Developer takes Alberta to appeal board over former Edmonton wood treatment plant

As reported by Global News, Cherokee Canada is fighting five enforcement orders imposed by Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) connected to the former Domtar Wood Treatment Facility located in Edmonton.  AEP has been conducting an investigation on properties associated with the former Wood Treatment Plant. As a result of the investigation, a number of Enforcement Orders were issued to the current owners, Cherokee Canada.

Nearby residents, concerned by off-site migration of wood treatment chemicals, have been kept up-to-date of the results of the AEP investigation and subsequent enforcement actions. Contaminants from a historical wood treatment processing plant continue to exist on property formerly occupied by the Domtar Wood Treatment Plant.  This contamination, which originated prior to 1987, consists of benzene, dioxins and furans, free hydrocarbons, naphthalene, polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) mixtures, and pyrene.

AEP stated in a news release that it issued the Enforcement Orders to ensure the responsible parties implement appropriate remedial measures and mitigate the potential risks that have been identified.  The latest Enforcement Orders require that the source of the contamination be controlled and remedial measures be implemented in specific areas of the property.

Off-site testing at lands adjacent to Cherokee Canada development (Photo Credit: CTV Edmonton)

Results of off-site testing for contamination in early 2018 found that contamination had not migrated off-site and that there are no health concerns in the surface soil of people’s properties. The off-site testing program was conducted by an independent third-party consulting firm under the direction of AEP.

Cherokee Canada, the developer has started turning the site of the old Wood Treatment Plant in northeast Edmonton into a new residential community but the current and ongoing legal proceedings have halted the project.  “It’s been very difficult because it’s effectively frozen our activities for three years now,” said John Dill, Cherokee Canada’s managing partner.  “It’s very expensive to go through this process, ” he added.

Houses have already been built in the neighbourhood but recently, the AEP questioned the safety of the soil.  AEP said third party testing at the site found chemicals dangerous to human health. The enforcement orders require Cherokee to remediate any contamination.

“The core aspect of these orders is to basically remove potentially large amounts of soil from these sites,” said Gilbert Van Nes, general counsel for the Environmental Appeals Board. “Domtar and Cherokee disagree that this is necessary.”

Both Cherokee Canada and Domtar have completed remediation efforts but AEP, through the enforcement orders, are claiming that they didn’t go far enough.

“Our approach was to take the contaminated soil, isolate it in a separate soil berm — again, a common practice in other jurisdictions — and ensure the soil was protected from exposure to other receptors, humans, animal,” Dill said.  “The disagreement is over how we can remediate this site so it’s safe for residential standards so that we can complete our residential development and restore the site that was previously contaminated to productive use.”

Three environmental experts are heading up the independent appeal board.  The board will pass its findings on to the environment minister and Shannon Phillips will make the final decision on whether construction can resume. However, a decision is not expected until December.

A map shows the former site of the Domtar creosote plant. (Photo Credit: CBC)

 

Court Upholds Decision That The Ministry May Order Current And Former Owners, And Tenants To Delineate Contamination That Has Migrated Off-Site

Article by Stanley D. Berger and Albert M. Engel

Fogler, Rubinoff LLP

On September 4, 2018, Ontario’s Divisional Court released its decision in Hamilton Beach Brands Canada, Inc. v. Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, 2018 ONSC 5010, dismissing an appeal of a September 1, 2017 decision of Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal (Hamilton Beach Brands Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change), 2017 CanLII 57415 (ON ERT)) in which the Tribunal upheld the Ministry’s jurisdiction to order current and former owners and tenants of a contaminated property to delineate contamination that has migrated to off-site properties. The Tribunal’s decision also found that the Ministry had jurisdiction to make an order regarding existing, ongoing and future adverse effects, that the adverse effects do not have to be related to the potential off-site migration of a contaminant, nor must the contaminant be on an orderee’s property at the time the order is made and that the order may require work on-site and off-site to address an adverse effect.

