Opinion ID: 894680
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Liability for Arranging to Process Solid Waste

Text: Pilgrim argues that, in addition to Street's liability for arranging to dispose of solid waste, Street is also a person responsible for solid waste because it arranged to process waste. Tex. Health & Safety Code § 361.271. The court of appeals did not address this argument, nor are there federal cases on point because arranger liability under CERCLA extends only to a person who arranged for disposal or treatment. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3). Pilgrim contends that Street arranged to process solid waste via Corbin's selection of the equipment Pilgrim used to recycle the PCE, along with his supervision and monitoring of the equipment. Pilgrim bases its argument on the definition of processing in SWDA as the extraction of materials from or the transfer, volume reduction, conversion to energy, or other separation and preparation of solid waste for reuse or disposal. Tex. Health & Safety Code § 361.003(25). We reject Pilgrim's argument. In order for the recycling process in question to constitute the processing of solid waste, the PCE being recycled must itself qualify as solid waste. It does not. SWDA subjects the definition of solid waste to the limitations of section 261.4(a) of the Code of Federal Regulations. Id. § 361.003(34). Section 261.4(a)(8) provides that [s]econdary materials that are reclaimed and returned to the original process or processes in which they were generated where they are reused are not solid waste, provided the materials are contained in an enclosed system. 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(a)(8) (2004). When the Environmental Protection Agency adopted the rule, it stated that such a closed-loop reclamation process exclusion was necessary because the types of operations being excluded are best viewed as part of the production process, not as a distinct waste management operation. Hazardous Waste Management System: Standards for Hazardous Waste Storage and Treatment Tank Systems, 51 Fed.Reg. 25422, 25442 (July 14, 1986). Significantly, the EPA specifically referenced solvents returned for use as cleaning agents in dry cleaning operations, stating they will be considered to be reused in the production process... since they are used as the basic raw material in the process (in this case, cleaning). Id. Finally, the EPA recognized that, while such materials would meet the exception, wastes from their management are solid wastes. Thus, still bottoms from solvent reclamation in a closed-loop reclamation process remain solid wastes.... Id. at 25443. The EPA rule and the order adopting it demonstrate the intent to exclude solvents that undergo a recycling process, like the one at issue in this case, from qualifying as solid waste. The Legislature in turn adopted that rule as part of the SWDA definition of solid waste. Tex. Health & Safety Code § 361.003(34). Thus, Street's actions in recommending and selling the PCE recycling equipment to Pilgrim cannot constitute an arrangement to process solid waste. However, the used cartridge filters, still bottoms, and separator water that contain PCE and are left over after these processes are not reused in the production process and are therefore not excluded under subsection (34) from the definition of solid waste. Our conclusion on this issue thus does not affect a party's potential liability with regard to disposal of such wastes.