Former Contaminated Mine Site in NWT Declared Clean

The Government of Canada recently announced that the former Tundra Gold Mine, located in the Northwest Territories, has been successfully remediated.  The cost of clean-up was $110 million and was paid for by the government.

Tundra Mine was briefly operational in the 1960’s and was used as a dumping ground in the 1980’s.  It’s former owner, Royal Oak Mines went bankrupt in 1999.

Remediation of the site included revegetating soil, sealing mine openings, consolidating and isolating tailings and waste rock, treating petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils, erecting barriers for erosion control, and removing buildings.  The clean-up project lasted more than a decade.

Though some re-vegetation has begun, the land – around 240 km north-east of Yellowknife – will remain recognizably an old industrial site for decades to come.

Tundra Mine Site post clean-up (Photo Credit: Jamie Malbeuf/CBC)

Dominic LeBlanc, Canada’s newly installed minister for northern affairs, called Tundra’s remediation “a great example of the hard work of northerners and the importance of partnerships with local Indigenous communities.”  Northern residents represented 76 percent of the project’s suppliers and 61 percent of its employees.  The Minister stated that the restoration will help local Dene and Métis peoples once again use the land for traditional practices.

The Canadian government will continue to oversea that monitoring of the site to ensure it remains stable.  Monitoring, using a combination of on-site equipment and drones, will cost an unspecified further sum each year.

More work to be done remediating the North

According to an article in Cabin Radio, Tundra’s successful clean-up remains a drop in the larger ocean of contaminated sites within the NWT.  Tundra is the 24th site under federal supervision to have reached this stage, a spokesperson for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada said by email to on Cabin Radio.

federal webpage last updated in 2013 suggests Canada is responsible for more than 50 significant contaminated sites in the territory, including those 24.

separate federal website lists 1,634 contaminated sites within the Northwest Territories, where a contaminated site is defined by the Federal Goverment as “one at which substances occur at concentrations (1) above background (normally occurring) levels and pose or are likely to pose an immediate or long term hazard to human health or the environment, or (2) exceeding levels specified in policies and regulations.”

Some entries on the latter list are considered remediated and their files closed. Some are smaller sites not felt worthy of their own, separate clean-up projects.  Several dozen of them, for example, are grouped under one project to clean up the Canol Trail, a World War Two initiative which left contaminated soil, asbestos, and a range of hazardous materials strewn across 355 km of the Sahtu.

In the 2017-18 financial year, public records show federal agencies were obliged to spend money on some 275 separate contaminated sites in the Northwest Territories.  $157,000 was spent assessing a range of those sites, while a little over $103 million was spent on remediation work.

Of that figure, around $23.6 million was spent remediating the Tundra site in that financial year.

Unsurprisingly, Yellowknife’s Giant Mine – considered among the most toxic sites in Canada, harbouring 237,000 tonnes of poisonous arsenic trioxide in underground chambers – was the only site receiving more remediation money.

In the same period Canada spent just over $36 million on Giant, where full remediation work does not even begin until 2020.

Giant, like Tundra, was owned by Royal Oak when the company collapsed and the site became an unwanted federal problem. The full bill for Giant’s clean-up and maintenance – a program of indefinite, certainly decades-long duration – is expected to reach $1 billion in today’s money.

Tundra Mine 1963 (Photo Credit: Gerry Riemann)

 

Developer takes Alberta to appeal board over former Edmonton wood treatment plant

As reported by Global News, Cherokee Canada is fighting five enforcement orders imposed by Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) connected to the former Domtar Wood Treatment Facility located in Edmonton.  AEP has been conducting an investigation on properties associated with the former Wood Treatment Plant. As a result of the investigation, a number of Enforcement Orders were issued to the current owners, Cherokee Canada.

Nearby residents, concerned by off-site migration of wood treatment chemicals, have been kept up-to-date of the results of the AEP investigation and subsequent enforcement actions. Contaminants from a historical wood treatment processing plant continue to exist on property formerly occupied by the Domtar Wood Treatment Plant.  This contamination, which originated prior to 1987, consists of benzene, dioxins and furans, free hydrocarbons, naphthalene, polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) mixtures, and pyrene.

AEP stated in a news release that it issued the Enforcement Orders to ensure the responsible parties implement appropriate remedial measures and mitigate the potential risks that have been identified.  The latest Enforcement Orders require that the source of the contamination be controlled and remedial measures be implemented in specific areas of the property.

