The congress of the United States has put legislation in the leather industry the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (RCRA Nonhazardous 1).This act governs the generating, storage, transportation, and the treatment procedures as regards the leather manufacturing facility. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) controls and regulates the RCRA Act in the nation (EPA Reports on Progress 1). The EPA ensures that industrial and manufacturing industries such as those that prepare the basketball adhere to the laid down procedures as regards waste. The RCRA Act stipulates environment friendly ways of handling all industrial waste in the leather industry. The Act has facilities to generate, transport, treat, and dispose harmful waste. The RCRA section C provides that any injurious waste needs elimination from the time of generation to the time of clearance. The facilities that spawn, and eliminate waste contain the regulation in this subtitle of the Act (Yu-Chong 3).
RCRA ensure the protection of humankind and the entire environment that can generate in the absence of proper discarding. The corrective action of RCRA in the storage, treatment of the perilous waste works in collaboration of the industrial companies (RCRA Nonhazardous 2). The corrective action works in tandem of normal operation of the company operations. The EPA recently announced a corrective action plan that seeks to eliminate contamination in a wide area in the universe. The plan works under the agency of National Enforcement Strategy for RCRA Corrective Action (NESCA). This agency enforces companies’ compliance with assurance tools to address contamination on a worldwide scale.
The NESCA agency intends to implement cleanup plans to achieve that goal by the year 2020 (EPA Reports on Progress 3).This will measure 95 per cent corrective action of the NESCA plan (RCRA Nonhazardous 4). This plan states that, the agency will collaborate with the EPA. In this sense the current pollution, require manageability to lessen their impact on humanity. An immeasurable majority of the manufacturing facilities that rely on leather need rigorous regulations. This authority to manage waste emanated from congress that enabled EPA to establish the RCRA program (Yu-Chong 5). The country’s congress provides explicit content to the act to make it legally enforceable to key stakeholders in the leather manufacturing industry. NESCA has designs that seek to enforce industrial companies’ compliance with their assurance principals. This agency will identify and give priority to aid in the goal of corrective action to improve target facilities. NESCA also employs compliance assistance tools to enable it remain in its intent of the RCRA corrective plan.
EPA believes that NESCA has commitment to bring equity in all the regulated facilities. This agency has consistent communication in all EPA nations to enable it to enforce its compliance activities (EPA Memos 1). These activities are in line with the authorities as well as EPA orders. NESCA uses enforceable mechanism to address delays in corrective action plans. This agency encourages enforceable mechanism when a nation stalls any of its corrective action plans (EPA Memos 1). This includes enforceable language, precise deadlines, and deliverables regarding the corrective action. The NESCA agency identifies the target facilities for enforcement and applies inspection on the file reviews. EPA has trouble in identifying facilities to provide adequate cleanup. This can assist tin determining the compliance with the obligation of corrective action (Mathes 55). NESCA encourages the EPA member states to focus on the issues regarding environmental justice. This entails the enforcement of the target facilities that are misappropriate. This agency does not specify the priority compliant tool that a member country can apply. NESCA suggest that every region has its own environmental condition that maps it and can adopt the best target facilities (EPA Memos 3).
EPA stipulates that the environmental justice must focus on the threat on humanity in the member countries. The countries are responsible in their providence of enhanced community outreach to enable environmental justice in the area. The EPA corrective plan authorizes the countries to enforce the action in their own countries. The state can apply the NESCA framework to discharge the action plan. The NESCA tool for compliance can assist by offering priority for assessment of the target facilities. The NESCA seeks to achieve the 2020 vision in its effort to increase the number of consultations in the regions (RCRA Nonhazardous 6). NESCA emphasizes on the need of communication and coordination in all the EPA headquarters and regional offices.
