
disposal of unwanted pesticides. The federal
government has played a limited supporting role.
EPA wishes to recognize the states and counties for
their accomplishments.
Document Clean Sweep programs and provide
an accessible information database. State Clean
1
Sweep programs have many common features, but
each state has designed its program to meet its own
needs. This report presents information on each
state' s program in a standard format. It also
consolidates all of the information, allowing national
totals to be calculated and providing a nationwide
perspective on the accomplishments of Clean
Sweeps. In addition, EPA plans an on-line version
of this report, which will be a living document,
periodically updated as established programs
change or new ones start.
Serve as a resource for regulators, lawmakers.
and the public. This report provides information
for federal, state, tribal, county and municipal
officials and citizens interested in initiating or
improving the collection of agricultural pesticides.
Support national and international efforts to
prevent pollution and promote environmental
protection. Several national and international efforts
attempt to prevent persistent and bioaccumulative
toxics (PBTs)fromreachingtheenvkonment and to
remove the PBT contamination that already exists.
Clean Sweep programs ensure that existing
pesticide stocks, including pesticides categorized as
PBTs, are properly collected and disposed.
1.2 How do Clean Sweep programs
mesh with EPA's priorities and
programs?
EPA's mission is to protect human health
and safeguard the natural environment ~ air, water,
and land — upon which life depends. Clean Sweep
programs conducted and led by state and local
governments are consistent with this mission. These
programs have collected and properly disposed of
millions pounds of unwanted pesticides, thereby
ensuring that they will not be released as potential
contaminants in the environment. This section briefly
describes some of the specific EPA programs whose
-------
Section 1
goals coincide with the Clean Sweep goal of
properly collecting and disposing of unwanted
pesticides.
Pesticides
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) establishes standards for
the regulation, sale, distribution and use of pesticides
in the U.S. The Act authorizes EPA to review and
register pesticides for specified uses and to suspend
or cancel the registration of a pesticide if subsequent
information shows that continued use would pose
unreasonable risks. Much of EPA's work on
pesticides involves:
• Registering, or licensing, pesticides,
• Ensuring that pesticides, when used according to
label directions, can be used with areasonable
certainty of not causing harm to human health
and not posing unreasonable risks to the
environment, and
• Reviewing olderpesticides to ensure thatthey
meet current health, safety and environmental
standards.
Section 19 of FIFRA establishes standards for the
storage, disposal, transportation and recall of
pesticides and requires EPA to publish regulations
on pesticide container design andresidue removal.
EPA is currently developing these regulations on
pesticide containers and containment structures,
which are intended to facilitate the safe use, safe
disposal and safe refill of containers.
Persistent. Bioaccumulative andTow Chemicals
Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT)
pollutants persist in ecosystems and accumulate in
fish and up the food chain, thereby posing health
risks. In 1998, EPA drafted a strategy1 to
overcome the remaining challenges posed by these
pollutants, which stem from their ability to travel long
distances, to transfer rather easily between air,
water, and land, and to linger for decades. Since
EPA's traditional single-statute approach is not the
full solution to reducing risks from PBTs, EPA
created a system that will address the cross-media
issues associated with priority PBT pollutants. The
priority PBTs are the Level 1 substances identified
by Canada and the U.S. in the 1997 Binational
Toxics Strategy.2 For each of the priority PBTs
listed in the box below, EPA is developing a PBT
national action plan.
Priority PBTs: Level 1 Substances under the
Binational Toxics Strategy
Pesticides
aidrin
chlordane
DDT (+DDD+DDE)
dieldrin
rairex
toxaphene
Non -pesticides
benzo(a)pyrene
hexachlorobenzene
alkyl-lead
mercury and compounds
octachlorostyrene
PCBs
PCDD (dioxins) and PCDF
(furans)
National action plans draw on the full array
of EPA statutory authorities and national programs.
EPA may use regulatory action where voluntary
efforts are insufficient. EPA may pursue, in the
1 The draft strategy is titled A Multimedia Strategy for Priority Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) Pollutants
(Working Draft), prepared by the US EPA Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Pollutants (PBT) Plenary Group and the US EPA
Office Directors Multimedia and Pollution Prevention Forum, November 16,1998. It can be found on the web site of EPA's
Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxics (PBT) Chemical Program at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pbt/home.htm.
2 The full name of the Binational Toxics Strategy is the Canada-United States Strategy for the Virtual Elimination of
Persistent Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes Basin. Information can be found on the Binational Toxics Strategy home page at
http://www.eDa. gov/artlakes/bns/.
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
short-term or longer-term, activities for international
coordination, place-based remediation of existing
PBT contamination, research, technology
development and monitoring, community and
sector-based projects, and outreach including public
advisories.
In EPA's draft PBT National Action Plan
for Level 1 Pesticides? one of the goals for
reducing risks from the Level 1 pesticides is to
"facilitate, encourage, and support states, tribes and
local governments in their programs to collect and
properly dispose of unwanted pesticides, including
stocks of Level 1 pesticides." The draft plan
acknowledges the important role Clean Sweep
programs play in safely removing pesticides -
specifically the Level 1 pesticides - from the
environment. In fact, this report on Clean Sweep
programs is partially financed by funds from the
PBT initiative.
Some Clean Sweep programs record
information about the specific pesticides collected.
This information currently provides the only record
of the volume of PBT pesticides collected and the
only basis for estimating amounts uncollected.
Minnesota, for example, has comprehensive data on
amounts of specific pesticides collected. From the
late 1980's through 1998, about 6 percent of the
pesticides collected in Minnesota were the PBT
Level 1 pesticides. The voluntary efforts by state
agencies to itemize the pesticides collected have
provided very useful data and EPA has urged that
these efforts continue.
Persistent Organic Pollutants
On May 23,2001, the U.S. signed the
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
(POPs)4 in Stockholm, Sweden. Under the
Convention, countries commit to reduce and/or
eliminate the production, use, and/or release of the
twelve POPs of greatest concern to the global
community (see box) and to establish a mechanism
by which additional chemicals may be added to the
Convention in the future. The U.S. strongly
supported efforts to complete this agreement, which
will have wide-ranging environmental and health
benefits. The pesticides included in the Stockholm
Convention are commonly collected and disposed
during Clean Sweep programs.
Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Stockholm
Convention
Pesticides
aldrin
chlordane
DDT
dieldrin
endrin
heptachlor
hexachlorobenzene
mirex
toxaphene
Non-pesticides
PCBs
PCDD (dioxins)
PCDF (furans)
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
EPA regulates solid and hazardous wastes
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). RCRA' s goals are to protect people from
the hazards of waste disposal; conserve energy and
3 Draft PBT National Action Plan for the Level 1 Pesticides, Public Review Draft, prepared by the US EPA Persistent,
Bioaccumulative and Toxic Pollutants (PBT) Pesticides Work Group, August 24,2000. An announcement about its availability and a
request for comments was published in the Federal Register on November 1,2000 (65 FR 65314).
"United Nations Environment Program for POPs: http://irptc.unep.ch/pops
-------
Section 1 Introduction
natural resources by recycling and recovery; reduce
or eliminate waste; and clean up waste which may
have spilled, leaked, or been improperly disposed.
Because the RCRA regulations directly affect the
design and operation of Clean Sweep programs,
they are summarized in more detail in section 1.3.
Water
Water is essential for life and plays a vital
role in the proper functioning of earth's ecosystems.
Water pollution impacts all living creatures, and
adversely affects the use of water for drinking,
household needs, recreation, fishing, transportation
and commerce. EPA enforces federal clean water
and safe drinking water laws, provides support for
municipal wastewater treatment plants, and takes
part in pollution prevention efforts aimed at
protecting watersheds and sources of drinking
water. EPA uses both regulatory and voluntary
programs to protect the nation's waters. State and
local Clean Sweep programs dovetail with EPA's
efforts by removing pesticides from the environment
and properly disposing of them, thereby preventing
potential water pollution.
EPA sees the removal of unwanted
pesticides from the environment as abenefit to its
efforts to maintain clean water and has assisted
Clean Sweeps using the following programs:
319 Program. The 319 program provides
grants to states and tribes to implement nonpoint
source projects and programs in accordance with
the Clean Water Act (CWA). Nonpoint source
pollution, such as runoff from agricultural lands, is a
diffuse pollution source that does not have a single
point of origin or is not introduced into a receiving
stream from a specific outlet. Nonpoint source
pollution reduction projects are used to protect
source water areas and the general quality of water
resources in a watershed. Examples of previously
funded projects include installation of best
management practices (BMPs) for animal waste;
design and implementation of BMP systems for
stream, lake, and estuary watersheds; basin-wide
landowner education programs; lake projects; and
Clean Sweep programs.
CWA Section 206. Section 106 of the
CWA authorizes annual appropriations of funds for
federal grants to assist state and interstate agencies
in administering water pollution control programs.
Section 106 grants have funded a wide range of
water pollution control activities including water
quality planning and assessments, development of
water quality standards, monitoring the quality of
rivers, streams and aquifers, and the issuance and
enforcement of permits.
Coastal Water Protection. Under section
306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NO AA) provides funds for water pollution control
projects to the 29 states with approved Coastal
Zone Management Programs. In a separate but
related program, these states must submit a Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program to EPA and the
NOAA. The purpose of this program is to
implement measures for restoring coastal waters and
protecting them from nonpoint source pollution.
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs are
intended to update and expand existing nonpoint
source management programs and to coordinate
closely with the Coastal Zone Management
Programs. States and territories that border an
ocean or the Great Lakes are included in coastal
protection programs.
Great Lakes Program. The Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO), based inEPA's
Region 5 office, works in many ways to protect the
Great Lakes. One of GLNPO's priorities is to
implement the Binational Toxics Strategy with
Canada to virtually eliminate certain PBTs from the
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
environment. To support this effort, GLNPO has
consistently funded Clean Sweep programs over the
years through Great Lakes-wide initiatives and
projects that were specific to individual lakes.
Teams devoted to restoring and protecting each of
the Great Lakes also sponsor Clean Sweeps to
achieve specific toxin reduction goals.
1.3 What laws and regulations apply to
Clean Sweep programs?
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and its related regulations
establish standards for the registration (licensing),
sale, distribution, use and labeling of pesticides.
When the decision is made to discard a pesticide, it
becomes a waste and therefore is subject to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Under the federal regulations established
under RCRA,5 a discarded pesticide is a solid
waste. Solid wastes are defined to include solids,
liquids and gases. Although there are regulatory
exemptions from being a solid waste, they generally
do not apply. The RCRA regulations establish
criteria for determining whether a solid waste is a
hazardous waste, and therefore subject to more
extensive and stringent hazardous waste regulations.
Some, but not all, pesticides are considered
hazardous waste when disposed. The criteria for
defining hazardous waste are complex and should be
consulted when determining if a discarded pesticide
is ahazardous waste, but some of the most relevant
parts of the regulations include the following:
• Some solid wastes, such as household waste,
are specifically exempted from the definition of
hazardous wastes. Regardless of the
composition of apesticide or its characteristics,
a pesticide that is discarded by a household is
not regulated as ahazardous waste.
• A solid waste can be defined as a hazardous
waste if it is included on one of four specific lists
in the regulations. The two most relevant are the
list of discarded commercial chemical products
that are acute hazardous wastes (with codes
beginning with P, e.g., P004 for aldrin) and the
list of discarded commercial chemical products
that are toxic wastes (the U-coded waste). In
addition, the list of hazardous waste from non-
specific sources (the F-coded waste) includes
one relevant entry for certain discarded unused
formulations. Appendix II contains a table with
the RCRA-li sted pesticides.
• A solid waste can be defined as a hazardous
waste by showing one of four characteristics
defined in the regulations: ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity or toxicity.
The hazardous waste regulations include
requirements for identifying, handling, storing,
transporting, tracking (manifesting), treating and
disposing of the waste.6 The regulations identify the
generator of the hazardous waste - the person who
first creates or produces the waste - as the party
responsible for correctly identifying it as hazardous
waste, complying with storage limits, and ensuring
proper treatment and disposal. This regulatory
requirement, like many others, affects the structure
and procedures of Clean Sweep programs. Some
of the key requirements in the hazardous waste
regulations are described throughout the report
when they relate to a specific aspect of Clean
Sweep programs. However, the regulations are
5 The federal hazardous waste regulations are located in 40 CFR Parts 260 through 273. The definitions of solid waste and hazardous
waste are in 40 CFR Part 261. The standards for universal waste management are in 40 CFR Part 273.
6 See RCRA web site at http://www.epa.gov/epanswM/hotline/rcra.htm
-------
Section 1 introduction
extensive and a complete summary is beyond the
scope of this report.
The hazardous waste regulations also
include the Universal Waste Rule, a set of
streamlined hazardous waste management
regulations governing the collection and management
of certain widely generated wastes, known as
universal wastes. Universal wastes include batteries,
mercury-containing thermostats, certain hazardous
waste pesticides including those collected in
government-run collection and disposal programs,
and hazardous waste lamps. Since the Universal
Waste Rule is very important and helpful to the
operation of Clean Sweep programs, it is discussed
in detail in section 4.2.
hi addition, the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) has requirements for the
transportation, marking and packaging of hazardous
materials (which include some pesticides) and
hazardous wastes. These DOT regulations,
established under the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act, also affect the structure and
operations of Clean Sweep programs as described
in section 4.1.
1.4 Why do Clean Sweep programs exist?
Overtime, pesticide users accumulate
pesticides that they no longer want. Improper
disposal of these pesticides can lead to
environmental problems such as contamination of
groundwater, soils, plants, and animals. There are
many reasons why pesticides become obsolete or
unusable and why quantities accumulate, including
but not limited to:
• The pesticide product is canceled and its use
suspended;
• The farmer discontinued growing the crop for
which the pesticide was bought;
• The pesticide user purchased an excessive
amount of the pesticide or has containers with a
partial amount of unused pesticide;
• An alternative pesticide becomes available that
is safer, more effective and/or cheaper;
• The pesticide formulation is damaged, for
example, due to caking or solidification;
• The integrity and effectiveness of the pesticide is
compromised due to its age;
• The pesticide container (e.g., an aerosol can) is
old and damaged or ripped (e.g., a bag) and can
no longer be used, or the label has been
obliterated and is unreadable;
• The pesticide's use on a crop has been removed
from newer labels and, although farmers may still
legally use older products according to the label,
they may choose not to;
• The user does not know how to properly
dispose of the unwanted pesticides or believes
disposal will be too expensive;
• The pesticide is abandoned; for example, by
deceased users or found on purchased property.
Government officials and the agricultural
community had become increasingly aware that the
continued storage of unwanted pesticides was not a
desirable situation. They needed a safe way to
collect and dispose of canceled, outdated, degraded,
unusable or otherwise unwanted pesticides. State
and local officials took the lead in this effort, and
Clean Sweep programs are the result.
Clean Sweep programs for farmers are
analogous to Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
collection programs for homeowners. Many homes
have places where unwanted materials such as
motor oil, antifreeze, paints, household disinfectants,
and lawn and garden pesticides accumulate. These
materials are typically stored in garages, basements,
storage rooms, and closets. State and local
governments have long recognized the need to
collect and safely dispose of such materials, which is
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
why many local governments conduct HHW
collection programs. Similarly, officials in many
states gradually developed disposal programs for
farmers, preventing millions of pounds of pesticides
from contaminating the environment.
1.5 What have Clean Sweep programs
accomplished?
North Carolina conducted the first Clean
Sweep in 1980. Today, Clean Sweep programs
conducted in 46 states have collected and destroyed
or recycled over 24 million pounds of unwanted
pesticides. Some of the collected pesticides had
been stored for decades in barns and basements. It
is possible that these pesticides would have seeped
out of their deteriorating containers and contami-
nated soil or groundwater.
To date, 11 states have collected over one
million pounds of pesticides, with one state collecting
over three million pounds. Twenty-one states have
Clean Sweep programs with assured funding which
permits them to conduct annual collections, and
these states have collected more than 70 percent of
all the waste pesticides collected nationwide.
Twelve other states with less certain funding have
conducted Clean Sweep programs for several
consecutive years.
Participation in Clean Sweeps has expanded
from exclusively farmers and ranchers to include
residential and institutional pest control operators,
government agencies, golf course owners and
others. Collections have included nearly every
pesticide manufactured in the United States.
Although many of the collected pesticides were
canceled years ago, currently registered pesticides
predominate, with widely-used herbicides among the
most commonly collected products. Clean Sweep
programs have an excellent safety record, with few,
if any, incidents of unwanted exposure. Many states
provide guidance, either on their web site or in
printed form, on specific precautions for program
participation, and a few require participant training.
1.6 How has EPA categorized Clean
Sweep programs ?
Forty-six states have conducted Clean
Sweep programs and 11 states have conducted
collections for at least 10 years. Program frequency
is an important measure of a state' s program. A
second critical measure is reliable state funding.
This report uses these two factors to classify Clean
Sweep programs into five categories.
The categories, whichreflect the frequency
or permanency of the program, are: permanently
State Clean Sweep Programs by Category
Permanently funded programs: Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,
Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin
Continuous programs: California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi,
Nebraska, New Jersey, Oregon, West Virginia
Intermittent programs: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri, New York,
South Carolina
One-time programs: Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Wyoming
Never held a program: Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma
-------
Section 1 Introduction
funded, continuous, intermittent, one-time, and
never, ^permanently funded program is
continuous and has reliable, consistent funding in
place year after year. Types of permanent funding
include state pesticide registration fees, other fee-
based funds that support clean up programs and
consistent state appropriations, ^continuous
program is defined in this report as one that has
been implemented for at least three consecutive
years, but without permanent funding. Although
continuous means "without interruption", aprogram
may still be classified as permanently funded or
continuous even if it occasionally skips a year. An
intermittent program is not continuous but has held
more than one collection event. A one-time
program has held one collection event. Four states
have never had a collection.
1.7
What information is included in this
report?
This initial Clean Sweep Report summarizes
the significant accomplishments of the state Clean
Sweep programs. It contains yearly totals of
pesticides collected nationwide and by each state.
The report describes the state programs and
identifies state lead agencies, program participants,
and materials collected. The report covers
collection logistics, the states' various funding
mechanisms, constraints, problems and innovative
solutions. It also includes a discussion of the
regulatory framework for pesticide disposal.
This report is based on information
voluntarily provided by state and local governments
and on existing documents found on the Internet or
obtained from the state and local governments.
EPA provided draft state profiles to Clean Sweep
managers and incorporated the comments that were
received. These profiles, in Appendix I, contain
standard information on each state program.
-------
ection 2 Clean Sweep Program Operations
North Carolina conducted the first Clean
Sweep program two decades ago. Since then, 45
other states have undertaken Clean Sweeps but no
state has followed a set blueprint. This section
covers the states' various approaches, describing
the lead government agencies, funding sources,
allowable participants, materials collected, methods
of disposal, and contracting with hazardous waste
management companies. In general, the nationwide
information is presented in terms of the program
categories described in section 1.6.
2.1 Who organizes and oversees Clean
Sweep programs ?
In most cases, the agency within state
government that regulates pesticides (usually the
state agriculture department) takes the initiative and
the responsibility for organizing and overseeing
Clean Sweep programs. In six states, the state
environmental agency (which regulates waste in
those states) is the lead agency. In a few states, like
New Jersey and New York, the counties have a
significant role with very little oversight from the
state government. Wisconsin offers grants from the
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection to counties that provide a cost-share
match, a local coordinator, volunteers and a
collection site.
As shown in Table 1 and Figure 1, the state
department of agriculture or the pesticide regulatory
agency (if different than the department of
agriculture) lead Clean Sweep programs in 34
states, nearly 75 percent of the states with
programs. In addition, three states in the "other lead
agency or agencies" group share the program lead
between two agencies, one of which is the
agriculture department or a different pesticide
regulatory agency.
Regardless of which agency has the lead,
collections are nearly always a cooperative effort
involving the state extension service, other state
agencies, county and local governments, industry
associations, and other interested individuals. In
TABLE 1 Clean Sweep Lead Agency by Program Category
Each cell contains (1) the number of states with the indicated lead agency and (2) a listing of those states
(18) GA, ID, KY, MI,
MN, MT, NV, NC,
ND, OH, PA, SD, TN,
UT, VT, VA, WA, WI
(6) IL, MD,
MA, MS, NE,
WV
(3) AL, HI, LA
(3) CO, NY
SC
-------
Section 2 Clean Sweep Program Operations
FIGURE 1 State Clean Sweep Lead Agencies
29 Oept. ofAg.
6 Other
5 Other Pe;. Reg. Age.
6 Envlr. Agency
\ | Department of Agriculture: 29 states
H Other Pesticide Regulatory Agency: 5 states
m Environmental Agency: 6 states
\ ] Other Lead Agency or Agencies: 6 states
many cases, local extension agents or industry
associations, like the Farm Bureau and state retail
associations, have a working relationship with
farmers and can build support for Clean Sweeps.
They may also have names and mailing addresses of
potential participants, and they may be able to solicit
volunteers or collection sites. Finally, the lead
agency (if it is the pesticide regulatory agency) must
develop a close working relationship with the state
waste agency to resolve any regulatory issues
involved with collecting, transporting and disposing
of waste pesticides.
2.2 What are the sources of Clean
Sweep program funding?
Clean Sweep programs are funded, to
varying degrees, by state pesticide registration fees,
other fee-based funds, state general funds,
participant fees, EPA grants, county funds, in-kind
services, and other grants. States often utilize more
than one funding source and the source or sources
commonly vary overtime.
Pesticide registration fees: States routinely collect
registration fees from pesticide companies for each
product sold within the state. A state undertaking a
comprehensive Clean Sweep program will often
raise the registration fee and use the additional
money to fund Clean Sweeps and other
stewardship-oriented programs. For example, the
North Carolina General Assembly enacted
legislation in 1993, creating an Environmental Trust
Fund to support a statewide agromedicine program
and pesticide environmental programs. This
legislation received unprecedented broad support in
North Carolina from environmental groups, industry
groups, commodity organizations, regulatory
agencies and legislators. Pesticide companies
supported paying additional fees in order to show
their commitment to environmental stewardship.
Seventy-five percent of the Environmental Trust
Fund budget is allocated to the Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services for its pesticide
programs, including establishing an empty container
management program to enhance its pesticide
disposal program. The additional fees from
pesticide registration are earmarked for container
recycling rather than pesticide disposal.
Also in 1993, Mississippi enacted the
Mississippi Waste Pesticide Disposal Law, which
authorized an increase in state pesticide product
registration fees from $50 to $ 100 to fund a
pesticide collection and disposal program. A sunset
clause in the legislation limited the use of pesticide
registration fees for funding the disposal program to
five years. As a result, the program manager must
now seek annual funding from other sources to
continue pesticide collections.
In March 2001, the Arkansas General
Assembly approved legislation that established an
Abandoned Pesticide Disposal Program and
authorized the state Plant Board to collect $50 per
registered pesticide per year to fund the program.
The Abandoned Pesticide Disposal Fee must be
10
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
paid beginning in 2002 for products registered and
re-registered in Arkansas.
Table 2 identifies each state's funding
mechanisms and Figure 2 shows the number of
states that have used each kind of funding.
Fee-based funds: Several states dedicate fees
collected for certain activities to Clean Sweep
programs. For example, Texas uses fees on
hazardous waste and industrial solid waste
generators and waste management units; Montana
uses dealer and certified applicator fees; Iowa uses
a Groundwater Protection Fund generated from
tonnage fees at landfills and permit fees charged to
retailers of hazardous materials; and Delaware used
a $2 per ton surcharge on solid waste disposal fees.
The Washington state program is funded under its
Toxics Control Account, which receives money
largely from a tax on hazardous substances,
including petroleum products, pesticides and other
chemicals. In fiscal year 2000, the Washington
State Department of Agriculture spent almost
$238,500 on pesticide disposal, which was less than
1 percent of the $26 million expenditures of the
State Toxics Control Account.
Statefunds: Some state legislatures consistently
budget funds for Clean Sweep programs while
others budget funds intermittently. The North
Carolina General Assembly annually funds the
Pesticide Disposal Assistance Program of the
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Tennessee began its waste collection program in
1998 with funding for seven years as part of the
State Management Plan for Protection of Ground-
water from pesticides. The Florida Department of
Environmental Protection received an appropriation
of $300,000 for state fiscal year 2000-2001 to
support the first year of a comprehensive waste
pesticide collection and disposal program.
EPA grants: As discussed in Section 2.3, EPA
funds have comprised a small percentage of the total
funding for Clean Sweep programs and have been
used to provide seed money for new programs,
implement targeted programs after the criteria in
cooperative agreements were satisfied, support the
goals of other EPA programs or support special
needs.
Participant fees: California, Colorado, Connecti-
cut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, and
Oregon have charged fees to all Clean Sweep
participants to wholly or partially cover the cost of
collection and disposal, but such fees may be a
deterrent to participation. Massachusetts charges
from $1.10 to $1.35 per pound for solids and $9
per gallon for liquids, which is considerably less than
the cost of independent disposal by individual
farmers. However, during 1998, many Massachu-
setts farmers suffered significant losses and were
unlikely to give pesticide disposal a high priority with
their limited incomes. The 1998 collection, the first
in eight years, produced a relatively low collection
volume of approximately 39,000 pounds compared
with more than 85,000 pounds collected in 1990.
State representatives attribute this low total at least
partially to the participant fee. Colorado has
completely financed its Clean Sweep program with
participant fees of $2.25 to $2.65 per pound.
California wholly funds its program with participant
fees, while participant fees in Connecticut and
Michigan only cover aportion of the program costs.
In Montana, participants pay $ 1 per pound for the
first 200 pounds and $0.50 per pound for amounts
in excess of 200 pounds. This accounts for about
25 percent of Montana's funding.
County funds: In New Jersey and New York,
counties organize and fund farm pesticide collection
programs. At least 14 New Jersey counties allow
farmers to participate in their household hazardous
11
-------
Secncn 2 C.tears Sweep Program Operations
TABLE 2 Clean Sweep Funding Sources by State
$ indicates source of funds
^^^v^Spurces
States ^v-\^
Pesticide
reg. fees
Fee-based
fund
Permanently Funded Programs
Georgia
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nevada
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Subtotal
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
13
$
$
$
$
$
5
State
funds
EPA
grants
Participant
fees
County
funds
Inland
services
Other
grants
Unknown
$
$
$
$
4
$
$
$
$
$
c
*
c
*
$
8
«
j>
$
2
0
$
$
2
$
1
0
Continuous Programs
California
Florida
Illinois
$
$
$
$
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
^^->^Spurces
States ^*\^
Indiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Nebraska
New Jersey
Oregon
West Virginia
Subtotal
Pesticide
reg. fees
$
$
$
$
4
Fee-based
fund
0
State
funds
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
9
EPA
grants
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
8
Participant
fees
$
$
3
County
funds
$
2
Inland
services
0
Other
grants
$
1
Unknown
1
Intermittent Programs
Alabama
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Hawaii
Louisiana
Missouri
New York
South Carolina
Subtotal
0
0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
7
$
$
$
$
$
5
$
$
2
$
1
$
$
2
One-Time Programs
Delaware
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Wyoming
Subtotal
0
$
1
$
1
$
1
0
0
0
$
1
0
$
$
2
$
1
All Programs (Permanently funded, continuous, intermittent and one time)
Total
17
6
21
22
7
3
4
3
4
13
-------
Section 2 Cleans Operations
FIGURE 2 Clean Sweep Funding Sources by Source
FIGURE 2A Funding Sources for All Stales
Post ragl
10 15 20 25
FIGURE 2B Funding Sources for Permanently Funded Programs
Peat reg fees -
Fee-Baaed fund -
State funds -
EPA grants -
Psrticipamtees-
County lends -
In kind services -
Other granla-
Unknown -
1 4
5
|8
0
0
13
5 10 15
Number of States
"I Permanent^ funded programs
20
FIGURE 2C Funding Sources tor Continuous Programs
I 4
Continuous progra
FIGURE 2E Funding Sources lot One-Time Programs
Past reg fees -j 0
Fee-baaed fund ~^l '
State funds -^ 1
EPAgranig-JH 1
Participant fees -
County lunds -
In kind services -
Other grama -
—
0
0
0
0
•
5 10
Number of States
15
20
FIGURE 2D Funding Sources for Intermittent Programs
Pas) i'( lees -j| 0
10
Number of Stales
Intetmiitanl programs
15
20
waste collections, and a few charge a fee depending
on the amount of pesticide.
In kind services: While Louisiana and South
Carolina have used partnerships and in-kind services
to implement earlier programs, Texas is the only
state currently using this method. Texas has enlisted
regional recyclers to provide collection services for
materials other than pesticides, such as batteries and
used oil, and has obtained container granulation
services from a pesticide container recycler in
collaboration with the Ag Container Recycling
Council! ACRC).
14
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
Other grants: Texas has successfully garnered
funds and partnerships from state agencies and
private organizations including the South Texas
Agricultural Chemical Association, the ACRC, the
Texas Agricultural Extension Service, the Texas
Department of Agriculture, and local environmental
groups. Alabama and Mississippi have received
grants from the Tennessee Valley Authority for their
programs.
2.3 To what extent has EPA provided
funding to Clean Sweep programs?
EPA has funded only a small percentage of
the total cost of Clean Sweep programs. Since
detailed cost and funding data for every state' s
Clean Sweep program are not available, it is not
possible to provide the total amount and proportion
of EPA funding. However, information on Ohio's
funding is available and is typical of other states.
From 1993 through 2000, Ohio spent more than
$1.5 million to collect and dispose of over one
million pounds of pesticides. With the exception of
$80,000 received from EPA under the Coastal
Environmental Management Program for collections
in Lake Erie counties, the Ohio Department of
Agriculture has paid all program costs. The majority
of the project funding was generated from state
pesticide registration fees and the EPA grant
comprised less than 6 percent of Ohio's total
funding, as shown in Figure 3.
The limited EPA funds used to support state
and locally run Clean Sweep programs generally fall
into one or more of the following general categories.
Providing Seed Money. In several cases, EPA has
funded pilot projects, which were intended to
demonstrate the necessity and effectiveness of Clean
Sweep programs to government officials and the
public. An EPA grant of $75,000 under the Clean
Water Act for a pilot project was coupled with
Figure 3 Ohio Funding Sources
State-based funds
EPA grants
State-based funds (mainly pesticide reg. fees):
$1,420,000(94.4%)
EPA grants: $80,000 (5.6%)
Colorado's commitment of a $50,000 in-kind match
to fund the state's first Clean Sweep in 1995. Since
then, participant fees have funded three years of
collections in Colorado. Similarly, Georgia received
anEPAgrantin 1993 of $48,000 for a pilot
collection, and a second grant of $40,000 for a
1996 collection. These events were so successful
that the Georgia Department of Natural Resources
provided a solid waste grant of $50,000 to conduct
the 1997 collection. State funds have funded
subsequent collections and the Georgia General
Assembly plans to allocate up to a total of $2.5
million. Maryland's Clean Sweep program began in
1995 with an EPA grant of $75,000 and state funds
carried the program through 1999. EPA'sRegionS
provided seed money for Clean Sweep programs in
the late 1980' s, and now most of the Region 5
states - Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin
- have programs that are funded through state
pesticide registration fees.
Satisfying Criteria in Cooperative Agreements.
FTFRA gives EPA authority to enter into cooperative
agreements with and to provide grants to states to
implement federal pesticide regulatory requirements.
15
-------
Section 2 Clean Sweep Program Operations
The grants support enforcement and compliance
efforts on the use of pesticides and field programs.
There are three examples of field programs: (1)
applicator certification and training; (2) ground
water programs; and (3) worker protection efforts.
If a state meets the standards set by the cooperative
agreement, it has the discretion to request funds for
activities outside the normal scope of the agreement,
provided the activity furthers the overall goal of
protecting public health and the environment from
pesticides. Some states have taken this opportunity
to request funds to supplement their Clean Sweep
programs.
Supporting the Goals of Another EPA Program.
As described in section 1.2, the objectives of Clean
Sweep programs are consistent with the goals of
several existing EPA programs, including removing
PBT chemicals from the environment and protecting
the nation's waters. Occasionally, these other EPA
programs have supported state Clean Sweep efforts
because EPA determined that such assistance would
benefit the environment and support the specific
program's goals. For example, Kentucky's Clean
Sweep program, which has been continuously
funded since 1995 by pesticide registration fees,
received almost $17,000 of EPA funding in 1999
from the PBT Initiative. This incremental funding,
less than ten percent of Kentucky's total funding,
provided an incentive for Kentucky to begin tracking
quantities of certain PBT pesticides collected in the
state's Clean Sweep program. The Great Lakes
Initiative accomplished specific environmental goals
and seeded new programs through its funding of
Clean Sweeps. In 1992, Region 5 provided
assistance ranging from $27,000 to up to $ 174,000
to counties in the Great Lakes Basin and areas
affected by the Mississippi River flooding. In
addition, EPA's Coastal Environmental Management
funds under the Clean Water Act provided an
additional $210,000 for assistance to the entire
region.
Supporting Special Needs. Occasionally, EPA
provides funding to states in an area that suffered a
natural disaster. In the Midwest, EPA goals have
been achieved by funding Clean Sweeps in areas of
concern in the Great Lakes Basin and along the
Mississippi River during flood years.
2.4 Who may participate in Clean
Sweep programs ?
Since Clean Sweep programs are defined as
the collection of unwanted or waste agricultural
pesticides, they are directed - at least initially - at
farmers. In eight states, the programs are limited to
farmers and ranchers. Five states limit participation
to farmers and households. The other states allow
businesses other than farmers to participate,
although some businesses must pay at least part of
the disposal cost. Kansas allows dealers,
manufacturers and distributors to participate on a
cash-on-delivery basis and Maine and Florida
require payment of the contracted disposal rate
($1.30 to $2 per pound). In Colorado and Oregon,
larger businesses and retailers may participate and
must pay the same fee as farmers and other
pesticide users.
Other participants allowed by various states
include golf courses, pest control operators,
government agencies (county, state and federal),
greenhouse and nursery operators, schools, and
parks. Permanently funded programs allow a wide
range of participants. As shown in Table 3 and
Figure 4, all of the 21 permanently funded programs
allow farmers and at least three other kinds of
participants in their Clean Sweeps. Seven, or 58
percent, of the continuous programs also allow a
wide range of participants. The majority of
intermittent and one-tune programs allow only
farmers or farmers and households.
16
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
Many states began their programs with
farmers only and expanded to include other groups
as they gained experience and capacity. Florida
began with farmers in 1995 and has expanded to
include golf course superintendents, pest control
operators and other end-users. Pesticide retailers
and distributors may also participate, but must make
arrangements in advance and pay the contract price
for disposal. Illinois included only farmers until
1998, when it opened participation to the state's
structural pest control operators. Wisconsin has
opened its program from farmers only to include
agricultural businesses, government agencies, private
schools, manufacturers, independent and commer-
cial applicators, agricultural cooperatives, golf
courses, landscape companies, real estate manage-
ment companies, lumberyards, marinas, hardware
stores, and others. These businesses and other
FIGURE 4 State Clean Sweep Participants
•50 Farmers &. 3 other part.
8 Farmers onl\
5 Farmers and hh
2 Farmers & one other
Fanners, Comm. App. & hh
Farmers only: 8 states
Farmers and households: 5 states
Farmers and one other business: 2 states
Farmers* commercial applicators and households: I state
Farmers and at least three other kinds of participants: 30 states
TABLE 3 Clean Sweep Participants by Program Category
Each cell contains (1) the number of states with the identified participants and (2) a listing of those states
Participants
Farmers' only
Permanently
Funded
Continuous Intermittent One-Time
Number of
States
Farmers and households
Farmers' and one other business
Farmers', commercial
applicators and households
Farmers' and three or more of
the following: commercial
applicators, retailers, golf
courses, households,
governments (county, state or
federal), CESQG,
manufacturers, distributors,
private landowners, pest control
operators, nurseries, garden
centers, greenhouses,
landscapers, schools, parks
Number of States
1
I
I (21) GA, ID,
1 IA, KS, KY,
1 MI, MN, MT,
1 NV, NC, ND,
1 OH, PA, SD,
1 TN, TX, UT,
1 VT, VA, WA,
1 WI
1 2l
(3) CA, MD,
WV
(1)NJ
d)IL
(7) FL, IN,
ME, MA, MS,
NE, OR
12
(4) AR, CT,
LA, MO
(3) AL, HI, SC
(2) CO, NY
9
(1) NH
(1)DE
(l)Rl
(1)WY
4
8
5
2
1
30
46
Note: (1) Farmers = farmers and ranchers.
17
-------
-ap Program Operations
participants pay half the disposal cost for agricultural
pesticides and the full disposal costs for other
wastes. Even with pay ing the full disposal costs,
they generally save 20 percent to 30 percent of the
cost of having a waste hauler pick up waste
chemicals at their location.
2.5 What materials are collected in
Clean Sweep programs?
Clean Sweep programs are intended to
collect unwanted pesticides, and 34 of the states
with Clean Sweep programs collect only pesticides.
All of these states collect agricultural pesticides,
while Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Montana and
North Carolinaalso collect pesticides from
households. Eight other states collect pesticides and
all kinds of household hazardous waste as part of
their Clean Sweep programs. Four states collect
items other than pesticides and household hazardous
waste. Texas collects empty pesticide containers,
batteries, used oil and oil filters, and, at several past
events, metal and wire. Wisconsin collects
unwanted chemicals from non-pesticide businesses.
In 1997, Oregon began to collect waste pesticides
as universal waste in conjunction with its household
hazardous waste collections. Oregon also included
wastes from businesses that generate small quantities
of hazardous waste, called conditionally exempt
small quantity generators (CESQGs). In Oregon's
program, one contractor collects the different waste
streams at one location, thereby reducing the
collection cost, but keeps the waste streams
separate. Mississippi has collected tires, waste oil
and batteries in the past.
In 2001, Wisconsin began accepting sludge
from mixing and loading pad sumps and weigh-scale
pits. As fertilizer trucks and pesticide application
equipment are filled or cleaned, dirt, debris,
fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals collect in
the sumps and create disposal problems.
Agricultural cooperatives and farm chemical dealers
requested assistance in getting rid of these materials
in an environmentally sound manner. The state
agreed to accept this waste with the condition that
participants pay one-half of the disposal costs.
Companies are asked to remove as much water as
possible from the sludge before bringing it to the
Clean Sweep event.
Information on the materials collected by
each state in its Clean Sweep program is provided
in Table 4 and Figure 5.
Most states also conduct, or have
conducted, empty pesticide container collection and
recycling programs, often with the assistance and
collaboration of the Ag Container Recycling Council
(ACRC), a non-profit organization. The ACRC is
composed largely of pesticide manufacturers, who
each contribute to the Council an amount of money
proportional to the quantity of plastic containers the
company uses to distribute its pesticides. The
ACRC assists pesticide container collection
programs by providing training, funding, guidance
FIGURE 5 State Clean Sweep Materials Collected
34 Pest, only
4 Pe.it. & other mot
Pest. & HHW
D Pesticides only: 34 states
\~\ Pesticides and household hazardous waste: 8 states
HI Pesticides and other material: 4 states
18
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
TABLE 4 Clean Sweep Materials Collected by Program Category
Each cell contains (1) the number of states which collect the indicated material and (2) a
listing of those states
Materials
Pesticides only
Continuous Intermi
>ne-Time
Number
of States
Pesticides and household
ha/ardous waste
Pesticides and other material
(17) GA, ID,
KS, KY, MI,
MN, MT, NV,
NC, ND, OH,
PA, SD, TN,
UT, VA, WA
(2) IA, VT
(2) TX, WI
21
(9) CA, FL,
IL, IN, ME,
MD, MA,
NE, WV
CD NT
(2) MS, OR
12
(5) AR, CO,
CT, LA, MO
(4) AL, ffl,
NY, SC
9
^^^_^^^^^=
(3) NH, RI,
WY
(l)DE
4
34
8
4
46
Note: (1) All states collect agricultural pesticides. Several also collect pesticides from households (CO, ID,
MI, MT and NC). Depending on allowable participants, states may also collect pesticides from other sources,
such as golf courses, pest control operators and parks.
and public outreach materials. ACRC enters into
contractual agreements with independent companies
which consolidate containers from collection sites
and then ship them to facilities where they are
granulated and recycled into other products.
ACRC also conducts research to find more uses for
granulated plastic, such as plastic pallets for
pesticide storage. The ACRC has helped states and
counties collect and recycle more than 46 million
pounds of plastic pesticide containers since it was
founded in 1992.'
2.6 Are all pesticides accepted in Clean
Sweep programs ?
While Clean Sweep programs accept a
broad range of pesticides, most programs will not
accept pesticide-contaminated material such as
rinsate, soil and debris. Also, many programs place
limits on pesticides that potentially contain dioxin,
which include 2,4,5-T, Silvex, Ronnel and
pentachlorophenol. Because of the difficulty in
disposing of these pesticides (discussed in Section
4.5), some states no longer collect them and others
only collect small quantities, typically less than 5
gallons, to avoid paying long-term storage costs.
State policy may change from year to year,
depending on contractor specifications and the
availability of an incinerator which accepts dioxin-
containing materials. States are concerned about
rejecting these pesticides, which might then be
discarded in an unsafe manner. However, states do
not want to commit their limited funding to long-term
storage while awaiting the availability of an
appropriate incinerator. Some states ask
participants to store the dioxin pesticides until further
notice and provide overpack materials to facilitate
their safe storage.
1 ACRC web site: http://www.acrecycle.org/
19
-------
Section 2 Clean Sweep Program Operations
Some programs reject certain products or
containers. For example, South Carolina did not
accept gaseous fumigants or compounds containing
mercury. Texas will not accept unrinsed or
improperly rinsed containers. Many programs will
not accept compressed gas cylinders, explosive or
radioactive material, or large quantities of unknown
material.
2.7 How is the material collected during
Clean Sweep programs?
There are three basic collection methods:
Single day events: Single day events are well
advertised one-day Clean Sweep collections held at
convenient locations. The events are usually
carefully coordinated with the local authorities and
use a hazardous waste management contractor to
collect and dispose of the day's collections. A
centrally located site, such as a Department of
Transportation facility, a fairground or a dealership,
is an ideal location.
Advantages of one-day events include the
economy of having all resources available and
mobilized for a single well-advertised date, not
needing a permanent site, the ability to include near-
by counties in the collections, and the possibility of
covering the whole state by scheduling one-day
events in different regions. The main disadvantages
of single day events are time limitations and the
potential risk and regulatory issues which may arise
when participants transport the material. Partici-
pants unavailable on the scheduled day will miss the
event and other participants may be unwilling to wait
in line, hi addition, one-day events are likely to be
held outdoors and are therefore subject to weather
conditions. The potential for pesticide releases
causing contamination at a neutral site may be a
disincentive for choosing this method, hi spite of
these disadvantages, single day collections are the
most common collection method, and only seven of
the states that have had programs, Colorado,
Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Rhode
Island and Virginia, have not used this method.
Over half of the states with programs - 25 states -
collect materials only at single day events. In states
which combine Clean Sweep programs with
household hazardous waste collection, the same
collection site is used but there is a separate line for
each waste stream.
Permanent sites: Participants take their material to
a "permanent" site, usually a household hazardous
waste collection facility, or in the case of Vermont,
to a landfill. Out of the nine states that have used
permanent collection sites, seven have permanently
funded Clean Sweep programs.
Permanent sites allow maximum flexibility to
participants who may not be available for single day
collection events and spread the volume collected
over time, which reduces waiting in lines. A
permanent site is more likely to be indoors or have a
collection area protected from the weather. A
permanent site entails the need for a facility and
personnel to staff and maintain it. However,
because the volume is distributed over time, a small
staff can manage the logistics compared to the large
staff needed to handle a one-day event. Even when
permanent facilities advertise a collection event at
their site, there is little chance of being overwhelmed
since service is available year round. Permanent
facilities offer unique opportunities to sponsor
chemical exchange programs and increase local
hazardous waste education. Because these efforts
lead to improved pesticide management and
reduced waste disposal costs, states and local
governments use permanent facilities to provide
extra educational programs and technical assistance.
As with single day events, potential risk and
regulatory issues may arise when participants
transport the material themselves. The fact that
20
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
participants may be unwilling to drive long distances
toasingle facility is a likely reason that Michigan is
the one state that uses only permanent sites to
collect pesticides.
On-site pick up: For on-site pick up, the hazardous
waste contractor and/or the lead government agency
travel to each participant's site to collect the
material. In five states, Colorado, Kentucky,
Maryland, Rhode Island and Virginia, this is the only
method used, hi other states, including Washington
and Florida, pre-visits and on-site pick ups are done
only if the pesticides pose a very high risk, such as
cylinders or deteriorated containers, or if there are
very large quantities. Before the material is picked
up for disposal, state employees and/or the
hazardous waste contractor visit the participant's
site to inventory and prepare the material.
On-site pick up presents minimal risk from
transporting or handling the pesticides, since it is
done by well-trained and equipped contractor
employees or state personnel. Other advantages of
this method include convenient scheduling for the
participant, no need for the participant to transport
the pesticides, and no requirement for a permanent
site. States can require the contractor to dispose of
any contaminated soil found under failed containers.
However, on-site pick up can be more expensive
than other collection methods. It is labor and time
intensive because the contractor must travel to each
site, unload empty overpack drums and load full
drums.
Information on the methods used to collect
pesticides at Clean Sweep programs is provided in
Table 5 and Figure 6.
At least 15 states have used more than one
collection method, and larger programs tend to use
several methods simultaneously. For example,
permanently funded programs in Minnesota, North
Carolina and Vermont have used all three methods
to conduct pesticide collections. Wisconsin has 19
counties offering season-long services and also
conducts one-day events and multi-county
collections. Wisconsin offers grants of up to
$30,000 per year to counties with permanent
collection facilities if the county contributes $3,000
in cash or services. Counties can select their own
waste hauler, although they are discouraged from
creating local fee schedules. All sites serve as
collection sites for businesses and very small
quantity generators. Many counties have found it
desirable to offer household hazardous waste
service at the same time they offer agricultural and
business service.
