What is the best HazMat training method to keep first responders safe

by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

While regulations exist to guide HazMat training requirements for first  responders, the reality is that many personnel still don’t consider themselves to be adequately skilled in the use of their equipment.

Sometimes it’s because there simply isn’t enough time to carry out regular and structured training programmes. Sometimes this lack of preparedness comes as the result of budget cuts where training is one of the first things to go.

So says, independent CBRN consultant and subject matter expert, Debra Robinson in a white paper she has written which explores the subject of keeping first responders safe.

As Debra explains, it’s not enough for a department to simply purchase a full array of safety and monitoring equipment.

“Responders need to be thoroughly knowledgeable about the capabilities, limitations and applications and be proficient in the use of each piece of equipment, and that takes a great deal of training,” she says.

It would seem too that smaller fire departments are often the ones losing out, with many volunteers not always being crystal clear on what their training requirements even entail. 

“Large city or larger communities with paid fire departments are far better off than the smaller departments. Some 70-80% of fire departments across the United States are manned by volunteers and many struggle to find volunteers to provide the services, let alone complete the requisite training,” she says.

For those departments that do have training coordinators and solid programs in place,there is still the challenge of trying to deliver equipment training that provides the most realistic learning experience possible whilst also guaranteeing personnel safety.

As Debra points out,the equipment that is used to detect, identify and measure hazardous materials can often involve significant risk, even in the presumed safety of a training environment.

Some trainers may still defer to more traditional HazMat training methods – such as the use of powerful simulants that closely mimic the properties of chemical materials. But many of these simulants can be hazardous in their own right,even in the smallest and most controlled of quantities.

In recent years, Debra explains, there’s been more of a move towards the use of training simulators which rely on specific frequencies and technologies to replicate the effects of actual, chemical, radiological and biological materials.

Says Debra: “The obvious benefit is the simulators greatly reduce the risks associated with the use of live agents. Used properly, they can be a valuable training tool and can provide for a much more realistic training environment.”

Simulators have developed a strong reputation for their abilities to facilitate hands-on training that can simply not be achieved with live agent training methods. Live agents by their nature carry an extreme level of inherent risk – something that is eliminated through the use of simulator equipment.

As Debra highlights, having the opportunity for some “serious hands-on time with the equipment” is another major plus for trainees, where repetition is the key to successful learning.

And there are also tangible benefits to be gained for a department’s bottom-line, she says, with the return on investment (ROI) being clearly evident in fewer operator errors,as well as “reduced damage to detectors, avoidance of simulant and source related administration etc. and perhaps even lower insurance premiums.”

As Debra argues, it can be easy for political or government leaders to dismiss the need for investment in CBRNe and HazMat training – and particularly when budgets are tight. Bu the risk to communities from chemical, biological or radiological threat is very real. While this may come in the form of terrorist threats, there is also the much greater risk of hazardous materials that exist in our communities’industrial plants, hospitals and businesses.

As Debra concludes:”Ultimately, the decision-point and justification is quite simple. Are you willing to accept the risks associated with under-qualified personnel and insufficient training and capabilities, or should you consider moving toward ensuring you have sufficiently trained, equipped and qualified personnel to respond to the hazards that exist in the community?”

Debra Robinson is founder of 2o8 Consulting & Solutions, based in Lincoln, Nebraska. She provides consulting and SME services in chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) and Emergency Management preparedness across a diverse range of platforms and industries.

This article was first published in Argon Electronics website.

About the Author

Steven Pike is the Founder and Managing Director of Argon Electronics, a world leader in the development and manufacture of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) and hazardous material (HazMat) detector simulators.

United States: Successor Liability for Environmental Liabilities

by Julie Vanneman, Director, Cohen & Grigsby

What happens when one company acquires the assets of another, then—many years later—receives a demand to participate in the clean-up of a contaminated site based on the acquired company’s long-ago shipment of materials to the site? 

