What is the Cost of An Asbestos Test?

Written by Robert B. Greene, PE, PG, CIH, LEED AP, GLE Associates Inc.

The presence of asbestos can be hazardous to workers and building occupants during renovations and even in the course of daily business, and the only way to know if it is a problem is to test for it. You may now be wondering whats an asbestos survey and do you need one?

What Is Asbestos and Why Is It a Problem?

Asbestos is a heat-resistant silicate fiber that is frequently present in building materials. Contrary to common understanding, it is still used in building materials today and can be present in any building of any age.

It becomes a problem when asbestos-containing materials are disturbed and the fibers enter the air. The fibers lodge themselves in the lungs of anyone who breathes them in and can cause mesothelioma, lung cancer, and other acute and long-term health problems, up to and including death.

How and When Should You Test for Asbestos?

An asbestos test (also called an asbestos survey) should be conducted prior to any renovation or demolition activities in any building of any age. In fact, an asbestos survey is required by law prior to these activities for any building materials which may be disturbed.

You should also be concerned about the ongoing presence of asbestos in older buildings, where asbestos-containing materials may have deteriorated over time. This can cause them to release asbestos fibers into the air, creating a hazard for building occupants. An asbestos survey is a relatively inexpensive way to ensure your buildings are safe for tenants and employees.

How Does an Asbestos Test Work?

A qualified asbestos company will bring in an experienced team to collect samples of potential asbestos-containing building materials. The samples will be sent to a lab for testing, and a report will be generated based on the results.

How Much Does an Asbestos Test Cost?

An asbestos survey is a relatively inexpensive precaution and may be mandated by law prior to even small renovation projects. The cost to conduct asbestos testing will vary widely based on a number of factors, including:

  • The type of facility. The more complex the building, the more time it will take to collect an adequate number of samples from all the relevant types of materials. It will also cost more to have more samples tested in the lab. For example, an asbestos survey of a hospital would be much more expensive than the same size open warehouse.
  • Type of survey. For example, a survey for a renovation of a small portion of the building, affecting a limited number of building materials, will generally cost substantially less than a building demolition survey which will affect all of the building’s components and materials.
  • Square footage. A larger facility will likewise require more time and a larger number of samples, all else being equal.
  • Facility use. If the facility is currently in use, the cost of testing will increase to account for accommodations and protections necessary for the safety and comfort of your occupants. In some cases, such as hospitals, extra care will be required to minimize disruption and ensure safety, which can further increase the cost.
  • Accessibility. If asbestos surveyors have to crawl into tight spaces, remove walls or ceiling materials, climb to high spaces, or use ladders and scaffolding to reach potential asbestos-containing materials, those factors will increase the cost of testing.

It’s hard to know exactly what your cost for an asbestos survey will be without a qualified quotation. Ultimately, if asbestos is found in your property, then seeking out a firm that specialises in asbestos removal Brisbane, or asbestos removal wherever you are is essential.


About the Author

Robert B. Greene, PE, PG, CIH, LEED AP has served in the engineering, environmental consulting, construction and remediation arenas for more than 36 years, including president of GLE since 1989. He has managed numerous consulting and contracting projects for public and private sector clients throughout the United States with construction and environmental remediation costs exceeding $100 million.

In 1987, the governor appointed Mr. Greene to the Florida Asbestos Committee, which was responsible for developing state asbestos regulations. He has also served as an expert witness for litigation for environmental and construction related issues.

United States: U.S. EPA Takes Action Under TSCA Identifying Chemicals For Agency Scrutiny

Written by by Lawrence E. Culleen, Arnold & Porter

Prioritization of Chemicals

In its continuing quest to meet regulatory deadlines imposed by the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has published a list of 40 chemicals that must be “prioritized” by the end of 2019. The announcement marks the beginning of the Agency’s process for designating the 40 listed chemicals identified as either “high” or “low” priority substances for further the U.S. EPA scrutiny. At the conclusion of the prioritization process, at least 20 of the substances likely will be designated as high priority.

A high priority designation immediately commences the U.S. EPA’s formal “risk evaluation” procedures under the amended statute. The risk evaluation process can lead to “pause preemption” under the terms of the 2016 amendments and new state laws and regulations restricting the manufacture, processing, distribution, and use of a chemical substance undergoing a risk evaluation could not be established until the evaluation process is completed. The U.S. EPA commenced its first 10 risk evaluations as required under the amended law at the close of 2016. The Agency is required to have an additional 20 risk evaluations of high priority substances ongoing by December 22, 2019. If the U.S. EPA’s risk evaluation process concludes that a substance presents an “unreasonable risk” to health or the environment under its “conditions of use,” the Agency must commence a rulemaking to prohibit or limit the use of the substance under Section 6 of TSCA.

The Agency’s announcement of the list of chemicals to undergo prioritization provides the makers and users of the listed substances an important, time limited opportunity to submit relevant information such as the uses, hazards, and exposure for these chemicals. The U.S. EPA has opened a docket for each of the 40 chemicals and the opportunity to submit information for the U.S. EPA’s consideration will close in 90 days (on June 19, 2019). The U.S. EPA will then move to propose the designation of these chemical substances as either high priority or low priority. The statute requires the U.S. EPA to complete the prioritization process, by finalizing its high priority and low priority designations, within the next nine to 12 months.

The list of 20 substances to be reviewed as high priority candidates consists entirely of substances previously identified by U.S. EPA in 2014 as “Work Plan” chemicals. Thus, the list contains few chemicals that should be considered complete “surprises.” However, the inclusion of formaldehyde may raise concerns in certain quarters given the scrutiny that has been given to the U.S. EPA’s previous struggles with assessing the potential effects of formaldehyde. The Agency has attempted to address these concerns by stating “Moving forward evaluating formaldehyde under the TSCA program does not mean that the formaldehyde work done under IRIS will be lost. In fact, the work done for IRIS will inform the TSCA process. By using our TSCA authority EPA will be able to take regulatory steps; IRIS does not have this authority.” Also included in the listing are several chlorinated solvents, phthalates, flame retardants, a fragrance additive, and a polymer pre-curser:

  • p-Dichlorobenzene
  • 1,2-Dichloroethane
  • trans-1,2- Dichloroethylene
  • o-Dichlorobenzene
  • 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
  • 1,2-Dichloropropane
  • 1,1-Dichloroethane
  • Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- dibutyl ester)
  • Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) – 1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1- butyl 2(phenylmethyl) ester
  • Di-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) – (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester)
  • Di-isobutyl phthalate (DIBP) – (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis-(2methylpropyl) ester)
  • Dicyclohexyl phthalate
  • 4,4′-(1-Methylethylidene)bis[2, 6-dibromophenol] (TBBPA)
  • Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP)
  • Phosphoric acid, triphenyl ester (TPP)
  • Ethylene dibromide
  • 1,3-Butadiene
  • 1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethylcyclopenta [g]-2-benzopyran (HHCB)
  • Formaldehyde
  • Phthalic anhydride

The U.S. EPA has signaled that it has received a manufacturer request for a EPA to undertake a risk evaluation of two additional phthalates which, if administrative requirements for such request have been met, the Agency would announce publicly in the very near term.