The method of collection can change over
time. For example, when North Carolina began its
program in 1980, state inspectors collected
pesticides from farm and home sites and transported
the material to storage facilities located throughout
the state. The material staged in the storage facilities
was consolidated at a central location in Raleigh,
where it was collected by a contractor, hi January
1997, the state began to collect pesticides at both
designated single day events and at permanent
household hazardous waste collection sites. The
amount of pesticides collected annually has
increased since 1997. After 17 years of experience
with on-site pick up, North Carolina decided that
other methods are more efficient and effective, and
the state plans to use both the single day and
permanent site methods in the future.
Wisconsin expanded its collection methods
to reach new participants in remote areas. The
location of permanent sites has posed a challenge to
the program because, contrary to expectations, few
farmers have been willing to drive wastes into cities.
Consequently, permanent facilities have been
strongly encouraged to create satellite sites and hold
special "farm chemical collection weeks,'' which
have greatly improved collections.
21
-------
Section 2
.-am Operations
TABLE 5 Clean Sweep Methods of Collection by Program Category
Each cell contains (1) the number of states with the indicated collection method and (2) a
listing of those states
Collection Method
Single Dav Events Only
ttent One-Time
Single Day Events and
Permanent Sites
Single Day Events and On-site
Pick-up
On-site Pick up Only
Single Day Events. Permanent
Sites, and On-site Pick up
Other Collection Arrangements'
Number
of States
(7) ID, MT,
ND, OH, SD,
TX, UT
(2) IA, KS
(5) GA, NV,
PA, TN, WA
(2) KY, VA
(3) MN, NC,
VT
(2) MI, WI
21
(9) CA, IL,
IN, ME, MA,
MS, NE, OR,
WV
(1)NJ
(1)FL
(1)MD
12
(7) AL, CT,
HI, LA, MO,
NY, SC
(1)AR
(1)CO
9
(2) NH, WY
U)RI
(1)DE
4
25
3
7
5
3
3
46
Note: (1) The other arrangements are-MI: Permanent sites only; WI: Single day events, permanent sites and
multi-county collections; DE: Permanent sites and on-site pick up.
FIGURE 6 State Clean Sweep Methods of Collection
3 Single day events &
perm m?s
7 Single day events
on-stse pick up
25 Single Jay events onl\
3 Other collect arran
3 Single day events, perm
sites, &. on-site pick up
5 On-stte pick up only
] Single day events only: 25 states
\ Single day events and permanent sites: 3 states
HI Single day events and on-site pick up: 7 states
HI On-site pick up only: 5 states
] Single day events, permanent sites, and on-site pick up: * states
j Other collection arrangements: 3 states
Minnesota originally held regional one-day
collection events, but found that the volume of
pesticides collected on a single day, 30,000 pounds
or more, was difficult to manage. State officials
revised their strategy and began to provide a
collection opportunity in every county at least once
every other year. In 1997, the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture formed a partnership with
several regional household hazardous waste
programs to establish several year-round pesticide
drop-off locations. These sites accept pesticides
from individuals or businesses which need timely
disposal in an emergency situation. Collected
pesticides are kept at storage facilities until a
hazardous waste contractor collects them.
22
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
2.8 Do participants have to register
before the material is collected?
Twenty-six states require participants to
register with the state or contractor before
pesticides are collected. Seven other states
encourage pre-registration but do not require it or
require it only for certain quantities of material or
certain types of participants. Ten states do not
require pre-registration, including two that have
dropped the requirement in recent years.
Information on the requirement for pre-registration is
shown in Table 6 and Figure 7.
Registration is essential for on-site pick up
because the contractor has to know in advance how
many stops will be made and what quantities and
types of pesticide will be collected to determine the
number of trucks and personnel needed. For other
collection methods, such as single day events, pre-
FIGURE 7 State Requirements for Clean
Sweep Pre-Registration
26 Req.
3 Reqst. hut no! reqrd.
4 Other
3 Info, not avail.
10 Notreq.
Required: 26 states
lilJSl Requested but not required: 3 states
III Not required: 10 states
• Other: 4 states
\ Information not available: 3 states
TABLE 6 Requirement for Clean Sweep Collection Pre-Registration by Program Category
Each cell contains (1) the number of states with the indicated pre-registration requirement and (2) a listing of those
states
Registration
Required
Requested but not required
Not required'
Information not available
(10) GA, IA,
KY, MT, NY,
OH, SD, UT,
VA, WA
(2)ID,KS
(5) MM, ND,
TN, TX, VT
(4) MI, NC, PA,
WI
21
(8) CA, IL, IN,
ME, MD, MA,
OR.WV
(3) FL, NE,
MS
d)NJ
12
(6) AL, AR,
CO, CT, HI, NY
(1)LA
(1)SC
(1)MO
(2) RI, WY
(1)NH
(l)DE
Note: (1) Two of these states (MN and ND) used to require pre-registration, but don't require it anymore.
26
10
46
23
-------
Section 2
Clean Sweep
Os-
ns
registration facilitates planning and helps ensure a
smoothly run event. When Clean Sweep program
managers can accurately estimate the amount of
material expected, the contractor can estimate the
amount of supplies and personnel required more
precisely and can assign appointment times to
prevent delays and back ups. In some states,
registration is needed for regulatory compliance.
For example, Washington and Oregon return the
approved registration form to participants, who then
use them as bills of lading for transporting the waste
to the collection site.
Registration has probably kept some people
from participating in Clean Sweep programs
because of concern about how the information might
be used by government regulatory agencies. Some
rural residents do not accept the program's
"amnesty" or feel that the term itself implies guilt on
the part of the participant. Registration only
provides an estimate of the amount to be collected
because participants may underestimate their stocks
or may bring a larger quantity of pesticides than they
registered. In addition, people who did not register
may show up. For example, Louisiana reported that
pre-registration for its 1996 program was for 26
tons of pesticide, but the state collected over 201
tons. State officials attributed the large amount of
undeclared materials to a fear of punitive fines. A
farmer pre-registered 100 pounds of unwanted
pesticides in West Virginia's pilot Clean Sweep
program. When he realized it was truly an amnesty
program, the farmerprovided an additional 5,000
pounds. Turning people away who do not pre-
register has major disadvantages. Such participants
may be discouraged after making the effort to get to
the event and may be tempted to dump the material
indiscrirninantly rather than to continue storing it.
Several states that originally required or
requested pre-registration changed their procedures.
Minnesota, for example, dropped the requirement
when they determined that more than half of their
participants were walk-ins. Similarly, North Dakota
dropped their pre-registration requirement and
Floridano longer requests it.
2.9 How is the material disposed of?
The vast majority of material collected is
disposed in high temperature hazardous waste
incinerators. Pesticides that cannot be incinerated
are sent to permitted hazardous waste landfills. For
example, mercury products collected in Colorado
were stabilized and landfilled. Lead arsenate, a
commonly collected pesticide, is landfilled in
permitted facilities. Seventeen states listed
incineration as their sole disposal method, and 15
states reported using both incineration and landfilling.
States make decisions about whether to landfill
certain pesticides on a case-by-case basis,
depending on the quantities involved, the state's land
disposal restrictions, and the hazardous waste
contractor's expertise.
Five states reported using athird disposal
method in addition to incineration and landfilling, but
these methods disposed of a very small percentage
of the total. For example, Illinois held three one-day
events in 1999. Of the 14,392 pounds of pesticides
collected at one event, 13,3 57 pounds were
incinerated, 505 pounds were landfilled and 530
pounds underwent wastewater treatment. At the
other two events, all of the pesticides collected were
incinerated except for four pounds which were
landfilled. Iowa has used some collected waste
material in fuel blending, and Wisconsin has
reclaimed or reprocessed approximately 3 percent
of the pesticides collected. It is not clear whether
such infrequently used disposal methods are cost-
effective. Both Illinois and Tennessee reported that
they recycle products when possible, but Tennessee
estimated that less than 1 percent of the collected
pesticides are recycled. South Carolina provided
24
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
some product to a cement kiln for fuel, but this
accounted for less than 0.2 percent of the annual
collection.
Information on the methods used by the
states to dispose of pesticides and other materials
collected at Clean Sweep programs is provided in
Table 7 and Figure 8.
2.10 Can usable pesticides be
exchanged or donated to a party
which needs or can use them?
When unopened, legally usable products are
collected, common sense suggests that it would be
better and more energy efficient to use them than to
dispose of them. Tactics employed to accomplish
this include product exchanges, redistribution tables
and recycling centers.
Programs to find a user for collected
pesticides must be well-planned and orchestrated,
with good advertising, strong local leadership and
on-site logistics management. Regulatory and
liability issues may pose barriers to exchange
programs when pesticides are transferred from one
owner to another. For example, many agricultural
products are restricted use products, which can only
be distributed to applicators certified to use them.
This means that before such products can be
exchanged, someone has to check credentials at the
collection event. Additionally, the age, efficacy, and
previous storage conditions of the pesticides are
often unknown, so there is no guarantee that a
TABLE 7 Clean Sweep Methods of Disposal by Program Category
Each cell contains (1) the number of states with the indicated disposal method and (2) a listing
of those states
Disposal Method
Incineration only
Incineration and landfill
Incineration, landfill, and other
methods
Incineration and out-of-state
facilities only
Landfill only
Information not available
Permanently
Funded
Intermittent j One-Time
Number
of States
(9) GA, KY,
MI, MN, MT,
NV, ND, SD,
UT
(9) ID, KS,
NC, OH, PA,
TX, VT, VA,
WA
(3) IA, TN, WI
21
(6) CA, IN,
MD, MS,
MA.WV
(2) NE, OR
d)IL
(1)ME
(2) NJ, FL
12
(1)LA
(3) AL, AR,
CO
(1)SC
(4) CT, HI,
MO, NY
9
(1)WY
(1)DE
(l)Rl
(1)NH
4
17
15
5
1
1
7
46
25
-------
Sec 9p Program Operations
FIGURE 8 State Clean Sweep Methods of Disposal
15 Incin. A landfill
17 Incin. only
5 Incin., (and.. &
other
7 Info, not avail
dfill only
1 Incin. and out-of-statefac..
Incineration only: / 7 states
£ Incineration and landfill: 15 states
Incineration, landfill, and other methods: 5 states
Incineration and out-of-state facilities only: I state
Landfill only: / state
Information not available: 7 states
pesticide's composition remains within the specifica-
tions of its registration. As a result, it may be
necessary to have recipients sign waivers or letters
of understanding.
Despite these considerations, Kansas,
Kentucky, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont,
and Wisconsin allow exchange, generally on a
limited basis. Texas has an exchange program for
household hazardous waste collections and tried
having a "swap shop" for pesticides in sealed,
unopened containers that were neither banned nor
restricted. Ohio has donated useable products.
Illinois attempted a swap program in 1994, but
discontinued it because the Department of Agricul-
ture found that contacting the appropriate people to
facilitate the exchange was very time-consuming. In
addition, Illinois determined there was considerable
uncertainty about the quality of the products and
concluded that most products were in need of
disposal. It is possible that other programs also
allow pesticide exchange on a case-by-case basis,
especially if containers are unopened.
2.11 What is involved with establishing
a contract between the lead agency
and a hazardous waste
management company?
State and local governments typically hire
hazardous waste management companies to handle
the pesticides in Clean Sweep programs. In nearly
all programs, the contractor provides all materials
and services for collection, including manifesting,
packaging, transporting and disposing of the
collected material. In many cases, the contractor
will collect pesticides at end-user locations if
containers are sufficiently deteriorated to make
transportation dangerous. The contractor may
assume all responsibility as the generator of the
waste and may hold the state harmless from any
claims.
Contracts include insurance such as
worker's compensation, general liability, and
pollution liability. Contractors maintain a health and
safety program and are responsible for obtaining all
licenses, permits, manifests and other documents
necessary for compliance with federal, state and
local regulations, including those established by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration and
Department of Transportation and EPA's require-
ments under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act (com-
monly called Superfund), and Superfund Amend-
ments Reauthorization Act. Site set-up and
restoration at single day events are the contractor's
responsibility, hi states that conduct on-site
collections at participants' sites, the contractor may
also commit to stabilizing and cleaning up contami-
nated soil around deteriorated containers. Some
waste management companies do on-site "finger-
26
-------
The Clean Sweep Paper:
print" analyses, rapid field tests conducted to
identify a chemical by pinpointing certain of its
baseline physical characteristics, such as flash point,
to determine compatibility of unknown chemicals.
Contracts can vary greatly among states, but a
sample contract is provided in Appendix III. Table
8 displays the unit costs for Minnesota's current
contract.
Table 8: Typical Charges in Minnesota's 1999-
2002 Contract
Activity
Planning assistance
Mobilization/demobilization l
Incineration of hazardous waste
Incineration of nonregulated,
nonhazardous waste
Fuel blending of hazardous,
nonregulated or nonhazardous
waste
Incineration of compressed gas
cylinders
Incineration of F-coded dioxin-
bearing waste
Landfilling
Identification of unknowns
Short term storage (less than 10
days)
Long term storage (more than 10
days)
Units
per person per hour
per mile per person
per net pound
per net pound
per net pound
each
per net pound
per net pound
per analysis
per drum per day
per drum per day
Cost ($)
so.oo
$1,68
$1.43
$1.43
$0.50
$750.00
$2.00
$0.12
$1,200.00
$3.00
$5.00
Note: (1) Fee for traveling to and from the site, setting up the Clean
Sweep event, and dismantling.
In 1997, North Dakota collected
agricultural chemicals and household hazardous
waste to help clean up damage caused by the Red
River flood. Table 9 lists costs for the collection,
packaging, profiling, transportation and treatment or
disposal of the collected materials.
States have a variety of methods for
engaging hazardous waste contractors to collect and
dispose of waste pesticides. For example,
Michigan's Department of Agriculture (DoA) does
not enter into any contracts, but counts on its 15
county grantees to initiate and manage the contracts
for household hazardous waste and Clean Sweep
collections. The grantees, usually county health
departments or occasionally landfill authorities, are
reimbursed for their disposal costs. Michigan's
strategy is a 3-way collaboration: Michigan DoA
pays for disposal, the local grantee initiates and
monitors the contract with a hazardous waste
management vendor, and the permanent sites were
established with EPA grants. While this system
saves the DoA from managing the contracts, the
main drawback to this strategy is price disparity,
with disposal costs ranging from $0.75 per pound to
$1.80 per pound from county to county. The largest
cost disparity is for mercury disposal, which ranges
from $1.50 to $12 per pound, prompting Michigan
DoA to consider establishing a state-wide contract
Table 9: Charges in North Dakota's 1997
Contract for a Combined Household
Hazardous Waste and Clean Sweep Program
Activity
Mobilization '
Agricultural chemicals and
household chemicals
Household lab packs 2 for
incineration or landfill
Household reactive lab packs 3
for incineration
Motor oil
Antifreeze
Lead-acid batteries
Minimum contractual fee
Units
not applicable
per net pound
per net pound
per net pound
per gallon
per gallon
each
not applicable
Cost ($)
$28,000
$1.90
$2.60
$6.80
$1.00
$2.00
$2.50
$85,000
Notes: (1) Fee for traveling to and from the site, setting up
the Clean Sweep event, and dismantling. (2) Overpack
drums that hold small containers of non-reactive household
waste. (3) Overpack drums holding small containers of
household waste that show the RCRA hazardous waste
characteristic of reactivity.
27
-------
Section 2 Dean Sw^ep Program Operations
for mercury alone. The three most active counties
(of 15 permanent sites) also run annual satellite
collections in areas which are distant from the
permanent centers.
Minnesota's strategy differs from
Michigan's in that the state contracts directly with
the waste management company and is able to use
its services at any time, not only for scheduled
collection events, but also for special runs as
needed. Minnesota uses the same contractor for
Clean Sweeps and household hazardous waste
(HHW) collections and saves money because both
kinds of waste are collected at the same time and
there is only one mobilization fee. Minnesota has
learned that it is advisable to include a clause that
allows the parties to extend the contract after 1,2 or
3 years. If legally acceptable, this saves the
considerable time and effort involved in rebidding a
contract, particularly when the contractor is
performing well.
2.12 Which hazardous waste manage-
ment companies have been or are
actively involved with Clean Sweep
programs?
A Limited number of contractors have been
involved with Clean Sweep programs because
hazardous waste vendors must have specialized
knowledge, experience and equipment and must bid
competitively for the state and county government
contracts. The following companies are listed for
informational purposes only. No endorsement of
any company is implied, and other companies are or
may soon be entering the field. In addition, the fact
that a contractor has been awarded contracts for
several years does not guarantee that the contractor
will continue to maintain quality control and win
future contracts. States have used the following
contractors:
• AdvancedEnvironmentalTechnicalServices
• Care Environmental Corporation
• Clean Harbors Environmental Services
• ENSCO Services
• HAZ-M.E.R.TInc.
• Heritage Environmental Services, LLC
• LWDJnc.
• MSEEnvironmental
• OnyxEnvironmental Services
• Philip Services Corporation
• Safety-Kleen (Columbia, SC).
Addresses, phone numbers and websites for
these firms are provided in Appendix IV. These
companies can provide a starting point for states
wishing to identify potential hazardous waste
contractors, the types of services they offer and their
locations.
2.13 How can states reduce disposal
costs and improve program
efficiency?
The methods of collecting, identifying and
packing waste pesticides greatly impact the
operating costs and efficiency of Clean Sweep
programs. For example, a decision to move wastes
to an incinerator versus stabilizing them and sending
them to a landfill could increase disposal costs by a
factor of three to five. Similarly, costs can easily
double if a large number of partially filled metal
containers are lab packed rather than decanted.
Lab packs are overpack drums that contain small
containers of waste.
A Clean Sweep program manager's ideas for
reducing program costs and improving
efficiency2 are summarized below. Many of the
administrative strategies require considerable
coordination and planning between the manager and
2 This discussion is based on presentations by Roger Springman, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection,
at the 1997 and 1998 Conferences of the North American Hazardous Materials Management Association.
28
-------
Ths Clean Sweep Racon:
the waste hauler and a level of sophistication which
is difficult to achieve with short-term contracts.
Chemical Waste Handling Strategies
Bulking. Bulking is most commonly applied to
paints and other general-purpose solvents, thinners
and cleaners, but can also be applied to pesticides.
When sufficient quantities of aqueous herbicides are
present, the waste hauler can begin herbicide
bulking, which reduces costs by nearly 50 percent
compared to lab packing. Another common
procedure is to move smaller quantities of
"bulkables" (products collected in high quantity and
which can be easily consolidated) to central
locations from satellite sites. Although a
considerable amount of insecticides are generated at
Wisconsin Clean Sweeps, the fumes associated with
insecticide bulking may create safety concerns.
Fuel blending. Diesel fuel, solvents, flammable
paint and old gas, which are occasionally brought to
waste collections, have monetary value to waste
haulers as fuel for incinerators and cement kilns.
Pricing credits may be given for these materials
based on their chemical characteristics (e.g., halogen
and sludge contents).
Cylinder bubbling. Greenhouses, nurseries, and
certain horticultural operations often have older, low
pressure insecticide and fumigant cylinders for
disposal. Since disposal costs can be $800 or more
per cylinder, this is one of the most expensive waste
streams at Clean Sweeps. Bubbling involves
releasing cylinder contents underwater, usually in a
five-gallon bucket. The resultant waste stream can
typically fitthe profile of ah'quid-poison, thereby
reducing disposal costs by as much as 70 percent.
This technique can only be used when valve integrity
is absolutely certain and when not prohibited (as
"treatment") by some state regulatory agencies.
Decanting 2.5 and 5-gallon containers. Farmers
bring large numbers of partially filled 2.5- and 5-
gallon herbicide containers to Clean Sweeps.
Rather than separately lab packing such containers,
similar pesticides can be decanted into a single (or
several) 5-gallon container (or 55-gallon drum for
greater quantities). This practice can result in 20 to
30 percent savings over lab packing because there
is less dead-air space and the containers can be
disposed separately.
Removing drum vents. Agricultural and business
waste streams include drums of various designs,
some of which contain vents which stick up several
inches above the drum. Because non-DOT
approved and "open" drums cannot be transported,
overpacking into salvage drums is prescribed. To
avoid extra overpack costs, vents can be removed
and plugged, saving over $ 100 per drum. On-site
staff must have drum repair kits to implement this
option.
Product recycling. Product exchanges and
recycling are effective strategies at household
hazardous waste collections, but may pose special
problems with restricted use pesticides, which can
only be distributed to certified applicators.
Administrative Strategies
Use of public programs. Many states have
established specialized services for certain problem
materials, such as low-level radioactive materials
and explosives. For example, Wisconsin operates a
low-level radioactive collection and disposal
program funded by fees collected from the nuclear
power industry. The program saves schools and
other public sites tens of thousands of dollars by
aggregating material and avoiding waste hauler
mobilization fees.
29
-------
Section 2 Clean Sweep Program Operations
Waste stream vs. lab pack option. How wastes
are initially defined for regulatory purposes affects
what rules, paperwork and transportation options
apply. According to 49 CFR173.12b, chemicals
of the same DOT hazard class that meet certain size
or quantity limits may be placed into a specified
shipping container with the resulting manifesting
requirements. However, if these same chemicals are
considered a "waste stream," drum inventory is no
longer necessary and some additional paperwork
and technical demands can be reduced, saving 5 to
10 percent in labor.
Use of the Universal Waste Rule. As discussed in
section 4.2, the Universal Waste Rule gives
managers and waste haulers a regulatory option that
can reduce paperwork and handling costs.
Joint program sponsorship. If programs are seen
as being sponsored by only one agency, it may be
hard to seek cooperative approaches. States have
overcome local sponsorship barriers by providing
financial incentives, such as reduced cost-share fees
and mobilization fees for counties working together
in joint or mobile collections. Michigan is among the
states that found a suitable partner in industry when
looking for a collection site. By enlisting the
cooperation and sponsorship of a large Grower's
Cooperative, the state was able to establish a
permanent collection site.
Pre-resistration. One way to facilitate good
decision-making is through pre-registration. Early
knowledge about the types and quantities of
pesticides to be collected allows program staff and
waste haulers to estimate the level of resources
needed and to identify alternative management
options.
Vendor selection. Waste haulers must meet high
efficiency standards to run a successful program.
Consequently, it is important for program managers
to have a responsive vendor or to employ
contracting strategies that allow rapid adjustments
(e.g., annual contracting or performance-based
contracts). The price, indicated by the disposal cost
per pound and the mobilization fee, is one indicator
of efficiency, although expressing efficiency in dollar
figures only hides many important non-monetary
values. Vendor commitment, vendor service
abilities, liability protection, and vendor end-site
control should be as important as price when
selecting a contractor.
The effectiveness of contracts in responding
to efficiency demands depends largely on the extent
to which the vendor is made a partner in the
collection process. If the vendor is viewed as an
"outsider," there will likely be less incentive for
change. Strategies that build incentives or that view
vendors as partners are usually more successful.
The following questions can be used for efficiency
evaluations:
• What incentives are built into the contracting
process, including Requests for Proposals and
Requests for Bids, to encourage waste haulers
to lower costs and improve efficiency while
maintaining high customer satisfaction?
• Does the contracting process "test the
marketplace" across a wide range of
competitors?
• How frequently do sponsors, program
management staff and waste hauling staff meet to
discuss contract compliance and efficiency
issues, and what happens as a result of these
meetings?
• What legal and administrative changes are
needed to give program managers and sponsors
more options in dealing with vendor selection,
contract compliance and program efficiency
concerns?
30
-------
Section 3 Clean Sweep Program Results
3.1 How many and what type of Clean
Sweep programs have been
implemented?
All but four states - Alaska, Arizona, New
Mexico and Oklahoma- have conducted at least
one Clean Sweep program. This report compiles
the information by state even though counties in
some states, such as New York and New Jersey,
conduct the programs. EPA is unaware of any
Clean Sweep programs implemented by tribes or
territories. As stated in section 1.6, EPA has
classified state programs into five categories. The
categories, which reflect the frequency or perma-
nency of the program, are permanently funded,
continuous, intermittent, one-time, and never. The
states in each category are identified in Figure 9.
Permanently funded: Twenty-one states have
continuous programs which are permanently funded.
A continuous 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 aportion of state pesticide
registration fees, access to a fund that pays for clean
up programs, or consistent state appropriations.
Continuous: Twelve states have continuous
programs, meaning a program that has been
implemented for at least three consecutive years that
does not have permanent funding. Although
continuous means "without interruption," a program
may still be classified as continuous even if it
occasionally skips a year. Of the twelve
continuously funded states, ten have active
programs, that is, they have been implemented for at
least three years in a row and carried out a Clean
Sweep program in 2000 or 2001. Two of the
twelve continuously funded states have inactive
programs, because they did not conduct a program
in 2000 or 2001.
Intermittent: Nine states have programs which are
not continuous but which have held more than one
collection 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
held in 1990or 1992.
Never: Four states have no existing program and
have never held a collection event.
State Clean Sweep Programs by Category
Permanently funded programs: Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,
Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin
Continuous programs: California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi,
Nebraska, New Jersey, Oregon, West Virginia
Intermittent programs: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Louisiana, Missouri, New
York, South Carolina
One-time programs: Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Wyoming
Never held a program: Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma
31
-------
to
FIGURE 9 State Clean Sweep Programs by Category
| Permanently Funded -
continuous program for at least
three consecutive years with
permanent funding
| Continuous - continuous
program for at least three
consecutive years without
permanently funding
j Intermittent - not continuous,
but state has held more than
one collection event
|H One-time - state has held a
single collection event
[~l No programs
(f)
O
u>
O
3
ct>
TS
3
ft)
(A
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
North Carolina held the first Clean Sweep
program in 1980. Iowa, Maine and North Dakota
followed with programs in the early eighties. These
states recognized early on that farmers were
accumulating unwanted pesticides and that, without
an affordable method of proper disposal, the states
faced risks from contamination by these unwanted
pesticides. Other states initiated Clean Sweeps and,
as shown in Figure 10, the number of states with
Clean Sweep programs increased rapidly from the
late 1980s to the mid 1990s. Since 1995, the
number of states with programs has remained
relatively constant, ranging from 30 to 34 states.
The number of states with permanently funded
programs has followed a similar pattern. There was
aquick increase in the first half of the 1990s with a
steady but slower increase from 17 to 21 states
since 1995.
One measure of a program's success is
longevity. Figure 11 identifies the 22 states that
have operated Clean Sweep programs for at least
seven years. In addition, Table 10 lists program
information for each state, including the category,
active or inactive status, year of its first collection,
number of years of collection and, for permanently
funded and continuous programs, the year it
achieved that status.
3.2 How many pounds of pesticides
have Clean Sweep programs
collected?
Based on the data states have reported to
EPA, it is estimated that Clean Sweep programs
have collected over 24 million pounds of unwanted
pesticides from 1980 through 2000.
FIGURE 10 Number of States with Clean Sweep Programs per Year
10
1/3 1C
4) £J
55
i!_ on
0 /U
3
SI C
lj
3
z
in
—
0
3
1
10
; ,i
Mkit
7
1
5
2
2
1
16
6
3
t
3
15
2 ^
1
7
3 3
30
1
3
1
8
3
20
2
20
2
Pre8686 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00
Year
All Programs
Permanently funded programs
33
-------
Section 3 Clean Sw&eo Program Results
FIGURE 11 States with Clean Sweep Collections for at Least Seven Years
Each truck represents an annual collection
Annual Ctillections
34
-------
The Clean Sweep Raport
TABLE 10 Status of State Clean Sweep Programs
State
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
Ml
MN
MS
MO
Category1
Int.
None
None
Int.
Cont.
Int.
Int.
Once
Cont.
Perm.
Int.
Perm.
Cont.
Cont.
Perm.
Perm.
Perm.
Int.
Cont.
Cont.
Cont.
Perm.
Perm.
Cont.
Int.
Year
Category
Achieved2
n/a6
n/a
n/a
n/a
1989
n/a
n/a
n/a
1995
1998
n/a
1993
1998
1992
1991
2000
1995
n/a
1996
1995
1998
1990
1989
1999
n/a
First
Year3
1994
n/a
n/a
1992
1989
1995
1990
1992
1995
1995
1987
1993
1990
1990
1986
1996
1991
1990
1982
1995
1990
1990
1989
1994
1990
Number
of
Years4
4
n/a
n/a
2
10
4
3
1
5
6
2
8
7
9
14
5
7
2
9
5
4
11
12
7
3
Status8
Active
n/a
n/a
Active
Inactive
Active
Inactive
Inactive
Active
Active
Inactive
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Inactive
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Inactive
State
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
NO
OH
OK
OR
PA
Rl
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
Wl
WY
Category
Perm.
Cont.
Perm.
Once
Cont.
None
Int.
Perm.
Perm.
Perm.
None
Cont.
Perm.
Once
Int.
Perm.
Perm.
Perm.
Perm.
Perm.
Perm.
Perm.
Cont.
Perm.
Once
Year
Category
Achieved
1994
1998
1995
n/a
1985
n/a
n/a
1986
1992
1993
n/a
1991
1993
n/a
n/a
1993
1998
1992
1993
1996
1992
1988
1994
1990
n/a
First
Year
1994
1995
1995
1990
1985
n/a
1993
1980
1980
1993
n/a
1991
1993
1990
1988
1993
1998
1992
1993
1991
1990
1988
1994
1990
1992
Number
of
Years
6
4
6
1
12
n/a
5
18
12
8
n/a
10
8
1
2
8
3
9
8
6
10
13
5
11
1
Status
Active
Active
Active
Inactive
Active
n/a
Active
Active
Active
Active
n/a
Active
Active
Inactive
Inactive
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Inactive
Active
Inactive
1 The program categories are permanently funded (Perm.), continuous (Cont.), intermittent (Int.), one-time (Once) and never
(None)
2 The year the category was achieved applies only to permanently funded and continuous programs. It represents the
year the state received permanent funding or, for continuous programs, the first of the three or more consecutive
years.
3 The first year is the year of the state's first collection.
4 The number of years is the number of years that pesticides were collected.
3 Status represents whether the state collected pesticides in 2000 or 2001. All permanently funded programs are
active and all one-time programs are inactive. Continuous and intermittent programs can be either.
6 n/a = not applicable.
35
-------
Section, 3 Clean Sweep Program Results
Several factors make it difficult to precisely
record the amount of pesticide collected. There is
no uniform method of recording the data, and there
is variation on how states characterize partially full
containers, especially drums. Some programs only
report round numbers, which are probably
estimates. Some states report on a calendar year
basis, while others report on afiscal year basis.
When liquids are collected, their volume in gallons is
often reported, while solids are reported by their
weight. This report converts quantities of liquids
from gallons to pounds by estimating 9 pounds to
the gallon, a close approximation but not accurate
for all liquids. Some programs use a conversion
factor of 10 pounds per gallon and these amounts
were not recalculated. In addition, some states limit
collections to farmers, while others include
residential pesticides or all household hazardous
waste. In states where collection events are run on
a county level, state officials may not have complete
data. Information from older collection events may
be missing or inaccurate. In spite of these caveats,
EPA believes the overall total of about 24.6 million
pounds and the totals for individual states are good
indications of the minimum amounts collected, and
are probably underestimates. Table 11 shows the
amount of pesticide collected per state, per year
from!980through2000.
While 24 million pounds is a significant
amount, it is important to compare this quantity to
the amount of pesticides used. This analysis
indicates that the amount of pesticides collected and
disposed by Clean Sweep programs is significantly
smaller than the amount of pesticides sold and used
in the U.S. Only a small proportion of pesticides
sold become obsolete or unwanted. The Clean
Sweep challenge is to collect and dispose of these
pesticides.
EPA estimates that 917 to 1,025 million
pounds of active ingredientin conventional pesti-
cides were used in 1997.1 Agricultural products
comprised approximately three-quarters of the
conventional pesticides (which also include home
and garden and industry/commercial/government
pesticides), so approximately 750 million pounds of
active ingredient in agricultural products was used
annually during this time period. Because the
amount of active ingredient can range from less than
1 percent to over 80 percent of a formulated
product, the total weight of formulated agricultural
pesticides used per year is much greater. The most
common agricultural products are from 10 percent
to 50 percent active ingredient, which means that
approximately 1,500 million to 7,500 million pounds
(1.5 to 7.5 billion pounds) of formulated agricultural
products were used per year in 1997. Assuming
that this amount of formulated agricultural pesticides
was used each year for the past 40 years, approx-
imately 60 to 300 billion pounds of formulated
agricultural pesticides have been used in the U.S.
over the past four decades. EPA chose 40 years
because many of the pesticides collected at Clean
Sweep events since 1980 are years or even
decades old. Therefore, the 24.6 million pounds of
formulated pesticides collected and disposed by
Clean Seep programs through 2000 is a small
fraction - 0.008 percent to 0.04 percent - of the
estimated quantity of formulated pesticides used
during that same period.
1 U.S. EPA, Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage: 1996 and 1997 Market Estimates, November 1999.
36
-------
Table 11 Total Amount of Pesticides Collected by Clean Sweep Programs Each Year (in pounds)
Slate
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA1
KS
KY
LA
ME3
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
ME
NV
Pre '86
10,835
30,000
1986
12,000
1987
12,471
198S
33,305
1989
87,820
5,000
77,480
44,000
32,400
1990
128,000
16,200
13,000
8,800
18,810
5,000
86,300
84,000
34,100
800
19»1
188,380
6,550
49,772
50,600
84,000
35,800
1992
5,000
336,668
30,423
4,300
180,574
64,000
53,800
1993
157,514
30,861
6,000
230,923
84,000
135,300
1994
71,154
1,082
13,090
27,263
9,000
66,486
84,000
183,300
22,970
13,197
1995
55,246
137,384
17,000
6,900
70,000
5,000
43,668
107,727
8,064
51,912
8,700
33,368
60,000
236,500
257,621
14,506
595,541
14,647
1996
110,502
23,000
18,600
36,800
40,474
1,900
58,218
96,942
52,500
403,200
6,900
14,889
120,000
208,500
167,617
6,000
64,224
10,653
1997
33,910
6,400
25,600
43,760
5,164
83,320
46,197
43,800
9,025
13,433
63,940
283,800
153,463
3,000
26,335
17,058
1998
20,135
27,000
128,876
35,855
26,610
8,078
84,240
19,235
37,460
8,000
20,846
38,975
52,682
298,800
214,433
21,774
297,701
18,418
1999
50,344
19,343
17,755
373,851
36,436
55,586
103,709
40,975
50,836
7,062
4,454
21,840
59,281
410,718
23,623
249,065
4,986
2000
12,649
30,689
15,833
170,929
207,905
78,460
15,580
16,841
80,971
134,106
34,471
3,222
11,874
96,215
123,362
150,159
39,150
193,726
8,802
Total
189,393
0
0
35,689
1,186,828
84,498
46,100
30,423
292,929
778,032
17,471
322,604
252,3 16
68,147
1,130,555
337,455
278,367
408,200
120,209
86,990
158,989
852,118
2,036,380
989,886
9,800
179,186
1,336,033
74,564
O
(D
CO
(Bi
•O
3D
(D
"O
O
-------
Table 11 Total Amount of Pesticides Collected by Clean Sweep Programs Each Year (in pounds)
oo
Slate
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC3
ND4
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SO
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
Total
# states
Pre '86
39,809
17,800
98,444
4
1986
1,400
13,400
2
1987
132,729
145,200
2
1988
31,890
10,460
6,743
49,343
131,741
5
1989
10,535
29,120
13,740
400
35,212
335,707
10
1990
20,000
19,850
51,055
some
31,797
62,576
39,100
619,388
17
1991
15,841
32,708
59,776,
17,900
86,724
9,622
637,673
12
1992
22,014
70,444
80,910
58,742
394,560
57,237
81,683
84,170
16,000
1,540,525
16
1993
39,741
13,860
26,467
9,000
95,773
29,700
31,059
678,460
11,453
68,146
55,581
143,558
1,847,396
18
1994
109,915
51,403
131,838
113,000
22,072
60,133
43,757
276,720
17,487
222,374
88,734
112,000
107,526
1,848,501
23
1995
88,798
59,300
100,980
48,222
126,000
56,096
82,084
23,867
133,040
14,095
62,156
51,526
60,000
158,087
2,788,035
32
1996
115,159
120,724
59,825
94,389
251,250
25,906
300,293
31,086
469,200
13,334
4,363
75,931
81,081
18,688
172,034
3,274,182
33
1997
137,648
81,045
174,275
214,600
69,206
174,048
50,282
277,960
18,903
3,640
74,271
101,895
17,500
240,499
2,493,977
30
1998
95,362
123,211
131,709
142,374
30,056
188,110
28,283
100,000
264,840
26,244
3,125
47,918
93,714
31,242
165,011
2,830,317
33
1999
52,459
24,610
133,313
158,938
123,390
67,017
86,189
23,069
100,000
551,380
17,145
8,925
97,618
152,237
150,388
3,276,542
32
2000
15,425
960
151,078
166,949
109,099
12,799
81,040
32,260
100,000
103,660
26,600
28,000
81,351
139,453
254,000
2,727,618
34
Total
20,000
722,747
0
219,454
1,116,477
1,029,230
1,088,713
0
497,443
1,001,597
some
7,143
263,663
300,000
3,149,820
145,261
65,953
818,799
1,079,759
239,430
1,523,995
16,000
24,608,646
46
Notes: (1) Iowa: "pre-1986"
1980: 6,300; 1984: 11,500.
10,835. (2) Maine: 1982: 12,000; 1984: 18,000. (3) North Carolina: 1980: 16,500; 1982: 20,500; 1983: 2,809. (4) North Dakota:
I as
I o
o
CO
"ID
(O
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
Figures 12 and 13 track annual pesticide
collections and cumulative collection totals over
time. A relatively small amount of pesticides was
collected through 1991 - about 2.0 million pounds,
or 8.1 percent of the total. Since 1992, at least 1.5
million pounds of pesticides have been collected
each year and the annual total averaged almost 2.9
million pounds between 1995 and 2000. Variation
in the annual totals generally mirrors the variation in
the number of Clean Sweep programs each year,
shown previously in Figure 10.
FIGURE 12 Amount of Pesticides Collected per Year
n -
n n
-0^3-JsJ
— 1
-i
-
""
—
n
Pre-8787 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00
Year
FIGURE 13 Cumulative Amount of Pesticides Collected
25,000,000
20,000,000
|
! 15,000,000
10.000,000
5,000,000
T¥ pi III
Pre8787 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00
Year
Figure 14 displays the amount of pesticides
collected by states in each category. The 21 states
with permanently funded programs have collected
more than 71 percent of the nationwide total of
pesticides, primarily because they have the most
extensive programs and assured funding. Together,
they have conducted over 61 percent of the annual
collections.
FIGURE 14 Cumulative Clean Sweep
Collections by Program Category
(Quantity in Pounds)
17,572.5:
3 Permanently funded:
• f miliniioMs:
• Intermittent:
• One-Time:
17.572,528 ptntndx
5.Q5I.947 pounds
1,0] 7.7-18 pounds
M,42i pounds
"! 41'"',
24.19%
4.14%
0.27%
Through 2000,11 states have collected
more than one million pounds of pesticides, and
these states are shown in Figure 15. Two of these
states, California and Nebraska, have continuous
programs while the others have permanently funded
programs. As shown in Figure 16, the states that
have collected over one million pounds - 22
percent of the states - have collected almost 64
percent of the national total.
Figure 17 presents information on the
amount of pesticides collected by each state.
39
-------
Section 3 Clean Sweep Program Results
FIGURE 15 Amount of Pesticides Collected by the States with More Than One Million Pounds
Each drum represents 100,000 pounds collected
Texas —
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Nebraska
California
Iowa
North Carolina
Ohio
Washington •
North Dakota •
Pennsylvania-
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaai
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaai
aaaaaaaaaaaaar
aaaaaaaaaaai
aaaaaaaaaaar
aaaaaaaaaaai
aaaaaaaaaai
aaaaaaaaaai
11 1.1129.210
an • •• 11 ii
0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500.000 2,000,000 2,500,000
Pounds Collected
Total Amount Collected - 15,679,387pan/ids
3,000,000 3,500,000
FIGURE 16 Amount of Pesticides Collected by Selected States through Year 2000
Eleven stales that have collected more than one million pounds of pesticides each
Remaining states
15.679,387 pound
fi3.7'f ol'unal
8.929.259 p
-------
FIGURE 17 Quantity of Pesticides Collected by State
11 million pounds or more
(11 states)
I Between 400,000 and
999,999 pounds
(7 states)
|H Between 100,000 an<
399,999 pounds
(14 states)
|g|Less than 100,000 pc
(18 states)
(D
O
(D
0)
3
0)
(D
T3
O
-------
Section 3 Clean Sweep Program Results
3.3 How many pounds of pesticides
are collected from each participant?
States beginning or restarting Clean Sweep
programs frequently ask EPA, "How many people
participate and how much pesticide do they bring to
collections?" States want to know the experiences
of other states in order to estimate how much will be
collected in their own. The number of participants
and the quantities collected have a direct impact on
the number of people and resources the state and
the contractor must mobilize for the collection.
Direct comparisons between states are difficult
because the kinds of participants vary from state to
state. For example, states which allow participation
by businesses other than farmers may collect larger
quantities per participant than states which include
household participants.
Thirty-one states reported the number of
participants in at least some of their collection
events. As shown in Table 12, the average amount
collected per participant in nearly three-quarters of
these states was between 101 pounds and 400
pounds. Eleven states, 35 percent of the states with
information, collected an average of between 301
Table 12: Average Quantity of Pesticides
Collected Per Participant
Number Quantity of Pesticides Collected
of States Per Participant
2
6
6
11
3
3
Less than 100 pounds
Between 101 pounds and 200 pounds
Between 201 pounds and 300 pounds
Between 30 1 pounds and 400 pounds
Between 401 pounds and 500 pounds
Greater than 500 pounds
and 400 pounds per participant. Appendix V
includes comprehensive tables showing data on the
number of participants and the quantity collected per
participant by state.
Figure 18 shows the average quantity of
pesticides collected per participant in Texas,
Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin from 1988 to
2000. These states were chosen because partici-
pant information was available for at least 10 years.
In addition, these states represent a reasonable
FIGURE 18 Clean Sweep Quantity (pounds) per Participant for Selected States
S 1400
I 1200
a
°- 1000
I
•o
0
T- -r- -|- ' -r- T- -r——T~ 1
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
.... Washington —«— Wisconsin
Texas •»••••«••• Virginia
42
-------
The Clear? Sweep Report
cross section of the range in average amounts per
participant.
3.4 Which pesticides are collected at
Clean Sweep programs?
Most pesticides sold in the U.S. have shown
up at Clean Sweep collections. Canceled
pesticides, some of which have not been sold in the
U.S. for decades, such as DDT and mirex, continue
to be collected along with currently registered
products. For example, 2,4-D, a widely used
herbicide, is one of the most commonly collected
pesticides. Some currently registered products are
brought in because they are old, deteriorated or
damaged, but others are still usable and are
unwanted for a variety of reasons, such as the
owner has died, ceased farming, or decided to use
other pesticides or grow different crops.
Some states track and report the individual
pesticides collected, which is discussed in more
detail in Sections 4.6 and 4.7. Minnesota and
Virginiahave comprehensive data on the amount of
individual pesticides collected over the life of their
programs. Minnesota has tracked 55 pesticides
every year since 1988.
Table 13 lists the quantity of these pesticides
collected between 1988 and 1998 and the percent
this represents of all pesticides. The table also
indicates which of the pesticides are still registered,
which are considered hazardous waste when
disposed, and which are PBTs or organophosphate
(OP) pesticides.
From 1988 through 1998, Minnesota
collected almost 95,000 pounds of the Level 1
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT)
pesticides listed in section 1.2, specifically aldrin,
chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, mirex and toxaphene.
Minnesota also collected nearly 65,000 pounds of
the potentially dioxin-containing pesticides -
pentachlorophenol, 2,4,5-T, Silvex, Ronnel and
other dioxin materials - during this time period.
These two categories represent more than 10
percent of all pesticides collected between 1988 and
1998, with the Level 1 PBTs at 6.3 percent and the
potentially dioxin-bearing pesticides at 4.3 percent.
Tracking the quantities of organophosphates
collected may enable regulators to gauge one of the
impacts of the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA). FQPA requires EPA to reassess all
tolerances established before August 3,1996. EPA
has placed the organophosphates in the highest
priority group for reassessment, since they appear to
be among those pesticides which pose the greatest
risk due to both their toxicity and multiple routes of
exposure from application to ingestion of residues
on food. Organophosphates account for about half,
by amount sold, of all insecticides used in the U.S.
Cumulative and aggregate risk assessments are
being done on organophosphate insecticides due to
their common mechanism of toxicity, and EPA
continues to evaluate them for reregistration
eligibility.
Eight of the 55 pesticides that Minnesota
tracks are the following organophosphates:
malathion, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, phorate, terbufos,
fonofos, parathion and disulfoton. A total of
104,601 pounds of these organophosphates were
collected between 1988 and 1998, about 7 percent
of all pesticides collected.
The Virginia Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services maintains a database of the
quantities of individual pesticides registered by
participants in their Clean Sweep program. Virginia
collects pesticides from participants' sites, so itis
essential for participants to register with the state
and report detailed information about the quantity
and identity of the individual pesticides. The
43
-------
Table 13 Specific Pesticides Tracked in Minnesota's Clean Sweep Programs 1988 -1998
A •indicates that the pesticide is currently registered, a hazardous waste when disposed, a persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemical, or an organophosphate (OP).
