Re: California Bans Households Common Hazardous Waste Items into the Trash - Another Stupid Misplace Law!!

[Guest guest]

This is another stupid, misplaced law!!

These items, listed by DTSC as hazardous waste, make up less than 1% (by

weight and/or by volume) of the total amount of material deposited in Class

III landfills. A very small percentage indeed. Moreover, many of the items

on this list are already banned from Class III landfills (e.g., asbestos,

lead-acid batteries, CRTs, etc.), however, now they are going after the

common AA battery. This it is in deference to the fact that all modern

landfills are fully-lined, have leachate collection/treatment systems, and

gas collection systems. Therefore, the wastes are effectively contained and

will not enter into the environment. However, the biggest bunch of BS in

this law is the fact that if the California regulators REALLY, REALLY wanted

to keep these items out of landfills, they would ban the manufacture,

importation, and sale of these items. This is the European model, and why

doesn't California follow the European model?,,,because the manufacturers

here in California have lobbyists and the public doesn't have an advocate!

Therefore, we, the general public, must drive some distance to dispose of

our AA batteries, otherwise wee are criminals. Thank you California EPA!

And with the price of gas, I don't think I will see a lot of people

commuting to a special waste facility; assuming they know where one is.

They will continue to throw these items into their trash because it is just

plain inconvenient to collect them (which involves concentrating hazardous

materials in unsafe containers and subjecting persons to many additional

hazards...a different subject all together) and drive them somewhere to

" properly " dispose of them. (Heaven help the soccer mom with her Suburban

full of kids, and spent fluorescent tubes and jar of finger nail polish

remover in the back, if she gets in an accident on the way to the Special

Waste facility.) I wonder when it will be illegal to dispose of Valasic

pickle juice down the drain?...it IS corrosive and it DOES meet the Federal

definition of a hazardous substance!

The California EPA, DTSC, and CIWMB do not have this well thought out and it

burdens the public with a law that is almost totally unenforceable. It also

places huge burdens on local garbage haulers and municipal solid waste

facilities that must comply with the law. (Does the CIWMB really expect the

landfill operator to pick through the trash to find every button-cell

battery?) In my opinion, DTSC and CIWMB really screwed-up this time.

Stupid....yes. Short sighted....yes. Unenforceable....yes.

For what it is worth....

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KENTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

>

> [Draft] California Bans Households Common Hazardous Waste Items into the

> Trash

>

> By Abdul H. Khalid PhD, Chemical Engineer

>

> In a memorandum of January 10, 2006, the California Department of Toxic

> Substances Control (DTSC) announced that it would not allow households

> and " Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Universal Waste Generators

> (CESQUWGs) " to dispose some of their hazardous wastes into the trash.

> Previously, the homeowners were allowed to dispose of their universal

> wastes such as batteries, small electronic devices, fluorescent lights,

> and mercury thermostats in the trash until February 8, 2006. Under the

> new rule, effective February 9, 2006, theses regulations have been

> changed and the households common hazardous waste items can no longer be

> placed into the trash.

>

> Common households products that are used in our daily lives may contain

> potentially hazardous ingredients and may require special precautions

> when they are finally disposed of. Under the new California hazardous

> waste and universal wastes regulations, it is illegal to dispose of

> household hazardous waste items in the garbage/trash, down storm drains,

> or into ground. These hazardous wastes so called common household

> hazardous waste items have potential to be released into the environment

> and may contaminate the nation's land, air, and groundwater.

>

> In compliance with the New Trash Rules as effective February 9, 2006,

> the following common items are banned in the trash and are listed below:

>

> * All fluorescent lamps and tubes: Fluorescent tubes, compact fluorescent

> lamps, metal halide lamps, and sodium vapor lamps.

> * All batteries: AAA, AA, C, D, button cell, 9-volt, rechargeable and single

> use, lead-acid batteries used in cars.

> * All electronic devices: Cathode ray tube (CRT), liquid crystal

> diode (LCD), and plasma monitors etc.

> * Thermostats that contain mercury: Mercury switches, barometers, mercury

> thermometers etc.

> * Household and landscape chemicals: Oil based paints, reactive

> and explosive materials, some pool chemicals, cleaners, pesticides, and

> herbicides.

> * Paints and Solvents: Latex paint, paint thinners, finger and nail polish

> remover etc.

