Avoiding Common Phase Two ESA Errors – Part 2

By: Bill Leedham, P.Geo, QP, CESA.

Last month I discussed some common mistakes I have encountered in reviewing Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment reports, specifically in the initial planning stage, now it’s time to turn our attention to recognizing and reducing errors during the Phase Two ESA field work.

Sometimes, deficiencies that occur in the planning stages of a Phase Two ESA transfer into errors in field procedures.  This can be caused by poor communication between the project manager and field staff (i.e. the PM neglects to inform field personnel of specific project requirements, and/or field staff forget to include important sampling media or potential contaminants of concern).  Full, two-way communication is vital to successful completion of any Phase Two ESA. It’s not enough for senior staff to just assume that less experienced team members understand all the complexities of the sampling plan; nor is it acceptable for a project manager to fail to provide adequate guidance and answers to questions from the field.  I have always thought it was important for junior staff to ‘know what they don’t know’ and encouraged them to ask questions at any time.  When project managers are ‘too busy’ to answer questions and simply tell their staff to ‘figure it out themselves’ everyone loses.

Photo Credit: All Phase Environmental

Despite good intentions and full communication, deficiencies can still occur.  Some are the result of inexperience compounded by poor judgement; some are due to budget limitations or staffing shortfalls; and some are caused through poor sampling protocols.  Some of the more common field sampling errors can include: failure to sample all relevant media at a Site (e.g. no sediment or surface water sampling is undertaken despite the presence of a potentially impacted water body); failure to consider all potential contaminants of concern (e.g. sampling only for petroleum hydrocarbons at a fuel storage site and not volatile parameters like BTEX); failure to sample in locations where contaminants are most likely to occur or be detected (e.g. sampling only surficial or near surface soils, and not at the invert of a buried fuel tank or oil interceptor, or failure to sample groundwater in a potable groundwater situation); and lack of field or lab filtering of groundwater samples for metals analysis (failure to remove sediment prior to sample preservation can skew the results for metals analysis).

Inadequate sampling and decontamination procedures can also bias lab results, leading to inaccurate or faulty conclusions.  When samples are disturbed (such as grab samples of soil collected directly from a drill augur that has travelled through an impacted zone) or collected improperly (e.g. compositing soil samples for analysis of volatile components); the test results can be biased and may not be representative of actual site conditions.  Similarly, failure to properly clean drilling and sampling equipment can result in apparent impacts that are actually the result of cross contamination between sampling points. Consider using dedicated or disposable sampling equipment to reduce this potential. A suitable quality control program should also be implemented, including sufficient duplicate samples, trip blanks, etc. for QA/QC purposes, and inclusion of equipment rinsate blanks to confirm adequate decontamination.

These are only a few of the more common field sampling errors I have come across. In an upcoming article I will discuss other practical methods to reduce errors in Phase Two data interpretation and reporting.

About the Author

Bill Leedham is the Head Instructor and Course Developer for the Associated Environmental Site Assessors of Canada (AESAC); and the founder and President of Down 2 Earth Environmental Services Inc. You can contact Bill at info@down2earthenvironmental.ca

 

This article first appeared in AESAC newsletter.

Canadian Government Introduces Amendments to Fisheries Act: Initial Thoughts

Article by  Selina Lee-AndersenStephanie Axmann,and Paul R. Cassidy

McCarthy Tétrault LLP

On February 6, 2018, the federal government announced amendments to the Fisheries Act (the “Act”) aimed at restoring what it describes as ‘lost protections” and “incorporating modern safeguards” to protect fish and fish habitat. The Act, regarded as one of Canada’s principal environmental laws as it is the primary federal statute governing fisheries resources in Canada, includes important provisions for conserving and protecting fish and fish habitat that affect a variety of industries.

The proposed amendments result from a process launched by the government in October 2016, when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans asked the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (the “Committee”) to review changes to the Act made in 2012 by the previous government of then Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The Report of the Fisheries and Oceans Committee on the Fisheries Act review, entitled “Review of Changes Made in 2012 to the Fisheries Act: Enhancing The Protection of Fish And Fish Habitat and the Management Of Canadian Fisheries” (the “Fisheries Report”) was released on February 24, 2017 and made 32 recommendations to the government. In June 2017, the government released its Environmental and Regulatory Reviews Discussion Paper, which outlined potential reforms and proposed, among other things, that “lost protections” be restored in the Act.

A Quick Summary

Under the proposed amendments, the scope of the Act will be increased to cover all fish, rather than commercial, Indigenous and recreational fisheries (as currently set out in the Act). Unsurprisingly, the government proposes to reintroduce the pre-2012 prohibition on the “harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat“, also known as HADD. This means that the concept of “serious harm to fish” under the current Act will be removed. By reintroducing the HADD language, the federal government is also reintroducing old uncertainty in the case law about what precisely constitutes a HADD; whether this will be addressed in guidance from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) remains to be seen.

