The future of environmental enforcement in the U.S.

A new decision in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals gives new influence to objection letters sent by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to state and local environmental agencies, and may open the door for the EPA to employ informal methods of strict environmental enforcement.  This would give the embattled, budget-restricted U.S. EPA less costly means of preserving its enforcement programs − all the more significant in light of the Trump Administration’s deep budget cuts and other restrictions on the agency.

The Ninth Circuit dismissed a petition by Southern California Alliance of Publicly Owned Treatment Works (SCAP) against the U.S. EPA, finding the court lacked jurisdiction to review an EPA objection letter to a draft stormwater discharge permit under the U.S. Clean Water Act (CWA).

The U.S. EPA’s objection said the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board’s draft permits needed specific numeric effluent limits. SCAP, an alliance of public treatment plants, argued such limits were not requirements under the CWA.  The Los Angeles Board responded, accepting the EPA’s objections and incorporating the limits into the permits themselves. SCAP sought review of the EPA’s objection letter, claiming that it incorporated guidance contrary to the CWA and was a de facto regulation, whereby EPA sidestepped the Administrative Procedures Act and the mandatory comment period.

On April 12, 2017, the Ninth Circuit rejected SCAP’s arguments, concluding that the U.S. EPA’s objection letter was not the same as an “issuance or denial” of the permit, meaning the Ninth Circuit lacked the power to review it. Rather, SCAP would need to exhaust administrative review with the governing agency, the State Water Resources Control Board.  The U.S. Ninth Circuit noted that the Los Angeles Regional Board “may take a more aggressive view of the requirements for keeping the state’s waters clean. In that circumstance, any request for review of the U.S. EPA’s Objection Letter would be moot…”

This case suggests that the U.S. EPA, losing one-third of its budget and numerous employees and programs, might have an informal, cost-effective and quick mechanism to advance more stringent environmental programs and enforcement.  While the U.S. EPA’s “objection letters” are technically non-binding statements of advice, a state agency would be foolish to ignore one − the U.S. EPA has the ultimate power to transfer most environmental permits out of the state’s hands back to the federal level.  Some would argue the U.S. EPA may thereby exert de facto rulemaking power short of actual comment and adherence to the APA.  The Ninth Circuit’s refusal to undertake an independent review of the objection letter, and its observation that states may enact more aggressive environmental requirements, suggests it is unlikely that a state appeal would be successful.

This case paves the way for what could be a major element of future environmental enforcement, at least in the near term: informal objections and inquiries by the U.S. EPA or other federal agencies to impose robust standards in lieu of new rulemaking or legislation.

______________________________

Find out more about the implications of this case by contacting any of the authors.

 

Kimberly Hyde is an associate at DLA Piper.  She has experience representing clients in several areas of complex business and commercial litigation, with a focus on environmental litigation under CERCLA, RCRA, the cleanup of contaminated sites and environmental compliance and transactional due diligence.  Kimberly also has experience representing clients in product liability and class action litigation, including claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and California Business & Professions Code §17200 and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act §1750.

 

George Gigounas is a Partner at DLA Piper.  He resolves environmental and product-related litigation, enforcement, and compliance issues for DLA Piper clients with industrial, manufacturing, and product-based businesses.  His environmental practice builds on a strong background in environmental science, a familiarity with the technical, chemical, and mechanical processes involved in industrial operations, and an understanding of the geophysical and toxicity issues arising with hazardous wastes, toxic exposures, and environmental remediations.

 

 

Chris Campbell is a partner in DLA Piper’s Product Liability and Mass Tort practice group, recently recognized by Law360 as the 2013 Product Liability Group of the Year.  Chris serves as head of litigation in DLA Piper’s Atlanta office, while also working out of the New York office.  Chris is a 2000 graduate of Harvard Law School with experience in all phases of litigation, including first-chairing jury and bench trials in state and federal courts and arguing appeals.

 

This are was originally published on the DLA Piper website and can be found here.

 

Business Opportunity for Ontario Water Technology Companies

The Water Technology Acceleration Project (WaterTAP) recently launched a call for applications for our new Export Development Pilot Program.  It’s open to all Canadian companies.

Is your Canadian water technology company interested in targeting high-potential water and wastewater utility clients in California or Texas?

WaterTAP, with funding from the Global Opportunities for Industry Associations (GOA) federal government grants and contribution program, is pleased to announce a call for companies to participate in an export development pilot program for the Canadian water sector.

