The Master Waste List

1. The Master Waste List “What do I do with this stuff…?”

2. So, what is the Master Waste List& What purpose does it serve ? • List of chemicals and products commonly seen at Metro’s HHW/CEG facilities & their appropriate disposal categories. For example: • Simply put, the purpose of the list is to turn….

3. This Into

4. This…

5. History • Began in 1992: (22 years! It’s old enough to vote and have a beer with us at the end of the conference.) • Initial categories labels were derived from our first shipping contract • The labels reflect the order of waste on those first contracts rather than making any inherent sense; • E.g. “K”’s are acid, “L”’s are alkali • It has been through at least 3 major revisions (2003) (2009)

6. Before reaching its current form 2013 Revision

7. The Master Waste Listis BIG

8. Too big for over-achieving interns to take home and try to memorize… Not that I didn’t try….

9. And yet not big enough….

10. In many ways, it is a losing battle…There are: • 88 million organic & inorganic substances on CAS • 310,000 regulated chemicals on Chemlist • 59.6 million individual single step reactions detailed since 1840 https://www.cas.org/content/chemical-substances

11. Every Revision incorporates more data into the Master Waste List… Hazmat Table RQ Table P-List

12. The MWL Currently Contains:

13. Serves 3 Main Operational Purposes: 1 -- Sorting Making order from chaos 2 -- CEG Program Basis for cost codes 3 -- Shipping CFR 49 172.101 Hazard Class & Reportable Quantity

14. The primary function of the list is to aid in our sorting process…

15. Outside Sorting

16. Inside Sorting

17. We have a further breakdown into Category Subsets Some subsets serve a shipping function, (e.g. the acids) Some subsets serve a cost-saving function (the liquid vs. solid distinctions)

18. Poisons also get divided intoCategory Subsets

19. High Hazard or Special Categories

20. Putting it all together All of these categories mean that…

21. Everything that goes in a drum has a category in the MWL

22. The MWL is also CEG Quick Reference

23. And a Shipper Quick Reference

24. Researching the MWL • Committee is formed every few years • Moving towards an every year review • Each facility keeps an ongoing list of changes needed/desired So, how do we put this thing together, add new stuff, update old entries, etc, etc.?

25. Areas of discussion Discussion: There is a lot of this. • Reading MSDSs • GHS will make this a little easier • Real life experience: • In what forms do we really see this stuff? E.g. Household hydrogen peroxide (3%) is a mouthwash (G-Waste). 55% H2O2 is a different story. (R2) • Frequency of chemical visit • We don’t see a lot of Uranium Hexafluoride, ergo it is not on the list • How will it be treated for disposal: • We recently created “N3 Toxic Metal”, in order to sequester these metals from the environment, rather than just having the pH of the solution neutralized and released back to the water supply.

26. Readability & Organization of the MWL Ease of Access Safety As the list gets longer, and incorporates more data we try to use more visual clues: • Alternating shadowed lines • Color coded unusual categories • Highlighted P-Listed entries When we get anhydrous ether we want to make its danger clear and immediate • Explosives & peroxide formers are on a bright red background • Reactive Inhalation hazards are in purple. (We used to use baby blue, but that didn’t really scream “DANGER”.)

27. MWL Summary

28. Michael Allen Hazardous Waste Specialist Metro South Household Hazardous Waste (503)-655-0330 Michael.Allen@oregonmetro.gov Thank you! Jim Quinn Denise Hays Deb Humphrey Kari Meyer Chelsea Althauser George Lee

29. Possible Futures The multi-verse of possible MWLs

30. Serving Many Masters • As it has grown, with more entries, more columns, generally speaking more data, the MWL has become more useful to more facets of the HHW/CEG facilities. • More and more the limitations of a simple excel spreadsheet list are becoming apparent: • Different concentrations need multiple entries • Synonyms require multiple entries (and multiple maintenance) • Classification is often based on pure product, not the form encountered. • Handling notes are necessarily terse • Shipping data is sporadic • Links to “P-list” and “RQ” Tables are not “live” • The list is far from perfect, and given the 80+ million chemicals in the world, and growing, it never will be. • However, here are some possible futures:

31. Split the MWL into separate entities • Each facet of the operation gets only the data it needs. • Multiple sources to update and keep current

32. Transition to a database format • Highly Flexible • Harder to access, easier to maintain. • Preferable with touch screen support throughout the facilities

33. Produce Separate Documents for each operational facet From multiple Sources Using outside databases in addition to a simplified MWL, reports would be more current, but produced less easily • This really could be done with either of the two previous options. • With our own consolidated database it would be easy, but perhaps not as up to date.