As a general rule, the buyer of assets in an asset acquisition does not automatically assume the liabilities of the seller. However, under the doctrine of successor liability, a claimant may be able to seek recovery from the purchaser of assets for liabilities that were not assumed as part of an acquisition. This claim may be employed in cases involving environmental liabilities, especially when the original party is defunct or remediation costs are greater than the original entity’s ability to pay for the cleanup.[1]

Courts have taken different positions on whether state law or federal common law governs the determination of successor liability for claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), known also as Superfund. This distinction may have little practical effect because federal common law follows the traditional state law formulation. Notably, though, when evaluating successor liability under federal law, and specifically environmental laws like CERCLA, the doctrine may be more liberally applied because of policy concerns about contamination.[2]

Under the successor liability doctrine, a buyer can be held responsible for liabilities of the seller if one of four “limited” exceptions applies:

(1) the successor expressly or impliedly agrees to assume the liabilities; (2) a de facto merger or consolidation occurs; (3) the successor is a mere continuation of the predecessor; or (4) the transfer to the successor corporation is a fraudulent attempt to escape liability.

K.C.1986 Ltd. P’ship v. Reade Mfg., 472 F.3d 1009, 1021 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Mex. Feed & Seed, Co., Inc., 980 F.2d 478, 487 (8th Cir. 1992)). A fifth exception, the substantial continuity exception, is a broader standard,[3] but most circuit courts do not apply it in CERCLA cases.[4]

Exception 1, express or implied assumption, must be analyzed in terms of the specific asset agreement in question. Exception 4, fraud, is generally employed in circumstances where the acquired company shifts its assets to avoid exposure to another entity.[5]

Courts have addressed the main issue of successor liability by asking whether the transaction is simply the handing off of a baton in a relay race (successor liability) or whether the new company is running a separate race (no liability).[6]  Examining factors relevant to the remaining elements—numbers 2 (de facto merger) and 3 (continuation)—helps answer the question. Under the doctrine of a de facto merger, successor liability attaches if one corporation is absorbed into another without compliance with statutory merger requirements. A court would look at whether there is a continuity of managers, personnel, locations, and assets; the same shareholders become part of the acquirer; the seller stops operating and liquidates; and the acquirer assumes the seller’s obligations to continue normal business operations.[7]  The “mere continuation” theory “emphasizes an ‘identity of officers, directors, and stock between the selling and purchasing corporations.’”[8]

Given the high stakes that can be involved with CERCLA cleanups, assessing prospects for applying the successor liability doctrine could be an important part of the liability analysis.


[1] See, e.g., James T. O’Reilly, Superfund and Brownfields Cleanup § 8:16, at 360 (2017-2018 ed.) [hereinafter O’Reilly] (“Mergers, sales of assets, and changing corporate names does not remove potential CERCLA liability.”).

[2] See O’Reilly § 8:16; see also, e.g.In re Acushnet River & New Bedford Harbor Proceedings re Alleged PCB Pollution, 712 F. Supp. 1010, 1013-19 (D. Mass. 1989) (in the CERCLA context, concluding that successor liability applied where there would be “manifest injustice” if one of the companies could “contract away” liability for PCB contamination).

[3] See K.C.1986 Ltd. P’ship v. Reade Mfg., 472 F.3d 1009, 1022 (8th Cir. 2007)

[4] See Action Mfg. Co. v. Simon Wrecking Co., 387 F. Supp. 2d 439, 452 (E.D. Pa. 2005).

[5] See, e.g., Eagle Pac. Ins. Co. v. Christensen Motor Yacht Corp., 934 P.2d 715, 721 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). This exception is rarely used. Restatement (Third) of Torts:Prod. Liab. § 12 cmt. e (Am. Law Inst. 1998).

[6] See, e.g.Oman Int’l Fin. Ltd. v. Hoiyong Gems Corp., 616 F. Supp. 351, 361-62 (D.R.I. 1985).

[7] Asarco, LLC v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No. 2:12-CV-00283-EJL-REB, 2017 WL 639628, at *18 (D. Idaho Feb. 16, 2017).

