Audit, Compliance and Risk Blog

Jon Elliott

Recent Posts

Hazardous Waste Regulations for International Shipments

Posted by Jon Elliott on Wed, Apr 03, 2013

Within the U.S., the principal hazardous waste management law is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (formally codified as Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA)). The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets national standards and directly administers RCRA in some states, while state environmental protection agencies administer RCRA and their state acts when authorized by EPA to do so. For domestic activities – including shipments of hazardous waste from a generator to a recycler or treatment, storage and disposal (TSD) facility, that’s enough to know to start compliance.

But if your U.S. organization imports or exports hazardous wastes, you need to know that RCRA incorporates requirements driven by US participation in international treaty  - and membership-based organizations. Alternatively, if you’re a non-U.S. reader you may recognize the following elements in your own national requirements.

Exports Consistent with the OECD Agreement

The most relevant international agreement is from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) – its 1992 “Decision C(92)39/FINAL Concerning the Control of Transfrontier Movements of Wastes Destined for Recovery Operations (OECD Decision)”, as amended. EPA’s RCRA regulations include specific provisions governing “Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste for Recovery Within the OECD.” (40 CFR §§ 262.80 – 262.89). As an exception to this coverage, separate rules provide similar requirements for exports to Canada and Mexico (under North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), even though they're also OECD members) (40 CFR §§ 262.80 – 262.89). EPA revises these rules from time to time (most recently in 2010).

The following requirements apply to exports to Canada or Mexico (and to non-OECD countries covered by separate treaties with the U.S.):

(1) The “primary exporter” (typically the generator) provides EPA with a written notification of intent to export, at least 60 days prior to the first shipment. This notification must be in writing, signed by the primary exporter, and include the following information:

  • Name, mailing address, telephone number and EPA ID number of the primary exporter

  • The following information, by consignee, for each hazardous waste type:

    • Description of the hazardous waste and the EPA hazardous waste number, U.S. DOT proper shipping name, hazard class and ID number for each hazardous waste
    • The estimated frequency or rate at which such waste is to be exported and the period of time over which such waste is to be exported
    • The estimated total quantity of the hazardous waste (consistent with Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest)
    • All points of entry to and departure from each foreign country through which the hazardous waste will pass
    • Description of mode of transportation (air, highway, rail, water, etc.), and type(s) of container (drums, boxes, tanks, etc.)
    • Description of how the hazardous waste will be treated, stored or disposed of in the receiving country (e.g., incineration, land disposal, recycling)
    • Name and site address of the consignee and any alternate consignee
    • Name of any transit countries through which the hazardous waste will be sent, description of the approximate time it will remain in such country, and the nature of its handling while there.

(2) The receiving country consents to accept the waste.

(3) A copy of an “EPA Acknowledgement of Consent” accompanies the shipment and, unless export takes place by rail, is attached to the manifest.

(4) The shipment conforms to the terms of the receiving country’s written consent.

(5) The shipment complies with RCRA manifest requirements (including the field for international shipments), modified to provide the address of the receiving consignee and alternate instead of facility, and to add the following to the certification of the shipment “and conforms to the terms of the attached EPA Acknowledgment of Consent.”

The primary exporter must notify EPA if the alternate consignee is used. If other problems arise, the primary exporter files an exception report with EPA; this follows requirements for domestic shipments, except that reports are filed with EPA Headquarters. Exporters must file an annual report with EPA summarizing the types, quantities, and destinations of all hazardous waste exported. Records must be retained for at least three years.

Exports to another OECD country instead must meet similar RCRA regulations designed to ensure consistency with OECD requirements. These include incorporation of OECD’s distinction between “Green Wastes” (wastes that present low risk for human health and the environment and, therefore, are not subject to any other controls than those normally applied in commercial transactions) and “Amber Wastes” (wastes presenting sufficient risk to justify their control). These RCRA regulations regulate as hazardous each waste that is a RCRA hazardous waste and/or an Amber waste not otherwise regulated as hazardous, and regulate Green Wastes as non-hazardous. These rules include notifications to EPA and consent by the receiving country similar to those described above, use of a “movement document” analogous to RCRA’s Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, and requirements for a contract for transportation and management of the wastes. Exported wastes are to be managed in compliance with the receiving country’s requirements for these activities.