In upholding the Tribunal’s decision, the Divisional Court found that there is no geographical constraint limiting orders to the source property of the contamination and quoted the Tribunal’s observation that “contamination and adverse effects are not constrained by the boundaries of a property, either in initial discharge or because of migration”. The Divisional Court also found that the Tribunal’s interpretation of the Ministry’s order-making jurisdiction is consistent with the Brownfield regime since protection from orders is extinguished under the regime when contaminants migrate from a property that was subject to that regime.

The former appliance manufacturing plant on McFarland Drive that is the property in question in the  Hamilton Beach Brands Canada, Inc. v. Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, 2018 ONSC 5010 (Phtoto Credit: Jason Parks/Picton Gazette)

The order provisions of s.18(2) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.19 were at issue in this case. This is the first Divisional Court decision interpreting the geographic extent of the powers set out in s.18(2). The decision confirms that the powers are expansive and should be considered by any current, former or prospective owner or tenant of a contaminated property. We will continue to monitor this case should it be appealed further.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

________________________

About the Authors

Mr. Berger has practiced regulatory law for 37 years. He represents nuclear operators and suppliers, waste management operators, renewable energy operators, receivers-in-bankruptcy, municipalities and First Nations. He was an Assistant Crown Attorney in Toronto for 8 years, Senior counsel and Deputy Director for Legal Services/Prosecutions at the Ministry of the Environment for 9 years and Assistant General Counsel at Ontario Power Generation Inc for 14 years.
He is the author of a quarterly loose-leaf service published by Thomson Reuters entitled the Prosecution and Defence of Environmental Offences and the editor of an annual review of environmental law.
Mr. Berger was the President of the International Nuclear Law Association (2008-2009) and the founder, and President of the Canadian Nuclear Law Organization.

Mr. Engel practice all aspects of Environmental and Renewable Energy Law. He advises clients in the development and operation of renewable energy projects, regulatory compliance and civil causes of action.He represent clients before Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal and all levels of court. He assist clients with defences to environmental and other regulatory prosecutions, appeals of environmental orders and civil litigation involving environmental issues including contaminated lands.

Mr. Engel has a Masters degree in Environmental Studies and is Certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a Specialist in Environmental Law.

Dangerous Goods Industry Survey Identifies Compliance Challenges

Labelmaster (a U.S.-based provider of labels, packaging and technology related to the transport of dangerous goods and hazardous materials), recently announced the results of its annual 2018 Global Dangerous Goods Confidence Outlook. Sponsored by Labelmaster, International Air Transport Association (IATA), and Hazardous Cargo Bulletin, the survey was conducted to gain insight into how organizations around the globe approach dangerous goods shipping and handling, and the challenges they face.

“Shipping dangerous goods is complex and high-risk, and those responsible for compliance have an increasingly critical job,” said Rob Finn, vice president of marketing & product management at Labelmaster. “In an effort to better understand today’s dangerous goods landscape, Labelmaster, IATA and Hazardous Cargo Bulletin partnered to gather insights from dangerous goods professionals across the globe. We found that while many organizations have the necessary infrastructure, training and processes to ensure compliance across their supply chains, a large number do not.”

The survey covered personal profile information, including: respondent location, most common DG hazard class materials handled, contact role, etc.; training and DG enforcement concerns; compliance challenges; use of technology; comparison to the 2017 survey results; and other leading industry concerns.

Here are some of the key results from the survey:

Keeping up with regulations and ensuring compliance is challenging: Regulatory compliance is critical to an organization’s ability to maintain a smooth supply chain. Yet with growing volumes and types of DG, increasingly complex supply chains, and more extensive regulations, many industry professionals find it challenging to do their jobs effectively and efficiently. In fact:

  • 51 percent find it challenging to keep up with the latest regulations.
  • 15 percent were not confident that they can ensure DG regulatory compliance across their entire organization, and 13 percent were unsure.
  • 58 percent feel that even if they follow the regulations perfectly there is a chance their shipments will be stopped.

When asked to rank their greatest challenge to compliance: budget constraints (28 percent); company leadership not aware of risk (21 percent); insufficient or ineffective training (19 percent); lack of technology (17 percent); difficulty in keeping up with changing regulations (15 percent).