The 20 low priority candidate chemicals were selected from the U.S. EPA’s “Safer Chemicals Ingredients List”—a list of substances previously evaluated and considered to meet the U.S. EPA’s “Safer Choice” criteria for use in certain common product categories, such as cleaning products.

Other Recent and Impending U.S. EPA Actions Under TSCA

Given the numerous deadlines that are looming under the amendments to TSCA, it is critical that chemical manufacturers and processors of chemicals and formulations remain aware of the recent and upcoming actions under TSCA that can significantly impact their businesses. The following provides a short list of important actions of which to be aware.

Active/Inactive TSCA Inventory Designations. EPA released an updated version of the TSCA Inventory in February 2019. The Inventory is available for download here. This version of the Inventory includes chemical substances reported by manufacturers and processors by their respective reporting deadlines in 2018. The updated TSCA Inventory (confidential and non-confidential versions) includes 40,655 “active” chemical substances and 45,573 “inactive” chemical substances. Once the current 90-day “transition period” has concluded, it will be unlawful to manufacture, import or process in the US any substance that is listed as “inactive” without first providing notice to the U.S. EPA. Thus, prior to the expiration of the “transition period” on May 20, 2019, manufacturers and processors of chemical substances that are not listed as active on the February 2019 TSCA Inventory must take steps to activate the substance by filing a Notice of Activity (NOA Form B) for any chemical substance that they currently are manufacturing or processing, or anticipate manufacturing or processing within 90 days of submission.

Final TSCA Section 6(a) for Methylene Chloride in Paint and Coating Removers. EPA has released its long-awaited TSCA Section 6(a) rule restricting the use of methylene chloride in paint and coating removers. The final rule prohibits the manufacture, processing, and distribution of methylene chloride in paint removers for consumer use. The rule prohibits the sale of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers at retail establishments with any consumer sales (including e-commerce sales). The U.S. EPA declined to finalize its determination that the commercial use of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers presents an unreasonable risk. Therefore, distributors to commercial users, industrial users, and other businesses will continue to be permitted to distribute methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers. However, given recent efforts by store-front retailers to “deselect” such products for consumer sales, it remains unclear how distributions to commercial users can or will occur.

The U.S. EPA simultaneously released an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking related to a potential certification program for commercial uses of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers. The U.S. EPA has similar programs in place for certain pesticides and refrigerants, and the United Kingdom currently has in place a program to certify commercial users of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers. The U.S. EPA is seeking comment on whether a certification program is the appropriate tool to address any potential risks that could be posed by the commercial use of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers.

Upcoming Draft Risk Evaluations. The U.S. EPA is expected to publish within days or weeks the highly anticipated draft Risk Evaluations for the remaining 9 of the 10 initial substances to undergo TSCA Risk Evaluations under the amended law and which have been under review since December 2016. The Agency will accept comments on the drafts for a limited period.

Proposed Rules for 5 PBT substances. The U.S. EPA is required to issue no later than June 2019 proposed TSCA Section 6 regulations for 5 persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances that were identified during 2016 as priorities for regulatory action. The Agency must propose expedited rules intended to reduce exposures to the extent practicable.


*Camille Heyboer also contributed to this Advisory.

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 Author

Lawrence Culleen represents clients on administrative, regulatory, and enforcement matters involving federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Department of Agriculture, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Mr. Culleen has broad experience advising clients on US and international regulatory programs that govern commercial and consumer use chemicals, pesticides and antimicrobials, as well as the products of biotechnology and nanoscale materials. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Culleen held significant positions at EPA serving as a manager in various risk-management programs which oversee pesticides, chemical substances, and biotechnology products.

United States: When Is Property Damage From A Release “Expected Or Intended”? Only After The Owner Learns Of The Spill And Ignores It

Written by Seth JaffeFoley Hoag LLP

Any good trial lawyer will tell you that the law is about telling stories.

Once upon a time, Timothy and Stacy Creamer bought a house.  Only after they closed did they realize that some strategically placed rugs were hiding the evidence that, “up from the ground come a bubblin’ crude.”

Unlike Jed Clampett, rather than finding themselves millionaires, the Creamers found themselves with a million dollar liability – literally.

This being a law story, of course the sellers were bankrupt.  The Creamers thus pursued the sellers’ insurer.  The case ended up in the Appeals Court, which held that the Creamers could pursue their claims under the policy.

The insurer, Arbella, made three arguments in support of its summary judgment motion.  The Court rejected them all.  In order, the Court held that:

  1. The property damage was caused by an occurrence.  Arbella argued that the damage was caused by the sellers’ fraud, not by the original release of oil.  However, as the Court pointed out, the Creamers’ had claims based on Chapter 21E, the Commonwealth’s superfund law.  Since Chapter 21E is a strict liability statute, the Creamers’ damages were caused by the release, not by the sellers’ fraud.  (But see number 3, below!)
  2. The loss occurred during the policy period.  Following precedent, the Court concluded that, so long as the property damage occurred during the policy period, it did not matter that the harm to the claimant did not occur until later.
  3. At least some of the damage was not “expected or intended.”  This is the most significant part of the case.  While preserving Creamers’ claims, the Court split the baby on this one.  It held that the original release was not expected or intended, but that, once the sellers discovered the spill without doing anything about it, any further damage was “expected” by the seller.  The Court thus remanded for a determination by the Superior Court how much of the total property damage was “expected.”

