If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTSP)   News: State says man's containers of chemicals are toxic waste, guy says they are not, no one can decide what to do with them. Florida: The guy   (wtsp.com) divider line 37
    More: Florida, florida, environmental health officer, box trucks, flammable liquids, Florida Today, Superfund, Greenwood Village, chemicals  
•       •       •

9372 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Aug 2013 at 11:33 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-19 11:25:39 AM
Holy crap, it's the old creepy guy from 'Christine'.
 
2013-08-19 11:35:41 AM
Methylamine
 
2013-08-19 11:38:11 AM
Dagnabit, them revenuers are always after my still.
 
2013-08-19 11:38:52 AM
Of course, if he were wearing a 3 piece suit, had a nice haircut, and his toxic waste was from his newly defunct nuke reactor, he'd get a pass, a free lunch on the taxpayer's dime, and an apology from the governor.
 
2013-08-19 11:40:43 AM
I see a media shiatstorm brewing.
 
2013-08-19 11:42:44 AM
Next on TLC: Used Chemical Flippers
 
2013-08-19 11:43:40 AM
Portugal. The Man is better than Florida: The Guy.
 
2013-08-19 11:44:51 AM
A wise and proper judge would force the US Defense Logistics Agency to buy them back and find a buyer who will properly reprocess and use them (or at least store them out in the desert until then). I don't pretend to claim this is possible or a legal option. God only knows how the EPA will deal with it (my money is on dumping it in the Atlantic ... to prevent a hurricane from dumping it in the Atlantic. Any takers:), just kidding: it will be swept into the Atlantic (or every drum will rust) before that happens (unless the old man dies first, we are talking a seriously long process here).
 
2013-08-19 11:46:34 AM
i r confused. i guess that's the point
 
2013-08-19 11:49:31 AM
But Dickinson, who in 1983 made a record-setting solo trip crossing of the Atlantic in a bathtub-size sailboat, vows to display a similar grit in his battle with the feds.
"We'll fight it all the way to the Supreme Court," he said.


He WHAT? No wonder he's got the determination to see the EPA thing through...
 
2013-08-19 11:54:01 AM

Lady J: i r confused. i guess that's the point


Basically, the guy was buying up used and hazardous materials from the govt. and storing them without adequate protection on his property. They just sat there without being monitored for several years. There's concern that some of these materials will soon leak out and pose a health hazard for anyone coming in contact with them.
 
2013-08-19 12:03:54 PM
If it wasn't for the time he's had the land, I'd wonder if any soil samples were from previous contamination.  It's my belief that there's massive territories that are contaminated by today's standards that's unknown simply because nobody bothered to test.

Personally, if I was going to do anything that could possibly stink of hazmat I'd do soil samples before moving anything onto the property.
 
2013-08-19 12:06:33 PM

vudukungfu: Of course, if he were wearing a 3 piece suit, had a nice haircut, and his toxic waste was from his newly defunct nuke reactor, he'd get a pass, a free lunch on the taxpayer's dime, and an apology from the governor.


Sadly, this.

"They're just fracking chemicals. Why do you hate energy independence?"
 
2013-08-19 12:16:24 PM
Looking at the materials...All the guy has to do is bring the stuff to a local gun show and sell for $5 a gallon.  Problem solved.
 
2013-08-19 12:25:25 PM
Subby:an hero
 
2013-08-19 12:26:45 PM

vudukungfu: Of course, if he were wearing a 3 piece suit, had a nice haircut, and his toxic waste was from his newly defunct nuke reactor, he'd get a pass, a free lunch on the taxpayer's dime, and an apology from the governor.


Where did this bit of derp come from?  All the remaining nuclear reactors in the states have been operating for decades and have massive trust funds built up from a mandatory surcharge of 1/10th of a cent per kwh.

Given that a 1GW reactor can be expected to produce roughly 8B kWh/year, that's $8M/year into a fund for disposal costs - $320M total before you figure that much of it's been collecting interest for decades.

