*** Reactivity Characteristic
Q. Chemical XXX  is a reactivity hazard however since it is a sulfide bearing waste that can degrade to form a toxic gas when heat is applied.
A. Reactivity can be a complex determination.  If you have to heat or treat it to some extreme for the bad effect to happen, it is generally not considered “reactive.”  Remember, RCRA deals with stuff that used to go to the ordinary (municipal solid waste) landfill, and the chief concerns are about the status of things sent to an ordinary landfill.  Reactivity chiefly deals with chemicals that react with water, or degrade “naturally” over time to become explosive.  Many peroxides are reactive.

**Q. From this experience I have come to the conclusion that to be listed, a waste must be a relatively high volume waste involved in a major industry, or simply be notoriously nasty.  There are probably many wastes out there that don’t fit the RCRA designation as a mixture, even if individual components within a particular mixture possess the criteria to be considered a characteristic waste. 
A. You would have to go into the details on the F and K lists, they catch pretty much everything. 

** Q. Would you consider information gathered from OSHA, EPA, PCA online databases secondary literature because they contain lists or tertiary literature?  If tertiary, please explain.
A. They are secondary literature.  When OSHA publishes a list, of course it is 100% definitive of what is on its own list, so the issue of primary and secondary is not important.  If you go to an EPA website, IRIS for example, http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/index.html, the article you read will be secondary literature; it is essentially a review article. 

* Q. Also, I was curious, if a waste product has contaminated an area and the residents are concerned and take a company to court, do they test the waste at that time to determine if it is a characteristic waste based on the 4 categories?  The reason I asked is that I noticed a test listed in the ignitability category.
A. Almost never.  RCRA suits are brought by the federal government and are separate from the civil lawsuits brought by local citizens.  The fact that laws such as RCRA were violated may be useful evidence for the citizens.

* Q. It seems to me that the EPA would have an organized list of characteristic wastes similar to the listed wastes. Aside from researching the chemical’s physical characteristics and determining if it is ignitable, corrosive, or reactive I believe the process would be more streamlined if the EPA classified all corrosive, reactive, and ignitable chemicals into their own list.  Does such a list exist?
A. Not that I know of.  But there are many ways of finding out if a particular chemical has one of the characteristics.

*. Q  I found the lists very interesting.  My favorite was the California Prop. 65.  I’ve always been intrigued to read on some labels “Known to the State of California to cause cancer”.  Does CA know something everyone else doesn’t? 
A. Not at all.  They just like to put things on lists.  You need to read their definitions carefully. 

*Q. What was the purpose of this list?  Did California feel the Federal Government was not adequately protecting the public?  Did this have a large effect on local business’s bottom lines?  I imagine the business community fought this one. 
A. This was a “proposition.” California has a system that makes it relatively easy – compared with other states- to put measurers on the ballot.  Hence people vote on the law, not the legislature.  We get into some of the technical problems with calling something a “carcinogen” in the toxicology course, ENVE 652.  Many chemicals, in very high doses, cause cancer in lab animals, but that not proof that they cause cancer in humans at environmentally relevant doses. But there we are trying to be scientific.  When it comes to the public perception, the science might not matter.