[8] United States v. Mex. Feed & Seed Co., 980 F.2d 478, 487 (8th Cir. 1992)  (quoting Tucker v. Paxson Mach. Co., 645 F.2d 620, 626 (8th Cir. 1981)).

This article was first published on the Cohen & Grigsby website.

About the Author

Julie counsels and represents clients in a range of environmental and litigation matters. She assists clients with day-to-day environmental compliance concerns and provides enforcement defense counseling, particularly with solid waste and groundwater issues. Her extensive background in CERCLA matters includes serving as legal counsel for clients involved in remediation initiatives at complex Superfund sites as well as litigating cases through multiple phases, including discovery, allocation negotiations, and alternative dispute resolution. Julie’s litigation practice encompasses not only environmental matters, but also insurance coverage actions and other commercial and business disputes.

Englobe and DST Join Forces

Englobe Corp. (“Englobe”), a Canadian-based company specializing in Soils, Material and Environmental Engineering, with an established network of more than 55 offices and 30 laboratories across Canada, recently acquired DST Group Inc. (“DST”). DST is a consulting engineering firm founded over 60 years ago with more than 165 employees and nine offices across Ontario and Western Canada. By joining forces, Englobe and DST increase their footprints with 14 offices and 350 staff in Ontario and nearly 160 staff across six offices in Western Canada.

Both companies will be well positioned to offer complementary services and expertise to each other’s clients in both geographical areas, including municipalities, provincial and federal governments, and private sector clients.

“DST shares the same important values as Englobe – focusing on our employees, offering innovative solutions to our clients and emphasizing high-quality project management. We are very happy to have found a partner in Englobe with whom we can build upon our mutual strengths and provide exciting new opportunities to both employees and clients. Our enhanced service offering in the regions will benefit clients nationwide,” says Maurice Graveline, former CEO of DST and new Vice President Operations Ontario at Englobe.

Stephen Montminy, Englobe Co-President, says: “We are extremely pleased to welcome DST to the Englobe family. Its well-established reputation will contribute to consolidating our presence in Ontario and Western Canada and I look forward to seeing the beneficial impacts as we grow together. This is an exciting continuation of our pan-Canadian growth path and creates many new jobs and business opportunities.”

In November, Englobe Corp eacquired McIntosh Lalani Engineering Ltd, a Calgary-based consulting engineering business specializing in geotechnical engineering and materials testing services.  McIntosh Lalani, established in 1997, will continue to operate under its existing name.

Englobe is backed by ONCAP, the mid-market investment arm of Canadian private equity firm Onex Corp. ONCAP invested in 2006 and later partnered in Englobe’s acquisitions and go-private deal in 2011.

Englobe Soil Treatment Facility

About Englobe Corp. and DST, a division of Englobe Corp.

Englobe offers a full range of services and solutions in soils, material and environmental engineering ranging from project design and environmental impact surveys, to technical know-how and consulting to, ultimately, regenerating the earth. The firm provides integrated, sustainable and innovative solutions designed to exceed the expectations of its clients, in both private and public sectors, who are looking for reliable technical expertise, know-how and capabilities customized to each of their projects. Englobe is proud to leverage more than 50 years of achievements in Canada, France and UK to go beyond expertise by empowering its dedicated people to share their work and passion for the benefit of our partners, communities and the environment. englobecorp.com

DST Group Inc. is a consulting engineering firm specializing in Environmental Engineering/Science, Hazardous Materials Consulting, Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Materials Testing, and collectively, Facilities Blasting/Demolition Engineering/Acoustics & Vibration Monitoring. The firm provides services in Ontario and Western Canada. DST was established in 1956 and is an employee-owned firm. dstgroup.com

Canadian NCC Awards Contracts for Environmental Site Assessment

The Canadian National Capital Commission recently award contracts to a number of environmental consulting firms to conduct environmental assessment of contaminated sites in Ottawa.  A number of firms were awarded contracts of $833,333 for providing contaminated site assessment services.  The firms were DST Consulting Engineers Inc., Geofirma Engineering Ltd., GHD Ltd., Golder Associates Ltd., SNC-Lavelin Inc., and Terrapex Environmental Ltd.

