Materials & waste management and shipment

Subscribe to Materials & waste management and shipment

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the California Department of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) have issued various guidance regarding potential workplace hazards resulting from exposure to COVID-19 (see our recent client alert for more information). Most recently, on April 3, 2020, OSHA issued enforcement guidance to all industries indicating that respiratory protection certified by certain non-U.S. jurisdictions may be used as mandatory or voluntary personal protective equipment (PPE) in the workplace where masks approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health were not available (https://www.osha.gov/memos/2020-04-03/enforcement-guidance-use-respiratory-protection-equipment-certified-under).

This guidance was issued in conjunction with similar announcements from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommending the use of face masks by the general population and expanding approvals of certain masks from foreign jurisdictions for use by health care personnel, respectively. As these three announcements are likely to significantly expand the use of respiratory protection in the workplace, one area where many “nonmedical” employers may seek advice is how to safely dispose of PPE, for example, gloves and face masks that were used in the workplace and that may have been exposed to the COVID-19 virus. Specifically, once an employee uses such PPE, is it considered “medical waste,” or can it go out with the regular trash?Continue Reading Novel coronavirus – How employers should dispose of personal protective equipment

Five years after its first iteration, yesterday (11 March 2020), the European Commission launched its new Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) as part of the overall European Green Deal.

The CEAP contains many proposals.  We will explore others (including those relating to batteries, packaging, plastics, textiles, ‘safe-by-design’ chemicals, non-financial reporting and shipment of waste) in separate posts.

For now, here is a brief outline of some of the more eye-catching proposals from a ‘sustainable products’ – in particular, electronics – perspective.
Continue Reading New EU Circular Economy Action Plan and Sustainable Product Policy

On October 8, 2019, the Office of Administrative Law approved an adjustment to the covered electronic waste (CEW) recycling fee for covered electronic devices (CED). This CEW recycling fee is assessed when a California consumer buys a CED – generally, any video display device with a screen larger than four inches – from a retailer. These fees fund the CEW Recycling Program, which is run by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). At least once every two years, CalRecycle is required to assess the adequacy of the CEW recycling fee to generate sufficient revenues to fund the operation and administration of the CEW Recycling Program. This year, the CEW recycling fees were decreased by a dollar. The new fee levels are:

  • four dollars ($4) for each CED with a screen size of less than 15 inches measured diagonally;
  • five dollars ($5) for each CED with a screen size greater than or equal to 15 inches but less than 35 inches measured diagonally; and
  • six dollars ($6) for each CED with a screen size greater than or equal to 35 inches measured diagonally.

Continue Reading Adjustment to the covered electronic waste (CEW) recycling fee for covered electronic devices (CED)

Our EU law environmental and product regulatory teams have been following the passage of a significant new law through the French parliament: ‘the Anti-Waste and Circular Economy Bill’ (Projet de loi relatif à la lutte contre le gaspillage et à l’économie circulaire) (the Bill).

Key features of the Bill include:

  1. Radically expanded obligations for producers in relation to waste management
  2. Introduction of a ‘product lifetime score’ to be displayed on some products
  3. Harmonised waste collection rules
  4. New criminal sanctions for planned obsolescence tactics

Continue Reading Waste and the circular economy: French government proposes to increase liability for waste

Biffa Waste Services Ltd (Biffa) has been fined for breaching Regulation 23 of the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007 after containers of paper for recycling were found to be contaminated with household waste. The fine was £350,000 plus an additional £240,000 in costs.

In 2015, Biffa had arranged for shipments of waste paper to be transported to delivery sites in Shenzhen and Guangdong. When the containers were inspected by the Environment Agency (EA) at the port of Felixstowe, UK, they were found to be heavily contaminated with a variety of household waste, including shoes, plastic bags, videotape, electric cable, latex gloves and laminate flooring.Continue Reading Breach of shipment of waste regulations leads to £590,000 in fines and costs

Overall, the EU Waste Shipment Regulation (EC No. 1013/2006) (the EWSR) is effective, relevant and coherent, and adds value at the EU level.

Those were the conclusions of the Trinomics study supporting the evaluation by the European Commission of the fitness for purpose of the EWSR (here: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/926420bc-8284-11e9-9f05-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-99087502).

Many in business who have grappled with the EWSR may beg to differ. In fairness, the study did also highlight a number of areas for improvement with which few would disagree, including the need for greater harmonisation of enforcement policy between member states, more consistent application of waste classifications by national authorities, and quicker, less cumbersome notification and approval procedures.

Arguably, however, the most interesting and strategically important challenge facing the EWSR is how it must evolve to support the EU’s Circular Economy plans.Continue Reading Circular Economy and the EU Waste Shipment Regulation: why changes to the latter are critical to the success of the former

This blog post provides a brief commentary on the transboundary movement of waste case of Conti 11 v. the Land of Lower Saxony, Germany (Case C689-17).

The law on the international shipment of waste is of increasing importance to many global businesses. The Reed Smith Environmental, Health & Safety team regularly handles cases on this subject involving sectors such as oil and gas, mining, consumer electronics, ship recycling and offshore renewables, as well as many others. Case law in this complex area is sparse.

On 16 May 2019, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) gave judgment in a case concerning the status of waste resulting from a fire on board a ship. The case warrants closer attention than its seemingly narrow scope and clear outcome might suggest.Continue Reading Important questions left unanswered as rare ECJ case rules that debris from a fire on board a ship is excluded from international shipment of waste rules

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) intends to expand its existing Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth Regulation (the Regulation) in order to reduce further air emissions from ships docked in California. Proposed changes include:

  1. Increasing the number of ports and facilities subject to the Regulation;
  2. Expanding the types of vessels covered by the Regulation; and
  3. Changing the threshold for when emission control requirements are triggered.

Continue Reading California air emission regulation expands for shipping industry