Pesticide
2,4-D
alachlor
DDT
afrazine
trifluralin
malathion
pentachlorophenol
carbaryl
2,4,5-T
pyrethrin
chlorpyrifos
arsenic
chloramben
cyaiiazinc
EPTC
chlordane
dalapon
XJndimethalin
indane
dinoseb
iropachlor
glyphosate
carboniran
iiazinon
toxaphene
captan
carboxin
triallate
Weight
(pounds)
141,834
83,816
52,653
52,501
44,195
34,859
31,211
28,629
27,956
27,409
24,074
22,802
22,619
20,047
19,427
19,357
18,683
17,771
17,603
16,999
16,561
16,110
16,069
15,848
15,519
15,515
13,522
13,047
% of All
Pesticides
9.44
5.58
3.50
3.49
2.94
2.32
2.08
1.91
1.86
1.82
1.60
1.52
1.51
1.33
1.29
1.29
1.24
1.18
1.17
1.13
1.10
1.07
1.07
1.05
1.03
1.03
0.90
0.87
Currently
Registered
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ha/ Waste
when
Disposed
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PBT
•
•*
•*
•
•
OP
•
•
•
Pesticide
propanil
metolachlor1
sodium TCA
Barban
dicamba
maneb
methoxychlor
MCPA
thiram
phorate
ethaliluralin
lerbufos
fonofos
mercury
carbon tetrachloride
al drill
parathion2
dieldrin
leptachlor
disulfoton
Silvex
roniiel
formaldehyde
aldicarb
gndrin
bendiocarb
other dioxin
materials
ALL PESTICIDES
Weight
(pounds)
12,724
12,470
12,427
11,872
11,016
10,980
10,864
9,798
9,194
9,170
8,430
7,114
6,763
6,626
5,555
4,195
3,755
3,142
3,101
3,018
3,014
2,506
2,384
2,373
1,729
1,404
103
1,502,300
% of All
Pesticides
0.85
0.83
0.83
0.79
0.73
0.73
0.72
0.65
0.61
0.61
0.56
0.47
0.45
0.44
0.37
0.28
0.25
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.12
0.09
0.01
—
Currently
Registered
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Haz Waste
when
Disposed
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PBT
•
•
•
•*
•*
•*
OP
•
•
•
•
•
CO
p
(to
t/>
€
T3
0
<£»
WJ
Notes: (*) Dioxins are Level 1 PBTs, and the pesticides 2,4,5-T, Silvex, pentachlorophenol and tonnel potentially contain dioxins, although these pesticides are not listed as Level 1 PBTs per se.
(1) The original registrant for metolachlor is no longer supporting its registration, and it is uncertain whether an alternative registrant will be granted registration. S-metolachlor, an enriched S-isomer
of metolachor, was registered in 1997 for the same uses as that of (racemic) metolachlor, and is currently registered.
(2) Cancellation order effective September 13,2001. Use of existing stocks of end-use products will not be lawful under FTFRA as of October 31, 2003.
-------
The Clean Sweep Repor
registered amounts in the database are only
estimates, so the total does not match the total in
Table 11. This information still provides a good
indication of the relative amounts of the specific
pesticides that are collected and disposed of in
Virginia. Table 14 lists information on the amounts
of the 57 most common pesticides registered for
disposal in Virginia from 1992 through 2000.
Table 14 lists the 57 pesticides with the
largest volumes in Virginia's database. Out of these
most commonly registered (and mostly likely
collected) pesticides, there were:
• 42,460 pounds of the Level 1 PBTs,
representing 7.8 percent of all pesticides in
Virginia's database;
• 12,311 pounds of potentially dioxin-containing
pesticides, 2.3 percent of the total; and
• 41,713 pounds of organophosphate
insecticides, 7.7 percent of the total.
3.5 What are the safety requirements
and procedures of Clean Sweep
programs?
According to information provided to EPA
by the states, Clean Sweep programs have
maintained an excellent safety record. This is
particularly impressive considering the large quantity
of pesticides transported and collected and the fact
that some, but certainly not all, pesticides were in
old or damaged containers. For example, Ohio's
report noted that in over 20 projects with 2,865
participants, there were no accidents. Illinois
similarly reported no accidents or spills in their 1999
and 2000 reports. EPA believes that this success is
due directly to the diligence and competence of state
employees and contractors. Many states provide
guidance, either on their website or in the form of
printed fact sheets, on safe participation in Clean
Sweep programs.
Several states provide materials to facilitate
the safe handling of pesticides. For example,
Mississippi, Utah and Washington distribute
overpack drums to participants who request them in
advance. Overpack drums can be filled with
containers in poor condition to assure safe transport
to the collection event. Idaho, North Dakota,
Oregon, Tennessee and Washington distribute bags
and other overpack materials. A number of states
require training for the handlers, volunteers and state
employees who will be involved in the collection
event, and three states (Massachusetts, New York
and Tennessee) require participants to participate in
pre-event training.
The guidance for participation in Clean
Sweep programs provided on the web sites of
Texas, Idaho and Washington is particularly user-
friendly and is presented in the form of questions
and answers. Questions include:
• How do I register for a collection in my area?
• What products are accepted?
• How should I store my pesticides ?
• How do I dispose of my empty pesticide
containers?
• What can I do to prevent a pesticide from
becoming a waste?
• How should I transport waste materials?
• What if I don't know what some of my
pesticides are?
• Are there any regulatory consequences when
participating in these collections?
• What should I expect at the collection site?
• What health and safety precautions are taken?
South Dakota and Minnesota provide
detailed guidance on how to participate in Clean
Sweep collections, and several other states including
Montana, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginiaand
Wisconsin give background, schedules and other
relevant information for collection events. State
websites are listed in Appendix VI.
45
-------
Table 14 Quantity of the Most Common Pesticides Registered in Virginia's Clean Sweep Program from 1992 through 2000
A •indicates that the pesticide is currently registered, a hazardous waste when disposed, a persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PUT) chemical, or an orgaoophosphate OP.
Pesticide 1J
DDT
2,4-D
dinoseb
sulfur
toxaphene
carbofuran
caplan
atrazine
vernolate
carbaryl
malathion
PCNB
chlordaae
lead arsenate
trifluraliD
diazinon
pyrethrins
but y late
creosote
alacfalor
parathion }
ethoprop
aimazine
eadnD
fonufos
silvex
copper sulfate
propionic acid
formaldehyde
Weiglit
(pounds)
16,069
14,976
14,282
14,162
13,824
13,745
12,380
11.&21
9,044
8,935
7,441
7,357
7,274
7,109
6,892
6,741
6,482
6,450
6,376
6,090
5,604
5.5SI
5,474
5,458
5,250
4,972
4,769
4,740
4,644
% of All
Pesticides
2.96
2.76
2.63
2.61
2.54
2.53
2.28
2.17
1.66
1.64
1.37
1.35
1.34
1.31
1.27
1.24
1.19
1.19
1.17
1.12
1.03
1.03
1.01
1.00
0.97
0.91
0.88
0.87
0.85
Currently
Registered
•
•
•
•
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
States have emergency plans or require the protective equipment including respirators, fire
hazardous waste contractors to develop and submit extinguishers, and decontamination equipment, as
them to appropriate authorities. An emergency plan well as first aid and spill response procedures. State
typically contains names and phone numbers of and contractor staff are the first responders to on-
contacts, schedules of collection events and pre- site emergencies, and other responders may be
eventtraining,alistofemergencyresponders, called if needed. Minnesota's Waste Pesticide
directions to hospitals, and an evacuation route. Collection: Site Safety and Emergency
Training addresses the location and use of personal Contingency Plan is included in Appendix VII.
47
-------
Section 4 Challenges and Opportunities
States and counties have encountered a
number of obstacles in their efforts to conduct and
improve Clean Sweep programs. The challenges
faced by Clean Sweep program managers include
obtaining funding, complying with the hazardous
waste regulations and related concerns about
liability, making potential participants aware of the
programs, overcoming a general distrust of
government programs, and managing problematic
waste streams such as dioxin-containing waste. As
states are trying to increase participation in their
programs, they are also working to prevent the
build-up of unwanted pesticide stocks in the future.
Lack of funding is the principal reason noted
by states for not operating a continuous Clean
Sweep program. Without a permanent funding
mechanism, the scramble for funds requires staff
who are imaginative, persistent, and able to engage
partners. Often, success in fund-raising hinges on
how good of a salesperson the Clean Sweep
manager is, and how readily he or she can solicit
partners and in-kind contributions. The different
ways states have used to fund Clean Sweep
programs are discussed in detail in section 2.2.
4.1 How do states design their Clean
Sweep programs to comply with
the regulatory requirements ?
The federal hazardous waste regulations
developed under the authority of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) are
extensive, and states may perceive some sections of
them as a hindrance to collection campaigns for
commonly-generated wastes such as pesticides.
Household hazardous waste is exempt from
regulation as hazardous waste, but agricultural
pesticides are not exempt. The Universal Waste
Rule, discussed below, was specifically designed by
EPA to ease some of these regulatory burdens and
therefore encourage collection.
As an example of the implications of the
hazardous waste regulations, consider the require-
ments for hazardous waste generators, the people
who first create or produce that waste. First,
generators are responsible for identifying whether
their solid waste is hazardous waste. If it is
hazardous waste, generators are required to register
with EPA to obtain a generator number. When
generators transport or ship waste, they must ensure
that the waste is accompanied by a manifest to the
final disposal facility.
States have addressed the manifest
requirement in several different ways, hi Washing-
ton, Clean Sweep participants must comply with the
full RCRA regulations. Participants register before
the collection events and provide a form listing their
unwanted pesticides. The state government returns
the approved form to the participants, who use them
as manifests for transporting the waste to the
collection site. Some states consider the pesticides
to be pesticide products under FEFRA, the federal
pesticide law, until the participant brings it to the
collection site. During the transportation, the
material is a pesticide, not a waste, so it does not
need to be manifested. At the collection site, the
pesticides are determined to be discarded and
therefore become wastes. Many other states have
adopted the Universal Waste Rule (UWR), which
offers an alternative regulatory structure for materials
defined as universal wastes. The UWR facilitates
the collection of hazardous waste pesticides by
removing some of the legal obligations, such as the
handling and paperwork associated with generation
and transportation of hazardous waste and the
associated costs.
48
-------
The Clean Sweep Raport
While the UWR eliminates the requirement
for participants to manifest pesticides before
transporting them to Clean Sweep collection sites,
compliance with the Department of Transportation
(DOT) Hazardous Materials Regulations is still
required for transporting pesticides by road. The
approaches taken by states to comply with DOT
regulations vary.1 The Massachusetts Department
of Food and Agriculture developed an agreement
with the State Police whereby the police would
refrain fromrandomroad side inspections of carriers
participating in the 1998 Clean Sweep event. In
North Carolina, a two-year waiver from DOT
regulations was secured by the Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services to facilitate
pesticide collections. In Maine, participants register
their inventories with the Board of Pesticide Control
which then issues DOT shipping papers. In
Pennsylvania and other states using on-site pick-up,
waste pesticide is collected by the contractor at
each participant's site so participants do not have to
transport it.
4.2 What is the Universal Waste Rule?
The Universal Waste Rule (UWR) is a set
of streamlined hazardous waste management regul-
ations governing the collection and management of
certain widely-generated wastes.2 It was intended
to ease the regulatory burden on businesses;
promote proper recycling or disposal of certain
hazardous wastes which appear commonly in the
municipal solid waste stream, thereby reducing the
hazardous waste content of municipal landfills; and
provide for collection opportunities for communities
and businesses.
EPA promulgated the UWR on May 11,
1995 as an amendment to the regulations imple-
menting RCRA (40 CFR 273), to facilitate the
environmentally-sound collection, recycling or
treatment of batteries, certain hazardous waste
pesticides, and mercury-containing thermostats, hi
1999, EPA published a rule adding hazardous waste
lamps.
The major benefits of the UWR for Clean
Sweep programs are that it eliminates the need for
participants to obtain an EPA generator number and
participants do not need a manifest to transport the
pesticides to a collection site.
When EPA issues a new RCRA rule, states
authorized to implement the RCRA program must
adopt the new rule in a separate state rulemaking for
it to be effective.3 Because the UWR is less
stringent than the base or initial RCRA regulatory
program, state adoption is optional. EPA strongly
encourages state adoption, however, to foster better
management of universal wastes in each state.
Consistent programs among states will facilitate the
implementation of regional collection programs and
interstate transport of wastes. States may adopt the
entire rule or portions of it, including general
provisions; provisions for batteries, pesticides,
thermostats and lamps; and provisions allowing the
addition of new universal wastes, hi other words, a
state may adopt all categories of waste included in
1 The 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.
2 Universal Waste Rule web site: http://www.eoa.etn
3 State authorization is a rulemaking process through which EPA delegates the primary responsibility of implementing the RCRA program
to states in lieu of EPA. Currently, 49 states and territories have been granted authority to implement the base, or initial, program. Many
also are authorized to implement additional parts of the RCRA program that EPA has since promulgated, such as Corrective Action and the
Land Disposal Restrictions. State RCRA programs must always be at least as stringent as the federal requirements, but states can adopt
more stringent requirements.
49
-------
Section 4 Challenges and Opportunities
the EPA rule or choose only certain wastes and
exclude others. Missouri's website http://
www.dnr.state.mo.us/deq/dap/pubs lists
publications in PDF format, including The Universal
Waste Rule in Missouri (Technical Bulletin
PUB2058), which provides a good summary of the
UWR.
As of June 30,2001,41 states and the
District of Columbia had adopted the UWR and 22
have been authorized by EPA to implement it. The
UWR went into effect immediately in states and
territories that are not RCRA-authorized, including
Iowa, Alaska and Puerto Rico. Table 15 shows
which states have adopted the UWR, which have
received authorization from EPA, and the effective
date. States that have not adopted the UWR must
comply with the full RCRA regulations regarding
notification, labeling, marking, accumulation time
limits, employee training, response to releases,
offsite shipments, tracking, manifesting and
transportation.
4.3 How can states deal with liability
issues prior to, during, and after
collection?
Clean Sweep activities pose different
questions of liability to participants, the owners or
operators of faculties that host single day events, the
state government and the hazardous waste
contractor. For example, if a pesticide is spilled
when the participant is driving to a one-day event,
who is responsible for clean up? If a spill occurs at
the location of the event, who must clean it up? If
the pesticides are improperly disposed, who is
responsible? If there is aproblem with the disposal
facility where the pesticides are shipped, who is
responsible? A full analysis of the legal implications
of Clean Sweep programs is beyond the scope of
this report. This section briefly describes how
liability concerns affect the implementation of Clean
Sweep programs.
Prior to a collection, program managers
make sure that participants are aware of the danger
of transporting old, unwanted pesticides in their
vehicles to the collection site. Using web sites and
printed material, program managers inform
participants of the procedures to follow. For
example, Minnesota's web site instructs participants
to load pesticides in sturdy containers on a truck
bed (not a car), separated from each other by
cardboard inserts and tightly strapped down to
prevent sliding. Participants are cautioned to bring
their completed product inventory and drive safely,
as they are responsible for any spill s along the way
to the collection site. Massachusetts' site provides
instructions on how to repackage damaged or
leaking containers and provides a transportation
safety checklist. The web sites of Idaho, South
Dakota, Texas and Washington also provide
detailed information for participants. Some states
distribute overpack drums, bags or other packing
material to participants for repackaging faulty
containers. As a precaution, three states require
participants to attend a pre-event training.
At the collection event, trained contractor
and government staff, not the participants, unload
and process the pesticides at the site. After the
collection, the hazardous waste contractor is
responsible for stabilizing and securing the collection
site. At permanent sites, trained government staff
manage the security of the stored products.
Clean Sweeps are sometimes set up so that
the pesticide agency becomes the official generator
of the waste for the purposes of compli ance with
hazardous waste regulations. South Carolina has
had a few problems with liability due to the unique
structure of the state's pesticide regulatory agency,
which is housed in Clemson University rather than
the Department of Agriculture. The University
Board of Directors did not want to be in the position
of incurring the role and liability of a generator. The
50
-------
Table 15: Status of Adoption and Authorization of the Universal Waste Rule re Pesticides
State
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
IA
ID
IL
IN
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
Adopted '
Y
N (EPA administered)3
Y
Y
N"
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N (EPA administered)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y (Not Pesticides)
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Authorized 2
Y
N
Y
N
N
N5
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Authorization Date
2/10/98
5/20/97
9/11/00
6/2/97
1/23/98
1/19/99
11/30/99
12/22/98
10/12/99
6/1/99
State
MT
NE
NV
N'H
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
Adopted
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y (Not Pesticides)
Y
Y
Y
Authorized
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y (Not Pesticides)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y (Not Pesticides)
Y
N
N
Authorization Date
8/23/96
12/22/98
11/23/98
11/27/00
6/8/00
11/15/99
10/18/99
3/15/99
11/23/99
9/29/00
1/11/00
7/10/00
:T
CD
O
CD
~a
33
CO
~o
O
Notes: (1) Adopted = the state program office has notified the EPA of a state analogue to the UWR.
(2) Authorized = the EPA has authorized state implementation of the UWR.
(3) Not adopted (EPA authorized) = the state hazardous waste programs, including the UWR, are administered by the EPA regional office.
(4) Not adopted = the state may or may not have adopted an analogous state rule, but no notice has been given to the EPA.
(5) Not authorized in a state which has adopted the UWR = the authorization package has been received by EPA and evaluation is in progress.
-------
Section 4 Challenges and Opportunities
state pursued legislation that would allow the
university to have an active role but with limited
liability, but budget shortfalls have precluded the
resolution of this issue.
In some states, the hazardous waste
contractor assumes the status and liability of the
hazardous waste generator.
4.4 How can states increase
participation?
One of the biggest challenges faced by
Clean Sweep program managers is maximizing
participation. For example, Minnesota found that
82 percent of the participants in 1998 were taking
part for the first time, despite having run a state-
wide, well-organized program since 1990. There
are many reasons that people may not participate in
Table 16: Outreach Methods Responsible for Participants' Knowledge of Collection Event
Clean Sweep programs, including lack of awareness
of the program, fear of being "out of compliance"
with hazardous waste regulations, and distance to
the collection site.
Collection programs have tried a variety of
advertising methods, including newspaper ads,
posters at pesticide dealerships, letters to potential
participants, radio or TV announcements, and
information distributed by extension agents. States
may use the commercial or private applicator
recertification programs as a way to inform farmers
of the Clean Sweep program. Results of surveys by
North Dakota and Florida on the method by which
participants learned of the collection event are
shown in Table 16. As shown in this table, the most
effective way to reach participants varies, so most
programs use multiple advertising methods.
Outreach Method
Extension agent
Local newspaper ad
Dept. of Agriculture
Word of mouth
Newspaper story
Radio
Television
Newsletter
Trade associations
Brochure
Posters
Farm/ranch ad
Other
TOTAL
% of Participants Citing
Method in ND 1996
28%
24%
22%
14%
12%
12%
13%
11%
8%
10%
3%
157%*
% of Participants Citing
Method in ND 1998
19%
35%
1%
7%
11%
20%
7%
12%
118%*
% of Participants Citing
Method in FL 2000
41%
14%
42%
11%
108%*
* The total exceeds 100 percent because participants reported more than one method.
52
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
The impression of many Clean Sweep
managers is that a major obstacle to participation is
over-coming distrust of government agencies and
fear of retaliation. Many farmers have the
perception that they could be fined or otherwise
punished if it came to the attention of a government
agency that they were storing chemicals, particularly
canceled pesticides, on their property. Another fear
is that they may be subject to an unwanted site
inspection or be placed on a "list" for some future
enforcement action. Some states have found that
pre-registration, which helps them estimate the
volume of waste to be expected in a one-day
collection event, is a deterrent to those who prefer
to remain anonymous.
To promote participation by agricultural
communities, some state Clean Sweep programs
partner with industry. For example, Michigan
enlisted the cooperation of Vriesland Grower's
Cooperative, a 580-member cooperative with over
60 years of service to growers. The cooperative
agreed to allow their facility to become a permanent
collection site for the Clean Sweep program, and
during its first year, collected 20 percent of all the
pesticides in the entire state that year. States have
also relied on the good relationship between
extension agents and growers to gradually diminish
the distrust of Clean Sweep programs.
Many programs have seen an increase over
time in the volume of older pesticides collected.
This may be due to the eventual participation by
farmers who held back until they saw that their
neighbors experienced no penalties or fines after
taking part in a Clean Sweep program. Farmers
tend to store unusable or canceled products until
they have a safe way to dispose of them. Word of
mouth and other forms of communication eventually
filter through the agricultural community, and Clean
Sweep program managers have indicated that it may
take several collection events in the same area
before the less trusting participate.
After its 1998 program, Massachusetts
concluded that trust can be built by having regular
and convenient collection events and developing and
highUghting partnerships with agricultural and
pesticide user organizations. Under this approach,
when a government agency is the initiator, it is listed
as one of several sponsoring organizations. Ohio's
Department of Agriculture collaborates closely with
county extension services, Farm Service Agencies,
Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Health
Departments and Solid Waste Management
Districts, and the Ohio EPA, with the Farm Bureau
and commodity associations helping to publicize the
program.
Another potential barrier to participation
may be the location of the collection site. Farmers
may be unwilling to transport large quantities of toxic
chemicals great distances to unfamiliar locations.
Wisconsin records show the maximum distance the
average farmer is willing to travel to participate in a
Clean Sweep is 15 miles. One option for increasing
participation is to expand service through satellite
sites or mobile collection units.
4.5 What are the disposal options for
dioxin-containing wastes?
Most pesticides can be disposed of at high
temperature hazardous waste incinerators or
landfilled at permitted hazardous waste landfills.
The main exception is the small number of pesticides
that may contain dioxin, such as 2,4,5-T, Silvex,
Ronnel andpentachlorophenol. Underthe federal
hazardous waste regulations, these pesticides
generally fall under the "F027 code" (see box on
followingpage), whichis identified as dioxin-listed
waste. Past Clean Sweep programs have received
small amounts of these pesticides. Extrapolating
data from programs which report quantities of
specific pesticides collected leads to an estimate that
about 300,000 pounds of dioxin-bearing pesticides
have been collected and disposed nationwide.
53
-------
Section 4 Challenges and Opportunities
Definition of F027 Waste in Federal RCRA Regulations
40 CFR 261.31(a) The following solid wastes are listed hazardous waste from non-specific sources...
F027 Discarded unused formulations containing tri-, tetra-, or pentachlorophenol or discarded unused
formulations containing compounds derived from these chlorophenols. (This listing does not include
formulations containing hexachlorophene synthesized from prepurified 2,4,5-trichlorophenol as the sole
component.)
The problem for Clean Sweep programs is
that the only commercial incinerator in the U.S. that
is permitted to accept dioxin waste, in Coffeyville,
Kansas, closed in August 2000. Even prior to
August 2000, this incinerator operated intermittently
and therefore did not always accept the dioxin-
bearing pesticides from Clean Sweep programs.
Without an incinerator available to dispose of dioxin-
containing materials, Clean Sweep programs did not
and do not want to accept these pesticides because
storage is cost-prohibitive and not a long-term
solution. Therefore, most states (and hazardous
waste contractors) accept dioxin-containing material
only if apermitted dioxin disposal facility is
operating. However, rejecting such pesticides at
collection days creates ill will and the potential that
such products will be indiscriminately dumped.
Shipping dioxin wastes to incinerators in
other countries, such as Canada, has been done. A
Canadian facility is actively accepting F027 waste
for incineration, but this may not be convenient for
southern states. A solution to this problem is of high
priority to states, but highly dependent on private
incineration company management decisions.
4.6 What are the benefits of tracking
specific pesticides ?
Although it costs more staff time and effort
to track quantities of individual pesticides, some
states want to know exactly what wastes they are
collecting. Tracking specific pesticides enables
states to identify trends in the quantities of old,
canceled, or currently used pesticides being
collected and to plan future strategies for waste
collection. Data on the quantity of canceled and
unregistered pesticides collected also helps convince
state legislators of the magnitude of the problem so
that funds will be budgeted for Clean Sweep
programs.
In addition, by conducting Clean Sweep
programs, state and local governments are
contributing to global efforts to eliminate PBTs.
Tracking information on the PBT pesticides
collected and disposed by Clean Sweep programs
enables the U. S. to quantify the nationwide
contribution, as part of its treaty obligations, to the
elimination of these toxic and environmentally
hazardous substances.
4.7 How do states track specific
pesticides?
States use a number of different ways to
collect information on the amount of specific
pesticides that have been collected. Vermont
requires its Solid Waste Districts to report the
specific pesticides collected in order to receive state
funding for disposal. Michigan recommends
instituting the practice of recording the specific
pesticides collected right at the beginning of the
program. Once a program is underway, habits are
hard to change, particularly if collections are
infrequent and attract many participants at once.
Permanent collection centers, such as Michigan's,
are open five days a week and do not have the
problem of time constraints when recording
information during extended busy times. It took
54
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
several years for Michigan to convince every center
to record the weight and identity (either by EPA or
USD A registration number or by common name) of
all products collected. In some cases, reimburse-
ment was withheld until the information was
provided. North Carolina recently began to track
quantities of 15 to 20 different pesticides. Contain-
ers of these pesticides are placed aside as they are
dropped off and the quantities are tallied during
down times at the collection events. In Virginia,
participants provide detailed information about the
quantity and identity of the individual pesticides
when they register. The Virginia Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services maintains this
information in a data base. While the actual amount
collected differs from the amount that is registered,
the data base provides a good estimate of the
pesticides collected.
In an effort to encourage states to track
specific pesticides in 2000, EPA offered small grants
to states which already had Clean Sweep programs
but did not record amounts of individual pesticides.
Minnesota, Kentucky, New York and Massachu-
setts were awarded small grants.
Minnesota had already been tracking
specific pesticides for ten years but had not analyzed
the cost of its data collection and management.
Therefore, the state proposed to explore ways to
more efficiently manage the data. Minnesota
compared the state's current, hand written method
of data collection by volunteers to three principal
types of data management: optical recognition of
container bar codes, scanning drivers' licenses at
collection sites, and telephone number identification.
The bar code option required a pre-
programmed scanner and proved to be both time-
andcost-proMbitive,smceitinvolvedcormnunicaring
with all the chemical companies about information
they were hesitant to share. Even if existing codes
could be used, many containers are old and from the
pre-bar code era. Minnesota believes that by
developing a bar code for each of the most
frequently-collected pesticides, it would be possible
to use scanners without the container actually having
a compatible bar code. For this to occur, the
product would have to be identified and then located
on a product name sheet with the correct assigned
bar code. A three-ring binder containing the bar
code sheets would need to be carried while taking
inventory at on-site collections. Sheets of bar codes
representing only numbers would also be necessary
to scan in the weights of each pesticide collected.
Minnesota's program maintains a database
of participants' names and addresses, and they
investigated ways to make the data entry more
efficient. They tried several methods, including one
used by county household hazardous waste
programs which scan drivers' Licenses, and another
using software from telephone companies. Neither
option was considered practical, because they
would require constant upgrading.
Minnesota also evaluated various equipment
(scanners, software, hardware) with the latest
technology which could be used under field
conditions at collection sites under conditions of
extreme weather conditions, dust, grime, heat, cold,
and rain. The investigators concluded that the
sensitivity and United mobility of scanners would be
a problem, but that the bar code scanning option has
potential for the future. They developed atrial
program with bar codes identifying about 50
pesticides, but the budget did not allow for a trial.
Minnesota concluded that, currently,
entering the information longhand is the most
appropriate, practical, reliable and least time
consuming (especially when several hundred bar
codes are involved) method of collecting the
information, provided the penmanship is legible.
55
-------
B=c",;on 4 Challenges and Opportunities
In Kentucky's program, aDepartment of
Agriculture employee visits the participant's site to
assess the pesticides or to pick them up if they
quantity is small and doesn't require special
containment. Most pesticides are placed into
overpack drums. To track certain pesticides, the
Department of Agriculture employee followed the
same procedure, but separated the tracked
pesticides from the others in either overpack bags,
drums or pails depending on the amount. This
allowed the state to measure and record the weight
of the tracked pesticides. Kentucky collected useful
information, but the process added additional effort
and time to the process and required additional
overpack material.
4.8 What are states doing to prevent
future accumulation?
States are trying to prevent the future
accumulation of waste pesticides by providing
training and outreach for good management
practices and promoting integrated pest
management (IPM). States may provide
comprehensive guidance on good management
practices, either on their websites or in published
documents, for storing and disposing unwanted
pesticides, managing empty containers, and avoiding
the accumulation of unwanted pesticides. Appendix
VI lists state websites with information about
pesticides and disposal, and some that provide
Clean Sweep-specific information. Examples of
websites which address good management practices
for preventing accumulation of unwanted pesticides
are Florida, South Dakota and Washington. North
Dakota's website4 gives guidance on prevention and
emergency response on pesticide storage concerns
during a flood. State and county extension services
continue to offer advice and training in IPM to
facilitate farmers' informed decisions about
pesticides.
4 http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/flood/pestidhb.htm
-------
Section 5 Observations
Using a variety of approaches, Clean
Sweep programs in 46 states have collected and
disposed of more than 24 million pounds of
unwanted pesticides, which may otherwise have
seeped out of deteriorated containers and
contaminated soil and groundwater. Using
predominantly state resources, 11 states have
collected over a million pounds of pesticides, and
the 21 states with permanent funding have collected
more than 70 percent of the waste pesticides
collected nationwide. Participation has expanded
from exclusively farmers and ranchers to include
residential and institutional pest control operators,
government agencies, golf course owners and
others. Although many of the collected pesticides
were canceled years ago, currently-registered
pesticides are the most commonly collected
materials.
After examining the states' programs, EPA
has made observations about several major issues
facing these programs nationwide. This section
discusses the advantages of permanently funded
programs, the costs of Clean Sweep programs, the
amounts of unwanted pesticides still needing
disposal, the relationship between quantities used
and quantities disposed, and the continued need for
Clean Sweep programs.
5.1 Permanent funding has many
advantages.
The 21 states with permanently funded
programs have collected over 70 percent of all the
waste pesticides nationwide while conducting over
60 percent of the annual collections. The obvious
principal advantage of permanent funding is that
program managers have predictable funds every
year or every few years, and can, therefore, devote
their energy to program implementation. With
permanent funding, managers can think long-term,
can plan for phased state-wide collections, and can
establish long-term contracts with waste haulers.
An established, funded program builds trust
in the community and gives farmers and other
participants a sense of confidence that Clean Sweep
programs are beneficial to participants and the
environment. Participants learn through the
experiences of neighbors, and program staff can
plan successful outreach efforts and target different
geographical areas each year so as to cover an
entire state.
Permanently funded programs give program
managers greater waste management contracting
flexibility, including options to negotiate long-term
contracts. As discussed in section 2.13, the
administrative strategies that allow for program
efficiency require considerable coordination and
planning between the manager and the contractor.
The more stable the program and vendor
relationship, the greater the chance that the
advantages of administrative options can be fully
realized. When managers have the time to research
and understand administrative options, they can
move from low-bid contracts to "request for
services proposals." Short-term contracts leave
little room for vendors to work toward more
efficient, long-term solutions, and put the burden on
program managers to identify all needs in the bid
documents.
Also, program managers of well-funded
programs have the flexibility to alter or expand
service formats. Forexample, satellite sites,
permanent sites, combined household and
agricultural collections, multi-county and multi-day
collections, and on-site pick ups to reduce customer
travel time and increase convenience are options
available only to those states with established,
assured funding.
57
-------
Section 5 Observations
5.2 The unit costs (on a per pound
basis) of Clean Sweep programs
have decreased over the past
decade.
The cost of a Clean Sweep program (and
the way cost is calculated) varies from state to state
and over time. In some cases, programs may cite
only the cost of the contractor, while the consid-
erable internal expenditures, including agency in-kind
and personnel costs, may be omitted from the
reporting. The major contractual costs are usually
the mobilization fee (cost attributed to the
contractor's expenses in arriving at the site and
setting up for the collection), collection and disposal
costs, and the analysis of unknown substances
brought to the collection. However, the cost of
Clean Sweep programs is minor compared to the
cost of cleaning up the pollution resulting from
improper disposal of unwanted pesticides.
Some states have provided yearly cost
information on their Clean Sweep programs and that
information is provided in Table 17 The data from
these states are incomplete, making it impossible to
analyze the total cost of Clean Sweep programs in
the U.S.
Another way to evaluate the cost of Clean
Sweep programs is to consider the cost per pound
of disposed material. Based on the data from fifteen
states provided in Table 18, the cost per pound has
decreased significantly over the past decade. When
Utah's Department of Agriculture and Food began
its Unused Pesticide Collection Program in 1993,
the state paid $4.50 per pound to dispose of the
collected material. In 2000, due to the
Department's ability to get various disposal
companies on a state contract, the cost was reduced
to $ 1.55 per pound, a decrease of over 65 percent.
Using vendors that were on a state contract saved
more than $230,000 in four years, and decreased
both cost and paperwork for farmers and ranchers.
Similarly, Ohio's disposal costs went from $6 per
pound in 1993 to $1.25 per pound in 2000. The
cost per pound overtime for Georgia, Maryland,
Mississippi, Utah and Virginiais shown inFigure^.1
In states with successful long-term
programs, the current per pound cost ranges from
$1.98 per pound in Washington to less than $ 1.00
per pound in North Carolina, with other states in
between, for example $1.80 in Wisconsin, $1.60 in
Minnesota, $1.30 in Nebraska, and $1.21 in Texas.
The unit cost for Clean Sweep programs in 1999
and 2000 in 26 states averaged $1.56 per pound
and ranged from $0.85 per pound to $2.98 per
pound.
In its Progress Report for Operation
Cleansweep of March 2001, the Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
summarized the benefits of Clean Sweep programs
and analyzed the difference in cost between their
2000/2001 state-run program and the cost that
would have been incurred if each of the 374
participants had contracted and paid for disposal
separately.
The collection and proper disposal of
unwanted pesticides provides a benefit to both end
users of pesticides and citizens of the state.
1 Note: EPA believes that this cost decrease is due partly to increased efficiency by the programs and partly to the general changes in
incineration costs over the decade. Although data from the early 1990s was not available, the Environmental Technology Council web site
(http://www.etc.org1 lists the average cost for disposing of lab packs at commercial incinerators (on a per pound basis) as follows' $2.17
in July 1999, $2.42 in January 2000, $1.62 in September 2000, and $1.63 in May 2001.
58
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
FIGURE 19 Cost (per pound) of Clean Sweep Collections for Selected States
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
2000
Virginia —
••• Maryland —
— - Utah
•-—•• Georgia
Mississippi
Program participants benefit by the removal of a
potential financial liability. Citizens benefit by the
removal and disposal of potential pollutants from
their environment.
In addition, there are significant cost savings
based on comparing the cost of Clean Sweep
programs to the costs of each participant contracting
for disposal separately. Typical costs for removing
hazardous wastes from private property include both
the costs of hiring a professional, properly-licensed
firm to characterize the products for disposal and the
costs to transport and dispose of the material.
Costs for professional services are on the order of
one hundred to several hundred dollars per hour,
depending on the number of professional staff
assigned. Transport and disposal costs paid by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection for
emergency clean-up services run $2.15 per mile for
transport and $300 per 30-gallon overpack drum.
The average amount of unwanted pesticides per
participant in the Florida program was 630 pounds,
which would translate to at least three 30-gallon
overpack drums. Assuming a trip of 50 miles to the
transfer/storage facility, the cost per participant
would be about $ 1,000, or at least $374,000 for
the 374 participants for transportation and disposal
only, i.e., not including the costs for professional
services. Assuming a minimum cost of $ 1,500 for
professional services per participant, the cost for
participating businesses to dispose of their unwanted
pesticides increases by $561,000 to a total of
$935,000, if they had each contracted for disposal
individually. In comparison, the cost to the state for
the 374 participants to participate in the December
2000 to February 2001 Clean Sweep program was
$270,03 3. hi other words, environmentally sound,
privately-arranged disposal would have cost an
estimated 3.5 times more than the state paid,
showing the benefits from the increased efficiency,
economy of scale and single mobili zation and
professional services fee that are part of Clean
Sweep programs.
59
-------
Table 17: Total Program Cost per Year for Selected States (in dollars)
Os
O
State
AL
PL
GA
HI
ME
MD
MS
NE
NH
NY
SD
UT
VT
VA
WV
1987
50,062
no data 3
1989
17,300
no data
1990
75,000
158,977
1991
no data
1992
225,264
1993
71,800"
no data
51,539
222,100
1994
99,000
71,960
no data
78,692
624,983
no data
1995
132,590
no data '
no data
50,052
311,964
744,000
no data
no data
49,333
174,132
1 50,000
1996
39,035
73,600
no data
30,820
170,832
213,804
no data
46,669
<60,000
144,024
29,340
1997
no data
35,070
no data
23,508
222,667
no data
47,258
<60,000
86,073
no data
1998
no data
128,880
15,280
36,481
259,876
no data
no data
44,090
<60,000
60,559
no data
1999
64,400
373,850
9,180
12,604
29,485
no data
50,708 4
38,525
36,832
<60,000
116,150
2000
16,800
195,507
207,910
15,000
no data
252,020
no data
42,062
40,474
60,000
103,620
Total
312,790
NA2
>819,310
67,362
NA
153,465
>1,066,784
>996,000
75,000
>336,312
NA
394,887
NA
1,915,882
NA
Notes: (1) No data = the state collected pesticides that year, but there are no data on costs. (2) NA = not applicable. If there were more years (or the same
number of years) with no data than with data, a total was not calculated because it would be misleading. (3) For Maine, there are no data for 1982, 1984,
and 1986. (4) For New York in 1993, the overall costs were $71,800; the disposal costs were $31,800. In 1999, the overall costs were $50,708; the
disposal costs were $39,990.
0)
On
O
5"
Ol
O
O"
1>
-------
Table 18: Average Cost per Pound for Selected States (dollars per pound)
State
AL
FL
GA
HI
ME
MD
MS
NE
NH
NY
SD
UT
VT
VA
WV
Average 6
1987
4.01
no data4
4.01
1989
3.46
no data
3.46
1990
3.75
5.00
4.52
1991
no data
1992
3.94
3.94
1993
229s
no data
4.50
3.26
3.27
1994
1.39
3.13
no data
4.50
2.81
no data
2.62
1995
2.40
no data1
no data
1.50
1.21
1.25
no data
no data
3.50
2.80
2.50
1.50
1996
2.10
2.00
no data
2.07
1.02
1.77
no data
3.50
no data
1.90
1.57
1.60
1997
no data
1.37
no data
1.75
1.45
no data
2.50
no data
1.16
no data
1.45
1998
no data
1.00
1.91
1.75
1.21
no data
no data
1.68
no data
1.26
no data
1.22
1999
1.28
no data
1.00
1.30
2.83
1.24
no data
1.62 5
1.67
2.15
no data
1.19
1.16
2000
1.33
1.14
1.00
4.66
no data
1.30
no data
1.30
1.52
2.14
1.27
1.23
Total
1.65
NA2
1.06 3
3.86
NA
1.76
1.27 3
NA
3,75
1.79
NA
2.72
NA
2.34
NA
Notes: (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 = not applicable. 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 it would be misleading. (3) This
represents the average quantity for the years with data. (4) Maine does not have cost information available for 1982,1984, and 1986. (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 was calculated from the total cost and total number of pounds for the
states with data for that year.
H
rr
0)
o
OS
(D
CD
T>
ID
-------
Section 5 Observations
5.3 Reliable estimates of uncollected
pesticides are elusive.
No one knows how many pounds of
unwanted pesticides remain uncollected in the U.S.,
and accurately estimating the total amount is difficult
due to several factors. First, many farmers are
reluctant to fill out government surveys, particularly if
they happen to have canceled pesticides stored in
their barns. Some people may fear that a survey,
even if anonymous, may be tracked back to them
and that they might be subject to a fine or penalty.
Second, some stocks lie forgotten in barns for years
until the owner dies and the barn is bought or
inherited by someone who does not need the
pesticides and wants to get rid of them. Third,
unwanted pesticides continually accumulate. Ideally,
all pesticides bought in a single year would be used
during that year's growing season. In reality, some
amount may be left over every year and many never
be used, if farmers change crops or need different
pesticides. Fourth, in recent years, some uses of
older products have been canceled due to new risk
assessments conducted under the Food Quality
Protection Act. In such cases, a fanner may choose
not to use existing stocks of a specific pesticide.
Several states have conducted surveys to
attempt to estimate the amount of unwanted,
uncollected pesticide. Georgia sent out printed
surveys in 1997 to help determine (1) if they should
continue the Clean Sweep program and (2) if so,
which areas of the state they should target. A cover
letter explained the purpose of the survey and
ensured the recipient of absolute confidentiality,
recording only the name of the county where the
pesticides were stored. Postage-paid return
envelopes were provided. A total of 4,741 one-
page surveys were sent to randomly selected farms
throughout the state. A total of 1,446 responses
(30.5 percent response rate) were received. The
survey consisted of the following questions:
• What county do you live in?
• Do you have unusable waste farm chemicals in
need 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 to
dispose of these chemicals?
• Would you participate if you had to pay a
portion of the disposal cost, and if so, check the
highest amount/pound you would be willing to
pay?
• What is the best way to inform you if a program
is started in your area?
Georgia officials then extrapolated the
survey results to estimate that 43,000 farms in the
state had approximately 544,000 pounds of
unwanted pesticides. The Clean Sweep advisory
committee believed that this estimate was
approximately half the actual amount. For
comparison, between 1998 and 2000, Georgia
collected more than 710,600 pounds of pesticides.
Florida's Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services enlisted the collaboration of
other state and federal agencies, grower groups,
environmental groups and other interested parties in
a three-county pilot project in 1996. County
agricultural extension agents conducted surveys and
identified over 5,000 pounds of unwanted
agricultural pesticide in the three counties. In the
Clean Sweep collection that followed, some
growers had apparently underestimated the amount
they had for disposal, while other growers who had
not pre-registered for the collection were
accommodated. Over 7,500 pounds of pesticides,
or 50 percent more than estimated, were collected
in the three pilot counties. All participants were
satisfied with the process, and the rapport and trust
between growers and extension agents were found
to be key elements in the success of the program.
62
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
A random sample survey of South Dakota's
3,800 farmers and ranchers in 1997 indicated that
73 percent of them were familiar with the Unusable
Pesticide Collection Program. The survey also
showed that one in 20 had unusable pesticides on
hand, which translated into approximately 190
farmers and ranchers. Further survey results
indicated that farmers and ranchers held approxi-
mately 20,750 pounds and 9,540 gallons (a total of
106,610 pounds, assuming a conversion of 9
pounds per gallon) of unwanted pesticides. Survey
respondents with pesticides reported a willingness to
travel an average of 30 miles to a pesticide
collection site. August and October were the most
popular months to hold a collection event, but one in
five of those responding had no preference. As a
point of reference, from 1998 through 2000, South
Dakota collected more than 83,600 pounds of
pesticides in their Clean Sweep collections.
5.4 Only a fraction of the pesticides
used in states is disposed in Clean
Sweep programs.
Section 3.2 includes a discussion comparing
the amount of pesticide collected and disposed by
Clean Sweep programs to the amount of pesticide
used nationwide from!961 to 2000. Appendix VIII
provides the estimated amount of pesticides used in
each state and amount disposed in its Clean Sweep
program. Assuming that pesticide management
practices are consistent across the country, it is
reasonable to expect that the higher a state's
pesticide usage, the higher will be its quantities of
unwanted stocks.
The table in Appendix VIII shows that
states which use the most pesticides have
permanently funded or continuous Clean Sweep
programs, indicating that these states recognize and
are addressing the potential problem of unwanted
pesticide stocks. The table also shows, as
expected, that states with longer-running programs
generally have collected higher quantities of
pesticides and a larger proportion of the amount of
pesticides used since 1961. A notable exception is
Nebraska, which has collected a large quantity of
pesticides in only four years.
Texas has collected more than 3.1 million
pounds of unwanted pesticides in its 9-year Clean
Sweep program. As Appendix VIII shows, this is
an estimated 0.06 percent of the quantity of
pesticides used in Texas over the past four decades.
This means that for every 1,000 pounds of pesticide
used in Texas during this time, less than a pound
(0.6 pound) has been collected and disposed by the
state's Clean Sweep program. Information for all
the states is listed in Appendix VIII.
5.5 Clean Sweep programs will
continue to be needed for the
foreseeable future.
Even states with long-term, comprehensive
Clean Sweep programs are still collecting large
amounts of pesticides. For example, seven of the
11 states that have collected over one million
pounds in total, collected more than 100,000
pounds of pesticides in 2000.
The amount collected per year depends on
many factors, including the available funding, number
of collection events, organization and timing of
events, and categories of people who are allowed to
participate. Examining the charts for the quantity of
pesticides collected in each state in Appendix I
indicates the difficulty in trying to define a long-term
general trend in amounts collected per year. In
some states, such as Minnesota and North Carolina,
the amount collected has increased almost every
year, although the amount collected in Minnesota in
2000 decreased from the peak in 1999. Other
states, such as California, Georgia, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania, have had a peak year and declining
collections since. Idaho collected about the
63
-------
Section 5 Observations
sameamount annually for five consecutive years,
then spiked to an increase of about 60 percent in
2000. Indiana had a peak year, then declining
amounts, and after skipping two years collected
almost double its highest annual collection.
Basically, there is no clear pattern in quantities of
pesticides collected over time.
Some states evaluate their own programs for
trends. For example, Virginia is in a four-year
"maintenance phase" following a nine-year program
in which all state localities were scheduled for
collection events. The report of the 2000 program
noted that in 18 of 25 participating localities, the
quantity of pesticide collected was less than the
amount collected during the first phase. The
reduction, an overall decrease of almost 29 percent,
was observed in the 1999 program, continued in the
2000 program, and appears not to be affected by
the length of time between collections.
In addition to the typical amounts collected
from farmers and others, unpredictable special
situations are always possible. For example, a
Virginia widow recently auctioned her estate's farm
equipment, which included pesticides. The state
requested that she remove the pesticides (almost
6,000 pounds) from the auction and arranged for a
contractor pick up during the 2000 Clean Sweep
program.
Because of the significant volumes of
pesticides that continue to be collected by long-
term, comprehensive programs and special situations
like the one described above, EPA believes that
Clean Sweep programs will continue to be needed
for the foreseeable future.