Under the contracts, the NCC may request as part of the purchase order process, but is not necessarily limited to the following consultant services under the resulting Agreements:

  • Provide environmental reports (either English or French);
  • Contaminated Site Identification and characterization associated with various sources of contamination;
  • Historical review of site activities, including consultation with municipal, provincial and federal regulatory agencies;
  • Field surveys;
  • Site investigations (sampling of contaminated or potentially contaminated media);
  • All parameters analyzed should be compared to both the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Federal Guidelines as well as the applicable provincial criteria;
  • Interpretation of laboratory analyses;
  • Contaminated area delineation for soil and groundwater, which includes coloured maps that clearly identify and illustrate the testing locations, the contaminants found, the dimensions of the contaminated volumes and the affected area;
  • Recommendations of further investigations, if required, with all the associated costs;
  • Provide guidance and expertise with Federal Regulation compliance;
  • Provide maintenance and repair services for existing monitoring infrastructure;
  • Evaluation of remediation technologies, which includes, identifying the different remediation options and the costs associated;
  • Evaluation of strategies to optimize recycling of material during remediation projects;
  • Completion of risk assessments (human health and ecological) under federal and provincial guidelines;
  • Provide Engineering Plans and Specification documents for remediation and construction projects (French & English);
  • Provide site surveillance during remediation and construction activities;
  • Provide project management and construction management services;
  • Provide landfill engineering and management services; and,
  • Provide long-term management strategies for complex contaminated sites.

The NCC has a number of development and rehabilitation projects underway in Ottawa including the redevelopment of LeBreton Flats, a property just west of Parliament Hill in Ottawa.  The property is contaminated from historical industrial activity and must be remediated before it can be redeveloped into a commercial and residential community.

In the past, the NCC spent $6.7 million to decontaminate the soil on a 5.7-hectare site. The process involved removing and remediating 110,000 cubic metres of soil.

With the current area awaiting remediation being just over three times that size at 21 hectares, RendezVous LeBreton, the development company that is partnering with the NCC to develop the site, has a considerably larger and undoubtedly more expensive amount of soil to remediate.

As of the Spring of 2018, the total cost of the soil decontamination at LeBreton Flats is undetermined at this time, but is estimated to be around $170 million, according to RendezVous LeBreton Group.

The empty land in LeBreton Flats awaits its redevelopment, but the soil that lies beneath its surface is in need of a cleanup, as well. Photo By: Meaghan Richens, Centretown News

 

Canada takes final steps to ban Asbestos

by Paul Manning, Manning Environmental Law

Environment and Climate Change Canada, along with Health Canada, published the Prohibition of Asbestos and Products Containing Asbestos Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part II on October 17, 2018.

These new regulations apply to any person who manufactures, imports, sells or uses asbestos or products containing asbestos.

Thetford, Quebec open pit asbestos mine

The regulations prohibit the import, sale and use of all forms of asbestos as well as the manufacture, import, sale and use of products containing asbestos, with a limited number of exclusions:

  • ongoing exclusions for
    • the transfer of physical possession or control of asbestos or a product containing asbestos to allow its disposal
    • the re-use of asbestos in existing road infrastructure into new road infrastructure or in asbestos mining site restoration
    • the import, sale or use of military equipment serviced overseas with a product containing asbestos if there were no technically or economically feasible asbestos-free alternatives available
    • the import, sale or use of asbestos and products containing asbestos for display in a museum or for use in a laboratory
  • exclusions until
    • December 31, 2022 for the import, sale or use of products containing asbestos to service equipment in nuclear facilities, or to service military equipment, if there are no technically or economically feasible asbestos-free alternatives available,
    • December 31, 2029 for the import and use of asbestos for chlor-alkali facilities using asbestos diaphragm technology

The regulations include:

