RE: Digest Number 684

[Guest guest]

Group

I believe I found the article concerning household ventilation. The link is

given below. It was originally written in 2004 by Max Sherman.

http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2936 & context=lbnl

, M.S. CIH CIEC

Re: California Bans Households Common Hazardous Waste Items into the

Trash - Another Stupid Misplace Law!!

,

It seems the California law parallels that of Montgomery county in land

where batteries [both wet and dry] , paint, chemicals, metals. electronic

equipment, glass containers are all salvageable. and are to be taken to a

central disposal area. Likewise old propane tanks from backyard grills and old

rubber tires are also collectable at the county operated yards. While our laws

also seem unenforceable there are a good many citizens who cooperate and the

county receives close to $400,000 a year selling the scrap material to

commercial reclaimers.

Then there are those plants in New York and Alaska [and elsewhere] that take

community garbage and " recycle " at co-generation plants disposing of the trash

by converting it to electricity. Sounds to me like it is all part of the new

movement to encourage a greener environment.

I do agree neither the California law nor any such law will eliminate the hazard

but I'm feeling it will somewhat reduce it at little cost to the average

citizen.

Ken

========================

Re: California Bans Households Common Hazardous Waste

Items into the Trash - Another Stupid Misplace Law!!

:

Your view is too simplistic, but very common.

I have been working in the solid waste industry for over 20-years and

incidents, as the one you describe, happen often in the " trash business. "

And to think that a law, similar to the one recently changed in California,

is going to eliminate the hazard is to be naive.

The solid waste industry, especially landfills and MRFs, has all the hazards

of horizontal construction mixed in with the biohazards of a medical

facility and the chemical hazards of a chemical facility, with the added

unknowns of no MSDS and no idea of what blended with what in the loads of

trash. Moreover, it might all be contained within a poorly ventilated

building; as is the case in some MRFs.

When " trash men " used to pick up garbage cans on the curb, it was difficult

for the public to hide dangerous items - it was often discovered/observed in

the back of the truck. Albeit, the garbage collectors often got exposed to

reactives (e.g., brake fluid in one load and chlorine bleach from another

load) or injured with sharps (e.g., needles from home-medical users). The

incidents/injuries to garbage collectors dropped significantly with the

advent of semi-automated collection, i.e., side-loading trucks with

mechanical arms for bin pick-up. However, the " garbage can " used to be

30-gallons, it is now more often 50-gallons, and it is much easier to " hide "

the hazardous trash because the bin is larger and no one looks at the trash

due to the automation; even propane tanks can be easily disposed of in this

manner.

The ability for the general public to hide hazardous materials in their

trash is now much easier!

The " new " law in California is really an old law, but the new law removes

the exemption for certain household items (e.g., AA-batteries) from the list

of formerly exempted items; this due to the miniscule amount of mercury

found in some batteries. What I take exception to is four-fold: 1) All

modern landfills are lined and whatever small amount of hazardous material

enters the waste stream is well contained in the landfill. 2) Large items

like, propane cylinders, paint cans, and lead-acid batteries are relatively

easy to pull from the waste-stream due to their size, but AA-batteries and

button-cell batteries are nearly impossible, and therefore, it is

unrealistic. (AA-batteries can be removed if all trash is screened and

manually sorted - a nasty job but very interesting if one REALLY wants to

see what the American public throws away and it makes us Garbologists REALLY

perk up.) 3) The American public is going to throw stuff in the trash that

regulators claim is hazardous and illegal, anyway Get used to it! Some

people (a great many of them) will go to great lengths to hide stuff in

trash that they know is hazardous or illegal. (Once, I was shot at while

working at a landfill when I was unrolling rolls of carpeting that were

brought in for disposal - it was because one roll had a body in it.) And

lastly, 4) This " new " requirement from the State puts a huge burden on local

and municipal waste facilities to comply with the miniscule amount of

hazardous stuff in trash, and it will take an exorbitant amount of money and

effort to chase these little items, e.g., AA-batteries. It is an un-funded

State mandate to eliminate a perceived environmental hazard with big costs

associated with it; for very little gain in my opinion.

Bottom line....If the regulators were to keep all hazardous materials out of

landfills, then there would be no need to line a landfill or install all the

engineering controls currently built into landfills to control the hazards.

Right!?! On the other hand, it would seem more prudent to catch the big

stuff (as is currently done) and use the modern landfill as the trash

receptacle it was (and is) designed for to control the minutia. In my

opinion, in order to regulate the remaining items it would be better to

tweak (or regulate) the manufacturing end to eliminate (or tax) the

hazardous materials entering into our environment from the inception

(manufacturing) point, rather than trying to catch these items at the

end-of-use point, i.e., the landfill This is what the Europeans model is

attempting to do, and with great success in many aspects.

For what it is worth...

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KENTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

> In Waterville, ME we have had at least three incidents of trash

> collection workers being overexposed to " unknown " chemicals because

> people have put household products in their trash and when compacted by

> the truck have reacted and caused the exposures. Haz Mat has had to be

> called in each time to deal with it and the workers have had to go to

> the hospital for treatment.

>

> I bet that these workers would consider the law quite beneficial and

> well placed. A way to " eliminate " the hazard (for the trash men). We

> all need to consider the potential consequences of our actions,

> including what happens when I dispose of something in the household

> trash. Something to think about on this nice spring weekend as you do

> some spring cleaning.

>

> Klane, M.S.Ed., CIH, CHMM, CET

> Klane's Education Information Training Hub (KEITH)

> " Take a step in the right direction "

> 93 Norridgewock Road

> Fairfield, Maine 04937-3116

> 207-453-KEITH (5348)

> Fax:

> @... www.TrainerMan.com

>

This E-mail scanned for spam and viruses by ATG Internet.

FAIR USE NOTICE:

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been

specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material

available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,

human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc We

believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as

provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17

U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to

those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information

for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscod\

e/17/107.shtml.> If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for

purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from

the copyright owner.