Removing Contaminants from Landfill Leachate using Electro-Oxidation

,

Written by Nicole Bolea, PE, Xogen Technologies Inc.

More than just ammonia removal…

Previously the application of Advanced Electro-Oxidation, AEO, technology was shown to be a viable option for ammonia removal from landfill leachate.  Though ammonia is a major problem and still a target, recent testing and piloting has shown Advanced Electro-Oxidation destroys many more contaminants in addition to removing ammonia to non-detect levels.  New recent testing and piloting shows promising data for Boron and color reduction.

Landfill Leachate: An Expensive Challenge

A growing number of landfills are seeing increases in costs and issues associated with trucking leachate and sending it to the sewer.  According to the U.S. Geological Survey landfill leachate hosts numerous contaminants of emerging concern[1].  This is forcing landfills to reevaluate their systems to treat or pre-treat onsite.

Advanced Electo- Oxidation: How it Works

Screened leachate is pumped through Xogen’s reactor. When the leachate contacts an electrode in the reactor a direct oxidation of the contaminants occurs on the surface of the electrode. Indirect oxidation in the bulk occurs as well from the generation of highly oxidizing species including ozone, hydrogen peroxide and hydroxyl radicals.  As these highly oxidative species form they immediately react with organic matter, ammonia compounds and other constituents in the aqueous solution and get converted into a mixture of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen gas. Suspended solids in the wastewater will precipitate or float to the surface by the micro-bubbles of gas generated while pathogens are completely killed[2]. This method results in not producing hazardous waste streams that are costly to deal with.  There is no concentrate stream or biosolids produced, the contaminants are destroyed into inert gases that are mixed and vented at safe levels.

 

Contaminant Removal Data

Along with ammonia, AEO has the potential to reduce or completely remove: COD, BOD5, Boron, nitrates, pharmaceuticals, sulfides, H2S, phenols, poly vinyls, cyanide, and E. Coli (resulting in complete disinfection). Piloting a large sample of landfill leachate from the Midwest revealed the potential to remove Boron. Boron reduction by approximately 50% was observed during this pilot. The testing was performed at the pilot plant located on the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus. The campus boasts an impressive piloting and testing system t

Sample before and after AO treatment

hat is part of the Water Innovation Network for Sustainable Small Systems, WINSS. Their vision is “To develop technological solutions that can be readily implemented by small systems. To reduce barriers to their use by utilities. To stimulate research for small systems among the academic and entrepreneurial community. To develop new models for technology & educational outreach in support of small systems”[3]

When discharging leachate to the city sewers color can be a major concern for small communities. The color produced from landfills can inhibit the city’s ability to disinfect with UV later in their process before discharge. Below is a picture and graphical data showing the color reduction potential with AEO.

When discharging leachate to the city sewers color can be a major concern for small communities. The color produced from landfills can inhibit the city’s ability to disinfect with UV later in their process before discharge. Below is a picture and graphical data showing the color reduction potential with AEO.

The picture helps show the color reduction potential, but UV visual spectroscopy testing was also performed to quantify the affect AEO has on color. Along with color in this testing, COD was reduced by approximately 50% with complete ammonia destruction to non-detect levels.

Conclusion

Along with removing ammonia to non-detect and nitrogen to very low levels, Advanced Electro-Oxidation will remove and destroy many more contaminants. The ability to remove many CECs at once has the potential to be a cost-effective onsite treatment option for landfills. A special thanks to the professionals, professors, and students at UMass Amherst for testing and piloting landfill leachate, wastewater to show the potential for Advanced Electro-Oxidation.

 

Multi-criteria decision making framework for plastic packaging: An expanded life cycle approach

,

Written by Calvin Lakhan, Ph.D., Co-Investigator: “The Waste Wiki” – Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University

This white paper is a general overview of a tool being developed by York University and Pollution Probe to help stakeholders better understand the impacts (environmental, economic and social) of plastics with respect to product and packaging design. Our goal is to provide methodological guidance and create a common set of evaluative criteria that stakeholders can use to make informed decisions regarding plastics. This includes the development of an expanded life cycle analysis model, that attempts to model the economic, environmental and social impacts of plastics, at all stages of its life.

Often times, one of the greatest obstacles in the debate surrounding the role of plastics in a circular economy is that we either operate on incomplete information (i.e. how much is actually being generated and diverted), or we fixate on one component of a products life cycle (i.e. recycling at end of life), and evaluate its viability through that narrow lens.

It’s our hope that this tool (and more broadly, the methodological approach), be used in a way to ensure that stakeholders have clear and prescriptive guidance regarding what needs to be considered when making product design and policy decisions.

**Note: The development and dissemination of the expanded life cycle analysis tool is contingent on raising sufficient funding and support from stakeholder groups. If funding can be secured, the anticipated deployment of this tool will be in Fall of 2020.**

Issue Overview

Plastics have transformed everyday life, with more than 400 million tonnes of plastic and plastic products being generated every year across the world. While plastics often bring many societal benefits and play an instrumental role in manufacturing, technology, healthcare etc. there are significant concerns regarding the quantities of plastic waste being discarded into the environment. In Canada, it is estimated that only 10% of all plastics produced in the country are actually recycled, with the balance accumulating as waste in landfills, public spaces, water ways and oceans. This accumulation of plastics entering into terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems poses acute risks to both human and animal health, with bio-accumulation of plastics being observed as causing endocrinological disruptions to wildlife. It is with this in mind that in January of 2020, the Canadian federal government announced a proposed ban on single use plastics items by the year 2021. This decision was informed by a report commissioned by Environment Canada concluding that single use plastics posed significant risk to the environment resulting from both their manufacturing and disposal.

While this decision has generally been met by a favorable response from both environmental groups and the public, there remain significant questions regarding what single use plastics will be banned. There remains considerable uncertainty regarding what the rationalization and methodology for evaluating which materials should be banned, in addition to the short and long term economic implications resulting from a single use plastics ban.

However, despite the findings of the Environment Canada report, and the prevailing negative sentiment surrounding plastics, and particularly plastic packaging, it is important to recognize that not all plastics are created equal. While the vast majority of plastics are made from ethylene derived from hydrocarbon sources, there exists a significant heterogeneity with respect to the types of resin (polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene etc.), including how it is made, how it is used, why it is used and what can be done with it at end of life.

