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

Environmental Industry M&A in 2018

Environmental Business International, Inc. (EBJ) recently published the 2018 Environmental Industry Mergers and Acquisitions.  The book provides an in-depth analysis of the mergers and acquisitions (M&A’s) that have occurred in the environmental industry in 2018.  Included in the publication are discussions on Stantec’s additions in the UK, Australia and New Zealand along with cultural fit in employee-ownership model at Golder.

The publication states that experts are calling 2018 as the “strongest year we have seen in this decade” with respect to M&A’s in the environment industry. According to the findings in the publication, M&A activity is at record levels and is up 20% over 2017. Some experts assert that Merger & Acquisition activity may be cresting in 2018, but many experts and deal-makers see scope for continued pace. Generally optimistic outlooks drive investment strategies of companies, private equity firms and corporate acquirers, but acquirers and sellers keep their correction contingency plans close at hand.

According the findings in the report, analysts, management consultants and investment bankers report that multiple factors are aligned to continue the strong pace of M&A and high valuations,

Exhibits in this 2018 Environmental Industry Mergers and Acquisitions edition of EBJ include:

  • Consolidation of U.S. C&E Industry 1990-2017
  • Top 10 U.S. Remediation Firms 2000-2016 (Gross Revenues in $mil)
  • Share of Top Companies in U.S. C&E Industry 2000-2017
  • Top 5 & 10 U.S. Environmental C&E Firms 1995-2017(Gross Environmental C&E Revenues in $mil)
  • A Decade of US M&A Activity in the AEC Industry
  • 2007-2018 Interstate M&A Deal Flow in AEC
  • 2018 Year-to-Date Heat Map of Regional AEC M&A Activity
  • Influence of Publicly-Traded Buyers in AEC M&A, 2007-2018
  • Influence of Private Equity in AEC M&A, 2013-2018
  • Most Prolific Buyers (2011 – YTD 2018)
  • Several revenue history and acquisition lists for profiled companies
  • Levels of Interest That Help Determine Value in AE Firms
  • U.S. M&A Activity in Environmental and Industrial Services: 2009-2018
  • M&A Activity in Environmental Services: Special Waste & Environmental Engineering & Consulting

For more information on the environmental C&E industry, visit Reports & DataPacks page.

Chemical hazard training using Simulator Detectors

by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

The ability to deliver consistent, engaging and true-to-life chemical hazard detection training scenarios relies on regular access to realistic, hands-on equipment.

What’s vital is that these training tools replicate not only the readings and the responsiveness of real detectors, but that they also provide trainees with an authentic experience that recreates the potential challenges that they will face in actual incidents.

Training for CBRNe and HazMat threats

Planning exercises for modern-day CBRNe and HazMat threats has never been more complex, with the need to respond to anything from clandestine laboratory searches to major industrial incidents, chemical improvised explosive devices or terrorist threats.

And key to the success of any training scenario is the capacity for instructors to be able to create compelling training experiences that are straight-forward to set up and easy to repeat.

While training with Live Agents (LAT) can still have a role to play, it introduces a substantial degree of risk to instructors, students, their equipment and the environment – not to mention incurring greater cost, increased administrative effort and a heavier regulatory burden.

Simulant training is often viewed as presenting a safer “middle ground” for CBRNe and HazMat exercises, bringing with it the advantages of a more credible, real-life experience but at the same time reducing risk through the use of smaller, controlled quantities of substances.

But even in the most carefully managed of exercises, the use of simulants brings with it certain disadvantages. It can often restrict the breadth and variety of scenarios – for example, when they are required to be used in confined spaces, or where wind, temperature or training location can impact negatively on the learning experience.

It is also increasingly common for modern detectors to provide limited response to simulant sources, due to their highly developed interference rejection (IR) capabilities.

The good news though is that safe, high-quality and easily repeatable CBRNe/HazMat training needn’t be so complicated.

Simulator detectors for CBRNe and HazMat training

One solution that has revolutionized modern approaches to chemical detection training is the adoption of innovative and safe detector training aids that replicate the functionality of real devices.

These intelligent, electronic training tools place instructors in control, they are environmentally friendly, they can be set up in an unlimited variety of indoor and outdoor locations and they offer powerful after action review features.

Let’s now take a closer look at one specific example of a chemical hazard detector – the Smiths Detection LCD3.3 – and its simulator equivalent – the LCD3.3-SIM, also known in the USA as the M4A1 JCAD and M4A1 JCAD-SIM respectively.

The Smiths Detection LCD3.3

The Smiths Detection LCD3.3 is a person-worn device which is reported to be the most widely deployed chemical detector in use today.

