Free Webinar on True Zero Waste and the Circular Economy

, , ,

This webinar is a complimentary event open to the United States Green Building Coalition – Los Angeles (USGBC-LA) community members and the general public.  It is scheduled for May 13th at 11 am Pacific Daylight Time.

Topics of discussion on the TRUE Zero Waste and Circular Economy Overview – Webinar on May 13th (11 am PDT) include:

  • What is Circular Economy?
  • What’s the difference between Circular Economy and a really good recycling program?
  • Introduction to the basic concepts:
    • Waste = Food
    • Build Resilience Through Diversity
    • Energy from Renewable Resources
    • Think in Systems
    • True Zero Waste Certification overview

Without urgent action, global waste will increase by 70 percent on current levels by 2050, according to the World Bank’s new report. The make-take-waste way of doing things is coming to an end and if we do it right, we’ll create massive new economical and social opportunities!

During the webinar there will be a discussion on how businesses can create value by striving for zero waste, seeing products and materials as cycles, the role of creative solutions, and how you can contribute to make the transition to a Circular Economy.

SPEAKERS

 Denise Braun, CEO All About Waste

Denise has over seventeen years of experience in the sustainability field, starting in Brazil and then moving to the United States. She is the founder and principal of All About Waste – a woman and minority-owned sustainability and zero waste consulting firm based in Los Angeles, CA. Denise and her team provide a diverse range of services including solid waste data collection and analysis, circular strategic frameworks, green building certifications, zero waste programs and certification, training/educational workshops, and community outreach. She has worked in various capacities on over 150 LEED-certified projects, many of which have achieved the highest level of certification with no clarifications. Denise is currently working on several zero-waste and wellness projects. She worked on the first TRUE-certified zero waste high-rise commercial building in the world. Denise has been responsible for over 30 million square feet of waste audits and has developed and analyzed technical waste management solutions for a large variety of building types. Denise has presented at numerous lectures, workshops, and conferences, including the annual Municipal Green Building Conference and Expo, Net Zero Conference, the Living Building Collaborative Zero Waste Forum and the GreenBuild Conference & Expo. She currently has several accreditation and expertise such as: LEED AP,  WELL AP, ENV SP, TRUE Advisor, Fitwel Ambassador and sustainable supply chain. She also is sitting as a Board of Director at USGBC-LA.

 Ryan McMullan, CEO Lean Green Way

Over his career Ryan McMullan has led several Sustainability programs including in Toyota’s Corporate Responsibility department and Rice University’s Facilities & Engineering department.  These have included strategically developing and deploying environmental targets across a wide variety of functional groups, reporting on environmental progress, greenhouse gas inventories, and developing programs for zero waste, zero carbon, and zero water.  He now consults with companies like Lockheed-Martin, Walmart and Mattress Recycling Council (MRC) to help them establish leading sustainability strategies. He is an advisor to TRUE Zero Waste Certification at GBCI and the Environmental Leader Conference. He earned his Masters from the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management at UC Santa Barbara and his Bachelor’s from Rice University.  At home he keeps busy improving the sustainability of his home in Long Beach, California, teaching his 10-year-old son to conserve resources and design games, and writing on his experiences.

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.

Fun with Waste: Virtual Safari fundraiser for waste collection in low income countries

,

WasteAid has created a Virtual Safari into the Kenyan wilderness, an immersive experience with science, culture, art, cookery and lots of wildlife to help lift spirits, and to raise money for waste collectors in low-income countries.

The safari route is around Lake Naivasha in Kenya, where WasteAid is working with local partners to improve waste collection and recycling. It says the entire 75-kilometre route is equivalent to 100,000 steps or 1,000 minutes exercise.

WasteAid is an independent, non-profit United Kingdom charity set up by waste management professionals to share practical and low-cost waste management know-how with communities in low-income countries.

Zoë Lenkiewicz, Head of Programmes and Engagement at WasteAid, said: “We wanted to create something for people to escape into and enjoy, while raising money for our urgent appeal ‘Waste Collectors Rock!’

