Breast Milk and PFASs - Part 1

This caught me a bit off guard on my Google News Feed:

Huh? soon gave way to no, no, no...please don't go there.  And that was without looking at the data to support that headline.

Having gone through a public health masters' program, you get indoctrinated into the concept of the of "the greater good."  You learn that there is a risk of a negative health outcome with almost everything you do, drink, eat, breath, or come in contact with.  You decide based on what gives you the best outcome overall.  And you decide based on compelling evidence to do, or to do not.

I am a chemical hazard guy.  A hazardous waste guy to be specific.  I like looking at chemicals and their risk.  I buy into the notion that there are positive health outcomes when you decrease the amount (dose) of the chemical.  I also accept that there is a dose you - including a baby - can be exposed to where there is minimal risk of a negative outcome.

I also accept, advocate, and believe to be true the "Donnelly Risk Paradigm" which you can read about here.  Basically, if there is exposure, there needs to be uptake and there needs to be a negative health impact.  Without exposure there is no uptake, without uptake there is no negative health impact.  The problem here is, that even if there is exposure and uptake there does not necessarily manifest a negative health outcome since the body is pretty good at detoxifying stuff that gets into it.

Limiting exposure is a good thing but exposure and uptake does not mean a bad thing will happen (see the liver).

With this in mind, let's look at the paper that got Google to tell the world about breast feeding giving your baby toxic chemicals.

Philippe Grandjean, the study author and environmental health expert at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health stated that it was indeed an absurd situation breastfeeding women need to think of the kind of chemical exposures they could contribute to the child although breast milk is heralded as the best possible source of nutrition for the baby.

Wait...Harvard...no, no, no...Will this journal paper discourage a new mom from breastfeeding her baby?  Was that considered before they published it?  One news article goes on to quote one of the authors on this:

Grandjean and the other experts continue to emphasize that breast milk still is the best food for babies. But, it is just that it is less healthy and pure than was intended by nature and previously believed.

That's real helpful there professor.  What the public now sees is "Breastfeeding can expose babies to toxic chemicals."

Arggg.

Remember, the greater good!  Breastfeeding is for the greater good of the baby.  If you are going to tell new mothers that their breast milk is "less healthy and pure" then you should have anticipated it going full speed ahead to "breast milk may be tainted with toxic chemicals" once the press got a hold of it.  You and your cohorts on this paper should have understood this, so your research better show that breast milk is contaminated high enough so that continued feeding is more harmful to the baby then the benefits.

Before I go on, please note that I am all for this type of research.  It is important to understand exposure pathways.  If PFASs are causing harm, then this type of research is important.  But you need to chose your words carefully and keep this research on the down-low, because all the public sees is "Breastfeeding can expose babies to toxic chemicals."

And armed with that Google news feed title, can you blame a new mother for choosing not to breastfeed?

Next post: Part 2

Oops! EPA Accidentally Pollutes the Animas River

Edit: March 18, 2016: BOI Report on the incident. 

Rivers are not supposed to look like this.

Source

Update video on the spill.

For those readers who may be looking at the news, and the recently posted lab data, maybe I can help make some sense out of those numbers.

I am a public health guy.  I love fish and plants as much as anyone else, but I really don't deal with aquatic toxicity.  So looking at the lab results, I see a lot of "metals" that are not the toxic metals to human health I deal with,

By the way...Ignore all the letters by the results.  Those are important, but, for all intents and purposes, the values reported are the values we can assume were actually present at the time the sample was taken.  D, for example means they had to dilute the sample to get it low enough for the instrument to read it without overloading it.  Too much and the instrument's reading goes off the scale, so you dilute it, and then take the result and estimate how much is in there.  There is error put into that result when it is denoted with a "D", but again, these results are so high that potential error is meaningless.

Let's look at sodium for example.  The lab reports a maximum concentration of 11,100 ug/L at the the 32nd St Bridge.

That's 1,110 parts per million, ug/L is ppb, there are 1000 ppb in one ppm.

So I asked myself, 'what is the normal sodium concentration found in freshwater streams?'

Good ol' Google...Sodium looks to be about 5 ppm as a high concentration.  So the sodium is elevated for sure, but less than sea water (10,500 ppm).

Now let's look at the human health concerns.  Assuming there is no cyanide, the primary concern for this water coming from a mine is the heavy metals, and for those, I want to look at just what we call the "RCRA 8."

Looking at the analytical results, it looks like only lead is a really big concern - human health wise.