Compliance technology and training is often inadequate: Those responsible for DG face an uphill battle – not only in meeting evolving regulations, but also in overcoming inadequate infrastructure and training. Technology is critical to the supply chain, and significantly improves efficiency, speed, accuracy and more. And even with a number of technology resources available, 28 percent of dangerous professionals are still doing everything manually. Furthermore, 15 percent believe their company’s infrastructure ability to quickly adapt to regulatory and supply chain changes is “lagging behind the industry,” 65 percent said it is “current, but need updating” and 21 percent believe it is “advanced – ahead of the industry.”

The need for improvement extends to training as well. One-quarter of respondents feel their company’s training does not adequately prepare people within the organization to comply with dangerous shipping regulations. In many cases, the scope of employees being trained needs to be expanded. In fact, 67 percent of respondents believe dangerous goods training should be extended to other departments across their company.

An organization’s attitude towards compliance impacts its level of investment: An organization’s attitude towards dangerous goods compliance has a direct impact on how much a company invests in compliance resources. Unfortunately, their attitude towards compliance often does not reflect its true value. According to the survey:

  • 16 percent indicated that dangerous goods compliance is not a major priority for their company.
  • 54 percent wish their companies would understand that supply chain and dangerous shipping management could be a differentiator.
  • 27 percent think their company’s investment to support dangerous goods compliance is “not adequate to meet current needs.”
  • 28 percent believe their company complies “only because regulations mandate it, and adhere to minimum requirements,” while 48 percent believe their company “goes beyond requirements,” and 23 percent view compliance as a “competitive advantage.”

    Which Type of Technology Companies Use to Ship Dangerous Goods

Dangerous goods professionals desire additional support: Investment in infrastructure and training is critical to enabling DG professionals to do their jobs effectively and efficiently, and whether their budgets have increased, decreased or stayed the same, DG professionals desire additional support. When asked how they would prioritize financial support from their organization: more effective training (42 percent); technology for better supply chain efficiency and compliance (29 percent); wider access to the latest regulatory resources and manuals (18 percent); additional headcount (12 percent).

Finn added, “The risk associated with shipping and handling dangerous goods is greater than ever and industry professionals responsible for managing it need the proper technology, training and regulatory access to ensure they are moving goods in a secure, safe, compliant and efficient manner. Unfortunately, obtaining the necessary budget and resources likely requires buy-in from executive leadership, which can be an uphill battle. So how do you get that buy-in? It starts with changing the conversation around dangerous goods management.”

Changing the Conversation with Senior Leadership

Changing the conversation means reframing the overall view of dangerous goods management within an organization. This begins with dangerous goods professionals quantitatively demonstrating how their compliance program can reduce costs and increase revenue to make a positive contribution to the company’s bottom line. Simply put, it is defining your company’s “total value of compliance,” which takes into account three factors:

  • The cost of maintaining compliance throughout the supply chain, such as expenses for people, compliance products, software & technology, reporting, training, etc.
  • The cost of non-compliance due to errors and lapses, such as penalties, carrier refusal and delays, fines, remediation, higher insurance costs, etc.
  • The opportunities of higher level compliance-enabling differentiation, revenue growth and faster cash flows, such as faster product deliveries, increased brand equity, the ability to offer a wider range of products, etc.

This Total Value of Compliance (TVC) framework helps dangerous goods  companies make compliance a powerful, revenue-positive aspect of their business. To learn more about the total value of compliance, download a TVC technical brief and schedule a free assessment, visit www.labelmaster.com/tvc.

To read the full report, visit www.labelmaster.com/dg-compliance-outlook.

About Labelmaster

Labelmaster helps companies navigate and comply with the regulations that govern the transport of dangerous goods and hazardous materials. From hazmat labels and UN certified packaging, hazmat placards and regulatory publications, to advanced technology and regulatory training, Labelmaster’s comprehensive offering of i software, products, and services help customers remain compliant with all dangerous goods regulations, mitigate risk and maintain smooth, safe operations.  To learn more, visit www.labelmaster.com.