> * Building materials: Asbestos, treated wood.

> * Automobile-related: Antifreeze, batteries, motor oils, filters.

> * Compress gas cylinders: Propane tanks used for BBQ or plumbing etc.

> * Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) containing materials: Paint and ballasts

> containing PCBs.

> * Photo wastes: (containing silver)

> * Non-empty cans: Aerosol cans also included, use California definition for

> an empty can.

>

> For more information, visit DTSC's web site at: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov

> or e-mail at: uwaste@... or phone: 1- 0r

> 1-800-72-TOXIC.

>

> Reference: California Zero waste web site at:

> http://www.zerowaste.ca.gov/

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> -----------------------------------------------------

> END Forwarded on behalf of Abdul H. Khalid PhD, Chemical Engineer (Friday,

> April 28, 2006)

> Email: Abdul.Khalid@...

>

>

>

>

>

>

> 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. 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.

>

[Guest guest]

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

Geyer wrote:

>This is another stupid, misplaced law!!

>

>These items, listed by DTSC as hazardous waste, make up less than 1% (by

>weight and/or by volume) of the total amount of material deposited in Class

>III landfills. A very small percentage indeed. Moreover, many of the items

>on this list are already banned from Class III landfills (e.g., asbestos,

>lead-acid batteries, CRTs, etc.), however, now they are going after the

>common AA battery. This it is in deference to the fact that all modern

>landfills are fully-lined, have leachate collection/treatment systems, and

>gas collection systems. Therefore, the wastes are effectively contained and

>will not enter into the environment. However, the biggest bunch of BS in

>this law is the fact that if the California regulators REALLY, REALLY wanted

>to keep these items out of landfills, they would ban the manufacture,

>importation, and sale of these items. This is the European model, and why

>doesn't California follow the European model?,,,because the manufacturers

>here in California have lobbyists and the public doesn't have an advocate!

>Therefore, we, the general public, must drive some distance to dispose of

>our AA batteries, otherwise wee are criminals. Thank you California EPA!

>And with the price of gas, I don't think I will see a lot of people

>commuting to a special waste facility; assuming they know where one is.

>They will continue to throw these items into their trash because it is just

>plain inconvenient to collect them (which involves concentrating hazardous

>materials in unsafe containers and subjecting persons to many additional

>hazards...a different subject all together) and drive them somewhere to

> " properly " dispose of them. (Heaven help the soccer mom with her Suburban

>full of kids, and spent fluorescent tubes and jar of finger nail polish

>remover in the back, if she gets in an accident on the way to the Special

>Waste facility.) I wonder when it will be illegal to dispose of Valasic

>pickle juice down the drain?...it IS corrosive and it DOES meet the Federal

>definition of a hazardous substance!

>

>The California EPA, DTSC, and CIWMB do not have this well thought out and it

>burdens the public with a law that is almost totally unenforceable. It also

>places huge burdens on local garbage haulers and municipal solid waste

>facilities that must comply with the law. (Does the CIWMB really expect the

>landfill operator to pick through the trash to find every button-cell

>battery?) In my opinion, DTSC and CIWMB really screwed-up this time.

>Stupid....yes. Short sighted....yes. Unenforceable....yes.

>

>For what it is worth....

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

Your comments on this new California law, and many OSH laws in the US,

is similar to mine. Many laws are more 'smoke and mirrors' than real

improvements in safety and health and the environment.

made some interesting statements about how she thought the US

has " better " safety standards. For example,

" The official Canadian threshold for concern for radon is much higher

than it is in the U.S. "

The US Radon " standard, " is more illusion, that reality. In my 20

years of experience, it has only been used to by home buyers to get a

reduction in the price of a home rather than fixing the problem.

" Why fix the home, I am only going to live her a few years. Let the

next guy worry about it. "

Only a few concerned home owners have really done anything about radon

in the US. In Finland, the government paid to survey all homes and fix

them. Finland did not want the cost of lung cancer from radon to affect

the cost of national health care.

He is another example from , " in the United States, people must

take special training and be certified to do asbestos sampling. " This

only applies to schools.

This certification law excluded CIHs from taking asbestos air samples

in schools without this training. Are CIH unqualified to take asbestos

air samples? Of course, not! CIHs can still take asbestos sample in

industry without this training. IHs did all the air sampling to

establish the asbestos risk. But now they are unqualified?