64
-------
Acknowledgements
This report would not have been possible without the timely and thorough comments
provided by state and local Clean Sweep managers. Some text from this report was borrowed
directly from the reports and conference proceedings penned by Clean Sweep managers. In particu-
lar, we are grateful for the contributions of Roger Springman of the Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, on the ways to reduce disposal costs and improve
program efficiency and on the advantages of a permanent program. We appreciate the contributions
regarding contracts and emergency plans by Jack Knorek of the Michigan Department of Agricul-
ture, Stan Kaminski of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Judy Carlson of the North Dakota
Department of Agriculture, and Annie Macmillan of the Vermont Department of Agriculture, Food
and Markets. Special thanks are due to Wayne Holtzman, EPA contractor, who was the Office of
Pesticide Program s principal contact and correspondent for Clean Sweep managers for several
years. We also thank the State of Tennessee for graciously allowing the use of its photographs of
Clean Sweep operations for the report cover.
In addition, we thank the following people who provided guidance and suggestions on topics
and 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.
APPENDICES
Appendix I - State Profiles
Appendix II - Pesticides that are RCRA-Listed Hazardous Wastes
Appendix III - Sample Contract
Appendix IV - Contact Information for Some Hazardous Materials Contractors
Appendix V - Number of Participants and Average Quantity of Pesticides Collected per Participant
(pounds)
Appendix VI - State Web Sites
Appendix VII - Sample Emergency Plan
Appendix VIII - Comparison of Pesticides Used per State versus Pesticides Collected at Clean Sweeps
-------
Appendix I
NOTES on STATE "AT A GLANCE" PROFILES
The information in Appendix I is based on data voluntarily submitted by state Clean Sweep managers and
state reports and web sites as of October 2001. Inaccuracies can be corrected in on-line updates on EPA's
website.
Program Status: Program categories are defined as follows:
Permanently funded: Twenty-one states have continuous programs which are permanently funded. A
continuous 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, or
consistent state appropriations.
Continuous: Twelve states have continuous programs, meaning a program that has been implemented for
at least three consecutive years that does not have permanent funding. Although continuous means "without
interruption," a program may still be classified as continuous even if it occasionally skips a year. Of the
twelve continuously funded states, ten have active programs, that is, they have been implemented for at least
three years in a row and carried out a Clean Sweep program in 2000 or 2001. Two of the twelve
continuously funded states have inactive programs, because they did not conduct a program in 2000 or
2001.
Intermittent: Nine states have programs which are not continuous but which have held more than one
collection 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 held
in 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 to
handle. Whether or not people are willing to pay for disposal depends on many variables, including the farm
economy, weather conditions and pest infestations, although fee systems can be built to address these
issues.
Quantity of Pesticides Collected: The bar graph and the total amount collected to date reflects collection
data through year 2000. Although some states submitted data for year 2001, EPA decided, for the sake of
consistency, to postpone 2001 updates until the EPA Clean Sweep web site has been established and all
2001 data have been received.
-------
The CSean Sweep Report
Exchange program: Since unopened, legally usable pesticide products would be better used than
disposed, some states conduct limited product exchanges, redistribution and recycling.
1995 Universal Waste Rule: A recorded entry "adopted" indicates that the state program office has
notified the EPA of a state analogue to the Universal Waste Rule. A recorded entry "not adopted" indicates
that the state may or may not have adopted an analogous state rule, but no notice has been given to the
EPA. A recorded entry "adopted, not yet authorized" indicates that the authorization package has been
received by EPA and evaluation is in progress.
Specific pesticides reported: A recorded entry of "Yes" indicates that EPA has data on the specific
pesticides collected. A recorded entry of "No" means that EPA does not have data on the specific
pesticides collected, although the state may be recording that information.
Container Collection - Existing program: Most states have conducted collection and recycling programs
for empty, clean pesticide containers, usually in collaboration with the ACRC. If a state has indicated to
EPA whether or not container recycling programs have been implemented, an entry of "Yes" or "No" is
recorded, otherwise "Information not available" is entered. If a contact point for container collection is in a
different agency than the Clean Sweep manager, the person is listed.
-------
ALABAMA AT A GLANCE
Since 1994 Alabama has conducted four clean sweep collections with the
Department of Agriculture and Industries as the lead agency. The State of
Alabama, EPA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and private sources have funded
these efforts. The state has collected nearly 190,000 pounds of pesticides.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides and household waste
1994
Intermittent, active
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
•§. 70,000
^ dfl (¥10
f 20,000
O II
, — - - - -
si
^55,2'
."% J
' >% *
' • •
b , :
16
50,344
-;;
*ui V
& 1
Amount collected
to date:
189,393 Ibs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
State funds, EPA grants, and grants from the
Tennessee Valley Authority and private
companies
No
Ranges from $1.28 per pound in 1999 to $2.40
per pound in 1995
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events
Incineration and landfill
No
Adopted, authorized in 1998
Required
No
Farmers and the public
Container Collection
Existing program:
Yes
^ TonyCofer
I Department of Agriculture & Industries
Ground Water Section Pesticide Mgmt
P.O. Box 3336
Montgomery, AL 36109-0336
Website: http://www.agi.state.al.us (Department of Agriculture and Industries,
not specific to Clean Sweeps)
Tel: (334) 240-7237
Fax: (334) 240-7168
groundwater@agi.state.al.us
-------
Summary of Alabama Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
Alabama conducted two large Clean Sweep programs in 1994 and 1995 for a total collection of
126,400 pounds of pesticides. The 1994 collection was a combined agricultural and household event;
however, the agricultural items were kept separate. Chlordane and heptachlor were the primary pesticides
collected. The 1995 collection event was a Pesticide Amnesty Day for agricultural items only, with calcium
arsenate and toxaphane being the prevalent pesticide items collected.
Alabama does not have regular collection events. Clean Sweep programs are driven by the
availability of funds which have been almost nonexistent. The Alabama Department of Agriculture and
Industries (ADA!) is considering requesting an increase in registration fees to support Clean Sweep
programs.
In 1999, Alabama was provided funds from EPA ($50,000), the private sector ($10,000), and the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) ($75,000) to conduct a Clean Sweep program for farmers in 12
counties. The program was supported by the Cooperative Extension Service, ADAI, the Department of
Natural Resources, and TVA. This program collected a total of 50,344 pounds of pesticides from 81
farms.
In August 2000, Alabama conducted a Clean Sweep program for 8 northeast Alabama counties.
The single day event collected 12,649 pounds of chemicals and was strictly targeted to agricultural
producers. The funding was provided by ADAI, EPA and TVA.
Alabama Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1994
1995
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides
(pounds)
71,154
55,246
50,344
12,649
189,393
Number of
Participants
414 cars/trucks
56 cars/trucks
81 farms
26 farms
577
Average Quantity of
Pesticides per
Participant
(pounds/participant)
172 (ag and household)
987
622
487
328
Program Cost
$ 99,000
$132,590
$ 64,400
$ 16,800
$312,790
Average
Cost (per
pound)
$1.39
$2.40
$1.28
$1.33
$1.65
-------
ALASKA AT A GLANCE
Alaska conducts spring "clean-ups" and municipalities conduct regular programs
which accept hazardous waste from homeowners. However, the state has not
conducted any pesticide clean sweeps.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Not applicable
Not applicable
None
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Quantity Collected (Ibs.)
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
No collection yet
1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 ! 1 , 1
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2009
Year
Amount collected
to date:
Olbs.
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Not applicable
Not applicable
No
EPA administered
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
No
Tel: (907) 745-3236
Fax:(907)745-8125
rosemarie lombardi@envircon.state.
ak.us
Rosemarie Lombard!
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
Pesticide Program
500 South Alaska Street
Palmer, AK 99645
Website: http://www.state.ak.us/dec/deh/pesticides/home.htm (Department of
Environmental Conservation, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
-------
Summary of Alaska Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
The Pesticide Program, which is in the Department of Environmental Conservation, is not directly
involved in pesticide collection and disposal.
Alaska conducts spring "clean-up" projects which collect hazardous waste from private home
owners and fanners. Pesticides are accepted, along with household hazardous products. Household
hazardous waste (HHW) collections are held in many of the larger communities, usually once a month.
Farmers and commercial businesses (including commercial applicators, retailers and golf course managers)
who art conditionally exempt generators can dispose of up to 220 pounds in HHW collection programs for
a fee. The participant takes the material to a permanent site and does not have to register in advance.
There is no information that indicates significant quantities of agricultural pesticides are disposed of at HHW
programs. All collected wastes are sent out of the state for incineration or landfill disposal.
-------
ARIZONA AT A GLANCE
Arizona does not have a clean sweep program for agricultural pesticides and the
Department of Agriculture has no plans to initiate one.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Not applicable
Not applicable
None
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Quantity Collected (Ibs,)
jnnn
innn
onnn
looo-
ft —
No collection yet
Amount collected
to date:
Olbs.
Pre 19891989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Adopted, authorized in 1997
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Information not available
Peterson Telephone and E-mail:
Tel: (602) 542-3575
jack.peterson@agric.state.az.us
Atkinson Telephone and E-mail:
Tel: (602) 542-3579
deborah. atkinson @ agric. state.az.us
Website: http://amculture.state.az.us (Department of Agriculture, not specific to
Clean Sweeps)
Jack Peterson or Deborah Atkinson
Department of Agriculture
Environmental Services
1688 W.Adams
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Fax: (602) 542-0466
-------
Summary of Arizona Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
Arizona does not have a program for the collection of agricultural pesticides and currently has no
plans for one.
-------
ARKANSAS AT A GLANCE
The Arkansas State Plant Board conducted a pilot collection in 2000, the first in
the state since 1992, and collected over 30,000 pounds of agricultural pesticides.
Legislation passed in 2001 authorized the state to fund the program with pesticide
registration fees starting in 2002.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1992
Intermittent, active
<
•«
a
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
5,000
30,689
Amount collected
to date:
35.689 Ibs.
Prel989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Year
2000
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Unknown for 1992; state funds for 2000
No
Si.98 to $2.62 per pound
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events and on-site pick up
Incineration and landfill
No
Adopted, not yet authorized
Required in 2000; information not available for 1992
No
Farmers
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Mike Thompson
State Plant Board
P.O. Box 1069
No. 1 Natural Resource Drive
Little Rock, AR 72203
Yes
Tel: (501) 225-1598
Fax:(501)225-3590
Tel: (501) 682-0876
Fax:(501)682-0565
ezell@adeq.state.ar.us
Tom Ezell
Department of Environmental Quality
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
http://www.planthoard.org/pesticides about.html (State Plant Board, not specific to Clean
Sweeps)
-------
Summary of Arkansas Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
The Department of Pollution and Ecology conducted an amnesty program in 1992 and collected
5,000 pounds of agricultural pesticides. Currently the State Plant Board, which functions like the Depart-
ments of Agriculture in many other states, is the lead agency for pesticide regulation in general and for
pesticide disposal programs.
In November 2000, the Plant Board, in cooperation with the University of Arkansas Cooperative
Extension Agency, Farm Bureau, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, and the Benton County of
Environmental Services, collected and disposed of 30,689 pounds of pesticides in a pilot program. The
pilot was funded by the State's General Fund. Only farmers participated in the pilot, but the State Plant
Board anticipates that future programs will be open to the pubk'c. In March 2001, the Arkansas General
Assembly established the Abandoned Pesticide Disposal Program and authorized the Plant Board to collect
$50 per registered product per year to fund the program beginning in 2002. Another collection in Benton
County will be held in 2001. The program is expected to be run statewide in 2003.
Arkansas Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1992
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of Pesticides
(pounds)
5,000
30,689
35,689
Information on the number of participants and
program cost is not available.
-------
CALIFORNIA AT A GLANCE
Since 1989 California has conducted clean sweep collections. The Department of
Toxic Substances Control within the state Environmental Protection Agency is the
lead agency. Collections are conducted on a county-by-county basis and are funded
by participant fees. Nearly 1.2 million pounds of pesticides have been collected.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1989
Continuous, inactive
350,000
300,000
250,000 --—
200,000 -—
150,000 —
100,000
50,000
Q — .-,
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
336,668
188,380
128,000
157,514
137,384
87,820
110,502
1,082
Amount collected
to date:
1,186,828 Ihs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Vear
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Participant fees
Yes
Information not available
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events
Incineration
No
Not adopted
Required
No
Farmers
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Tel: (510) 540-3894
Fax:(510)540-3891
lhalverson@dtsc.ca.gov
Lee Halverson
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Toxic Substances Control
700 Heinz Avenue Suite 210
Berkeley, CA 94710-2737
Websites: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/indexjitrnl (Department of Toxic Substances
Control, not specific to Clean Sweeps) and http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/index.html
(Department of Pesticide Regulation, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
-------
Summary of California Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
The collection and disposal of unwanted pesticides in California began in 1989 and the disposal
programs became more structured a few years later. Since 1993, the pesticide disposal programs have
been carried out on a county by county basis, with priority given to need. The county events are sponsored
by the county agricultural department and farm bureau. Under this sponsorship, the county serves as the
generator and the Agricultural Commissioner signs the manifest. Management and disposal costs are borne
by the participants.
The county collection and disposal program requires an inventory of all wastes and provides the
participant with appointment time, location of the collection site and proper packaging procedures for safe
transportation. Participants possessing more than 220 pounds of RCRA regulated waste or 2.2 pounds of
acutely hazardous waste are provided a manifest for transporting the waste to the collection site. California
has not adopted the Universal Waste Rule; however, variances are issued to each county. In most cases,
the county Clean Sweep programs are conducted by contractors.
California Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides
(pounds)
87,820
128,000
188,380
336,668
157,514
1,082
137,384
110,502
0
20,135
19,343
0
1,186,828
Number of
Participants
No data
No data
No data
No data
No data
No data
No data
No data
0
No data
No data
0
More than 700
Information on program cost is not available.
-------
COLORADO AT A GLANCE
An EPA grant and a state in-kind match funded Colorado's pilot clean sweep
effort in 1994. Since then, participant fees have funded the state's intermittent
collections, which have totaled over 84,000 pounds of pesticides.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides including household pesticides
1995
Intermittent, active
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Quantity Collected (Ibs.)
1C AAA
•m AAA
iJ^UUV
r AAA _
A _ ^_ ___ .. ,
i. V
L- -
Amount collected
to date:
84,498 Ibs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
State funds and EPA grants for 1995 only,
participant fees for subsequent years
Yes, $2.25 to $2.65 per pound
Current cost averages $2.25 to $2.65 per pound
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
On-site pick up
Incineration and, in 1995 event only, landfill
No
Adopted, not yet authorized
Required
Yes
Farmers, commercial applicators, retailers, golf
course managers, the public, and any
agribusiness or green industry business that
applies or stores pesticides including nurseries
and greenhouses
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
No
Tel: (303) 239-4151
Fax: (303) 239-4177
rob, wawrzynski @ ag. state.co.us
Robert Wawrzynski
Department of Agriculture
Division of Plant Industry
700 Kipling, Suite 4000
Lakewood, CO 80215-5894
Website: http://www.ag.state.co.us/DPI/programs/programs.html
(Department of Agriculture, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
-------
Summary of Colorado Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
In 1994, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension (CSUCE) sponsored a pilot project for
the collection and disposal of unwanted pesticides. Funding for the project was provided by an EPA grant
for $75,000 (Section 319 of the Clean Water Act) and a $50,000 in-kind match. Brochures and registra-
tion forms were distributed tol 1,000 potential participants with a return of 67 registering for the event.
Initially, there was some question of liability under CERCLA. CSUCE was acting as a broker for the
hazardous waste and could be legally liable for any accidents associated with the collection and disposal
event. It was agreed to permit CSUCE to assume the role.
In 1995, a competitive bid was conducted to hire a contractor. The competitive bid contained a
requirement for the contractor to pick up the pesticides from the participants' sites and to accept hazardous
waste generator status to limit the liability of CSUCE. ENSCO won the contract and visited each site to
pick up the designated pesticides that had been identified and tagged. Colorado used the contractor-pick-
up-method rather than having participants transport the pesticides to a central site. This minimized the effort
needed by the participant and the probability of accidents on the way to the site.
ENSCO transferred most of the pesticides to a holding facility in El Dorado, Arkansas. Dioxin-
containing materials were transported directly to the incinerator in Coffeyville, Kansas. From El Dorado,
selected products were transferred to Oklahoma for landfilling. Some mercury products were transferred to
Canada for stabilization and landfilling. A total of 17,000 pounds of pesticides were collected from 67 sites.
In 1997, the Department of Agriculture encouraged participation in an agricultural pesticide disposal
program where the contractor serviced the entire state and was responsible for ah1 aspects of the program
including advertising, registration and appointments, collection, and disposal. This program required the
contractor to pick up waste at the participant's site and did not allow the participant to transport the waste.
This format is based on the State's interpretation of EPA regulations. The collection programs conducted in
1996 through 1999 all operated like this. All collection programs, 1996 through 1999, were paid for by the
participants. It is anticipated that future collection programs will be operated by private contractors and the
total cost will be paid for by the participants. Currently, the average cost is $2.25 to $2.65 per pound, and
depends on the total amounts of pesticides collected during the program.
-------
Colorado Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of Pesticides
(pounds)
17,000
0
33,910
0
17,755
15,833
84,498
Number of
Participants
67
0
114
0
44
43
268
Average Quantity of
Pesticides per Participant
(pounds/participant.)
254
NA
297
NA
404
368
315
Information on program cost is not available.
NA = not applicable
-------
CONNECTICUT AT A GLANCE
Connecticut conducted pesticide collections for farmers in 1990, 1995, and 1996.
These efforts, under the leadership of the pesticide program of the Department of
Environmental Protection, collected over 46,000 pounds. No further pesticide
collections are planned.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1990
Intermittent, inactive
1
a
t
01
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
•?e ftftft
SftflO i
0 ,
16,200
Fi"
i- j
23jOOO
|7^TT
•,
i
Amount collected
to date:
46,100 Ibs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Participant fees and funds from unidentified
sources
Yes, but not the full cost
Information not available
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events
Information not available
No
Not adopted
Required
No
Farmers
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
No
Tel: (860) 424-3324
Fax:(860)424-4061
bradford.robinson@po.state.ct.us
Brad Robinson
Department of Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Website: http://dep.statect.us/wst.index.htm (Pesticide Program in the
Department of Environmental Protection, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
-------
Summary of Connecticut Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
Connecticut conducted amnesty pesticide collections for farmers in 1990,1995 and 1996. Future
activity will most likely be part of regular household hazardous waste collections after the Universal Waste
Rule and other related regulations are adopted.
Connecticut has a regular household hazardous waste program with three fixed collection sites
serving 7,12 and 18 communities and approximately 800,000 residents. These programs are regionally
shared and collections are for one day. Connecticut is providing grant money to establish permanent
regional household waste facilities.
Connecticut Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1990
1995
1996
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides
(pounds)
16,200
6,900
23,000
46,100
Number of
Participants
no data
26 farmers
49 farmers
More than 75
Average Quantity of
Pesticides per Participant
(pounds/participant)
NA
265
469
399 over two years
Information on program cost is not available.
NA = not applicable
-------
DELAWARE AT A GLANCE
In 1992 the Delaware Solid Waste Authority conducted a one-time "Clean
House/Clean Earth" pilot program funded by waste disposal fees. The program
collected over 30,000 pounds of pesticides. Under certain conditions businesses
may participate in the state's on-going HHW collection programs.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides and household waste
1992
Once
a
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
3M23
Amount collected
to date:
30,423 Ibs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Surcharge of $2.00 per ton on solid waste
disposal fees
No
Approximately $4.25 per pound in 1992
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Permanent site and on-site pick up
Incineration and landfill
Information not available
Adopted, authorized in 2000
Information not available
No
Farmers and the public
Container Collection
Existing program:
Yes. The Department of Agriculture
coordinates this program; (302) 739-4811
Contact Information
Rich Von Stetten or Marsha Anthony Tel: (302) 739-5361
Delaware Solid Waste Authority Fax: (302) 739-4287
1128 S. Bradford Street rvs@dswa.com
P O Box 455 maa@dswa.com
Dover, DE 19903-0455
Websites: http://www.state.de.us/deptagri/ (Department of Agriculture Pesticides
Section, not specific to Clean Sweeps) and http://www.dswa.com (Delaware
Solid Waste Authority, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
-------
Summary of Delaware Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
Delaware's pesticide disposal program was administered by the Delaware Solid Waste Authority
(DSWA). In late 1991 and early 1992, DSWA held a CleanHouse/Clean Earth pilot program to collect
wastes from both households and agricultural waste generators. In Sussex County, a drop-off center was
staffed at certain hours from Tuesday through Saturday. In Kent County, a van collected the waste by going
door-to-door after an appointment was made. A total of 77,742 pounds of hazardous materials and
41,394 pounds of motor oil were collected from both counties. Nearly 40 percent (30,423 pounds) of the
hazardous materials were pesticides. It was assumed that these were all agricultural pesticides, based on
the assumption that pesticides generally make up a relatively small percentage of typical household
hazardous waste.
There is anecdotal information indicating that pesticide wastes were specifically collected in 1993
and 1994, but this could not be confirmed. In addition, businesses that are conditionally exempt small
quantity generators (CESQGs) are allowed to dispose of up to 220 pounds of waste at the on-going HHW
collection programs. CESQGs must call the contractor to make an appointment.
Delaware Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1992
TOTAL
Quantity of Pesticides
(pounds)
30,423
30,423
Information on the number of participants and
program cost is not available.
-------
FLORIDA AT A GLANCE
The Departments of Environmental Protection and Agriculture and Consumer Services
teamed with other state agencies, the University of Florida and pesticide user groups to
implement a Clean Sweep program during 2000 and 2001. This coalition also conducted
a pilot project in 1996 and 1997. In 1995, pesticides were collected in a program run by
an industry representative and Palm Beach County conducted a program in 1998. Nearly
293,000 pounds of unwanted pesticides have been collected through 2000.
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1995
Continuous, active
-S
200,000
150,000
S 100,000
a
•I" 50,000
0
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
170,929
TOJUOO
Amount collected
to date:
292,929 Ibs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
State funds and, in 1998, county funds. Unknown for 1995.
No fees prior to 2000. Beginning hi 2000, there are fees
only for retailers, distributors, manufacturers,
and governments, who must pay the contract price
Average cost of $2.10 per pound in 1996and$1.14 per
pound in 2000
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events for all years. Beginning hi 2000,
on-site pick up is used if there are large quantities
or deteriorated containers
Information not available
No
Adopted, authorized in 1997
Requested but not required prior to 2000. Not required
beginning 2000
Yes (prior to 2000)
Farmers, commercial applicators, golf course managers, pest
control operators and nurseries. Others, such as retailers,
distributors, manufacturers, and governments can participate
but must pay the contract price
Existing program:
Yes
Tel: (850) 488-8731
Fax: (850) 488-8498
dubberd @doacs. state.fl.us
Dale Dubberly
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
3125 Conner Blvd, Bldg. 8 L-29
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Websites: http://www8.mvfloridacom/mvflorida/environment.htmand
http://www.dep-state.fl.us/waste/ (Florida Department of Environmental Protection)
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/cleansweep-pesticides/default.htm
-------
Summary of Florida Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
Following a 1995 statewide collection of 70,000 pounds of lead arsenate spearheaded by an
industry representative, state agencies and user groups collaborated to conduct several small scale
collections in a four-county pilot project (1996-1997). The 1996 pilot program collected an estimated
18,600 pounds of agricultural pesticides from 180 agricultural growers in three counties. Initial surveys
indicated that 5,265 pounds would be collected. In the 1997 segment of the pilot program, approximately
6,400 pounds of pesticides were collected from two counties, including one that participated the previous
year. As a result of the successful pilot program, plans for a statewide program were made. An additional
collection was held in West Palm Beach County in 1998. This program, which was organized and funded
by the county, collected about 27,000 pounds of pesticides from 39 participants. These efforts (1996 -
1998) resulted in the collection of 52,000 pounds of unwanted pesticides from more than 220 participants.
In State Fiscal Year 2000-2001, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) received
$300,000 in funding, an appropriation from the Solid Waste Management Trust Fund as part of the General
Appropriations Act, to start an ongoing pesticide collection program. The DEP and the Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services (DO ACS) teamed with other state agencies, the University of Florida's
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (TEAS) and pesticide user groups to develop and implement
"Operation Cleansweep." The funding was granted to the DEP, and then passed to the DO ACS, who
contracted with the vendor to collect and dispose of the material. DEP and DO ACS share operational and
program responsibilities and provide in-kind services to operate the program. A steering committee with
"Operation Clean-Sweep Partners" was established to publicize, train, and coordinate the program.
Florida adopted the Universal Waste Rule, which was authorized in 1997, and conducted a seven-
county program in 2000-01. A contractor (Safety-Kleen) won the bid with a projected cost of $ 1.14 per
pound for all collected materials. The contractor provided all materials and services for the collection,
packaging, transport and disposal of the materials collected. The contract also provided for collection of
materials at a pesticide end-user location if the containers were deteriorated to the extent that transport was
hazardous, or the quantity at the site was large enough (500 pounds or more) to make it more efficient and/
or safer to collect on-site. Materials collected were handled under federal and state hazardous waste
regulations applicable to the Universal Waste Rule and, for the purposes of the program, the Department of
Environmental Protection became the generator. In 2000,170,929 pounds of pesticides were collected
from 273 participants in 7 counties for a total cost of $195,507. Travel expenses, publicity costs and staff
time of the agencies and pesticide user groups were provided as in-kind contributions, so all allotted funds
were used directly to pay for collection and disposal.
Farmers, golf course superintendents, pest control operators, nurseries and other end-users are
eligible for free collection. A limit of 500 pounds of material is being used as a cutoff for planning purposes.
Participants with over 500 pounds of material have to coordinate with program staff so that transportation
regulations and requirements are addressed. Pesticide retailers, distributors, manufacturers and govern-
ments may also participate, but are required to make arrangements in advance and pay the cost of disposal.
They benefit by being eligible for the same contract price that was negotiated for the program.
Homeowners are not allowed to participate because other programs, such as HHW collections, are widely
available for household pesticide waste.
-------
Pre-registration was not required, but D ACS staff conducted short interviews with participants to
obtain information to help plan future collections.
It is anticipated that funding will be provided on a recurring basis and that the program will rotate
around the state, eventually covering all 67 counties.
Florida Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides
(pounds)
70,000
18,600
6,400
27,000
0
170,929
292,929
Number of
Participants
no data
180
no data
39
0
273
more than 492
Average Quantity
of Pesticides per
Participant
(pounds/participant)
NA
103
NA
692
NA
626
440 for the three
years with data
Program
Cost
no data
$39,035
no data
no data
0
$195,507
NA
Average
Cost
(per pound)
NA
$2.10
NA
NA
NA
$1.14
NA
NA = not applicable
-------
GEORGIA AT A GLANCE
Georgia has conducted a continuous clean sweep program since 1995 under the
leadership of the Department of Agriculture. EPA grants were used in the early
years of the program, which is now state funded. These collections, known as
"Georgia Clean Day," have collected nearly 780,000 pounds of pesticides.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1995
Permanently funded
-«. 450,000
^ 400,000
^ 350,000
S 300,000
J 250,000
~ 200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
a
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
373,851
"5,000
Amount collected
to date:
778,032 Ibs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
State funds and EPA grants
No
Ranges from $1.00 per pound in 1998-2000 to
$2.00 per pound in 1996
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events and on-site pick up
Incineration
No
Adopted, authorized in 1998
Required
No
Farmers, commercial applicators, retailers, golf
course managers and the public
Existing program:
Yes
Contact Information
Steve Cole Tel: (404) 656-4958
Department of Agriculture Fax: (404) 657-8378
Entomology and Pesticides Division scole@asr.state.ga.us
19 Martin Luther King Jr. Dr SW, Room 550
Atlanta, GA 30334
Website: http://www.agr.state.ga.us/plant ind/html/pesticide recvcling.html
(Clean Sweep specific)
-------
Summary of Georgia Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
In 1993, EPA provided the Georgia Department of Agriculture with a grant of $48,000 to develop a
Georgia Clean Day Program for the collection of agricultural pesticides. In 1995, the Department con-
ducted a pilot program to collect agricultural pesticides from three counties. A contractor was hired by
competitive bid for collection and disposal services. The contractor also assumed responsibility as the
generator of the pesticide wastes. The pilot project cost $ 16,000 and 5,000 pounds of agricultural
pesticides were collected and sent to a disposal site. Participants were required to register before the
collection.
In 1996, EPA provided an additional grant for $40,000 to conduct a second Georgia Clean Day.
These funds allowed for two collection events and a special farm on-site pick up (which alone accounted for
16,000 pounds) that resulted in the collection and disposal (incineration) of 36,800 pounds of pesticides.
In 1997, the Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service in cooperation with the University of Georgia
Cooperative Extension Service surveyed 4,741 randomly selected farms by letter "to gather data from a
random sample of Georgia growers to determine the volume and geographic location of waste farm
chemicals throughout the state." This survey provided some positive information in helping the Department
of Agriculture to determine what pesticides were out there and the cost of collecting and disposing of these
unwanted farm pesticides. In 1997, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources provided a solid waste
grant of $50,000 for conducting Georgia Clean Day.
Since then, Georgia Clean Day has been funded directly by the state as a line item in the state
budget. The Georgia General Assembly committed to allocating up to a total of $2.5 million, which was the
amount estimated to adequately remove most of the canceled and suspended pesticides from Georgia
farms. Rather than fund the entire amount at one time, the General Assembly chose to provide a portion of
the total each year. Georgia has adopted the Universal Waste rule and has a goal to provide Georgia Clean
Daytoall 131 counties in Georgia. Georgia Clean Day was conducted in 1997,1998,1999 and 2000.
Georgia Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of Pesticides
(pounds)
5,000
36,800
25,600
128,876
373,851
207,905
778,032
Number of Counties
3 counties
5 counties
59 farms and 5 counties
6 counties
8 counties
15 counties
42 counties and 59 farms
Program Cost
no data
$73,600
$35,070
$128,880
$373,850
$207,910
more than $819,310
Average Cost (per
pound)
NA
$2.00
$1.37
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.06 for 1996-2000
Information on the number of participants is not available.
NA = not applicable
-------
HAWAH AT A GLANCE
Hawaii conducted a pilot agricultural pesticide collection in 1987 and a combined
agricultural pesticide/HHW collection in 1989. These efforts used state and EPA
funds and collected nearly 17,500 pounds of pesticides. In 1991 the Department of
Health recommended limiting state-funded collection of agricultural pesticides.
•"•.r**
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides and household waste
1987
Intermittent, inactive
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Amount collected
to date:
17,471 Ibs.
Pre 19® 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
State funds and EPA grants
No
Disposal costs to date total $67,362
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events
Information not available
Yes
Adopted, not yet authorized
Required
No
Farmers and the public
Existing program:
No
Tel: (808) 973-9404
Fax: (808) 973-9418
Robert Boesch
Department of Agriculture
1481 South King St. Suite 431
Honolulu, Hawaii 96814
Website: http://www.hawaiiag.org/hdoa/pi pesthtm
(Department of Agriculture, not specific to Dean Sweeps)
-------
Summary of Hawaii Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
Hawaii conducted an agricultural pesticide collection and disposal program in 1987. This was a
"pilot project" sponsored by the Office of Environmental Quality Control, which received a grant from EPA.
A total of 12,471 pounds of pesticides were collected at six different locations from 86 farmers. The drum
disposal cost was $49,500 for 50 drums and the total program cost was $50,062. In 1989, the agricultural
collections were combined with the household hazardous waste collection effort. The Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Health cooperated in running the program. Twenty drums of waste
pesticides were collected from 44 farmers. This is estimated to be equivalent to 5,000 pounds of pesti-
cides, assuming 250 pounds per drum, which was the average in 1987. The cost for drum disposal was
$17,300. During the 1989 program, different processing and permitting procedures were used for
agricultural and household waste due to liability considerations and to ensure that HHW were not mixed
with regulated waste pesticides.
A1991 report from the Department of Health recommended limiting the state-funded collection of
agricultural pesticides. The report stated that developing federal FBFRA regulations and anticipated changes
to Hawaii's hazardous waste requirements would "weaken the justification for continuing to collect farmer's
waste pesticides".
Hawaii Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1987
1989
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides (pounds)
12,471
5,000*
17,471
Number of
Participants
86 farmers
44 farmers
130
Average Quantity of
Pesticides per
Participant
(pounds/participant)
145
114
134
Program
Cost
$50,062
$17,300
$67,362
Average Cost
(per pound)
$4.01
$3.46
$3.86
* Estimate estimated based on 20 drums collected, assuming 250 pounds per drum.
-------
IDAHO AT A GLANCE
Idaho's permanently funded clean sweep program has collected over 322,000
pounds of pesticides since its beginning in 1993. The program, with the
Department of Agriculture as the lead agency, is funded by the state.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides including household pesticides
1993
Permanently funded
-j 100,000
f- 80,000
3 60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
&1R:£
43,668
\ *
"•> ?
&l.,^-
40,474 43'760
"* <* ""T \ A
'Ui * '
a \ ? *
~' a,!? ^
V,° ft t,
_K &.•?;:. LjSt, , I..*. * •
35355
;^T"]
irJ
-' ^i£,L
36,436
,-X> .
78JWI
** «
i*
>x J
\>[
f. A.L
Amount collected
to date:
322,604 Ibs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
State funds
No
Information not available
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events
Incineration and landfill
No
Adopted, authorized in 1999
Requested but not required in all cases
No
Farmers, commercial applicators, retailers, golf
course managers, the public and county, federal,
and state agencies
Container Collection
Existing program:
Yes
Contact Information
Rodney Awe Tel: (208) 332-8615
Department of Agriculture Fax: (208) 334-3547
P.O. Box 790 rawe@agri.state.id.us
Boise, ID 83701
Website: http://www.agri.state.id.us/aFresource/odP.htm (Clean Sweep specific)
-------
Summary of Idaho Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
The Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) has conducted annual pesticide disposal
collections since 1993 to assist growers, homeowners, dealers and applicators with disposal of unusable
pesticides. Idaho's program, called the Pesticide Disposal Program, collected almost 323,000 pounds of
pesticides through 2000. All pesticide users, including growers, pesticide dealers, professional applicators,
homeowners, county, federal and state agencies or other local officials are allowed to use this service.
Participants transport their unwanted pesticides to a designated site. Each year, collection sites are available
in every region of the state. The adoption and use of the Universal Waste Rule greatly simplified the PDF,
facilitating expansion of the program. Through the 2000 collections, participants were required to preregis-
ter their pesticides with the ISDA, although drop-ins generally were not sent away. Beginning in 2001,
preregistration is not required.
Idaho Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of Pesticides
(pounds)
30,861
13,090
43,668
40,474
43,760
35,855
36,436
78,460
322,604
Number of Events
3
2
2
2
11
14
16
18
68
Information on the number of participants and program cost is not available.
-------
ILLINOIS AT A GLANCE
Since its first clean sweep collection in 1990, Illinois has collected over 252,000
pounds of pesticides. EPA and the Department of Agriculture, which is the
lead agency, have funded collections.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Agricultural and structural pesticides
1990
Continuous, active
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
»a
-a
*f-- - - <-
U/,/27 —
«^
si
<
.1
* 1
\T~ ""
J
> 1
-J
26.610
^^ •f \~
*, "*• j
55,586
s."***
&^s \
?«)v 15,580
Amount collected
to date:
252,316 Ibs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
State funds and EPA grants
No
Contractual costs for 2000 were $0.85 per pound
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
g Disposal method:
r*
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events
Incineration (mainly), landfill (very minimal), and
recycling when possible
No. Attempted one in 1994 but discontinued it.
Adopted, not yet authorized
Required
Yes
Farmers; pest control operators added in 1998
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Brad Beaver, Warren Goetsch
Illinois Department of Agriculture
Environmental Programs
State Fairgrounds
P.O. Box 19281
Springfield, IL 62794-9281
Tel: (217) 785-2427
Fax: (217) 524-4882
bbeaver@agr.state.il.us
wgoetsch@agr.state.il.us
Tel: (217) 785-8604
Michael Nechvatal
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Website: http://www.agr.state.il-us/Environment/Pesticide/pestuses.html
(Department of Agriculture Environmental Programs, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
-------
Summary of Illinois Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
Pilot programs in 1990 and 1991 collected about 19,500 pounds of pesticides from 147 partici-
pants in two counties. Agricultural Clean Sweep programs were conducted several years later, yielding over
27,000 pounds in 1994 and nearly four times that amount in 1995. In 1998 Illinois determined that there
was a need to collect from the state's approximately 90 structural pest control operators (PCOs). Three
collection sites were identified for a 1998 program and both members and non-members of the Illinois Pest
Control Association were notified of the program. Interagency collaboration was achieved, and the
Department of Transportation granted amnesty to enable PCOs to legally deli ver tagged and untagged
products. Only 11 of the PCOs who were notified did not participate, and Illinois stated that those
companies ran the risk of being designated EPA Hazardous Waste Storage Facilities. Department of
Agriculture staff contacted those PCOs that did not participate to see if they had disposal options or needed
assistance.
In 1999 the Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA) conducted three, single-day collections at
three separate locations. These efforts, funded by the U.S. EPA and the IDOA, collected over 55,500
pounds of pesticides from 185 participants from ten counties.
MSB Environmental, Inc. conducted the collections as the hazardous waste contractor. They
conducted each collection very efficiently and experienced no accidents or spills at any of the three
collection locations. All products collected during the August 17 pesticide Clean Sweep program were
incinerated at the ENSCO, Inc. facility located in El Dorado, Arkansas. Most of the pesticides from the
August 18 event (13,357 out of 14,392 pounds) were also incinerated at this facility. Of the remaining
material, 505 pounds were landfilled and 530 pounds underwent wastewater treatment. The last collection
held on August 19 resulted in the incineration of 26,747 pounds of product while only 4 pounds of product
were landfilled.
In 2000, the IDOA along with the Illinois Department of Public Health conducted an agricultural/
structural pesticide clean sweep program for DeKalb, Ogle and Lee counties. This single-day collection
was funded by the U.S. EPA and IDOA. Local sponsors included each county's Farm Bureau office,
University of Illinois Extension office and Soil and Water Conservation District. The collection successfully
collected a total of 15,580 pounds of product from 64 participants. Onyx Environmental Services was the
contractor for this collection. No accidents or spills occurred during the collection. The majority of all
chemicals collected were scheduled to be incinerated.
All chemicals collected during the 1999 and 2000 programs were registered with the IDOA prior to
the actual collection date. By pre-registering the products, the IDOA was able to determine which products
were eligible for collection. Each participant received a response letter indicating the time and date of the
collection along with a listing of their chemicals which were to be brought to the collection for disposal. The
majority of products turned away from the collections were not pesticides. These items included paints,
paint thinners, household cleaners, motor oil, crop oil, surfactants, and foaming agents. Products containing
2,4,5-T were also not collected due to the unavailability of a disposal site.
-------
Illinois attempted a swap program in 1994, but discontinued it because the IDOA found that
contacting the appropriate people to facilitate the exchange was very time consuming, hi addition, Illinois
discovered a large amount of uncertainty about the quality of the products and concluded that most
products were in need of disposal. In the recent programs, the IDOA tried to convince the owners to find a
user for products that still able to be used.
Illinois Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1990
1991
1994
1995
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides (pounds)
13,000
6,550
27,263
107,727
26,610
55,586
15,580
252,316
Number of
Participants
89
58
106
398
63
185
64
963
Average Quantity of Pesticides per
Participant (pounds/participant)
146
113
257
271
422
300
243
262
Information on program cost is not available.
-------
INDIANA AT A GLANCE
Indiana conducted its first clean sweep collection in 1990 and has collected over
68,000 pounds of pesticides in total. EPA grants and state funds have supported
the state's efforts. The program is led by the Office of State Chemist, which is the
pesticide regulatory agency in Indiana.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1990
Continuous, active
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Amount collected
to date:
68,147 Ibs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
State funds and EPA grants
No, unless a participant's load exceeds weight
limitations. In 1995, the first 250 pounds were
free. Each additional pound cost $2.00
The 1995 collection cost $12,149, an average of
$1.51 per pound
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events
Incineration
No
Adopted, authorized in 1999
Required
Yes
Farmers, commercial applicators, retailers, and
golf course managers
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Tel: (765) 494-5546
Fax:(765)494-4331
nealk @ isco.purdue.edu
Kevin Neal
Office of Indiana State Chemist
Purdue University
1154 Biochemistry Building
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-1154
Website: http://www.isco.purdue.edu/index pest.htm
(Office of the State Chemist, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
-------
Summary of Indiana Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
Indiana conducted its first Clean Sweep program in 1990. During annual collections between 1992
and 1994, over 19,000 pounds were collected from approximately 218 participants. The 1992 Clean
Sweep project was part of the Lake Michigan Clean Sweep program. Both the 1992 and 1994 Clean
Sweep programs were funded with EPA monies.
The Clean Sweep project that was conducted in Lake County, in December 1995, is typical of the
Clean Sweep program in Indiana. A contractor was selected by competitive bid. In this case Laidlaw
Environmental Service, Inc. from Tennessee was selected to handle, transport, and dispose of the pesti-
cides. Laidlaw provided ah1 the equipment such as drums, tables and protective gear and an emergency
response plan.
A survey was conducted prior to the event to gather inventory data about each pesticide, including
the brand name, active ingredient, EPA registration number, quantity and whether it was a solid or liquid.
Advertisement through newspapers and extension services was used to limit participation to the agricultural
community and to plan for safe transportation and collection. At the event, contractor personnel unloaded
the pesticides and sorted them according to DOT hazardous materials classifications and disposal guidelines
and recorded the types of material. Laidlaw assumed responsibility as the generator and transported the
material to a facuity for incineration. Each participant was given a packet of information pertaining to safety
and pollution prevention on the farm. This Clean Sweep project resulted in the collection of 8,064 pounds
of unwanted pesticides from 33 participants. Total project costs were estimated at $ 12,149, with a federal
share of $12,096, state share of $53, and an average cost of $1.57 per pound.
Clean Sweep programs conducted in 1996 and 1997 accounted for approximately 7,000 pounds
of pesticides. The 1997 event was funded by EPA for $50,000. In October 1998, Indiana conducted a
Clean Sweep Program outside the Lake Michigan Watershed area and collected over 8,000 pounds of
pesticides. This is the first time that Indiana conducted a collection and disposal program with FIFRA
discretionary funds.
In July 2000 a Clean Sweep collection was conducted in Bloomington with the cooperation of the
Monroe County Solid Waste Management District. The collection, open to farmers, ag dealers, pest
control businesses and golf courses, brought in almost 17,000 pounds of pesticides.
-------
Indiana Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticide (pounds)
8,800
0
4,300
6,000
9,000
8,064
1,900
5,164
8,078
0
16,841
68,147
Number of
Participants
no data
0
35
73
110
33
no data
40
no data
0
39
More than 330
Average Quantity of
Pesticides per Participant
(pounds/participant)
NA
NA
123
82
82
244
NA
129
NA
NA
432
150 for the six years with data
Information on program cost is not available
NA = not applicable
-------
IOWA AT A GLANCE
Since 1991 Iowa has conducted annual clean sweep collections under the
leadership of the Department of Natural Resources. The program, funded from
the state's Groundwater Protection Fund and household hazardous material
permits, has collected more than 1.1 million pounds of pesticides.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides and household waste
1986
Permanently funded
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
230,923
-180,574
Pre 19891989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 19% 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Amount collected
to date:
1,130,555 Ibs.
Program Funding
Collection Logistics
y^^"^^? "'*&§*";'r~
*^jf* -^^y/o^ /^«
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
The Groundwater Protection Fund (generated by
tonnage fees at landfills) and Household Hazardous
Materials (HHM) Permits, which are
required for retailers of HHM
No fee for households. For farmers, the fee depends on
the type of program (single day event or permanent site)
and the quantity of pesticides
Costs average $1.34 per pound at single day events and
$0.70 per pound at collection centers
Single day events and permanent sites
Incineration, landfill and fuel blending
There is an exchange program for HHM other than
pesticides
EPA administered
Required
No
Farmers, commercial applicators, retailers, golf course
managers, the public and conditionally exempt small
quantity generators
Existing program:
Yes, coordinated by the Department of Agriculture;
the contact is JimEllerhoff at (515) 281-8506
Stiner's telephone and e-mail
Tel: (515) 281-8646
theresa.stiner@dnr.state.ia.us
Wessel's telephone and e-mail
Tel: (515) 281-5859
john.wessel@dnr.state.ia.us
Website: http://www2.state.ia.us/agriculture/pesticidebureau.htin
(Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
Theresa Stiner or John Wessel
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
502 E. 9th Street
Des Moines, IA 50319-0034
Fax: (515) 281-8895
-------
Summary of Iowa Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) oversees two different waste pesticide
disposal programs, Toxic Cleanup Days and Regional Collection Centers. Toxic Cleanup Days (TCDs) are
one-day events that are generally joint efforts between a county organization and the IDNR. A pilot TCD
program was held in 1986. TCDs provide for collection and disposal of household hazardous wastes,
including waste pesticides, from both households and farmers. The TCD program also focuses on public
education addressing the proper purchasing, storage and on-going management of household hazardous
materials.
Sites for TCDs, usually fairgrounds or city/county properties, are selected for the one-day event.
Prior to the event, one-day workshops are conducted for local task forces and their members. These are
conducted by IDNR and contractor staffs to provide a complete program of information on publicity,
volunteer coordination, and site operation procedures. Currently, TCDs are managed by appointment only.
This program is free to residents and farmers bringing up to 220 pounds of material for disposal.
Regional Collection Centers (RCCs), which first opened in 1995, are permanent facilities for the
on-going collection of household hazardous waste, including pesticides, and for on-going public education
addressing proper purchasing, storage, use and management of household hazardous materials. Currently,
Iowa has 15 operating main Regional Collection Center faculties. Iowa also has 15 smaller satellite RCC
facilities. The satellite RCC facilities serve as collection-only locations for residential household hazardous
waste and work with larger main RCC facilities for overall household hazardous waste disposal manage-
ment. Conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) business waste is not collected at the
satellite RCCs at this time. The RCC program as a whole supports residents and CESQG businesses with
hazardous waste disposal options in 56 of Iowa's 99 counties. Residents may participate in the RCC
program at no charge. CESQG businesses may participate in the program by paying a reduced rate for
hazardous waste disposal.
