Epa Hazardous Waste Generator Check List: Fill & Download for Free

Like a number of Government Agencies; the EPA started out with valid goals Cleaning the water and the air. Problem is, what do you do once you have those issues in check?Well, if you a Government agency, you don’t say. Ok, we did what you wanted, so we will close now. You keep making up issues and taking away more and more rights.Look at the Waters of the US act. When it was founded, the EPA was given authority over navigable bodies of water. A navigable body is:“Under U.S. law, bodies of water are distinguished according to their use. The distinction is particularly important in the caseof so-called navigable waters, which are used for business or transportation. Jurisdiction over navigable waters belongs to the federal government rather than states or municipalities. The federal government can determine how the waters are used,”Navigable WatersEPA has control of any pollution that goes into navigable water.But EPA was not satisfied with this. So they passed a regulation that gave them control over just about every puddle, ditch or trickle of water. The courts rejected the full Waters of the US act and sent it back to the EPA to be reviewed.There are still many battles coming over this act.Navigable WatersBy cutting the EPA budget, the EPA will be forced to review the projects they are working on and focus on those that it already is enforcing.To give you some idea on how idiotic EPA regulations are. Lets look at the Chemical Coumadin.Coumadin is a blood thinner that is used by millions of people to thin their blood. EPA lists Coumadin as a P listed Waste. P listed wastes are ones where if you generate more than 2.2 pounds of P waste a month, you have to meet the Hazardous Waste disposal requirements of companies that produce tons of chemicals. (Large Quantity Waste Generator)Categories of Hazardous Waste Generators | US EPAEPA considers Coumadin so bad, that even the empty pill bottles the drug comes in must be treated as Hazardous Waste. Pharmacies that dispense Coumadin have to treat every empty bottle as a hazardous waste and dispose of it through a Hazardous Waste Disposal company. The cost of this disposal is about 9 times what the disposal of regular trash is.Well, you say. If it is that terrible a substance, it needs to be strictly controlled. First, this is a medication that is sent home with millions of people every day. Once it is dispensed, there are no regulations on how it is disposed of.Oh, and you can also go to the hardware store and buy all the rat poison you want. No limit is put on how much rat poison you can buy or how you use it on your property.What is the primary ingredient of rat poison? Yep. Coumadin (called Warfarin)’Another example:If you go to the Dr. to stop smoking. He/She can give you samples of Nicotine patches to assist you to stop smoking. You can use the patch and throw it in your garbage after you use it.Now if those Nicotine samples in the Dr’s office should expire, the Clinic has to dispose of them as a Hazardous Waste. Because Nicotine is a poison.These are just two of a large number of regulations like this that make no sense when you look at how they are used and how the public uses them.

First, a few disclaimers: my experience is primarily in the US (and especially California) and primarily with polyethylene terephthalate or PET (the 'bottled water' plastic). I also don't know much about the actual costs involved or the day to day operations of running a recycling business. Instead, I'll talk about some recycling opportunities, based on my 30,000 foot academic perspective. Your mileage may vary. I'm not good at picking superlatives (i.e. "the easiest"), so here is a long list of possibilities.Recycling is a notoriously tricky business because you get squeezed at both ends: often you have to take on the burden of collecting the recyclable material, and once you've got it, it can be hard to find buyers because of (often unjustified) concerns about a difference in quality between primary and secondary material. From my understanding, the hardest part of making a viable recycling business is in finding a consistent supply. If you don't have a consistent supply it will be hard to find buyers.There is a huge diversity of materials and products to recycle, including bulk materials (paper, plastic, metals); durable products (computer displays and e-waste generally, cellphones, appliances, batteries, mattresses); and specialty materials (precious metals, pesticides). The "easiest" material to recycle depends entirely on where you are and how you want to operate. For background reading, take a look at the EPA's municipal solid waste report [0].I. Bulk MaterialsGenerally metals are easier to recycle than plastics; however, metal recycling has been around for a lot longer, so it may be hard to find a niche that isn't already filled. Steel is easy to recycle because it's in everything and because there is a mature market for steel scrap, even though the price is not that great. Steel makers use oid scrap as a way to control the temperature of the furnace, so there is a built-in