[Pharmwaste] Input/comment requested on categoricalclassificationof hazardous waste/PPCP's and "combustibility."

[Bunnell, Ross]

Stevan:
 
As a hazardous waste enforcement official here in Connecticut, I would fully concur with Barry's summation of the applicability of RCRA to empty liquor bottles (i.e., RCRA wouldn't apply in virtually every situation encountered in a bar or restaurant).  On the other hand, we did have a situation in Connecticut involving a liquor bottler and distributor that was dumping hundreds of gallons of liquor down the city sewer at a time.  As you might imagine, we had a slight problem with that (the public tends not to appreciate exploding sewers).
 
Nevertheless, to more directly answer your question as to why the ignitability characteristic is applied to a waste that is ultimately burned or incinerated, I would offer the following:
 
->  The RCRA regulations were drafted in the late 1970s, at a time when virtually ALL solid waste that was generated in the USA was landfilled.  As a result, the definition of which solid wastes were hazardous, as spelled out in 40 CFR 261, naturally focused on the hazards associated with placing certain wastes in landfills.  The most obvious example of this was the definition of "toxicity" in 40 CFR 261.24, which was based on a leachate test (originally the EP TOX test, and now the TCLP test) that simulates landfill leaching conditions to determine which wastes are and are not suitable for landfill disposal.  Similarly, ignitability was an obvious concern for landfilled wastes, owing to ignitable wastes' propensity to cause landfill fires, which were at that time a common and persistent problem.
 
->  In recent years, as properly-controlled incineration of solid waste have become an increasingly viable alternative to landfill disposal - particularly in densely populated portions of the country where siting landfills is difficult - more and more solid wastes are being disposed of by incineration as opposed to landfilling.  However, EPA has not seen fit to modify its rules regarding the definition of solid waste to correct its original presumption of disposal by landfilling.  Hence, the regulations have not "caught up" with actual practice in the industry.
 
->  Irrespective of the above failure to modify the rules to reflect reality, there remain very compelling reasons to continue to regulate wastes that are incinerated the same as those that are landfilled.  In particular, in the case of ignitable wastes, this includes the ability to prevent fires and explosions of ignitable wastes in storage at generator sites and at the incinerator facility that might occur prior to incineration (e.g., dumpster fires, etc.).  Remember, the purpose of RCRA is not solely to ensure that a waste is ultimately disposed of in a proper manner, but also to ensure the proper handling of the waste all the way back to the point of generation.
 
I should also note that the rule you alluded to requiring the disposal of empty containers as hazardous waste only applies to acutely hazardous wastes (e.g., those with a "P" code, as listed in 40 CFR 261.33).  And even with these highly toxic wastes, the containers may be released from regulation as hazardous waste if they are triple rinsed with an appropriate solvent.  All other containers need only meet the rather easy-to-achieve standard of "empty" as defined in 40 CFR 261.7, namely:  (1) have all the contents removed by the normal method of removal (i.e., pouring, pumping or aspirating), and (2) have no greater than one inch or 3% by weight (0.3% for containers over 100 gallons) of residue remaining inside.
 
In closing, I would agree that the RCRA regulations are incredibly serpentine and at times maddeningly frustrating to decipher, but when you look deeply enough, there's almost always a rational explanation for everything.  Also keep in mind that these rules were primarily written for "smokestack" industries, and it is only recently that we "law enforcement types" have come to grapple with their applicability to non-industrial facilities like health care facilities.  This is why those of us in Connecticut who are familiar with the unique and difficult issues faced by health care facilities are encouraged by the possibility of listing pharmaceuticals and other similar wastes as Universal Wastes; doing so would allow us to create a more workable but at the same time adequately protective set of rules for the management of such wastes.
 
In closing, as the husband of a Cuban woman, I can testify to both the quality and efficacy of Cuban coffee.  But you don't have to go to Florida to find it.  Look in the Latin section of your local grocery store, and seek out the brands called "Pilon" and especially "Aroma" (my favorite).  Ideally, you should have it straight - with a dash of sugar if you like (Cafe Cubano), but if you are the faint-of-heart type, you can also have it with a splash of milk (Cortadito), or with lots of milk (Cafe con leche).
 