From July 1999 through June 2000,24,762 households and 369 CESQG businesses participated
in the RCC program. During this time, the RCCs collected a total of 1,929,256 pounds of waste (which
includes used motor oil, latex paint and lead-acid batteries). Of this waste collected, 572,218 was DOT
classified hazardous waste with pesticide waste making up approximately 10% (58,608 pounds).
-------
Iowa Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
Pre86
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Total Quantity of
Pesticides Collected
(pounds)
10,835
0
0
33,305
77,480
18,810
49,772
180,574
230,923
66,486
51,912
58,218
83,320
84,240
103,709
80,971
1,130,555
Quantity of Pesticides
from Toxic Cleanup Days
(pounds)
10,835
0
0
33,305
77,480
18,810
49,772
180,574
230,923
66,486
51,912
58,218
57,369
39,000
45,101
13,471
933,256
Quantity of Pesticides from
Regional Collection Centers
(pounds) *
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25,951
45,240
58,608
67,500
197,299
Information on the number of participants and program cost is not available.
* Regional Collection Centers (RCCs) do not track pesticides specifically. Based on the assumption that most
pesticides fall under the DOT classification of Class 6.1 Poisons, this column lists the total amount of Class 6.1
Poisons collected at the RCCs for 1997 through 1999. The total quantities of household hazardous materials
collected at RCCs were:
1997 350,308 pounds
1998 493,401 pounds
1999 572,218 pounds.
For 2000, the amount collected at RCCs was estimated assuming that 12% of the total (562,780 pounds) was
pesticides.
-------
KANSAS AT A GLANCE
Kansas conducted its first clean sweep in 1996. Originally, the Kansas Department
of Health and Environment (KDHE) provided grants to counties, which collected
and disposed of the pesticides. In 2000 the structure changed and now the programs
are sponsored entirely by KDHE with technical assistance from the Department of
Agriculture. The program, which has collected over 337,000 pounds of pesticides,
is currently funded from solid waste tipping fees.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1996
Permanently funded
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
140:000
i^nnon
ino_(iftn-
fifi Ann
n
96^42
"*"
** N
^^
% ^ i
. !? ,
19^35
""
]
40J»75
*' :
•^
14106
"-*-,#<
!tl*5
tr^ .
5% \
' » *
^ ? V
SsS
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Collection Logistics
Source:
| Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program;
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Solid waste tipping fee and, in 1997, an EPA grant
No fee for farmers and ranchers; others charged
$1.15 per pound
Disposal cost is generally $1.15 per pound.
Dioxins are $6.50 per pound and cylinders are $100.00 each
Single day events. Some county HHW facilities
accept pesticides from agricultural businesses
Incineration (99%) and landfill (\%)
Yes, but very limited
Adopted, not yet authorized
Requested but not required
No
Farmers and ranchers; commercial applicators, retailers,
distributors and manufacturers beginning in 2000
Existing program:
Yes, through the Department of Agriculture
Tel: (785) 291-3132
Fax:(785)296-8909
ccolglaz@kdhe.state.ks.us
Cathy Colglazier
Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment
1000 SW Jackson, Suite 320
Topeka, KS 66612-1366
GaryBoutz
Kansas Department of Agriculture
109 SW 9 ,3rd floor
Topeka, KS 66612-1281
Websites: http://www.ink.OT^pubb'c/kda/pheal1r^phpest/index.htrn (Department of
Agriculture, not specific to Clean Sweeps) and http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/waste
(Department of Health and Envkoranent, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
Tel: (785) 296-0672
Fax: (785) 296-0673
gboutz@kda.state.ks.us
-------
Summary of Kansas Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
Historically the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) dealt with the problem of
pesticide disposal through a grant program to counties established by the 1995 Legislature. Although the
grant program saw success in some areas, it was not utilized statewide for a variety of reasons. Significant
time and planning are required to conduct and organize pesticide collections. Because of the
unpredictability of volumes received at these collections, budgeting for a collection at the county level is
often difficult. The grant program also required a 25% match which some counties found hard to meet. In
order to overcome some of these problems, the Kansas Agricultural Clean Sweep program was launched in
the spring of 2000.
The Clean Sweep program is a waste pesticide collection program sponsored entirely by KDHE
with technical assistance supplied by the Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA). The funding -
$150,000 per year - comes from solid waste tipping fees. No matching funds are required from counties or
participants. The goal of the program is to remove unwanted pesticides from Kansas farms and ranches.
Any pesticide, herbicide, fungicide, or rodenticide is accepted by the program. All farmers or ranchers
operating in Kansas are eligible for the program. Pesticide dealers, manufacturers and distributers are
eligible to participate on a COD fee basis. Three single day collections are held over a week period
targeting geographic areas in Kansas. In order to provide adequate personnel and equipment at each
collection site, all participants are asked to pre-register.
Clean Harbors Environmental Services was selected as contractor for the project through the State
competitive bidding process. Clean Harbors supplies all on-site labor, equipment, and supplies necessary to
run the event. KDHE with assistance from KDA handles all advertising, site selection, project coordination,
and public education. Collection sites are located in areas with convenient access and ample hard surface
room such as county yards, noxious weed offices, or county fairgrounds.
In order to publicize the events, KDHE developed a poster and brochure designed to be used with
collection events statewide. The poster and brochure provides details on the program, a 1 -800 number
which could be used to request information and for pre-registration, and space for individual customization
such as site location, collection dates, and times. Brochures are tri-folded and pre-printed for direct mailing.
Posters, brochures, and informational material were distributed across the target areas through
county commissions, noxious weed offices, conservation services, extension agencies, Farm Bureau offices,
and federal Farm Service Agencies. In addition to poster and brochure distribution, information on the
program, including collection dates and times, were sent to every radio and TV station and newspaper in the
area. Several radio and newspaper interviews were conducted by KDHE staff. Brochures were also sent
to every certified private pesticide applicator in the region using mailing lists supplied by KDA.
Kansas held 17 collection events in 2000, collecting a total of 134,106 pounds from 287 partici-
pants. Numerous types of pesticides were collected. Some of the more common ones included furadan,
heptachlor, toxaphene, atrazine, chlordane, 2,4-D, pentachlorophenol, DDT, and 2,4,5-T. Ten cylinders of
compressed gas (grain fumigants) were also received. All material received was manifested as hazardous
waste and shipped carrying appropriate waste codes. The program is expected to expand in FY01. The
expenses in FY2000 were $52,000 for disposal, $3,500 for posters and flyers, and $1,500 for mailings.
-------
A different format was used one time in 1997, when the KDA formed a partnership with Finney
County Conservation Commission (FCCC) and other local agencies and organizations to address disposal
of pesticides in southwest Kansas. An EPA Region VTJ grant was provided, and eleven counties responded
to an invitation to participate. The project was dubbed PACE (Pesticide Amnesty Collection Events) and
collected over 100,000 pounds of agricultural waste pesticide. An additional amnesty program in north
central counties yielded over 10,000 additional pounds. The largest quantity of any pesticide collected was
atrazine, followed by 2,4-D, phorate, malathion and copper sulfate. Surveys were distributed to partici-
pants as they were greeted, but not everyone filled out the survey, and of those who did, not all questions
were answered. In an effort to reassure participants that the pesticide collection was truly an "amnesty"
event, some districts decided it would not be necessary for participants to reveal their names or other
personal information.
Kansas Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000*
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides (pounds)
96,942
46,197
19,235
40,975
134,106
337,455
Number of
Participants
1,348
699
353
427
287
3,114
Average Quantity of Pesticides
per Participant
(pounds/participant)
72
66
54
96
467
108
Information on program cost is not available.
* This is the calendar year, while other years listed are state fiscal years.
-------
KENTUCKY AT A GLANCE
Kentucky conducted its first collection in 1991. In 1995 it began a permanent
farm pesticide collection program with the Department of Agriculture as the lead
agency. Kentucky has collected over 278,000 pounds of pesticides in a program
where Department of Agriculture field coordinators pick up pesticides from the
participants' sites.
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
| Program Status:
Pesticides
1991
Permanently funded
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
52,500
w
3
U
H 10 nnn
3
°> n
50,600
^v-J^iia
8,700
SS SKI
50336
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Amount collected
to date:
278,367 Ibs.
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Pesticide registration fees
No
The contractor charged $1.03 per pound during
1996-99 and is charging $1.19 per pound during
2000-04
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
On-site pick up
Incineration
Yes, if pesticides are in original container
Adopted, not yet authorized
Required
Yes
Farmers, commercial applicators, retailers, and
golf course managers
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Ernest Collins
Kentucky Department of Agriculture
Division of Pesticide Regulation
100 Fair Oaks Lane 5th Floor
Frankfort, KY 40601
Website: http://www.kvagr.com/enviro out/pestweed/programs/services/
collection.htm (Clean Sweep specific)
Tel: (502) 564-7274
Fax: (502) 564-3773
Toll-free call: (800) 205-6543
ernest.collins@kvagr.com
-------
Summary of Kentucky Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
Kentucky conducted an Amnesty Day program in 1991 and then launched its continuous pesticide
collection effort in the late fall of 1995. Kentucky has a toll-free number which farmers caU to arrange for
pick-up by one of the State's four field regional coordinators. After overpacking, weighing and recording
certain pesticides of interest (mainly persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic pesticides), the coordinators
transport them to one of the State's two main storage facilities, where they are subsequently picked up by a
hazardous waste contractor on a biennial basis (May and November). The program is funded by pesticide
registration fees which provide $200,000 per year for pesticide disposal, pesticide container collection, and
recycling programs.
Since passage of the Universal Waste Rule in 1996, Kentucky ceased keeping a detailed inventory
of the amounts of specific pesticides collected. The pesticide product names, site location, number of
overpacks and size of overpacks are still maintained for general record keeping. However, in 1999,
Kentucky received funds from EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs to do additional record keeping to track
quantities of certain pesticides.
Since 1991 the Department of Agriculture, in coordination with some agricultural groups, has run a
pesticide container "Rinse and Return" program to collect, chip, and recycle empty plastic pesticide
containers (mostly 1- and 2.5-gallon containers). Most counties (110 out of 120) participate. In 2000,
Kentucky expanded its "Rinse and Return" to include containers larger than 5-gallons. Specifically, this
includes 15-, 30-, and 55-gallon drums and 110- and 220-gallon mini-bulk containers. It is expected that
the larger containers will increase the intake of plastic to over 100,000 pounds per year.
Kentucky Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1991*
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of Pesticides
(pounds)
50,600
8,700
52,500
43,800
37,460
50,836
34,471
278,367
Number of
Participants
90
30**
76**
84
177
202
158
817
Average Quantity of Pesticides per
Participant (pounds/participant)
562
290
691
521
212
252
218
341
* 1991 was an Amnesty Day program coordinated by the Division of Conservation, Natural Resources
Cabinet as a multi-agency effort
** Estimates based upon months of pick up
Information on program cost is not available.
-------
LOUISIANA AT A GLANCE
Louisiana collected over 408,000 pounds of pesticides in 1990 and 1996.
Nearly all of this material was collected in 1996 when several Louisiana state
agencies combined in a major statewide, cooperative effort led by the
Department of Agriculture and Forestry (DOAF| Incinerators, hazmat
contractors and transporters contributed significantly to the 1996 collection.
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1990
Intermittent, inactive
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
^ 3UU,UUU
•ft
^T dAft nnn
0
->AA Ann
£ iftAAnn
& n-
t.
5,000
103,200
!«?£s&^t«*
111
Amount collected
to date:
408,200 Ibs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
State funds and in-kind services
Information not available
In 1996, the disposal cost to the DOAF was
$ 147,031. The estimated cost of in-kind
services was approximately six times this total.
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events
Incineration
Information not available
Adopted, authorized in 1998
Requested but not required
No
Farmers
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Tel: (225) 925-6914
Fax: (225) 925-3760
larrv l@ldaf.state.la.us
Larry Lejeune
Department of Agriculture & Forestry
Pesticides & Environmental Programs
P.O. Box 3596
Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3596
Website: http://www.ldaf.state.la.us/
(Department of Agriculture and Forestry, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
-------
Summary of Louisiana Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
Louisiana held a small agricultural waste pesticide collection in 1990. In 1996, the Department of
Agriculture & Forestry, in collaboration with the Louisiana State University Agriculture Center, the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality, the Co-op Extension Service, and Louisiana State Police (Transpor-
tation Environmental Safety) conducted collections at six sites throughout the state. Participants preregis-
tered 26 tons, but over 201 tons were collected. Undeclared materials were attributed to fear of regulatory
enforcement or punitive fines. Most of the material collected from 621 participants consisted of arsenical
pesticides. Most services were volunteered, including the services of three incinerators and the hazardous
materials personnel and transporters.
Louisiana began collecting and recycling plastic pesticide containers in 1992, expanding the program
to collect 62,000 pounds in 1993 and 397,000 pounds in 1997. The Agricultural Container Research
Council funds the recycling, and participation in the program is free and voluntary.
Louisiana Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1990
1996
TOTAL
Quantity of Pesticides
(pounds)
5,000
403,200
408,200
Number of
Participants
no data
621
NA
Average Quantity of Pesticides per
Participant (pounds/participant)
NA
649
NA
Information on program cost is not available.
NA = not applicable
-------
MAINE AT A GLANCE
Maine conducted its first clean sweep collection in 1982 and has collected
pesticides continuously since 1996. The Maine Board of Pesticides Control, the
lead agency, collaborates with the Department of Environmental Protection. The
state currently uses EPA grant funds to support its program, which has collected
over 120,000 pounds of pesticides.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1982
Continuous, active
I 5°'00° ^42000 «*»•
^ 40,000
•2*
| 30,000
^ 20,000
§ 10,000
01
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
6,900
9>025
7,062
Amount collected
to date:
120,209 Ibs.
3,222
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Collection Logistics
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
EPA grants since 1996, pesticide registration fees
in 1982 and 1985. State funds in 1986 and 1989
No fee for the general public and agricultural
users including farmers and operators of
greenhouses and nurseries. Others are charged
Cost was $1.91 per pound in 1998 and $1.30 per
pound in 1999
Single day events
Incineration (majority) and other disposal at out-
of-state EPA-licensed disposal facilities
No
Adopted excluding pesticides, not yet authorized
Required
No
General public and agricultural users including
farmers and operators of greenhouses and
nurseries. Commercial applicators and retailers
can participate but must make special
arrangements and pay the contracted rate
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Tel: (207) 287-2731
Fax: (207) 287-7548
robert.batteese@state.me.us
Bob Batteese
Board of Pesticides Control
Department of Agriculture
28 State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333-0028
Website: http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/homepage.htm
(Clean Sweep specific)
-------
Summary of Maine Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
The Board of Pesticides Control (BPC) is the state lead agency for pesticides and has been
involved in various types of collection programs since 1982. In the early years, the BPC had a five ton
truck and its employees went to farms and homes to collect pesticides whenever a citizen called. The
chemicals were then stored until funds were available to hire a contractor to dispose of them at licensed out-
of-state facilities. The largest effort occurred in 1989 when there was a one-time legislative appropriation of
$ 100,000 that resulted in the disposal of 22 tons of primarily agricultural pesticides.
Since 1996, the BPC has utilized federal pesticide grant funds to conduct a joint collection program
with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Each year, a hazardous materials contractor is
hired to be present for one day at each of four regional sites. Homeowners, non-corporate fanners and
greenhouse operators can participate free of charge and must submit an inventory form in advance to the
BPC. When the week of collections is scheduled, shipping papers are mailed to each participant listing the
pesticides they may bring in on the specified date. The program is limited to obsolete pesticides, defined as
banned pesticides, and products that have become caked, frozen or are liquids more than 10 years old.
Pes icides that can be used legally are generally not accepted although chlorpyrifos products with residential
will be accepted in the 2000 program.
Maine Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1982
1984
1986
1989
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides
(pounds)
12,000
18,000
12,000
44,000
6,900
9,025
8,000
7,062
3,222
120,209
Number of
Participants
no data
no data
93
173
100
139
65
39
48
more than 657
Average Quantity of
Pesticides per
Participant
(pounds/participant)
NA
NA
129
254
69
65
123
181
67
137 beginning in 1986
Program
Cost
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
$15,280
$9,180
$15,000
NA
Average
Cost
(per
pound)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$1.91
$1.30
$4.66
NA
NA = not applicable
-------
MARYLAND AT A GLANCE
The Maryland Department of Agriculture's initial pesticide collection was funded
1995 with an EPA grant. Pesticides were collected annually through 1999 using
EPA and state funds. To date Maryland has collected nearly 87,000 pounds of
pesticides usins on-site Dick UDS on a countv-bv-countv basis.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1995
Continuous, active
40,000
7 35,000
& 30,000
| 25,000
£ 20,000
<3 15,000
•f 10,000
I 5,000
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
33,368
Amount collected
to date:
86.990 Ibs.
Pre 19891989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 200C
Year
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
State funds and EPA grants
No
Costs to date total $153,465, an average of $1.76 per
pound
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
On-site pick up
Incineration
No
Not adopted
Required
Yes
Farmers
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Tel: (410) 841-5710
Fax: (410) 841-2765
hofsterj @mda.state.md.us
Rob Hofstetter
Maryland Department of Agriculture
Pesticide Regulation Section
Wayne A Cawley Jr., Building
50 Harry S. Truman Parkway
Annapolis, MD 21401-8960
Website- htrp-//www.mda-state.md.us/plant/disposal.htm (Clean Sweep specific)
-------
Summary of Maryland Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
The first pesticide collection and disposal program was conducted in 1995 through an EPA grant for
$75,000. The collection program was offered to three counties as a one-time opportunity for growers.
Participation in the program required a registration form for an inventory of the type and quantities of
pesticides for disposal. Participants were selected on a first-come basis. Inspectors conducted on-site
inspections to verify types and quantities with information on the registration form. A contractor was hired
through competitive bid to pick up 33,368 pounds of pesticides from 57 farmers. Again, in 1996, this
program was offered to three counties, and 70 farmers participated for a collection of 14,889 pounds.
In 1997 and 1998, the Maryland University Extension Service along with Maryland Farm Bureau
and the Maryland Nurserymen's Association cooperated with the Department of Agriculture to promote and
conduct pesticide collection and disposal programs. A total of 34,279 pounds of pesticides were collected
from 72 growers. In 1999 the disposal program was offered to growers in Western and Central Maryland.
A total of 4,454 pounds of pesticides were collected from 28 growers.
These collection programs consist of individual farm pick ups and are conducted on a county basis.
The Department of Agriculture registers ah1 waste pesticides and obtains, through the Maryland Department
of the Environment, a temporary Generator Number for each farm location. A Universal Waste Rule was
written in 2001 and will be submitted to the Maryland General Assembly for approval in late 2001 or early
2002.
Maryland did not provide funding in 2000 for the collection and disposal of pesticides. To stay in
front of future collection and disposal of unwanted pesticides in Maryland, the Department of Agriculture
accepts registration forms for future programs. Those registering will be kept on an "interest list" and given
priority for any future collection and disposal programs. Pesticides were collected and disposed of in 2001.
Maryland Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides
(pounds)
33,368
14,889
13,433
20,846
4,454
0
86,990
Number of
Participants
57
70
32
40
28
0
227
Average Quantity
of Pesticides per
Participant
(pounds/participant)
585
213
420
521
159
NA
383
Program Cost
$50,052
$30,820
$23,508
$36,481
$12,604
0
$153,465
Average Cost
(per pound)
$1.50
$2.07
$1.75
$1.75
$2.83
NA
$1.76
NA = not applicable
-------
MASSACHUSETTS AT A GLANCE
Massachusetts conducted its first clean sweep collection in 1990 with subsequent
collections in 1998, 1999, and 2000. The Department of Food and Agriculture is
the lead agency for the program, which has collected almost 159,000 pounds of
pesticides. State funds and participants' fees currently pay for the collections.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1990
Continuous, active
1
•S
O)
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
uu,uuu
tfui nnn
jo nnn
?A nnn
0-
86300
: s
* > •
38^75
^V ;
21^40
** > f V) ^a
LxSi-i-i
Amount collected
to date:
158,989 Ibs.
Pre 19891989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Container Collection
Contact Information
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Existing program:
State funds, EPA grants, and participant fees
Yes, $1.35 per pound for solids and $9.00 per
gallon for liquids. Dioxin materials are $8.00
per pound
1998 costs were $1.10 per pound for solids and
$9.00 per gallon for liquids; 2000 costs were
$1.35 per pound for solids and $9.00 per gallon
for liquids. The state pays the contractor's set-up
fee
Single day events
Incineration
No
Adopted, authorized in 1999
Required
Yes
Farmers, commercial applicators, golf course
managers and licensed and certified applicators
Yes, on a limited basis
Tel: (617) 626-1773
Fax: (617) 626-1850
Gerard.Kennedv@state.ma.us
„ Gerard Kennedy
| Pesticide Bureau
I Department of Food & Agriculture
251 Causeway Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02114
Website: http://www.state.ma.us/dfa/pesticides/waste/mdex.htm
(Clean Sweep specific)
-------
Summary of the Massachusetts Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
In 1998, the Massachusetts Pesticide Bureau implemented a waste pesticide collection program for
the first time in over eight years. A survey of 6,600 certified applicators done in 1997 showed a collection
was needed. The program included a general clean out targeting pesticide applicators, farmers and
municipal and state agencies at 7 locations statewide, and an on-call pick up service for municipal or state
agencies. Five training workshops were held to be sure that participants were aware of the correct
packaging, transportation and emergency response procedures. There were press releases and articles in
newspapers and farm publications, as well as on the Department of Food and Agriculture's (DFA) web site.
The Pesticide Bureau developed an agreement with the Commercial Vehicles Enforcement Unit of the State
Police to refrain from random roadside inspections of carriers participating in the event. This provided relief
from the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations.
Participants paid a fee, but the cost was considerably lower than in 1990, and DFA funds were
used to subsidize the contractor's set-up fees. Dioxin-containing materials were accepted. Based on the
results of the 1998 program, Massachusetts identified the following ways to increase participation in future
programs:
• Secure participant trust;
• Develop more convenient, regular events;
• Secure funding to pay for participants' disposal costs; and
• Work to ease the impact of hazardous materials transportation regulations.
In 1999, nearly 22,000 pounds of pesticide were collected during the second annual collection program, hi
2000, almost 12,000 pounds of pesticides were collected from four sites. In addition, the identities and
quantities of all pesticides were recorded and provided to EPA.
Massachusetts Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1990
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides
(pounds)
86,300
38,975
21,840
11,874
158,989
Number of
Participants
no data
107
94
no data
NA
Average Quantity
of Pesticides per
Participant
(pounds/participant)
NA
364
232
NA
303 for the two
years with data
Program
Cost
no data
no data
no data
no data
NA
Average Cost
NA
$1.10/lb of solids
$9/gal of liquids
NA
$1.35/lbof solids
$9/gal of liquids
NA
NA = not applicable
-------
MICHIGAN AT A GLANCE
Michigan's permanent clean sweep program has collected more than 852,000
pounds of pesticides since 1990. The program, with the Department of Agriculture
as the lead agency, is funded by pesticide registration fees, partnerships, and
participant fees when needed.
Collection History
£. Products collected:
": Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides and household pesticide waste
1990
Permanently funded
140,000
7 120,000
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
120,000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Amount collected
to date:
852,118 Ibs.
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Pesticide registration fees, EPA grants, partnerships,
and, in 1994, participant fees
Only when resources do not cover costs (in 1994)
$850,000 to dispose of 400,000 pounds from 1990 to
1994
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Eligible participants:
Fifteen permanent sites
Incineration
No
Adopted, authorized in 1999
Variable
Specific pesticides reported: Yes
Farmers, commercial applicators, retailers, golf course
managers, and the public
Container Collection
Existing program:
Yes
Contact Information
JackKnorek Tel: (517) 373-9744
Michigan Department of Agriculture Fax: (517) 335-3329
Pesticides & Plant Pest Management Division knoreki@state.mi.us
P.O. Box 30017
Lansing, MI 48909
Website: http://www.mda.state.trn.usfen^rQnm/groundwater/cleansweep/mdex.html
(dean Sweep specific)
-------
Summary of Michigan's Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
Between 1990 and 1994, over 200 tons of pesticides were collected at a cost of approximately
$850,000 at single-day collection events (8 to 12 per year) serving all 83 Michigan counties and about
1,800 participants. This resulted in an average cost of about $2.13 per pound and an average quantity of
222 pounds per participant during this period. The resources (cash and in-kind) provided by the Michigan
State University Extension Service, the county Environmental Health Divisions, the Farm Bureau, agricultural
commodity groups, Michigan Chemical Council, Monsanto, Department of Natural Resources, the
Department of Agriculture, EPA (FIFRA, RCRA, GLNPO) and other private sources such as the Northern
Michigan Turf Manager's Association equaled the expenditures for disposal. In 1994, the funds were not
sufficient to cover demand and participants were asked to pay for the cost ($ 1.77 per pound) of materials in
excess of the average amount. State pesticide registration fees fund on-going disposal costs, and permanent
sites are maintained by counties as a cooperative match.
Michigan Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of Pesticides (pounds)
84,000
84,000
64,000
84,000
84,000
60,000
120,000
63,940
52,682
59,281
96,215
852,118
Information on the number of participants and
program cost is not available.
-------
MINNESOTA AT A GLANCE
Since 1989 Minnesota has conducted clean sweep collections with the Department
of Agriculture as the lead agency. The program, currently funded through pesticide
registration fees and occasional EPA grants, has collected over two million pounds
of pesticides.
Collection History
500,000
400,000
5 Products collected:
* Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1989
Permanently funded
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
410,718
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Amount collected
to date:
2,201,416 Ibs.
Program Funding
Container Collection
Contact Information
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Existing program:
Pesticide registration fees and occasional EPA
grants ($80,000 in 2000)
Individuals and businesses pay no fee for die first
300 pounds but are assessed following fees for
amounts in excess of 301 pounds:
301 to 1,000 pounds - $1 per pound
1,001 to 2,200 pounds $3 per pound
Fee for governmental agencies is $4 per pound
Current cost is $1.60 per pound
Single day events, six permanent drop-off collection
sites, and occasionally on-site pick up
Incineration (100%)
Information not available
Not adopted
Not required any more. The requirement was
dropped when it was determined that most
participants were "walk-ins."
Yes
Farmers, commercial applicators, retailers, golf
course managers, government agencies, and the
public. Abandoned pesticides are accepted
anonymously.
Yes
Tel: (651) 297-1062
Fax:(651)297-2271
stan.kaminski@state.mn.us
Stan Kaminski
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Agronomy & Plant Protection Division
Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
90 West Plato Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55107-2094
Website: http://www.mda.state.mn.ns/appd/wastepest (Clean Sweep specific)
-------
Summary of Minnesota Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
Minnesota originally held regional collection events, but found that the volume of pesticides collected
on a single day was very high and difficult to manage (15 tons or more). The revised collection plan
provides a collection opportunity in every county at least once every other year. County officials work
closely with MD A staff on development, implementation and promotion of public awareness and participa-
tion. Each year, various locations (highway garages, chemical dealerships, etc.) are designated as one-day
pesticide drop-off sites. Occasionally, on-site pesticide pickups are made to accommodate situations where
the waste is too impractical or hazardous to move to drop-off sites safely. On-site collections are rare
because they are expensive and time-consuming. The MDA signs all hazardous waste manifests and
assumes waste generator status. The frequency of occurrence of some older products at drop-off sites is
decreasing. Minnesota accepts some dioxin-containing materials, and pesticides requiring an F code are
accepted only if the permitted disposal facility is operating.
In 1997, MDA formed a partnership with several regional Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
programs to establish year-round pesticide drop-off locations. These sites accept pesticides from individu-
als or businesses that need timely disposal in an emergency situation. Collected pesticides are kept at
storage facilities until a hazardous waste contractor collects them.
In 2000, Minnesota received a grant of $57,000 from EPA's Region 5 to target collection of
persistent, bioaccumulative toxins (PBT) during Clean Sweep programs. Minnesota had determined that
more than 150,000 pounds, or about 10% of the total pesticides collected were PBTs including nearly 30
tons of DDT. The grant was used to inform and alert participants who had not participated in previous
events, provide incentives (e.g., more collection sites, shorter travel distance), provide guidance on storage,
and target PBTs during collection events. The 2000 collection included over 4,200 pounds of PBTs in a
total of over 123,000 pounds of unwanted pesticides.
Future waste pesticide collections are of concern because of the decreasing amounts of waste
collected, which was already seen in 2000. The program has been successful in removing many of the large
stores of waste pesticide. Practical collections with the reduced volumes will require re-evaluating
contractor use and rethinking the scheduling of events. Adjustments over the next several years will address
the reduced amount of stored waste and must still meet the needs of pesticide users looking for safe and
proper disposal of waste pesticides.
Minnesota has been collecting empty pesticide containers since 1990, when the results of a pilot
project prompted the state to expand it statewide. Each county has the opportunity to develop a collection
method that best meets the needs of their growers and agricultural chemical dealers. Some counties
decided not to take an active role in pesticide container collection. State statute now requires sellers to
collect empty containers from their clients. If the county runs a countywide collection, the dealers are
relieved of that responsibility, but must still notify their clientele of the container recycling program. The
statute served to bring together private industry and county agencies.
-------
Minnesota Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000*
TOTAL
Quantity of Pesticides (pounds)
32,400
34,100
35,800
53,800
135,300
183,300
236,500
208,500
283,800
298,800
410,718
288,398
2,201,416
Information on the number of participants and
program cost is not available.
* The final collection total for 2000 was received
after much of the report was completed. The final
total of 288,398 is included in this table but is not
reflected in the tables and figures throughout the
body of the report.
-------
MISSISSIPPI AT A GLANCE
In 1994 Mississippi began its clean sweep collections with the Department of
Agriculture and Commerce as the lead agency. The program has collected nearly
990,000 pounds of pesticides. Due to a sunset clause in funding legislation, effective
mid-1998, the program is no longer funded through pesticide registration fees.
Collection History
Products collected:
K Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides and, in 1995, tires, waste oil, and
batteries
1994
Continuous, active
300,000
S 200,000
f 150,000
£, 100,000
"•G
a
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
2
" " "
'"970
•r- 1
57,621
"/ *;
, '
3>
**
S » '
* ^
s- e rH
t * <$j_
^V^
153,463
s^y^
* !
t => '
r /
214,43
!. '
" i
&
>r,.\ *
'<..'*
t
150,159
i^l
^ '5* "^ i
23^523 Bt v^L
Amount collected
989,886 Ibs.
i j^is^^r»^i,«i>"S'2-.
Pre 19891989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
n Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Pesticide registration fees (through 1998), other
grant in 1999, EPA grant in 2000
No
Costs through 1999 total $1,066,784, an average
of $1.27 per pound
Single day events
Incineration
No
Adopted, not yet authorized
Not required
Yes
Farmers, private landowners, and, in 1998,
commercial entities
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Tel: (662) 325-1269
Fax: (662) 325-0397
nistvc@mdac.state.ms.us
^ Rusty Crowe
I Department of Agriculture & Commerce
p Bureau of Plant Industry
* P.O. Box 5207
Mississippi State, MS 39762
Website: http://www.mdac.state.ms.us/Librarv/BBC/PlantIndustrv/Pesticide
Programs/WastePesticideDisposalPrograms.html (Clean Sweep specific)
-------
Summary of Mississippi Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
In 1994, the Mississippi Legislature authorized a four-year Waste Pesticide Collection and Disposal
Program, funded through an increase in product registration fees, of which $50 went to pay for collection
events. The program was conducted in five phases: planning, advertising and bid solicitation, contractor
evaluation and bid award, logistical preparations, and collection. During its four year life, the program
collected and disposed of more than 800,000 pounds of waste pesticide since it began. The collection
events were held in different counties each year. Waste oil and batteries were collected with pesticides until
funding became limited.
Program managers note that the main problem was the sunset clause in their funding legislation,
resulting in the end of the program in that format on June 30,1998. In 1999, a grant was obtained from the
Tennessee Valley Authority and over 23,600 pounds of pesticide were collected. Funding for the 2000
collection came from an EPA grant under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act to the Mississippi Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality.
Dr. Jimmy Bonner, from Mississippi's Extension Environmental Education Unit, outlined the steps
Mississippi followed and provided guidance on conducting a successful Clean Sweep program. This
document, titled "Planning a Waste Pesticide Disposal Program," is an excellent resource and can be
obtained from the Mississippi State University Extension Service website at http://msucares.com/pubs/
pub2194.htm.
Mississippi Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of Pesticides
(pounds)
22,970
257,621
167,617
153,463
214,433
23,623
150,159
989,886
Program Cost
$71,960
$311,964
$170,832
$222,667
$259,876
$29,485
no data
More than $1,066,784
Average Cost (per pound)
$3.13
$1.21
$1.02
$1.45
$1.21
$1.24
NA
$1.27 (through 1999)
Information on the number of participants is not available.
NA = not applicable
-------
MISSOURI AT A GLANCE
Missouri collected approximately 10,000 pounds of pesticides during 1990, 1996,
and 1997. These collections were funded by EPA grants and the state and were
led by the Department of Natural Resources.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1990
Intermittent, inactive
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Quantity Collected (Ibs.)
y,uuu
^ nnn
d nnn
i nnn
i nnn
0
800
. — JLLJ — ] _ . — , . .
6,000
y
%>
*> ,#,.*..*.
3,000
Amount collected
to date:
9,800 Ibs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
State funds and EPA grants
Information not available
Information not available
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events
Information not available
Information not available
Adopted, not yet authorized
Information not available
No
Farmers
Container Collection
Existing program:
Yes
Contact Information
Roger Korenberg/June Sullens Tel: (573) 526-6627
Department of Natural Resources Fax: (573) 526-5808
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Website: http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/homednr.htm
(Department of Natural Resources, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
-------
Summary of Missouri Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
In 1990, Missouri conducted a hazardous waste collection and disposal program for both house-
hold and farm participants. The program was funded by the state of Missouri at no cost to the participants.
Farm participation was about 10-15 percent which equated to 800 pounds.
In 1996, a collection and disposal program was funded from federal grant money. In 1997, the
Department of Natural Resources collected and disposed of 3,000 pounds of agricultural pesticides.
Missouri Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1990
1996
1997
TOTAL
Quantity of Pesticides
(pounds)
800
6,000
3,000
9,800
Number of
Participants
no data
85
no data
NA
Average Quantity of Pesticides per
Participant (pounds/participant)
NA
71
NA
NA
Information on program cost is not available.
NA = not applicable
-------
MONTANA AT A GLANCE
Since 1994 Montana has conducted a permanently funded clean sweep program with
the Department of Agriculture as the lead agency. The program, funded through dealer
and applicator license fees and participant fees, has collected over 179,000 pounds of
pesticides.
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides and household pesticide waste
1994
Permanently funded
60.000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
64,224 -
Amount collected
to date:
179,186 Ibs.
' 1 " 1 ' 1 ' 1 "
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Dealer and applicator license fees (75%) and participant
fees (25%). Funding reauthorized by legislature every
five years
Yes, $1.00 per pound for first 200 pounds and $0.50 per
pound for amounts in excess of 200 pounds
The cost for disposal ranges from $1.70 to $2.70 per
pound depending on the amount disposed
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events
Incineration
No
Adopted, not yet authorized
Required
No
Farmers, commercial applicators, retailers, distributors,
and the public
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
No
Tel: (406) 444-3731
Fax: (406) 444-7336
dasullivan@state.mt.us
Daniel Sullivan
Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 200201
Helena, MT 59620-0201
Website: http://www.agr.state.mt.us/programs/asd/pestdisp.shtml
(Clean Sweep specific)
-------
Summary of Montana Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
The annual pesticide collection program consists of two to three central collection events during a
one-week period. The program is permanently funded to the extent that the Montana legislature must
reauthorize the program every five years. The program is currently funded through 2003. The Montana
Department of Agriculture inventories the waste pesticides in a targeted region and provides appointments
for growers, who must preregister their unusable pesticides. Farmers represent about 80% of the number
of participants. In terms of pesticide weight, however, retailers and distributors contribute the largest
amount, 78% of the total in 2000. Participants pay $1 per pound for the first 200 pounds and $0.50 per
pound for amounts in excess of 200 pounds. Licensed applicators and dealers receive a fee credit for that
portion of their license fee earmarked for the disposal program. About 50 percent of the pesticides
collected are banned or unregistered, with organochlorine insecticides, seed treatment pesticides and older
herbicides the most common materials. Insecticides represent over 75% of the pesticides collected, and
include DDT, chlordane and pentachlorophenol. Herbicides include 2,4,5-T, dinoseb and soil sterilants, and
strychnine is the primary rodenticide collected.
Montana Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides (pounds)
13,197
14,506
64,224
26,335
21,774
0
39,150
179,186
Number of
Participants
107
70
125
125
108
0
85
620
Average Quantity of Pesticides per
Participant (pounds/participant)
123
207
514
211
202
NA
461
289
Information on program cost is not available.
NA = not applicable
-------
NEBRASKA AT A GLANCE
The Nebraska Department of Agriculture conducted its first clean sweep collection,
funded with a substantial EPA grant, in 1995. State funds and pesticide registration
fees now fund these collections. Nebraska has collected over 1.3 million pounds of
pesticides.
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1995
Continuous, active
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
b!
*
^
•o
8
a
£
&
•e
«
Ol
/uu?uuu
500000
dfinnoo
'Jfltl AAA
loonon
0
595,541
llti
itUI
[
297,701
249065
W^1*- ^,'~, 193,726
|Sfj? fe«'rs '^>
fciSlilLi ^>
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Amount collected
to date:
1,336,033 Ibs.
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Pesticide registration fees, state funds, and EPA
grants
No
2000 collection cost $252,020, an average of $1.30
per pound
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events
Incineration and landfill
No
Adopted, not yet authorized
Not required
No
Farmers, commercial applicators, retailers, golf
course managers, and the public
Container Collection
Existing program:
Yes
Contact Information
Rich Reiman Tel: (402) 471 -6851
Department of Agriculture Fax: (402) 471-6892
Bureau of Plant Industry richer@agr.state.ne.us
301 Centennial Mall
P.O. Box 94756
Lincoln, NE 68509
Website: http://www.agr.state.ne.us/division/bpi/pes/pestl.htm (Department of
Agriculture Bureau of Plant Industry, not Clean Sweep specific)
-------
Summary of Nebraska Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
Nebraska benefitted from a one time grant of $744,000 from EPA from a budget of several million
dollars that EPA had allocated to dispose of pesticides ruined or adulterated by the 1993 floods. Working
with extension educators, local weed districts, natural resource districts and often directly with chemical
distributors and dealers, the State publicized the 1995 collection by sending out over 130,000 letters, and
publishing more than 150 articles in farm magazines and newspapers across the state. The first form
received reported that the farmer had 700 pounds of DDT to turn in, and later, another farmer turned in
6,000 pounds. Clean Harbors won the disposal contract. Most of the products collected were canceled
pesticides such as chlordane or 2,4,5-T.
Nebraska has collected pesticide containers since 1992. During the first year, 8,000 containers
were collected at two sites, and the program steadily grew to a collection of 135,000 containers at 55 sites
in 1998. The program is self-supporting and has been run since its inception by Dr. Larry Schulze, an
Extension Pesticide Coordinator at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. In 1996, tighter regulations on
accepting plastic containers at Nebraska landfills led to greater interest in recycling.
Nebraska Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1995
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of Pesticides (pounds)
595,541
297,701
249,065
193,726
1,336,033
Program Cost
$744,000
no data
no data
$252,020
NA
Average Cost (per pound)
$1.25
NA
NA
$1.30
NA
Information on the number of participants is not available.
NA = not applicable
-------
NEVADA AT A GLANCE
Since 1995 Nevada has conducted annual clean sweep collections with the
Department of Agriculture as the lead agency. These collections, currently funded
through pesticide registration fees, total nearly 75,000 pounds of pesticides.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1995
Permanently funded
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
s
>" ic Ann
| 10,000
-------
Summary of Nevada Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
The Nevada Pesticide Program began in 1995 and has conducted at least one yearly event from
1996 through 2000. It is funded by pesticide registration fees at a level of approximately $30,000 annually.
The program is available to farmers, ranchers, pest control operators, and other pesticide users. However,
in 1996, commercial and industrial firms were encouraged to participate. The program is promoted to all
pesticide users except homeowners. In 1995, Nevada adopted the Universal Waste Rule which relaxes
some of the procedures for storage and disposal of unwanted pesticides. The Nevada program requires the
participant to inventory the unwanted pesticides and register these with the Department of Agriculture for an
upcoming collection event. This inventory is used by the contractor for packaging and pick up. The
program operation provides for the participant to deliver to a storage site or for the contractor to pick up
from the farmer. In 1998, it was estimated that 10% of the pesticides collected were banned and or
unregistered. Also, 18,418 pounds of pesticides (400 different pesticide products) were collected in 1998
from 70 participants. As of the fall of 2000, the Department of Agriculture stopped storing any dioxin
products.
The success of the waste pesticide collection and disposal program in Nevada can be attributed to
its simplicity. Pesticide users and the Nevada Department of Agriculture appreciate the ability to safely
dispose of products without encountering mountains of government red tape. They hope to be able to
continue the program with the same simplicity in the future.
Nevada Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of Pesticides
(pounds)
14,647
10,653
17,058
18,418
4,986
8,802*
74,564
Number of
Participants
no data
no data
no data
70
no data
no data
NA
Average Quantity of Pesticides
per Participant
(pounds/participant)
NA
NA
NA
263
NA
NA
NA
* The 2000 figure includes 1,244 pounds of dioxin precursor materials and 7,558
pounds of other pesticides.
Information on program cost is not available.
NA = not applicable
-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE AT A GLANCE
In 1990 the New Hampshire Department of Agriculture conducted a one-time, state-
funded program, which collected approximately 20,000 pounds of agricultural
pesticides.
Collection History
Products collected: Pesticides
Year of first collection: 1990
Program Status: Once
sS
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
ie /inn -
n
20,0(Ht
P&
:&•?>
: 0
h'v
Amount collected
to date:
20,000 Ibs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
I Cost information:
State funds
No
1990 collection cost $75,000, an average of $3.75
per pound
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events
Information not available
No
Not adopted
Not required
No
Fanners
Contact Information
Existing program:
Container Collection
No
Tel: (603) 271-3550
Fax:(603)271-1109
pesticides @ agr.state.nh.us
Wendy Chapley, Director
Department of Agriculture, Markets and Food
Division of Pesticide Control
P.O. Box 2042
Concord, NH 03302-2042
Website: http://www.state.nh.us/agric/aghome.html
(Department of Agriculture, Markets and Food, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
-------
Summary of New Hampshire Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
In 1990, New Hampshire conducted an amnesty program for the collection and disposal of
agricultural pesticides. The program was limited to farmers, who could participate free of charge. The
collection event had no limits on the amount of pesticides that could be brought to the collection site. About
20,000 pounds of agricultural pesticides were collected and disposed, with participation of 132 farmers.
The program was conducted at a direct cost of $75,000. No agricultural collection and disposal programs
have been conducted in New Hampshire since the 1990 event.
New Hampshire is in the process of adopting the Universal Waste Rule.
In 1997, a questionnaire was distributed in an attempt to estimate the quantity of pesticides "out
there." Even though responders didn't have to identify themselves, the survey had an extremely low return
rate.
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Waste Management Division sponsors
household hazardous waste collection events throughout the state. Homeowners are allowed to bring small
quantities of pesticides to these events.
New Hampshire Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1990
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides
(pounds)
20,000
20,000
Number of
Participants
132
132
Average Quantity of
Pesticides per
Participant
(pounds/participant)
152
152
Program
Cost
$75,000
$75,000
Average Cost
(per pound)
$3.75
$3.75
-------
NEW JERSEY AT A GLANCE
Many New Jersey counties collect hazardous wastes and at least 14 counties allow
farmers to participate. These counties have collected over 722,000 pounds of
household and agricultural pesticides since 1985 using state and county funding.
Collection History
Products collected:
s Year of first collection:
£ Program Status:
Pesticides and household waste
1985
Continuous, active
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
idfi oon
110 000
0 -
109,915 115,159
g^g " ™ •
r.
10535 1"'850 H'
841 ^'"i4
39,741 t^"
^ *. ^A_^*^ y.
-88,79S
-1
1.4
\ ':-
: *•
U v
*.,.,? >-,
137,648
HTj
: * ••
*t '
t
^«
*. „ 4
95,362
'4
, .it.
ii" *
a,
^^^
^ ,1
52^459
|'t>- !
L-C J 15,425
Amount collected
to date:
722,747 Ibs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992
1993 1994
Year
1995 1996 1997 1998
Program Funding
Collection Logistics
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
State and county funds
Fee dependent upon county and amount of
material collected
Information not available
Single day events and permanent sites
Information not available
Information not available
Not adopted
Information not available
Yes, in one county
The public and, in some counties, farmers
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Information not available
Tel: (609) 984-6894
Fax: (609) 984-6555
fgerding @dep. state.nj .us
Fran Gerding
Department of Environmental Protection
Pesticide Control Program
CN-411
Trenton, NJ 08625
Fred Stanger
Middlesex County
Division of Solid Waste Management
96 Bayard Street, 2nd Floor
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
Websites: htffl/Avww.state.ni.us/dep/enforcement/pcp/ and http://www.state.nj.us/
dep/index.htrnl (Department of Environmental Protection, not specific to Clean
Sweeps) and http://www.nihazwaste.com (Association of New Jersey Household
Hazardous Waste Coordinators, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
Tel: (732) 745-4170
Fax: (732) 745-3010
mcdswm@ superlink.net
-------
Summary of New Jersey Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
New Jersey does not have a state-wide collection and disposal program for agricultural pesticides.
However, the counties in New Jersey have continuous programs for the collection of household wastes. At
least fourteen counties allow farmers to participate in the HHW collections. See New Jersey Table 3 for
details about which counties allow farmers to participate, whether farmers can participate for free and the
estimated amount of pesticides collected from farmers by county.
The initial year of county collection days took place in 1985 as a pilot project conducted by the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Pesticide Control Program. This project collected
unwanted pesticides from the public, farmers and commercial applicators in four counties. Since that
successful pilot, the counties reflected in New Jersey Table 2 have taken the initiative and interest to
continue the effort. Fred Stanger in Middlesex County is a leader in this effort.