Source

Let's look at two of the metals.  The others are important, but these two have the highest concentrations and are a bigger deal toxicity wise.

Arsenic looks to be about 1080 at the highest concentration found.  As you can see above, the MCL - U.S. EPA's drinking water standard - is 10 ug/L.  Now remember, that's for drinking the water.  And not just drinking it once, but drinking two liters per day, almost every day, for 70 years.  Drinking a glass of this water would not, based on the lab results shown, be a concern (it would probably taste terrible though).  Potable and Palatable!

Lead...on the other hand...well...

25,600 ug/L at sample location "A72."

The MCL for lead is 15 ug/L

That's 25 ppm of lead in that sample.  See the TCLP results above for lead?  5 mg/L or 5 ppm..

That water, from location A72,  meets the definition of a hazardous waste,  Not that that makes it "toxic", it just shows that the concentration of lead is pretty gosh darn high.

So...dilution will be the solution to pollution here, but this river was heavily contaminated by some toxic stuff, that should have never gotten into this river (call me Captain Obvious).

It will be interesting to see what takes place to the environment as this water makes its way downstream.

Time will tell.

Bottle of Wine.... Gallo Glass vs. DTSC - Part 12

I'm not sure how Gallo Glass manages the EP sludge at their facility.  All I have to go on is the DTSC complaint, and that is heavily biased towards the findings the DTSC claims.

In the complaint, the DTSC acknowledges that HSC 25142.2 is in play:

The DTSC then bolsters its position on recycling with this:

It appears to me, that the DTSC takes issue with putting the EP sludge back into the process.  Why? is anyone's guess here.  Perhaps the arsenic, cadmium, lead, and selenium above TCLP thresholds gives them concern.  Though they state in their press release that they have "no evidence that consuming wine stored in these bottles poses a health threat," the thought of putting that stuff - that waste that would be hazardous waste - into wine bottles could be seen as off-putting.

However, if I understand the process Gallo Glass is using, what goes into the EP air pollution control device comes from the raw materials used to make the bottles.  In other words, those four metals are in the raw product that creates the EP sludge.  Unless the EP sludge is produced from a separate process where those metals are added, the EP sludge would - to me - have the same characteristics as the raw material.

What's important here, if a public health concern, or from DTSC's position, the protection of public health, is what leaches out of the bottles that are made with the EP sludge as an ingredient.  I would guess that this has been looked at.  The last thing any wine maker would want is to have their product meet the definition of a hazardous waste because it sat in a glass bottle.

Looking at this complaint objectively, it seems the DTSC is unsure of this, though they have had plenty of time to TCLP the wine bottles to see if the EP sludge is impacting the wine that is consumed.  Based on their press release, I am guessing that they did sample the glass as they claim they "have no evidence that consuming wine stored in these bottles poses a health threat."

Why the DTSC went after Gallo Glass regarding this process with such gusto seems very heavy-handed.  I can find no reason to view the addition of the EP sludge back into the process as anything other than a bona fide recycling process. I can see nothing in the complaint that leads me to see this as "sham recycling." Perhaps Gallo Glass failed to do this in the first place, or failed to respond in a forthright way.

I think the DTSC will not come out a winner on the claim of "surrogate disposal."  They probably will get Gallo Glass on the technicality of  HSC 25143.9 which states a "recyclable material shall not be excluded from classification as a waste ...unless all of the following requirements are met."

The complaint does provide documentation that EP sludge was not adequately contained.  They did get them for daily inspection, signage, employee training, secondary containment, contingency plan, and for failing to obtain a written assessment  EP sludge silo tank and its associated ancillary equipment and containment system.  They have to do that as part of HSC 25143.9.

What I did read in number 35 was "The EP sludge that did not make it into the silo or furnace was either unlawfully released into the environment or disposed of as a hazardous waste to an authorized landfill. The only issue here is "unlawfully released into the environment" as the furnace is recycling and the landfill is the only legal disposal option for EP sludge not recycled.

The complaint also states:

This may seem a little trivial, but the exemption is only for EP sludge that is recycled.  If it is not recycled, it must be managed as a hazardous waste.  So this "into the environment" they noticed becomes a big deal for that particular EP sludge.  Remember, in California HSC 25143.9 has specific management requirements in order to get exclusion.

So there you have it.  12 posts later and I am done making sausage. I know I said I would talk about the used oil issue, but I changed my mind.  It took me 12 posts just to discuss the recycling requirement for the EP sludge

Bottom line.  DTSC is wrong on the surrogate disposal claim and Gallo Glass needs to get their house in order and manage the EP sludge as if it is a hazardous waste.  That solid waste exclusion goes away real easy if you fail to recycle or manage it correctly.