Basel Convention Considerations

In addition to OECD’s provisions, 172 nations and the European Union have ratified the 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention). OECD revised its Decision in 2001 to align with Basel Convention provisions. President George Bush signed the agreement on behalf of the U.S. in 1989, but the Senate has never ratified it. Absent ratification, the United States cannot participate in waste transfers with Basel Parties without a separate and equivalent bilateral or multilateral agreement. The OECD agreement and NAFTA treaties constitutes such multilateral agreements, and the U.S. also has bilateral agreements with Costa Rica, Malaysia and the Philippines.

Imports of Hazardous Waste

Importers of hazardous wastes must complete manifests for the wastes, substituting their name and facility identifications for the non-domestic generator’s. The importer must provide the transporter with an additional copy to submit to EPA in compliance with the transporter’s manifest requirements. If the import is from an OECD country, the importer must also ensure that the shipment meets OECD requirements.

Implementation Checklist

If your organization is involved in imports and/or exports involving U.S. territory, consider the following checklist. If it is involved in imports or exports involving other OECD countries, the same general issues apply.

Does my organization intend to export hazardous waste, acting as the “primary exporter"?

  • If so, is the shipment being sent to:
    • Canada or Mexico?
    • Another OECD country?
    • A non-OECD country?
  • Has my organization secured formal consent from the receiving country? 
  • Has my organization notified EPA of its intent to export? 
  • Has my organization received EPA’s acknowledgement of the receiving country’s consent? 
  • Does each shipment comply with domestic U.S. manifest requirements, and applicable requirements of the receiving country? 
  • Does the organization retain all required records? 
  • Does my organization intend to import hazardous waste?
  • If so, is the shipment being sent from:
    • Canada or Mexico?
    • Another OECD country?
    • A non-OECD country?
  • Does each shipment comply with domestic U.S. manifest requirements? 
  • Does the organization retain all required records? 

 

Where can I go for more information?

Read More

Tags: International, Health & Safety, Environmental risks, Environmental, EPA, Hazcom

Violence Against Women Act: Expanded Security Requirements On Campus

Posted by Jon Elliott on Tue, Mar 26, 2013

Earlier this month, President Obama signed the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, which renews and revises a wide variety of federal regulatory and grant programs intended to reduce gender-related violence against women. Although many of these protective measures are workplace-related, the amendments also expand protections for students at 99% of the nation’s colleges and universities (those that receive “Title IV” money from the U.S. Department of Education). These schools must comply with the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act) by providing an Annual Security Report each October 1.

Read More

Tags: Employer Best Practices, Health & Safety, Workplace violence

Corporate Governance: 2 Reasons To Review Indemnification Agreements

Posted by Jon Elliott on Fri, Mar 15, 2013

Litigation is an occupational hazard for corporate directors and officers. Fortunately, the hazard of directors' liability can be reduced substantially when the corporation indemnifies them from personal liability arising from their services. Indemnification is an undertaking by a corporation to reimburse legal costs and related expenses incurred to defend a claim, and may also include advances to cover defense costs as they are incurred. Indemnity arrangements may appear in the corporation’s charter or bylaws, and/or a separate agreement between the individual and the corporation. State laws govern indemnification, and apply through corporate bylaws and/or employment contracts with directors and officers.

Read More

Tags: Corporate Governance, Business & Legal, SEC, Employer Best Practices

The Newest Say-on-Pay Jurisdiction is…Switzerland!

Posted by Jon Elliott on Thu, Mar 07, 2013

Executive compensation packages can become sources of tension between directors and shareholders in companies. In the U.S., state corporation laws authorize directors to fix their own compensation and to determine suitable compensation for the officers of the corporation, while federal income tax rules require shareholder validation before the company can deduct individual compensation exceeding $1 million ($500,000 for participants in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)). U.S. federal laws have expanded requirements for shareholder “say-on-pay” votes, but only require that the votes themselves be advisory, not binding. The 2009 federal stimulus bill requires participants to offer non-binding shareholder votes, and the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act requires all public companies to do the same. (See my recent blog on Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rulemaking).