Many of the environmental concerns attributable to plastics tend to be focused on the manufacturing stage and available end of life waste management options. It is during these two stages that the release of macro plastics (pieces larger than 5mm) and micro plastics (pieces smaller than 5mm) into the environment is considered highest.

While the Environment Canada report undertakes a comprehensive literature review to determine the risks posted to both human and ecological health attributable to plastics in our environment, it does not offer any guidance regarding which plastics to ban, or provide an evaluative framework that can assist decision makers in identifying problematic materials.

One of the dangers of characterizing all single use plastics the same way (bad for the environment, should be banned etc.), fails to capture the complexity and nuances of plastics, particularly for packaged goods.

This white paper outlines a potential evaluative framework for examining the environmental, economic and social impacts of plastic materials (with a specific emphasis on household plastic packaging). The purpose of this framework is to provide both policy makers and plastic producers with a decision making tool that captures the latest in life cycle thinking and consequential impacts (both economic and social), resulting from proposed material bans.

Life Cycle Analysis Thinking

Life cycle thinking for the purposes of informing policy decisions is not a new phenomenon – in fact, many of the studies included in the Environment Canada literature review included a life cycle component when evaluating the environmental safety of various packaging types.

However, most contemporary approaches to life cycle analysis, particularly within the context of end of life management of packaging waste, define system boundaries that are too limited in scope. Often times, model boundaries are defined from the point of disposal, to its final end use application (recycling, composting, energy from waste, or landfilling). The environmental impacts of a particular end of life option are compared against a baseline assuming 100% virgin production (i.e. Recycling 1000 tonnes of PET, would be compared against the environmental impacts of producing 1000T of virgin PET, with the delta in LCA key performance indicators being the measured impact)

The vast majority of life cycle analysis specific to waste management and material design is only concerned with what happens to an item once it reaches its end of life. It is through this lense that many plastics, particularly single use plastics, are deemed to be environmentally problematic. In many instances, particularly for light weight and composite plastics, these materials cannot be readily managed in existing waste management infrastructure.They either cannot be recycled or composted, and even when sorted at a material recovery facility, there are limited end markets for most non PET and HDPE plastics.

As a result, the characterization of these materials is often seen as being “bad” for the environment, with many environmentalists and municipalities pointing to the lack of recyclability as being the primary driver for banning single use plastics. In the absence of recycling or reuse, there is no offset to the environmental burdens associated with virgin production of these plastic materials. If these materials end up in a landfill, the risk of entering into our environment and disrupting both aquatic and terrestrial eco systems increases.

While this outcome may lend credence to the decision to ban single use plastics, it fails to account for the upstream impacts (economic, environmental and social) of a material, prior to consumption. In spite of many single use plastics possessing low levels of recyclability, potential benefits attributable to plastic packaging include:

  • A reduction in the amount of materials used. The transition to plastics for many products has resulted in the light weighting of materials – less physical material is used to make the product.
  • Logistical efficiencies (more material can be transported per shipment) – largely attributed to the reduction in overall weight, the use of light weight and composite plastics has resulted in a reduced emissions footprint related to the transport of materials.
  • Increased durability, longer shelf life (both in the store, and in the home), and allowing for discretionary consumption (you only use what you need). This is particularly true of plastic food packaging. As an example, a laminate package for soup (in lieu of the conventional tin can) allows users to reseal the pouch, allowing it to be stored longer and avoiding waste.

This white paper expands the list of criteria for what should be considered in a life cycle analysis, as a means to create more informed and defensible policy decisions.

 Expanding life cycle criteria

This white paper recommends expanding the boundaries of a life cycle analysis to capture criteria such as material reduction/light weighting, logistical impacts attributable to light weighting, effects on useful product life (both at the store and in the home for perishable items packaged using plastics), discretionary consumption, direct and indirect economic impacts, available waste management infrastructure, risks when landfilled and risks when incinerated.

Table 1 below summarizes what variables are included in the proposed expanded life cycle analysis. It is important to note that depending on the scenario and circumstances being modeled, not all criteria will apply (nor have all criteria been defined)

No alt text provided for this image

The above KPIs include both quantitative measures (i.e. $ cost per tonne managed,) as well as qualitative variables that provides useful contextual information that can better inform decision making.

While expanding our life cycle approach to capture these variables may result in a more time and data intensive life cycle analysis, adopting this methodology is critical in understanding the “true” impact of plastics, particularly single use plastic packaging. In theory, a comprehensive life cycle analysis is intended to capture the aforementioned components, however, there is little methodological guidance with respect to how to do that, and for which materials can it be applied. Further complicating the inclusion of these additional variables is an issue of measurement – how can we measure things like waste reduction, shelf life etc?

Development and Deployment of Expanded Life Cycle Analysis Tool

York University and Pollution Probe are currently working together in order to develop an expanded life cycle analysis calculator that includes the aforementioned components shown in table 1 above. Accompanying this tool will be a guidance document that explains how to measure and weight the above KPI criteria, and how to interpret the output in a meaningful way to help inform decision making.

This purpose of this tool is four fold: 1) allow users to capture life cycle impacts that have traditionally been omitted from previous investigations into LCA or plastic packaging 2) provide an evaluative framework to stakeholders who are looking to evaluate and compare the economic, social and environmental impacts of different types of plastic materials 3) quantify the environmental and economic affects attributable to potential programmatic changes (i.e. a ban on LDPE film), or allow users to model multiple scenarios to see how various options compare (i.e. landfilling all LDPE film, or recycling all LDPE film).

The tool that will be developed and distributed by York University and Pollution Probe will be populated with default data and assumptions (reflecting Ontario specific transportation distances, energy grid mixes, available infrastructure, and material management costs). Users will have the ability to change the underlying assumptions to better reflect differences in their particular jurisdiction, or model scenarios involving trans-jurisdictional management of waste. York University and Pollution Probe can also work closely with stakeholders in developing a more granular expanded life cycle calculator that pertains to the specific operations of a particular organization or municipality.

In the absence of conducting an expanded life cycle analysis, policies and decisions may not be fully informed, potentially resulting in inferior economic, social and environmental outcomes. Using an expanded life cycle approach is intended to capture both the upstream and downstream impacts of plastics, with the intention of helping stakeholders arrive at the most sustainable outcomes.