New Jersey Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected: Statewide
(Includes household and agricultural pesticides; based on information from 14 counties.)
Year
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998*
1999*
2000*
TOTAL
Quantity of Pesticides (pounds)
10,535
19,850
15,841
22,014
39,741
109,915
88,798
115,159
137,648
95,362
52,459
15,425
722,747
* Incomplete totals for 1998, 1999, and 2000.
Information on the number of participants and
program cost is not available.
-------
New Jersey Table 2 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected: By County
County
Atlantic
Bergen
Burlington
Camden
Cape May
Cumberland
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Ocean
Passaic
Salem
Somerset 5
Sussex
TOTAL
rarrneis;
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes3
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
--
19912
some
912
1,029
44,285
46,226
1992
11,640
some
6,750
3,222
402
22,014
1993
0
some
7,083
6,350
3,621
3,087
19,600
39,741
Quantity of Pesticides (pounds)
1994
3,581
30,373
4,081
8,027
2,660
21,223
1,600
4,870
2,100
31,400
109,915
1995
3,857
34,425
2,481
3,474
3,300
19,800
4,840
7,586
436
8,599
88,798
1996
3,298
29,700
2,648
1,937
2,300
21,100
7,140
21,917
NA4
310
16,259
8,550
115,159
1997
2,048
24,975
6,157
1,822
2,240
19,350
4,455
9,940
32,917
8,425
1,975
16,144
7,200
137,648
1998
3,200
24,300
5,191
649
20,300
2,725
8,490
630
28,277
1,600
95,362
1999
25,650
4,072
15,650
7,087
52,459
2000
15,425
15,425
Subtotal
27,624
169,423
20,558
22,992
10,500
4,072
145,948
7,180
23,520
54,834
44,213
9,969
164,564
17,350
722,747
NOTES:
1. This column indicates whether or not the county allows farmers to participate in its HHW collection programs.
2. This column represents the amount of pesticides collected in the years prior to and including 1991.
3. Farmers are allowed to participate on a case-by-case basis in Middlesex County.
4. NA = not available.
5. The amount listed for Somerset County in 1991 includes 10,535 Ibs from 1989; 19,850 pounds for 1990; and 13,900 pounds for 1991.
-------
New Jersey Table 3 - County-by-County Information for New Jersey Household
Hazardous Waste Collections1
County
Atlantic
Burlington
Cape May
Cumberland
Gloucester
Mercer
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Ocean
Salem
Somerset
Sussex
Warren
Bergen
Camden
Essex
Hackensack Meadowlands
Development Commission
Hudson
Hunterdon
Passaic
Union
Can farmers
participate?2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
On a case-by-
case basis
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No Response
NoHHW
Program
Not applicable
No Response
Not applicable
No
Free or charge?3
Free
Charge
Charge $2/gal if over 12 gal;
$l/lbifover201b
Free
Free
Free
No charge if contractor will
accept; otherwise they must pay
Free
Free up to 220 Ibs; $1.25/lb
above that
no answer
Free
Free
Charge for large loads
Free
Not applicable
Not applicable
No Response
No HHW Program
Not applicable
No Response
Not applicable
Not applicable
Amount of pesticides
from farmers?4
Unknown
2-3%
3-5%
25%
About 15%
Unknown
Unknown
Estimate 5-10%
Unknown
no answer
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Less than 5%
Not applicable
Not applicable
No Response
No HHW Program
Not applicable
No Response
Not applicable
Not applicable
Notes:
1 The information in the first four columns is from a fax from Fred Stanger, Middlesex County Department
of Planning, to Wayne Holtzman, U.S. EPA, October 7, 1998.
2 This column lists the response to the question "Do you allow farmers to utilize your HHW program to
dispose of pesticides?"
3 This column lists the response to the question "If yes [farmers are allowed to participate], is it free or do
you charge the farmers?"
4 This column lists the response to the question "If so [farmers are allowed to participate], what percentage
(estimated) of pesticides collected through your HHW program is contributed by farmers?"
-------
NEW MEXICO AT A GLANCE
New Mexico does not currently have a clean sweep program.
Collection History
, Products collected:
° Year of first collection:
• Program Status:
Not applicable
Not applicable
None
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
No collection yet
O)
Amount collected
to date:
Olbs.
Prel989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Source: Not applicable
Participant fee collected: Not applicable
Cost information: Not applicable
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported: Not applicable
Eligible participants: Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Adopted, not yet authorized
Not applicable
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Doug Henson
Department of Agriculture
1 Division of Pesticide Management
P.O. Box 30005, MSC-3AQ
Las Graces, NM 88003-8005
Website: http://nmdaweb.nmsu.edu/
(Department of Agriculture, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
Tel: (505) 646-2133
Fax: (505) 646-5977
dhenson@nmda-bubba.nmsu.edu
-------
Summary of New Mexico Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
No state agricultural pesticide collection program exists in New Mexico. No funds have been
available or are projected to be available in the near future for pesticide collection programs. However, if
the legislature increases the Department of Agriculture's annual appropriations or allows an increase in
pesticide registration fees, part of the increase would be targeted as funding for a Clean Sweep program.
Several cities in New Mexico conduct HHW programs. For example, the City of Las Graces
collected over 21,000 pounds of pesticides from residents from 1991 through 1997. It is assumed that
these are household pesticides and not agricultural pesticides.
New Mexico is working with the Ag Container Recycling Council and has conducted annual plastic
container collection programs since 1993. Approximately 328,000 pounds of plastic were collected
through 1999. The primary contractor, USAg Recycling, averaged 64,000 pounds of high-density
polyethylene pesticide containers collected each year from 1997 through 1999.
-------
NEW YORK AT A GLANCE
New York counties play the key role in clean sweep collections in collaboration with
the Department of Environmental Conservation, and since 1993 they have collected
over 219,000 pounds of pesticides. EPA grants and the counties primarily fund these
collections, although state funds have also been used.
rv?
Collection History
Products collected:
** Year of first collection:
7^7\ Program Status:
Pesticides and household waste
1993
Intermittent, active
s
"8
1
*
O)
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
inn nnn
$tn nnn
-IA nnn
ft
13360
59,300
Lk** \
^ \ '•
0 vr
h-^^»..>..j
120,724
y:
^
•T £
&§p *"
Amount collected
to date:
219,454 Ibs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
EPA grants, county funds, and state funds
Information not available
1999 collection cost $50,708
Container Collection
Contact Information
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Existing program:
Single day events
Information not available
Information not available
Adopted, not yet authorized
Required
Yes
Farmers, commercial applicators, schools, parks,
and the public
Information not available
Dave Vitale Tel: (518) 457-7337
Department of Environmental Conservation Fax: (518) 457-1283
Division of Hazardous Waste Regulation dxvitale@sw.dec.state.ny.us
50 Wolf Road, Room 212
Albany, NY 12333-7253
Website: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/pesticid/pesticid.htm
(Department of Environmental Conservation, Pesticide Program and Hazardous
Waste Program, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
-------
Summary of New York Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
New York State's counties have taken the initiative to organize and fund farm pesticide collection
programs. Two examples are Erie County and a group of four counties operating a regional program,
consisting of Genesee, Livingston, Orleans and Wyoming counties (GLOW).
Erie County
In 1993, Erie County held a demonstration Clean Sweep project using EPA funds and county in-
kind contributions. A total of 13,860 pounds of pesticide were collected from 54 participants. This
experience allowed Erie County to coordinate with and provide technical support to other counties a few
years later.
In 1996, Erie County, on behalf of EPA Region 2, announced the availability of Clean Sweep
Project applications for collecting waste agricultural pesticides from New York State Great Lakes Basin
farms. Six central New York counties participated in what was dubbed CS96 (Clean Sweep Projects
1996) and consisted of three collection events, collecting over 65,800 pounds from 168 participants.
Federal EPA Coastal Environmental Management funds of $46,700 leveraged $52,000 in combined
regional county funds to pay for the associated contractual collection and disposal charges. CS96 also
provided technical services to two other counties which were self-funded and state funded, respectively, and
collected 47,000 pounds from 74 participants. The counties held collections on different days and were
able to share contracted hazardous waste disposal services. While local project approach varied between
project groups, the end product that served the farmers was the same. Attention to safety, liability control,
and regulatory constraints were priorities guiding all the tasks performed by Erie County's Environmental
and Planning Staff and project manager. Erie County tried to simplify implementation by providing boiler-
plate documents and walking the project leaders through important processes. Erie County also obtained a
waiver from the usual transportation requirements from the New York State Department of Transportation.
Participants had to attend an information/registration session and pick up packing materials if needed.
Drop-off times were assigned to avoid participants having to wait in long lines. Products which are no
longer registered made up more than half of those turned in. Dinoseb, a banned dioxin precursor, was
turned in at 1.5 to 2.5 percent of the collection weights despite repeated recalls as late as 1992. Most
products were in fair to good condition, indicating that they were responsibly managed.
To protect the privacy of preregistered participants, applications were given to the Farm Bureau, a
private organization which codified their identities. A pre-existing situation involving allegedly pesticide-
contaminated property caused interest in any information that could be obtained through the Clean Sweep
process. The plaintiff's motion to request the discovery documents they sought were denied in a local New
York State Supreme Court, based upon the opinion that in the interest of public benefit and preserving the
environment, farmers should be encouraged to participate and come forward with unwanted chemicals
without fear of reprisals.
CS96 made several recommendations. First, they stressed the importance of the preregistration or
survey form, which vary significantly in format. It is important to remember that the survey form conveys
potential information only, and that the project leaders have the responsibility to translate, confirm, convert
and summarize the information. This is very important because the project budget controls participation.
-------
Each additional pound represents $1.50 to $14 in disposal costs; each laboratory sample may cost $250 to
$1,500. They recommend:
- the survey and registration forms be multi-purpose
- the forms represent exactly the information needed by project planners and contractors
- the forms are easily understood with examples provided
- the forms easily translate into a database
- products in large or special containers be more easily identified.
Second, CS96 provided a hazardous waste provider checklist designed for temporary collection
sites which could be modified for permanent sites.
GLOW Counties
In 1995, the GLOW counties were awarded funding to conduct a Farm Pesticide Amnesty
Collection. In 1997, believing a second farm pesticide collection was warranted, they sought funding from
N. Y. State, which was denied, but then applied in 1998 to EPA and received $70,000. Representatives
from agencies within the four counties formed a Coordinating Committee. Four thousand color posters
were distributed and newsletters and direct mailings publicized the collections. Since preregistrations were
lower than expected and below what was fundable, GLOW asked for and got permission to allow farmers
from seven adjacent counties to participate on "as approved" basis. All participants were required to attend
a 3-hour training course on such topics as handling spills and packaging materials for transport. Participants
were issued a travel waiver from the N. Y. State Department of Transportation which allowed them to
transport their materials to the site. Farmer attendees also received applicator credits toward their state
licenses. During the spring of 1999,24,610 pounds of pesticides were collected from 43 farmers, of which
2,013 are classified as persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) pesticides. Training and disposal costs
totaled $39,990, and additional costs for publicity and personnel totaled $10,718, for a total of $50,708, or
an average of $ 1,179 per participant.
Schuyler County
In May 2000, the Recycling and Solid Waste Program of Cornell Cooperative Extension of
Schuyler County held a one-day combined farm pesticide/household hazardous waste/used tire collection
program. This was the county's first collection since 1997, and was funded mainly by the county, with
supplemental funding from the U.S. EPA. The waste hauler's manifest, which includes the overpack drums,
listed 960 pounds (9 drums) of farm pesticide waste that were collected from 14 agricultural participants
(farmers and agribusinesses). An additional 1.5 tons of household hazardous waste collected from 120
residents included at least 168 pounds of pesticides. Including the residents who brought tires, more than
300 people participated in the program. The relatively poor farmer participation was attributed to farmer's
preference to keep pesticides until after harvest and hesitancy to preregister. A total of 451 pounds of
agrichemicals (an underestimate of the actual amount collected) were identified on the registration forms
submitted by the agricultural participants. These agrichemicals included approximately 24 pounds of PBT
pesticides, including 15 pounds of DDT.
Six months prior to the collection day, the county began sending out a series of press releases
describing the event and publishing articles in the Cooperative Extension and Chamber of Commerce
publications. Mailings were done to over 300 farmers and fliers were posted around the county in
-------
churches, schools and businesses. Participants indicated that the newspaper announcements were the most
effective medium. Participants were required to pre-register several weeks before the collection day, and
farmers were assigned a registration number to protect anonymity. Those who registered were assigned a
time slot to bring their wastes to the collection point so as to avoid congestion. Farmers and agribusinesses
were encouraged to attend a training session covering handling and transport of wastes. Although atten-
dance was low, the session was well-received, and those who did not attend received a fact sheet.
Documentation for farmers and agribusinesses was kept separately from that of other wastes.
New York Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1993
1995
1996
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides
(pounds)
13,860
59,300
120,724
24,610
960
219,454
Number of
Participants
54
203
247
43
14
561
Average Quantity of
Pesticides per Participant
(pounds/participant)
257
292
489
572
69
391
Program Cost
$31,800disp
$7 1,800 all
no data
$213,804
$39,990 disp
$50,708 all
no data
more than
$336,312
Average Cost
(per pound)
$2.29 (disp)
NA
$1.77
$1.62 (disp)
NA
NA
disp = disposal costs; all = all costs; NA = not applicable
-------
New York Table 2 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected: Per Program
Year
1993
1993
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1999
1999
2000
2000
Total
Name/Location of
Collection
Erie County
Subtotal
Western NY
Regional '
GLOW Counties 2
Subtotal
CESQG in Erie &
Niagara 3
CS96 Event 1
Ontario & Seneca
Cty
CS96 Event 2:
Cayuga Cty
CS96Event3:
Wayne, Schuyler,
Yates Cty
Columbia Cty
Monroe Cty
Subtotal
GLOW (& other)
Cty4
Subtotal
Schuyler Cty
Subtotal
Quantity of
Pesticides
(pounds)
13,860
13,860
32,300
27,000
59,300
11,043
25,000
12,400
28,427
27,254
16,600
120,724
24,610
24,610
960
960
219,454
Number of
Participants
54
54
203 (include
GLOW)
see above
203
19
80
36
52
24
36
247
43
43
14
14
561
Average Quantity of
Pesticides per Participant
(pounds/participant)
257
257
NA
NA
292
581
313
344
547
1,136
461
489
572
572
69
69
391
Program
Cost
$31,800disp
$7 1,800 all
$31,800 disp
no data
no data
NA
$28,810 disp
$38,304 disp
$24,831 disp
$35,612 disp
$44,603 disp
$4 1,644 disp
$213,804
$39,990 disp
$50,708 all
$39,990 disp
no data
NA
NA
Average
Cost
(per
pound)
S2.29
(disp)
£2.29
NA
NA
NA
$2.61
$1.53
$2.00
$1.25
$1.64
$2.51
$1.77
$1.62
(disp)
$1.62
NA
NA
NA
disp = disposal costs; all = all costs; NA = not applicable
1. The Western New York Regional collection included Erie, Niagra, Chautauqua and Cattarougus Counties.
2. This collection included Genesee, Livingston, Wyoming and Orleans Counties.
3. This collection included Conditional Exempt Small Quantity Generators (schools, parks, retailer, and agribusinesses)
in Erie and Niagra Counties.
4. This collection included Genesee, Livingston, Wyoming, Orleans, Niagara, Monroe, Wayne and Erie Counties.
-------
NORTH CAROLINA AT A GLANCE
North Carolina adopted regulations governing the disposal of pesticides in 1976, and
the state began collecting them in 1980. This state-funded effort has collected over
1.1 million pounds of pesticides since its inception. The North Carolina Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services is the lead agency.
Collection History
7 160,000
§. 140,000
•g 120,000
TS 100,000
80,000
W 60,000 -\
| 20,000
S °
^ Products collected:
>:< Year of first collection:
I** &^'^P"";vy|> Program Status:
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Pesticides and household pesticide waste
1980
Permanently funded
1991
1993 1995 1997
1999
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Year
Amount collected
to date:
1,116,477 Ibs.
Program Funding
P Source:
£ Participant fee collected:
i Cost information:
State funds
No
Less than $1.00 per pound
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events, permanent sites, and on-site
pick up, which is limited to special circumstances
Incineration and landfill (minor amount)
No
Adopted, authorized in 1998
Not required for less than 5 gallons bulk liquid or
less than 2,000 total pounds solids
Yes
Farmers, commercial applicators, retailers, golf
courses, and the public
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Royce Batts or Derrick Bell
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Food and Drug Protection Division
Pesticide Disposal Assistance Program
4110 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Website: http://www.agr.state.nc.us/fooddrug/pesticid/pestdisp.htm
(Clean Sweep specific)
Tel: (919) 715-9023
Fax: (919) 733-6801
royce.batts@ncmail.net
derrick.bell@ncmail.net
-------
Summary of North Carolina Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
In 1976, the North Carolina Pesticide Board adopted regulations governing the disposal of
pesticides. These regulations make it illegal in North Carolina to dispose of hazardous waste (which
includes pesticides) in sanitary landfills. As a result of this dilemma, the North Carolina Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) created the Pesticide Disposal Assistance Program in
1980 through appropriations from the North Carolina General Assembly.
With these appropriations, the Pesticide Disposal Assistance Program was able to provide an
available, free-of-charge, and environmentally acceptable mechanism in which any homeowner, farmer, or
institution could properly dispose of unwanted or unusable pesticides. This program was the first of its kind
in the entire United States.
From 1980 through 1996, state inspectors collected pesticides and transported the material to
storage facilities located throughout the state. The material staged in the storage facilities was then
transported and consolidated at a central location in Raleigh, where it was collected by a contractor. In
January 1997, the program changed from collecting pesticides at farm and home sites to collecting
pesticides at both designated single day pesticide disposal collection sites and at permanent household
hazardous waste collection sites. For the single day type of collections, the contractor is on-site for the
events to collect, package, and prepare the waste for manifesting and shipment each day. For shipment, the
NCDA&CS signs the manifest as the generator. Contractor participation at the permanent HHW sites
depends largely upon the anticipated volume of collection and scheduling.
In 1999, the NCDA&CS sponsored 35 Collection Day events. With the assistance of the North
Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, the Pesticide Disposal Assistance Program supervised the
collection and disposal of 133,313 pounds of pesticide waste. Of this total, 20,484 pounds of pesticides
damaged by Hurricane Floyd flooding were collected from 10 counties in eastern North Carolina. While
the immediate Hurricane response efforts are over, NCDA&CS continues to see flood-damaged pesticides
brought to the regularly scheduled collection days.
As of March 31,2000, the Pesticide Disposal Assistance Program of the NCDA&CS had
disposed of over 1 million pounds of unwanted pesticides since the program's inception. The program is
paid for with state funds, with a budget of about $325,000 per year.
The program's goal for the future is to conduct approximately 40 collection day events per year
throughout the state in an attempt to have a pesticide collection day in each of the 100 counties in the state
at least once every other year. The program also intends to continue collections at the permanent HHW
sites. The program will also continue to assist and promote the establishment of permanent household
hazardous waste collection sites in those counties without permanent facilities.
The Pesticide Disposal Assistance Program of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, with the support granted by the North Carolina General Assembly, can continue to
protect human health and the environment so that North Carolina will be a safer place to live.
-------
North Carolina Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of Pesticides (pounds)
16,500
0
20,500
2,809
0
0
1,400
132,729
31,890
29,120
51,055
32,708
70,444
26,467
51,403
100,980
59,825
81,045
123,211
133,313
151,078
1,116,477
Information on the number of participants is
not tracked. Information on program cost is
not available.
-------
NORTH DAKOTA AT A GLANCE
North Dakota collected some pesticides in the 1980's before it began its permanently
funded program in 1992. The state's program, called "Safe Send," is administered
through the Department of Agriculture with an advisory board of interested groups
and agencies. The program, funded through pesticide registration fees, has collected
over 1.0 million pounds of pesticides.
Collection History
Products collected:
I Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1980
Permanently funded
I
200,000
150,000
•5 100,000
1 50,000-28,260
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
174,275 '
158,93S166'W9
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Amount collected
to date:
1,029,230 Ibs.
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Pesticide registration fees
No
Information not available
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events
Incineration
No
Adopted, not yet authorized
Required until 1997, currently not required
Yes
Program targets fanners, ranchers, commercial
applicators, and retailers but is open to all North
Dakota residents, including golf course managers
and the public
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Tel: (701) 328-4997
Fax: (701) 328-4567
j carlson @ state.nd.us
Judy Carlson
Department of Agriculture
600 East Boulevard, Dept. 602
Bismarck, ND 58505-0020
Website: http://www.agdepartment.com
Pepartment of Agriculture, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
-------
Summary of North Dakota Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
Prior to 1992, the North Dakota Department of Health collected 42,000 pounds of pesticides. In
1992, the Department of Agriculture was authorized to establish a pesticide disposal and empty container
recycling program. The waste disposal program evolved into the current and continuous North Dakota
Project Safe Send collection and disposal program. Through the middle of 2000, more than one million
pounds of unwanted pesticides have been collected and disposed. Project Safe Send is administered
through the North Dakota Department of Agriculture with an advisory board that includes the Farm Bureau,
Farmers Union, State University Extension Service, State Department of Health and others.
Project Safe Send is open to all North Dakota residents, however it is targeted to farmers,
ranchers, pesticide dealers and applicators. The program is free to participants, and is funded by the state
with product registration fees paid by pesticide manufacturers. Initially, pre-registration was a requirement
of S af e Send, but in 1997 the Department of Agriculture made it optional and at the same time increased the
number of waste collection sites. Project Safe Send participation increased after these changes were
implemented.
Project Safe Send requires participants to bring unwanted pesticides to a local collection site during
the hours of operation. The program is supported by contractors who are selected through a competitive
process. Contractors unload wastes, collect paperwork, pack and label the waste, and transport it to
incinerators outside the state of North Dakota. Also, the contractor prepares the shipping manifests and
bills of lading which essentially transfers liability when the contractor accepts the waste and signs the
manifest as the generator.
North Dakota Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1980
1984
1988
1989
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides (pounds)
6,300
11,500
10,460
13,740
80,910
0
131,838
48,222
94,389
174,275
131,709
158,938
166,949
1,029,230
Number of
Participants
no data
no data
no data
no data
396
0
608
145
341
484
367
321
332
More than 2,994
Average Quantity of Pesticides per
Participant (pounds/participant)
NA
NA
NA
NA
204
NA
217
333
277
360
359
495
503
330 (since 1992)
Information on program cost is not available.
NA = not applicable
-------
OHIO AT A GLANCE
Since 1993 Ohio has conducted annual clean sweep collections. The Department of
Agriculture is the lead agency, but other state agencies and local groups collaborate
closely. Pesticide registration fees primarily fund the collections. Nearly 1.1
million pounds of pesticides have been collected.
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1993
Permanently funded
300,000
Z50,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Amount collected
to date:
1,088,713 Ibs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Pesticide registration fees and EPA grants (less
than 6%)
No
Costs to date exceed $1.5 million
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events
Incineration (whenever possible) and landfill
No but usable products are donated
Adopted, not yet authorized
Required
Yes
Farmers, golf course managers, state and local
agencies, nurseries, garden centers, landscapers,
and structural pest control operators
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Larry Berger
Department of Agriculture
8995 East Main Street
Reynoldsburg, OH 43768
Website: http://www.state.oh.us/agr/
(Department of Agriculture, not specific to Clean sweeps)
Tel: (614) 728-6392
Fax: (614) 728-4235
berger@odant.agri.state.oh.us
-------
Summary of Ohio Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
The Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) has the lead for the Clean Sweep projects, although
support and collaboration is provided by the county Extension Services, Farm Service Agencies, Soil &
Water Conservation Districts, Health Departments, and Solid Waste Management Districts. Farm support
organizations like the Farm Bureau and commodity associations help to publicize the program. The
Department of Agriculture also works closely with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
Ohio's Clean Sweep program has cost over $1.5 million so far. With the exception of $80,000
received from EPA for Lake Erie counties under the Coastal Environmental Management Program, the state
budget has paid all program costs, largely from state pesticide registration fees.
Ohio required preregistration at the beginning of the program to be sure of keeping within their
limited budget. There was concern that some people would not participate due to fear of punitive action,
but as the program grew and word traveled that those with unwanted stocks were neither identified nor
penalized, no one was hesitant to preregister. The preregistration also allowed Ohio to accurately identify
the name and weights of the products expected. Participants were notified by mail of a date and time slot
for turning in their pesticides, which alleviated traffic congestion and long lines and was very popular with
participants. When the program began in 1993, the disposal cost was $6 per pound, but as the project
progressed, the price dropped to $1.25 per pound. The price drop was attributed in part to the fact that
the contractor was able to offer a lower price due to the accuracy of the estimate and its impact on the
amount of packing materials, crew size and number of trucks needed. The preregistration required more
work prior to the collection event, adding an additional $. 15 to $.20 per pound, but it resulted hi overall
savings.
In terms of safety, participants are assigned time slots to control traffic flow and are given instruc-
tions for safe transportation and what to do if there is an accident. Ohio has had excellent safety results. In
over 20 projects with more than 2,865 participants, there have been no accidents. Just in case, the ODA
notifies local emergency responders when a collection will take place in their area.
Many of the collected pesticides are old; some have been more than 50 years old. ODA believes
"a large percentage of very old pesticides" have been collected, but still believes there is a need for
collections. They will start to target businesses and household users.
-------
Ohio Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides (pounds)
9,000
113,000
126,000
251,250
214,600
142,374
123,390
109,099
1,088,713
Number of
Participants
60
318
240 (for an
84,000 Ib event)
618 (3 events,
2 11, 000 Ib)
671 (3 events,
204,000 Ib)
169 (for a
50,000 Ib event)
373
416
more than 2,865
Average Quantity of Pesticides per
Participant (pounds/participant)
150
355
350 (for the one event)
341 (for the three events)
304 (for the three events)
296 (for the one event)
331
262
315*
* This is based on the full programs in 1993, 1994, 1999 and 2000 and the specifically
mentioned events for 1995 through 1998.
Information on program cost is not available.
-------
OKLAHOMA AT A GLANCE
Oklahoma does not currently have a clean sweep program. Agricultural pesticides
are allowed at HHW collections which are held twice a year in the large cities.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
v^ Program Status:
Not applicable
Not applicable
None
5000
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Afif\f\
3000
")AAA — ,
innft
A —
No collection yet
Amount collected
to date:
Olbs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Adopted, authorized 1998
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Tel: (405) 522-5993
Fax: (405) 522-5986
sandvw@oda.state.ok.us
Sandra Wells
Department of Agriculture
2800 North Lincoln Blvd.
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4298
Website: http://www-state.ok.us/-okag
(Department of Agriculture, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
-------
Summary of Oklahoma Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
Oklahoma does not have a program to collect and dispose of unwanted agricultural pesticides. To
date, funds are not available to support a collection effort. Household hazardous waste collection programs
exist in Tulsa and Oklahoma City. These collections are conducted on a regular basis, twice a year, and
allow for the collection of agricultural pesticides.
In 1998, a survey was conducted by Oklahoma State University to determine the quantities of
unwanted pesticides that certified pesticide applicators had on hand. Approximately 12,000 survey forms
were mailed with a follow-up of reminder cards. A total of 1,775 surveys were returned, of which about
87% (1,545) reported having no unwanted pesticides. The other 230 responses reported about 9,900
pounds of unwanted pesticides that were identified by name.
-------
OREGON AT A GLANCE
Since 1991 Oregon has conducted clean sweep collections with the Department of
Environmental Quality as the lead agency. Participant fees are the main source of
funding for the collection of agricultural pesticides. More than 497,000 pounds of
pesticides have been collected from agricultural participants, conditionally exempt
small quantity generators (CESQGs), and households.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
• Program Status:
Pesticides and household and CESQG waste
1991
Continuous, active
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
IZU,UUU
|S 100,000
» ou,OUU
u
& oO.UUU
^ 40000 -
« 0
59,776
I i i T
58,
1
•
742
81
m
1
i
95,773
•r
•
•
jIliilllL
56.0%
•
§3&§S3&*§?
IMP
Ipl
~25J)06
_j|f|||||_
^S
^^«^^
30/>56
BRI
•
1
V7j)Y7
12,799
(
Amount collected
to date:
497,443 Ibs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
» Source:
I Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Participant fees and EPA grants
No for household participants. For others, the fee
was $2.40 per pound of pesticide in 2000.
The cost to dispose of most pesticides is $2.40 per
pound
Collection Logistics
Method of collection: Single day events
U Disposal method: Incineration whenever possible and landfill
Exchange program: No
1995 Universal Waste rule: Adopted, not yet authorized
Pre-registration: Required
Specific pesticides reported: Yes
Eligible participants: Farmers, commercial applicators, retailers, golf
course managers, the public, and CESQGs
Container Collection
Existing program:
Yes, conducted by Oregon Agricultural Chemical
and Fertilizers Association
Contact Information
Rick Volpel Tel: (503) 229-6753
Department of Environmental Quality Fax: (503) 229-6977
811 SW 6th Avenue volpel.rick@deq.state.or.us
Portland, OR 97204
Website: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/index.htm
(Department of Environmental Quality, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
-------
Summary of Oregon Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
In 1991, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality conducted its first waste agricultural
pesticide pilot collection event for approximately 40 farmers. A total of 20,000 pounds of waste was
collected. In 1993, the Department conducted a second pilot collection for 318 farmers at two separate
events. A total of 88,374 pounds of pesticides was collected, with an average of 278 pounds per farmer, at
a cost of $500,000.
Beginning in 1997, the Department began collecting waste pesticides as universal waste in conjunc-
tion with its household hazardous waste (HHW) and conditionally exempt small quantity hazardous waste
(CESQG) collection events. This allowed the same contractor to collect the different waste streams at one
location, reducing collection costs. Collected agricultural pesticide wastes are not commingled with the
CESQG and HHW waste.
Primary funding for the Oregon Agricultural Pesticide Collection Program comes from the waste
disposal fee. Agricultural participants and CESQGs are charged $2.40 per pound. Household participants
are not charged a fee for disposing of their wastes.
Participation in the pesticide collection program requires a submission of a registration form to the
Department's waste contractor. The form requires information on types and estimated weights of the
pesticides. The approved registration form serves as a bill of lading for transportation of the waste to the
collection site, where it is compared with the registration information before collection. When possible,
waste pesticides are disposed of by incineration.
In 1999, the Oregon Department of Agriculture received a $60,000 "Clean Sweep" grant from the
EPA, which enabled participants to dispose of their waste pesticides for $ 1.00 per pound for most
pesticides.
Oregon Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Total Quantity of
Pesticides (pounds)
59,776
58,742
95,773
22,072
56,096
25,906
69,206
30,056
67,017
more than 12,799
more than 497,443
Quantity of Pesticides
Collected in
Agricultural Events
(pounds)
20,000
0
88,374
0
36,056
0
15,850
3,003
15,084
12,799
191,166
Quantity of Pesticides
Collected in Conditionally
Exempt Generator Events
(pounds)
176
7,690
1,755
7,447
3,617
220
2,634
5,980
443
no data
more than 29,962
Quantity of Pesticides
Collected as Household
Hazardous Waste (pounds)
39,600
51,052
5,644
14,625
16,423
25,686
50,722
21,073
51,490
no data
more than 276,3 15
Information on the number of participants and program cost is not available
-------
PENNSYLVANIA AT A GLANCE
In 1993 Pennsylvania started "Chemsweep," its pesticide disposal program, with
the Department of Agriculture as the lead agency. The program, currently funded
through pesticide registration fees, has collected over 1.0 million pounds of
pesticides, mostly by picking up the pesticides from the participants' sites.
Collection History
Products collected:
| Year of first collection:
£ Program Status:
Pesticides
1993
Permanently funded
§. 300,000
.X 200,000
3 150,000
•t 100,000
| 50,000
01 o
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
300,293
1 jT^ *
29,
, m
700
OT
s^J
50433
fcllj
82/184
&*?-•
P^^ 1
til
74,048 188,11*
L ** *H
>
86A89 81J040
Amount collected
to date:
1,001,597 Ibs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Collection Logistics
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Pesticide registration fees
No, but commercial participants may be assessed a
fee for a portion of large quantities
Information not available
Single day events and on-site pick up
Incineration (95%) and landfill (5%)
Yes
Adopted, authorized in 2000
Required for on-site pick up; not required for
single day events in 2000
Yes
Farmers, commercial applicators, retailers, golf
course managers, and the public
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Tel: (717) 787-4843 x5210
ipari @ state.pa.us
John Pari
Department of Agriculture
2301 North Cameron Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408
Fax: (717) 783-3275
Phil Pitzer
Environmental Safety Specialist
Website:
http://www.state.pa.us/PA Exec/Apiculture/bureaus/plant industry/index.html
(Clean Sweep specific)
Tel: (717) 772-5206
ppitzer@state.pa.us
-------
Summary of Pennsylvania Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture started Chemsweep as an on-going pesticide disposal
program in 1993. This program provided farmers a means to dispose of unwanted pesticides in six
counties. A total of 29,700 pounds of pesticides was collected and disposed of by incineration.
Chemsweep is operated by a contractor who is selected by competitive bid. To participate in
Chemsweep, every participant must complete an inventory form and submit it to the Department of
Agriculture within a specified time frame. The collection process operates with the participant delivering the
unwanted pesticides to the site or the contractor making farm pick-ups. This latter method is used
extensively in Pennsylvania. Before the collection of the pesticides, inspectors from the Department of
Agriculture visit each site to "confirm inventory, evaluate whether a 'clean-up' is required, and sample
unknown materials". Some of the most commonly collected pesticides include zineb, copper sulfate, DDT,
2,4-D, chlordane, atrazine, dinoseb and parathion. During the period 1993-1997, approximately 89,722
pounds of these pesticides were collected. Trends show that 95% of collected pesticides are disposed of
by incineration and those remaining are placed in hazardous waste landfills permitted by EPA.
Chemsweep had a goal to provide every county in Pennsylvania with an opportunity to participate
in the free disposal program by 1998. This goal was met, with participation from all 67 counties in the state.
Chemsweep now has a goal to cover the state for a second time. Chemsweep has been successful, with a
total collection and disposal of more than one million pounds of pesticides for the period 1993 through
2000.
Pennsylvania Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides (pounds)
29,700
60,133
82,084
300,293
174,048
188,110
86,189
81,040
1,001,597
Number of
Participants
179
380
345
980
421
657
157
no data
More than 3, 119
Average Quantity of Pesticides per
Participant (pounds/participant)
166
158
238
306
413
286
549
NA
295 (through 1999)
Information on program cost is not available.
NA = not applicable
-------
RHODE ISLAND AT A GLANCE
Rhode Island collected an undetermined quantity of agricultural pesticides in 1990
Farmers are not allowed to participate in the state's HHW program. A survey is
planned to determine the need for a clean sweep.
Collection History
Products collected: Pesticides
Year of first collection: 1990
Program Status: Once
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Unknown
Amount collected
to date:
unknown
Prel989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
j, Source:
J, Participant fee collected:
f. Cost information:
Information not available
No
1990 collection cost was $45,000
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
On-site pick up
Landfill
No
Not adopted
Required
No
Farmers and commercial applicators
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Tel: (401) 277-2781x4510
Fax: (401) 277-6047
eldueuav @ dem. state.ri.us
Liz Lopes-Duguay
Department of Environmental Management
Division of Agriculture
235 Promenade St.
Providence, RI02908
Website: http://www.state.ri.us/dem/programs/bnatres/agricuMndex.htm
(Department of Environmental Management, Pesticide Unit, not specific to Clean
Sweeps)
-------
Summary of Rhode Island Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
Rhode Island does not have a program to collect and dispose of unwanted agricultural pesticides.
There is an on-going household hazardous waste collection program. However, farmers and other
businesses are prohibited from participating in the HHW program by state regulations.
Rhode Island has plans for 1999/2000 to develop and distribute a survey to growers to determine
the amount of unwanted agricultural pesticides that require disposal. Additionally, the Division of Agriculture
is seeking the funds necessary to conduct a pesticide collection and disposal program.
Rhode Island Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1990
TOTAL
Quantity of Pesticides
(pounds)
no data
no data
Number of
Participants
6 farms/
companies
6 farms/
companies
Average Quantity of Pesticides per
Participant (pounds/participant)
NA
NA
Information on program cost is not available.
NA = not applicable
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA AT A GLANCE
South Carolina collected an estimated 7,100 pounds of pesticides in 1988 and 1990.
Recent state efforts to establish a Clean Sweep program have been inhibited by
liability questions and budget shortfalls.
Collection History
i £i«
^ 6,000
§ 5,000
| 4,000
^ 3,000
f 2,000
| 1,000
Products collected:
x Year of first collection:
N Program Status:
Pesticides and household waste
1988
Intermittent, inactive
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Amount collected
to date:
7,143 Ibs.
T~
T
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Collection Logistics
j. Source:
S; Participant fee collected:
3 Cost information:
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
In kind services for 1988 collection
No
Value of 1988 services estimated at approximately
$38,500
Single day events
Incineration (primarily), landfill, and fuel for
cement plant
Adopted, not yet authorized
Not required
Yes
Farmers and the public
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Neil Ogg
Regulatory and Public Service Programs
511 Westinghouse Road
Pendleton, SC 29670
Tel: (864) 646-2120
Fax: (864) 646-2179
nogg@clemson.edu
Tel: (803) 896-4092
Fax:(803)896-4110
kinnevrw@columb34.dhec.state.sc.us
Ronald W. Kinney
Dept. of Health & Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Website- httpV/cufp.clemson.edu/dpr/index flash.html
(Department of Pesticide Regulation at Clemson, not specific to Clean Sweep)
-------
Summary of South Carolina Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
In 1988, the Orangeburg County Extension conducted a Clean Sweep program to educate
residents and farmers about the dangers of hazardous chemicals and wastes and to collect and dispose of
the hazardous chemicals. The program was coordinated with Clemson University and the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC). This was the first Clean Sweep conducted hi
South Carolina. GSX Chemical Services provided the manpower, expertise, hauling, and disposal at no
cost. The value of services was $38,500 for an estimated 6,743 pounds of waste from 17 households and
29 farmers.
In the past few years South Carolina has worked to establish a Clean Sweep program for agricul-
tural pesticides. However, the development of a program ran into a few obstacles due to the unique
structure of South Carolina's pesticide regulatory agency. In South Carolina, the Department of Pesticide
Regulation (DPR) is part of Clemson University rather than the Department of Agriculture. Clean Sweep
programs are often set up so the pesticide agency becomes the official generator of the waste for the
purposes of the hazardous waste regulations. This created a problem, though, because the Clemson
University Board of Directors was concerned about the potential liability to the school from incurring the
generator role and handling the pesticides. The Department of Pesticide Regulation pursued legislation that
would resolve this dilemma by allowing the university to have an active role in Clean Sweep programs, but
to limit its liability. However, recent budget shortfalls have precluded efforts by the DPR to operate a waste
pesticide program. To the extent that South Carolina holds waste pesticide programs in the near future, the
programs will reside with the DHEC. The DPR handles the pesticide container recycling program.
South Carolina Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1988
1990
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides (pounds)*
6,743
400
7,143
Number of
Participants
46**
14-16***
60 to 62
Average Quantity of Pesticides per
Participant (pounds/participant)
147
25 to 29
115 to 119
* Quantities are estimated.
** Total includes 29 farmers and 17 households.
*** Total is farmers only.
Information on program cost is not available.
-------
SOUTH DAKOTA AT A GLANCE
Since 1993 South Dakota has conducted annual clean sweep collections with the
Department of Agriculture as the lead agency. The program, funded through
pesticide registration fees, has collected over 263,000 pounds of pesticides.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1993
Permanently funded
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
•3*
•5 30,000
u
50,282
31,059
eV.f
C IA ftAn
01 n
«'S..i
. , . .ft ..':.
S^*| 31,086
/(^j- 23,867 -T~ 7T
,^1' j^^lr-^ *
" <**
V <••
L-J
28283
~:>v r
"> >"^i"
23j069
-,;-
™
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Amount collected
to date:
263,663 Ibs.
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Pesticide registration fees
No
1999 program cost $38,525, an average of $1.67
per pound
Collection Logistics
Method of collection: Single day events
Disposal method: Incineration
Exchange program: No
1995 Universal Waste rule: Adopted, authorized in 2000 but not for pesticides
Pre-registration: Required
Specific pesticides reported: Yes
Eligible participants: Farmers, commercial applicators, retailers, golf
course managers, and the public
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Brad Berven
Department of Agriculture
523 East Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-3102
Website- htrpV/www state sd.us/doa/das/hp-pest.htm#waste (Clean Sweep specific)
Tel: (605) 773-4432
Fax: (605) 773-3481
hrad.herven@state.sd.us
-------
Summary of South Dakota Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
In 1992, the South Dakota legislature adopted legislation that allowed the Department of Agriculture
to collect pesticide registration fee surcharges. Since 1993, pesticide disposal programs have been
performed using these funds. Participants transport waste pesticides to a central collection site and the
Department of Agriculture personnel screen the waste pesticides. The Department takes generator status of
the waste. In 1999, statewide collections netted 23,069 pounds of pesticides (50 percent were banned or
unregistered) from 66 participants at a cost of $38,525.
South Dakota Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides
(pounds)
31,059
43,757
23,867
31,086
50,282
28,283
23,069
32,260
263,663
Number of
Participants
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
114
66
no data
NA
Average Quantity of
Pesticides per Participant
(pounds/participant)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
248
350
NA
285 for two years with data
Program
Cost
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
$38,525
$42,062
NA
Average
Cost (per
pound)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$1.67
$1.30
NA
NA = not applicable
-------
TENNESSEE AT A GLANCE
The Tennessee Department of Agriculture began a pesticide collection program
in 1998. The program, scheduled for seven years, is funded by the state, EPA
grants, and pesticide registration fees. It has collected an estimated 300,000
pounds of pesticides.
-, 120,000
t. 100,000
I 80,000
| 60,000
£. 40,000
| 20,000
01 o
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Pesticides
1998
Permanently funded
100,000 100,000 100,000
1990 1991 1992 1993
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Year
1999 2000
Amount collected
to date:
300,000 Ibs.
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Pesticide registration fees, state funds, and
EPA grants
No fee for farmers up to 1,000 pounds, but
commercial and industrial firms pay a fee
Costs are $1.36 per pound plus a set-up cost
of $3,000
Single day events and on-site pick up
Incineration (97%), landfill (3%), recycling
(less than 1%)
No
Adopted, authorized in 1999
Not required
No
Farmers, commercial applicators, retailers,
golf course managers, and the public
including commercial and industrial firms
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes, occasionally
KenNafe Tel: (615) 837-5523
Department of Agriculture Fax: (615) 837-5012
Porter Building knafe@rnail.state.tn.us
Division of Ag Inputs and Pesticides
P.O. Box 40627
Nashville, TN 37204
Website: http://www.state.tn.us/agri^'ll»'re/regulate/wastes-html
(Clean Sweep specific)
-------
Summary of Tennessee Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
The Tennessee Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA), EPA, University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service, and others, initiated the Tennessee
Agricultural Pesticide Waste Collection Program as part of Tennessee's State Management Plan for
Protection of Groundwater from pesticides.
The Tennessee waste collection program, planned to run for seven years, began in the spring of
1998. For the initial events, counties were selected on the basis of high volume sales and usage rates. In
the first year, 100,000 pounds of pesticide wastes were collected. The waste collection program is
projected to give every farmer in the state an opportunity to participate. Every collection event will be
accompanied by a fully trained Department of Agriculture representative and a commercial, licensed
pesticide disposal company to receive chemical wastes safely.
Farmers are eligible to participate at no cost for up to 1,000 pounds per farmer/vehicle. Greater
amounts will be accepted if prior notice is given to and approved by the Tennessee Department of
Agriculture collection site manager or the county extension agent. Commercial and industrial entities are
allowed to participate if arrangements are made with the disposal company in advance of the collection
event, but a fee is charged for the disposal services.
Participants transport pesticide wastes to the collection sites and are responsible for spillage,
damage, cleanup and restoration resulting from transportation of pesticide wastes to the site. Upon entering
the collection site, participants are first interviewed by a department representative to gather general
information that will be used to help improve future collections. Personnel trained in handling hazardous
materials inspect vehicles for leaking containers. Participants are instructed to remain in vehicles and are not
allowed to exchange materials between vehicles. Authorized personnel carefully remove, identify and sort
pesticide waste.
Tennessee Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides (pounds)
100,000
100,000
100,000
300,000
Number of
Participants
359
290
285
934
Average Quantity of Pesticides per
Participant (pounds/participant)
279
345
351
321
Information on program cost is not available.
-------
TEXAS AT A GLANCE
Since 1992 Texas has conducted clean sweep collections with the Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission as the lead agency. The program, currently
funded from a variety of sources, has collected over 3.1 million pounds of pesticides.
Clean sweeps are often combined with HHW and country clean-up events.
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides, household waste, and other materials
1992
Permanently funded
"8
u
a
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
678,460
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Amount collected
to date:
3,149,820 Ibs.
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Hazardous waste generation fees, in-kind
contributions from recyclers, and in-kind and
mobilization contributions from river authorities
No
2000 cost was $1.21 per pound including the
mobilization cost
Single day events
Incineration (90%) and landfill (10%)
Yes for HHW collections
Adopted, authorized in 1999
Not required
Yes
Farmers, commercial applicators, retailers, golf
course managers, and the public but no
manufacturers
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Tel: (512) 239-4749
Fax:(512)239-3175
cleantx@tnrcc.state.tx.us
Ronnie May
Natural Resource Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Website: http://www.tnrrrstate.tx.us/fxp-c/oppr/agwaste/agwaste.html
(Clean Sweep specific)
-------
Summary of Texas Country Cleanup and Agricultural Waste Pesticide Collection Programs
Texas has a comprehensive recycling program and a pesticide disposal program, the Texas Country
Cleanup and the Agricultural Waste Pesticide Collection Program. The state began recycling containers in
1991 in partnership with the South Texas Agricultural Chemical Association. In 1992, a separate waste
pesticide collection program was started. In 1994, the Empty Pesticide Container Program added battery,
tire, oil and oil filter collection and the name was changed to the Texas Country Cleanup Program. TNRCC
conducts 35-45 Texas Country Cleanups and 10-15 Agricultural Waste Pesticide Collections annually. The
Texas Country Cleanup and the Agricultural Waste Pesticide Collection events often combine together and
sometimes include household hazardous waste collection to form a comprehensive waste management
option for rural Texans. Tire collection has been limited since January of 1999, due to the privatization of
tire collection in Texas. Some cleanups offer tire recycling through Supplemental Environmental Project
funding, an enforcement penalty program. Other items that have been collected at cleanups include wire,
metal, poly pipe and "ag film."