The Creamers will thus get their day in court, but, depending on when the sellers learned of the contamination, their recovery could be significantly limited.  They certainly will not get enough to move to Beverly Hills.  No swimming pools or movie stars for the Creamers.

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 Author

Seth Jaffe is recognized by Chambers USA, The Best Lawyers in America and Massachusetts Super Lawyers as a leading practitioner in environmental compliance and related litigation. He is one of the authors of the Law and the Environment Blog, www.lawandenvironment.com, which provides real-world perspectives on current developments in environmental law and regulation. Seth is a past President of the American College of Environmental Lawyers.

Seth works on a wide range of environmental law issues, representing clients in the permitting/licensing of new facilities and offering ongoing guidance on permitting and enforcement related matters under federal and state Clean Air Acts, Clean Water Acts, RCRA, and TSCA. He also advises on wetlands and waterways regulation. Seth’s clients include electric generating facilities, companies in the printing and chemical industries, and education and health care institutions.

Time To Clean Up: Alberta’s Revamped Remediation Regulation

Written by Sean D. Parker and Stuart W. Chambers, McLennan Ross LLP

In 2018 the Government of Alberta overhauled the Remediation Certificate Regulation, made under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (“EPEA”). Effective January 1, 2019, the newly titled “Remediation Regulation came into force.

The new Alberta regime for contaminated sites under the Remediation Regulation has two main parts:

1. Deadlines for completing remediation and submitting reports; and

2. Obtaining remediation certificates.

Deadlines for Remediating Contamination and Submitting Reports

One of the fundamental changes to the regulatory regime for contaminated sites is the imposition of a timeline for completing remediation, or submitting a remedial action plan that includes a deadline for clean-up. The obligations for remediation under the revamped regulation are grounded in the general clean-up provisions of EPEA section 112, which impose the duty to remediate a release that “may cause, is causing or has caused an adverse effect”. The Remediation Regulation at section 2.2 adds detail to that general obligation, by requiring a person responsible for a contaminated site to remediate this site “as soon as possible”. Alternatively, if remediation cannot be completed within two years, the person responsible shall “as soon as possible” submit a remedial action plan to the director of Alberta Environment and Parks (“AEP”) for approval. The remedial action plan shall include specified information such as the remedial methods to be used and the deadline for completion. In essence, this provision of the Remediation Regulation requires immediate clean-up, but if that is not feasible within the two-year period (i.e. two remediation seasons), then the obligation becomes a requirement to submit a remedial action plan for AEP’s approval.

The structure of this new regime is intended to provide the person responsible for a contaminated site the opportunity to clean-up the site within a two-year period and then submit all reports, such as a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and remediation closure report, to AEP once the clean-up work is complete. That is seen to be a more streamlined process where AEP’s involvement is generally limited until the final review.

Alternatively, if the site “cannot be remediated to the satisfaction of the director within a two-year period” (section 2.2 (2)), then the person responsible must follow a different path that involves more oversight by AEP through the process. The first requirement is that the person responsible must submit a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment “as soon as possible” (section 2.2 (1)). The other requirement is that the person responsible must “immediately” submit a remedial action plan that specifies the completion time for the remediation (section 2.2 (2)). Essentially, if the remediation cannot be completed within two field seasons, AEP becomes involved earlier on in the process and has greater oversight over steps such as delineation work and planning of the remediation.

Although there is logic in this general approach – that AEP has more involvement on more complex sites – there is some uncertainty as to how this regime will actually be implemented. For example, it is not clear how the requirement to submit Phase II Environmental Site Assessment “as soon as possible” under section 2.2 (1) will be applied. Likewise, it is not clear how it will be determined that a site “cannot” be remediated within a two-year period, as provided for under section 2.2(2). Further, the remedial obligations are subject to discretion of the AEP director as to how those obligations will be enforced, for example, what information will be required, and timelines for completing a variety of steps. It is understandable and appropriate for a director to have discretion in contaminated site matters, as each site is different and will present its own unique circumstances. However, these obligations are very new and there are no precedents for their application, resulting in a lack of guidance which in turn generates uncertainty for those who may be responsible for a contaminated property. 

Another significant provision with respect to the remedial obligations is the grandfathering clause found in section 2.2(7). Essentially, the Remediation Regulation will only apply to sites reported to AEP on or after January 1, 2019. Sites that were previously reported, will not be subject to the new regime as it is presumed that they would already be engaged in a previous process for dealing with the site. However, as with other aspects of this new regime, the grandfathering clause is also subject to the discretion of the director. In other words, the new requirements for clean-up within two years, or submission of other reports and plans for completing the remediation work, may nevertheless be required by the director for a previously reported site. Again, while it may be appropriate for the director to impose those requirements for certain sites, it is unclear at this time on what basis the director will or should exercise discretion in this regard. 

Remediation Certificates and Tier 2 Compliance Letter

The second main part of the refurbished Remediation Regulation relates to the revamping of the regime for issuing remediation certificates, and a newly created Tier 2 compliance letter. Under the new regime, there are two types of remediation certificates available: (1) a “site-based” remediation certificate, and (2) a “limited” remediation certificate (section 4). The general concept of a remediation certificate is that it closes regulatory liability for the party that has obtained it. This means a party that obtains a remediation certificate will not be subject to future regulatory requirements from AEP in relation to the substances or areas covered under the remediation certificate. However, additional contamination discovered at a later date that is not covered under the remediation certificate will not enjoy this same protection and could be subject to further regulatory action. 

The site-based remediation certificate provides the highest degree of regulatory protection. This type of certificate applies to the entire area that has been impacted by the activity. Specific requirements for obtaining a remediation certificate are set out in section 4 of the Remediation Regulation. Essentially, a site-based remediation certificate can only be issued where all of the contamination has been identified and cleaned up on the site and on other affected surrounding lands. There is an exception where a site-based remediation certificate could be issued for the specified parcel of land and where contamination remains off-site, provided that the remaining off-site impacts are subject to a risk management plan that has been approved by the director. It is important to recognize that the off-site areas under a risk management plan would not be captured under the remediation certificate, and therefore would not enjoy the regulatory closure that those certificates provide pursuant to section 117 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act

The other type of remediation certificate is called a “limited” remediation certificate. These certificates do not apply to the entire area impacted by the activity, as with a site-based remediation certificate, but rather apply to the limited area that has been remediated to the satisfaction of the AEP director. These limited remediation certificates appear to be more suitable for a discrete type of event such as a known release on a known part of the site. To obtain a limited remediation certificate, the area of impact would need to be assessed and fully remediated to the satisfaction of the director. The certificate would apply only to that limited area, and the contaminants of concern that were identified and remediated. This is a less rigorous process than for the site-based remediation certificate and therefore provides a more restricted degree of regulatory protection. Site-based remediation certificates provide regulatory closure for an entire parcel of land, however, they require full assessment of any impacts on that site and then complete remediation. A limited remediation certificate, on the other hand, would not require a full assessment of the entire site, but rather only of the specific area for which the certificate is sought, and likewise would only provide regulatory closure for that specific area that has been assessed and remediated. 