WaterTAP is partnering with WatrHub Inc. to deliver this program. WatrHub is an Ontario-based data-mining and analytics company that delivers timely, tailored market intelligence on water and wastewater systems. WatrHub works with its clients to define sales targets, mine municipal data, and help identify, prioritize, and monitor high-potential leads.

Participating companies will work with WatrHub and WaterTAP over a four-month period to:

  • Identify up to 300 potential utility/municipal sales leads in California or Texas.
  • Monitor these leads using specified indicators to identify high-potential clients and shorten the sales cycle.
  • Contact high-potential clients and, where possible, set up meetings during WEFTEC (September 30 – October 4, 2017) and Ontario Water Innovation Week (October 30 – November 3, 2017)

Participants may also have the opportunity to attend a targeted Canadian trade mission to Texas or California to further pursue these high-potential leads.

With the generous support of the GOA Program, participating companies will receive WatrHub’s service at a special rate. The current cost of this WatrHub service is US$16,000; companies will be asked to contribute CAN$8,921+HST, which is less than half of this service’s full market value.

This is an excellent opportunity to invest in market intelligence and refine your company’s sales strategy based on defined, high-potential leads in California or Texas.

Company eligibility requirements:

  • The company must be a Canadian registered for-profit company operating under the laws of Ontario or Canada and must have a permanent establishment in Canada.
  • Municipalities must make up 75 percent or more of company sales.
  • The company’s technology must be implemented or piloted in California or Texas.
  • Annual company revenues must be between $2 million and $10 million.
  • At least one company representative is attending WEFTEC 2017.
  • The company has never used WatrHub’s services.

Four companies from across Canada will be selected for this pilot program.  If your company meets the above eligibility requirements and you are interested in this opportunity, please submit this application form.

If you have any questions, please contact Lesley Herstein (lesley.herstein@WaterTAPontario.com, 416-593-0303 x108).

Template to Help Create OSHA HazCom Written Plan

VelocityEHS, the cloud environment, health, safety (EHS) and sustainability software provider, recently announced the availability of its new MSDSonline Written HazCom Plan Template aimed at helping EHS professionals save time and money in researching and compiling their OSHA-required written plans.  The fully customizable template – available to EHS professionals at no cost – contains the basic elements of a compliant written plan, according to United State’s OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard, which can be easily edited to include specific work environment information.

Hazard Communication Standard violations have continuously held a top spot on U.S. OSHA’s annual list of frequently cited standards, with the Agency often citing employers for failing to provide a written HazCom plan or for having an inadequate plan in place.  For workplaces containing hazardous chemicals required to have a written HazCom plan in place, it can be difficult knowing where to start with so much information to cover.  The MSDSonline Written HazCom Plan Template helps simplify the process by laying the groundwork for EHS professionals to more quickly and easily create a comprehensive plan that meets compliance requirements.

“GHS brought increased scrutiny to an already frequently violated OSHA standard.  Given that, plus the recent increase in government-imposed fines, employers that have hazardous chemicals are at a higher risk of and face more severe consequences for being found out of compliance,” said Glenn Trout, president and CEO of VelocityEHS.  “The Written Plan is an employer’s playbook for how hazardous chemicals are being managed in their workplace.  It communicates how everything related to hazardous chemicals is being addressed – from the workplace label strategy to the SDS management processes to employee training.  This new Written HazCom Plan Template blends education with utility.

Download the MSDSonline Written HazCom Plan Template for no cost here.

Environment and Cleantech Business and Policy Forum – May 30

In partnership with the Ontario Environment Industry Association (ONEIA), we are pleased to offer a joint invitation to the annual Environment and Cleantech Business and Policy Forum on May 30, 2017.  

 Ontario is transitioning to a low-carbon circular economy and moving rapidly on implementing a cap-and-trade program and a new resource recovery framework, while also rolling out major infrastructure projects. What new opportunities can Ontario’s clean technology sector expect and how can it innovate and prosper during this transition? How will various external factors – in Canada and beyond – impact the situation in Ontario?

Registration for the event is filling up quickly and here’s another reason to attend!  Senior representatives from the Ministries of Environment and Climate Change, Economic Development and Growth and Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs will join us for the day as well as our annual afternoon roundtable discussions.