This training law made a lot of money for trainers, but it did not make

schools any safer.

This " asbestos air sampling " certification also calls these technicians

" air sampling professionals. " Many of these 5 day wonders now do all

kinds of air sampling because they are " air sampling professionals "

which make them " better " than industrial hygienists who don't have the

word " professionals " in their title and don' carry a license, they can

show to people.

He is another example from , " In Canada, there is no national

body setting or overseeing indoor air quality standards. In the U.S.

the Environmental Protection Agency plays this role. "

CHMC has conducted some of the best research into air quality is

residential homes and has set guidelines for ventilation, mold

exposure, moisture control, etc.

Canada and NATO jointly published some of the best indoor air

guidelines in 1990, 16 years ago.

The US EPA issues guidelines with no recommended " Standards " The USEPA

still has no standards for mold, CO2, ventilation rates, and so on.

EPAs IAQ information more reflects that lack of common sense amongst

many building operators, that useful information. Telling building

owners to fix water leaks is common sense, not useful information.

In fact, there is a continuing turf war between the EPA and OSHA on who

has responsibility for indoor air quality. OSHA's technical service

manual on IAQ has far more useful information than anything by EPA.

I find the Canadian and EU standards far more useful than anything the

US has.

After all, what learned with the German Baubiology standards,

not anything from the US.

Bob

[Guest guest]

Are there ANY laws regulating the disposal of things like

stachybotrys-laden sheetrock in California? (or even *requiring* that

it BE disposed of??? - rather than left lying around..)

Inquiring minds want to know...

If anyone knows the answer please email me off list...

[Guest guest]

:

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.

[Guest guest]

, 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 andincidents, 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 hazardsof horizontal construction mixed in with the biohazards of a medicalfacility and the chemical hazards of a chemical facility, with the addedunknowns of no MSDS and no idea of what blended with what in the loads oftrash. Moreover, it might all be contained within a poorly ventilatedbuilding; as is the case in some MRFs.When "trash men" used to pick up garbage cans on the curb, it was difficultfor the public to hide dangerous items - it was often discovered/observed inthe back of the truck. Albeit, the garbage collectors often got exposed toreactives (e.g., brake fluid in one load and chlorine bleach from anotherload) or injured with sharps (e.g., needles from home-medical users). Theincidents/injuries to garbage collectors dropped significantly with theadvent of semi-automated collection, i.e., side-loading trucks withmechanical arms for bin pick-up. However, the "garbage can" used to be30-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 trashdue to the automation; even propane tanks can be easily disposed of in thismanner.The ability for the general public to hide hazardous materials in theirtrash is now much easier!The "new" law in California is really an old law, but the new law removesthe exemption for certain household items (e.g., AA-batteries) from the listof formerly exempted items; this due to the miniscule amount of mercuryfound in some batteries. What I take exception to is four-fold: 1) Allmodern landfills are lined and whatever small amount of hazardous materialenters the waste stream is well contained in the landfill. 2) Large itemslike, propane cylinders, paint cans, and lead-acid batteries are relativelyeasy to pull from the waste-stream due to their size, but AA-batteries andbutton-cell batteries are nearly impossible, and therefore, it isunrealistic. (AA-batteries can be removed if all trash is screened andmanually sorted - a nasty job but very interesting if one REALLY wants tosee what the American public throws away and it makes us Garbologists REALLYperk up.) 3) The American public is going to throw stuff in the trash thatregulators claim is hazardous and illegal, anyway. Get used to it! Somepeople (a great many of them) will go to great lengths to hide stuff intrash that they know is hazardous or illegal. (Once, I was shot at whileworking at a landfill when I was unrolling rolls of carpeting that werebrought in for disposal - it was because one roll had a body in it.) Andlastly, 4) This "new" requirement from the State puts a huge burden on localand municipal waste facilities to comply with the miniscule amount ofhazardous stuff in trash, and it will take an exorbitant amount of money andeffort to chase these little items, e.g., AA-batteries. It is an un-fundedState mandate to eliminate a perceived environmental hazard with big costsassociated with it; for very little gain in my opinion.Bottom line....If the regulators were to keep all hazardous materials out oflandfills, then there would be no need to line a landfill or install all theengineering controls currently built into landfills to control the hazards.Right!?! On the other hand, it would seem more prudent to catch the bigstuff (as is currently done) and use the modern landfill as the trashreceptacle it was (and is) designed for to control the minutia. In myopinion, in order to regulate the remaining items it would be better totweak (or regulate) the manufacturing end to eliminate (or tax) thehazardous materials entering into our environment from the inception(manufacturing) point, rather than trying to catch these items at theend-of-use point, i.e., the landfill This is what the Europeans model isattempting to do, and with great success in many aspects.For what it is worth...-- Geyer, PE, CIH, CSPPresidentKENTEC Industries, Inc.Bakersfield, Californiawww.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.