It is important to note that the most sustainable outcome isn’t necessarily the one that diverts the most material. Understanding what impact material decisions will have on cost (both in terms of material management costs and indirect impacts on the price of packaged goods), and which groups are most likely to be adversely impacted by changes in cost, access or availability, is critical in sustainable materials management.

_________________

About the Author

Calvin Lakhan, Ph.D, is currently co-investigator of the “Waste Wiki” project at York University (with Dr. Mark Winfield), a research project devoted to advancing understanding of waste management research and policy in Canada. He holds a Ph.D from the University of Waterloo/Wilfrid Laurier University joint Geography program, and degrees in economics (BA) and environmental economics (MEs) from York University. His research interests and expertise center around evaluating the efficacy of municipal recycling initiatives and identifying determinants of consumer recycling behavior.

Business as (Un)usual in British Columbia: EMA Authorization & Compliance Requirements Remain in Effect during the Pandemic
, ,

Written by Selina Lee Anderson and Paul R. Cassidy, McCarthy Tetrault

The BC Government has acknowledged that while the province’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacts on the day-to-day operations of regulated activities under the Environmental Management Act (EMA), authorization requirements remain in effect and it is expected that all reasonable measures should be taken to comply with EMA conditions. While the BC Government has not provided any guidance on what constitutes “reasonable measures”, determining what reasonable measures are will require a contextual analysis. In particular, businesses whose operations and compliance capabilities are materially challenged by the pandemic will need to engage in a risk assessment review not only to determine where the risk to the environment is the greatest from their operations, but also to provide justification in the event of non-compliance. Once a risk assessment has been completed, businesses will be in a better position to adjust the allocation of staff and other resources (if needed) for managing higher risk operational activities. Businesses with operations in BC are encouraged to maintain proper monitoring and record keeping in order to demonstrate that all reasonable measures (including appropriate mitigation measures) were taken to avoid non-compliance with EMA authorization requirements. In addition, businesses may wish to review EMA authorization requirements and develop contingency plans to ensure that their operations are maintained in compliance with permit obligations during this period of pandemic response.

If an EMA authorization holder encounters a non-compliance issue, the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change has asked that they provide notice to the Ministry by email at EnvironmentalCompliance@gov.bc.ca. The authorization holder should identify the compliance issue(s), rationale and mitigative measures being taken. The Ministry has indicated that in addressing non-compliances, it will take into consideration the directives and guidance issued by the provincial Public Health Officer.

The Ministry has also advised that it currently has staffing resources in place to maintain all core business functions. All electronic mailboxes and normal communication channels remain open and are being monitored regularly. Authorization holders should contact the Ministry through all the usual channels. All meetings with the Ministry will be handled by phone or online.

To discuss options for managing your regulatory compliance obligations, or if you have questions about the impact of COVID-19 on your business generally, please contact your McCarthy Tétrault trusted advisor or one of the authors.

________

About the Authors

Selina Lee Anderson is a partner in McCarthy Tetrault’s Vancouver office and a member of the firm’s Environmental, Regulatory and Aboriginal Group, Energy & Mining Group, Retail and Consumer Markets Group, Defence Initiative and Asia Group. Recognized for her in-depth knowledge and range of experience, her practice focuses primarily in the areas of environmental law, corporate/commercial law, regulatory law, compliance, and Aboriginal issues in the energy and natural resource sectors.

Paul R. Cassidy is a partner in McCarthy Tetrault’s Business Law Group in Vancouver and co-head of our National Environmental, Regulatory & Aboriginal Group. One of the most respected practitioners in the space, his deep industry business knowledge is without comparison. International investors routinely seek his advice on the regulatory environment for doing business in Canada.

 

Alberta becomes the first Canadian province to modify environmental reporting rules in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic

, ,

Written by Alan Harvie and Kellie L. Johnston, Norton Rose Fulbright

On March 30 and March 31, Alberta’s minister of environment and parks passed a slew of ministerial orders (the Orders) modifying certain industrial environmental reporting requirements in Alberta. The Orders were passed pursuant to s. 52.1(2) of the Alberta Public Health Act and are further to order-in-council 080/2020 that declared a state of public health emergency in Alberta due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ministerial order 15/2020

Ministerial order 15/2020 extends the deadline to submit compliance reports and emissions reduction plan reports under sections 36(8) and 36(9) of Alberta’s Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation from March 31, 2020, to June 30, 2020. Ministerial order 15/2020 can be found here.

Ministerial order 16/2020

Ministerial order 16/2020 extends the deadline to submit reports for the 2019 compliance period under sections 10(1), 11(1) and 12(1) of Alberta’s Renewable Fuels Standard Regulation from March 31, 2020, to June 30, 2020. These new deadlines apply to fuel suppliers, approved contributors and renewable fuel providers. Ministerial order 16/2020 can be found here.

Ministerial order 17/2020

Ministerial order 17/2020 suspends all requirements to report information pursuant to provisions in approvals or registration under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and all requirements to report information pursuant to provisions in licences or approvals under the Alberta Water Act. These suspensions do not apply to reporting requirements for drinking water facilities. Ministerial order 17/2020 also suspends all disposition requirements to submit returns or reports under the Alberta Public Lands Act.

Notwithstanding these suspensions, all approval, registration, licence and disposition holders (Record Holders) are required to continue to record and retain complete information relating to any reporting or return requirements. Upon request, the Record Holders are required to make these records available to Environment and Parks, or the Alberta Energy Regulator where the records deal with energy resource activities. Ministerial order 17/2020 can be found here.

Duration

The Orders shall remain in effect, unless they are sooner continued by an order of the lieutenant governor in council under the Alberta Public Health Act, until the earliest of:

a. August 14, 2020;
b. 60 days after order-in-council 080/2020 is terminated by the lieutenant governor in council, if order-in-council 080/2020 is terminated before June 15, 2020; or
c. the termination of the Orders by the minister or the lieutenant governor in council.