 

Oil Spill Response Management Market – Industry Study & Predictions

360 Market Updates recently published the Global Oil Spill Management Market Report 2018-2023. The report offers a comprehensive analysis on Oil Spill Management industry, delivering detailed market data and  insights. The report provides analysis which is beneficial for industry insider, potential entrant, and investor. The Oil Spill Management Report provides information on the key business players in the market as well as their business methods, annual revenue, company profile and their contribution to the world Oil Spill Management market share. The report covers a huge area of information including an overview, comprehensive analysis, definitions and classifications, applications, and expert opinions.

Description:

  • Worldwide and Top 20 Countries Market Size of Oil Spill Management 2013-2017, and development forecast 2018-2023.
  • Main manufacturers/suppliers of Oil Spill Management worldwide and market share by regions, with company and product introduction, position in the Oil Spill Management market.
  • Market status and development trend of Oil Spill Management by types and applications.
  • Cost and profit status of Oil Spill Management, and marketing status.
  • Market growth drivers and challenges.

Global Oil Spill Management market competition by top manufacturers/players, with Oil Spill Management sales volume, Price (USD/Unit), revenue (Million USD), Players/Suppliers Profiles and Sales Data, Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors and market share for each manufacturer/player; the top players including: Cameron International, Control Flow, National Oilwell Varco, Fender & Spill Response Services, Northern Tanker Company Oy, SkimOil, Hyundai Heavy Industries, GE Oil & Gas, Cosco Shipyard Group, CURA Emergency Services, and Ecolab.

On the basis of product type, Oil Spill Management market report displays the production, revenue, price, Market Size (Sales) Market Share by Type (Product Category) and growth rate of each type (2013-2023), primarily split into Mechanical methods, Chemical and biological, and Physical.

On the basis on the end users/applications, Oil Spill Management market report focuses on the status and outlook for major applications/end users, sales volume, market share and growth rate for each application, including Onshore and Offshore.

Global Oil Spill Management Market: Regional Segment Analysis (Regional Production Volume, Consumption Volume, Revenue and Growth Rate 2013-2023):

  • North America (United States, Canada and Mexico)
  • Europe (Germany, UK, France, Italy, Russia, Spain and Benelux)
  • Asia Pacific (China, Japan, India, Southeast Asia and Australia)
  • Latin America (Brazil, Argentina and Colombia)
  • Middle East and Africa

Inquire for further detailed information about Oil Spill Management industry @https://www.360marketupdates.com/enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/11834137

Key questions answered in the Oil Spill Management Market report:

  • What will be the market growth rate of Oil Spill Management in 2023?
  • What are the key factors driving the Global Oil Spill Management?
  • What are sales, revenue, and price analysis of top manufacturers of Oil Spill Management?
  • Who are the distributors, traders and dealers of Oil Spill Management Market?
  • Who are the key vendors in Oil Spill Management space?
  • What are the Oil Spill Management Industry opportunities and threats faced by the vendors in the Global Oil Spill Management?
  • What are sales, revenue, and price analysis by types, application and regions of Oil Spill Management?
  • What are the market opportunities, market risk and market overview of the Oil Spill Management Market?

The Oil Spill Management Market Report provides a comprehensive overview including Current scenario and the future growth prospects. The Oil Spill Management Industry report sheds light on the various factors and trends in forthcoming years and key factors behind the growth and demand of this market is analysed detailed in this report.

Rare Jail Sentence for Environmental Offence in Canada

On August 21, 2018, Collingwood Prime Realty Holdings Corp. and its director, Mr. Issa El-Hinn, were sentenced in the Ontario Court of Justice for offences under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 related to contraventions of the PCB Regulations.

The charges stem from old electrical transformers and capacitors in use on the former Goodyear property at 101 Mountain Rd., which is now owned by Collingwood Prime Realty.

The property at 101 Mountain Rd., used to be a Goodyear plant. Erika Engel/CollingwoodToday

The court sentenced Mr. El-Hinn to a 45-day jail term, which will be served on weekends, for failing to comply with an environmental protection compliance order. The Court also sentenced the corporation and Mr. El-Hinn to pay a combined penalty of $420,000 to be directed to the federal Environmental Damages Fund.