  • permit provisions for unforeseen circumstances where asbestos or a product containing asbestos is used to protect human health or the environment, if there is no technically or economically feasible asbestos-free alternative available
  • permit provisions for the import and use of products containing asbestos to service military equipment and equipment in a nuclear facility, if there is no technically or economically feasible asbestos-free alternative available
  • provisions requiring the submission of reports from museums, laboratories, and military, nuclear and chlor-alkali facilities, as well as permit holders, who import, use or display asbestos or products containing asbestos. The preparation and implementation of an asbestos management plan is also required in most cases

The regulations do not apply to:

  • asbestos integrated into a structure or infrastructure before the day on which the Regulations come into force (such as asbestos integrated into buildings and civil engineering works), or to products containing asbestos used before the day on which the regulations come into force (such as equipment installed in a facility, vehicles, ships, and airplanes)
  • asbestos and products containing asbestos in transit through Canada
  • mining residues, except for certain high risk activities which are prohibited, including:
  • the sale of asbestos mining residues for use in construction and landscaping activities, unless authorized by the province, and
  • the use of asbestos mining residues to manufacture a product that contains asbestos

In addition to these regulations, the existing Export of Substances on the Export Control List Regulations (ESECLR) and Schedule 3 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 were amended to prohibit exports of asbestos, with a limited number of exceptions.  These provisions ensure that Canada continues to meet its export obligations under international conventions, including the Rotterdam Convention. The regulations and related amendments to the ESECLR come into force on December 30, 2018.

This article is republished and first appeared on the Manning Environmental Law website.

_________________________________

About the Author

Paul Manning is the principal of Manning Environmental Law and an environmental law specialist certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada. Paul has been selected as one of the world’s leading Environmental Lawyers by Who’s Who Legal: 2016.

Paul advises clients on a wide range of environmental law issues and represents them as counsel before tribunals and the courts. His practice focuses on environmental, energy, planning and Aboriginal law.

Paul holds a Masters degree in Environmental Law and obtained an accreditation in the UK as an expert in Planning Law. He is on the Executive Committee of the National Environmental, Energy and Resources Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association. Paul has a special interest in renewable energy and climate change regulation and holds a Certificate in Carbon Finance from the University of Toronto.

Environmental Convictions & Contaminated Property: Ontario Summary for 2018

The Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MOECP) publishes publishes an annual report on environmental penalties issued in the previous calendar year for certain land or water violations for companies subject to the Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) Regulations.  Companies subject to the MISA Regulations belong to one of the nine industrial sectors found in the Effluent Monitoring and Effluent Limits (EMEL) regulations.  The summary report for 2017 was published in the Spring of 2018.

Under the MISA Regulations, environmental penalties can range from $1,000 per day for less serious violations such as failure to submit a quarterly report under the MISA Regulations  to $100,000 per day for the most serious violations, including a spill with a significant impact.

For serious offences under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act, the maximum and minimum corporate fines for each day on which the offence occurs is as follows:

  1. not less than $25,000 and not more than $6,000,000 on a first conviction;
  2. not less than $50,000 and not more than $10,000,000 on a second conviction; and
  3. not less than $100,000 and not more than $10,000,000 on each subsequent conviction.

In the past, Ontario Environment Ministry would publish a more comprehensive environmental enforcement report that covered all penalties, fines and convictions.

In a 2011 blog, Diane Saxe, Ontario’s former Environmental Commissioner and former partner at Siskinds Law Firm, wrote that  a typical year, the Ontario Environment launches about 150 to 175 prosecutions. About 75% of them are resolved by guilty pleas; about 5% are acquitted at trial; about 10% are convicted of something at trial; about 10% are withdrawn.

As the end of the calendar year approaches, the staff at Hazmat Management Magazine thought it would be useful to review some of the more significant environmental convictions related to contaminated property.  That summary can be found below.

Environmental Consultant and an Individual fined $50,000 for False RSC Incidents

In the Spring, an Ontario-based consulting firm that provides environmental, geotechnical, and hydrogeological consulting services was convicted when an employee falsified  Environment Ministry Letters of Acknowledgement to Records of Site Conditions (RSCs) for two properties.