“The communities around Lake Naivasha, especially those working with waste, are in poverty and vulnerable to disease – yet at the same time, they are surrounded by all this incredible wildlife. We thought it would be fun to support waste collectors in places like this, by sharing the beauty and wonder of the environment they work so hard to protect.”

Waste-to-Fuel Facility planned near Medicine Hat, Alberta

,

Canada’s Cielo Waste Solutions Corp. (CNSX:CMC and OTCQB: CWSFF) recently announced that its joint-venture (JV) partner had found a suitable location for their facility that will be designed to convert waste into renewable fuels.

The JV partner, Renewable U Medicine Hat Inc., has secured an agreement in principle to purchase 32.4 hectares of land in Cypress County, Alberta. The land is situated within the approximately 3-kilometres from the town of Medicine Hat.

Renewable U Medicine Hat has also informed Cielo that is has funding in place to close the purchase and sale agreement, subject to numerous conditions, before or on July 1, 2020, the waste-to-fuel company said.

The planned facility will be engineered to grind multiple waste feedstocks and convert them into renewable fuels that can be blended into conventional highway transportation, marine and aviation fuels.  It is estimated that the cost to build and commission the facility will be $50 million.

Initial production output is seen at 32.7 million litres of renewable fuels per year on 65,000 tonnes/year of feedstock. The partners contemplate to keep the facility running for 341 days a year.

Cielo expects the construction phase to employ around 50 to 70 people. Once the production starts, the facility will provide some 25 full-time jobs, the company said.

About Cielo Waste Solutions Corp.

CIELO Waste Solutions Corp. is a publicly traded company with its shares listed to trade on the Canadian Securities Exchange (“CSE”) under the symbol “CMC”, as well as OTC Markets Group, on the OTCQB, under the symbol “CWSFF”.  CIELO’s technology transforms landfill garbage into renewable high-grade diesel and aviation jet fuel. CIELO’s proven and patent-pending technology is currently being deployed in the Company’s Aldersyde, Alberta Renewable Diesel Facility, where wood waste is currently being converted into renewable fuels.

Florida company claims breakthrough in turning waste to hydrogen fuel

, , ,

A Florida-based waste-to-fuel company, Standard Hydrogen Company Inc., recently announced that it had made a technology breakthrough and that it had a patented process that could produce inexpensive hydrogen from waste.  The company markets itself as an innovative, breakthrough company that developed and patented technology to economically split hydrogen sulfide into pure hydrogen and sulfur.

“We make pollution-free hydrogen and we clean the environment while doing it,” said Alan Mintzer, Standard Hydrogen CEO in a news release. “This innovation turns trash into clean burning fuel, but more importantly it also cleans up most forms of pollution around the world.”

Description of the Technology

The development of the technology is embodied in United States Patent 9290386B2 (Hydrogen sulfide conversion to hydrogen).  The patent describes a method of reacting hydrogen sulfide with a catalyst at a temperature up to 700 degrees Celsius.  The hydrogen sulfide is converted to sulfur and hydrogen.

In the description of its technology, the company uses plastic waste as an example.  Plastic waste, comprised mainly of hydrogen and carbon atoms, is mixed with hot sulfur.  The hydrogen in the plastic combines with the sulfur to generate hydrogen sulfide (H2S).  The hydrogen sulfide is subsequently turned into hydrogen and sulfur.  The hydrogen can be used as a fuel and the sulfur is reused in the process or sold as an industrial grade product.  The entire process is exothermic (meaning it generates heat).  The company claims its technology requires no precious metal catalysts and requires little to no maintenance.

The company claims its process is different than other ones such as the Claus process.  The Claus process is an energy-intensive process used that destroys the hydrogen sulfide, recovers the sulfur but not the hydrogen.  Standard Hydrogen claims the process is low cost and that no air emissions are generated.