Lady J: i r confused. i guess that's the point


TLDR:  The EPA says it's waste(despite before the EPA stepping in much of the stuff was in original factory packaging); the dude says it's sellable material(or at least was before the EPA stopped him from selling the stuff).  The dude doesn't have the money to dispose of it as hazardous waste because he was planning on selling it.  Due to the delays, some of the stuff is now actually hazardous waste.

The difference between 'waste' and 'industrial chemical' is one of the things that kicks my libertarian shin, because they can be the exact same chemical mix.  But it's illegal to sell waste without a boatload of permits, plans for disposal, etc...

There was a news story a couple years ago where the EPA got upset that a town was burning waste in a cogeneration plant.  "No No No, you can't burn the stuff for power; the waste has to be incinerated".    Town - "???"
 
2013-08-19 12:30:53 PM

tricycleracer: Portugal. The Man is better than Florida: The Guy.


What about Mott the Hoople?
 
2013-08-19 12:33:01 PM
Most of the chemicals that are stored there are available from you big box hardware store in greater quantities.
The c10h16 fuel would need a special use.
 
2013-08-19 12:39:20 PM
because no one who's ever taken a high school chemistry class has any idea how to effectively neutralize large amounts of strong acids and bases...
 
2013-08-19 12:54:18 PM
So the chemicals originally came as surplus from the DLA (i.e. the government)? The EPA's haz waste regs contain something called a "cradle to grave clause". That means once it belongs to you it always belongs to you and you are forever responsible for cleanup costs. If the government decides this is a hazardous waste then guess who's on the hook along with this guy: the government.

/If there is no release to the environment, that $700,000 cleanup estimate is horseshiat too.
 
2013-08-19 01:12:58 PM

ImperialHazman: /If there is no release to the environment, that $700,000 cleanup estimate is horseshiat too.


Hell, they're estimating that they've spent $400k worth of labor on this as well.  That's like 2 whole man-years.

blindio: because no one who's ever taken a high school chemistry class has any idea how to effectively neutralize large amounts of strong acids and bases...


Depending on the acid/base, neutralizing can be a hazardous operation, the byproducts can be quite hazardous as well.
 
2013-08-19 01:28:52 PM

Firethorn: ImperialHazman: /If there is no release to the environment, that $700,000 cleanup estimate is horseshiat too.

Hell, they're estimating that they've spent $400k worth of labor on this as well.  That's like 2 whole man-years.

blindio: because no one who's ever taken a high school chemistry class has any idea how to effectively neutralize large amounts of strong acids and bases...

Depending on the acid/base, neutralizing can be a hazardous operation, the byproducts can be quite hazardous as well.


It would be "treatment". Can't treat haz waste without a permit. Cheaper to just send it somewhere that already has one.
 
2013-08-19 01:28:55 PM
Why the hell would he want to have that much crap on his property anyways?
 
2013-08-19 01:39:36 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Why the hell would he want to have that much crap on his property anyways?


Money. Industrial chemicals don't come cheap. He probably got them for a pittance from a DLA auction and thought he could flip them. Trouble is, depending on what you need the chemicals for most companies are very particular about their suppliers. QA and all that.
 
2013-08-19 01:40:05 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Why the hell would he want to have that much crap on his property anyways?


The industrial equivalent of buying crap at yardsales/auctions and proceeding to sell on ebay for a profit.

The margins can be pretty good because the military sells it for a song in ill-advertised ways, and the stuff can be quite valuable to the people with the need for it.

I wouldn't be surprised if he sells back to the government on occasion.
 
2013-08-19 01:54:02 PM

ImperialHazman: Money. Industrial chemicals don't come cheap. He probably got them for a pittance from a DLA auction and thought he could flip them. Trouble is, depending on what you need the chemicals for most companies are very particular about their suppliers. QA and all that.


