Opinion ID: 2630606
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: hydrogen sulfide as hazardous material or hazardous waste

Text: ¶ 61 Both hazardous material and hazardous waste are defined in the Utah Code. Using the Utah Code definition, the trial court determined that hydrogen sulfide was a hazardous material as a matter of law. The summary judgment would be sustainable, however, if the vented hydrogen sulfide was, as a matter of law, either a hazardous material or a hazardous waste.
¶ 62 Section 19-6-302(7) of the Utah Code defines hazardous materials to be hazardous waste as defined in the Utah Hazardous Waste Management Regulations, PCBs, dioxin, asbestos, or a substance regulated under 42 U.S.C., Section 6991(2). Utah Code Ann. § 19-6-302(7) (1998). The trial court and the parties focused their efforts on determining whether hydrogen sulfide was a hazardous material based on 42 U.S.C. § 6991(2).
¶ 63 Substances regulated under 42 U.S.C. § 6991(2), include petroleum and any substance defined in section 9601(14) of . . . title [42] (but not including any substance regulated as a hazardous waste under subchapter III [3] of this chapter). Defining hazardous substance, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14) states that [t]he term `hazardous substance' means ... (A) any substance designated pursuant to section 1321(b)(2)(A) of Title 33, ... [and] (E) any hazardous air pollutant listed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. § 7412].
¶ 64 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, at 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(2)(A), requires the development of regulations designating as hazardous substances... such elements and compounds which, when discharged in any quantity into or upon the navigable waters of the United States ..., present an imminent and substantial danger to the public health or welfare, including, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines, and beaches. Although such a list was created and does contain hydrogen sulfide, see 40 C.F.R. § 116.4 (2002), the list is only applicable to substances discharged into or upon navigable waters, see 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(1). Such is not the case here.
¶ 65 Similarly, 42 U.S.C. § 7412, which deals with hazardous air pollutants, is also inapplicable. In 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(3), the statute requires the creation of a list of hazardous air pollutants containing substances that are known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause death, injury, or serious adverse effects to human health or the environment. Although the statute originally required [t]he initial list [to] include ... hydrogen sulfide, id., in 1991, Congress deleted Hydrogen sulfide from this Act's list of hazardous air pollutants. Act of Dec. 4, 1991, Pub.L. No. 102-187, 105 Stat. 1285. Because hydrogen sulfide no longer meets the statutory definition of a hazardous air pollutant, the federal statute does not support a conclusion that it constitutes a hazardous material.
¶ 66 Having determined that hydrogen sulfide does not qualify as a hazardous material under section 19-6-302(7) by virtue of it being a substance regulated under 42 U.S.C. § 6991(2), I next turn to the question of whether hydrogen sulfide qualifies as a hazardous material under section 19-6-302(7) by virtue of it being a hazardous waste as defined in the Utah Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. Utah Code Ann. § 19-6-302(7). The Utah Hazardous Waste Management Act, Utah Code Ann. § 26-37-1, was repealed in 1981, 1981 Utah Laws 126, § 1, and was replaced by the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Act, Utah Code Ann. § 19-6-101 to -123 (1998 & Supp.2002). The hydrogen sulfide at issue here constitutes hazardous waste under section 19-6-302(7) if it falls within the Utah regulatory definition of hazardous waste. ¶ 67 The Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste regulations define hazardous waste to be [a] solid waste as defined in section R315-2-2. Utah Admin. Code R315-2-3(a) (2000). Solid waste is defined as any discarded material that is not excluded by subsection R315-2-4(a). Id. at R315-2-2(a)(1). Discarded material excluded by subsection R315-2-4(a) from the definition of solid waste includes [d]omestic sewage or any mixture of domestic sewage and other wastes that passes through a sewer system to a publicly-owned treatment works for treatment. `Domestic sewage' means untreated sanitary wastes that pass through a sewer system. Id. at R315-2-4(a)(1). Although it is not defined in the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste regulations, sanitary waste is elsewhere defined in the Water Quality regulations as liquid or solid wastes originating solely from humans and human activities, such as wastes collected from toilets, showers, wash basins, sinks used for cleaning domestic areas, sinks used for food preparation, clothes washing operations, and sinks or washing machines where food and beverage serving dishes, glasses, and utensils are cleaned. Sources of these wastes may include single or multiple residences, hotels and motels, restaurants, bunkhouses, schools, ranger stations, crew quarters, guard stations, campgrounds, picnic grounds, day-use recreation areas, other commercial facilities, and industrial facilities provided the waste is not mixed with industrial waste. Id. at R317-7-2.44. If the hydrogen sulfide vented by the District was domestic sewage, then it was not a solid waste and is therefore excluded from the regulatory definition of hazardous waste. However, there is a dispute among the parties as to the origin of this hydrogen sulfide. Since the hydrogen sulfide vented by the District is not one of the substances regulated by 42 U.S.C. § 6991(2), and factual disputes prohibit a determination of whether it fits within Utah's regulatory definition, I cannot conclude as a matter of law that hydrogen sulfide is a hazardous material.
¶ 68 The District may retain immunity, however, if the vented hydrogen sulfide was a hazardous waste as defined in the Utah Code. Section 19-6-102(9) of the Utah Code defines hazardous waste as a solid waste or combination of solid wastes other than household waste which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness or may pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Utah Code Ann. § 19-6-102(9) (1998) (emphasis added). Section 19-6-102(17)(a) defines solid waste and specifically excludes solid or dissolved materials in domestic sewage. The District concedes that its analysis suggested that the hydrogen sulfide gas and the accompanying smell might [have been] caused by a back-up of gas in the sewage system. The District maintained, however, that the hydrogen sulfide may have originated from other sources and that it did not fit within the definition of domestic sewage. The Lovendahls argue that it was plainly domestic sewage. Since the hydrogen sulfide vented by the District might have originated from one of a number of sources, there is a disputed material fact concerning the origin of the vented hydrogen sulfide. Because of this dispute, I also cannot conclude that the hydrogen sulfide vented from the elementary school was hazardous waste. Based on my examination of the statutory definition of both hazardous material and hazardous waste, I cannot conclude as a matter of law that the hydrogen sulfide at issue constituted hazardous material or hazardous waste. Therefore, I conclude that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. ¶ 69 In sum, under the plain language of subsection 63-30-10(18)(c), the District is entitled to immunity from the Lovendahls' suit if the hydrogen sulfide constituted hazardous material or hazardous waste as a matter of law. However, summary judgment is inappropriate on the issue of immunity because there are disputed material facts concerning whether the hydrogen sulfide vented by the District qualifies as hazardous material or hazardous waste. For this reason, I would reverse the trial court's decision granting the District's motion for summary judgment on this issue.