Thanks for reading if you got this far.  I hope it helps you understand the complexity of a simple activity such as recycling.

End

Bottle of Wine.... Gallo Glass vs. DTSC - Part 11

Isn't this fun?  One little simple question.  white/gold or blue/gold dress.  Recycling, not a solid waste, hazardous waste, surrogate disposal.

Ten post later and here we are.  Closer...but still a bit too far away.

Remember in Part 8 I said:

For the DTSC to claim that what Gallo Glass is doing is not recycling cannot, in my opinion, be supported.  Since this is my blog and my opinion, I can speculate all I want.  I speculate that DTSC will lose on the issue of "surrogate disposal" for the EP sludge that is returned to the process.

I have my doubts now.  I am pretty sure that Gallo Glass has some issues with the EP sludge that the DTSC will get them on.  In fact, I was going to write about that issue as a way to show how easy it is to mess it all up because of how you manage the waste day-to-day.

Then I came across 25143.9.

A recyclable material shall not be excluded from classification as a waste pursuant to subdivision (b) or (d) of Section 25143.2, unless all of the following requirements are met:

I have skimmed over the complaint a number of times and I cannot find reference to this HSC.  It is my contention that the DTSC, through this complaint, never considered the recycling as being valid for Gallo Glass.  That is, California's own HSC 25143.2(b), was never considered as applicable.

Because HSC 25143.2(b) allows for recycling that entails the material being "used or reused as a safe and effective substitute..." or "returned to the original process...," and, when doing so, the material being recycled is not considered waste, Gallo Glass did not illegally store or treat a hazardous waste for the EP sludge that was recycled.

All the dominoes they knock over in the complaint have to do with the EP sludge being a hazardous waste.  Nothing in the complaint - and I could have missed it - mentions 25143.9.  This is going to be an interesting case for the lawyers.

Basically, as I see it, Gallo Glass, as the generator of the EP sludge, made a hazardous waste determination for the EP sludge they removed from the air pollution control device.  Since I cannot speak for them, I will hypothetically speak for them.

The end goal for the EP waste was to return it back into the process as a substitute for salt cake.  This is a common best practice for other companies who make glass bottles.  The use of the EP sludge in place of the salt cake (I am assuming here) saves raw material costs to make the glass bottles and does not create a lessor value bottle.  This, for all intents an purposes is what the "returned to the original process...," regulation was designed for.

Because of HSC 25143.2(b), Gallo Glass does not have to consider the EP sludge as a solid waste.  Since it is not a solid waste, it is not a hazardous waste and any hazardous waste requirement, as identified in the compliant, is not applicable to the EP sludge.

But there is a catch here.  Two of them if you live in California.

The first catch is applicable to both California and the EPA.  In order for 261.2(e)(1)(iii) and 25143.2(b)(3) to keep the EP sludge from not being a solid waste, an hence, not a hazardous waste, the EP sludge must be recycled.

"I am going to recycle it" works here provided speculative accumulation does not take place.  That is, you need to have a way to recycle it and actually recycle it and not just store it telling everyone its recyclable.  I can find no reference to speculative accumulation in the complaint for Gallo Glass.

Gallo Glass appears to have a valid recycling method for the EP sludge.  This method seems to be recognized in the industry and is a standard best practice they claim.  The fact that is saves landfill space or is more environmentally friendly or sound plays no part here.  All that we care about is the material is being recycled and the recycling is a valid recycling method, that is, it is not considered sham recycling.

California adds a second catch to this.  HSC 25143.9.  This here is very, very important for you California generators.  "A recyclable material shall not be excluded from classification as a waste ...unless all of the following requirements are met:"

If you don't recycle it, EPA takes your "not a solid waste away."  If you don't do these things in HSC 25143.9, California takes your "not a waste" away.

Here is what California requires Gallo Glass to do for the EP sludge that they want to recycle by returning it back into the process:

1. The container or tank shall be labeled or marked clearly with the words "Excluded Recyclable Material"
2. A business plan that meets the requirements of Section 25504...which specifically address the material or that meet the department's emergency response and contingency requirements which are applicable to generators of hazardous waste.
3. The material shall be stored and handled in accordance with all local ordinances and codes...secondary containment...the material shall be stored in tanks, waste piles, or containers meeting the department's interim status regulations establishing design standards applicable to tanks, waste piles, or containers storing hazardous waste.
4. If the material is being exported to a foreign country, the person exporting the material shall meet the requirements of Section 25162.1.