The third type of document provide for under the new Remediation Regulation is called a Tier 2 compliance letter. This document is intended to provide some level of assurance or comfort to parties that were not able to obtain either a site-based or limited remediation certificate. In order to obtain any form of remediation certificate, some remediation must have actually been completed. If no remediation is conducted, a remediation certificate cannot be issued. The Tier 2 compliance letter was developed to account for situations where the remediation guidelines can be adjusted based on site specific conditions under Alberta’s Tier 2 process, with the effect that human health and the environment are still protected, but no remediation would actually be required. 

While the Tier 2 compliance letter may appear to be a solution where a remediation certificate is not available, its practical value appears to be limited as it does not provide regulatory closure like a remediation certificate would. The Tier 2 compliance letter is solely a creation of the Remediation Regulation, and is not grounded in section 117 of the enabling statute, EPEA, which provides certain statutory guarantees. The effect of this distinction is that an area or site for which a remediation certificate has been issued is not subject to further regulatory action by AEP, for example, requiring further remediation if the guidelines change. Conversely, an area that is the subject of a Tier 2 compliance letter does enjoy the same protections and further regulatory action could be required at a later date, for example, further remediation if the guidelines do change. It is uncertain what the practical benefit of a Tier 2 compliance letter is given the apparently limited degree of protection that it affords.

Conclusions and Further Thoughts

The Remediation Regulation that came into force on January 1, 2019 sets out a revised regulatory regime that will be applied to contaminated sites in Alberta going forward. The new regime imposes additional requirements for assessment and reporting to AEP, as well as new timelines for doing so. However, given the significant discretion afforded to directors at AEP and the lack of precedents for how decisions will be made under this new regime, there is significant uncertainty as to how the Remediation Regulation will be applied, and how the directors’ discretion will be exercised over a variety of matters. Further, it appears that some of these new requirements will involve an enhanced degree of interaction with AEP in terms of reviewing site assessments, remedial action plans, risk assessments, risk management plans and other documents. It is unclear how AEP will handle this potential increased workload so as to ensure the new regime operates in an efficient and effective manner, rather than creating backlogs and other unintended consequences. 

The new site-based remediation certificate provides more comprehensive regulatory closure as compared to the limited remediation certificate. However, the higher degree of protection for the site-based certificate comes with greater assessment and remedial obligations. Depending on the unique circumstances of each site and intended purpose for obtaining a remediation certificate, consideration should be given as to what degree of regulatory closure is reasonably required balanced against the amount of work and cost associated with each type. Further, consideration should be given to the amount of time that may be required for processing of a remediation certificate application. Often, remediation certificates are sought to limit liability and facilitate some type of commercial transaction, such as the sale of land. However, the current timeline for obtaining a remediation certificate could be in excess of three years, which could wipe out any practical benefit depending on the commercial conditions of the transaction. In order to have an effective remediation certificate regime, the process will need to be reasonably responsive and operate on timelines that correspond to commercial realities. 

While the concept of a Tier 2 compliance letter appears to be sound and may be appropriate in certain circumstances, its practical utility is questionable given that the regulator could still come back at a future date and require a further action. To obtain the protections afforded by a remediation certificate, a proponent may consider conducting at least some remediation in order to be eligible for remediation certificate. However, the degree of remediation required in order to qualify for the remediation certificate program is an another currently open question. 

Overall, the Remediation Regulation sets out a new regime for managing contaminated sites in Alberta, building upon the existing remedial obligations embodied in section 112 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. Given the newness of this regime and the significant discretion afforded to AEP decision-makers, there is uncertainty as to how the regulation will actually be implemented.

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

Sean D. Parker is the Co-Chair of the Energy, Environmental & Regulatory Practice Group at McLennan Ross and is regularly engaged to provide legal advice on a variety of environmental management and engineering projects, and commercial transactions. Sean acts for a wide variety of clients including: landowners, large industry players, municipalities, government departments and administrative tribunals.

In his commercial litigation practice, Sean handles a variety of matters including contaminated site litigation, landlord-tenant disputes, property damage claims and others.

The time Sean spent in the environmental consulting field becoming a lawyer provides him with a valuable technical foundation to support his practice in environmental, regulatory and natural resource law.

Stuart Chambers is a partner at McLennan Ross practicing in the areas of energy, environmental & regulatory and commercial litigation, focusing on environmental and occupational health and safety regulatory law, and class actions.

Stuart has extensive experience advising oilsands and other industrial operators in relation to environmental and health and safety law issues, in particular in preparation for and responding to regulatory investigations and prosecutions.

Stuart has a wide range of experience in commercial litigation matters, including contractual disputes, recovery of funds and class actions.

While Stuart has extensive experience in complex multiparty litigation, he is equally comfortable in finding efficient solutions for smaller disputes. He utilizes alternative dispute resolution methods including mediation and arbitration to resolve issues and has significant experience acting as both plaintiff and defendant counsel in class actions in Alberta and in British Columbia.

Stuart advises organizations on contract interpretation, drafting and policy issues and has advised government and administrative tribunals on policy and adjudicative matters.

British Columbia intends to improve waste soil relocation regulations

by Max Collett, Norton Rose Fulbright

The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy in British Columbia intends to bring forward legislation to better regulate excess soil relocation, including waste soils, and reduce deposit of soils in landfills.

The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy has for years been aware that certain participants in the soil and waste transport and relocation industry have not been complying with the current regulations, which are reliant on source site and recipient site owners entering into a Contaminated Soil Relocation Agreement (CSRA) with the ministry.