An RSC is a statement on the environmental condition of a property and is typically a requirement by a municipality if a contaminated property is remediated and a redevelopment is proposed that involves a more sensitive land use (i.e., from industrial to residential).  The environmental consultant that performed the environmental site investigation at the site (a Phase I ESA and possibly a Phase II ESA) submits an RSC to the Environment Ministry.  The Environment Ministry issues an acknowledgement of the RSC.

The offences occurred in the Spring of 2014 and winter of 2015.  When the Consulting firm realized one of its employees had issued falsified documents related to the RSCs it immediately informed the affected owners of the related properties.  In the Fall of 2015, an owner/developer of another construction project in the Greater Toronto Area notified the ministry of concerns relating to their RSC submissions of which the consulting firm in question was involved.  At that time, the Environment Ministry commenced an audit and investigations.

The consulting firm was found guilty of one violation under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), was fined $35,000 plus a Victim Fine Surcharge (VFS) of $8,750, and was given 30 days to pay. On the same date, former employee was found guilty of two violations under the EPA, was fined $15,000 plus a VFS of $3,750, and was given 18 months to pay.

Muskoka Cottage Owner fined $30,000 for Discharging Fuel Oil into Water Well

In the winter, a Muskoka homeowner was convicted for discharging fuel and other petroleum hydrocarbon into a water well which can impair the quality of the water. He was fined $30,000 plus a victim surcharge with 6 months to pay .

The conviction stems from an incident that occurred in the spring of 2016.  On May 16, 2016, the homeowner of a cottage on Lake of Bays poured heating fuel oil down a neighbor’s well, damaging the quality of the water in the well. The incident was referred to the Environment Ministry’s investigations and Enforcement branch, resulted in charges and one conviction through a guilty plea.

Residential Property Owner fined $3,000 for Falsely Claiming Property was Remediated

In the winter, a homeowner in Guelph was convicted of failing to apply with two provincial officers orders issued under the environmental protection act (EPA) . The homeowner was fined $3,000 plus a victim fine surcharge of $750 and was given 15 days to pay the fine .

The violation occurred in 2013 when the homeowner bought a residential property in Guelph , which earlier had been contaminated with oil fuel from a historic spill at the property . In the December of 2014, the homeowner put the residence up for sale.  The Environment Ministry subsequently received a complaint that the house was up for sale but had not been adequately remediated.

During the course of its investigations, the Environment Ministry found the previous owner had claimed the property had been remediated but discovered that no remediation had been conducted.  An Order was issued by the Environment Ministry for all documentation related to any remediation at the property to be submitted.  Despite providing an extension on a submission date, the not information was provided to the Environment Ministry.

The incident was referred to the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch, resulting in charges and the conviction against the property owner.

Fine of $30,000 for Discharging Contaminants and Illegal Operation of Waste Disposal Site

In the winter, a business located in the County of Essex and its owner was convicted of three offences under the Environmental Protection Act( EPA) and was also fined $30,000 for discharging dust that cause and was likely to cause an adverse effect, and being deposited at a property that is not allowed nor an approved waste disposal site.

A business owner in Essex County accepted 189 truckloads of  construction waste in 2014 despite the fact that property was not approved as a waste disposal site.

In 2015, the business owner was operating a farm tractor to turn soil at the site. The operation resulted in the release of plumes of dust which adversely affected nearby residents and their properties . The incident was referred to the Environment Ministry’s Investigations Branch.

 

Financing Soil Remediation: Exploring the use of financing instruments to blend public and private capital

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) recently released a report entitled Financing Soil Remediation: Exploring the use of financing instruments to blend public and private capital.

The report makes the statement that governments around the world are looking at opportunities to attract private capital participation in both land remediation and its productive use and redevelopment thereafter. The business case is intrinsically the value capture in the increase in retail price of land and related business opportunities once the remediation is complete. However, where land value capture is lower and related revenue streams remain uncertain, the case for private capital participation is much less compelling. Governments, in this case, have to fund the remediation through public budgets and thereafter seek opportunities to partner with private counter-parties to use the land as “fit for purpose.”

