Law and the Environment : Environmental Lawyer & Attorney : Foley Hoag Law Firm : Boston, Washington D.C.

Product stewardship is definitely in vogue. The Daily Environment Report has just noted that the United State Conference of Mayors has adopted a resolution calling for “Extended Producer Responsibility For Products.” I understand the arguments in favor of product stewardship. From an economic point of view, the disposal costs associated with products and product packaging can be seen as an externality. Internalizing those costs would give manufacturers and distributors incentives to minimize those costs, through reduced packaging or changes in design/manufacturing that would reduce the costs associated with product disposal.

Nonetheless, I’m skeptical of the USCM resolution and wonder about how “producer responsibility” will actually get implemented on the ground. The USCM resolution describes the “costs paid by local governments to manage products,” traditionally seen as a core governmental function, to be “in effect, subsidies to the producers of hazardous products and of products designed for disposal.” Language like this might reasonably lead one to conclude that the Mayors’ concern isn’t product stewardship, but just reducing local DPW budgets.

Taxes on the cost of disposal might cause manufacturers to change their processes to reduce the amount of waste associated with the end of their products’ life, but what if the most efficient way to handle such waste is still through centralized collection and disposal by municipalities? Perhaps one of my more informed readers will tell me how product stewardship can be operationalized to provide the appropriate incentives on manufacturers to reduce the life-cycle cost of their products while still leaving the handling and disposal of waste products where they can still be performed most efficiently. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is set to publish a Final Rule creating an optional, alternative set of generator requirements for hazardous waste generated or accumulated in laboratories at “eligible academic entities”: (1) colleges and universities; (2) non-profit research institutes owned or affiliated with a college or university; or (3) teaching hospitals owned or affiliated with a college or university. 

The Rule will append a new subpart, Subpart K, to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste generator regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 262. Eligible academic entities may choose to have their laboratories subject to Subpart K in lieu of existing generator requirements. Notable provisions of Subpart K, include the following:

(1) Rather than requiring a hazardous waste determination at the time of generation, Subpart K allows eligible academic entities to make hazardous waste determinations when the waste is removed from the laboratory or within four days of arriving at an on-site central accumulation area (CAA) or on-site interim status or permitted treated, storage, or disposal facility (TSDF).

(2) Eligible academic entities will need to create Laboratory Management Plans (LMPs), a portion of which will be enforceable by EPA, describing how the entity will label containers and manage “unwanted materials” prior to hazardous waste determinations.

(3) Once every twelve (12) months, each laboratory will have thirty (30) days to clean-out any hazardous waste that consists of unused or commercial chemical products and will not have to count such waste towards the entity’s generator status. 

Eligible entities that have developed successful programs consistent with the existing generator regulations may choose not to become subject to the increased burden of Subpart K. I believe, however, that the Rule will be a welcome option for entities that have had a difficult time managing large numbers of laboratories (and students) generating small amounts of hazardous wastes that vary in type by semester.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Two recent federal decisions may aid regulators and activists seeking to hold companies liable under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) for historical soil or groundwater contamination that could migrate as vapor and contaminate indoor air.

On July 28, 2008, in United States v. Apex Oil Company, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois found the owner of a petroleum pipeline strictly liable under RCRA for pipeline leaks that contaminated soil and groundwater decades prior, and granted injunctive relief requiring the owner to abate the contamination. In Apex Oil, the Department of Justice filed suit under § 7003(a) of RCRA, which enables the federal government to force remedial actions when contamination may present an "imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment."  The Court found that vapors emanating from petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in soils could present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health under RCRA because residents could suffer adverse health effects when exposed to the vapors or be harmed by fires or explosions caused by the vapors. Of significance, the court noted that an “endangerment” need not be quantifiable, definite, or pose an emergency situation for it to be substantial and thus actionable under RCRA. An appeal of the Apex Oil decision is pending in the Seventh Circuit.

On June 12, 2008, in Grace Christian Fellowship v. KJG Investments, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin allowed, in part, rebuttal testimony supporting a RCRA claim that vapors from soil contaminated by a gasoline leak at an adjacent gas station were entering the basement of a church and threatening the health and safety of the occupants. The Grace court has yet to issue a final decision as to whether the gas station is actually liable under RCRA or required to remediate the underlying contamination. 

Both decisions could provide support for regulators and activists arguing that vapor intrusion meets RCRA’s standards for imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment. The Apex Oil decision also indicates that the underlying contamination need not be recent for RCRA standards to be satisfied. As liability under RCRA is strict, these cases highlight the importance of assessing whether a potential vapor intrusion condition exists on already-contaminated property or property that is the subject of a real estate transaction. 

Locally, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) recently promulgated regulations and standards under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP), governing the mitigation of potential indoor contamination caused by vapor intrusion. These state regulatory developments only underscore the fact that potential vapor intrusion issues must be addressed. Property owners will ignore these issues at their financial and legal peril.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 7, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a new final rule (the “Rule”) that exempts certain recycled hazardous secondary materials from RCRA’s “cradle to the grave” regulatory system.

Hazardous waste is regulated under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). A hazardous secondary material can only be classified as a hazardous waste if it is first determined to be a solid waste as defined in Section 261.2 of the RCRA regulations. Previously, Section 261.2 classified some hazardous secondary materials, but not others, as solid wastes even when recycled. As complying with RCRA can be expensive and burdensome, Section 261.2 likely deterred many companies from recycling hazardous secondary materials deemed to be solid waste.  

The new Rule now explicitly excludes from the definition of solid waste three categories of hazardous secondary materials that are “legitimately” recycled. First, the Rule excludes hazardous secondary materials that are generated and reclaimed under the control of the generator (i.e., generated and reclaimed on-site, by the same company, or under “tolling” agreements). Second, the Rule excludes materials that are transferred by a generator to a reclamation facility (or an intermediate facility prior to recycling at a reclamation facility), provided that certain conditions are met. Finally, the Rule provides a procedure for applying for a case-by-case “non-waste determination” when the hazardous secondary material is legitimately recycled in a continuous industrial process or indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a product or intermediate. The new exclusions and non-waste determination are, however, not available for materials that are: (1) considered inherently waste-like; (2) used in a manner constituting disposal; or (3) burned for energy recovery.       

For a hazardous secondary material to be “legitimately” recycled under the new exclusions or a non-waste determination, the following factors must be met: (1) the material must provide a useful contribution to the recycling process; and (2) the recycling process must make a valuable new intermediate or final product. Two additional factors must be considered, but are not mandatory: (3) whether the recycled material is managed as a valuable commodity; and (4) whether the recycled product contains toxic constituents at significantly greater levels than a non-recycled product made from virgin materials. EPA has long assessed the legitimacy of recycling activities under RCRA based on substantially these same four factors. See 53 FR 522. This Rule merely codifies the factors with minor adjustments.

Overall, the Rule is a helpful example of deregulation that should facilitate recycling without sacrificing environmental protection. The facilities most likely to benefit from the rule will include manufacturers that generate or already recycle hazardous secondary materials.  The most common types of recyclable materials that would be affected by the rule are metal-bearing secondary materials and solvents.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link