In January 2019 the ministry issued a final policy recommendation with a series of proposed substantive amendments to the soil relocation regulations and legislation. The following are notable features of the new regulations:

  • Distinguish between soils and waste soils, and regulate the relocation of waste soils. Waste soil is to refer to soil that possesses a substance concentration greater than the lowest applicable industrial land use standard
  • Remove the requirement for a CSRA (a positive development as execution of these agreements was time consuming)
  • Introduce notification and certification requirements:
    • require that the applicant deliver advance notification to local governments as well as “indigenous groups” in the area of both source and receiving sites. (To date, the ministry has not given any indication how an applicant will be able to identify the applicable indigenous groups, which is not always obvious in areas of overlapping claims and interests)
    • require that the applicant complete chemical characterization and vapour assessments for certain waste soils and obtain certification by approved professionals. Certifications will be subject to random audits. (The introduction of approved professionals and audit verification should be a positive development and enable applicants to better control the soil relocation process and associated project scheduling. This process will be similar to that undertaken for independent remediation of contaminated sites)
  • Amend the Environmental Management Act to provide for administrative monetary penalties if soil relocation requirements are not met
  • Potentially add new requirements for landfills and high-volume receiving sites.

The ministry intends to seek government approval for these amendments in 2019. We will provide a further update once it is confirmed whether the province approves the recommendations and tables specific legislative and regulatory amendments for approval.


This article was published with permission of the author. It was first posted on the Norton Rose Fulbright website.

About the Author

Max Collett provides quality, timely and practical advice to public and private sector clients on all legal matters pertaining to complex commercial real estate development and environmental law. He assists developers, First Nations economic development companies, governmental agencies and health authorities, amongst others, to structure the ownership of projects, and acquire, finance, construct, operate and sell institutional, industrial, commercial and residential developments. He has extensive experience with legal matters pertaining to the management or redevelopment of contaminated, brownfield sites. Mr. Collett is counsel on a diverse range of projects, from complex mixed-use strata developments, complex commercial developments, health care facilities to joint venture developments on First Nations lands. He regularly assists on institutional projects undertaken pursuant to public-private partnerships. Mr. Collett also advises commercial and industrial clients on all aspects of regulatory compliance with environmental laws.

What are the core requirements of wide area CBRNe training?

Written by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

When you are required to conduct wide area emergency preparedness training – be it in the setting of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNe) school, a dedicated military center or an industrial facility – the ongoing challenge for any CBRNe instructor is to be able to create a scenario that is realistic, safe, reliable and cost effective.

Trainees need to be equipped with the practical knowledge and skills to respond with confidence to an enormous variety of potential live incidents. And each threat brings with it a unique set of practical, physical and psychological tasks that need to be ‘experienced’ in order to be understood.

So what is the recommended approach to help instructors implement a realistic but safe CBRNe training environment?

Overcoming regulatory obstacles

While the spreading of chemical simulants can still occasionally be an option, strict environmental regulations generally make it unfeasible – and the use of any form of radiological source is almost always going to be unrealistic for all but the most high specialized of training facilities.

Simulant training also brings with it the problem of being very location-dependent, which restricts the ability to create scenarios in public settings or confined spaces. And there is the added difficulty of it not being able to be readily integrate simulant training with other conventional live training methods.

Wide-area instrumented training systems

When the highest degree of realism is required, a powerful modular exercise control system such as PlumeSIM enable instructors to take their CBRNe training exercises to an entirely new level. And it especially comes into its own in the context of counter terrorism scenarios, nuclear training drills and HazMat emergency exercises.

So what benefits does the PlumeSIM training system offer?

Portability – Plume-SIM is highly portable making it quick to set up and to use in any environment. The inclusion of a planning mode also means that instructors can easily prepare exercises on a laptop or PC without the need for any form of system hardware.

Realism – Students are equipped with simulators and GPS enabled players, to enable them to take part in large area exercises that can include sequential multi-threat releases or that integrate with third-party live training systems.

Instructor control – The instructor retains complete control of the exercise including the ability to decide the type, quantity, location and nature of the source.

Environment – Specific environmental conditions can also be easily defined by the user, including temperature and changes in wind direction.

Repeatability – The Plume-SIM’s exercise parameters can be saved so the identical scenario can be repeated as many times as required.

Real-time action -The trainees’ movements, progress and instrument usage can be monitored in real time from a central control station.

After action review – The recording of student activity in real-time provides useful after action review (AAR). This can be used to encourage discussions about the effectiveness of an exercise and to facilitate further improvements.

Data capture – All recorded exercise data can also be exported and emailed to external personnel for future analysis.

Pre-exercise capability – The table-top planning mode uses standard gamepad controllers which enables trainees to undertake pre-exercise practice to take place within the classroom environment. The exercise can also be recorded and analysed prior to heading for the live field training area.

Versatility – If environmental conditions preclude the ability to obtain or maintain continuous long-range radio communication then the scenario can be pre-loaded on the player unit for timed activation.

Compatibility – The Plume-SIM system is compatible with a wide variety of simulator equipment including the M4 JCAD-SIMCAMSIMAP2C-SIMAP4C-SIMRDS200-SIMEPD-Mk2-SIMAN/PDR-77-/VDR-2 and RDS100-SIM.

Room to grow – The modular system gives instructors the flexibility to expand their range of training equipment as and when their budgets allow.

Achieving the highest level of realism in CBRNe training is paramount – and assuring personnel safety will always be key.

A flexible, modular simulator-based training solution such as the PlumeSIM system can provide trainees with the opportunity to practice and perfect their response to a wide variety of highly-realistic simulated threats in a completely safe environment.


About the Author

Steven Pike is the Founder and Managing Director of Argon Electronics, a leader in the development and manufacture of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) and hazardous material (HazMat) detector simulators. He is interested in liaising with CBRN professionals and detector manufacturers to develop training simulators as well as CBRN trainers and exercise planners to enhance their capability and improve the quality of CBRN and Hazmat training.

When Is It Too Late to Sue for Environmental Contamination? The Alberta Court of Appeal Rules

Written by Laura M. Gill, Stephanie Clark, and Justin Duguay, Bennett Jones LLP

On February 6, 2019, the Alberta Court of Appeal (ABCA) released its first ever decision on section 218 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA), which may extend limitation periods applicable to environmental contamination claims.

