Laserfiche WebLink
il�i1`iyG 15:28 PM&S 44774751 <br /> NO.FrQ PGOSiGGB i <br /> I <br /> ' I <br /> Mr. Donald Dier <br /> September 13, 1990 <br /> Page 4 <br /> construction wastes, abandoned vehicles and parts <br /> thereof, discardedIhomo and industrial appliances, <br /> dewatered, treated;, or chemically fixed sewage <br /> sludge which in no hazardous wadtu, manure, <br /> solid and semisolid <br /> andetable or other discarde solid and semisolid wastes. " <br /> Pini Re" • o e S 1 1(a) (emphasis added) . <br /> Hydrocarbon contaminated soil that is sent to a landfill for <br /> disposal is clearly discarded material . Thus, it is <br /> properly classified as a solid waste. The soil received at <br /> the Tillie-Lewis Facility, on the other hand, is a <br /> contaminated material that will be converted into a <br /> commercially valuable product; it very clearly is not <br /> discrded Tillimaterial . Tati not <br /> e-Lewis a <br /> solidwnetedfacllityand the <br /> Even if the 1pnguage of the statute were not so <br /> clearly dispositive of the issue, County Health Services ' <br /> Position would be untenable. By definition, an thin taken <br /> to a landfill for dispopal is a waste, regardless o any <br /> other characteristics that material might have. If, as <br /> County Health Services suggests, the classification of the <br /> material if brought to a landfill defines how that material <br /> will be classified for other purposes, then a smelter is n <br /> solid waste facility bepause iron ore, if sent to a <br /> landfill, would be a solid waste. Surely, this is not the <br /> intent of the statute. <br /> The element that- differentiates a Masts from a <br /> nonwaste is the concept of discard. Indeed, the Common <br /> definition of waste demonstrates as much, <br /> "Waste * * « 3 as Aiocarded as worthless, <br /> defective, or of n use + . " Webster' s Ninth <br /> Nov Collegiate Dictionary (emphasis added) . <br /> All materials taken to a landfill for disposal are intended <br /> for discard; consequently, all are wanton . However, <br /> e <br /> wille used manufacture <br /> therefore,loarernotoduct <br /> wastes . Consequently, the Tillie-Levis Facility is not a <br /> solid waste facility. <br /> and the <br /> her <br /> ion <br /> he <br /> regulationstfurthertbuttresstthestatute conclusion thatifacilitiesg <br /> such as the Tillie-Lewiy Facility were not intended to be <br /> Within the definition of "solid waste facility. " A Comment <br /> to Title 14 , section 18215 providees <br /> io�uus <br />