Read More

Tags: Corporate Governance, Business & Legal, SEC, Employer Best Practices, International, Accounting & Tax

Employment Law: How Mixed Can An Employer's Motives Be?

Posted by Jon Elliott on Thu, Feb 28, 2013

The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s extended beyond the ballot box to enter most U.S. workplaces. Beginning with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, federal (and follow-on states’) laws seek to ensure employees' rights to equal treatment, by prohibiting employer discrimination against employees because of any characteristics that historically have been the basis for discrimination (dubbed “protected classes”). Federally protected classes presently include the following:

Read More

Tags: Corporate Governance, Business & Legal, Employer Best Practices, Employee Rights, EEOC, NLRB

Employment Law: Family and Medical Leave Act Turns 20

Posted by Jon Elliott on Wed, Feb 20, 2013

This month marks the twentieth anniversary of the passage of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993. FMLA requires large employers to grant eligible employees time off to respond to a broad range of medical conditions that they or their immediate family members may suffer. Since 1993, the law has been amended and expanded a number of times, with the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) revising its regulations to incorporate and apply these changing requirements. For example, effective March 8, WHD has revised rules providing protections for National Guard and Reserve troops subject to deployments, and for airline flight crews.

Read More

Tags: Business & Legal, Employer Best Practices, Employee Rights, EEOC

Environmental Compliance: GHG Reduction Initiative Plans to Expand

Posted by Jon Elliott on Wed, Feb 13, 2013

As 2013 progresses, governments throughout North America are considering whether and how to expand regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in order to reduce climate change. For example, I recently wrote about California’s first sale of GHG emission allowance as part of its “AB 32” cap-and-trade program.

Read More

Tags: Environmental risks, Environmental, EPA, Greenhouse Gas, ghg, climate change

Mandatory GHG EPA Reports Due April 1, 2013

Posted by Jon Elliott on Mon, Feb 04, 2013

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to expand and refine environmental compliance requirements, including those related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In particular, facilities and organizations subject to EPA's mandatory GHG emission reporting rules should be preparing to submit reports covering calendar year 2012. Even an entity that reported 2010 or 2011 emissions will still have to adjust its data collection and information reporting efforts. Although reports typically are due March 31, that’s a Sunday this year so April 1 is the date.

Read More

Tags: Environmental risks, Environmental, EHS, EPA, ghg, fracking, climate change

Employment Law: Are All Workplace Liaisons Dangerous Liaisons?

Posted by Jon Elliott on Mon, Jan 28, 2013

Everyone has relationships in the workplace. Many relationships are purely professional, while some add personal elements, and one or more may even be very personal. Anti-discrimination laws may impose scrutiny on any relationship where at least one person is a manager or supervisor, or the owner of a small enterprise. In the U.S. these include laws (including Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, and comparable state laws), regulations and enforcement guidelines (from by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and state equivalents), and court cases applying these standards. In Canada these include comparable human rights and occupational health and safety regimes.

Read More

Tags: Corporate Governance, Business & Legal, Employer Best Practices, Employee Rights, Workplace violence, EEOC, NLRB

Employment Law: Is Your Workplace Injury and Illness Log Ready?

Posted by Jon Elliott on Wed, Jan 23, 2013

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires employers to prepare and maintain records of occupational injuries and illnesses (I&I Logs) as they occur. OSHA also requires employers to post an annual I&I Summary in each “establishment” within their workplace by February 1, summarizing that workplace’s I&Is during the previous calendar year. In states that administer federal standards within state-run programs, employers follow the comparable state requirements. Because of this posting requirement, January is the time to confirm that your facility has maintained an adequate I&I Log during the year, and to prepare your summary for each workplace.

Read More

Tags: Corporate Governance, Business & Legal, Employer Best Practices, Health & Safety, Workplace violence