The ACRC contributes container granulation services through its southern contractor, US Ag
Recycling. Battery, oil and other recyclables are collected for free. Oil filters are also collected and their
disposal costs are paid for using hazardous waste registration fees. Also, the Agricultural Waste Pesticide
Collection Program is funded by hazardous waste registration fees. Regional recyclers provide collection
services and cosponsors include the Texas Agricultural Extension Service, the Texas Department of
Agriculture, the Brazos River Authority, Lower Colorado River Authority and local environmental groups.
-------
Texas Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
Spring 1992
1992 Subtotal
Spring 1993
Fall 1993
1993 Subtotal
Fall 1994
1994 Subtotal
Spring 1995
1995 Subtotal
Spring 1996
Fall 1996
1996 Subtotal
Spring 1997
Fall 1997
1997 Subtotal
Spring 1998
Fall 1998
Fall 98 floods
1998 Subtotal
Spring 1999 '
Fall 1999 2
1999 Subtotal
Spring 2000 3
2000 Subtotal
TOTAL
Number
of Sites
4
4
3
6
9
4
4
2
2
3
3
6
4
3
7
4
5
3
72
6
10
16
5
5
65
Quantity of
Pesticides
(tons)
197.28
197.28
84.93
254.30
339.23
138.36
138.36
66.52
66.52
186.26
48.34
234.60
74.79
64.19
138.98
78.08
28.74
25.6
132.42
143.66
132.03
275.69
51.83
51.83
1,574.91
Quantity of
Pesticides
(pounds)
394,560
394,560
169,860
508,600
678,460
276,720
276,720
133,040
133,040
372,520
96,680
469,200
149,580
128,380
277,960
156,160
57,480
51,200
264,840
287,320
264,060
551,380
103,660
103,660
3,149,820
Number of
Participants
284
284
139
515
654
324
324
220
220
366
213
579
344
156
500
307
126
142
575
2348
1272
3620
154
154
6,910
Average Quantity of
Pesticides
per Participant
(pounds per participant)
1,389
1,389
1,222
988
1,037
854
854
605
605
1,018
454
810
435
823
556
509
456
361
461
122
208
152
673
673
456
1 The spring 1999 collections included one urban household hazardous waste (HHW) event.
2 The fall 1999 collections included four rural HHW events.
3 The spring 2000 collections included two rural HHW events.
Information on program cost is not available.
-------
Texas Table 2 - Texas Country Clean Up and Empty Pesticide Container Collection Totals
Year*
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Totals
Number of
Participants
50
300
445
1,750
1,728
1,347
1,484
1,508
2,713
2,521
13,846
Number of
Collections
5
20
38
54
45
41
37
43
43
34
360
Number of
Containers
3,989
39,549
58,496
71,545
78,787
57,380
34,703
48,691
41,396
37,692
472,228
Number of
Tires
0
0
0
24,187
22,097
26,819
24,053
19,884
49,405
48,618
215,063
Amount of
Oil
(gallons)
0
0
0
32,248
31,994
27,620
27,255
38,098
37,313
28,743
223,271
Number
of Filters
0
0
0
36,968
36,949
46,670
49,621
62,660
55,660
55,035
343,563
Number of
Batteries
0
0
0
5,285
4,149
3,152
2,677
2,416
3,842
3,565
25,086
* Fiscal year, not calendar year.
-------
UTAH AT A GLANCE
Since 1993 Utah has conducted annual clean sweep collections with the Department
of Agriculture and Food as the lead agency. The program, currently funded through
pesticide registration fees, has collected over 145,000 pounds of pesticides.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1993
Permanently funded
30,000
§
1
I
| 20,000
o 15,000
.& 10,000
1 5,000
O)
o
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
26/iOO
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Amount collected
to date:
145,261 Ibs.
Program Funding
Collection Logistics
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Pesticide registration fees
No
Cost for 1993-2000 period was $394,887, an
average of $2.72 per pound
Single day events
Incineration
Yes if the container is unopened and label is legible
Adopted, authorized in 1999
Required
No
Farmers, ranchers, commercial applicators,
retailers, and golf course managers; city, state, and
federal parks and recreational facilities
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Tel: (801) 538-7187
Fax:(801)538-7189
agmain.callen@emaiLstate.ut.us
Clair Allen
Department of Agriculture and Food
350 North Redwood Road
P.O. Box 146500
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500
Website: http://ae.utah.gov/planrindyBesJ_arjBjhtrnl (State Pesticide Applicator
Training Guide, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
-------
Summary of Utah Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
The Utah Department of Agriculture has conducted annual pesticide collection programs since
1993. Preregistration is a requirement of the program. The Department of Agriculture and Food periodi-
cally surveys the agricultural community to monitor the amount of pesticides that needs to be collected.
Participants transport the pesticides, in containers provided by the Department of Agriculture and Food, to
a central site in the participant's region. Participants are protected from risk or penalty. Participation in the
program is free, and the Department does not keep any record of the participant upon completion of the
collection event. A contractor is responsible for collecting the pesticides at the central point and transporting
them to a disposal site. The Utah collection and disposal program will continue annually using the same
format.
Utah Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides
(pounds)
11,453
17,487
14,095
13,334
18,903
26,244
17,145
26,600
145,261
Number of
Participants
21
27
45
27
25
29
31
46
251
Average Quantity of
Pesticides per Participant
(pounds/participant)
545
648
313
494
756
905
552
578
579
Program
Cost
$51,539
$78,692
$49,333
$46,669
$47,258
$44,090
$36,832
$40,474
$394,887
Average Cost
(per pound)
$4.50
$4.50
$3.50
$3.50
$2.50
$1.68
$2.15
$1.52
$2.72
-------
VERMONT AT A GLANCE
Vermont first collected unwanted pesticides in 1991 and has collected them every
year since 1996. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Markets is the lead agency.
Pesticide registration fees currently fund the program, which has collected nearly
66,000 pounds of pesticides.
Collection History
^ Products collected:
;> Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides and household waste
1991
Permanently funded
35,000
30,000
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Amount collected
to date:
65,953 Ibs.
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
j Cost information:
Pesticide registration fees
No
Estimated at $2.00 per pound
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Single day events, permanent sites, and on-site pick
up
Incineration (95%) and landfill (5%)
Yes, attempting with golf courses
Adopted, authorized in 1999
Not required
Specific pesticides reported: Yes
Eligible participants: Fanners, commercial applicators, retailers, golf
course managers, and the public
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Tel: (802) 828-3479
Fax: (802) 828-2361
annie@agr.state.vt.us
Annie Macmillan
Vermont Department of Agriculture,
Food and Markets
116 State Street, Drawer 20
Montpelier, VT 05620-2901
Website: http://www.state.vtus/agpc/wastepest.htrn (Clean Sweep specific)
-------
Summary of Vermont Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
The state of Vermont held a program to collect and dispose of unwanted pesticides in 1991. In late
1995, the program became permanent and continuous. In 1997, for the first time, farmers and growers
were able to dispose of unwanted pesticides at no charge at hazardous waste collections. The Department
of Agriculture, Food and Markets established a policy to pay for disposal costs of unwanted and banned
pesticides from the collection of pesticide registration fees. Since 1996, Vermont has allocated $60,000 per
year to the Clean Sweep program. 2000 was the first year in which the entire allocation was spent.
Vermont's collection and disposal program works with assistance from 14 solid waste districts and
a few municipalities, with each district running two to twelve collection events per year. The Department of
Agriculture, Food and Markets contracts with each solid waste district to pay disposal costs. Each waste
district contracts with a waste hauler for transportation and disposal of the wastes. The program is open to
farmers, home owners and all other pesticide users in the state and is successful. From 1991 through 2000,
Vermont has collected a total of 65,953 pounds of pesticides. Vermont has information on the amountof
specific pesticides that have been collected, because reporting that information is a requirement for receiving
funding.
Agricultural chemical dealers run the container collections at their facilities. Dealers will take back
any triple-rinsed containers of products they sell to private and commercial applicators. The ACRC
provided a chipping machine to the dealers so that the containers can be chipped and recycled.
Vermont Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1991
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of Pesticides
(pounds)
17,900
4,363
3,640
3,125
8,925
28,000
65,953
Program Cost
no data
less than $60,000
less than $60,000
less than $60,000
less than $60,000
$60,000
NA
Average Cost
(per pound)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
$2.14
NA
Information on the number of participants is not tracked.
NA = not applicable
-------
VIRGINIA AT A GLANCE
Virginia conducted a pilot pesticide collection in 1990 and has collected pesticides
annually since 1992. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
cooperates with the Pesticide Control Board in managing this effort, which is
funded with pesticide registration fees and EPA grants. The program has collected
nearly 819,000 pounds of pesticides.
Collection History
£
s
Products collected:
ff. Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1990
Permanently funded
250,000
200,000
150,000
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
222,374
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Year
1999 2000
Amount collected
to date:
818,799 Ibs.
Program Funding
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Pesticide registration fees and EPA grants
No
Cost through 1999 is $1,795,067, an average of
$2.43 per pound
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
On-site pick up
Incineration and landfill
No
Adopted, authorized in 2000
Required
Yes
Farmers, commercial applicators, retailers, and
structural pest control firms
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Daniel J. Schweitzer
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Office of Pesticide Services
P.O. Box 1163
Richmond, VA 23218
Website: http://www.vdacs.state.va.us/pesticides/disposal.html
(Clean Sweep specific)
Tel: (804) 786-4845
Fax: (804) 371-8598
dschweitzer@vdacs.state.va.us
-------
Summary of Virginia Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, in cooperation with the Virginia
Pesticide Control Board, implemented a pilot Clean Sweep Program in late 1990 and has continued with
successful permanent programs, planned through 2002. With the conclusion of the 1998 Clean Sweep
Program, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services completed total coverage of the state.
Currently, a second round of collections is being undertaken with each Virginia locality (county/independent
city) having the opportunity to participate. To implement the second collections, Virginia was subdivided
into four regions with a Clean Sweep Program conducted in a different region annually between 1999-2002
and each locality within a region participating once during the four year period.
Clean Sweep programs are awarded to successful contractors, the most recent being Care
Environmental Corp. In addition to the normal collection and disposal functions, the contractor may visit
and inspect collection sites (pesticide storage facilities) prior to the actual collection event. In addition, the
contractor is required to visit and inspect collection sites determined by the Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services or Virginia Cooperative Extension as requiring special handling and/or packaging
including collection sites with spilled pesticides, open or deteriorating pesticide containers or collection sites
with questionable accessibility. Any unknown material above 5 gallons liquid or 50 pounds solid is sent to
the laboratory services of the Virginia Department of General Services, where it is analyzed to determine if it
is or contains a pesticide. If the analysis determines that the unknown is a pesticide or contains a pesticide,
the unknown is collected as part of the Clean Sweep Program.
Virginia employs an on-site pick up type of Clean Sweep Program, where the disposal contractor
visits the participants' facilities to package, manifest and transport the pesticide waste to EPA-licensed
disposal facilities. This approach requires participants to preregister to participate in the program. It eases
the burden on participants by not requiring them to package the pesticides and transport them to a central
collection facility.
From 1990 through 1999, funding for the direct disposal costs (i.e., not including travel) came from
the following sources:
Virginia Table 1 -1990-99 Disposal Funding
Funding Source
Pesticide Registration Fees
EPA Grants (all sources)
FIFRA
CWA Section 106
CWA Section 3 19
TOTAL
Amount
$804,993
$990,074
$510,674
$295,000
$184,400
$1,795,067
Percent of Total
44.8%
55.2%
28.5%
16.4%
10.3%
100.0%
-------
Virginia Table 2 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides
(pounds)
31,797
0
57,237
68,146
222,374
62,156
75,931
74,271
47,918
97,618
81,351
818,799
Number of
Participants
69
0
191
111
531
235
159
172
111
149
149
1,877
Average Quantity of
Pesticides per Participant
(pounds/participant)
461
NA
300
614
419
264
478
432
432
655
546
436
Program
Cost*
$158,977
NA
$225,264
$222,100
$624,983
$174,132
$144,024
$86,073
$60,559
$116,150
$103,620
$1,915,882
Average
Cost (per
pound)
$5.00
NA
$3.94
$3.26
$2.81
$2.80
$1.90
$1.16
$1.26
$1.19
$1.27
$2.34
* Cost includes disposal contractor, analysis of unknowns and cooperative extension support on a calendar year.
This is different than the costs in the first page of the profile, which are for disposal only.
NA = not applicable
-------
WASHINGTON AT A GLANCE
Since 1988 Washington has conducted annual clean sweep collections with the
Department of Agriculture as the lead agency. The program, currently funded
through the State Model Toxics Control Account, has collected over 1.0 million
pounds of agricultural pesticides.
Collection History
1. Products collected:
|\ Year of first collection:
f.' Program Status:
Agricultural pesticides; no household pesticides
1988
Permanently funded
^ 180,000
J 160,000
;r 140,000
I 120,000
J 100,000
§ 80,000
»> 60,0004**'
| 40,000 ~~
§ 20,000
O) 0
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Amount collected
to date:
1,079,759 Ibs.
Program Funding
Collection Logistics
Source:
Participant fee collected:
v Cost information:
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
State Model Toxics Control Account
No
2000 cost averaged $1.98 per pound including
cylinders
Single day events and on-site pick up of
certain materials
Incineration (most) and landfill (for pesticides
that cannot be incinerated)
No
Adopted, authorized in 2000 but not for pesticides
Required
Yes
Farmers, commercial applicators, retailers,
golf course managers, and others. All state
residents are eligible, although home consumer
pesticides are not accepted because most
counties have HHW programs
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Tel: (360) 902-2048
Fax: (360) 902-2093
jhoffman@agr.wa.gov
Joe Hoffman
Department of Agriculture
Pesticide Management Division
P.O. Box 42589
Olympia, WA 98504-2589
Website: http://www.wa.gov/agr/pmd/pesticides/collection.htm
(Clean Sweep specific)
-------
Summary of Washington Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) has operated the Waste Pesticide
Identification and Disposal Program since 1988. This program is fully funded from the state Model Toxics
Control Account, which was established by citizen's initiative in 1988. The pesticide disposal program
receives approximately 1.3% of the fund's revenues and has been highly successful in reducing the amount
of unusable pesticides. It has realized a dramatic decrease in disposal costs since the peak in the early
1990s.
The program consists of collection sites where customers dispose of unwanted pesticides free of
charge. The majority of pesticides are collected at regional events. Some pesticides, such as pressurized
cylinders, are collected at the customer's location due to special handling or safety requirements. The
collection program is open to farmers and anyone else who needs to dispose of agricultural pesticides. The
program, however, does not collect home consumer pesticides since most counties in the state have HHW
programs, which collect these exempt pesticides.
As of December 2000, the WSDA had collected and disposed of 1,079,759 pounds of unusable
pesticides including nearly 1,400 different types. The one million pound threshold was passed at a May
2000 collection and an award was presented to the customer who brought in the one millionth pound.
The WSDA is the generator and participants' names do not appear on any disposal documents. A
hazardous waste contractor packages the wastes for transport to a disposal facility, primarily a hazardous
waste incinerator in El Dorado, Arkansas. Lead arsenate and pesticides that cannot be incinerated are
stabilized and disposed of at permitted hazardous waste landfills.
The top four pesticides collected are dinoseb, DDT, 2,4-D and endrin. Others in the top ten are
malathion, parathion, sulfur, 2,4,5-T, captan and zineb. To date, the oldest verified waste pesticide
collected is a package of lead arsenate manufactured in 1913.
Washington Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides (pounds)
49,343
35,212
62,576
86,724
81,683
55,581
88,734
51,526
81,081
101,895
93,714
152,237
139,453
1,079,759
Number of
Participants
137
86
121
355
284
218
332
177
247
400
353
532
377
3,619
Average Quantity of Pesticides per
Participant (pounds/participant)
360
409
517
244
288
255
267
291
328
255
265
286
370
298
Information on program cost is not available.
-------
WEST VIRGINIA AT A GLANCE
From 1994 through 1998 West Virginia conducted annual clean sweep collections
with the Department of Agriculture as the lead agency. Pesticide registration fees
and the state currently fund the program, which has collected over 239,000 pounds
of pesticides.
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides
1994
Continuous, inactive
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
i.
•1
(3
£>
••s
f>n nnn
inn nnn
en nnn — ,
112.000
in onn
0 -
p^n
ffr
60^)00
; ^
31242
18^88 17,500 magogi.
, .
Amount collected
to date:
239,430 Ibs.
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Source:
| Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Pesticide registration fees and state funds
No
1996 cost averaged $1.57 per pound
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events
Incineration
Information not available
Adopted, authorized in 2000
Required
No
Farmers
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Tel: (304) 558-2209
Fax: (304) 558-2228
dhudson@ag.state.wv.us
Douglas Hudson
Department of Agriculture
Pesticide Regulatory Program
1900 Kanawha Boulevard East
Charleston, WV 25305-0190
Website: http://www.state.wv.us/agriculture/home/home.html
(Department of Agriculture, not specific to Clean Sweeps)
-------
Summary of West Virginia Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
In 1994, the Department of Agriculture, with grant funding, conducted a pilot AgChem Collection
Program in the eastern panhandle area. Preregistration was required and the unwanted pesticides were
collected from individual farms. Actual collections resulted in larger quantities than those recorded in the
preregistration inventory. As an example of the disparity, one farmer registered 100 pounds of pesticides.
Realizing it truly was an amnesty program, he provided an additional 5,000 pounds to the AgChem
Collection Program. The pilot program accounted for the collection of 56 tons of agricultural pesticides.
In 1995, the Eastern Panhandle and Potomac Valley Soil Conservation District provided a grant for
$25,000 to fund an AgChem Collection Program. Approximately 60,000 pounds of pesticides were
collected at a cost of $2.50 per pound. Participants, based on financial necessity, were selected on a first-
come-basis.
In 1996, the Department of Agriculture conducted a collection and disposal event using a ground
water grant. Because so few applicators participated, the program was "topped off with a collection from
a state prison farm and a defunct demonstration farm. A total of 18,688 pounds of pesticides was collected.
Cost of the program was $1.57 per pound.
West Virginia Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
TOTAL
Quantity of
Pesticides
(pounds)
112,000
60,000
18,688
17,500
31,242
239,430
Number of
Participants
no data
30
11
no data
25
More than 66
Average Quantity of
Pesticides per Participant
(pounds/participant)
NA
2,000
1,699
NA
1,250
1,666 for the years with data
Program
Cost
no data
$150,000
$29,340
no data
no data
NA
Average
Cost (per
pound)
NA
$2.50
$1.57
NA
NA
NA
NA = not applicable
-------
WISCONSIN AT A GLANCE
Since 1990 Wisconsin has conducted annual clean sweep collections with the
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) as the lead
agency. Pesticide registration fees, channeled through DATCP as competitive grants
to counties, fund the collections. The state has collected over 1.5 million pounds of
pesticides.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
Program Status:
Pesticides, household waste from farm households,
and non-pesticide chemicals from non-pesticide
businesses
1990
Permanently funded
_ 300,000
i. 250,000
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
240,499
254,000
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
year
Amount collected
to date:
1,523,995 Ibs.
Program Funding
Container Logistics
Source:
Participant fee collected:
Cost information:
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Pesticide registration fees and occasional EPA grants
No charge to farmers for first 200 pounds.
Businesses pay 50% of disposal costs
1999 cost was $272,079, an average of $1.80 per
pound
Single day events, permanent sites in ten counties,
and multi-county collections
Incineration (90%), landfill (7%), and
reclamation/reprocessing (3%)
Yes, allowed but not encouraged
Adopted, not yet authorized
Required for businesses, strongly encouraged for
farmers
Yes
Anyone with agricultural pesticides including
farmers, commercial applicators, retailers, golf
course managers, and the public
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes, the DATCP works with the Wisconsin
Fertilizer and Chemical Association
Tel: (608) 224-4545
Fax: (608) 224-4656
roger.springman@datcp.state.wi.us
Roger E. Springman
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,
Trade and Consumer Protection
P.O. Box 8911
Madison, WI53708-8911
Website: httD://datcp.state.wi.us/arm/agriculture/pest-fert/clean-sweep/
(Clean Sweep specific)
-------
Summary of Wisconsin Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
In 1998, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP)
celebrated the collection of its one millionth pound of waste pesticide. The program, which has operated
since 1990, expanded in 1996 to include agricultural businesses, golf courses, cooperatives, landscape
contractors and aerial applicators. DATCP funds the program through pesticide registration fees, and has
one full-time and one part-time staff coordinating the program.
The DATCP operates the Agricultural Clean Sweep as a competitive grants program for Wisconsin
counties, offering $560,400 annually. To receive a grant, counties must provide a $3,000 (minimum) cost-
share match, a local coordinator, volunteers to help with the collection, and a collection site. The state's
hazardous waste contractor must be used at all single-day events. The DATCP provides technical and
educational assistance along with grants of up to $22,000 for single-day events, which are used to pay the
program's waste hauler to transport the collected wastes for incineration. The average cost of a single-day
collection runs about $15,500.
The Department also offers grants to counties with permanent collection facilities. These counties
are eligible for grants of up to $30,000 per year and they can select their own waste hauler. A $3,000
services match can be substituted for the $3,000 cash requirement.
Counties are discouraged from creating local fee schedules for the collection of agricultural wastes.
All sites, both one-day and permanent, serve as collection sites for business or Very Small Quantity
Generator (VSQG) wastes. Businesses with agricultural pesticides for disposal can receive a 50% subsidy
from the Department upon the completion of necessary paperwork. Many counties have found it desirable
to offer HHW service at the same time they offer agricultural and business service.
Wisconsin inventories specific pesticides, and in 1998 confirmed that banned or canceled products
comprised nearly 20% of the waste stream. Some of the more common chemicals collected that year
included 2 tons of atrazine, 2.5 tons of 2,4-D, 1 ton of DDT, 2 tons of parathion and 1 ton of dioxin-
containing materials.
When Wisconsin expanded its program in 1996,42 agricultural businesses participated. The
DATCP considered this low, and learned from a survey that a new approach was needed. They created
partnerships with agricultural business associations, created a special 10% "sweetener", simplified pre-
registration procedures and reduced disposal prices. The business program increased the amount of staff
time needed for publicity, promotional material development and county coordination.
Permanent sites have posed an interesting challenge for Agricultural Clean Sweep. Most counties
begin these efforts believing that farmers will drive into urban areas to drop off chemicals. However, history
has shown that only a few farmers are willing to drive wastes into cities. Consequently, permanent facilities
have been strongly encouraged to create satellite sites and special "farm chemical collection weeks". This
has made a big difference in site performance.
Since 1992, the DATCP has worked with the Wisconsin Fertilizer and Chemical Association
(WFCA) to support its Plastic Pesticide Container Recycling Project. In 1998, the program collected and
chipped nearly 150,000 pounds of plastic from 55 dealer sites. WFCA has done an excellent job in
promoting this stewardship effort. Presently DATCP is cooperating with them in the collection and
incineration of mini-bulks. A pilot project in Rock County proved very successful in the fall of 2000.
-------
Wisconsin Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
TOTAL
Quantity of Pesticides
(pounds)
39,100
9,622
84,170
143,558
107,526
158,087
172,034
240,499
165,011
150,388
254,000
1,523,995
Number of
Participants
279
122
736
1,446
934
1,061
1,035
865
858
732
1,314
9,382
Average Quantity of Pesticides per
Participant (pounds/participant)
140
79
114
99
115
149
166
278
192
205
193
162
Information on program cost is not available.
-------
WYOMING AT A GLANCE
In 1992 Wyoming collected about 16,000 pounds of agricultural pesticides during an
EPA-funded pilot project collection, which involved several state agencies. Fanners
are not permitted to participate in the intermittent HHW collections held by
municipalities.
Collection History
Products collected:
Year of first collection:
^Jy Program Status:
Pesticides
1 992
Once
Quantity Collected (Ibs.)
1O,UUU
15,UUU
i-> An A
o n«fl
O,OUO
3 (¥¥>
n
Quantity of Pesticides Collected
16/100
Amount collected
to date:
16,000 Ibs.
-f „ r . _T - --- -j ! -_! v-
Pre 1989 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Program Funding
Source:
%$ Participant fee collected:
; Cost information:
EPA grants
No
Information not available
Collection Logistics
Method of collection:
Disposal method:
Exchange program:
1995 Universal Waste rule:
Pre-registration:
Specific pesticides reported:
Eligible participants:
Single day events
Incineration
Yes
Adopted, not yet authorized
Required
No
Farmers, ranchers, commercial applicators, and the
public
Container Collection
Contact Information
Existing program:
Yes
Tel: (307) 777-6590
Fax: (307) 777-6593
tlink@missc.state.wy.us
Jim Bigelow
Wyoming Department of Agriculture
2219 Carey Avenue
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Website: http://wyagric.state.wy.us/ (Department of Agriculture, not specific to
Clean Sweeps)
-------
Summary of Wyoming Waste Pesticide Disposal Program
In 1992, Wyoming held an agricultural pesticide collection day for farmers and ranchers in five
counties. The project involved the Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture,
University of Wyoming, Conservation Districts, and Wyoming Weed & Pest Council. A total of 40 farmers
and ranchers participated and 37 drums/containers of waste were collected. (This was estimated to be
about 16,000 pounds, assuming 27 of them were 55-gallon drums and 10 were 30-gallon drums.)
Since the 1992 event, Wyoming has not held a state-directed agricultural collection and disposal
program. Funding has not been available.
Some household hazardous waste programs are conducted at the city level, but not on a regular
basis. Normally, these household waste programs do not permit farmer participation.
Wyoming Table 1 - Quantity of Pesticides Collected
Year
1992
TOTAL
Quantity of Pesticides
(pounds)
16,000 (estimated)
16,000 (estimated)
Number of
Participants
40
40
Average Quantity of Pesticides per
Participant (pounds/participant)
400
400
Information on program cost is not available.
-------
Appendix II - Pesticides That are RCRA-Listed Hazardous Wastes
RCRA ID
Pesticide
RCRA F List: Hazardous Wastes from Non-specific Sources [261.31]
F027
F027
F027
pentachlorophenol
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
F027
F027
F027
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
2,4,5-T
Silvex
RCRA P List: Discarded Commercial Chemical Products, Acute Hazardous Wastes [261.33(e)]
P003
P070
P203
P004
P005
P006
POOS
P010
P011
P012
P021
P127
P022
P189
P024
P202
P030
P033
P034
P037
P040
acrolein
aldicarb
aldicarb sulfone
aldrin
allyl alcohol
aluminum phosphide
4-aminopyridine
arsenic acid
arsenic pentoxide
arsenic trioxide
calcium cyanide
carbofuran
carbon disulfide
carbosulfan
p-chloroaniline
m-cumenyl methylcarbamate
cyanides
cyanogen chloride
2-cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
dieldrin
O, O-diethyl O-pyrazinyl
phosphorothioate (Zinophos)
P197
P059
P063
P192
P196
P199
P066
P071
P128
P072
P075
P085
P194
P089
P092
P094
P098
P201
PI 02
P105
P106
formparanate
heptachlor
hydrogen cyanide (hydrocyanic acid)
isolan
manam (manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate)
methiocarb
methomyl
methyl parathion
mexacarbate
alpha-naphthylthiourea
nicotine and salts
octamethylpyrophosphoramide
oxamyl
parathion (ethyl)
phenylmercury acetate (PMA)
phorate
potassium cyanide
promecarb
propargyl alcohol
sodium azide
sodium cyanide
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
P044
P191
P047
P048
P020
P039
P050
P088
P051
P097
P057
P198
dimethoate
dimetilan
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol and salts
2,4-dinitrophenol
dinoseb
disulfoton
endosulfan
endothall
endrin
famphur
fluoroacetamide
formetanate hydrochloride
P058
P108
P109
Pill
PI 15
P045
P185
P123
P001
P122
P205
sodium fluoroacetate
strychnine and salts
tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate (Sulfotepp)
tetraethyl pyrophosphate (TEPP)
thallium sulfate
thiofanox
tirpate
toxaphene
warfarin (concentrations > 0.3%)
zinc phosphide
ziram
RCRA U List: Discarded Commercial Chemical Products, Toxic Wastes [261.33(f>]
U002
U009
U011
U280
U278
U271
U019
U136
U279
U372
U367
U211
U034
U036
U037
U038
U039
acetone
acrylonitrile
amitrole
barb an
bendiocarb
benomyl
benzene
cacodylic acid
carbaryl
carbendazim
carbofuran phenol
carbon tetrachloride
chloral (hydrate)
chlordane
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzilate
4-chloro-m-cresol
U127
U130
U131
U132
U134
U140
U142
U144
U129
U148
U151
U247
U154
U029
U045
U159
U161
hexachlorobenzene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
hexachloroethane
hexachlorophene
hydrofluoric acid
isobutyl alcohol
Kepone
lead acetate
lindane
maleic hydrazide
mercury
methoxychlor
methyl alcohol (methanol)
methyl bromide
methyl chloride
methyl ethyl ketone
methyl isobutyl ketone
-------
Appendix
U044
U048
U049
U051
U052
U056
U057
U240
U060
U061
U062
U066
U069
U070
U072
U075
U025
U083
U084
U028
U102
U041
U112
U067
U077
U115
U122
U125
chloroform
o-chlorophenol
4-chloro-o-toluidine
creosote
cresylic acid (cresols)
cyclohexane
cyclohexanone
2,4-D
ODD
DDT
diallate
1 ,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane
dibutyl phthalate
o-dichlorobenzene
p-dichlorobenzene
dichlorodifluoromethane
dichloroethyl ether
1,2-dichloropropane (propylene
dichloride)
1 ,3-dichloropropene
diethylhexyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
ethyl acetate
ethylene dichloride
ethylene oxide
formaldehyde
furfural
U080
U165
U169
U170
U184
U185
U188
U087
U192
U373
U411
U196
U201
U203
U205
U207
U209
U410
U409
U244
U220
U389
U226
U228
U121
U248
U239
U249
methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
naphthalene
nitrobenzene
p-nitrophenol
pentachloroethane
pentachloronitrobenzene
phenol
phosphoric acid, O,O-diethyl,methyl ester
pronamide (propyzamide)
propham
propoxur
pyridine
resorcinol
safrole
selenium sulfide (selenium disulfide)
1 ,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene
1,1,2,2- tetr achloroethane
thiodicarb
thiophanate-methyl
thiram
toluene
triallate
1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)
trichloroethvlene
trichloromonofluorormethane
warfarin (concentrations ,= 0.3%)
xylene
zinc phosphide
-------
Appendix 111 * Sample Contract
Note: EPA deleted specific references to the state and the contractor and replaced those references with [State] and
[contractor].
1. PARTIES
A. The [ State ] Department of Agriculture (hereafter Department).
B. [The Contractor] (hereafter Contractor).
2. TERM OF CONTRACT
This contract is effective from the date of final signature until all the terms of this contract are
satisfied.
3. STATEMENT OF SERVICES
The Contractor agrees to perform the services provided, in this contract.
The parties agree that the Contractor is and assumes the responsibilities of, the generator of the waste
collected under this contact, based on the following:
1. The Contractor is a corporation engaged in the business of collection, storage, transportation, and
disposal of waste; and the Contractor has technical expertise in such business and all licenses required
to perform the business.
2. the Contractor's technical expertise was critical to the Department's determination to enter into this
contract with the Contractor.
3. The Contractor is responsible for the final treatment/disposal of all materials collected pursuant to this
contract.
4. The Contractor makes all necessary decisions and determinations regarding the arrangements for
collection, storage, transportation, and disposal of waste, except as herein specifically stated. The
responsibilities of the Contractor for these decisions and determinations are included in the following
provisions of this contact:
§10. INDEMNITY
§ 12. SUPERVISION AND COORDINATION
§ 22. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
§ 24. MATERIALS AND SERVICES
§ 28. SPILL RESPONSIBILITIES
§29. SAFETY
§ 33. CONTRACTOR'S DUTIES
§ 34. EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL FOR LOADING
§ 36. WASTE RECORDS AND PACKAGING
§ 37. MANIFESTING, SHIPPING, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
DOCUMENTATION
§ 39. HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANSPORTATION
§ 40. FINAL TREATMENT/DISPOSAL
4. CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIVE
A. Responsibility Contractor's representative shall function as the primary point of contact, shall ensure
supervision and coordination and shall take corrective action as necessary to meet contractual
requirements.
-------
Appendix HI
B. Availability Contractor's representative, or designee, shall be available at all times throughout the term
of the contract.
A. In the event of conflict between contract documents and applicable laws, codes, ordinances,
regulations, or orders or in the event of any conflict between such applicable laws, ordinances,
regulations, or orders, the most stringent or legally binding requirement shall govern and be considered
as a part of this contract in order to afford the Department the maximum benefits thereof.
B. Any provision of this document found to be prohibited by law shall be ineffective to the extent of such
prohibition without invalidating the remainder of the contract.
6. NONDISCRIMINATION AND AFFtRMATTVE ACTION
Contractor shall abide by the terms and conditions of Section 601. Title VI. Civil Rights Act of 1964, as may be
amended:
In that "No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex or age, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of ,or be subject to discrimination under any program
or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. In addition, "No otherwise qualified handicapped
individual in the United States shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal
financial assistance."
Unless exempted by Presidential Executive Order #11246, as may be amended or replaced and applicable
regulations thereunder, Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment.
7. MINORITY AND WOMEN'S BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (MWBE1
MWBE requirements are incorporated into this contract.
8. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES
In the event of any claim for default or breach of contract, no provisions in this contract shall be construed,
expressly or by implication, as a waiver by the Department of any existing or future right and/or remedy available
by law. Failure of the Department to insist upon the strict performance of any term or condition of the contract or
to exercise or delay the exercise of any right or remedy provided in the contract or by law, or the acceptance of
(or payment for) materials, equipment or services, shall not release the Contractor from any responsibilities or
obligations imposed by this contract or by law, and shall not be deemed a waiver of any right of the Department
to insist upon the strict performance of the contract. Acceptance by the Department of unsatisfactory
performance with or without objection or reservation shall not waive the right to claim damage for breach nor
constitute a waiver of requirements for satisfactory performance of any obligation remaining to be performed by
Contractor.
9. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Any disputes arising under this contract will be resolved under [State] law.
10. INDEMNITY
A. Contractor shall indemnify, defend and save harmless the State of [State] (hereafter State), the [State]
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
Department of Transportation, the Department, their agents and employees, from any claims, demands,
suits, actions, proceedings, losses, costs and damages of every kind and description, including any
attorneys' fees and/or litigations expenses, which may be brought or made against or incurred by the
State, the [State] Department of Transportation, the Department, their agents and employees, on
account of losses of or damage to any property or for injuries to or death of any person, caused by,
arising out of, or contributed to, in whole or in part, by reasons of any act, omission, professional error,
fault, mistake or negligence of Contractor, Contractor's employees, agents, representatives or
subcontractor, their employees, agents or representatives in connection with or incidental to the
performance of this contract, or arising out of Worker's Compensation claims, Unemployment
Compensation claims or Unemployment Disability Compensation claims of employees of Contractor
and/or subcontractors or claim under similar such laws or obligations.
B. Contractor shall pay all attorney's fees and expenses incurred by the State, the [State] Department of
Transportation, and the Department in establishing and enforcing their rights under this paragraph,
whether or not suit is instituted. In the event a suit is initiated or judgment is entered against the State,
the [State] Department of Transportation, or the Department, their agents or employees, the Contractor
shall indemnify them for all costs and expenses, including legal fees and any judgment arrived at or
satisfied or settlement entered.
C Upon receipt of wastes at the collection sites, the Contractor assumes full accountability and physical
custody for such wastes. Neither the State, the [State] Department of Transportation, nor the
Department assumes liability for any damage to the property of the Contractor, to the property of any
person, or public property or for personal injuries, illness, disabilities or death to the Contractor,
Contractor's employees, and any other person subject to the Contractor's control or any other person
including members of the general public, caused, in whole or in part, by (a) Contractor's breach of any
term or provision of this contract; or (b) any negligent or willful act or omission of the Contractor, its
employees or subcontractors in the performance of this contract. The Contractor agrees to indemnify,
save harmless and defend the State, the [State] Department of Transportation, the Department, then-
agents and employees, from and against any and all liabilities, claims, penalties, forfeitures, suits and
the costs and expenses incident thereto (including costs of defense, settlement and reasonable
attorneys fees), which it may hereafter incur, become responsible for, or pay out as a result of acts or
omissions covered by (a) or (b) within this paragraph.
D. Contractor will be liable for all costs, penalties, and obligations, including remediation, that may be
imposed for generation, collection, storage, transportation, arranging for disposal and disposal, or
remediation of the waste collected under this contract. Contractor shall indemnify, defend and save
harmless the State of [State], the [State] Department of Transportation, the Department, their agents and
employees, from any claims, demands, suits, actions, proceedings, losses, costs and damages of every
kind and description, including any attorneys' fees and/or litigation expenses, which may be brought or
made against or incurred by the State, the [State] Department of Transportation, the Department, their
agents and employees, for liability under any and all federal and state environmental laws, including but
not limited to:
1. [State] Hazardous Waste Management Act (citation) and [State] Hazardous Waste Rules
(citation).
2. Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA).
3. Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980(CERCLA).
-------
Appendix 131
4. Federal Hazardous Material Transportation Regulations (49 C.F.R. Parts 171,172,173. and 177
for hazardous materials transportation regulations).
5. Water Pollution Control Act (citation).
6. Solid Waste Management Act and Solid Waste Management Rules (citation).
11. PERSONAL LIABILITY
No official, officer, employee or agent of the State, including the Department, shall be personally liable or
responsible for any covenant or agreement herein contained whether expressed or implied, nor for any statement
or representation made herein or in any connection with this contract.
12. SUPERVISION AND COORDINATION
Contractor shall:
A. Competently and efficiently supervise and direct the implementation and completion of all contract
requirements.
B. Promote and offer only those materials, equipment and/or services as allowed for by
contractual requirements.
13. ADVERTISING
The Contractor may refer to this Contract in future solicitations, newsletters and similar publications.
14. SUBCONTRACTS/ASSIGNMENT
Contractor shall not subcontract or assign its obligations under this contract without the prior written consent of
the Department and, if such subcontracting is approved, all requirements of the contract apply to subcontrac-
tors. The Department reserves the right to prohibit the Contractor from employing the services of a subcontrac-
tor. The use of subcontractors does not relieve the Contractor of any requirement set forth herein and the
Contractor is responsible for insuring that any subcontractor performs in accordance with all of the terms and
conditions of this contract.
15. TAXES AND FEES
A. Contractor shall pay and maintain in current status all taxes which are necessary for contract
performance.
B. The Contractor shall pay and maintain in current status, any license fees, assessments,
permit charges, etc., which are necessary for contract performance. It is the Contractor's sole
responsibility to monitor and determine any changes or the enactment of subsequent regulations for
fees, assessments or charges and to immediately comply with changes or regulations during the entire
terms of this contract.
16. CHANGES
This contract may be amended only by written mutual agreement of the parties.
17. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS
The Department reserves the right to add or delete items such as agricultural pesticides and waste pesticide
containers or site locations. Added items or locations will not represent a significant increase or decrease in size
or scope of the contract.
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
18. CONTRACT SUSPENSION
The Department may at any time and without cause, suspend the contract or any portion thereof, for a period of
not more than thirty (30) calendar days, by written notice to the Contractor. Contractor shall resume performance
within fifteen (15) calendar days written notice from the Department.
19. TERMINATION
A. Termination for Convenience. The Department may terminate this contract, in whole or in part, at any
time and for any reason by giving written termination notice to Contractor. Upon such termination, the
only damages to which contractor is entitled are: (1) a sum computed and substantiated in accordance
with standard accounting practices for those reasonable costs incurred by Contractor prior to the date
of termination for orderly phase out of performance as requested by the Department in order to minimize
the costs of the termination; and (2) a reasonable profit for such work performed. However, the
Department shall not be liable to the Contractor for any anticipated profits on the terminated portion of
the contract, or claims of unabsorbed overhead or other fixed costs. In no event shall the Department
become liable to pay any sum in excess of the price of this contract for the terminated services.
B. Termination for Breach. Except in the case of delay or failure resulting from circumstances beyond the
control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor or of the Contractor's suppliers or
subcontractors, the Department shall be entitled, by written or oral notice, to cancel this contract in its
entirety or in part, for breach of any of the terms, and to have all other rights against Contractor by
reason of Contractor's breach as provided by law. A breach shall mean, but shall not he restricted to,
any one or more of the following events: (1) Contractor fails to perform the services by the date required
or by such later date as may be agreed to in a written amendment to the contract signed by the
Department; (2) Contractor breaches any warranty, or fails to perform or comply with any term or
agreement in the contract; (3) Contractor makes any general assignment for the benefit of creditors; (4)
in the Department's opinion. Contractor becomes insolvent or in an unsound financial condition so as
to endanger performance of the contract; (5) Contractor becomes the subject of any proceeding under
any law relating to bankruptcy, insolvency or reorganization or relief from debtors; (6) any receiver,
trustee or similar official is appointed for Contractor or any of Contractor's property; or (7) the
Department is not satisfied with the Contractor's performance of the contract. If it is subsequently
found that Contractor was not in breach, the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same as if
a Notice of Termination had been issued pursuant to subparagraph 19.A.
C Termination by Mutual Agreement. The Department and the Contractor may terminate this contract in
whole or in pant at any time, by mutual agreement in writing.
D. Termination by Misrepresentation. Contractor shall not misrepresent the scope of this contract.
Misrepresentation is cause for contract termination.
20. NOTICE OFDEFAULT
If the Department chooses, it may issue a written notice of default providing a period in which Contractor shall
have an opportunity to cure the default. Time allowed for cure shall not diminish or eliminate Contractor's
liability for liquidated or other damages.
21. LEGALEEES
The Contractor agrees that in the event suit is instituted by the Department for any default on the pan of the
Contractor, and the Contractor is adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be in default, Contractor shall
pay to the Department all costs, expenses expended or incurred by the Department and reasonable attorneys
fees.
-------
Appendix III
22. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
The Contractor shall perform as an independent entity under this agreement. The Contractor, its employees,
agents and representatives are not employees of the State. No part of this agreement shall be construed to
represent the creation of an employer/employee relationship. The Department does not have the right to control
the manner in which the work is completed or other details of the work except to the extent specified by this
contract.
23. INSURANCE
A. General Requirements. Contractor shall, at its own expense, obtain and keep in force insurance until
completion of the contract. By March, 3,1997, the Contractor shall furnish the Department certificates
of insurance and a certified copy of all required insurance policies. Failure to provide proof of insurance
as required will result in cancellation of the contract. All required insurance must be an occurrence
policy which ensures coverage for the period of insurance even if the claim is made after the insurance
period, except for General Liability and Pollution Liability coverage that are written on a Claims Made
form and shall include die following:
1. The "Retro Date" must be shown, and must be before the date of the Contract or the
beginning of Contract work.
2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5)
years after completion of the Contract, or earlier termination thereof.
3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims made policy form
with a "Retro Date" prior to the effective date of the Contract, the Contractor must purchase
"extending reporting" coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract
work.
4. A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to the Department for review.
B. Specific Requirements
(1) Workers Compensation. The Contractor shall certify that its operations are covered by the [State]
State Workers Compensation Fund, and provide the corresponding account numbers to the Department
by March 4,1997. If self-insured, Contractor shall provide proof of insurance including certificate of
qualification number.
(2) Commercial General Liability
a. Description Each Occurrence Aggregate
-General Liability: $5,000,000 $10,000,000
Combined Bodily Injury
and Property Damage
Description Each Occurrence
-Automobile: $1,000,000
Combined Bodily Injury
and Property Damage
b. Insurance policy(ies) shall include the following provisions:
1. The Contractor's policy(ies) shall be primary over any other valid and collectible
insurance.
2. A thirty (30) calendar day written notice shall be given to the Department prior to
termination of or my material changes to the policy(ies) as it relates to the contract:
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
provided that a thirty (30) calendar day written notice shall be given for surplus line
insurance cancellation: and in the event of cancellation for nonpayment of premiums,
such notice shall not be less than ten (10) calendar days prior to such date.
c. The insurance coverage provided shall protect against claims for personal injury; bodily injury,
including illness, disease and death: and property damage caused by an occurrence arising
out of or in consequence of the performance of this Contract by the Contractor or
subcontractor or anyone employed by either.
d. The limits of all insurance required to be provided by the Contractor shall be no less than the
minimum amounts specified. However coverage in the amount of these minimum limits shall
not be construed to relieve the Contractor from liability in excess of such limits.
(3) Pollution Liability Insurance. The Contractor shall obtain Pollution Liability Insurance, including
environment impairment liability endorsements, in the minimum amount of $2,000,000 per occurrence
and $4,000,000 tn aggregate, inclusive of legal defense costs.
(4) The State shall be an additional insured.
24. MATERIALS AND SERVICES
The Contractor shall furnish all materials, equipment and/or services necessary to perform the requirements of
this contract. The Contractor shall also furnish appropriate personal protective equipment for up to six
representatives of the Department. Materials and work in the construction of equipment for this contract shall
conform to ah1 codes, regulations, and requirements for such equipment. Materials shall be manufactured in
accordance with the best commercial practices and standards for this type of equipment.
25. RETENTIONOFRECORDS
Contractor shall retain all records relating to this contract for a period often (10) years following the date of final
payment. The record retention period is automatically extended in the event of any civil, criminal or administra-
tive action. Any authorized representative of the state or federal government shall have access to and the right
to examine, audit, excerpt, copy, and transcribe all records related to this contract.