Off-site testing at lands adjacent to Cherokee Canada development (Photo Credit: CTV Edmonton)

Results of off-site testing for contamination in early 2018 found that contamination had not migrated off-site and that there are no health concerns in the surface soil of people’s properties. The off-site testing program was conducted by an independent third-party consulting firm under the direction of AEP.

Cherokee Canada, the developer has started turning the site of the old Wood Treatment Plant in northeast Edmonton into a new residential community but the current and ongoing legal proceedings have halted the project.  “It’s been very difficult because it’s effectively frozen our activities for three years now,” said John Dill, Cherokee Canada’s managing partner.  “It’s very expensive to go through this process, ” he added.

Houses have already been built in the neighbourhood but recently, the AEP questioned the safety of the soil.  AEP said third party testing at the site found chemicals dangerous to human health. The enforcement orders require Cherokee to remediate any contamination.

“The core aspect of these orders is to basically remove potentially large amounts of soil from these sites,” said Gilbert Van Nes, general counsel for the Environmental Appeals Board. “Domtar and Cherokee disagree that this is necessary.”

Both Cherokee Canada and Domtar have completed remediation efforts but AEP, through the enforcement orders, are claiming that they didn’t go far enough.

“Our approach was to take the contaminated soil, isolate it in a separate soil berm — again, a common practice in other jurisdictions — and ensure the soil was protected from exposure to other receptors, humans, animal,” Dill said.  “The disagreement is over how we can remediate this site so it’s safe for residential standards so that we can complete our residential development and restore the site that was previously contaminated to productive use.”

Three environmental experts are heading up the independent appeal board.  The board will pass its findings on to the environment minister and Shannon Phillips will make the final decision on whether construction can resume. However, a decision is not expected until December.

A map shows the former site of the Domtar creosote plant. (Photo Credit: CBC)

 

Court Upholds Decision That The Ministry May Order Current And Former Owners, And Tenants To Delineate Contamination That Has Migrated Off-Site

Article by Stanley D. Berger and Albert M. Engel

Fogler, Rubinoff LLP

On September 4, 2018, Ontario’s Divisional Court released its decision in Hamilton Beach Brands Canada, Inc. v. Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, 2018 ONSC 5010, dismissing an appeal of a September 1, 2017 decision of Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal (Hamilton Beach Brands Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change), 2017 CanLII 57415 (ON ERT)) in which the Tribunal upheld the Ministry’s jurisdiction to order current and former owners and tenants of a contaminated property to delineate contamination that has migrated to off-site properties. The Tribunal’s decision also found that the Ministry had jurisdiction to make an order regarding existing, ongoing and future adverse effects, that the adverse effects do not have to be related to the potential off-site migration of a contaminant, nor must the contaminant be on an orderee’s property at the time the order is made and that the order may require work on-site and off-site to address an adverse effect.

In upholding the Tribunal’s decision, the Divisional Court found that there is no geographical constraint limiting orders to the source property of the contamination and quoted the Tribunal’s observation that “contamination and adverse effects are not constrained by the boundaries of a property, either in initial discharge or because of migration”. The Divisional Court also found that the Tribunal’s interpretation of the Ministry’s order-making jurisdiction is consistent with the Brownfield regime since protection from orders is extinguished under the regime when contaminants migrate from a property that was subject to that regime.

The former appliance manufacturing plant on McFarland Drive that is the property in question in the  Hamilton Beach Brands Canada, Inc. v. Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, 2018 ONSC 5010 (Phtoto Credit: Jason Parks/Picton Gazette)

The order provisions of s.18(2) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.19 were at issue in this case. This is the first Divisional Court decision interpreting the geographic extent of the powers set out in s.18(2). The decision confirms that the powers are expansive and should be considered by any current, former or prospective owner or tenant of a contaminated property. We will continue to monitor this case should it be appealed further.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

________________________

About the Authors

Mr. Berger has practiced regulatory law for 37 years. He represents nuclear operators and suppliers, waste management operators, renewable energy operators, receivers-in-bankruptcy, municipalities and First Nations. He was an Assistant Crown Attorney in Toronto for 8 years, Senior counsel and Deputy Director for Legal Services/Prosecutions at the Ministry of the Environment for 9 years and Assistant General Counsel at Ontario Power Generation Inc for 14 years.
He is the author of a quarterly loose-leaf service published by Thomson Reuters entitled the Prosecution and Defence of Environmental Offences and the editor of an annual review of environmental law.
Mr. Berger was the President of the International Nuclear Law Association (2008-2009) and the founder, and President of the Canadian Nuclear Law Organization.