Temporary amendment to select Air Monitoring Directive requirements

In addition to the Orders, on March 31, Alberta Environment and Parks also issued a temporary amendment to select Air Monitoring Directive (AMD) requirements. The amendment allows industrial operations and Alberta airsheds to deviate from select AMD monitoring, siting and reporting requirements. Effective immediately:
i. calibration of ambient analyzers and ambient station manifold and inlet cleaning is now required once every three months for the remainder of 2020;
ii. the requirement to report “calendar day” in AMD reporting forms is removed;
iii. the deadline to complete and submit the 2019 Annual Emissions Inventory Report is extended from September 30, 2020, to December 31, 2020;
iv. the requirement to immediately report exceedances of Ambient Air Quality Guidelines until August 31, 2020, is removed until September 30, 2020;
v. extending until September 30, 2020, the requirement to submit airshed monthly monitoring summary reports and ambient data is extended by two months.

More detailed information on the amendments to the AMD requirements in Alberta, and their specific application, can be found here.

As of April 2, Alberta is the only province that has suspended certain environmental reporting requirements in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier, on March 26, the assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance assurance at the US Environmental Protection Agency unveiled its own policy to deal with environmental non-compliance in the wake of COVID-19, announcing that the agency would apply enforcement discretion for noncompliance: (i) during the period of the policy; (ii) that results from the COVID-19 pandemic.

____________

About the Authors

Alan Harvie has practised energy and environmental/regulatory law since 1989 and regularly deals with commercial, operational, environmental and regulatory issues, especially for the upstream and midstream oil and gas, energy, waste disposal and chemical industries. He is a member of Norton Rose Fulbright’s energy and environmental departments.

 

Kellie is a member of Norton Rose Fulbright’s global risk advisory practice. She assists clients to identify, assess and manage current and emerging risks across their global business. Her clients operate in many different sectors, including energy, infrastructure, mining and commodities, agribusiness, transport, retail, institutional investors, financial services, and life sciences.

Australian City Looking at Smarter Approach to Waste Management

, , , , ,

The City of Canterbury Bankston in Australia recently received $2 million in funding under Australia’s Smart Cities and Suburbs Program to work on a project called Closing the Loop on Waste.  Under the project, the city will investigate how it can deliver superior waste management customer service to residents using technology.

These City’s waste management team face several challenges in their quest to manage city waste effectively and efficiently. Other city officials may also relate to the following challenges:

Manual Process: The process of picking up and inspecting waste bins is very manual with little automation, which makes it quite time-consuming.

Real-Time Issues: The process is not well equipped to deal with real-time operations. For example, if an urgent job comes in, it requires phone calls to find someone who can handle it. There is also not a very good view of where all the trucks are in real-time throughout the day.

Data Accuracy: The city knows how many properties they service, but not exactly how many bins are picked up. Bins are also inspected manually, which can result in data errors.

Communication with the Community: The system currently doesn’t allow for proactive communication with citizens to let them know what is happening; instead, they react to citizen requests after they come in, which have to come in by phone call because online/mobile reporting is not set up.

The overall focus of the project is to improve waste management by using things like GPS for trucks, cameras, sensors, and artificial intelligence. Thinking big picture, the Waste Management Team for the City is also looking into how the data they gather in this project can improve other aspects of the City. Although the project is about waste management and sustainability, the main goal is always to improve the overall operations and quality of life in the city. Specific results that Closing the Loop on Waste will hope to achieve include the following:

  • Use advanced analytics to detect bin contamination, identify when waste bins have been missed, and investigate illegal dumping

  • Upgrade residents’ access to information regarding bin collections days and other programmed services

  • Use GPS data and live traffic information, to minimize potential delays on collection routes

  • Enable residents to request services or report incidents, via a real-time and customized format, that takes into account the diversity of the local community

  • Provide residents with notifications, when jobs they’ve requested are completed

  • Enable residents and organisations to upload images of dumped rubbish, which can be assessed before removal

Smart Cities group

Six Things To Consider Before The Coronavirus Impacts Environmental Compliance

, , ,

Written by Patrick Traylor, Conrad Bolston, and Misty M. Howell, Vinson & Elkins LLP

Companies with environmental compliance obligations should think carefully about and plan ahead for how the coronavirus outbreak might affect their ability to comply. Depending on the severity of the outbreak, companies may run out of the supplies they need to operate pollution controls, or their environmental compliance departments might become short-staffed, which could result in missed monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting. Here are six things to keep in mind.

Enforcement discretion. Think about developing a strong argument for why federal and state environmental enforcement agencies should exercise their enforcement discretion not to pursue noncompliance caused by an emergency. The EPA has a long-standing policy that allows for “no action” assurances to be issued to excuse noncompliance during emergencies. The prerequisites for an assurance are stringent, and a requestor must demonstrate that the public interest in excusing noncompliance outweighs the public impacts from the noncompliance. These assurances may only be issued by the Assistant Administrator for the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, so the work of obtaining them must be conducted at EPA Headquarters.

Malfunctions and upset defenses. Think about how malfunction and upset provisions in federal and state regulations and many permits can provide protection against enforcement, but only if the company complies with the prerequisites for these provisions. Each state (and some federal regulations) has different malfunction and upset rules, so it will be important to meet the stringent conditions of these rules before noncompliance will be excused.

Force majeure. Think about whether the company is subject to federal or state settlements that might have a force majeure clause that could excuse noncompliance. Most federal judicial consent decrees have force majeure clauses that could excuse noncompliance, but require that companies use “best efforts” to avoid noncompliance. Companies should carefully review their settlements to see how to comply with their force majeure provisions. And some states have “act of God” statutes under which the inevitable consequences of such events (which may include “other catastrophes”) are deemed to not constitute violations at all.

Impact of staffing challenges. Think about how staffing challenges might affect the company’s ability to comply. With companies beginning to shut down operations, it is possible that environmental compliance staff might not be able to work, and the company might miss monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting obligations. A company will want to very clearly justify decisions to excuse environmental compliance staff from work, especially if a “no action” assurance is sought or a malfunction/upset/force majeure claim is made.

Don’t forget your supply contracts. Think about the terms and conditions of supply contracts that are critical for environmental compliance and consider taking steps now to make sure suppliers comply with their contracts. If they cannot, think about whether a supply failure could qualify as a malfunction, upset, or force majeure event.

After the storm has passed. Think ahead to when the crisis has passed, and governmental and non-governmental organizations evaluate whether the emergency justified any noncompliance.


About the Authors

Patrick Traylor is a partner in Vinson & Elkin’s Environment and Natural Resources practice and was most recently the Deputy Assistant Administrator for the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance in Washington, D.C., where he helped oversee the EPA’s enforcement response during natural disasters.