By a unanimous decision in Brookfield Residential (Alberta) LP (Carma Developers LP) v Imperial Oil Limited, 2019 ABCA 35 [Brookfield], the ABCA upheld a lower court decision where the judge refused to exercise his discretion under section 218 of the EPEA to extend the limitation period for an environmental contamination claim. Extending the limitation period would have likely been prejudicial to the defendant’s ability to maintain a defence to the claim, as the alleged cause of the environmental damage occurred over 60 years ago. We previously discussed the 2017 Court of Queen’s Bench decision in an earlier post, When is an Environmental Contamination Claim Too Old to Extend the Limitation Period?

Background

Brookfield Residential (Alberta) LP (Brookfield) brought a negligence claim in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (ABQB) against Imperial Oil Limited (Imperial) for environmental contamination from an oil well. Imperial drilled and operated the well between 1949 and 1950, and disposed of it in either 1950 or 1954. Multiple owners operated the well between 1950 and 1957 and then used it for salt water disposal between 1958 and 1961, at which point the well was decommissioned and abandoned. After several additional transfers of ownership, the site was issued a reclamation certificate in 1968. Contamination requiring remediation was not discovered until 2010, when Brookfield was preparing the site for residential development.

Brookfield brought an application under section 218 of the EPEA to extend the limitation period, and Imperial cross-applied with a summary dismissal application, asserting that the limitation period had expired. Since it was clear that the ten-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act had expired, Brookfield’s negligence claim was entirely dependent on an extension of the limitation period under section 218. The ABQB refused to extend the limitation period and summarily dismissed the action against Imperial. Brookfield appealed.

The appeal was dismissed. In its reasons, the ABCA provided guidance on three important aspects of section 218 applications: (i) procedure and timing; (ii) the impact of the passage of time on prejudice to the defendant; and (iii) policy considerations relevant to the fourth factor in section 218(3).

1. Applications Under Section 218 of the EPEA Should Be Decided Prior to Trial

The ABCA in Brookfield ruled that applications under section 218 of the EPEA should be decided prior to trial, overruling the two-part test in Lakeview Village Professional Centre Corporation v Suncor Energy Inc, 2016 ABQB 288 [Lakeview]. In Lakeview, the ABQB set out a two-part approach to section 218 applications where the court may make a preliminary determination on limitations and allow the action to proceed subject to a final determination on the merits of the limitations issue at trial. Lakeview became the leading case on the procedure for section 218 applications.

In overturning the Lakeview test, the ABCA found two problems with the approach of deferring the decision on extending limitation periods until trial. First, the Lakeview approach “is inconsistent with the wording of section 218, which provides that the limitation period can be extended ‘on application'”. Second, the approach defeats the whole purpose of limitation periods because it forces a defendant to go through the expense and inconvenience of a full trial on the merits for a determination on limitations, notwithstanding that a limitation period is intended to eliminate the distractions, expense, and risks of litigation after the prescribed time has passed.

2. The Passage of Time Increases the Likelihood of Prejudice to the Defendant

The ABCA affirmed the approach of balancing the four factors in section 218(3), which in this case revolved primarily around the third factor (prejudice to the defendant). The ABCA found that it was reasonable for the ABQB to infer prejudice from the passage of time, noting that this is the presumption behind statutes of limitation. The allegations in Brookfield’s claim occurred over 60 years ago, and as such, witnesses and documentary evidence were difficult to identify and were no longer available. The passage of time also made it difficult to establish the proper standard of care. The ABCA agreed that attempting to determine 1949 industry standards and the standard of care at that time would prejudice Imperial.

3. The Competing Policy Objectives of the Limitations Act and the EPEA

The ABCA also provided guidance on the fourth factor listed in section 218(3), which grants judicial discretion to consider “any other criteria the court considers to be relevant”. The ABCA found that policy considerations behind limitations statutes were relevant criteria that should be weighed. In particular, the ABCA noted the policy objectives of statutes of limitations that actions must be commenced within set periods so that defendants are protected from ancient obligations, disputes are resolved while evidence is still available, and claims are adjudicated based on the standards of conduct and liability in place at the time. However, on the other hand, the ABCA highlighted that the EPEA has a “polluter pays” objective where a polluter should not escape responsibility by the mere passage of time.

Implications

The ABCA’s decision in Brookfield changes the procedure for extending limitation periods in environmental contamination claims. Rather than waiting until trial, parties must bring section 218 applications early on. As a result, plaintiffs in contaminated sites claims should also carefully assess the impacts on defendants of the passage of time in making section 218 applications. Brookfield reinforces that a court will likely presume greater prejudice from a longer passage of time, especially if witnesses and evidence may be difficult to identify and the standard of care may be difficult to assess. Going forward, Brookfield suggests that the Court will take a practical approach to assessing prejudice against a defendant when deciding whether to extend limitation periods in contaminated site claims where the ultimate limitation period has passed.


This article has been republished with the permission of the authors. It was first published on the Bennett Jones website.

About the Authors

Laura Gill is called to the bar in Alberta and British Columbia and has a commercial litigation practice specializing in energy and natural resources, First Nations issues, and environmental matters. Laura advises clients on disputes in a wide range of corporate matters, including complex breach of contract claims and joint ventures.

Laura’s experience in the energy industry includes litigating disputes involving leases, right-of-way agreements, ownership stakes, royalties, gas supply contracts, farmout agreements, and CAPL operating agreements. Laura also acts on appeals and judicial review proceedings following decisions of regulatory bodies, in particular with respect to regulatory approvals for energy-related projects in Alberta and British Columbia.

Stephanie Clark has a general commercial litigation practice. Stephanie has assisted with matters before all levels of the Alberta court system. During law school, Stephanie held a student clerkship with the Honourable Mr. Justice Nicholas Kasirer at the Court of Appeal of Quebec, competed in the 2015 Jessup International Law Moot, and was awarded with the Borden Ladner Gervais Professional Excellence Award. Stephanie articled with the firm’s Calgary office prior to becoming an associate. 

Justin Duguay is an articling student at Bennett Jones.

Leaking Sewers Cost City 50% of Dry Cleaner Site Cleanup Costs

Written by John A. McKinney Jr., Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC

Are you in a case where an on-site and off-site groundwater plume of dry-cleaning solution (perchloroethylene or PCE) or other hazardous substance is intersected by sewers through which the used and disposed solution flowed?  If so, the case of Mission Linen Supply v. City of Visalia (2019 WL 446358) bears your close review.