Mr. Engel practice all aspects of Environmental and Renewable Energy Law. He advises clients in the development and operation of renewable energy projects, regulatory compliance and civil causes of action.He represent clients before Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal and all levels of court. He assist clients with defences to environmental and other regulatory prosecutions, appeals of environmental orders and civil litigation involving environmental issues including contaminated lands.

Mr. Engel has a Masters degree in Environmental Studies and is Certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a Specialist in Environmental Law.

Dangerous Goods Industry Survey Identifies Compliance Challenges

Labelmaster (a U.S.-based provider of labels, packaging and technology related to the transport of dangerous goods and hazardous materials), recently announced the results of its annual 2018 Global Dangerous Goods Confidence Outlook. Sponsored by Labelmaster, International Air Transport Association (IATA), and Hazardous Cargo Bulletin, the survey was conducted to gain insight into how organizations around the globe approach dangerous goods shipping and handling, and the challenges they face.

“Shipping dangerous goods is complex and high-risk, and those responsible for compliance have an increasingly critical job,” said Rob Finn, vice president of marketing & product management at Labelmaster. “In an effort to better understand today’s dangerous goods landscape, Labelmaster, IATA and Hazardous Cargo Bulletin partnered to gather insights from dangerous goods professionals across the globe. We found that while many organizations have the necessary infrastructure, training and processes to ensure compliance across their supply chains, a large number do not.”

The survey covered personal profile information, including: respondent location, most common DG hazard class materials handled, contact role, etc.; training and DG enforcement concerns; compliance challenges; use of technology; comparison to the 2017 survey results; and other leading industry concerns.

Here are some of the key results from the survey:

Keeping up with regulations and ensuring compliance is challenging: Regulatory compliance is critical to an organization’s ability to maintain a smooth supply chain. Yet with growing volumes and types of DG, increasingly complex supply chains, and more extensive regulations, many industry professionals find it challenging to do their jobs effectively and efficiently. In fact:

  • 51 percent find it challenging to keep up with the latest regulations.
  • 15 percent were not confident that they can ensure DG regulatory compliance across their entire organization, and 13 percent were unsure.
  • 58 percent feel that even if they follow the regulations perfectly there is a chance their shipments will be stopped.

When asked to rank their greatest challenge to compliance: budget constraints (28 percent); company leadership not aware of risk (21 percent); insufficient or ineffective training (19 percent); lack of technology (17 percent); difficulty in keeping up with changing regulations (15 percent).

Compliance technology and training is often inadequate: Those responsible for DG face an uphill battle – not only in meeting evolving regulations, but also in overcoming inadequate infrastructure and training. Technology is critical to the supply chain, and significantly improves efficiency, speed, accuracy and more. And even with a number of technology resources available, 28 percent of dangerous professionals are still doing everything manually. Furthermore, 15 percent believe their company’s infrastructure ability to quickly adapt to regulatory and supply chain changes is “lagging behind the industry,” 65 percent said it is “current, but need updating” and 21 percent believe it is “advanced – ahead of the industry.”

The need for improvement extends to training as well. One-quarter of respondents feel their company’s training does not adequately prepare people within the organization to comply with dangerous shipping regulations. In many cases, the scope of employees being trained needs to be expanded. In fact, 67 percent of respondents believe dangerous goods training should be extended to other departments across their company.

An organization’s attitude towards compliance impacts its level of investment: An organization’s attitude towards dangerous goods compliance has a direct impact on how much a company invests in compliance resources. Unfortunately, their attitude towards compliance often does not reflect its true value. According to the survey:

  • 16 percent indicated that dangerous goods compliance is not a major priority for their company.
  • 54 percent wish their companies would understand that supply chain and dangerous shipping management could be a differentiator.
  • 27 percent think their company’s investment to support dangerous goods compliance is “not adequate to meet current needs.”
  • 28 percent believe their company complies “only because regulations mandate it, and adhere to minimum requirements,” while 48 percent believe their company “goes beyond requirements,” and 23 percent view compliance as a “competitive advantage.”