Salmon Spawning (Photo Credit: D. Herasimtschuk)

The proposed amendments also include a new requirement to consider cumulative effects, along with increased regulatory powers to amend, suspend, or cancel authorizations. In support of reconciliation efforts, the proposed amendments also provide opportunities to increase the role of Indigenous groups in decision-making under the Act and in managing fisheries and fish habitat.

It does not appear that the pollution provisions in section 36 (prohibiting the deposit of deleterious substances) of the Act will be changed, even though they have long created a scientifically questionable prohibition on the deposit of any substances deemed to be deleterious without regard to their quantity or the actual receiving environment.

A Closer Look

A more detailed look at the proposed amendments is set out below and will be expanded upon in future blogs. From a policy perspective, the proposed amendments are designed to achieve the following objectives:

  • restore lost protections by returning to comprehensive protection against harming all fish and fish habitat;
  • strengthen the role of Indigenous peoples in project reviews, monitoring and policy development;
  • recognize that decisions can be guided by principles of sustainability, precaution and ecosystem management;
  • promote restoration of degraded habitat and rebuilding of depleted fish stocks;
  • allow for the better management of large and small projects impacting fish and fish habitat through a new permitting framework and codes of practice;
  • create full transparency for projects with a public registry;
  • create new fisheries management tools to enhance the protection of fish and ecosystems;
  • strengthen the long-term protection of marine refuges for biodiversity;
  • help ensure that the economic benefits of fishing remain with the licence holders and their community by providing clear ability to enshrine current inshore fisheries policies into regulations; and
  • clarify and modernize enforcement powers to address emerging fisheries issues and to align with current provisions in other legislation.

Within the context of resource development, the following proposed amendments will likely have the greatest impacts on the design, construction and operation of projects going forward:

  • Protecting Fish and Fish Habitat: The federal government is proposing the restoration of protections for fish and fish habitat that were lost with changes in 2012. In particular, it is proposing that all fish and fish habitats be protected, and that the previous prohibition against “harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat” be restored. In addition, the federal government is proposing to restore a prohibition against causing “the death of fish by means other than fishing” and to introduce a new requirement to make information on project decisions public through an online registry.
  • Better Management of Projects: The federal government is proposing the development of regulations that clearly define which projects would always require ministerial permits before a project can begin. In particular, it is proposing that projects that would always require ministerial permits be called designated projects, which would be identified based on their potential impact on fish and fish habitat. These are expected to be larger-scale projects. Currently, projects requiring authorization under the Fisheries Actare determined on a project-by-project basis. DFO surmises that the concept of a designated project would provide greater certainty for proponents around process and timelines. DFO’s current practice of issuing letters of advice and ministerial authorizations will continue for projects that are not listed as designated projects. In addition, the federal government is proposing the establishment of new authorities to support the development of codes of practice, which will serve as formal guidance documents for small, routine projects such that, if followed, permits or authorizations are not needed. The actual value of such codes of practice has been the subject of uneven experience in other environmental legislation. However, the codes of practice should, it is anticipated, provide advice to project proponents on how to avoid impacts on fish and fish habitat, and ensure compliance with the Act.
  • Restoring Habitat and Rebuilding Fish Stocks: In order to create more stable and resilient aquatic ecosystems and support the sustainability of fish stocks, the federal government is proposing that DFO be required to consider whether proposed development projects give priority to the restoration of degraded fish habitats. In addition, the federal government is proposing to introduce a requirement to create and publish habitat restoration plans on a public registry after designating an area as ecologically significant where habitat restoration is needed. The Minister will also be given the ability to create regulations related to the restoration of fish habitat and the rebuilding of fish stocks.
  • Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples: The federal government has stated that proposed changes to the Fisheries Act will help to advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples by, among other things: (i) requiring consideration of traditional knowledge for habitat decisions and adverse effects on the rights of Indigenous peoples when making decisions under the Act; (ii) enabling agreements with Indigenous governing bodies to carry out the purposes of the Act; and (iii) introducing a modernized fish habitat protection program that would enhance partnering opportunities with Indigenous communities regarding the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat. It should be noted that DFO’s efforts to help advance reconciliation is taking place within the broader federal government review of laws and policies related to Indigenous peoples, which was initiated in February 2017.

DFO has prepared a comparison of the proposed changes, which is summarized below:

Before Proposed Amendments After Proposed Amendments
Not all fish and fish habitat protected; only those related to a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery protected.

 

Protection of all fish and fish habitat.