On April 30, 2015, Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officers launched an investigation following the company’s failure to comply with an environmental protection compliance order. The investigation revealed that two electrical transformers and eight electrical capacitors contained higher-than-allowable PCB levels and that the equipment had not been sent for destruction to an authorized facility. The defendants pleaded guilty on September 26, 2017, to ten counts of contravening the PCB Regulations made pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and one count of failing to comply with an environmental protection compliance order.

As a result of this conviction, the company’s name will be added to the Environmental Offenders Registry.

PCBs are toxic industrial chemical substances that are harmful to aquatic ecosystems and species that feed primarily on aquatic organisms.

Earlier this year, Collingwood Fire Department successfully prosecuted Collingwood Prime Realty Holdings Corp., and its owner El Hinn for multiple fire code violations at the property at 101 Mountain Rd.

Mine fined $100,000 for not Monitoring Effluent

On August 20, 2018, Lupin Mines Incorporated was ordered in the Nunavut Court of Justice to pay $100,000 after pleading guilty to a violation under the Fisheries Act related to the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations. Of the total penalty, $80,000 will be directed to the Environmental Damages Fund.

An investigation launched by Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officers revealed that Lupin Mines Incorporated did not carry out an environmental effects monitoring study within the prescribed period, contrary to the requirements of the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations. Lupin Mines Incorporated has since completed the required study.

Owners and operators of mining companies are required by law to conduct environmental effects monitoring studies that examine the potential effects of their effluent (discharge) on fish populations and aquatic invertebrates.

As a result of this conviction, the company’s name will be added to the Environmental Offenders Registry.

Environment and Climate Change Canada is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act, which prohibit the deposit of deleterious substances into water frequented by fish. The Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations authorize the deposit of effluent, provided that conditions prescribed in the Regulations are observed.

Lupin Gold Mine, Nunavut

New Technology for Mapping DNAPL Contamination

Laser-induced fluorescence (LIF)

As reported in Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation (38(3):28-42), DyeLIF™ is a new version of laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) for high-resolution 3D mapping of NAPLs in the subsurface.   DyeLIF eliminates the requirement that the NAPL contains native fluorophores (such as those that occur in compounds like PAHs) and therefore can be used to detect chlorinated solvents and other nonfluorescing compounds.

NAPLs were previously undetectable with conventional LIF tools. With DyeLIF, an aqueous solution of water and nontoxic hydrophobic dye is continuously injected ahead of the sapphire detection window while the LIF probe is being advanced in the subsurface.  If soil containing NAPL is penetrated, the injected dye solvates into the NAPL within a few milliseconds, creating strong fluorescence that is transmitted via fiber-optic filaments to aboveground optical sensors. This paper describes a detailed field evaluation of the novel DyeLIF technology performed at a contaminated industrial site in Lowell, Mass., where chlorinated solvent DNAPL persists below the water table in sandy sediments..

The DyeLIF system was field tested at a Formerly Used Defense (FUD) facility in Massachusetts in Fall 2013 (Geoprobe® delivery) and again in March 2014 (CPT delivery). The primary field demonstration completed in 2013 included two components: one week of DyeLIF probing and a second week of follow-on soil coring using research-quality direct push (DP) soil coring methods in order to compare DyeLIF results to colorimetric dye shake tests and laboratory analysis.

Several performance objectives were established in the project demonstration work plan and all were met or exceeded. The performance objective for chemical analysis was 70% consistency between positive DyeLIF responses and samples when DNAPL saturations were greater than 5%. The demonstration results showed 100% consistency between chemical analysis and DyeLIF for saturations greater than 1.9% (35 of 35 samples), and 95% consistency for estimated saturations greater than 0.5% (40 of 42 samples).

ESTCP funded Project ER-201121 to demonstrate the DyeLIF technology.  Additional details on the technology can be found at the U.S. Department of Defence Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and the U.S. Department of Defence Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) link at SERDP-ESTCP.