Conrad Bolston is a senior associate in Vinson & Elkin’s Environment and Natural Resources practice. He has assisted clients with a variety of federal and state environmental enforcement matters, environmental due diligence efforts, regulatory guidance, internal investigations, and litigation.

Misty M. Howell is an associate in Vinson & Elkin’s Environment and Natural Resources practice. She has assisted clients with a variety of federal environmental enforcement matters, due diligence efforts, government investigations, and litigation. 

What Power Does Canada Have to Restrict Single-Use Plastics?

, , ,

Written by Jonathan D. Cocker, Baker McKenzie and Peter Hargreave, Policy Integrity Inc.

With all of the talk from the Government of Canada about the coming laws targeting single-use plastics (SUP), it’s worth asking whether the Parliament has such powers and what’s needed for them to act on SUP.   After all, the federal government has ceded much of its role to the provinces and territories which regulate over environmental protection generally, including most waste management matters, and some provinces have expressed hostility and a willingness to commence legal challenges to any encroachment on their jurisdiction, often on environmental matters such as climate change.   

Regional exceptionalism has become the norm as the federal government has for decades left the provinces and territories to take the lead without national coordination. As a result, the federal approach to SUP which will inherently value (in some measure) national consistency over regionalism will have difficulty in establishing balance, particularly given that some provinces rely upon plastics production as critical revenue sources.  So where exactly does the federal government believe they possess the powers to fulfil their promises to impose a SUP law across Canada?

CEPA and Toxic Substances

The federal government will, by all accounts, attempt to use Part V of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Controlling Toxic Substances.   Specifically, Environment and Climate Change Canada has the power to regulate plastics under section 90(1) of CEPA, if satisfied that the substance is toxic, to place them on the List of Toxic Substances, which is Schedule 1 to CEPA. 

Findings of toxicity were made for plastic microbeads in toiletries in 2017. Section 64 defines a substance as toxic if

“it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that:

  1. have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity;
  2. constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or
  3. constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.”

On the Toxic Substances List already are substances Canadians would recognize as inherently dangerous such as lead and mercury.  In contrast, the federal government would be seeking to make a common household material, broadly used to contain and preserve our foods, medicines, etc. equivalent under CEPA to these clearly toxic substances.  It would be a difficult argument to claim that plastics are toxic at all times and for all purposes.    

The ECCC presumably intends to assess plastics as toxic on a more narrow and functional basis – namely that plastics become plastic pollution as they degrade over time, principally as waste material, especially when not managed properly at the end of life.  As waste management is admittedly a provincial/territorial area of legislative authority, the toxicity claim would blur jurisdictional lines.  In short, it’s not as straight forward as the federal government has suggested. 

The Test to Establish Plastics are Toxic

Curiously, while the test for plastics to be placed on Schedule 1 List is that plastics are toxic, the considerations the ECCC are to adopt in assessing a substance are expanded under section 68 to whether a substance is toxic or is capable of being toxic.  The considerations include:

  1. whether short-term exposure to the substance causes significant effects,
  2. the potential of organisms in the environment to be widely exposed to the substance,
  3. whether organisms are exposed to the substance via multiple pathways,
  4. the ability of the substance to cause a reduction in metabolic functions of an organism,
  5. the ability of the substance to cause delayed or latent effects over the lifetime of an organism,
  6. the ability of the substance to cause reproductive or survival impairment of an organism,
  7. whether exposure to the substance has the potential to contribute to population failure of a species,
  8. the ability of the substance to cause transgenerational effects,
  9. quantities, uses and disposal of the substance,
  10. the manner in which the substance is released into the environment,
  11. the extent to which the substance can be dispersed and will persist in the environment,
  12. the development and use of alternatives to the substance,
  13. methods of controlling the presence of the substance in the environment, and
  14. methods of reducing the quantity of the substance used or produced or the quantities or concentration of the substance released into the environment;

As this is a list of considerations and not a strict legal test, no particular item may be necessary or sufficient for the federal government to declare plastics are toxic – there is likely considerable latitude where the science supports concerns over environmental harm.

Does the Draft Assessment Provide Sufficient Scientific Support?

On January 31st, 2020, the ECCC released its draft Science Assessment of Plastic Pollution.   The assessment was not focused upon plastics itself, but rather on plastics when it comes pollution.   This might be understood as an assessment of how plastics are capable of being toxic and not a study on the inherent toxicity of plastics, which has a separate assessment process.  This itself is a departure from the ECCC’s common assessment process, although used for microbeads as arguably the first of those lifecycle toxicity tests.

The findings from the draft Assessment, still in consultation until the end of March, are limited to the pollution (read: waste) effects of plastics and not plastics absent their current usage:

The purpose of this report is to summarize the current state of the science regarding the potential impacts of plastic pollution on the environment and human health, as well as to guide future research and inform decision-making on plastic pollution in Canada. It provides a review of the available information on plastic pollution, including its sources, occurrence, and fate, as well as on the potential effects of plastics on the environment and human health.

It’s also notable that the draft Assessment is identifies as a “survey” of existing science and anticipates further research on plastics, even though the assessment is to serve as to “guide regulatory activities”. 

This report is not intended to quantify the risks of plastic pollution on the environment or human health, but rather to survey the existing state of science in order to guide future scientific and regulatory activities.

The broad remedial powers of the ECCC under CEPA likely cure these defects in science for a finding of plastics as toxics, but proceeding to regulation from the draft Assessment alone may open the ECCC up to challenges that more is needed before such as determination can be made. The ECCC seems to leave the door open to more science, perhaps as much due diligence as inquiry.

It is also worth noting that the regulation of SUP in the name of plastic pollution mitigation aligns with Canada’s commitments under the Ocean Plastics Charter. Such an agreement does not however vest the federal government with implementation powers it does not already have.

So Which Plastics Would Be Declared Toxic?

The draft Assessment divides plastics into two categories:  microplastics (5mm of less) and macroplastics (more than 5mm).   There is some other discussion regarding alternative plastics, such as biodegradable, compostable and bioplastics, but these arguably aren’t sufficiently addressed in isolation in the draft Assessment to warrant findings specific to these alternatives.   