26. OSHA REQUIREMENTS
Contractor agrees to comply with conditions of the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA),
as may be amended, if it has a workplace within the State, the standards and regulations issued thereunder and
certifies that all services and items furnished and purchased under this contract will conform to and comply with
said standards and regulations. Contractor further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Department from
all damages assessed against the Department as a result of Contractor's failure to comply with the acts and
standards thereunder and for the failure of the services and items furnished under this contract to so comply.
27. COMPLIANCE WITH HEALTH AND SAFETY. ENVIRONMENTAL AND TR ANSPORTATTON REGULATIONS
Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including the
following laws and regulations as may be amended, and any standards and regulations which may be promul-
gated thereunder. Contractor certifies that both services and items furnished under this contract will comply with
all applicable federal and state laws, standards and regulations.
-------
Appendix H!
Contractor further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the State, Department, employees and agents from all
damages assessed against the State, Department, employees, and agents as a result of Contractor's failure to
comply with all applicable federal and state laws, standards, and regulations including, but not limited to, the
following laws and regulations:
A. [State] Hazardous Waste Management Act (citation) and [State] Hazardous Waste Rules (citation).
B. Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA)
C. Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA).
D. Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
E Federal Hazardous Material Transportation Regulations (49 C.ER. Parts 171,172,173 and 177 for
hazardous materials transportation regulations).
F. Water Pollution .Control Act (citation).
G Solid Waste Management Act and Solid Waste Management Rules (citation).
28. SPTIJ .RESPONSIBILITIES
A. The Contractor is solely responsible for any and all spills or leaks during the performance of this
Contract which occur as a result of or are contributed to by the actions of its agents, employees, or
subcontractors. The Contractor agrees to reasonably, evacuate and warn those persons who may be
affected by the spill and Contractor shall clean up such spills or leaks to the satisfaction of the
Department and in a manner that complies with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
The cleanup shall he at no cost to the Department. If the spill should occur within [State], the Contractor
shall immediately contact the State's emergency spill response personnel at (phone number).
B. If directed by the Department, the Contractor shall take surface water and/or soil samples before, during,
or after the collection events using standard sampling procedures to adequately represent the collection
area. Quality assurance and quality control shall he maintained of any samples taken. The potential
nature of spills that may occur and conditions may vary from site to site. Sampling will be conducted if
potential remediation is identified by the Department, and the cost of sampling will he paid for by the
Contractor. The determination of the need for analyses of the samples shall he made by the Department
within seventy-two (72) hours. The parameters to be tested would be determined by the nature of the
spill.
C. The Contractor shall immediately report by telephone all spills or leaks, regardless of their quantity to the
Department. A written follow-up report shall be submitted to the Department not later than seven (7) days
after the initial telephonic report. The written report shall be in narrative form and as a minimum include
the following:
(1) Description of waste spilled (including identity, quantity, manifest number).
(2) Amount spilled and whether it is EPA/state reportable, and if so, whether it was reported.
(3) Exact time and location of spill, including a description of the area involved.
(4) Containment procedures initiated.
(5) The direction and estimated speed of the wind and estimated temperature at the time of the spill.
(6) Summary of any communications Contractor has had with press or other government officials.
(7) Description of clean-up procedures employed or to be employed at the site, including disposal
location of spill residue.
(8) Any witnesses involved and names of all individuals involved in preparing any
reports required by this part.
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
29. SAFETY
Contractor must have and maintain an adequate health and safety program to safeguard people and property
from injury or damage. The Contractor must perform all operations in a prudent, conscientious, safe and
professional manner. At a minimum, Contractor personnel and equipment shall comply with applicable federal
and state laws, safety regulations and procedures, and will ensure that its agents, employees, and subcontrac-
tors perform in a safe manner. The Contractor shall ensure that all personnel involved in handling and packaging
the hazardous waste be trained for the level of expertise required for the proper performance of the task and, in
particular, in the areas of chemical incompatibility, general first aid procedures and spills. Personnel protective
equipment shall be provided by the Contractor and must be appropriate to ensure safe handling of the hazardous
waste. The Contractor agrees that its personnel and equipment are subject to safety inspections by the State.
The Contractor shall provide the Department safety and emergency plans for each collection event prior to the
collection event(s). The Contractor shall conduct safety meetings at each collection site to ensure the Contractor
and Department personnel are familiar with and understand the health and safety plan and site layout, including
location of emergency equipment and the chemical handling area.
The Contractor should be prepared to provide an emergency response capability to control and cleanup an
accident/spill that may occur by program participants en route to the site location.
30. PERMITS
Contractor shall, without additional expense to the Department, secure and maintain any licenses and permits
necessary for compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, rules or ordinances. These shall include, but
not be limited to, the following:
A. RCRA and State permits for storage, treatment, and disposal facilities.
B. EPA identification numbers and any permits necessary for transportation of hazardous waste in [State]
and any other states through which wastes will be transported.
C. Provide documentation that scales to be used during collection program have been tested and
approved by a state weights and measures agency or have the scales certified by the [appropriate State
agency] prior to the collections.
31. COLLECTION SITE SPECIFIC LOCATIONS AND CONDITIONS
The collection events will be conducted in sequence at locations in [the state] as specified in writing by the
Department. There will be a minimum of five collection locations. The Contractor should assume that there is no
water, electrical power, or communications equipment at the collection sites,
32. COLLECTION SITE PREPARATION AND RESTORATION
The Contractor is responsible for setup and the restoration of each collection site to the satisfaction of the
Department. The Contractor shall coordinate plans for setup, preparation, and operation with the Department.
Prior to the collection event, the waste handling/work area of each collection site shall be surrounded by a berm
adequate to contain any spilled waste and a plastic tarp shall be placed over this area.
The Contractor is responsible for placing and removing the berm material and for providing the necessary
equipment to do so. The Contractor will evaluate the participants load condition prior to unloading to determine
the potential for spillage while unloading, and if the materials and conditions warrant, the vehicle unloading area
shall be covered with an impermeable material able to keep spilled materials from contacting the surface area.
Collection sites will be restored by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the Department.
-------
Appendix 111
33. CONTRACTOR'S DUTIES
Contractor shall:
A. Attend any organizational meeting(s) as required by the Department prior to the pesticide collection
days.
B. Make an on-site inspection of each collection site.
C. Be responsible for site safety, preparation, security and restoration including placement of berms, and
tarping adequate for spill containment and cleanup, and inclement weather.
D. Provide twenty-four hour site security personnel from site set up to completion of site restoration.
E Clearly mark the chemical handling area. Establish and monitor ingress and egress for the area,
F. Post signs indicating that participants are to remain in their vehicles; no smoking, eating or drinking;
eye wash and shower locations; and fire extinguisher locations.
G Place cones to show traffic pattern for entering and exiting collection site.
R Unload vehicles, sort, inventory, package, store and arrange for the final treatment or disposal of all
collected waste and transporting of the waste to treatment and disposal facilities.
I. All waste materials are to be packed by the end of each collection event and transported off-site the
same day, or the following day with Department approval.
J. Keep records for each waste source including pesticide wastes by trade/generic name and amounts
collected for each collection event. Participants' registration forms will be provided to the Contractor
prior to the events.
K. Assign U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
hazardous waste numbers.
L Provide all materials necessary to labpack or overpack the wastes, e.g., drums, absorbent, labels, tools;
any item not mentioned, but required. Prepare labpacks and overpacks for treatment or disposal.
M. Prepare drum inventory lists, shipping labels or manifests, and waste profiles as required.
N. The bulking procedures shall be conducted only after the collection is completed, and participants have
left the site.
O. Transport wastes to licensed treatment or disposal facility and contract for and ensure the wastes final
disposal or treatment.
34. EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL FORLOADING
The Department will not provide equipment nor personnel to assist the Contractor to load its truck(s) at the time
of waste collection. It is the Contractor's responsibility to provide necessary equipment and personnel to
complete the collection. Loading may be performed before or after State's normal work hours, on Saturdays,
Sundays or holidays, with prior approval from the Department.
35. WASTE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
A. The Contractor will identify all unknown pesticide wastes through field hazardous waste characteriza-
tion "Hazcat" tests and profile as required for acceptance by facilities for final treatment or disposal. If a
particular pesticide waste must be sampled for laboratory analysis, the Contractor shall immediately
notify the Department, and shall establish appropriate documentation.
B. If samples are submitted for laboratory analysis, these samples shall be handled, sorted, and analyzed in
accordance with appropriate sampling and laboratory practices in accordance with State and EPA. The
Contractor or Contractor's laboratory will strictly adhere to prescribed methods, including provisions
for sample preparation, prescribed equipment, detection limits and quality assurance and quality control
procedures.
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
C. Written analysis results must be submitted to the Department within fourteen (14) calendar days of
sample submission. Rush analyses must be completed within forty-eight (48) hours of sample
submission.
D. The Contractor must identify any wastes from the registration forms which may not be accepted by any
treatment or disposal facility. The Contractor will be responsible for all waste collected to ensure proper
and appropriate treatment or disposal.
E Waste includes the containers as provided by participants during collection events.
36. WASTE RECORDS AND PACKAGING
A. The Contractor shall provide a complete log of the waste by source, shipping container device and
number, weight or volume, waste characteristic(s) and the destination facility adequate to fully account
for all waste material from the point of collection (source) to the point of reuse, recycling, treatment or
disposal.
B. If any storage facilities are expected to be used, the Contractor will notify the Department of these
facilities, and provide a description of the facilities, including state and Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 USC section 6901 et seq.) permit status.
C The Contractor shall label and mark containers as required by [State regulation citation] and 40 C.F.R
Part 262.
37. MANIFESTING SHIPPING. TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL DOCUMENTATION
A. The Contractor will comply with the manifest system of record keeping as required in [State regulation
citation] and by 40 C.F.R. Parts 262 and 263. A current uniform hazardous waste manifest or manifest
required by the consignment state is required for removal of all hazardous wastes from the collection
sites.
B. The Contractor shall provide and prepare all manifests. If necessary, several manifests may be prepared
from each location. The manifest will be reviewed, and approved by a representative of the Department
prior to or at the time of waste pick up. Manifests shall be submitted as prescribed by the State and EPA
regulations.
C The following documents are to be returned to the Department by the Contractor.
(1) A copy of the signed manifests within 24 hours of the Contractor/Generator's signature.
(2) Certificates of treatment and/or disposal signed by a responsible Disposal Facility
Official within thirty (30) days of receipt of signed manifest. If a certificate of disposal is
not available within thirty (30) days, the Department requires an estimate, submitted in writing
of when the waste will be treated and/or disposed. This estimate must be submitted within
thirty (30) days and the estimated final date of treatment or disposal must be within six (6)
months. A certificate of disposal is required by the Department when the waste is ultimately
treated or disposed.
38. REPORTS AND DOCUMENTATION
The Contractor shall promptly complete the following reports. All reports required under this section must be
thoroughly and accurately completed to the satisfaction of the Department
A. All records of wastes received during the collection events and manifests prepared must be submitted
to the Department within ten (10) days of completion of the collection events.
B. A spill incident report for each spill containing the information of [State regulation citation].
-------
Appendix III
C. Any deviation of more than ten (10) days from the project schedule provided in the Contract and the
cause for such deviation.
D. Any land ban exemption notifications provided to EPA.
E Manifest discrepancy reports, if necessary.
F. Certificates of final treatment and/or disposal.
G A final report summarizing all activities which occurred during the project period must he completed
after final treatment/disposal of all wastes received during the collection events and prior to final
payment
H. Provide documentation that scales can be certified for use in [the state].
39. HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANSPORTATION
A. Contractor agrees to provide the Department with the name, address, EPA identification number and a
brief description of each of the hazardous waste transporters it intends to use in the performance of this
contract. The Contractor shall provide the Department with the hauling permit numbers for each
transporter for each of the states, in addition to the State of [State], in which the transporter will
operate. Contractor agrees that no transporter other than those listed will be used without obtaining the
prior written approval of the Department.
B. Placarding of each transportation vehicle will be in compliance with [State regulation citation] and by
C.F.R. Part 262. In the event of a discharge of the waste during transportation, the Contractor shall take
immediate action to protect public health and the environment as required by [State regulation citation]
andby40C.F.R.Part263.
40. FINAL TREATMENT/DISPOSAL
A. All collected wastes are to be incinerated. The Contractor shall inform the Department of any waste that
cannot be incinerated prior to any other treatment and/or disposal. The type and quantity of the waste
varies, but its characteristics and toxicity are such that these waste materials should not be disposed of
in solid waste landfills.
B. Final treatment/disposal means either treatment so that such wastes no longer meet the definition of a
hazardous waste as defined in 40 C.F.R. 261 eL seq. or disposal of a waste by a RCRA handling method
specified in 40 C.F.R., Parts 264/265. Waste handling codes that describe methods of storage do not
meet the definition of final treatment /disposal under this contract. Interim treatment of the waste such
that the waste still meets the definition of a hazardous waste as defined in 40 C.F.R. 261 gt. seq. does not
meet the definition of final treatment/disposal under this contract. Further, the Contractor shall comply
with the State's land disposal restrictions (reference [State regulation citation] and 40 C.F.R. Part 268).
C. All facilities used for interim treatment or final treatment/disposal of wastes shall have as a minimum, an
EPA/State approved interim status permit showing EPA hazardous waste numbers for each waste the
facility is permitted to handle, as described by 40 C.F.R. 261 Subparts C and D.
D. Mere acceptance of the hazardous waste at a properly permitted treatment, storage, or disposal facility
does not meet the definition of final treatment/disposal under this contract. It is the Contractor's
responsibility to obtain all necessary documentation to prove that the final treatment/disposal has been
accomplished
E The facilities which will be used for final treatment and/or disposal shall be fully in compliance with 40
C.F.R. Parts 264 and 265.
F. The Contractor shall notify the Department of any circumstances which could cause delays at facilities
to achieve final treatment or disposal.
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
41. LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS AND TREATMENT STANDARDS
The Contractor shall comply with all aspects of state and EPA land disposal restrictions and treatment standards.
The Contractor is responsible for the preparation of all land disposal restriction documentation which will be
verified by the Department.
42. ADDITIONAL WASTES
The Department shall determine if additional wastes will be accepted at each collection location. If so, Contractor
shall weigh the additional wastes and immediately inform the Department.
43. INVOICING
A. Contractor shall provide an original and two (2) copies of invoices to the Department.
B. Payment invoices must include the following information:
(1) Invoice date;
(2) Name of Contractor;
(3) Pounds of waste collected;
(4) Manifest numbers and date of shipment, including bill of lading number and weight of
shipment; and
(5) Waste Profile Numbers as applicable.
44. PAYMENT
Payments shall be made by the Department on the basis of actual services completed according to the following
schedule:
(A) The Department shall compensate the Contractor for its services at $2.07 per pound for the first 30,000
pounds collected, but if more than 30,000 pounds of waste is collected then the rate shall be $1.42 per
pound of waste collected. In additional to the rate per pound, an additional payment of $1,000 shall be
paid to the Contractor for each additional collection location,
(B) The Contractor will receive fifty percent (50%) of the compensation to which it is entitled from the
Department upon:
1. Successful completion of the collection events and submission of required reports including
the invoices, and
2. Successful completion of the laboratory characterization of unknown waste and submission of
required reports.
(Q An additional forty-five percent (45 %) of the compensation which the Contractor is entitled will be paid
as certificates of treatment or disposal are received. This payment will be made on a pro-rata basis. For
example, if certificates are received covering 10% of the waste collected, 10% of the
45% will be paid.
(D) The final five percent (5 %) shall be retained by the Department for payment until submission of a final
contract report is approved and accepted by the Department and until final treatment/disposal of Ml
wastes received during collection events, including the submission of "Certificates of Disposal"
documenting the final treatment and/or disposal of the wastes.
(E) Payments to Contractor shall fully compensate Contractor for all risk, loss, damages or expense of
whatever nature and acceptance of payment shall constitute a waiver of all claims Contractor may have.
This shall be the sole and complete compensation for services rendered by the Contractor.
-------
Appendix 111
45, MERGER CLAUSE
This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. No waiver, consent, modification or change
of terms of this agreement shall bind either party unless in writing, signed by the parties, and attached hereto.
Such wavier, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the
specific purpose given. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not
specified herein regarding this agreement.
-------
Appendix IV • Contact Information for Some Hazardous Materials Contractors
Advanced Environmental Technical Services
(ARTS)
121000 Browns Gulch Road Butte, MT
(406) 782-4201
Tel: (800) 735-8964
Care Environmental Corp.
lOOrben Drive
Landing, NJ 07850
Tel: (973) 361-7373
Fax:(973)361-5550
Out of NJ: (800) 494-CARE
info @ careenv.com
http://www.careenv.com/
Clean Harbors Environmental Services
Corporate Offices
1501 Washington Street
P.O. Box 859048
Braintree, MA 02185-9048
Tel: (781) 849-1800 or (800) 282-0058
http://www.cleanharbors.com/
Ecoflo, Inc
8520-K Corridor Road
Savage, MD 20763
Tel: (301) 498-4550
ENSCO Services
National Sales Office
309 American Circle
El Dorado, AR 7130
Tel: (800) 844-7173
Fax: (870) 864-3653
Contact: Molly Zeigler
http://www.enscoinc.com
HAZ-M.E.R.T. Inc.
2633 Laurel Circle
Rogers, AR 72758
Tel: (501)621-9707
Fax:(501)621-5263
http ://www.hazmert.com
Heritage Environmental Services, LLC
2 Avenue D
Williston,VT 05495
Phone:(802)860-1200
Fax:(802)860-7313
Adam Hoy - Facility Manager
Ed McMahon - Sales Manager
Dan Hatty - Technical Sales Representative
KendraDemarest Technical Sales Representative
Headquarters are located at:
7901 West Morris St.
Indianapolis, IN 46231
Phone: (317) 243-0811 or (800) 827-4374
Fax:(317)486-5085
http ://www.heritage-en viro .com/
LWD, Inc.
PO Box 327
Calvert City, KY 42029
Tel: (270) 395-8313
Fax:(270)395-8153
http://www.lwd-inc.com/totalWasteManagement/
contenthtml
MSB Environmental, Inc.
880 West Verdulera Street
Camarillo,CA 93010
Tel: (805) 987-0217
Fax:(805)987-8718
-------
Appendix IV
Onyx Environmental Services Safety-Kleen, Inc.
3225 Aviation Avenue, Suite 400 Chemical Services Division
PO: 33133 1122 Lady Street
Miami, FL Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Tel: (305) 854-2229 (803) 933-4200
Fax: (305) 854-2272 www.safety-kleen.com
Website: http://www.onyxindustrialservices.com
Philip Services Corporation
345 Horner Avenue
Toronto, ON Canada
M8W 1Z6
Tel: (416) 253-6000
Fax:(416)253-6699
E-mail: info@demolish.org
-------
Table V-l: Number of Participants
State
WI
TX
WA
PA
ND
KS
OH
VA
IL
TN
KY
ME
LA
MT
AL
NY
FL
IN
CO
UT
MD
MA
Pre-89
137
no data1
93 3
1989
86
no data
173
1990
279
121
69
89
no data
no data
no data
1991
122
355
58
90
1992
736
284
284
396
191
35
1993
1,446
654
218
179
60
111
54
73
21
1994
934
324
332
380
608
318
531
106
107
414
110
27
1995
1,061
220
177
345
145
240 2
235
398
30
70
56
203
no data
33
67
45
57
1996
1,035
579
247
980
341
1,348
618 -
159
76
100
621
125
247
180
no data
27
70
1997
865
500
400
421
484
699
671 2
172
84
139
125
no data
40
114
25
32
1998
858
575
353
657
367
353
169 '
111
63
359
177
65
108
39
no data
29
40
107
1999
732
3,620
532
157
321
427
373
149
185
290
202
39
81
43
44
31
28
94
2000
1,314
154
377
no data
332
287
416
149
64
285
158
48
85
26
14
273
39
43
46
no data
TOTAL
9,382
6,910
3,619
> 3,1 19
> 2,994
3,114
> 2,865
1,877
963
934
817
>657
>621
620
577
561
>492
>330
268
251
227
>201
Ave/year
853
768
278
446
374
623
358
188
138
311
117
94
621
103
144
112
164
55
67
31
45
101
#yrsofdata
11
9
13
7
8
5
8
10
7
3
7
7
1
6
4
5
3
6
4
8
5
2
1
a. c
O o
o -«
fa
-------
Table \ -1: Number of Participants
State
SD
NH
HI
MO
CT
NV
WV
sc
WY
W
Total
Pre-89
86
46
362
1989
44
303
1990
132
no data
no data
14-16
6
710-712
1991
625
1992
40
1,966
1993
no data
2,816
1994
no data
no data
4,191
1995
no data
26
no data
30
3,438
1996
no data
85
49
no data
11
6,898
1997
no data
no data
no data
no data
4,771
1998
114
70
25
4,639
1999
66
no data
7,414
2000
no data
no data
4,110
TOTAL
>180
132
130
>85
>75
>70
>66
60-62
40
6
>42,243
Avt/year
90
132
65
85
38
70
22
30-31
40
6
273
#yrsofdata
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
2
1
1
155
T3
t3
«;•
-j
9:
x"
Notes: (l)Rr North Dakota, there arenodataon the nun±er of participants in the 1980,1984 and 1988 programs. (2)I«Ohio, WonrMononthenumberof
participants isn't available for flie Ml year from 1995 throu^i 1998. This represents the number of participants for the events for which this information is known
(from one to three events) during these years. (3)FbrNfaine, there are r» data on ttenumte of partitipante Therewere93
participants in 1986.
-------
Table V-2 Average Quantity of Pesticides Collected per Participant (pounds)
State
WV
LA
UT
TX
FL
VA
WY
CT
NY
MD
KY
ND
AL
TN
OH
CO
MA
WA
PA
MT
SD
NV
pre-89
no data *
360
1989
no data
409
1990
ao data
461
no data
no data
517
1991
562
244
1992
1,389
300
400
204
288
1993
545
1,037
614
257
150
255
166
no data
1994
no data
648
854
419
217
172
355
267
158
123
no data
1995
2,000
313
605
no data
264
265
292
585
290
333
987
350 3
254
291
238
207
no data
no data
1996
1,699
649
494
810
103
478
469
489
213
691
211
341 3
328
306
514
no data
no data
1997
no data
756
556
no data
432
420
521
360
304 3
297
255
413
211
no data
no data
1998
1,250
905
461
692
432
521
212
359
279
296 3
364
265
286
202
248
263
1999
552
152
655
572
159
252
495
622
345
331
404
232
286
549
350
no data
2000
578
673
626
546
69
218
503
487
351
262
368
no data
370
no data
461
no data
no data
Ave.
1.6661
649 *
579
456
4401
436
400
399 l
391
383
341
330 '
328
321
315
315
303 '
298
295 '
289
285 '
263 '
•H
rr
ii>
O
o>
in
3
(f)
-------
Table V-2 Average Quantity of Pesticides Collected per Participant (pounds)
State
IL
WI
NH
IN
ME
ffl
SC
KS
MO
pre-89
129 4
145
147
1989
254
114
25-29
1990
146
140
152
no data
no data
1991
113
79
1992
114
123
1993
99
82
1994
257
115
82
1995
271
149
244
1996
166
no data
69
72
71
1997
278
129
65
66
no data
1998
422
192
no data
123
54
1999
300
205
181
96
2000
243
193
432
67
467
Ave.
262
162
152
ISO1
137 '
134
115-119
108
71 l
"O
a*
3
a
x"
Notes: (1) This represents the average quantity for the year or years with data. (2) For North Dakota, there are no data for 1980, 1984 and 1988. (3) For Ohio,
information on the number of participants isn't available for the full year from 1995 through 1998. This represents the average quantity per participant for the
events for which the number of participants is known (from one to three events) during these years. (4) The information for Maine is for 1986. There are no
data for 1982 and 1984.
-------
Appendix VI - State Web Sites
Alabama: Department of Agriculture and Industries
http://www.agi.state.al.us/
Alaska: Department of Environmental Conservation,
Division of Environmental Health (includes link to the
pesticide program)
http://www.state.ak.us/dec/deh/pesticides/home.htm
Arizona: Department of Agriculture
http://agriculture.state.az.us/
Arkansas: State Plant Board (regulates pesticides
and other things)
http://www.plantboard.org/pesticides abouthtml
California: Department of Pesticide Regulation
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/
Hrtp://www.dtsc.ca.gov/index.html
Colorado: Dept. of Agriculture - Division of Plant
Industry
http://www.ag.state.co.us/DPI/programs/
programs.html
Connecticut: Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Waste Management, Pesticide
Management Program
http://dep.state.ct.us/wst/index.htm
Delaware: Dept. of Agriculture Pesticides Section
http://www.state.de.us/deptagri/
http://www.dswa.com
Florida: Division of Agricultural Environmental
Services - Bureau of Pesticides
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
bttp://www8.myflorida.com/myflorida/
environment.htm
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/
Clean sweep specific
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/
cleansweep-pesticides/default.htm
Georgia: (Clean Sweep specific) Dept. of Agricul-
ture Pesticide Division - Pesticide Recycling
http://www.aer.state.ga.us/plant ind/html/
pesticide recvcling.html
http://www.ag.state.ut.us/divisns/plantind/utahpest/
Hawaii: Dept. of Agriculture - Pesticides Branch
http://www.hawaiiag.org/hdoa/pi pest.htm
Idaho: (Clean Sweep specific) Idaho State Dept. of
Agriculture - Pesticide Disposal Program
http://www.agri.state.id.us/agresource/pdp.htm
Illinois: Dept. of Agriculture Environmental
Programs - several pesticide program links
http://www.agr.state.il.us/Environment/Pesticide/
pestuses.html
Indiana: Office of the State Chemist (regulates the
distribution and application of pesticides)
http://www.isco.purdue.edu/index pest.htm
Iowa: Dept. of Agriculture and Land Stewardship -
Pesticide Bureau
http://www2.state.ia.us/agriculture/
pesticidebureau.htm
Kansas: Dept. of Agriculture - Pesticide Section
http://www.ink.org/public/kda/phealth/phpest/
index.htm
http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/waste
Kentucky: (Clean Sweep specific) Brief descrip-
tion of the Office for Environmental Outreach/
Division Pesticides, which operates the Rinse and
Return Program and the Pesticides Collection
Program
http://www.kvagr.com/envirn niit/pestweed/
programs/services/collection.htm
-------
Appendix V!
Louisiana: Division of Pesticide and Environmental
Programs (contact people list)
http://www.ldaf.state.la.us/
Maine: (Clean Sweep specific) Board of Pesticides
Control - short description of Obsolete Pesticides
Collection
http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/
homepage.htm
Maryland: (Clean Sweep specific) Maryland
Department of Agriculture - Pesticide Disposal
Program
http://www.mda.state.md.us/jglarit/disposal.htm
Massachusetts: (Clean Sweep specific) Pesticide
Collection, Storage and Disposal page - various
links from there to specific pages on Pesticide
Collection programs
http://www.state.ma.us/dfa/pesticides/waste/
index.htm
Michigan: (Clean Sweep specific) Michigan
Groundwater Stewardship Program - Michigan
Clean Sweep
http://www.mda.state.mi.us/environm/groundwater/
cleansweep/index.html
Minnesota: (Clean Sweep specific) Minnesota
Department of Agriculture - Waste Pesticide
Collection Program
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/appd/wastepest
Mississippi: (Clean Sweep specific) Bureau of
Plant Industry - Waste Pesticide Disposal Programs
http://www.mdac.state.ms.us/Library/BBC/
Plantlndustry/PesticidePrograms/
WastePesticideDisposalPrograms.html
Missouri: Department of Natural Resources
httD://www.dnr.state.mo.us/homednr.htm
Montana: (Clean Sweep specific) Pesticide
Collection Sponsored by Montana Dept. of
Agriculture
http://www.agr.state.mt.us/programs/asd/
pestdisp.shtml
Nebraska: Dept. of Agriculture Plant Industry
Division - Pesticide Program
http ://www.agr. state.ne.us/division/bpi/pes/pestl .htm
Nevada: (Clean Sweep specific) Waste Pesticide
Disposal (as part of Dept. of Agriculture's Pesticide
Programs page)
http://agri.state.nv.us/pestprog/
index.htm#WastePesticideDisposal
New Hampshire: Department of Agriculture,
Markets and Food
http ://www.state.nh.us/agric/aghome.html
New Jersey: Department of Environmental
Protection, Pesticide Control Program
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/enforcement/pcp/
http://www.state.nj .us/dep/index.html
Association of New Jersey Household Hazardous
Waste Coordinators
http://www.njhazwaste.com
New Mexico: Department of Agriculture
http://nmdaweb.nmsu.edu/
New York: Dept. of Environmental Conservation -
Pesticides Management Program
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/pesticid/
pesticid.htm
North Carolina: (Clean Sweep specific) Dept. of
Agriculture & Consumer Services - Pesticide
Distribution, Storage, and Disposal (with link to
Pesticide Disposal Assistance Program)
http://www.agr.state.nc.us/fooddrug/pesticid/
pestdiso.htm
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
North Dakota: Dept. of Agriculture-Pesticide
Division
http://www.agdepartment.com/
Ohio: Department of Agriculture
http://www.state.oh.us/agr/
Oklahoma: Department of Agriculture
http://www.state.ok.us/~okag
Oregon: Department of Environmental Quality,
Waste Prevention and Management Program
htto://www.deQ.state.or.us/wmc/index.htm
Utah: Utah State Pesticide Applicator Training Guide
http://ag.utah.gov/plantincl/pest app.shtml
Vermont: (Clean Sweep specific) Waste Pesticide
Collection Schedule for Farmers and Homeowners
(from Dept. of Agriculture - Plant Industry Division
homepage)
http ://www.state.vt.us/agric/wastepest.htm
Virginia: (Clean Sweep specific) Pesticide Disposal
Program
http://www.vdacs.state.va.us/pesticides/
disposaLhtml
Pennsylvania: (Clean Sweep specific) Dept. of
Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry home page
(little on pesticides)
http://www.state.paus/PA Exec/Agriculture/
bureaus/plant industry/Jndex.html
Rhode Island: Department of Environmental
Management, Division of Agriculture
http://www.state.ri.us/dem/programs/bnatres/
agricult/Jndex.htm
South Carolina: Department of Pesticide Regulation
(Clemson University)
http://cufp.clemson.edu/dpr/index flash.html
South Dakota: (Clean Sweep specific) Dept. of
Agriculture Pesticide Program - Unusable Pesticide
Collection
http://www.state.sd.us/doa/das/hp-oest.htmtfwaste
Washington: (Clean Sweep specific) Dept. of
Agriculture Pesticide Management - Waste Pesticide
Collection
http://www.wa.gov/agr/pmd/pesticides/
collection.htm
West Virginia: Dept. of Agriculture Plant Industries
Division - Pesticide Regulatory Programs
http://www.sMe.wv.us/agricultiire/horne/horne.html
Wisconsin: (Clean Sweep specific) Agricultural
Clean Sweep
http://datcp.state.wi.us/arm/agriculture/pest-fert/
clean-sweep/
Wyoming: Department of Agriculture
http'//wvasric.state.wv.us
Tennessee: (dean Sweep specific) Agricultural
Pesticide Waste Collection Program
http://www.state.tn.us/agriculture/regulate/
wastes.html
Texas: (Clean Sweep specific) Agricultural Waste
Pesticide Collection Program
http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/exec/oppr/agwaste/
agwaste.html
-------
Appendix VII - Sample Emergency Plan
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
WASTE PESTICIDE COLLECTION PROGRAM
SITE SAFETY AND EMERGENCY CONTINGENCY PLAN
Waste Pesticide Collections - Southeast Minnesota
June 2001
Prepared by: Stan Kaminski
Minnesota Department of Agriculture - Agronomy and Plant Protection Division
90 West Plato Boulevard - St. Paul, MN 55107-2094
Phone: (800) 657-3986 or (651) 297-1062 - FAX: (651) 297-2271
I. CONTACTS
A. MN Department of Agriculture (MDA): Stan Kaminski, 90 West Plato Blvd., St. Paul,
MN 55107-2094, Phone: (651) 297-1062; FAX: (651)297-2271.
B. Contractor: ONYX Environmental Services, 3230101st Ave., NE, Elaine, MN
55449, Phone: (763) 786-9457; FAX: (763) 786-3514.
C. Counties - Southeast 2
Mower - Lowell Franzen, Mower County Ag Inspector, 507/437-9460
Freeborn - Richard Hoffman, Freeborn County Environmental See., 507/377-5186
Rice - Brad Carlson, MN Extension Service, Rice County, 507/332-6109
Steele - Tim Arit, MN Extension Service, Steele County, 507/444-7689
H. SCHEDULE AND FACILITIES
Collections from 8:00 AM to 11:00 AM or 2:00 PM to 5:00 PM
Wednesday, June 20,8 AM -11 AM: Harvest States Coop, Elkton
Wednesday, June 20,2 PM - 5 PM: Freeborn County Fairgrounds, Albert Lea
Thurs., June 21,8 AM -11 AM: Rice Cnty Recy. Ctr, 3800 145th St. E,Dundas
Thurs., June 21,2 PM - 5 PM: Central Coop Soil See, 3301 NW 21st Ave, Owatonna
m. SCOPE
Waste pesticide collections are safe and accessible waste pesticide disposal opportunities for
farmers and businesses. Participants are invited to bring their waste insecticides, herbicides, and
other pesticides to any MDA designated collection site.
IV. TASKS
The hazardous waste contractor will collect, segregate classify and package waste pesticides.
Following the collection, the collected wastes will be transported to a licensed hazardous waste
incinerator for destruction. Collected wastes will be handled, transported, and destroyed in
compliance with all applicable regulations.
V. PERSONNEL AND WORK AREA LAYOUT
Approximately 4 people will be at the collection site during event hours: 3 contractor staff handling
-------
The Clean Sweep Report
collected wastes and one MDA staff supervising site activities. Generally two volunteer workers at
the site collect data and direct traffic. It is expected that 20 to 30 persons will dispose of waste per
site. Participants drive to unloading area where waste is removed. After their vehicle is unloaded,
they leave the site. Unloaded wastes are identified, segregated and packed by contractor staff for
transport. After packing, waste is loaded onto trucks for transport.
VL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
An orientation session will be conducted prior to opening each collection site. The session provides
an overview of the collection process, outlines specific work tasks, and reviews MDA implemented
safety plans and emergency procedures. Site workers have access to running water, rest areas, a
phone, and personnel protective and safety equipment including: protective clothing, eye wash
station, first-aid kit, eye and skin neutralizer, and safety station, ground cover, spill response,
portable fume hood, ABC fire extinguisher, respirators and self-contained breathing apparatus,
decontamination facilities, and emergency warning system. MDA and contractor staff will be first
responders to on-site emergencies, other responders may be called if more help is needed (fire,
injury, or extensive release).
Vn. EMERGENCY RESPONDERS, HOSPITAL DIRECTIONS & EVACUATION ROUTE
Wednesday, June 20: Harvest States Coop, Elkton
Hospital - St. Olaf Hospital, Austin 507/437-4551
Fire - Elkton Fire Department 911
Police - Elkton Police Department 911
Sheriff- Mower County Sheriff's Department 507/437-9400
Directions to Hospital: Exit site and head west on 1-90 for 16 miles to Austin. Take the fifth
Austin exit #178 A. Head south on 4th St. and take a left on 8th Ave. NW. Hospital is straight
ahead.
Evacuation Route: Leave the site and travel north or south on highway.
[Equivalent phone numbers and directions given for Thursday, June 21]
VHI. OTHER EMERGENCY RESPONDERS
MN State Patrol, Dist. 2100 HQ, PO Box 6177, Rochester MN 55904 507/285-7406
HAZARD INFORMATION AND SERVICES
Chemtrek - Chemical and Incident Information 1 -800-424-9300
Hazard Hotline-MSDS Information 651-221-3999 or 1-800-228-5635
Minnesota Duty Officer Incident Hotline - Pesticide Spills 1 -800-422-0798
Minnesota Poison Control Center 651-347-3141 or 1-800-222-1222
National Response Center - Hazardous Material Spills 1-800-424-8802
Minnesota Department of Agriculture 651 -297-2200
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 651 -221 -3990 or 1 -800-228-5635
Minnesota Department of Transportation 651-296-7109
-------
Appendix VIII
COMPARISON OF PESTICIDES USED PER STATE
VERSUS PESTICIDES COLLECTED AT CLEAN SWEEPS
Appendix VHI provides information on the estimated amount of pesticides used by the states and the
amount of pesticides they have collected and disposed of during Clean Sweep programs. Data on the amount
of pesticide active ingredient used in each state in 1992 and 1997 (from the National Center for Food and
Agricultural Policy) was extrapolated to estimate the amount used from 1991 through 2000. EPA assumed
that this same amount was used each decade beginning in the 1960's to estimate the pounds of pesticide active
ingredient used by each state from 1961 to 2000. EPA chose 40 years because many of the pesticides
collected at Clean Sweep events since 1980 are years or even decades old. Because the amount of active
ingredient can range from less than 1 percent to over 80 percent of a formulated product, the total weight of
formulated agricultural pesticides used per year is greater. The most common agricultural products contain
from 10 percent to 50 percent active ingredient. This information was used to estimate a range of the amount
of formulated product used in each state from 1960 to 2000. The amount of pesticides disposed through
Clean Sweep programs can be compared to the estimated amount used.
The information in Appendix Vin can be used to provide rough estimates of the amount of uncollected
pesticides in states with relatively new or less comprehensive programs. Texas has run an extensive Clean
Sweep program for 9 years and has collected an estimated 0.06 percent of the pesticides used since 1961.
Considering that the Texas program still collects significant quantities of pesticides, including more than 103,000
pounds in 2000, it is impossible to know what the final total (and percent) will be in Texas. However, if one
assumes that Texas and Florida farmers and agricultural businesses have had similar pesticide management
practices, Florida may have quite a bit of unwanted pesticides still requiring disposal. Florida just began a
comprehensive Clean Sweep program last year, and has collected about 0.002 percent of the estimated
amount of pesticides used in the last four decades. If the actual percent that needs to be disposed is similar to
Texas' percent (assume 0.02 percent for simplicity), then the estimated amount that Florida may collect in a
long-term, comprehensive Clean Sweep program is an order of magnitude larger than the current amount, or
about 2.9 million pounds.
-------
COMPARISON OF PESTICIDES USED PER STATE VERSUS PESTICIDES COLLECTED AT CLEAN SWEEPS
Top 20
User
States
CA
FL
!A
IL
ID
WA
TX
NC
NE
IN
MN
GA
Ml
KS
AR
MO
OH
OR
MS
ND
LA
CO
sp
Wl
SC
NY
KY
Estimated
(Ibs. A.I.)
Total Used
1991 - 2000'
1,621,361,000
906,399,000
550,028,000
503,623,000
470,340,000
377,501,000
363,298,000
351,745,000
349, 1 58,000
289,131,000
282,216,000
260,778,000
216,015,000
218,457,000
205,826,000
207,423,000
188,404,000
190,785,000
175,099,000
170,164,000
161 ,993,000
162,703,000
157,839,000
153,507,000
119,669,000
106,773,000
94,681,000
Estimated
(Ibs. A.I.)
Total Used
1960-2000*
6,485,444,000
3,625,596,000
2,200,112,000
2,014,492,000
1,881,360,000
1,510,004,000
1,453,192,000
1,406,980,000
1, ,,396,632,000
1,156,524,000
1,128,864,000
1,043,112,000
864,06,0,000
873,828,000
823,304,000
829,692,000
753,616,000
763: ,,140,000
700,396,000
680,656,000
647,972,000
650,812,000
631,356,000
614,028,000
478,676,000
427,092,000
378,724,000
Estimated Range
(Ibs. Formulated) Total
Formulated Product Used, assuming
10%to50% A.I.
1960 -20003
12,970,888,000-64,854,444,000
7,251,192,000 - 36,255,960,000
4,400,224,000 - 22,001,1 12,000
4,028,984,000 -20,144,920,000
3,762,720,000 - 18,813,600,000
3,,020,008,000 - 15,100,040,000
2,906,384,000 - 14,531,920,000'
2,813,960,000 - 1,4,069,800,000
2,793,264,000 - 13,966,320,000
2,313,048,000 - 11,565,240,000
2,257,728,000 - 1, 1 ,288,640,000
2,086,224,000 - 10,431,120,000
1,728,120,000 - 8,640:,60Q,000
1 ,747,656,000 - B,73B,26Q,QQQ
1,646,608,000-8,233,040,000
1,659,384,000 - 8,296,920,000
1,507,232,000 - 7,536,160,000
1,526, 280', 000 - 7,631,400,000
1 ,400,792,00.0 - 7,003,960,000
1,361,312,000 - 6,806,560,000
1,295,944,000 - 6,479,720,000
1 ,301 ,624,000 - 6,508,120,000
1 ,262,712,000 - 6,31 3,560,000
1,228,056,000 - 6,140,280,000
957,352,000 - 4,786,760,000
854,184,000 - 4,270,920,000
757,448,000 - 3,787,240,000
Amount Disposed (Ibs.
Formulated) In Clean
Sweeps
through year 2000
1,186,828
292,929
1,130,555
252,316
322,604
1,079,754
3,149,820
1,116,477
1,336,033
68,147
2,036,380
778,032
852,118
337,455
35,689
9,800
1,088,713
497,443
989,886
1 ,029,230
408,200
84,498
263,663
1,523,995
7,143
219,454
278,367
Total Disposed as %
of Total Used
1960-2000
0.002% - 0.009%
Q.0008%-0.004%
0.005% - 0.03%
0.001% -0.006%
0.002% - 0.009%
0.007% - 0.04%
0.02% -0.10%
0.008% - 0.04%
0.01% -0.05%
0.0006%-0.003%
0.02% - 0.09%
0.007% - 0.04%
0.01% -0.05%
0.004% - 0.02%
0.0004%-0.002%
O.OQ01%-0.0006%
0.01% - 0.07%
0.007% - 0.03%
0.01% - 0.07%
0.02% - 0.08%
0.006% -0.03%
0.001% - 0.006%
0.004% - 0.02%
0.03% -0.1 2%
0.0001% -0.0007%
0.005% - 0.03%
0.007% - 0.04%
Midpoint of
Dlsp vs.
Used
0.006%
0.002%
0.018%
0.004%
0.006%
0.024%
0.060%
0.024%
0.030%
0.002%
0.060%
0.024%
0.030%
0.012%
0.0012%
0.0003%
0.040%
0.019%
0.040%
0.050%
0.018%
0.004%
0.012%
0.075%
0.0004%
0.018%
0.024%
Type ol
Program4
C
c
p
c
p
p
p
p
c
c
p
c
p
p
1
1
p
c
c
p
1
I
p
p
1
1
p
-H
3"
ffi
O
3>
3
s
CD
T3
33
O
**
^*
-------
Top 20
User
States
AL
VA
PA
TM
MT
OK
AZ
MD
MM
NJ
ME
WY
UT
DE
WV
MA
VT
CT
NH
NV
Rl
AK
HI
Total
Estimated
(Ibs. A.I.)
Total Used
1991 -20001
87,279,000
92,660,000
86,519,000'
80,566,000
67,325,000
64,871,000
S1i, OSB.OOOi
36, 066,000.
27,183,000
23,492,000
24,484,000
1:4,478,000
14,322,000'
13,438,000
9,233,000
7,852,000
5,158,000
3,037,000
1,882,000
1 ,746,000
488,000
0
0
9,578,053,000
Estimated
(Ibs. A.I.)
Total Used
I960 - 20002
349,116,000
370,640,000
346,076,000
322,264,000
269,300,000
259,484,000
244,232,000
1 44,264, 000'
108,732,000
93,968,000'
97,936,000
57,91:2,000
57,288,000
53,752,000
36,932,000
3:1 ,408,000'
20,632,000'
12,148,000
7,528,000
6,984,000
1,952,000'
0
0
38,312,212
Estimated Range
(Ibs. Formulated) Total
Formulated Product Used, assuming
10% to 50% A.I.
1960-200Q3
698,232,000 - 3,491 ,1,60,000
741,280,000 - 3,706,400,000
692,152,000 - 3,460,760,000
644,528,000 - 3,222,640,000
538,600,000, - 2,693,000,000
518,968,000 - 2,594,840,000
488,464,000 - 2,442,320,000
288,528,000 - 1, 442, 640,00.0
217,464,0,00 - t ,087,320, 000
187,936,000-939,680,000
195,872,000 - 979,360,000.
1it5,824,00'0 - 5-79,120,000
1*4,456,000 -572,880,000
1i07, 504,000 - 537,520,000
73,864,000 - 369,320,000
62,816,000 - 314,080,000
41,264,000 - 206,320,000
24,296,000 - 1)21,480,000
15,056,000-75,280,000
13, 968,000 -69,840,000
3,904,000 - 1 9,520,000
0
0
76,624,304,000 - 383,122,116,000
Amount Disposed (Ibs.
Formulated) in Clean
Sweeps
through year 2000
189,393
818,799
1,001,597
300,000
179,186
0
0
86,990
0
722,747
120,209
16,000
1 45, 261
30,423
239,430
158,989
65,953
46,100
20,000
74,564
some
0
17,471
24,608,646
Total Disposed as %
ot Total Used
1960-2000
0.005% - 0.03%
0.02% -0.11%
0.03% -0.15%
0.009% - 0.05%
0.0-007% - 0.03%
0.006% - 0.03%
0.08% - 0.39%
0.01% -0.06%
0.003% -0.01%
0.03% -0.13%
0.006% - 0.03%
0.07% - 0.32%
0.05% - 0.25%
0.03% - 0.16%
0.04% - 0.19%
0,03% - 0.13%
0,11% - 0.53%
0.006% - 0.03%
Midpoint of
Disp vs.
Used
0.018%
0.060%
0.09%
0.03%
0.02%
0.018%
0.240%
0.040%
0.007%
0.080%
0.018%
0.200%
0.150%
0.100%
0.120%
0.080%
0.320%
0.018%
Type ot
Program4
I
P
P
P
P
N
N
C
N
C
C
0
P
O
C
C
P
I
O
P
O
N
I
-
TS
TS
------- |