The IISD report presents 17 case studies on a variety of financing instruments that blend public and private capital. Each case study includes a short discussion on the extent to which each instrument could be used to finance the remediation of contaminated soil.  The case studies in thereport demonstrate a variety of financing strategies, from index-linked bonds to savings accounts and from peer-to-peer lending platforms to debt-for-nature swaps.

This report is a part of a series of outputs of a four-year project, Financing Models for Soil Remediation. The overall objective of the project is to harness the full range of green finance approaches and vehicles to manage the associated risk and fund the remediation of contaminated soils.

The series of reports focuses on the financial vehicles available to attract investment to environmental rehabilitation of degraded land and the financial reforms needed to make these vehicles a viable and desirable means of investing in land rehabilitation. The IISD draws on best practices worldwide in funding environmental rehabilitation, with a special focus on the design and use of financial mechanisms to attract private investors, share the risk and offer a clear benefit for the rehabilitated land.

Several lessons emerge from these case studies described in the report in the context of financing the remediation of contaminated land, including the following:

  1. As with all financial arrangements, the risk appetite of different investors has to match the risk profile of
    the investment. It is difficult to crowd in private and institutional investors when projects remain below
    investment grade.
  2. Money follows a good deal. When legal, technological, revenue and other risks are understood and are
    transparent, feasible ways to reduce these uncertainties can be planned and financing strategies can be
    worked upon.
  3. When there is reasonable certainty that the value of the land will increase after remediation and will
    subsequently generate stable and predictable revenues, there is a strong case for blending public and
    private financing.
  4. When, on the other hand, projects have less attractive revenue potential, governments have to step in to
    finance the remediation, or at least a larger part of it.

About the IISD

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), headquartered in Winnipeg, Manitoba, is an independent think tank championing sustainable solutions to 21st–century problems. The mission of the IISD is to promote human development and environmental sustainability. IISD focuses on research, analysis, and knowledge products that support sound policy making.

Kitchener, Ontario’s Largest Brownfield Redevelopment

Kitchener, Ontario’s biggest abandoned industrial site is well on its way into being redeveloped into a 50,000-square-foot facility for a tool and die company and a 3,150-square-metre medical office building.

The 78-acres industrial site is located on the southeast corner of Bleams Road and Homer Watson Boulevard in Kitchener, approximately 100 km west of Toronto.  It was developed with a 1.2 million square foot manufacturing facility that was constructed in several phases beginning in 1967.  The facility had been used by Budd Canada to manufacture auto parts, ThyssenKrupp Budd Canada, and eventually by Kitchener Frame.  The land has sat idle since 2009.

2010 Photo of fhe former Kitchener Frame Building (Photo Credit: Philip Walker/Record staff

In 2010, a group of investors purchased the property with the vision of redeveloping it.  It has taken eight years for the redevelopment to reach its current state – a series of approvals from various levels of government and a plan to start construction in early 2019.

The site is still waiting approval of the Record of Site Condition (RSC) from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MOECP). It was filed in January of 2018.  An RSC is typically required by on Ontario Municipality if a property is being redevelopment for a more sensitive land use (i.e., from industrial to commercial or residential).  It is filed by an environmental consultant following the clean-up of a property.  It summarizes the environmental condition of a property based on the completion of environmental site assessments (i.e., Phase I & II ESAs).

Site Clean-up

Demolition work and subsequent site cleanup got underway in November 2011. The environmental remediation cost an estimated $8.5 million.

A soil remediation program was conducted at the property between April and June 2016 in an attempt to reduce the
concentrations of the contaminants of concern s in soil identified at the property. The remediation activity at the site included the excavation of approximately 9,360 cubic metres (5,200 tonnes) of contaminated soil for disposal at a licensed non-hazardous waste landfill.  No sediment or groundwater was remediated or removed for the purpose of remediation.

