Audit, Compliance and Risk Blog

Environmental Law: US Updates

Posted by Viola Funk on Tue, Jun 11, 2013

PSD Rules Rescinded In Part

Recent court decisions rescind portions of EPA Clean Air Act rules governing Prevention of Serious Deterioration (PSD) and renewable fuels. For example, in October 2010, EPA adopted rules allowing for significant impact levels (SILs) and significant monitoring concentrations (SMCs) for sources of PM-2.5. However, in January of this year the D.C. Circuit upheld most elements of the 2012 standards, but vacated and remanded provisions establishing and applying projections of cellulosic biofuel use. American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, ___ F.3d ___ (D.C. Cir. 2013).

Read More

Tags: Health & Safety, OSHA, Environmental risks, Environmental, EPA, ghg

ISO 14001 and the ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility

Posted by Allison Campbell on Fri, Jun 07, 2013

Organizations with a well-established ISO 14001 Environmental Management System (EMS) are discovering a new advantage as the issue of “social responsibility” becomes more widespread throughout business communities. EMS managers are finding that techniques and methodology from their EMS can be used to identify and prioritize social responsibility issues and efficiently integrate them into their organization. Furthermore, managers building an EMS system are able to develop it in concert with social responsibility initiatives.

Read More

Tags: Corporate Governance, Business & Legal, Employer Best Practices, Environmental, EHS, EPA

Environmental Compliance: Walmart Pays $110 Million in Fines

Posted by Jon Elliott on Wed, Jun 05, 2013

On May 28 Walmart bundled guilty pleas in a number of pending federal cases alleging environmental compliance violations at some of the company’s 4600+ stores in the U.S.  These arose because Walmart had not implemented a corporate hazardous waste management program until January 2006, leaving locations to manage—or mismanage—such wastes.

Read More

Tags: Corporate Governance, Business & Legal, California Legislation, Environmental risks, Environmental, EPA, Hazcom

Protecting Stratospheric Ozone A Quarter Century After Montreal

Posted by Jon Elliott on Tue, Apr 23, 2013

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer provides the international framework for protecting the earth’s stratospheric ozone layer, by identifying and minimizing emissions of ozone depleting substances (ODSs).  The original Montreal Protocol was initialed in September 1987.  The U.S. was an original signatory, ratified in 1988, and became subject to agreed-upon provisions on January 1, 1989.  Title VI of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments incorporates these international commitments into U.S. law, and assigns the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to fine-tune and enforce domestic requirements.

Read More

Tags: Business & Legal, California Legislation, Environmental risks, Environmental, EPA, Greenhouse Gas, climate change

Environmental Law Update

Posted by Viola Funk on Thu, Apr 11, 2013

Various changes were made to environmental legislation during 2012, both in the US and internationally. Here follows a summary of some of the headlines.

Read More

Tags: International, California Legislation, Environmental, EPA, Greenhouse Gas, ghg, Stormwater

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

Environmental Compliance: Roundup of California 2012 Legislation

Posted by Lorraine O'Donovan on Thu, Mar 21, 2013

In 2012 California made small amendments to its existing environmental laws while passing new laws to implement climate change and energy-related initiatives. Most of these changes became effective on January 1, 2013, and focused, among other things, on the following priorities:

Read More

Tags: California Legislation, Environmental

Insurance Law: Cooking Grease And Common Sense

Posted by Barry Zalma on Tue, Mar 05, 2013

Christopher Roinestad and Gerald Fitz-Gerald were overcome by poisonous hydrogen sulfide gas while cleaning a large grease clog in a sewer near the Hog’s Breath Saloon & Restaurant. The district court concluded that Hog’s Breath caused respondents’ injuries by dumping substantial amounts of cooking grease into the sewer. On summary judgment, the district court found Hog’s Breath liable under theories of negligence and off-premises liability, and entered a damage award in respondents’ favor. Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company (“MSM”) sought a ruling that it had no obligation to indemnify Hog’s Breath and the district court agreed, holding that dumping substantial amounts of cooking grease constituted a discharge of a pollutant under the policy’s pollution exclusion clause. The court of appeals reversed. It held that the terms of the pollution exclusion clause were ambiguous and that its application to cooking grease could lead to absurd results and negate essential coverage. The parties took the case to the Colorado Supreme Court who, in Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company v. Christopher Roinestad and Gerald Fitz-Gerald, and Tim Kirkpatrick, D/B/A Hog’s Breath Saloon & Restaurant., 2013 CO 14 (Colo. 02/25/2013), resolved the dispute.

Read More

Tags: Business & Legal, Environmental, Insurance, Insurance Claims

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