demand. Aluminum is great to recycle because it is fairly abundant (particularly in can form) and has huge cost and environmental benefits. but if you're operating in an area with curbside recycling, you'll have to fight for your supply.If you want to go the polymer route, you'll probably have a tougher climb but it may be easier to find an unexploited market. With polymers everything's hard: you have to sort different plastics from each other, so it's hard to get a pure material stream. Plastic products tend to be lightweight, so contamination is a much more significant concern: the ratio of plastic weight to contaminant weight is likely to be lower. And finding buyers is harder because plastic manufacturing processes are very demanding and it's sometimes challenging to design a manufacturing process which with wide enough tolerances to accept secondary material.Among polymers, "olefins" (polyethylene, both HDPE #2 -- grocery bags; milk jugs; and LDPE #4 -- softer clear bags, and polypropylene #5 ) are very easy to recycle but don't often get recycled in a "closed loop"-- the products made from the secondary material are often different from the products that got recycled in the first place, and may not be recyclable themselves.PET #1 is also easy to recycle and has had explosive growth, especially in thermoformed "clamshell" containers in supermarkets-- Trader Joe's seems to put all of its produce in PET. PET clamshells are also eminently recyclable but not currently recycled, so there may be big opportunities there. Take a look at NAPCOR [1] and the work they are doing to try to develop thermoform recycling [2].Used lubricating oils (like motor oil + transmission fluid) are also recyclable and because they are oil and can be burned for heat, their value is tied to the cost of crude oil (i.e. high). -- there is an ongoing surge in capacity for lube oil re-refining [3,4] in North America- as those plants come online they will be thirsty for feedstock. All you need to recycle oil in most US jurisdictions is a truck with a tank on it. No staff, no equipment. Check out NORA [5]. Used oil recycling can be tricky because if the oil contains contaminants, notably heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls, or high levels of halogens, then it may be regulated as hazardous waste. In California all used oil is regulated as hazardous until it has been shown to meet a purity standard. [ask me about my current research project involving used oil recycling in CA!] [5.5]II. DurablesDurable products can be lucrative to recycle but require greater technical sophistication. A classic example is e-waste: with some skill it can be repaired and reused rather than recycled. Cellphones, for instance, usually get replaced long before their useful life is over; but Americans don't like buying used cellphones (or maybe American telecoms don't like selling used cellphones) so the massive quantity of used phones generated in the US find a second life in the developing world. Computer equipment also, though to a more limited extent because people are less likely to replace them if they still work. Old electronics can be dismantled, ground up to separate plastics and steel, and then the remains melted down to extract precious and valuable metals (copper, gold) but this also leads to the release of a great deal of toxic ickiness.A more low-tech direction is appliance recycling- most of the weight of a typical household appliance is steel, which is easily recyclable. Interestingly, mattresses are a big problem in the waste stream because they are bulky and damage waste management equipment, but they also contain a fairly large quantity of steel so they are nicely recyclable or remanufacturable. California recently passed a law requiring mattress manufacturers to take back end-of-life mattresses, so there may be opportunities there [6]. Carpets, too, can often be recycled [7].Really, the sky's the limit here, so be creative. office furniture... (mostly steel and wood)... power tools (remanufacturable components; high-performance electric motors with magnets and copper windings; etc).. even cars, which you could say are the Cadillac of durable products for recycling (har har). There's already quite a network of junkyards and car parts brokers, so this is probably not ripe for a new entry.III. Specialty MaterialsI don't know much about this area, but I'm sure I don't need to explain the value of gold and silver. Copper is attractive, too, because most of the world's "easy" copper has already been mined and yields from operating mines are low and getting lower. Copper scrap can get a high enough price that theft of copper wiring for sale as scrap is not unheard of in some parts of the world. [8]Pesticides and/or pesticide containers are another example of a niche where there may be demand for recycling services. A surprisingly large share of pesticides are still sold in single-use packages and because of toxicity concerns, they often can't be commingled with other recyclable materials. [9]I would also put the biopolymer polylactide (PLA) in the specialty category. It's made from byproducts of corn. Even