    Which Type of Technology Companies Use to Ship Dangerous Goods

Dangerous goods professionals desire additional support: Investment in infrastructure and training is critical to enabling DG professionals to do their jobs effectively and efficiently, and whether their budgets have increased, decreased or stayed the same, DG professionals desire additional support. When asked how they would prioritize financial support from their organization: more effective training (42 percent); technology for better supply chain efficiency and compliance (29 percent); wider access to the latest regulatory resources and manuals (18 percent); additional headcount (12 percent).

Finn added, “The risk associated with shipping and handling dangerous goods is greater than ever and industry professionals responsible for managing it need the proper technology, training and regulatory access to ensure they are moving goods in a secure, safe, compliant and efficient manner. Unfortunately, obtaining the necessary budget and resources likely requires buy-in from executive leadership, which can be an uphill battle. So how do you get that buy-in? It starts with changing the conversation around dangerous goods management.”

Changing the Conversation with Senior Leadership

Changing the conversation means reframing the overall view of dangerous goods management within an organization. This begins with dangerous goods professionals quantitatively demonstrating how their compliance program can reduce costs and increase revenue to make a positive contribution to the company’s bottom line. Simply put, it is defining your company’s “total value of compliance,” which takes into account three factors:

  • The cost of maintaining compliance throughout the supply chain, such as expenses for people, compliance products, software & technology, reporting, training, etc.
  • The cost of non-compliance due to errors and lapses, such as penalties, carrier refusal and delays, fines, remediation, higher insurance costs, etc.
  • The opportunities of higher level compliance-enabling differentiation, revenue growth and faster cash flows, such as faster product deliveries, increased brand equity, the ability to offer a wider range of products, etc.

This Total Value of Compliance (TVC) framework helps dangerous goods  companies make compliance a powerful, revenue-positive aspect of their business. To learn more about the total value of compliance, download a TVC technical brief and schedule a free assessment, visit www.labelmaster.com/tvc.

To read the full report, visit www.labelmaster.com/dg-compliance-outlook.

About Labelmaster

Labelmaster helps companies navigate and comply with the regulations that govern the transport of dangerous goods and hazardous materials. From hazmat labels and UN certified packaging, hazmat placards and regulatory publications, to advanced technology and regulatory training, Labelmaster’s comprehensive offering of i software, products, and services help customers remain compliant with all dangerous goods regulations, mitigate risk and maintain smooth, safe operations.  To learn more, visit www.labelmaster.com.

 

Emergency Spill Response Market Report

Our Market Research Company recently published a Global Emergency Spill Response Report.  The Report offers a specific market study and outlook prospects of the market. The analysis covers major information that helps to explore data which is helpful for the executives, industry experts, analysts and other people get ready-to-access and self-analyzed review along with graphs and tables to help understand market overview, Scope and market challenges.

The Global Global Emergency Spill Response Report provides information on Market Overview, Business Revenue, Introduction, and Gross profit & business strategies opted by key market players. The report also focuses on market size, volume and value, shipment, price, interview record, business distribution etc. It also covers different industries clients’ information, which is very important to understand the market.

With the slowdown in world economic growth, the Emergency Spill Response industry has also suffered a certain impact, but still maintained a relatively optimistic growth, the past four years, Emergency Spill Response market size to maintain the average annual growth rate of 7.01% from $19.6 billion in 2014 to over $24 billion in 2017.  The Report analysts believe that in the next few years, Emergency Spill Response market size will be further expanded.  The authors expect that by 2022, the market size of the Emergency Spill Response will reach $33.68 billion.

Request a Sample of this report @: https://www.marketreportsworld.com/enquiry/request-sample/12176070

 

Oil Spill Response Management Market – Industry Study & Predictions

360 Market Updates recently published the Global Oil Spill Management Market Report 2018-2023. The report offers a comprehensive analysis on Oil Spill Management industry, delivering detailed market data and  insights. The report provides analysis which is beneficial for industry insider, potential entrant, and investor. The Oil Spill Management Report provides information on the key business players in the market as well as their business methods, annual revenue, company profile and their contribution to the world Oil Spill Management market share. The report covers a huge area of information including an overview, comprehensive analysis, definitions and classifications, applications, and expert opinions.