Recently EPA receives summons from various leather industry concerning the application of complex RCRA regulations. The EPA issues written regulatory interpretations through the Regulatory Development Branch (RDB) agency. The EPA’s Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) identify and issue relevant policies to various stakeholders (RCRA Nonhazardous 6). The OSWER agency and the RDB issue directives that enable the states to comprehend the EPA’s compliance regulation. The policy issued assists the nations to resolve issues related to disposal of detrimental waste (Mathes 55). These policies are necessary in the occasion there is inconsequential interpretation of the regulation framework. These policies contain readable information that captures the EPA internal policy for ease of reviewing.
Any manufacturing industry that engenders any harmful waste must comply with the RCRA policy framework (McCallum 72). Failure for the industrial companies to follow the laid down legislation there are dire repercussion. The EPA lay down that any waste that contains chemicals and other harmful waste require proper disposal. A typical basketball has a 78 cm circumference. This kind of ball requires close to 600 grams of leather (McCallum 72). The cover of this ball requires the mix of synthetic rubber and leather. There are other chemical substances such as zinc and copper elements used in the production of the ball. The designers of basketball invent holes in the ball to increase the grip of the ball. This is to ensure that the ball does not slip in the case a player has sweat on the hands. To prepare the holes the designers use the polyurethane chemical to strengthen the abrasion and bouncing ability of the ball. In this case, any manufacturing industry preparing the basketball has to list the solid by products eliminated in the course of manufacturing.
The preparation of leather industry is prone to minimal waste products. Some of the few by-products eliminated are subject to recycling to ensure the company saves on cost and avoids environmental degradation. The EPA recommends that the manufacturing company must provide the specific waste codes that range from K001 to K161 (EPA Memos 3).Any waste that fails to appear at any of those codes still requires regulation if the waste inhibits the following qualities: The waste product has combustion properties and is capable to light. The waste product can cause corrosion due to the influence of Iron III oxide on the metal (EPA Reports on Progress 5). Waste requires regulation when it exhibits reactivity during the exposure of water on it or any other solvents. Any toxic waste in the industrial company that is harmful due to contaminants that exhibits pollution on the land or water also requires regulation. The leather industry is prone to the use of dyes to bleach the leather. This dyeing leather needs appropriate legislation due to its potential toxic component. Once there is accomplishment of the leather manufacturing one has to conduct a waste life cycle (RCRA Nonhazardous 8). The environmental manger has to identify the harmful leather waste by running a series of tests to the waste. The analysis gives evidence on the harmful waste on the solvents by generating a series of codes.
The environmental manager has to determine the accumulation of the waste in the solvents when discharged in clean water. This sample will demonstrate waste generation on the solvents. At this stage, the environment manager has to transport the waste for treatment together with the sample analysis report to the RCRA (RCRA Nonhazardous 9). At the RCRA, an incinerator allows the evaluation of waste then burns them to give off energy. At this facility, the solvents go through a recycling process in the industrial furnace (EPA Reports on Progress 7). All harmful waste eliminated from the solvents undergoes the treatment, storage, and disposal processes having their notification and certificates. The environmental manager must prepare a harmful waste manifest to reduce the toxicity level on the waste generated. It is the duty of the environmental manager to select an appropriate treatment, storage, and disposal method that is economical. The environmental manger has to establish the level of waste prone to elevation. This information is vital since it complies with the EPA guideline (EPA Memos 4). One has to record the level of fluctuation of the waste in a hazardous waste generator From the EPA headquarter nearby one can acquire an EPA submitting form that provides the notification of the hazardous waste energy. The waste generated needs placement in a appropriate container in line with the EPA stipulation. The container must have the mark of accumulation and a sign to suggest the contents inside are harmful.
The industrial company must have the necessary emergency preparedness facility to counter an emergency quickly. The industrial company must have a contingency plan that will subvert the occurrence of explosion or fire due to reactive components in the waste. This plan must remain onsite due to emergency cases. The standards demand that personnel need training on the waste regulation. In this case, the environmental manger should steer 6-month training on the personnel (EPA Reports on Progress 7). The training informs the personnel on the steps to follow to handle harmful waste and emergency actions. This training must have supporting records throughout the training period until the end. One needs to obtain a reliable transporter of the detrimental waste from a reference of a workmate. Before shipment of the waste there must be a label on the container that suggest that the container has detrimental material. This is in accordance with the EPA requirements (EPA Memos 4).