If you don't do these things then the recyclable material is not excluded from being a solid waste.

It is very easy to screw this up for yourself if you see the material as now just material.  It is not.  It is a solid waste that you don't have to call a solid waste as long as you legitimately recycle it under 261.2(e)(iii) and manage it as per HSC 25143.9,

Next post: Part 12.

Bottle of Wine.... Gallo Glass vs. DTSC - Part 10

Sausage...yummy sausage...

From what I have been able to gather, California requires a generator to make a hazardous waste determination in a very similar manner as the other 49 states.  I am basing this off of a PowerPoint presentation produced by another DTSC guy named Charles Corcoran.  Check this slide out.  Does that look familiar?

That's from 2007, so I Googled HSC 25143.2 to see what it looks like:

25143.2.  (a) Recyclable materials are subject to this chapter and the regulations adopted by the department to implement this chapter that apply to hazardous wastes, unless the department issues a variance pursuant to Section 25143, or except as provided otherwise in subdivision (b), (c), or (d) or in the regulations adopted by the department pursuant to Sections 25150 and 25151.

Let's look at "or except as provided otherwise in subdivision (b), (c), or (d)"

(b) Except as otherwise provided in subdivisions (e), (f), and (g), recyclable material that is managed in accordance with Section 25143.9 and is or will be recycled by any of the following methods shall be excluded from classification as a waste:

(1) Used or reused as an ingredient in an industrial process to make a product if the material is not being reclaimed.

(2) Used or reused as a safe and effective substitute for commercial products if the material is not being reclaimed.

(3) Returned to the original process from which the material was generated, without first being reclaimed, if the material is returned as a substitute for raw material feedstock, and the process uses raw materials as principal feedstocks.

Does anything in there look familiar as well? Number 2 and number 3 is the same definition as 40 CFR 261.2(e)(1)(ii) and (iii).

And California - in their own rule and PowerPoint presentation state "shall be excluded from classification as a waste."  Not just a hazardous waste, but a waste.

But what about that "Except as otherwise provided in subdivisions (e), (f), and (g)," and "managed in accordance with Section 25143.9."  Fair enough.  You gonna make sausage, you gonna get your hands dirty making it.

(e) Notwithstanding subdivisions (b), (c), and (d), all of the following recyclable materials are hazardous wastes and subject to full regulation under this chapter, even if the recycling involves use, reuse, or return to the original process as described in subdivision (b), and even if the recycling involves activities or materials described in subdivisions (c) and (d):

This is the same requirement as 262.2(d) and (e)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv),  California adds a couple more:

Used or spent etchants, stripping solutions, and plating solutions that are transported to an offsite facility operated by a person other than the generator...

Used oil

For Gallo Glass, according to the compliant, there is no indication that the EP sludge is not "inherently waste like" or "used in a manner constituting disposal, or used to produce products that are applied to the land, including, but not limited to, materials used to produce a fertilizer, soil amendment, agricultural mineral, or an auxiliary soil and plant substance" or "burned for energy recovery, used to produce a fuel, or contained in fuels..." or "accumulated speculatively" or "spent etchent" or "used oil."

Used oil is part of the complaint.  It is not part of the discussion on the EP sludge.  So...25143.9(e) is not applicable to the EP sludge.

What about (f)?

Any person who manages a recyclable material under a claim that the material qualifies for exclusion or exemption pursuant to this section shall provide, upon request...

Any person claiming an exclusion or an exemption pursuant to this section shall maintain adequate records to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the requesting agency or official that there is a known market or disposition for the material, and that the requirements of any exemption or exclusion pursuant to this section are met.

For purposes of determining that the conditions for exclusion from classification as a waste pursuant to this section are met, any person, facility, site, or vehicle engaged in the management of a material under a claim that the material is excluded from classification as a waste pursuant to this section is subject to Section 25185.

This requires us to look at 25185.

In order to carry out the purposes of this chapter, any authorized representative of the department or the local officer or agency authorized to enforce this chapter...may, at any reasonable hour of the day, or as authorized ...do any of the following...

Okay, so even if it is excluded, the DTSC can still come in and do an inspection.

This leaves us with (g):

...recyclable materials excluded from classification as a waste pursuant to this section are not excluded from the definition of hazardous substances in subdivision (g) of Section 25316.