Based on the facts and expert testimony adduced at the bench trial, the court determined that: 1) the sewers were installed by the City below general industry standards; 2) the City sewers had numerous defects including holes and broken pipes, cracks, separated joints, missing portions of pipes, root intrusion and other conditions; and, 3) PCE was released into the environment as a result of these defects.

Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.), the two dry cleaners who operated at the site and the City were found liable.  In allocating the future cleanup costs, the court determined the equitable basis for allocation was the plume itself.  The prior dry cleaners were responsible for the on-site costs and the City was responsible for the off-site costs “because the City’s defective/leaking pipes transported and spread the PCE beyond the property boundaries.”   50% of future costs were assigned to the City.

A review of this case’s Findings of Fact show what expert testimony and evidence is necessary to reach the result reached by this court.  The case is also a warning to municipalities with sewer lines intersecting cleanup sites or what could become cleanup sites.  Do not fail to regularly and properly maintain your sewer systems.


This article has been republished with the permission of the author. It was first published on CSG’s Environmental Law Blog.

About the Author

John A. McKenney Jr. has been a frequent speaker at conferences and continuing legal education programs. For 18 years, John was on the faculty of Seton Hall University School of Law as an Adjunct Professor where he taught New Jersey Environmental Law. He also served as moderator of the ABA satellite seminar on Hazardous Waste and Superfund.

John is a co-editor of the ABA publication, CERCLA Enforcement – A Practitioner’s Compendium of Essential EPA Guidance and Policy Documents and co-authored the Generators’ Obligations chapter of the ABA’s RCRA Practice Manual. The standard form group agreement used at many remedial sites around the nation is based on a version he developed for The Information Network for Superfund Settlements.

U.S.: Lessons Learned from Citizen Suits for Contamination of Property by Industry

by Seth Jaffe, Foley Hoag LLP

Two recent cases illustrate the potential scope of, and the potential limitations on, injunctive relief in RCRA citizen suits. 

First up, Schmucker v. Johnson Controls. Contamination was detected at the Johnson Controls manufacturing facility in Goshen, Indiana.  In response, Johnson Controls performed substantial remediation under the auspices of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management’s Voluntary Remediation Program.  Nonetheless, significant contamination remains at the site, including a groundwater plume running beneath residences.  In 2011, TCE was detected in indoor air at concentrations exceeding IDEM’s screening level.  Johnson Controls installed vapor mitigation systems at all affected residences, and concentrations were below screening levels in all the residences after installation of the mitigation.

Imminent and substantial endangerment, or not?  In a battle of the experts, the Court denied both sides’ motions for summary judgment.  First, the plaintiff’s expert’s opinion that there was a risk of future exposures, notwithstanding the mitigation, was enough to defeat Johnson Controls’ motion.  The Court did note that:

“Murphy’s law” is not sufficient to establish an endangerment where a party relies only on speculation that mitigation measures might fail.

However, the Court found that the plaintiffs’ expert was not simply speculating.

On the flip side, defendant’s expert said that the mitigation measures were sufficient to eliminate the endangerment.  That was enough to defeat plaintiffs’ motion.

Next up, Lajim v. General Electric.  The facts are somewhat similar to those in Johnson Controls.  There was a long history of industrial use, discovery of a groundwater plume – in this case, impacting municipal water supply wells – and the commencement of significant response actions.  Here, the work was supervised by Illinois EPA, pursuant to a 2010 consent decree.  Here too, nearby plaintiffs were not satisfied with the remedial plan, notwithstanding approval by the state agency overseeing the cleanup.  In another battle of the experts, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief.  The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.  Here are the highlights:

  • District courts have discretion to deny injunctive relief under RCRA, even where the defendant has been found liable.  “It will usually be the case that injunctive relief is warranted,” but it is not mandatory.
  • RCRA is not a general cleanup statute; injunctive relief is only available where there may be an imminent and substantial endangerment.
  • Where plaintiffs failed, after an evidentiary hearing, to demonstrate that cleanup was necessary beyond that which GE was doing pursuant to the consent decree, no injunction need issue.

I think that there are two lessons from these cases, one substantive and one practical:

  1. RCRA’s citizen suit provision provides plaintiffs with a powerful hammer, but there are limits to the relief that courts will impose, particularly if a defendant is implementing a cleanup under state oversight.
  2. Good lawyering and persuasive experts still really matter.

About the Author

Seth Jaffe is recognized by Chambers USA, The Best Lawyers in America and Massachusetts Super Lawyers as a leading practitioner in environmental compliance and related litigation. He is one of the authors of the Law and the Environment Blog, www.lawandenvironment.com, which provides real-world perspectives on current developments in environmental law and regulation. Seth is a past President of the American College of Environmental Lawyers.

Seth works on a wide range of environmental law issues, representing clients in the permitting/licensing of new facilities and offering ongoing guidance on permitting and enforcement related matters under federal and state Clean Air Acts, Clean Water Acts, RCRA, and TSCA. He also advises on wetlands and waterways regulation. Seth’s clients include electric generating facilities, companies in the printing and chemical industries, and education and health care institutions.

Brownfield Redevelopment in New York City and Community Air Monitoring – What you need to know

Written by Paul R. Pickering, Aeroqual Ltd.

Brownfield cleanup in New York City

As New York City’s need for space grows, existing stock of land must be used more effectively. Brownfield cleanup and redevelopment represents one of the best opportunities to engage communities and reclaim land for development in many cities. In 2018, the Mayor’s Office of Environmental Remediation (MOER) announced 1000×21, the most aggressive land cleanup and revitalization goal of any city in the world. This OneNYCinitiative seeks to remediate and redevelop 1,000 lots in NYC by the end of the de Blasio administration in 2021.

A vacant lot in Mott Haven, NY before remediation. Photo: OneNYC

Remediation air quality challenges

Any time a remediation or construction project involves earth-moving, it has the potential to release particulate (dust) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) contaminants that exist below the surface. VOCs will readily transition to the gaseous, breathable phase, when exposed to air. Particulate emissions must be controlled to prevent impacts to the respiratory system. Negative impacts range from mild lung irritation to chronic lung disease. 