I should say.  Our company purchases a lot of industrial chemicals and we wouldn't want anything that we couldn't be sure of the quality/make up, have a QC/warranty on it, and can get MSDS sheets for it.
 
2013-08-19 02:02:01 PM

Satanic_Hamster: I should say. Our company purchases a lot of industrial chemicals and we wouldn't want anything that we couldn't be sure of the quality/make up, have a QC/warranty on it, and can get MSDS sheets for it.


Well, can't say about the warranty, but would you buy still sealed containers from a 'distributor'?  Given the information on the original containers getting the MSDS should be a breeze.

The EPA really reduced the value when they went and opened up packages to dump the contents into larger containers.  I could see putting the original containers into sealed bins, but dumping?  They really reduced the value with that move.
 
2013-08-19 02:52:33 PM

Firethorn: There was a news story a couple years ago where the EPA got upset that a town was burning waste in a cogeneration plant. "No No No, you can't burn the stuff for power; the waste has to be incinerated". Town - "???"


The plants that burn stuff for power have emissions controls built and designed for trash burning, , not for the destruction of tons of chemicals.  Not too mention the entire design is different to begin with.

While it may sound like burning stuff for power and incineration are the same thing, they are not.
 
2013-08-19 02:56:15 PM

ImperialHazman: The EPA's haz waste regs contain something called a "cradle to grave clause". That means once it belongs to you it always belongs to you and you are forever responsible for cleanup costs.


That logically doesn't even make sense.  If it were from cradle to grave then it would be the manufacturers problem not the government.  If the government were able to take possesion of it and it become their problem (once it belongs to you) , then so would it become this guys problem once it belonged to him.
 
2013-08-19 03:26:01 PM

ImperialHazman: /If there is no release to the environment, that $700,000 cleanup estimate is horseshiat too.



The best way to get rid of the stuff is to send it to an incinerator.  There is one in Panama City Fl (might be one closer).  The cost is involved in the transportation and handling.  Lots of permits to transport it too.

And even though basic chemistry could be used, your workers have to have the proper training and your facility would have to have the proper permits (specifically as a RCRA generator, handler/treater, transporter).  Those are a regulatory headache to maintain.

manimal2878: ImperialHazman: The EPA's haz waste regs contain something called a "cradle to grave clause". That means once it belongs to you it always belongs to you and you are forever responsible for cleanup costs.

That logically doesn't even make sense.  If it were from cradle to grave then it would be the manufacturers problem not the government.  If the government were able to take possesion of it and it become their problem (once it belongs to you) , then so would it become this guys problem once it belonged to him.


What some manufacturers will do is allow you to send extra, unused material back to them.  You have to prove that it isn't waste.

The idea behind CtoG is that when a company like Kerr McGee buys a drum of methyl-ethyl-death, they can't bury it in the back forty and close the plant down thinking that the next guy that buys the property will be stuck with the costs of remediation.  So, companies pay environmental consultants lots of $$$ to research the history and potential environmental/financial impact of buying the property.  When it gets confusing is when you didn't pollute the property, but the next guys did.  If you have the money to pay for it, and you can't prove you didn't contribute to the pollution, the EPA will send you a bill.   Now, you know why a gallon of paint costs $20.
 
2013-08-19 03:26:01 PM

manimal2878: ImperialHazman: The EPA's haz waste regs contain something called a "cradle to grave clause". That means once it belongs to you it always belongs to you and you are forever responsible for cleanup costs.

That logically doesn't even make sense.  If it were from cradle to grave then it would be the manufacturers problem not the government.  If the government were able to take possesion of it and it become their problem (once it belongs to you) , then so would it become this guys problem once it belonged to him.