ONEIA’s fifth annual Business and Policy Forum is a day-long event that will offer:

  • Insights into the political environment impacting the clean technology sector both within and outside the province;
  • An industry outlook for Ontario and export markets;
  • Examples of innovative businesses and technologies within Ontario’s clean technology sector;
  • Presentations from key Ontario Deputy Ministers on current and future policies and programs;
  • Roundtable discussions with senior Ontario government officials on public policy and programs including: cap and trade; water/wastewater/storm water management; resource recovery; organics diversion; soil management; modernization of approvals; infrastructure development; and cross-border procurement impacting your business
  • The opportunity to meet a diverse network of persons and organizations that can help you grow your business.

REGISTRATIONhttps://oneiaecbpforum2017.eventbrite.com

EVENT: Environment and Cleantech Business and Policy Forum 2017
DATE: May 30, 2017
TIME: 7:30 AM – 7:00 PM
LOCATION: DoubleTree by Hilton Toronto Downtown
108 Chestnut Street Toronto ON M5G 1R3
COST: ONEIA members $395.00; not-yet ONEIA members: $495.00

Alberta government announces $1.3 million creosote monitoring project for Calgary

As reported in the Calgary Herald, the Province of Alberta recently announced a five-year project to continue monitoring creosote levels in the West Hillhurst community in the City of Calgary.

The Alberta government said the goal of the $1.3-million study is to assess the extent of contamination in the neighbourhood and examine levels throughout the year to determine any changes between seasons.

What is the Source of the Creosote?

The source of the creosote contamination is the former Canada Creosote Plant that operated on the south side of the Bow River in Calgary for over 40 years, from 1924 to 1962.  The Canada Creosote Company (later Domtar Corporation) operated a wood treatment plant in downtown Calgary.  Wood treatment, using a mixture of chemicals occurred at the Plant.  With time, these compounds migrated into and under the Bow River into the community of West Hillhurst.

In its recent news release, the Alberta government stated: “The most recent monitoring, between 2010 and 2014, did not identify risks to human or aquatic and environmental health.  However, the province is funding this long-term project to better understand the scope and nature of the creosote in the community and along the Bow River.”

What is Creosote?

Creosote is the name used for a variety of products that are a mixture of many chemicals.  Coal tar creosotes are distillation products of coal tar, and coal tar pitch is a residue produced during the distillation of coal tar. Coal tar creosote volatiles are rarely formed in nature. Coal tar creosote, coal tar, and coal tar pitch are mixtures of similar compounds. For this reason, many profiles of coal tar creosote also include coal tar, and coal tar pitch and all three are simply referred to as creosote.

What the Environmental and Human Health Impacts?

Coal tar creosote contains some components that dissolve in water and some that do not. Coal tar creosote components that dissolve in water may move through the soil to eventually reach and enter the groundwater, where they may persist. Once in the groundwater, breakdown may take years. Most of the components that are not water soluble will remain in place in a tar-like mass. Breakdown in soil can take months for some components of coal tar creosote, and much longer for others. Sometimes, the small amounts of chemical remaining in the soil or water that take a long time to break down are still toxic to some animals and possibly to humans..

Volatile chemicals in coal tar creosote may evaporate and enter the air. About 1-2% of the coal tar creosote applied to treated wood is released to the air. This is a small amount compared with the amount of coal tar creosote found in waste water or soil.

Once coal tar creosote is in the environment, both plants and animals can absorb parts of the creosote mixture. Some components of coal tar creosote have been found in plants exposed to creosote-treated wood in nearby soil. The plants absorb very little (less than 0.5% of the amount available to the plant). Animals such as crickets, snails, and worms take up coal tar creosote components from the environment that are passed into the body through skin, lungs, or stomachs. Animals that live in the water, such as crustacea, shellfish, and worms, also take up coal tar creosote compounds. For instance, mussels attached to creosote-treated pilings and snails and oysters living in water near a wood-treatment plant had creosote in their tissues. Coal tar creosote components are also broken down by microorganisms living in the soil and natural water. The components of coal tar and coal tar pitch move in the environment in a similar way.

The West Hillhurst Study

The study is a continuation of monitoring in West Hillhurst that began more than two decades ago when officials discovered creosote had seeped into the area from a former creosote plant across the Bow River in the West Village.