Regulations to protect community

To protect workers and the surrounding community, construction and demolition projects that involve excavation need to follow a stringent Community Air Monitoring Plan(CAMP), as specified by the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). If the excavation activities are occurring on a remediation or cleanup site, additional requirements are outlined in a guidance document known as DER-10. NYSDOH and DER-10 specifically apply to sites in New York. However, agencies and authorities in other states may also recognize these guidelines. They have been known to apply or refer to them for projects in their designated territories.

What is DER-10?

In 2010, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) issued Division of Environmental Remediation (DER)-10 Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation, known as DER-10. This is the source document the NYSDEC refer to for authority to oversee remediation projects. It was designed to help parties and consultants (environmental and engineering) in developing and implementing investigation and remediation projects at contaminated sites.

DER-10 extensively (over 225 pages) describes the A to Z requirements for remedial site investigations, cleanups, post-cleanup monitoring and site closure. It presents detailed technical guidance for each of the investigative and remedial steps undertaken at contaminated sites. DER-10 covers procedures for assessing the environmental conditions at the site, including air monitoring during remediation activities.

What is CAMP?

Appendix 1A of the DER-10 outlines requirements for the implementation of a CAMP. This air monitoring plan is prescribed by NYSDOH. It involves direct-reading air monitoring instruments placed at defined locations around the perimeter of a remediation, construction or demolition site.

A CAMP requires real-time air monitoring for total VOCs (also referred to as total organic vapors) and PM10 (particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter) at downwind and upwind locations relative to each designated work area when certain activities are in progress at contaminated sites. The CAMP is not intended for use in establishing action levels for worker respiratory protection. Rather, it is intended to protect the downwind community) from potential airborne contaminants released as a direct result of investigative and remedial work activities. The downwind community includes off-site receptors such as residences, businesses, and on-site workers not directly involved with the subject work activities. The specified CAMP action levels require increased monitoring, corrective actions to abate emissions, and/or work shutdown. Additionally, the CAMP helps to confirm that work activities did not spread contamination off-site through the air.

VOC and particulate monitoring

Basic requirements of a CAMP call for real-time air monitoring for VOCs and/or particulate levels at the perimeter of the exclusion zone, or work area. Sites known to be contaminated with heavy metals alone may only require particulate monitoring. If radiological contamination is a concern, additional monitoring requirements may be necessary in consultation with NYSDEC and NYSDOH. The table below summarizes CAMP Monitoring Action Levels for total VOC and particulate monitoring.

CAMP air monitoring equipment

Since the introduction of DER-10 in 2010, sensor-based technologies have reduced the cost of air monitoring and increased efficiency of the implementation of CAMP. Real-time air monitoring solutions are available to fit the budget and complexity requirements of every project. Below is a sampling of equipment options:

Entry Level – Basic environmental dust monitoring kit

Assembled kits, like this Basic Environmental Dust Monitoring Kit from Raeco Rents, are portable and suited to short-term or temporary CAMP. The ensemble includes an off-the-shelf dust monitor, handheld PID monitor for total VOCs, and a cloud-based telemetry system mounted in an environmental enclosure.

Ultimate Flexibility – All-in-one air quality monitor

All-in-one air quality monitors, like the AQS1 and the Dust Sentry from Aeroqual, are highly flexible and defensible, as well as good allrounders for short or long-term CAMP. In addition to the primary particulate fraction PM10, these monitors can also measure PM2.5, PM1 and Total PM. They can also be configured for monitoring total VOCs and NO2 emissions from remediation and construction sites. A robust light-scattering Nephelometer with sharp cut cyclone is integrated with a PID-based VOC analyzer module (or GSE-based NO2 gas module), Cloud telemetry platform, air quality software, and optional plug-and-play weather and noise sensors. Trigger alerts are programmable for SMS and email notifications, or can be used to activate an external VOC canister sample collection for speciated analysis according to EPA Method TO-15.

The Rolls Royce – GC-based perimeter air monitoring station

Perimeter air monitoring stations, like the AirLogics Classic 2, contain analytical, climatic, and communications instrumentation. This equipment includes: a gas chromatograph (GC) to measure specific VOCs, a respirable particulate meter to measure dust levels, shelter heaters and air conditioners, and a radio-based data acquisition system. These systems were originally developed for use in the cleanup of former manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites.

Weather monitoring

DER-10 guidelines require daily measurement of wind speed and direction, temperature, barometric pressure, and relative humidity, to establish background weather conditions. Wind direction data is used to position the air monitoring equipment in appropriate upwind and downwind locations.

The evaluation of weather conditions is also necessary for proper fugitive dust control. When extreme wind conditions make dust control ineffective, remedial actions may need to be suspended. There may be situations that require fugitive dust suppression and particulate monitoring requirements with more stringent action levels.

Additional monitoring

Under some circumstances, the contaminant concentration and/or toxicity may require additional monitoring to protect site personnel and the community. Additional integrated sampling and chemical analysis of the dust may be required. This must be evaluated when a Health and Safety Plan (HASP), is developed. Appropriate suppression and monitoring requirements are established for protection of people’s health and the environment.

Reporting

All recorded monitoring data is downloaded and field logged daily, including Action Limit Reports (if any) and daily CAMP monitoring location plans. Records are required to be maintained onsite for NYSDEC and NYSDOH to review. A description of the CAMP-related activities is also included in a monthly progress report submitted to the NYSDEC. The overall report submitted to the NYSDEC should include all CAMP monitoring records. If site works are stopped due to inability to control fugitive emissions to below the action limit, the NYSDEC is to be notified within twenty-four hours of the work stoppage.

For a real-life example of air monitoring at a remediation site please read my blog about the pilot cleanup of the Gowanus Canal, NY.

What CAMP solutions does Aeroqual offer?

Aeroqual’s Dust Sentry and AQS1 are flexible air monitoring platforms used by air quality professionals, and environmental and geotechnical consultants, for community air monitoring plans on remediation sites. We help environmental consultants deliver defensible data on projects by providing cost-effective and reliable instrumentation. For insights on the latest air monitoring trends at construction sites please read our blog about measuring NO2 and multiple PM fractions.


About the Author

Paul R. Pickering is the Business Development Director at Aeroqual Ltd., and is located in Auckland, New Zealand. Aeroqual Ltd. is a company that delivers innovative air quality and environmental monitoring solutions. He is passionate about making it easier to measure the air with advanced sensor-based technology. He believes that more relevant information about our environment can help us make better informed decisions, enjoy better quality of life, and make our planet a better home.