It’s likely that each of microplastics and macroplastics will be the subject of distinct regulatory control measures on behalf of the ECCC under the coming law, with microplastics perhaps attracting the greater restrictions given the greater nexus to contamination.   After all, “microbeads” of 5mm or less are already listed as a toxic substance on Schedule 1.  

It’s also clear that the federal government views SUP as a more pressing matter in light of the 2021 implementation by member states of the European Union’s (EU) Single-Use Plastics Directive and the Ocean Plastics Charter.  In fashioning a Canadian version of a SUP law, it’s worth understanding what regulatory instruments the ECCC would have under CEPA.

The Range of Control Measures Available

Once some category of plastics are deemed “toxic”, the ECCC inherits a considerable range of control instruments to regulate those plastics.  Section 93 of CEPA provides the ECCC ability to control:

  1. the quantity or concentration of the substance that may be released into the environment either alone or in combination with any other substance from any source or type of source;
  2. the places or areas where the substance may be released;
  3. the commercial, manufacturing or processing activity in the course of which the substance may be released;
  4. the manner in which and conditions under which the substance may be released into the environment, either alone or in combination with any other substance;
  5. the quantity of the substance that may be manufactured, processed, used, offered for sale or sold in Canada;
  6. the purposes for which the substance or a product containing it may be imported, manufactured, processed, used, offered for sale or sold;
  7. the manner in which and conditions under which the substance or a product containing it may be imported, manufactured, processed or used;
  8. the quantities or concentrations in which the substance may be used;
  9. the quantities or concentrations of the substance that may be imported;
  10. the countries from or to which the substance may be imported or exported;
  11. the conditions under which, the manner in which and the purposes for which the substance may be imported or exported;
  12. the total, partial or conditional prohibition of the manufacture, use, processing, sale, offering for sale, import or export of the substance or a product containing it;
  13. the total, partial or conditional prohibition of the import or export of a product that is intended to contain the substance;
  14. the quantity or concentration of the substance that may be contained in any product manufactured, imported, exported, offered for sale or sold in Canada;
  15. the manner in which, conditions under which and the purposes for which the substance or a product containing it may be advertised or offered for sale;
  16. the manner in which and conditions under which the substance or a product containing it may be stored, displayed, handled, transported or offered for transport;
  17. the packaging and labelling of the substance or a product containing it;
  18. the manner, conditions, places and method of disposal of the substance or a product containing it, including standards for the construction, maintenance and inspection of disposal sites;

It is likely that a suite of these measures will be adopted distinctly for microplastics and macroplastics. (It’s not clear if alternative plastics would attract their own measures.)  The EU’s Single Use Plastics (SUP) Directive may be instructive, it sets out a number of measures including:

  • Aggressive recycling targets for beverage containers (77% by 2025 and 90% by 2030);
  • Design requirements for beverage containers (i.e., recycled content and tethered caps);
  • Labelling requirements for products that are often not disposed of properly (tobacco products, beverage cups, wet wipes and sanitary towels);
  • Expanded producer responsibility requirements; and
  • Bans by 2021 on single-use plastic cotton bud sticks, cutlery, plates, straws, stirrers, sticks for balloons; all products made of oxo-plastic; cups, food and beverage containers made of polystyrene foam.

Enter the Provinces

It is generally understood that most jurisdictions in the EU will achieve most of the outcomes in the Directive through EPR provisions. Given the diversity in approaches to EPR in Canada that could prove difficult to achieve as these efforts have firmly and institutionally rested with the provinces (and increasingly, territories) in Canada.  The ECCC is playing catch up and there are some questions related to their legislative authority over this mechanism without the support of the provinces. A comprehensive strategy around SUP will necessarily involve provincial /territorial for which the 2018 Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment’s (CCME) Strategy on Zero Plastic Waste was just the beginning of a new age of cooperation on (plastic) pollution.


About the Authors

Jonathan D. Cocker heads Baker McKenzie’s Environmental Practice Group in Canada and is an active member of the firm’s Global Consumer Goods & Retail and Energy, Mining and Infrastructure groups. Mr. Cocker provides advice and representation to multinational companies on a variety of environmental and product compliance matters, including extended producer responsibilities, dangerous goods transportation, GHS, regulated wastes, consumer product and food safety, and contaminated lands matters. He assisted in the founding of one of North America’s first Circular Economy Producer Responsibility Organizations and provides advice and representation to a number of domestic and international industry groups in respect of resource recovery obligations. Mr. Cocker was recently appointed the first Sustainability Officer of the International Bar Association Mr. Cocker is a frequent speaker and writer on environmental issues and has authored numerous publications including recent publications in the Environment and Climate Change Law Review, Detritus – the Official Journal of the International Waste Working Group, Chemical Watch, Circular Economy: Global Perspectives published by Springer, and in the upcoming Yale University Journal of Industrial Ecology’s special issue on Material Efficiency for Climate Change Mitigation.

Peter Hargreave, the President of Policy Integrity Inc., has over 15 years’ experience in providing strategic advice in the development, implementation and oversight of public policy. Over his professional career, he has developed a strong network of relationships with regulators, public and private organizations, and other key stakeholders involved in environmental issues across Canada, the United States and abroad. He has extensive experience in assessing waste management policies at the federal, provincial, and municipal level across the country. He has also played a key role in leading major research efforts in the waste management sector including data capture and analysis, and understanding the economic and environmental impacts of various waste management activities.

Canada’s Single-Use Plastics Law May Restrict Biodegradable Plastics

,

Written by Jonathan D. CockerBaker McKenzie

Some might have wondered what the purpose might be for this joint assessment from Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada:  Draft Science Assessment of Plastic Pollution, January 2020After all, the federal government and the provinces have already entered into an agreement through the Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment to create a regulated circular economy for plastics in the name of environmental harm reduction.

In fact, a single-use plastics law was promised by the federal government in June 2019 (and reaffirmed in January 2020), with a likely effective date coincident with the implementation of the European Union Single-Use Plastics (SUP) Directive.  It’s a virtual article of faith in Canada that some plastic pollution is adversely impacting the environment – so what does the Draft Assessment tell us about the scope of the promised Canadian single-use plastics law that we don’t already know?

The Rise of Alternative Plastics…

Since the plastic pollution crisis of 2018, there has been a sudden rush of new end-of-life labels and certifications applied to common products, including those very same products targeted by the EU SUP Directive.  Initially, many of the promoted environmental claims were pulled from pre-crisis times, and were disseminated broadly even though they were neither verified nor verifiable.  “Bioplastic” was one such label – which did not necessarily perform any better environmentally than its petroleum-based cousin but arguably benefitted from commonly held beliefs as to its environmental superiority.