Description:

  • Worldwide and Top 20 Countries Market Size of Oil Spill Management 2013-2017, and development forecast 2018-2023.
  • Main manufacturers/suppliers of Oil Spill Management worldwide and market share by regions, with company and product introduction, position in the Oil Spill Management market.
  • Market status and development trend of Oil Spill Management by types and applications.
  • Cost and profit status of Oil Spill Management, and marketing status.
  • Market growth drivers and challenges.

Global Oil Spill Management market competition by top manufacturers/players, with Oil Spill Management sales volume, Price (USD/Unit), revenue (Million USD), Players/Suppliers Profiles and Sales Data, Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors and market share for each manufacturer/player; the top players including: Cameron International, Control Flow, National Oilwell Varco, Fender & Spill Response Services, Northern Tanker Company Oy, SkimOil, Hyundai Heavy Industries, GE Oil & Gas, Cosco Shipyard Group, CURA Emergency Services, and Ecolab.

On the basis of product type, Oil Spill Management market report displays the production, revenue, price, Market Size (Sales) Market Share by Type (Product Category) and growth rate of each type (2013-2023), primarily split into Mechanical methods, Chemical and biological, and Physical.

On the basis on the end users/applications, Oil Spill Management market report focuses on the status and outlook for major applications/end users, sales volume, market share and growth rate for each application, including Onshore and Offshore.

Global Oil Spill Management Market: Regional Segment Analysis (Regional Production Volume, Consumption Volume, Revenue and Growth Rate 2013-2023):

  • North America (United States, Canada and Mexico)
  • Europe (Germany, UK, France, Italy, Russia, Spain and Benelux)
  • Asia Pacific (China, Japan, India, Southeast Asia and Australia)
  • Latin America (Brazil, Argentina and Colombia)
  • Middle East and Africa

Inquire for further detailed information about Oil Spill Management industry @https://www.360marketupdates.com/enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/11834137

Key questions answered in the Oil Spill Management Market report:

  • What will be the market growth rate of Oil Spill Management in 2023?
  • What are the key factors driving the Global Oil Spill Management?
  • What are sales, revenue, and price analysis of top manufacturers of Oil Spill Management?
  • Who are the distributors, traders and dealers of Oil Spill Management Market?
  • Who are the key vendors in Oil Spill Management space?
  • What are the Oil Spill Management Industry opportunities and threats faced by the vendors in the Global Oil Spill Management?
  • What are sales, revenue, and price analysis by types, application and regions of Oil Spill Management?
  • What are the market opportunities, market risk and market overview of the Oil Spill Management Market?

The Oil Spill Management Market Report provides a comprehensive overview including Current scenario and the future growth prospects. The Oil Spill Management Industry report sheds light on the various factors and trends in forthcoming years and key factors behind the growth and demand of this market is analysed detailed in this report.

Advanced Explosives Detection System at Indianapolis Airport

Smiths Detection, headquartered in Maryland, recently announced that it had won a competitive bid process from the United States Transportation Security Administration (U.S. TSA) to supply their CTX 9800 explosives detection system to Indianapolis International Airport. The new CTX 9800 systems are the latest generation of CT scanners, helping to advance Indianapolis International’s security screening capabilities.

The CTX 9800 is a computed tomography (CT) explosives detection system. It has customized networking solutions; an intuitive user interface; efficient power consumption; and high-resolution 3D imaging capabilities. Certified by several regulatory authorities including the TSA, the CTX 9800 is also approved by the European Civil Aviation Conference as meeting Standard 3 requirements.

CTX9800 CT Explosives Detection System

Shan Hood, President of Smiths Detection Inc., said, “Smiths Detection is committed to providing the latest in detection technology, helping airports, like Indianapolis, to take advantage of cutting-edge solutions which enhance the passenger experience. The TSA’s selection of the CTX 9800 system for Indianapolis International Airport is a testament to Smiths Detection’s position as a global leader in the use of computed tomography and our long history of partnering with airports and authorities to help keep the traveling public moving safely and efficiently.”

The company also announced that it recently received an order of more than $10 million to supply its RadSeeker, handheld radioisotope detectors and identifiers for screening at Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ports of entry.  The order is part of a five year indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract with DHS Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), which was announced in January of 2016.

RadSeeker Hand-held radioisotope identifier (RIID)