It is used for the detection of Chemical Warfare Agents (CWAs) – including nerve, blood, blister and choking agents – as well as for the identification of a selected library of Toxic Industrial Chemicals(TICs). The detector also incorporates different operating modes ensuring optimal detection capability.

The detector is simple to operate, requires no calibration or routine maintenance and can log up to 72 hours of mission data for further analysis while user replaceable sieve packs reduce the need for factory based overhaul. A key benefit of this detector is its ability to specifically identify CWAs, however this advanced selectivity and makes simulant based training challenging.

The Argon LCD3.3-SIM

The LCD3.3-SIM is a training device that has been designed replicate the features and functionality of the actual LCD3.3.

The simulation detector responds to electronic sources that imitate the effects of chemical vapors, toxic substances and false positives and that realistically replicate the effects of wind direction and temperature, the depletion of sieve packs and batteries, confidence testing and the use of a survey nozzle.

With no requirement for simulants as part of training, there is zero possibility of environmental contamination or health and safety risk to instructors or students.

The device is compatible with a wide variety of other simulators (including simulators for the AP2C, AP4C, CAM, LCD3.2 and the RAID-M100) which means that multi-detector and multi-substance training can take place within the same scenario.

The inclusion of a remote control feature provides CBRNe and HazMat instructors with complete management of the exercise – from deciding on the effectiveness of decontamination drills, to simulating the effects of wind, temperature and persistency and the ability to instantly reset a scenario in readiness for a new exercise.

After Action Review (AAR) enables instructors to confirm that their students have set up and used the detector in accordance with the procedures for the real-life device. In the event of student error, the student performance reporting feature provides a detailed breakdown of their actions to assist with learning.

The use of innovative simulator detector training systems significantly increases personnel safety, as well as enhancing learning and easing regulatory pressures.

Such devices also place the instructor firmly in control of the exercise to ensure you’re delivering consistent, verifiable and measurable CBRNe/HazMat training outcomes.

This article was first published as a blog on the 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.

When Oil and Water Mix: Understanding the Environmental Impacts of Fracking

Dan Soeder, director of the Energy Resources Initiative  at the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, has co-authored the cover article titled “When oil and water mix: Understanding the environmental impacts of shale development,” in the recent issue of GSA Today, a magazine published by the Geological Society of America.

The article explores what is known and not known about the environmental risks of fracking with the intent of fostering informed discussions within the geoscience community on the topic of hydraulic fracturing, says Soeder. Soeder’s co-author is Douglas B. Kent of the United States Geological Survey.

In this paper, Soeder and Kent bridge the gap in consensus regarding fracking, providing current information about the environmental impacts of shale development. The article is open access and adheres to science and policy, presenting a complicated and controversial topic in a manner more easily understood by the lay person.

“Geoscientists from dinosaur experts to the people studying the surface of Mars are often asked by the public to weigh-in with their opinions on fracking. We wanted the broader geoscience community to be aware of what is known and not known about the impacts of this technology on air, water, ecosystems and human health.  A great deal has been learned in the past decade, but there are still critical unknowns where we don’t yet have answers,” Soeder says.

Development of shale gas and tight oil, or unconventional oil and gas (UOG), has dramatically increased domestic energy production in the United States and Canada.  UOG resources are typically developed through the use of hydraulic fracturing, which creates high-permeability flow paths into large volumes of tight rocks to provide a means for hydrocarbons to move to a wellbore. This process uses significant volumes of water, sand, and chemicals, raising concerns about risks to the environment and to human health.

In the article, Soeder and Kent address the various potential impacts of fracking and how those impacts are being addressed.  Risks to air include releases of methane, carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter. Water-resource risks include excessive withdrawals, stray gas in drinking-water aquifers, and surface spills of fluids or chemicals. Landscapes can be significantly altered by the infrastructure installed to support large drilling platforms and associated equipment. Exposure routes, fate and transport, and toxicology of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process are poorly understood, as are the potential effects on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and human health.

Schematic diagram illustrating unconventional oil and gas (UOG) development activities relevant to research on human-health and environmental impacts (not to scale): well-pad construction (1); drilling (2); completion/stimulation (3, 4); production of natural gas (5) and oil (6) with well casings designed to protect drinking-water aquifers; ultimate closure (plug and abandon), illustrating legacy well with leaking casing (7); wastewater disposal (8); induced seismicity (9); landscape disturbance (10); and potential for transport pathways from deep to shallow formations (11). Also represented are water supply wells in shallow and deep aquifers (12). Photographs by Dan Soeder.