“They’re being responsible about this because I think for a long time … we’ve had successive governments in the municipal and at the provincial level kind of think the containment was enough, the monitoring was enough,” Mayor Naheed Nenshi told reporters.

“What we’re really seeing both from the city and the province is, you know what, we actually can’t just contain it. We really have to move towards cleaning it up.”

The first year of the project will consist of sampling from an existing network of monitoring wells throughout the community.

The first report is expected to be available in mid-2018.

Environmental monitoring determined in the early 1990s that contamination had migrated under the Bow River into the neighbourhood of West Hillhurst.

A containment wall was put in place between 1995 and 1996 to prevent further migration of creosote into the Bow River.

 

Under-reporting of Oil Spills in Gulf of Mexico

As reported by Fast Company, a recent report by three environmental activist organization claims that offshore oil accidents in the Gulf of Mexico are a more regular and seriouoccurrence than the industry is willing to admit.  The recent report, released by the Louisiana Bucket Brigade350 Louisiana, and Disastermap.netpulled information directly from a Coast Guard data clearinghouse and found 479 reports of offshore oil accidents in the northern Gulf in 2016.  That’s an average of about nine spills per week, dumping a total of nearly 18,000 gallons of oil and other substances into the environment.

Compared to the size of the 2010 BP disaster, which released anywhere from 134 million to 176 million gallons, that might seem small.  But even that 18,000 gallon estimate could be seriously lowballed, say report authors.  The Coast Guard data, collected under the National Response Center (NRC), is actually self-reported by the oil companies responsible (the NRC also accepts reports from the public, but these are less common).

“When is the last time you told a police officer you were speeding?” asks Anne Rolfes, founding director of the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, an environmental activist group and one of the report’s authors. “There’s no doubt there are a lot more accidents than we know about.”

To find a more independent estimate of the scope of daily oil spills, the report’s authors drew on an analysis of that same NRC data by SkyTruth, a nonprofit that uses satellite imagery—mainly from the European Space Agency, one of the few free resources—to monitor the environmental effects of industrial activity.  Using SkyTruth’s numbers, report authors say the total amount of oil spilled in the northern Gulf last year was closer to 875,000 gallons, or about 50 times larger than official estimates.

SkyTruth, which also analyzes impact of mountaintop-removal coal mining in Appalachia and tracks commercial fishing activity around the world, has neither the ability nor bandwidth to analyze every single oil spill from space. Contrary to popular belief, says John Amos, president and founder of SkyTruth, satellite and radar imagery simply doesn’t exist for everywhere on Earth at all times. Even if it did, the organization’s small team wouldn’t be able to keep up with the thousands of accidents that occur every year.

Instead, the company has developed a formula that acts as a second opinion to the self-reporting of polluting companies. Any time an accident occurs, oil companies are required to report an estimate of the aerial dimensions of the spill. Because reporting on total volume spilled is, shall we say, inconsistent, SkyTruth comes up with its own volume estimate.

First, it assumes that 100% of the reported area is covered in oil—in other words, there are no holes in surface coverage inside the spill zone. Second, it assumes that any spill observable from space is at least one micron (one thousandth of a millimeter) thick. As a general rule, satellite imagery is only able to pick up spills at least one-tenth of a micron thick, but that is under test conditions, not the open ocean. Amos concedes this is an imperfect science. But, he says, neither the organization’s methods nor analyses have ever been challenged.

“For some spills we are going to be overestimating,” says Amos. “For others, I think for most, we are probably underestimating it.  Because for most human-caused spills, these are not molecules-thick spills that result.  They are generally chunkier than that.” The massive BP oil spill in 2005, for example, was centimeters thick in some places.

Amos had a chance to test his approach in a 2013 study with Florida State Universitythat methodically matched satellite archive images with years of NRC spill data. They found consistent underreporting of spill size to the NRC.

Almost 100% of the time, the slick that we observe on the satellite image is significantly larger than the slick the polluter reported,” says Amos. He points to a systematic underestimating of both the dimensions and volume of a spill by polluting oil companies.

“There are two stages of underreporting,” he says. “One is they are underreporting the aerial dimensions of the slick. Then they are reporting a volume estimate that doesn’t even match that, if you use the one micron assumption.”