Okay, so excluded from being a hazardous waste does not exclude it from being a hazardous substance.

This leaves (f) as the one complaint DTSC can hold out there - again my opinion only - my speculation - my blog - for which Gallo Glass will have to work to show this to have been done.

Remember the DTSC complaint alleges that Gallo Glass did, or did not do, something based on how the DTSC perceives it.  Let's look at complaint 34 again.

If you look at (f) closely, it states in 25143.2 "to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the requesting agency or official."  You can see in 34 that the DTSC alleges this has not been met.

Does not meeting 25143,2(f)(2) negate 25143.2(b), (c), and (d)?  I sure hope not.  Because if it does, the DTSC could claim ad nauseam that it has never been demonstrated.  This one will be fun for the lawyers if they split hairs here.

This brings us to the last "catch" in 25143.3(b) " recyclable material that is managed in accordance with Section 25143.9."  Which, you guessed it, makes us have to look at 25143.9.  /sigh.

25143.9.  A recyclable material shall not be excluded from classification as a waste pursuant to subdivision (b) or (d) of Section 25143.2, unless all of the following requirements are met:

I'll come back to this one later.  It deals with management of the material to be recycled.  It is important because of the "shall not be excluded from classification as a waste."

Next post: Part 11

Bottle of Wine.... Gallo Glass vs. DTSC - Part 9

In the complaint, number 33, DTSC claims that because the EP sludge contains arsenic, cadmium, lead, and selenium above the TCLP threshold, the "EP sludge is therefore subject to regulation as hazardous waste under the HWCL once it exits the the EP unit."

The reference DTSC gives is HSC 25201.12.  Let's have a look shall we?

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a hazardous waste facilities permit or other grant of authorization from the department, and payment of any fee imposed pursuant to Article 9.1 (commencing with Section 25205.1), are not required for a facility, with regard to the facility's operation of a physical process to remove air pollutants from exhaust gases prior to their emission to the atmosphere, as permitted by an air pollution control district or an air quality management district, unless a permit is required for that operation pursuant to the federal act. However, the facility is subject to all requirements imposed pursuant to this chapter on hazardous waste generators with regard to any liquid, semisolid, or solid hazardous waste that is generated as part of, and upon its removal from, the air pollution control process.

Okay...so that's about collecting fees for removing air pollutants.  The last sentence pretty much clarifies that even if they don't collect a fee on the process, the facility has to comply with all requirements imposed on the waste generated once it is removed from the air pollution control process.  Pretty standard legal stuff you see all the time.  Just because we exempt you here, does not mean we exempt you there.

Nothing too big of a deal here.  Basically while it is in the air pollution control process/device, it is technically in sanctuary from the hazardous waste regulations. Once it leave the sanctuary, all the the requirements imposed on a generator come in to play.

Standard practice there.  Nothing in 25201.12 specifically mandates that the EP sludge become a hazardous waste.  What 25201.12 does, in my opinion  - and a lawyer can tell me I am full of beans here - is state that a hazardous waste determination must now be made on the material that has been removed.

Now we are back to square one.  In California, does 40 CFR 261.2(e)(1)(ii) and (iii) apply?

I came across a PowerPoint presentation from a Jeff Van Slooten with DTSC titles "Recycling Exclusions & Exemptions."  It is dated January 28, 2009 so this was the thinking back then and the time period of the complaint.  Since 2009 things may have changed.  If I find that change I'll write about it.  This is not an exhaustive research process I do. 

Interesting...here is what DTSC's Mr. Van Slooten tells us about why we should recycle:

Wow!  That's a far cry from the DTSC who is looking at Gallo Glass.  That DTSC claims in number 34 of the compliant that Gallo Glass "reaped a substantial economic benefit by failing to properly dispose of all EP sludge to an authorized disposal facility,"

Wait,,,isn't an economic incentive consistent with the reason we want folks to recycle?  Okay, I understand the "all" part of that complaint, and DTSC is correct on that.  But the vast majority of this EP sludge is, and was, recycled.  Isn't keeping this EP sludge from a landfill (authorized disposal facility) consistent with "concern for the environment?"  Doesn't "illegally stored" and "illegally treated" fly in the face of "less regulations" and "no permit to treat HW."

California, through this PowerPoint presentation - and there are others - is telling California generators that recycling waste is a good thing.  At the same time, the DTSC looks at a recycling method and chooses to see it as not recycling contradicting themselves as they attempt to build a case.