[Guest guest]

My investigation into the treatment and disposal of Stachybotrys laden

materials (i.e. drywall) comes from conversations I had with the California

Department of Health Services (DHS), County of Los Angeles Environmental

Health Department and the County of Los Angeles Sanitation District several

years ago.

None of the parties I spoke with reported having an interest in either

regulating moldy waste that is considered compost in nature, having some of

the same biological constituents or treatment of it; as long as the moldy

materials remain in a dry non-liquid state to where the materials are not

contaminated with some other regulated waste such as asbestos, lead-base

paint.

However, in looking at the handling of Stachybotrys waste, both California

EPA and OSHA showed a concern because of airborne and skin exposure contact

to the public and workers. The conclusion of phone conversations suggested,

moldy building materials should be bagged (EPA direction found in Schools

and Commercial Buildings; ACGIH Bioaerosols: Assessment and Control) and

transported in a safe manner that they do not pose a risk to humans.

Moffett

Re: California Bans Households Common Hazardous Waste

Items into the Trash - Another Stupid Misplace Law!!

Are there ANY laws regulating the disposal of things like

stachybotrys-laden sheetrock in California? (or even *requiring* that

it BE disposed of??? - rather than left lying around..)

Inquiring minds want to know...

If anyone knows the answer please email me off list...

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.

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.

[Guest guest]

I think the new California haz waste law wasn't thought completely through, and

that a more convenient means of collection is needed.

That having been said, I'm a California resident, have known where my hazardous

waste collection facility is and used it for over 5 years (it's about 20 minutes

from my house), and am segregating batteries etc in a box in my garage to haul

over there probably once a year. At work we've had to segregate haz waste like

batteries for over 10 years.

All of the trash in my area is taken to the local " material recovery facility "

where it is semi-manually sorted to recycle (including mulching plant debris) as

much as possible. This is driven by the cost and scarcity of landfill space.

I also observe that one of my first reactions to the new law was to go out and

buy some rechargeable batteries and a charger, for each of the high battery

consumers in my household. The hassle of disposal is now greater than the

hassle of recharging, and that is probably the most important tangible result of

this law.

Steve Chalmers

stevec@...

----------------------------------------

Message: 2

Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 20:18:36 -0700

Subject: Re: California Bans Households Common Hazardous Waste Items into the

Trash - Another Stupid Misplace Law!!

This is another stupid, misplaced law!!

These items, listed by DTSC as hazardous waste, make up less than 1% (by

weight and/or by volume) of the total amount of material deposited in Class

III landfills. A very small percentage indeed. Moreover, many of the items

on this list are already banned from Class III landfills (e.g., asbestos,

lead-acid batteries, CRTs, etc.), however, now they are going after the

common AA battery. This it is in deference to the fact that all modern

landfills are fully-lined, have leachate collection/treatment systems, and

[snip]

[Guest guest]

The same is true here in Orange cnty, NC. The county has about 6 statellite dump sites so no-one has to go very far to get rid of stuff. The county turns all yard waste into mulch which you can buy back. The main dump also has a paint exchange where you can pick-up relinquished paint for free (colors are limited obviously... <G>). What you have to remember that if you live in a rural area (as i do) then you dont have trash pick up so you have to take it to the drop off site yourself. Having to cart your own trash around gives you a different awareness of it. So if the county provides different bins to sort and recycle then its no big deal to do so. And each drop off site has a staff member to help/correct you. If you live in a city and just take your trash to the kerb then there's probably less incentive for you to separate it. Its a sight to see your stereotypical "good ol' southern rednecks" separating their paper

from their glossy, their plastic from cans and their treated lumber from untreated... Stuart McCallum --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: 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