According to the LBB report, one of the most egregious under-estimators is Taylor Energy, a now-defunct offshore drilling company responsible for a leak off the coast of Louisiana that began in 2004.  Though the company has ceased operating, the leak continues, and SkyTruth estimates the actual volume to be about 232,850 gallons, or about 178 times larger than the 1,300 gallons Taylor Energy reported in 2016.  The company says nothing more can be done to stem the leak, which regulators warn could last for more than a century if left unchecked, and has sued the federal government to recover money placed in a leak response trust.

 

TCE contamination in Cambridge: 10 years and counting

As reported by the CBC, contamination found in the groundwater back in 2004 in the City of Cambridge, approximately 100 km northwest of Toronto has still not been remediated.  The contaminant of concern, trichloroethylene (TCE)

History

The source of the TCE contamination is the former Northstar Aerospace facility that operated in the City from 1981 to 2009.  The facility made helicopter parts and used TCE for degreasing metal parts.

It is unknown how often TCE waste was discharged onto the ground and in what quantities.  All TCE discharges should have ceased around 1986-1987, when the Province of Ontario implemented new waste management regulations that defined TCE as a “hazardous waste” and required that waste TCE be disposed of by licensed destruction companies.  However, it is possible that discharges onto the ground may have ceased even earlier, with regulations that governed transfers of liquid industrial waste.

In 2004, an environmental site assessment of conducted by an environmental consulting firm of houses near the Northstar Aerospace facility discovered TCE contamination.  Air concentrations of TCE in the basements of homes in the community were subsequently measured in 2005.  The TCE had entered the basements by vapour intrusion.  The indoor air concentrations measured in 2005-2006, prior to any mitigation in groundwater or indoor air, ranged from <0.2 to 2100 µg/m3.  The average TCE indoor air concentration in the community was 52.3 µg/m3.

A 2006 report by Valco Consultants for City of Cambridge concluded that a total of 350 homes and four businesses were affected the TCE contamination and that the contamination plume extended to the Grand River.

During immediate clean-up efforts in 2005, some residents were removed from their homes for several weeks.

TCE Concerns

TCE is a halogenated aliphatic organic compound which, due to its unique properties and solvent effects, has been widely used as an ingredient in industrial cleaning solutions and as a “universal” degreasing agent.  TCE, perchloroethylene (PCE), and trichloroethane (TCA) are the most frequently detected volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) in ground water in the United States and likely in Canada as well.  TCE is a colorless and evaporates quickly into the air.  It is non-flammable and has a sweet odor.

If released into the environment, a great quantity of the TCE can evaporate into the air, depending on the weather conditions.  If TCE enters the subsurface it will slowly be removed from the soil through evaporation to air, depending on the make-up of the subsurface. If it makes its way to the groundwater, the TCE will remain there for long periods of time since it is not able to readily evaporate from groundwater and not easily biodegraded.

Humans can be exposed to TCE from contaminated sites by ingesting of drinking water contaminated with TCE or breathing TCE fumes that evaporate from the site.  Short term health exposure effects of TCE can damage to the nervous system, liver, respiratory system and kidneys.  Long term exposure has similar impacts and greater concerns including it being a possible carcinogen.

Once in the blood, the body’s liver changes much of the TCE into other chemicals.  When the body absorbs more TCE than it can break down quickly, some of the trichloroethylene or its breakdown products can be stored in body fat for a brief period.  However, once absorption ceases, trichloroethylene and its breakdown products quickly leave the fat.

2011 report was prepared by the Environmental and Occupational Health unit of the Ontario Agency for Health Protection on the contamination from the site and health impacts on local residents.  The reported noted that the most sensitive potential non-cancer effects of exposure to TCE are renal, developmental, and immunological effects.  The government report estimated the cancer potency of the TCE exposure over a forty year period at 1 to 2 in 10,000 (if 10,000 people were exposed to this level of risk approximately 1 to 2 cancers may be attributable to TCE).  The report stated in a population the size of the Bishop Street community (estimated at around 1500), less than 1 case of cancer would be expected.   The report further concluded that there would not be any unique or distinguishing features for cancers attributable to TCE versus cancers attributable to other causes.

Clean-up

The remediation consists of soil vapour extraction from groundwater wells.  It has been ongoing for the past 10 years.  The original estimate for the length of time for clean-up was 10 years.  Currently, there is no estimate for how much longer clean-up will take.

Annual indoor air monitoring is conducted in more than 400 homes to ensure levels of TCE are below acceptable levels.