 

 

No explicit reference to consideration of the rights of Indigenous peoples, and their unique knowledge, to inform decision making.

 

 

Provided Indigenous traditional knowledge must inform habitat decisions.

Requirement to consider adverse effects of decisions on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

 

Ability to enter into certain agreements restricted to provinces and territories only.

 

Added ability to enter into agreements with Indigenous governing bodies as well as provinces and territories.

 

No provisions regarding the independence of inshore licence holders.

 

 

 

 

Provisions allowing for recognition of social, economic and cultural factors, as well as the preservation or promotion of the independence of licence holders in commercial inshore fisheries.

Enabling regulations to support independent inshore licence holders.

 

No tools to quickly implement in-season fisheries restrictions to address unforeseen conservation and management issues. Ability to put in place targeted short-term measures to quickly and effectively respond to unforeseen threats to the management of fisheries and to the conservation of fish.

 

Uncertainty as to when authorizations are required for development projects. Clarity on which types of projects require authorizations through permitting and codes of practice.

 

Lack of transparency regarding authorization decisions for projects; no requirement to publicly release information on these decisions.

 

Requirement to publicly release information on project decisions through an online registry.

 

 

No tools to address long-term marine conservation. Ability to create long-term area-based restrictions on fishing activities to protect marine biodiversity.

 

No specific provisions to address whales in captivity. A prohibition on fishing cetaceans with intent to take them into captivity unless authorized by the Minister in circumstances where the animal is injured, in distress or in need of care.

 

No legal requirements related to rebuilding fish stocks.

 

 

 

 

Minister must consider whether stock rebuilding measures are in place when making a fisheries management decision that would impact a depleted stock.

Enabling regulations respecting the rebuilding of fish stocks.

Antiquated provision for the management offences under the Fisheries Act, often leading to costly and long court processes.

 

Ability to address Fisheries Act offences outside of court using alternative measures agreements, which reduces costs and repeat offences.

 

No provisions to restore degraded habitat as part of development project reviews.

 

Provisions to consider restoration priorities as part of development project reviews.

 

Insufficient capacity to enforce provisions under the Act.

 

Enhanced enforcement and monitoring capacity on the water and for projects.

 

We will continue to monitor and provide commentary as the proposed amendment legislation makes its way through Parliament. DFO has indicated that regulations and policies are now being developed in consultation with Indigenous groups, provinces and stakeholders to support the implementation of the amendments. Like a lot of environmental legislation, the true impact of the new Fisheries Act will only be meaningfully gauged once its regulations are published.

 ____________________________  

To view original article, please click here.

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.

Photo Credit: Nature Canada

BC Seeks Feedback on Second Phase of the Spill Response Regime

WRITTEN BY:

Bennett Jones LLP

David Bursey, Radha Curpen, and Sharon Singh

[co-author: Charlotte Teal, Articling Student]

Phase-2 to BC’s Spill Response Regime

The British Columbia government is moving forward with the second phase of spill regulations, announcing further stakeholder engagement on important elements, such as spill response in sensitive areas and geographic response plans. The government will also establish an independent scientific advisory panel to recommend whether, and how, heavy oils (such as bitumen) can be safely transported and cleaned up. While the advisory panel is proceeding, the government is proposing regulatory restrictions on the increase of diluted bitumen (dilbit) transportation.

The second phase engagement process follows the first phase of regulatory overhaul introduced in October 2017, when the Province established higher standards for spill preparedness, response and recovery.

Photo Credit: Jonathan Hayward/Canadian Press

Feedback and Engagement

The Province is planning an intentions paper for the end of February 2018 that will outline the government’s proposed regulations and will be available for public comment.

In particular, the Province will seek feedback on:

  1. response times, to ensure timely responses to spills;
  2. geographic response plans, to ensure that resources are available to support an immediate response that account for the unique characteristics of sensitive areas;
  3. compensation for loss of public and cultural use of land, resources or public amenities in the case of spills;
  4. maximizing application of regulations to marine spills; and
  5. restrictions on the increase of dilbit transportation until the behaviour of spilled bitumen can be better understood and there is certainty regarding the ability to adequately mitigate spills.

What this means for industry

This second phase was planned follow up to the October 2017 regulations. Many of the proposed regulatory changes have been part of ongoing stakeholder discussions for the past few years. However, the prospect of permanent restrictions or a ban on the increased transportation of dilbit off the coast of B.C. and the prospect of further regulatory recommendations from the independent scientific advisory panel creates uncertainty for Canada’s oil sector.

The government’s emphasis on environmental concerns related to bitumen and its recent initiatives to restrict oil exports to allow time for more study of marine impacts will further fuel the national discourse on how to export Canada’s oil to international markets from the Pacific Coast.