2D and 3D Conceptual Site Models of a Contaminated Property

U.S. Government RFP for Remediation Services – Small Business Opportunity

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Oak Ridge, TN. Recently issued a solicitation for the Characterization, Deactivation/Demolition, and Remediation Services of Low-Risk/Low-Complexity Facilities and Sites for the Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management.

This procurement will be a total small business set-aside under NAICS code 562910, size standard 750 employees.  DOE anticipates awarding one or more IDIQ contracts for support services in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in accordance with the Federal Facilities Agreement.

The Y-12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and East Tennessee Technology Park encompass numerous facilities, soils, concrete slabs, containerized and non-containerized debris, and aging legacy waste populations that require investigation and additional characterization to determine appropriate disposal options.

The estimated maximum value of the contract is $24.9M for a period of performance of five years from date of award.  The full solicitation synopsis is available on the DOE Environmental Management procurement website at FedConnect.

An aerial view of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory campus.

Environmental Job Market Trends in Canada 2014-2017

ECO Canada recently issued an Environmental Job Market Trends Report that shows that the environmental job market rebounded in Canada last year with 22.7 thousand job ads, reflecting a 9% increase from 2016 levels.  On the other hand, total job ads peaked in 2014 at 1.30 million, decreased to 1.07 million by 2016 (a drop of 18%) and slightly dipped in 2017 with 1.05 million job ads, reflecting a 2% decline.

  • Employment increases within key industries that employ a number of environmental workers, which includes professional, scientific and technical services;
  • Resurgence in goods-producing sectors such as manufacturing, construction, and energy; and
  • Provincial governments implementing climate change plans.

The report states that Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia are the provinces that have consistently shown the most demand for environmental professionals between 2014 and 2017.

Managers in financial and business services had the highest job ad growth rate with close to 30%, from 1,090 job ads in 2016 to 1,410 in 2017.  Agriculture/horticultural workers, technical inspectors/regulatory officers and engineers, with an environmental function attached to the roles, remained the most sought-after positions with 2,870, 3,020 and 2,110 job ads in 2017 respectively.

ECO Canada develops programs that help individuals build meaningful environmental careers, provides employers with resources to find and keep the best environmental practitioners and informs educators and governments of employment trends to ensure the ongoing prosperity of Canada’s growing environmental sector.

 

New U.S. EPA e-Manifesting System Took Effect June 30th

By Laura Ragozzino, Cohen & Grigsby P.C.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) launched its new Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest (“e-Manifest”) System on June 30, 2018. The new requirements impact all U.S. companies that handle waste requiring a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) manifest, a regulated universe that includes approximately 150,000 entities across at least 45 industry segments. Under the new rules, regulated waste handlers will need to use the new paper or electronic EPA manifest form and waste receiving facilities will have to submit the new manifests to the e-Manifesting system, incurring a processing fee.

The goal of the new e-Manifesting system is to reduce costs and improve regulatory oversight and data quality. The EPA estimates that the manual processing and documentation of paper manifests costs regulators and companies $193 million to $400 million annually.

RCRA is the federal law that creates the framework for managing hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste. Since 1980, the EPA has required a RCRA manifest, a multi-copy paper form, to track hazardous waste from the time it leaves the generating facility until it reaches the off-site waste management facility that will store, treat, or dispose of it. The manifest helps the EPA verify proper waste handling.

E-Manifest requirements are effective in all states on June 30, 2018. These requirements apply to domestic hazardous waste (as defined at the federal and state level) and state-only regulated waste subject under state law to RCRA hazardous waste manifesting. The e-Manifesting system is a product of the 2012 Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act and subsequent February 2014 and January 2018 final rulemakings. Starting June 30, receiving facilities are required to submit copies, whether electronic or paper, of RCRA waste manifests to the EPA within 30 days of receipt. Receiving facilities will also incur a processing fee for manifest submittal. In three years, paper manifests will be phased out of use.

The new requirements fall under RCRA enforcement policy. Noncompliance with RCRA, including improper manifesting, exposes waste handers to substantial civil penalties.