Many industries were compelled to respond to public skepticism and attributes such as “Compostable” and “Biodegradable” have become increasingly standardized, with biodegradable / compostable certifications available under international standards such as ASTM.  The growth of these alternative plastics for many common items has been meteoric, attracting long-term capital investment and seemingly setting new industry standards for years to come.

…and Their Coming Fall?

But wait – the landscape in Canada may have just shifted again… The Draft Assessment seems to signal that the plastic product, and not its composition, will be the focus of single-use plastics restrictions (and of those other laws to follow).  Scant attention is paid to alternative plastics in the Draft Assessment, which draws little distinction between conventional plastics and these newer offerings.  To the extent alternative plastics assessments were specifically considered, the Draft Assessment suggests little differentiation in the coming law will be made:

Although biodegradable plastics and bioplastics are increasingly being used as alternatives to conventional plastics, they may not degrade more readily than conventional plastics once in the environment.

In contrast, the Draft Assessment fundamentally divides plastics between macroplastics (greater than 5mm) and microplastics (5mm or less and inclusive of nanoplastics).  The near silence on alternative plastics may be deafening for the multitude of industries with substantial (and recent) investment in the viability of these alternatives.

Some Reason for Optimism

The Draft Assessment does seem to contemplate, within the range of alternative plastics, a need to “differentiate degradation pathways under different conditions” to recognize where alternative plastics may deliver preferable environmental performance:

  • for instance, some biodegradable variants are accepted as biodegradable in industrial composting facilities, but will not biodegrade under natural conditions;
  • Bioplastics may bepreferable to conventional plastic feedstock in decarbonization efforts or in providing demand for residual biomass that exists in integrated agriculture and forestry sectors;
  • There is insufficient evidence as to whether oxo-degradable plastics have accelerated degradation (it remains an open question); and
  • At least one biodegradable plastic was found to have largely degraded chemically and morphologically in sea water over a 180 day period.

In short, there wasn’t substantial evidence to support alternative plastics’ environmental value, but, for the most part, nor was there sufficient proof of the opposite.  An informational gap exists in this area.

More to Be Said on Alternative Plastic Before the Law?

As the Draft Assessment opens the door to a 60-day consultation period ending April 1st, 2020, there remains a window of opportunity for all industries engaged in the production, sourcing or sale of alternative plastics to provide input, technical and policy-driven, to preserve a space for environmentally beneficial alternatives to conventional plastics in Canada.

____

The coming Canadian single-use plastics law is just the first initiative in a broader legislative program on plastics eventually regulating all plastic products, containers and packaging.  The time is now for Canadian industry to supply missing information on alternative plastics before long-term decisions about their role in the economy are made.

Republished with the permission of the author. This article was first published on the Baker McKenzie website


About the Author

Jonathan D. Cocker heads Baker McKenzie’s Environmental Practice Group in Canada and is an active member of the firm’s Global Consumer Goods & Retail and Energy, Mining and Infrastructure groups. Mr. Cocker provides advice and representation to multinational companies on a variety of environmental and product compliance matters, including extended producer responsibilities, dangerous goods transportation, GHS, regulated wastes, consumer product and food safety, and contaminated lands matters. He assisted in the founding of one of North America’s first Circular Economy Producer Responsibility Organizations and provides advice and representation to a number of domestic and international industry groups in respect of resource recovery obligations.

Should Countries Outside of Europe Adopt EU Single-Use Plastics Law?

, ,

Written by Jonathan D. Cocker, Baker McKenzie

The European Union’s landmark Single-Use Plastic (SUP) Directive is set to be enacted into member states’ national laws by 2021.  Some countries outside the EU have already signaled their intention, in all but name, to adopt consistent SUP laws, for good commercial and regulatory reasons.    

Confidence in the EU as the world’s standard bearers on environmental management, including product environmental regulatory matters, is in its ascendancy, particularly with initiatives such as the Circular Economy Action Plan and the recent Green New Deal.   

But questions must be asked – how clear and portable is the EU law and does local replication of the SUP Directive outside of Europe make sense?

SUP Directive to Regulate “Plastic”

In June of 2019, following months of dire warnings over the proliferation of plastic pollution, the EU passed the SUP Directive with the stated aim of reducing the impact of “certain plastic products” on the environment – namely many of the most prevalent plastic items regularly found on beaches in Europe, along with fishing nets, which together are said to account for a substantial amount of the (visible) marine plastic pollution. 

The SUP Directive adopts a variety of regulatory measures depending upon the material:  from outright bans to mandatory extended producer obligations to product labelling and consumption reduction obligations.   The core regulated material is “plastic” but, surprisingly, this is the beginning, not the end, of the story.

Natural v. Synthetic  – But Both Pollution

Definitions of plastics start with long-chain synthetic polymers which can be generated from petroleum or plant-based materials subjected to imposed polymerization and therefore regulated as a plastic.   Conversely, the SUP Directive excludes:

            Natural polymers that have not been chemically modified

Natural polymers are free of imposed polymerization but may also become synthetic through any “chemical modification” – though exactly when this occurs is more a question of arcane chemistry than environmental protection and, interestingly, might have reference to other regulatory treatments of the material.  In some instances, the designation of a natural v. synthetic polymer can be a distinction without a difference at it relates to environmental impacts. 

Non-Plastic Alternatives May Be Regulated 

The recital to the SUP Directive appears to recognize this quandary in expressing an intention (but not mandating) that (non-plastic) single-use products within a material category capturing plastics can also be regulated under the SUP Directive unless the product can be shown to have a substantially reduced impact on the environment relative to a regulated plastic alternative.  

In other words, industry should be prevented from making only a technical product content switch to a non-plastic category without any appreciable environmental gain.   But this moves the law away from strict international plastic product standards and brings in a host of local considerations.  

The Case of Wet Wipes – No Clean Distinctions to Be Made

The recent joint report by environmental consultants Eunomia and Reloop entitled What is Plastic?explores the tension between plastics taxonomy and environmental impacts using a concrete example of consumer wet wipes and points out that they can be made by synthetic or natural polymers, including man-made (non-plastic) cellulosic fibres (MMCFs), with similar environmental impacts.   