Salud,
 
- - Ross Bunnell, CT DEP 
Bureau of Materials Management and Compliance Assurance 
Waste Engineering & Enforcement Division 
79 Elm Street 
Hartford, CT 06106-5127 
Tel. (860) 424-3274  Fax (860) 424-4059

________________________________

From: pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us [mailto:pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us] On Behalf Of Barry Fernandez
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 8:36 AM
To: Stevan Gressitt; pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us
Subject: RE: [Pharmwaste] Input/comment requested on categoricalclassificationof hazardous waste/PPCP's and "combustibility."



Stevan,

Wow!  Talk about a 'loaded' question (sorry, I couldn't resist). 

In the case of the 151 or 191 proof liquor analogy, the generator will likely be a conditionally exempt small quantity generator, and therefore exempt from federal (and most local) regulations.  If the bottle contains less than 3% of it's volume by weight, it is considered RCRA empty and can be managed as a solid waste.  I can't fathom a scenario where a bar owner would dispose of any remaining liquor seeing how there is no shortage of people willing to drink mouthwash in order to get their alcohol fix.

I'm not sure what got you worked up, or perhaps I'm missing something, but empty liquor bottles do not fall within the hazardous waste regulation guidelines.  If what you are saying is that New Hampshire has this requirement, I can only suggest that Florida has Cuban coffee, a tolerable climate and real estate prices are at an all time low (although property taxes are out of control).

Best Regards,
Barry

Clean Fuels of Florida, Inc.
D. Barry Fernandez, President
2635 NE 4th Avenue
Pompano Beach, FL 33064
Tel:  954-791-9588
Fax: 954-791-9366
Toll Free: 800-725-8711
barry at clean-fuels.net
www.clean-fuels.net


________________________________

From: Stevan Gressitt [mailto:gressitt at uninets.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 5:37 PM
To: pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us
Subject: [Pharmwaste] Input/comment requested on categorical classificationof hazardous waste/PPCP's and "combustibility."



If one of the characteristics to be considered in the disposal of hazardous waste is  flammability

And

The proposed method of "incineration" does indeed involve "burning" explicitly

Then

Why should there not be an exemption for that specific characteristic as a determinant of hazardous status?





The situation arose in a discussion with a non-environmental governmental more law enforcement minded type who was interested in minimizing the disposal costs through either reverse distributors, hazardous waste licensees,   or any of the other commercial avenues.



I am stumped.



Seems there is no reason to apply that standard except in an almost obsessively narrow minded way to that specific category.



I attempted to find an analogy, and without too much caffeine and certainly below toxic espresso levels, I would ask the following:



Some states have liquor monopolies, as in New Hampshire. They sell Rum of 151 proof and absolute ethanol at 195 proof. They collect a state tax on these bottles and a return fee as well. These are flammable liquids. People get burned in restaurants from flare ups of fancy meals known as flambe.



Empty containers that held hazardous substances are to be considered as needing hazardous waste disposal by "Federal?" regulation ( I saw the citation once but am not familiar with it.) as well as some state regulations ( I have no reference here either except hearsay.)



Hence:



1)      All restaurants that serve "flambé" should be required to dispose of their unused liquor bottles through hazardous waste systems?

2)      All bars that serve over-proof drinks and have empty containers should dispose of them through hazardous waste?

3)      All bottle return facilities should either a) refuse over-proof containers or b)segregate the over-proof containers for hazardous waste disposal





Besides the lunacy of this line of reasoning, I think I must be missing something.



Or is this another case of "unintended consequences" which is my hunch.



Stevan Gressitt, M.D.









 <http://e-mail-servers.com/8b4b54fc694eb4a55980ca5cc012a7b3worker.jpg> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/pharmwaste/attachments/20071005/d9fb0042/attachment-0001.html