Further Development

The company CEO claims that technology could easily convert organic waste streams (i.e., plastic, biomass, paper, source-separated organics, textiles) into hydrogen.  It also claims it has proven the science behind the patented technology and determined it can economically produce hydrogen from hydrogen sulfide.

The company stated it is will do more research and development through mid-2020 while seeking additional joint venture partners to complete the engineering phase of the technology roll out.  Standard Hydrogen is targeting the first quarter of 2021 to have a commercial reactor at a pilot plant.

 

 

Fun with Waste: Recycling Quizzes

,

There are a number websites that have offer recycling quizzes to test your knowledge.  If you score 100% on the quizzes below, you are a true waste management professional and should be proud of yourself.

 

 

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

UK Group Releases New Biogas Utilization Guide for Fleet Operators

,
The Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership (LowCVP), based in United Kingdom, recently released a new guide for fleet operators outlining how renewable fuels can immediately cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in road transport.  According to the organisation, while there has been much focus on vehicle electrification to help meet the UK’s net-zero target, there are still “major technical challenges” to overcome, particularly concerning longer-distance road freight.

The LowCVP which was established in 2003, is a public-private partnership working to accelerate a sustainable shift to lower carbon vehicles and fuels and create opportunities for UK business. 

According to the LowCVP, heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) currently produce around 15% of total road transport GHG emissions, with a similar contribution coming from light-duty vans. Vehicles with long-haul duty cycles account for the largest portion of GHG emissions from HGVs.

The Renewable Fuels Guide, produced by the LowCVP and low-emission vehicle research and consultancy Cenex, shows how the adoption of renewable fuels from sustainable feedstocks offers one of the quickest and most economically-viable routes to lowering vehicle emissions. CNG Fuels and Scania also supported the guide.

The guide aims to educate fleet operators on the range of low carbon and sustainable fuels currently available in the UK, demonstrating the business and environmental case for their adoption. It focuses on renewable fuels such as biomethane, biodiesel, biopropane and hydrotreated vegetable oil.

According to the LowCVP, renewable fuels are mandated for use under UK legislation and are now present in most road transport fuel currently on the market. The Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation Order (RTFO) requires large UK retail fuel suppliers to guarantee that at least 9.75% of the fuel they supply comes from renewable sources by 2020, and 12.4% by 2032. However, the latest figures show that only 4.9% of the total road fuel supplied in the UK currently comes from these sources.

 

U.S. EPA’s Announces Easing of Environmental Enforcement during COVID-19 Pandemic

, ,

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) recently announced an Enforcement Discretion Policy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The temporary policy is with respect to environmental enforcement of legal obligations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The policy addresses different categories of noncompliance differently. For example, under the policy the U.S. EPA does not expect to seek penalties for noncompliance with routine monitoring and reporting obligations that are the result of the COVID-19 pandemic but does expect operators of public water systems to continue to ensure the safety of our drinking water supplies. The policy also describes the steps that regulated facilities should take to qualify for enforcement discretion.

“EPA is committed to protecting human health and the environment, but recognizes challenges resulting from efforts to protect workers and the public from COVID-19 may directly impact the ability of regulated facilities to meet all federal regulatory requirements,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “This temporary policy is designed to provide enforcement discretion under the current, extraordinary conditions, while ensuring facility operations continue to protect human health and the environment.”

The temporary policy makes it clear that EPA expects regulated facilities to comply with regulatory requirements, where reasonably practicable, and to return to compliance as quickly as possible. To be eligible for enforcement discretion, the policy also requires facilities to document decisions made to prevent or mitigate noncompliance and demonstrate how the noncompliance was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

This policy does not provide leniency for intentional criminal violations of law.

The policy does not apply to activities that are carried out under Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action enforcement instruments. EPA will address these matters in separate communications.

The U.S. EPA’s policy will apply retroactively beginning on March 13, 2020. The U.S. EPA will assess the continued need for and scope of this temporary policy on a regular basis and will update it if EPA determines modifications are necessary.