The clean-up of the site included the preparation of a Streamlined Tier 3 Risk Assessment Report.   A risk assessment provides an approach for developing property specific standards (PSS) under Ontario Regulation 153/04 (Records of Site Condition (RSC) – Part XV.1 of the Act), made under the Environmental Protection Act (the Regulation). A Tier 3 Risk Assessment goes beyond the generic approach of a Tier 2 risk assessment and involves a longer and more detailed review by the MOECP. According to the filed RSC, the MOECP has approved of the Streamlined Tier 3 Risk Assessment.

As reported in the Kitchener Post, a total of $7,787,000 in direct remediation costs are eligible to be reimbursed by the city and region under a joint tax increment grant application. The total estimated post redevelopment assessment value is estimated at more than $111 million.

Redevelopment

In an interview with the Daily Commercial News, Janinen Oosterveld, manager of site development and customer service in Kitchener-Waterloo’s planning division stated: “Approvals to finalize the subdivision of the lands into development parcels is currently underway.”

As of mid-October, the city had received site plan applications for two developments — a 50,000-square-foot facility for a tool and die company and a 3,150-square-metre medical office building.

Plans for the redevelopment envisage nine industrial parcels, totaling approximately 39 acres.

Future redevelopment of the former industrial property on Homer Watson Boulevard, Kitchener, Ontario (Photo Credit: Bill Jackson/Metroland)

 

Business Opportunities for Environmental Research and Development

The United States Department of Defense’s Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) is seeking environmental research and development proposals for funding beginning in FY 2020. Projects will be selected through a competitive process. The Core Solicitation provides funding opportunities for basic and applied research and advanced technology development. Core projects vary in cost and duration consistent with the scope of the work proposed.

The Statements of Need (SON) referenced by this solicitation request proposals related to the SERDP program areas of Environmental Restoration (ER), Munitions Response (MR), Resource Conservation and Resiliency (RC), and Weapons Systems and Platforms (WP).

The SERDP Exploratory Development (SEED) Solicitation provides funding opportunities for work that will investigate innovative environmental approaches that entail high technical risk or require supporting data to provide proof of concept.

Funding is limited to not more than $200,000 and projects are approximately one year in duration. This year, SERDP is requesting SEED proposals for the Munitions Response and Weapons Systems and Platforms program areas. All Core pre-proposals are due January 8, 2019. SEED proposals are due March 5, 2019. For more information and application instructions, see https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Funding-Opportunities/SERDP-Solicitations.

Market Report on VOC Detectors

VOC Detector Market

QY Research recently published the Global Market Study VOC Detector Market Provide Forecast Report 2018 – 2025.  The report presents a detailed analysis of the VOC Detector market which researched industry situations, market Size, growth and demands, VOC Detector market outlook, business strategies utilized, competitive analysis by VOC Detector Market Players, Deployment Models, Opportunities, Future Roadmap, Value Chain, and Major Player Profiles. The report also presents forecasts for VOC Detector investments from 2018 till 2025.

United States is the largest Manufaturer of VOC Detector Market and consumption region in the world, Europe also play important roles in global VOC Detector market while China is fastest growing region. The 126 page VOC Detector report provides tables and figures and analysis the VOC Detector market. The report gives a visual, one-stop breakdown of the leading products, submarkets and market leader’s market revenue forecast as well as analysis and prediction of the VOC Detector market to 2025.

Geographically, this report splits the global market into several key Regions, with sales (K Units), revenue (Million USD), market share and growth rate of VOC Detector for these regions, from 2013 to 2025 (forecast), covering United States, China, Europe, Japan, Southeast Asia, and India.

The report provides an analysis of the global VOC Detector market competition by top manufacturers/players, with VOC Detector sales volume, Price (USD/Unit), revenue (Million USD) and market share for each manufacturer/player.  The top players include the following: REA Systems; Ion Science; Thermo Fisher; Skyeaglee; Omega; and E Instruments.

The report provides an overview of the global market on the basis of product.  This report displays the production, revenue, price, market share and growth rate of each type, primarily split into the following types of detectors:
PID and Metal-oxide Semiconductor.   The report also breaks down the global market based on application as follows:  Environmental Site Surveying; Industrial Hygiene; and HazMat/Homeland Security.

RAE Systems Gas Detector