The issue of recycling of the hazardous material is economical and the manufacturing company can end up with cost savings. The leather manufacturing industry has recycle processes to implement pollution prevention activities.
The Court Cases
The judicial precedent of Anacostia River keeper v. Washington Gas [2012] entails the defendant who demanded compensation due to the cleanup exercise (DC Circuit Court 1). This was due to a forced clean up exercise by the gas plant. The defendant claimed that the company endangered the environment in the delay to implement the superfund remedy. The EPA had earlier implemented the removal and the remedial action under CERCLA. The court held that the case lacked jurisdiction and the defendant claim lapsed. For over 100 years, the river of Anacostia continues to flow through the District of Columbia (DC Circuit Court 2). The court terminated the contract of the manufacturing plant in 1988 (DC Circuit Court 2).This happened due to the contamination effect by the company to the river. The EPA through the Record of Decision (ROD) under CERCLA carried out environmental investigations on the river contamination. The ROD offered that the river was predisposed of condition that was unfit for the survival of humanity. Additionally, ROD offered to manage the situation and reduce the threatening situation. The response action entailed groundwater remedy, surface soil remedy, and the phase liquids remedy. The Washington gas acted under ROD to address the remedies across the East Station Site. The courts in the case of United States v. Washington Gas light Company [2011] proposed a sanction decree to the company (DC Circuit Court 4). This sanction could enable the company perform the remedy actions across the Anacostia River.
In the recent case in 2012 concerned a citizen suit who claimed that the company activities endangered the environment (DC Circuit Court 4). The court held that the EPA was in the process of remedying the situation through the contracted gas company. In the case, the court argues that the subject matter lacked jurisdiction. Washington Company claims that it is still running tests to finalize the response action. At the same time, the citizen offers that the project time has already lapsed for its completion.
The case pertaining to Town and Country Co v. Akron Products [2012] involves the plaintiff company that sued Akron for violating the RCRA (Court Rejects RCRA 1). The claimant alleges that Akron contaminated the groundwater in Seville. Akron manufactured and assembled its products subject to EPA legislation after registration process. The EPA files indicate that Akron was prone to injurious waste manifest. Akron products had an environmental manager to check the petroleum release from the underground storage tank. The court held that there was no evidence on Akron products. At the same time, Town and Country obtained groundwater that had contamination that made the water unsafe for drinking. The Town and County data indicates that the chemical compounds flowed to its residence and reduced its property value and ability to enjoy its property. This issue disturbed Town and Country and prompted the action of filing a complaint because: The action substantially endangered the health of humanity. The action violated the stipulation of the RCRA against open dumping.
The defendant argued that Town and Country lacked conceivable claim provide in the RCRA. (Court Rejects RCRA 1)The nuisance and the trespass claim had estoppels by the statute and limitation to real property. The defendants filed their claim that seeks the dismissal of Town and Country claims.
The RCRA dispute on private parties provide that a party can bring suit against a person handling of the storage, treatment, transportation, and disposal of harmful waste that can endanger the environment. Given the situation, the district court had to check whether Town and Country had enough proof regarding the defendant. Town and Country had to verify that the storage, treatment and transportation indeed threatened the humanity in the area (Court Rejects RCRA 3). The defendant was able to argue that the real property claim was not sufficient to qualify them as liable. The district court held that the claimant statement did not express that Akron used contaminants in its operations. In this case, the district court could not dismiss the claim against Akron on the failure to identify a harmful waste.
According to RCRA, waste qualifies as detrimental when they contain reactive, corrosive, or toxic wastes. Akron products argued that some of its chemicals do not appear in the category stipulated under the RCRA. Its chemicals are not in any way hazardous waste on section C of the RCRA Act (Court Rejects RCRA 4). Akron provides that the case need dismissal since Town and Country fail to demonstrate the alleged groundwater endangering the environment. The court noted under the RCRA that an endangerment is serious once it has reasonable cause and has a risky situation.