A group of former directors and officers of defunct and bankrupt Northstar Aerospace Inc. reached a settlement with Ontario’s Environment Ministry in 2013.  The original Clean-up Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment had them personally responsible for a $15 million.  In the settlement, the former directors and officers will provide $4.75-million to cover the clean-up costs.  The Ontario Ministry of the Environment defended the settlement and stated it would cover the long-term management of the remediation and monitoring programs.

Economic Impact

In 2006, the Valco Consultants report estimated that the house value of homes in the neighbourhood would be reduced in the range of 15 to 30 percent as a result of the TCE contamination.

Company pays $3.5 million in law suit alleging illegal Hazwaste Disposal

Big Lots Stores Inc. was recently ordered to pay more than $3.5 million in fines following settlement of a lawsuit alleging illegal hazardous waste disposal at its 206 California stores and a distribution center.  The law suit, filed by 35 California District Attorneys, was the result of an investigation into the company’s disposal of hazardous waste into trash bins at its stores throughout California.

In the opinion of the District Attorneys’, Big Lots failed to properly handle waste at all of its stores and its distribution center.  The hazardous materials were also illegally transported to local landfills not permitted to receive the waste.

“The hazardous waste included ignitable and corrosive liquids, toxic materials, batteries, electronic devices and other e-waste,” Deputy District Attorney Dan Loug for San Bernardino County said to Daily Press. “In some instances, the hazardous waste was the result of overstock or expired merchandise. “In others, it was the result of spills, damaged containers and customer returns.”

Per the settlement, Big Lots must pay $2,017,500 in civil penalties and $336,250 to reimburse the costs of investigation.  Additionally, $350,000 more “will fund supplemental environmental projects furthering environmental enforcement and consumer protection in California,” according to the statement.

The company will also fund hazardous waste minimization and enhanced compliance projects valued at $803,750 and has implemented new policies, procedures and training designed to properly manage and dispose of hazardous waste.

Alberta Court Places Creditors over the Environment

As reported by the CBC and the Calgary Herald, the Alberta Court of Appeal (in a 2-1 decision) has upheld the Redwater Energy decision that gave secured creditors priority over environmental clean-up in the case of an energy bankruptcy.

The case centered on a small energy company called Redwater Energy, which went into receivership in 2015, owing $5 million to ATB Financial, a financial institution owned by the province of Alberta.  At the time of its bankruptcy, Redwater had few producing oil and gas wells, as well as many more assets that were not producing and would need to be reclaimed.

Alberta energy regulations say that producing wells would have to be sold to pay the environmental clean-up costs of the non-producing wells or other assets.

Insolvency wins the day

The receiver for the insolvent company — accounting firm Grant Thornton — along with ATB Financial, instead wanted to sell the producing wells to pay off the debt to ATB and leave the non-producing wells to be cleaned up by the Orphan Well Association, which is funded by industry.

The case went to a lower court that was tasked with deciding which has priority: federal insolvency law, or provincial energy regulations.  Two courts have now decided insolvency law wins the day and Grant Thornton is in the process of selling the producing assets.

This case has implications that reach far beyond one small energy company.  British Columbia and Saskatchewan both participated in the appeal in support of the Alberta Energy Regulator because the case could act as a precedent in other provinces.

 Costs and benefits

There are some benefits, said Kathleen Shannon, a lawyer with Field Law.

“Lenders will still feel secure in their creditor positions, so they’re likely to continue lending to the oil and gas industry.  If the decision had been reversed, there would have been more hesitancy from financial institutions.”

Shannon pointed out that the AER will have some work to do to ensure it has enough security against the environmental obligations of energy companies. It also has the option to further appeal.

“I think the fact that there’s dissent means that potentially there will be another appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada,” she said.

Opportunity in the U.S. for Oil Spill Response Training

The U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center in Port Hueneme, California, is soliciting proposals for a contract to provide Oil Spill Response Training via instruction of three classes–Facility Response Plan Training, Spill Management Team Training, and New Skimmer Training – at various locations worldwide.  The solicitation is available at https://www.neco.navy.mil/ under solicitation number N3943017R1912.  The resulting contract will be a single-award, firm-fixed-price IDIQ contract with a base ordering period of 60 months.  This requirement is set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses under NAICS code 541620. Quotes must be received by 4:00 PM PT on May 12, 2017.