Well, they are government regs so you are wasting your time waiting for them to make sense. The idea behind it is to keep companies from simply claiming they paid somebody to get rid of it and it is no longer theirs. You could hire Ned's Throw it in a Ditch Waste Company knowing full well what Ned intended to do but claim it was now Ned's problem. So the EPA said everybody along the way is responsible. EPA regs don't kick in when you buy a product, only when you get rid of it. Their definition of cradle is not the manufacturer but the entity which first declares it a "waste".

This guy will probably lose because he can't afford to defend himself but here's the thing: According to their own regs a material does not become a waste until the company which owns it decides it no longer has any use or resale value and is to be discarded. That would be the "cradle" point. This guy appears to be claiming he can still sell it. It apparently is not contaminating the environment so they don't seem to have had any reason to step in in the first place.

/Yes, the government could argue that THEY sold it for beneficial re-use but HE can't and so it is all his problem but that would be a real dick move so no chance of that.
 
2013-08-19 03:37:34 PM

manimal2878: Firethorn: There was a news story a couple years ago where the EPA got upset that a town was burning waste in a cogeneration plant. "No No No, you can't burn the stuff for power; the waste has to be incinerated". Town - "???"

The plants that burn stuff for power have emissions controls built and designed for trash burning, , not for the destruction of tons of chemicals.  Not too mention the entire design is different to begin with.

While it may sound like burning stuff for power and incineration are the same thing, they are not.


True, but the rotary kilns used by cement manufacturers ARE essentially the same technology as incinerators. Quite a large percentage of hazardous wastes go to supplemental fuels programs for the cement industry. The kilns get to charge for the disposal of waste while at the same time buying less coal to fire their kilns. Some of them run without burning any coal at all. Not to say the waste in question would be a candidate as acids and caustics typically are not but they didn't give a full rundown of what the guy had.
http://www.fccenvironmental.com/recycling_resource_recovery/rr_fuel_ bl ending.html
 
2013-08-19 04:33:39 PM
I would gladly take some of that epoxy resin off his hands. I was paying around $90 per gallon jug of that stuff when I was rebuilding a small boat. It's useful for all kinds of stuff. Bonding, laminating, casting, potting. If one really wants to just get rid of it, add a bit of catalyst and it turns to a solid mass. IMO this guy is right, most of this stuff is usable product that is worth a bit of money to the right hobbyists. You can buy small containers of most of it at a well stocked hardware store without any special permits.
 
2013-08-19 04:34:04 PM

manimal2878: The plants that burn stuff for power have emissions controls built and designed for trash burning, , not for the destruction of tons of chemicals. Not too mention the entire design is different to begin with.


It was dehydrated sewage waste.  It's been a while, but they were shutting it down because of the ickyness factor of the fuel, no allegations of air quality violations.  Sort of like the guy who was turning the fat he was cutting out of his patients(lipsuction) into biodiesel - straight into tank, fine, I'd have a problem, but I'm familiar with the process for making real biodiesel, and that process will kill anything.

The only difference between burning something for power and incinerating it is MAYBE temperature.  If you need higher temperature, fine, say it in the article; they can maybe redesign the plant to get the higher temperature.  As a bonus it'd theoretically be more efficient.

SauronWasFramed: The best way to get rid of the stuff is to send it to an incinerator. There is one in Panama City Fl (might be one closer). The cost is involved in the transportation and handling. Lots of permits to transport it too.


Incinerators aren't a universal panacea depending on what the chemicals are.

SauronWasFramed: The idea behind CtoG is that when a company like Kerr McGee buys a drum of methyl-ethyl-death, they can't bury it in the back forty and close the plant down thinking that the next guy that buys the property will be stuck with the costs of remediation.


It's also to make sure companies don't 'sell' their waste to guys and companies like this, thus disclaiming their responsibility while creating a superfund site.  It's also a 'deep pockets' thing where the government is the last to pay out the $$$ for cleanup.

ImperialHazman: According to their own regs a material does not become a waste until the company which owns it decides it no longer has any use or resale value and is to be discarded. That would be the "cradle" point. This guy appears to be claiming he can still sell it. It apparently is not contaminating the environment so they don't seem to have had any reason to step in in the first place.