The district court in this instance provided that Town and Country complaint had sufficient proof to support the claim that the action of Akron was illegal. The court held that the allegation to support Town and Country was in the groundwater that had contamination. Chemicals present in the ground water indeed are threatening to humanity and make the water unsafe for consumption. The court held that Akron is liable for the alleged misconduct and the court declined to dismiss the case.
The legal suit of Adkins v. VIM Recycling Inc [2011] explain a civil situation.VIM recycling plant operate a solid waste dump in Indiana (Appeals Court Finds State Enforcement 1). The Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) orders VIM to remove the solid waste and to decamp to another location.VIM and IDEM agree that VIM must bring to a standstill the putting unregulated waste onsite. After the agreement, IDEM scrutinized VIM and found that the company had failed to comply with the agreement. IDEM went to seek legal redress in form of an injustice relief. IDEM lawsuit demanded that VIM had to cease its operations on the claim of nuisance and trespass.VIM argued that the claims offered by IDEM extended the scope of the order.
The state court made a pact for VIM and IDEM to withdraw the claim voluntarily because it was out of scope. In this, Situation Adkins and others proceeded to court to file a suit under the violations of the RCRA. Adkins claims that VIM handles, transports, stores, and processes solid waste (Appeals Court Finds State Enforcement 3). This waste leads to health deterioration and is a threat to humanity. Additionally, there is combustion around the area of operation that can affect the environment. VIM uses wood and engineering wood waste as well as opens dumping waste. Adkins alleges that VIM violates the Indiana regulation enforced under the RCRA provision. VIM argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the RCRA claims. VIM argued that this case had similar instances as Colorado River and Bur ford. In light of this argument, the court held that the case indeed lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the suit.
Adkins appealed the case; the courts disagreed on the appeals. The subject matter jurisdiction is the court power to listen to a claim. In this case, the court made consideration on the RCRA prohibition on the citizen suit. The appeal court observed that the claims of the plaintiff were substantial and the district court had subject matter jurisdiction (Appeals Court Finds State Enforcement 4). After many consequent appeals, the appeal court overturned the district court and found that the RCRA citizen suit can go forward. The appeal court remanded the action for later proceedings.
Works Cited
"Appeals Court Finds State Enforcement Action No Bar To RCRA Citizen Suit." Hazardous Waste Consultant 29.4 (2011): 3.1-3.4.
"DC Circuit Court Dismisses RCRA Citizen Suit Seeking Remediation Of Site Subject To CERCLA Cleanup Plan." Hazardous Waste Consultant 31.1 (2013): 3.4-3.6.
"EPA Memos And Directives Provide Agency Interpretations Of RCRA Requirements." Hazardous Waste Consultant 31.2 (2013): 4.1-4.22.
"EPA Reports on Progress Made Toward The 2020 RCRA Corrective Action Goal." Hazardous Waste Consultant 30.6 (2012): 2.10-2.15.
"RCRA Nonhazardous Solid Waste Identification Rule Revised." Hazardous Waste Consultant 31.2 (2013): 2.13-2.24.
Court Rejects RCRA Open Dumping Claims, But Upholds Endangerment and Other Claims." Hazardous Waste Consultant 30.5 (2012): 3.10-3.13.
Mathes, S., and K. Flatten."Performance Characteristics and Accuracy in Perceptual Discrimination of Leather and Synthetic Basketballs." Perceptual & Motor Skills 55.1
McCallum, J. "Master Blasters: The NBA's Leather-Lunged Coaches Bellow In A Language All Their Own, Full Of Terms You Won't Find In Webster's." Sports Illustrated 77.20 (1992): 72-74.
Thanikaivelan, Palanisamy, et al. "Recent Trends In Leather Making: Processes, Problems, And Pathways." Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 35.1 (2005): 37-79.
Yu,Chong-han. "Leather, Fur and Related Products Manufacturing." TIER Industry Report - Leather, Fur & Products Manufacturing (2013): 1-14.