Before this e-Manifesting system’s implementation, shipments of waste across state borders could create jurisdictional issues for states with enhanced regulatory requirements. Some states impose manifesting requirements that are more stringent than RCRA’s rules, or define hazardous waste more broadly than under RCRA. When waste generated in these more stringent states was disposed of in less stringent states, the generating state lacked the ability to enforce the receipt of manifest copies from out-of-state receiving facilities. For example, if a disposal site in Ohio received waste oil from Connecticut that was classified as hazardous under Connecticut law but not classified as hazardous under Ohio law, then the Ohio disposal facility may or may not have submitted the manifest to Connecticut, and Connecticut did not have the ability to enforce its collection.

Now, under the 2012 Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, federal and state regulators can access complete cradle-to-grave waste manifesting records from the e-Manifest system because submitting manifests is compulsory. For example, as of June 30, 2018, if a disposal site in Ohio receives waste oil from Connecticut that is classified as hazardous under Connecticut law but not classified as hazardous under Ohio law, then the Ohio disposal facility must submit the manifest to the e-Manifest system, even if Ohio law does not require such submittal.

On or after June 30, waste generators, transporters, receivers, and disposers of waste regulated by the new regulations must track the waste on the new paper or electronic manifest, U.S. EPA Form 8700-22, and submit the manifest to the e-Manifest system. The EPA granted an initial extension of the 30-day manifest-receipt deadline for paper manifests received from June 30, 2018 through September 1, 2018. With this extension, receiving facilities may submit those manifests on or before September 30, 2018.

What Generators and Transporters Need to Know

Waste handling facilities should review the waste and manifest requirements that pertain to their business. It is important to understand the laws and regulations of the generating and receiving state. Any waste defined as hazardous by the generating or receiving state, or any waste requiring tracking on a RCRA manifest (i.e., a hazardous waste manifest), is subject to the e-Manifesting requirements.

Generators have the option to create and submit manifests electronically or to submit paper manifests to the e-Manifest system. The existing 6-copy manifest is being replaced with a new 5-copy form that must be ordered from a registered printer.

What Receiving and Disposal Facilities Need to Know

The new manifesting requirements will impact both RCRA-permitted disposal facilities (i.e., Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (“TSDFs”)) and non-TSDFs when such facilities receive waste that is either (1) non-hazardous but requires a RCRA manifest, or (2) is hazardous under the generating state’s laws and regulations. Therefore, the new e-Manifesting system extends the scope of regulatory obligations under federal law even if the law of the receiving state does not require a RCRA manifest for the waste at issue.

Receiving and disposal facilities must submit all RCRA manifests, paper or electronic, to the EPA. Receiving facilities need to obtain an EPA Identification number to use the e-Manifest system. To obtain an EPA ID number, facilities must submit EPA’s Site Identification form (U.S. EPA form 8700-12). EPA will charge receiving facilities a fee for each manifest submitted. Fees, which are differentiated based on how the manifest is submitted, are projected to range from $4 to $20. Late payments are subject to interest penalties.

EPA Resources:

This article was first published at the Cohen & Grigsby website.  To help its clients better understand the most efficient and cost-effective means of compliance, Cohen & Grigsby will continue to monitor this issue. If you have any questions, please contact Laura Ragozzino at (412) 297-4713 or lragozzino@cohenlaw.com.

________________________________

About the Author

Laura Ragozzino is regulatory compliance and environmental attorney for Cohen & Grigsby P.C.  She practices out of the firm’s Pittsburgh offices.

Ms. Ragozzino is an energetic counselor with proven success mitigating compliance risk. She practices in the areas of administrative law, energy law, EHS law, and government and regulatory affairs. She is passionate about building a compliance culture based on mutual respect for engineering, operations, and the regulations that govern their activities.

Ms. Ragozzino manages complex issues with federal, state, and local agencies to achieve results exceeding her business clients’ expectations. She brings creative, detail-oriented, and tactical thinking to the table to find effective and appropriate compliance solutions across industry sectors.