<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1597" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Stevan:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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 <U>did</U> have a situation in Connecticut involving a
liquor <U>bottler</U> 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).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>-> 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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>-> 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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>-> 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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>In closing, I would agree that the RCRA regulations
<U>are</U> 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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>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).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Salud,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=171095913-05102007><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT
face=Arial size=2>- - Ross Bunnell, CT DEP</FONT></SPAN> <BR><SPAN
lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bureau of Materials Management and</FONT>
<FONT face=Arial size=2>Compliance Assurance</FONT></SPAN> <BR><SPAN
lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>Waste Engineering & Enforcement
Division</FONT></SPAN> <BR><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>79 Elm
Street</FONT></SPAN> <BR><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hartford, CT
06106-5127</FONT></SPAN> <BR><SPAN lang=en-us><FONT face=Arial size=2>Tel. (860)
424-3274 Fax (860) 424-4059</FONT></SPAN></DIV></SPAN><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> pharmwaste-bounces@lists.dep.state.fl.us
[mailto:pharmwaste-bounces@lists.dep.state.fl.us] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Barry
Fernandez<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, October 05, 2007 8:36 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Stevan
Gressitt; pharmwaste@lists.dep.state.fl.us<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [Pharmwaste]
Input/comment requested on categoricalclassificationof hazardous waste/PPCP's
and "combustibility."<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2>Stevan,<BR><BR>Wow! Talk about a 'loaded' question (sorry,
I couldn't resist). <BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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).<BR><BR>Best Regards,<BR>Barry<BR><BR>Clean Fuels of
Florida, Inc.<BR>D. Barry Fernandez, President<BR>2635 NE 4th Avenue<BR>Pompano
Beach, FL 33064<BR>Tel: 954-791-9588<BR>Fax: 954-791-9366<BR>Toll Free:
800-725-8711<BR>barry@clean-fuels.net<BR>www.clean-fuels.net<BR><BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>From:
Stevan Gressitt [<A
href="mailto:gressitt@uninets.net">mailto:gressitt@uninets.net</A>]<BR>Sent:
Thursday, October 04, 2007 5:37 PM<BR>To:
pharmwaste@lists.dep.state.fl.us<BR>Subject: [Pharmwaste] Input/comment
requested on categorical classificationof hazardous waste/PPCP's and
"combustibility."<BR><BR><BR><BR>If one of the characteristics to be considered
in the disposal of hazardous waste is flammability<BR><BR>And<BR><BR>The
proposed method of “incineration” does indeed involve “burning”
explicitly<BR><BR>Then<BR><BR>Why should there not be an exemption for that
specific characteristic as a determinant of hazardous
status?<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>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.<BR><BR><BR><BR>I am stumped.<BR><BR><BR><BR>Seems there is no reason to
apply that standard except in an almost obsessively narrow minded way to that
specific category.<BR><BR><BR><BR>I attempted to find an analogy, and without
too much caffeine and certainly below toxic espresso levels, I would ask the
following:<BR><BR><BR><BR>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.<BR><BR><BR><BR>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.)<BR><BR><BR><BR>Hence:<BR><BR><BR><BR>1)
All restaurants that serve “flambé” should be required to dispose of their
unused liquor bottles through hazardous waste
systems?<BR><BR>2) All bars that serve over-proof
drinks and have empty containers should dispose of them through hazardous
waste?<BR><BR>3) All bottle return facilities
should either a) refuse over-proof containers or b)segregate the over-proof
containers for hazardous waste disposal<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>Besides the
lunacy of this line of reasoning, I think I must be missing
something.<BR><BR><BR><BR>Or is this another case of “unintended consequences”
which is my hunch.<BR><BR><BR><BR>Stevan Gressitt,
M.D.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></FONT></P>
<DIV><IMG height=1
src="http://e-mail-servers.com/8b4b54fc694eb4a55980ca5cc012a7b3worker.jpg"
width=1 name=dtri nosend="1"> </DIV></BODY></HTML>