Please do not get me wrong here.  Gallo Glass is not guilt free.  What I am focusing on is only one aspect of the compliant.  Is the EP sludge that is returned to the process to make glass bottles recycling or is it "surrogate disposal" as the DTSC contends in the complaint.

If it is recycling, then all those benefits outlined in the slide above come into play and the dominoes of "illegally" this and "illegally" that do not fall for the DTSC.

Back to the question at hand.  Is the EP sludge, once it is removed from the air pollution control device, a hazardous waste because it contains arsenic, cadmium, lead, and selenium above the TCLP threshold or does the act of recycling, by putting it back into the process, keep it from becoming a solid waste which, you know by now, keeps it from becoming a hazardous waste REGARDLESS of the arsenic, cadmium, lead, and selenium above the TCLP threshold.

Wacky!  Let's make sausage!

Next post: Part 10

Bottle of Wine.... Gallo Glass vs. DTSC - Part 8

Interesting....

If you read my 2010 post on a similar case of solid waste determination being the crux of the complaint, you will see that I sided with the EPA's contention.  I don't have a dog in this hunt, I go where the evidence takes me.

I happen to agree with Sherlock's reasoning.  Gallo Glass generates EP sludge when they produce glass bottles.  That EP sludge came from the process and is being returned to the process.

For the DTSC to claim that what Gallo Glass is doing is not recycling cannot, in my opinion, be supported.  Since this is my blog and my opinion, I can speculate all I want.  I speculate that DTSC will lose on the issue of "surrogate disposal" for the EP sludge that is returned to the process.

They will lose because 40 CFR 261.2(e)(1)(ii) and (iii) were put into the regulations specifically to pull material out of the hazardous waste requirements so that recycling could be facilitated.  This goes way back to the late 70's and our antiquated view of recycling. Even the name of the law, "RCRA," alludes to the fact that recovery - recycling - was a necessary and prudent waste management practice.

Soon after the hazardous waste regulations were implemented, congress passed another law - the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). Under Section 6602 (b) of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, Congress established a national policy that:

1. pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible;
2. pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible;
3. pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and
4. disposal or other release into the environment should be employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner.

You will notice that recycling is the second preferred method while the forth - landfilling (aka disposal) - is the least preferred.

I speculate - soundly I feel - that DTSC will lose on their claim that adding the EP sludge back into the process is not recycling.  Not only does 262.2(e) allow for this, it is also consistent with what the EPA wants:

Some practices commonly described as "in-process recycling" may qualify as pollution prevention. Recycling that is conducted in an environmentally sound manner shares many of the advantages of prevention - it can reduce the need for treatment or disposal, and conserve energy and resources. 

If Gallo Glass is correct, that the process of returning the EP sludge back into the process and that method "is recognized throughout the world as the environmentally-sustainable best practice and its use in the glass making process eliminates the need to transport and dispose of it in landfills" then recycling is indeed taking place.

And...if recycling is taking place, then 261.2(e) is being met.  And if 261.2(e) is being met, the EP sludge "are not solid waste when recycled."  And if the EP sludge is not a solid waste, it cannot be a hazardous waste.  And if it is not a hazardous waste, the EP sludge is not a "recyclable material" as the definition in California's HSC 25120.5 only applies to hazardous waste. All of this makes compliant number 33 invalid.

The law and its regulations work both ways.  White/gold dress, blue/gold dress, its now down to how you see it.  I have presented my evidence and support that it is blue/gold.  However, before I move on to show which DTSC claims fall apart and which one's might stick, I need to address the California take on things.

Number 33, in my opinion, flies out the window based on the evidence to the contrary I have presented.  So let's look at it.

One small item I have not addressed is the DTSC claim that because the EP sludge contains arsenic, cadmium, lead, and selenium above the TCLP threshold, the "EP sludge is therefore subject to regulation as hazardous waste under the HWCL once it exits the the EP unit."

California can have rules that are more stringent than the EPAs.  Is this one of them?  If so, then the EP sludge would meet the definition of a hazardous waste based on this one sentence. 

My gut feeling is that we will come to the same conclusion even while going throught California's hazardous waste determination process.  Based on what I have seen so far, California follows the same path as the EPA.  California may have additional rules to follow and may prohibit certain activities, but what we are discussing in complaint 33 deals fundamentally with the claim that the EP sludge is a hazardous waste. 

On to the 9th post.  If you are still with me, thanks.  All of these words to explain the concept of recycling and hazardous waste.  Wacky indeed!

Next post: Part 9