The report looks at whether either a technical or purposive reading of the SUP Directive would potentially capture certain MMCFs as equally harmful in wet wipes to plastic alternatives.  In conclusion, the competing goals of meaningful environmental protection (with a broad interpretation of SUPs) and potentially inconsistent Directive implementation across the EU remains unresolved, with some clarity hopefully coming through 2020 EU policy statements.  

This is not the turnkey plastics legal regime the rest of us might have hoped for.

If Environmental (not “Plastic”) Harm is the Question, the Answer Won’t Be the Same Worldwide

The final point in understanding what is coming under plastics regulation, regardless of which scheme is adopted, is that countries / regions will need to look at the prevalence and persistence of waste in their ecosystems in determining where to draw the line on material bans / regulatory restrictions, and, of course, it won’t necessarily be wet wipes which creates the greatest local challenges.  

In short, countries / regions need to do their own strategic thinking around environmental, commercial and social outcomes in developing a plastics law – simple local replication of the SUP Directive isn’t a viable option.

This article has been republished with the permission of the author. It was first published on the Baker McKenzie website.


About the Author

Jonathan D. Cocker heads Baker McKenzie’s Environmental Practice Group in Canada and is an active member of the firm’s Global Consumer Goods & Retail and Energy, Mining and Infrastructure groups. Mr. Cocker provides advice and representation to multinational companies on a variety of environmental and product compliance matters, including extended producer responsibilities, dangerous goods transportation, GHS, regulated wastes, consumer product and food safety, and contaminated lands matters. He assisted in the founding of one of North America’s first Circular Economy Producer Responsibility Organizations and provides advice and representation to a number of domestic and international industry groups in respect of resource recovery obligations.

Automakers Charge Headlong Into EV Battery Recovery

, ,

Written by Jonathan D. Cocker, Baker McKenzie

There has certainly been rapid growth in the market for electric vehicles (EV), in part due to their associated (and celebrated) environmental attributes.  What receives much less attention, however, is the looming waste-management challenge, particularly for EV lithium-ion batteries (LIBs).  The proliferation of post-consumer LIBs has yet to fully materialize given the recent installation of long-life LIBs across multiple vehicle industries, but the environmental price for the switch to EV will soon be paid by EV makers.

Currently, brands are scrambling to both develop their EV offerings and determine their resource recovery strategies around LIBs, which will be a source of strategic elements and critical materials for key components in new EVs, as well as a coming materials efficiency compliance obligations internationally.  So just where does LIB recycling stand today?

Re-Use as Energy Storage or Charging Stations

Recently, there has been some positive attention paid to the re-use opportunities for end-of-life LIBS – either as energy storage units or as part of EV charging stations- which Re-use is an accepted method of resource recovery, including under regulated LIB circular economy laws so there may well be a portion (however small) of post-consumer LIBs which are deployed for these projects.

The metals content of LIBs, however, is sufficiently valuable and the coming demand for LIBs is so great that the lithium-ion battery recycling industry will necessarily take the lion’s share of available batteries, even though the content of the LIBs continues to rapidly evolve as the technology develops.  Specific recovery goals applied to LIBs is a moving target right now.

LIBs and Eco-Design

Remanufacturing is permissible, if not encouraged, as a resource recovery activity under most legal regimes. For LIBs, this usually requires the disassembly of the LIB to at least the module level.  This will require high-voltage training and specialized tools to protect the operators and the battery from electrocution and short-circuiting risks, respectively.  There are also potentially toxic gases released in the process.

All of which highlights a key industry question- will there be eco-design rules such as right-to-repair disclosure and accessibility obligations upon the brands and their LIB providers, particularly given the variance in LIBS emerging across the vehicle spectrum.  The EU Right-to-Repair obligations for other e-waste, such as lighting, televisions and large appliances are set to apply within Europe as of April 1st, 2020 under the EU Eco-Design Resource Efficiency Standards.  It can be anticipated that similar accessibility obligations, including perhaps labelling and design data disclosures, could apply to LIBs in spite of the acute safety concerns.

Recycling, But Without Common Standards

The recycling of LIBs is certainly complicated by the myriad of physical configurations, cell types and chemistries, however leading companies are beginning this challenge through innovative process technologies capable of recycling a diverse feed of lithium-ion batteries.  Still, design-for-recycling of LIBs is not likely too far away and there are already state-of-the-art processing facilities in Europe and North America that engage in some recycling combination of stabilization, opening and separation of the LIB.

Proprietary LIB Recycling v. Industry Solution

Like every resource recovery market, there are EV brands which are seeking to develop market leading “closed loop” processes for their materials, through significant direct capital investment and / or strategic partnerships with the LIB maker and the specialized recycler.  These processes involve centralization of receiving and processing, with a heavy reliance on custom automated processing which may permit sorting for some combination of remanufacturing, re-use and recycling.  In the near term, these investments are likely to remain proprietary to the individual brands with limited accessibility to the rest of the industry.

For the remainder of the brands, the resource recovery pull will come either from the LIB maker servicing multiple brands or the local LIB recycling industries quickly growing around the pending demand, whether driven by waste diversion or circular economy requirements.  For now, there is likely more splintering and less convergence in the near term as brands come to fully develop their EV offerings, leaving legacy challenges for LIB recyclers in the years to come.

Two regulatory pushes will eventually bring needed standardization to LIBs: consistency of EV charging as an accessibility right; and circular economy / materials efficiency obligations for end-of-life LIBs as environmental compliance for EV industries.  However, as to when common standards (and common chemistries) are adopted is anyone’s guess.

This article has been republished with the permission of the author. It was first published on the Baker McKenzie website.


About the Author

Jonathan D. Cocker heads Baker McKenzie’s Environmental Practice Group in Canada and is an active member of the firm’s Global Consumer Goods & Retail and Energy, Mining and Infrastructure groups. Mr. Cocker provides advice and representation to multinational companies on a variety of environmental and product compliance matters, including extended producer responsibilities, dangerous goods transportation, GHS, regulated wastes, consumer product and food safety, and contaminated lands matters. He assisted in the founding of one of North America’s first Circular Economy Producer Responsibility Organizations and provides advice and representation to a number of domestic and international industry groups in respect of resource recovery obligations.