though functionally it's a lot like other polymers, it's produced mainly or completely by one manufacturer, NatureWorks, which is an imprint of Cargill. Although PLA's main selling point is its compostability (and its origin in renewable materials) NatureWorks has some interest in recycling. They may be looking for people to partner with in terms of collecting end-of-life PLA [10].I've run out of steam. Hope some of this is helpful or sparks some ideas. Good luck![0] EPA MSW report: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/index.htm[1] National Association of PET COntainer Resources http://www.napcor.com[2] "Moving forward on PET Thermoform Recycling"http://www.napcor.com/pdf/RR_Sept2011.pdf[3]U.S. Rerefining on Cusp of Growth[4] http://www.bglco.com/files/es_insider_apr_2011.pdf[5] NORA, An Association of Responsible Recyclers[5.5] Used Oil Life-Cycle Assessment(LCA)Project[6] California Senate passes mattress recycling bill[7] Carpet America Recovery Effort[8] Metal theft[9] ACRC - Ag Container Recycling Council - Home[10] Recycling (recovery & sortation)

He is totally a socialist, if by socialist you mean someone who is social when at parties. If you mean socialist like the wikipedia definition:Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system. As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.Then no.It's gross oversimplification at best, and cartoon villainy make em ups at worse to call Obama socialist. He's a corporatist moderate Democrat with a bipartisanship fetish, hell bent on being reasonable and over compromisey at every turn. He's socially moderate (still can't say gay marriage is a normal thing) and fiscally moderate.I find it baffling when people refuse to see shades of gray.There's been a valiant effort by those on the right to paint anything other than a complete free market without any rules or taxes as socialism, but America was founded as a capitalist constitutional republic that believed in taxation, with representation, and that some ground rules needed to be put in place to protect the interests of its citizens. Thus we have a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, and Amendments that protect our rights as individuals, not as a collective where everyone must share everything.If we use User-9918985937555143421's communist manifesto as the guideline (since he seems to have a top answer), we can respond to these concerns rather easily. Though I would argue that its unfair to base judgement on this, since all economic systems will have a couple parellel things in common.Hitler loved his mustache, that doesn't mean Charlie Chaplin wanted to eradicate jews. It's a unfair comparison.Obama wants everyone to have affordable health care, just as every other first world country has government healthcare. Ayn Rand used Medicare. It doesn't make anyone socialist, it makes them want to keep a free market economy sustainable while balancing the interests of its citizens health. See also What are some of the most mind-blowing facts about US healthcare?Anyways, to the manifesto we go.Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. Obama has made no attempts to or shown any interest in taking peoples land away. No American would tolerate this, eminent domain is even a struggle currently. Chance of embracing: none. Political Suicide.A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.The progressive taxation system in this country has been on the books for generations. Tax rates under Obama are far below that of Reagan's. That taxation system didn't turn us socialist, it helped make us the largest economy in the world. And if you get too deep with tax cuts without properly balancing your books, this happens: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3490Note from graph source: Readers should be aware that these estimates are not definitive. Notwithstanding their limitations, however, they paint a clear picture of what lies behind the nation’s current fiscal woes.Clinton gave us a surplus with a 33% tax rate. That's not Heavy. 50%+ would be, which no politician in their right mind would ever suggest unless it was a dire emergency of total economic collapse. Reagan and Bush Jr gave us massive amounts of unpaid debt. Which now allows China to have more power over our currency. Chance of embracing: minimal. We might get back up to 33% for the really rich, but I'd hazard to guess my party will be too chicken to do the right thing.Abolition of all right of inheritance. The only thing he's ever mentioned it returning the inheritance tax to its previous rate, which he has totally given up on. If any politician even attempted to abolish it, they would be strung up instantly. It's a dumb idea, and no one in any legitimate role or stature in government has ever suggested it as a good idea. Chance of embracing: none. Political Suicide + horrible idea.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. We totally confiscate criminals stuff to repay victims, but everyone else is good to go. Chance of embracing: none.Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. The bank bailouts were a Bush policy that Obama had to choke on after deregulation from Clinton and Bush gave the private sector lots of loopholes from which to defraud us. While there is a means of getting credit through the state, it definitely doesn't have a monopoly, as the lax rules and lack of stringent regulation has shown us while the economy nose dives from fraud and duplicitous practices. The government has been far too nice to all the banks while they played craps with our real estate market. (Not that I think there should be centralized monopoly, I just want rules that make sure we don't get screwed, which is something Obama has completely failed to lead on from a liberal perspective.) Chance of embracing: none. Political Suicide + bad idea.Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. The state has the ever profitable train travel system as no one else has entered into the industry. The FCC is currently a joke. Airlines and trucking and interstate commerce are all privately owned, with a weak government watchdog keeping them "in check." Chance of embracing: none. No one, not even Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich want to socialize our transportation means. Democrats like competition, as long as there are rules.Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. Nixon started the EPA. It was a smart move, so we don't all get poisoned. I want someone checking my meat, water, toys, soil, air etc for poison, what with my not wanting my children to be poisoned. Obama DID invest in some car companies, and have been since selling back the pieces we own so we can stay out of the private free market which Democrats enjoy having as well. Chance of embracing: EPA - Slight. He could make stricter rules, but I doubt it. Owning the factories? None. We're selling off what we got now that the economy is stable. If he really would have wanted to keep it for the state he would have.Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Inequality is at a all time high. Our Army is military, not cow related. Chance of embracing: none.Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country. I don't recall seeing any meat cars. Last I checked everyone is allowed to move freely about the country. Any identification laws were implemented by Bush. The "redistribution of wealth" is minimal and only there as a insurance policy so the country doesn't return to the great depression. Last I checked he was pitching medicare and ss cuts, a horrible idea, and the antithesis of socialism. Chance of embracing: none. Obama will not be forcefully redistributing people via cow/car hybrids. Political Suicide and insane idea.Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. We totally give kids a free, but mostly broken education, as our country has for decades. Obama has nothing to do with this, and in fact, has been spearheading reforms that may or may not privatize things more. Chance of embracing: Free Education - 100%. Banning child labor - 100%. I think its safe to say he's against that. As are most Americans. Building Trade Schools - Maybe. If as part of his education reform he realizes that not all kids fit into a single bucket of what works and gives them the opportunity to go to specialty schools, then yes he may embrace this.So in summary, out of the 10 items User-9918985937555143421 mentioned, there's maybe 2 or 3 that are barely similar to what Marx was a fan of. Those are tenuous at best, and no right thinking Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Pastafarian, or any other politician would think any of those were remotely close to good ideas.Obama embraces all the policies all his predecessors had or created. Healthcare was the one area where he suggested significant changes (he actually used the GOP bill from Clinton's fight as his template.) It was not socialism, mind you, just some regulations to protect the American People from being gouged and keeping healthcare affordable so we can spend our money on making the rest of the economy thrive.As a "liberal" Democrat, I can assure you, on behalf of all the legitimate players who are taken seriously in today's media world, that we love the free market. We just like some rules with it. We like profits too. We never want to be taxed beyond what keeps the country running (which appears to be the magic 33%.) We also like universal healthcare as it makes it easier for us to run our small businesses without worrying if we are going to have to gouge our own employees next quarter or go bankrupt (says the guy who had his rates raised 39% in one year and had to pass some of it onto his staff.) It's called insurance for a reason. It's there to protect people. That, the roads, the firemen, the cops, the military, education, consumer protection, religious and racial equality, are the things we think don't belong in private hands. Show me anyone taken seriously in Washington who is even close to socialist, I'll come mow your lawn for a week. (for minimum wage, but still a bargain.)So no, President Obama is not a socialist, unless you also think Bush, Reagan and Nixon were also socialists. If that's the case, then I have no idea how to respond to you.