Interesting.  I wonder if he could maybe press a lawsuit against the EPA for rendering some of his product non-sellable by dumping it into larger, presumably unlabeled bins?
 
2013-08-19 05:30:35 PM

Firethorn: vudukungfu: Of course, if he were wearing a 3 piece suit, had a nice haircut, and his toxic waste was from his newly defunct nuke reactor, he'd get a pass, a free lunch on the taxpayer's dime, and an apology from the governor.

Where did this bit of derp come from?  All the remaining nuclear reactors in the states have been operating for decades and have massive trust funds built up from a mandatory surcharge of 1/10th of a cent per kwh.

Given that a 1GW reactor can be expected to produce roughly 8B kWh/year, that's $8M/year into a fund for disposal costs - $320M total before you figure that much of it's been collecting interest for decades.

Lady J: i r confused. i guess that's the point

TLDR:  The EPA says it's waste(despite before the EPA stepping in much of the stuff was in original factory packaging); the dude says it's sellable material(or at least was before the EPA stopped him from selling the stuff).  The dude doesn't have the money to dispose of it as hazardous waste because he was planning on selling it.  Due to the delays, some of the stuff is now actually hazardous waste.

The difference between 'waste' and 'industrial chemical' is one of the things that kicks my libertarian shin, because they can be the exact same chemical mix.  But it's illegal to sell waste without a boatload of permits, plans for disposal, etc...

There was a news story a couple years ago where the EPA got upset that a town was burning waste in a cogeneration plant.  "No No No, you can't burn the stuff for power; the waste has to be incinerated".    Town - "???"


Per the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) that EPA uses to regulate hazardous waste, something cannot be a hazardous waste until it has been declared as waste. As long as this guy can prove that his chemicals are products, the EPA cannot regulate them as haz waste.

Now, once this crap starts leaking, it becomes a bit easier for EPA to make a court case that it is, in fact, waste.
 
2013-08-19 05:58:46 PM
stewbert:

Now, once this crap starts leaking, it becomes a bit easier for EPA to make a court case that it is, in fact, waste.

Not if you call it fracking material.
 
2013-08-19 11:57:15 PM

ImperialHazman: manimal2878: Firethorn: There was a news story a couple years ago where the EPA got upset that a town was burning waste in a cogeneration plant. "No No No, you can't burn the stuff for power; the waste has to be incinerated". Town - "???"

The plants that burn stuff for power have emissions controls built and designed for trash burning, , not for the destruction of tons of chemicals.  Not too mention the entire design is different to begin with.

While it may sound like burning stuff for power and incineration are the same thing, they are not.

True, but the rotary kilns used by cement manufacturers ARE essentially the same technology as incinerators. Quite a large percentage of hazardous wastes go to supplemental fuels programs for the cement industry. The kilns get to charge for the disposal of waste while at the same time buying less coal to fire their kilns. Some of them run without burning any coal at all. Not to say the waste in question would be a candidate as acids and caustics typically are not but they didn't give a full rundown of what the guy had.
http://www.fccenvironmental.com/recycling_resource_recovery/rr_fuel_ bl ending.html


If they could burn some of this guy's stuff in concrete kilns like you say, there are at least three or four Rinker plants along the rail line running through Brevard county (nearest one being about ten miles away or so in north Palm Bay).  John Rhodes has some old neighborhoods nearby, but is mostly light industrial and warehouses.  Unfortunately, a lot of that area doesn't have any real sewer system to speak of outside of sanitary - depending on ditches, swales, and retaining ponds for most surface runoff.  That all runs into the Indian River Lagoon, which has a whole bunch of troubles on it's own.

Looking at the list of "stuff" on the premises, I would agree - if it hasn't degraded, there are a lot of people (especially locally) that would more than willing to take some of it.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report