____________________

This article was first published on the Bennett Jones LLP website.

About the Authors

Evolution of Emergency Management

by Lee Spencer, Spencer Emergency Management Consulting

You would have to be living under a rock to have not heard the resounding thud of the Ontario Auditor General’s report on the state of emergency management in Canada’s most populated province hitting the desks of the emergency management community in Canada (report) . I for one was not shocked by the findings and believe most jurisdictions in Canada would see similar criticism if subject to an OAG review.

For generations, provincial level emergency management has been an after thought.  Historically staffed by second career fire/police/military retirees who were expected to be seen and not heard.  These legacy EMOs were counted on to create order in the otherwise chaotic response phase of large scale disaster and otherwise quickly to be ignored again once the situation was restored and recovery programs began to hand out government grants.

After 9/11 it was clear to elected officials that the public had an expectation of the EMO cavalry galloping in to defeat any hazard, risk or terrorist.  But the costs and the growth that would be needed to meet that expectation could not compete with the schools, hospitals, roads and bridges built to ensure tangible things could be pointed to when an election rolled around.  After all the last thing most governments want claim at election time is they added more civil servants.

So in this era of increased public expectation, EMOs were given very little new resources to modernize and adapt to the new reality.  Provincial EMOs were left to the task of preparedness and response in the modern context with resources more suited to the National Survival primordial ooze from which provincial EMOs emerged.

I am hopeful that the public shaming of our most densely populated economic engine, will lead to a national discussion of the investment required to truly meet the realities and expectations of modern emergency management.There are already several emerging national strategies that will aid in this effort, Canada’s emerging Broadband Public Safety Network and the expanding National Public Alerting Systems are modern capabilities that will go a long way to enhance capacity at even the most modest EMO.

We are also starting to see an expansion in post secondary degrees and diplomas which will lead to firmly establishing emergency management as a profession in Canada.  These emerging professionals will eventually take over the leadership roles from folks like me (second career), bringing with them the education and experience to combine the historical EMOs with modern thinking.

I know my former colleagues in the EMO’s across Canada are shifting uncomfortably at there desks at the moment waiting for their own leaders to ask how they compare to Ontario.  It would seem to me that if your not uncomfortable you just don’t get it.

_____________

About the Author

 Lee Spencer is founder and President of Spencer Emergency Management Consulting.  The company is focused on the strategic integration of emergency management concepts towards an outcome of resilience within a community, business or government.

 

This article was first published Spencer Emergency Management Consulting e-blog site.

Avoiding Common Phase Two ESA Errors – Part 1

By: Bill Leedham, P.Geo, QP, CESA.

Previously I have written about common errors I have encountered in reviewing Phase One Environmental Site Assessment reports, now it’s time to focus on some of the commonplace mistakes I have seen in planning and conducting Phase Two ESAs.

A properly scoped Phase Two needs to be based on accurate site data, which should entail completing a thorough Phase One ESA to identify actual and potential environmental concerns. An incomplete or deficient Phase One ESA (or absence of any prior site assessment) can lead to un-investigated areas, unidentified contaminants, missed contamination, and costly oversights when it comes to completion of the Phase Two work. With the high costs of drilling, sampling and lab analyses – and the even higher costs of remediation; it is vital that the consultant knows where to look and what to look for, in any intrusive site investigation; which requires a diligent and comprehensive Phase One ESA to get it right.

Photo by Azad K. (Geo Forward Inc.)

A Phase Two ESA can be required for a variety of reasons; including transactional due diligence, litigation, remedial planning, and obtaining regulatory approvals. The consultant must know and understand all client and stakeholder objectives, as well as the local regulatory requirements.  Conducting a CSA-compliant Phase Two ESA when the Client is expecting ASTM protocols and the regulator requires a different legislation-specific format to support regulatory approval will lead to problems, delays, possible costs over-runs – and a very dissatisfied client.  Two-way communication and full understanding of the project before, during and after the Phase Two plays an important role in successful and timely project completion.

Once the project requirements are defined, a Sampling Plan must be developed to meet these requirements.  Too often, mistakes are made when the number and location of sampling points is underestimated, or improperly selected. The consultant must consider all the potentially impacted media to be sampled. This could include not just soil; but often groundwater, sediment, and surface water; and sometimes soil vapour, indoor air quality, and building materials.  Consideration of the frequency and extent of sampling is necessary to investigate all relevant media and to fully characterize the environmental condition of the Site.  Utilizing a Conceptual Site Model to consider the contaminant sources, migration pathways and potential receptors unique to the Phase Two property is a useful and too often under-used method of developing a suitable Sampling Plan.

Site specific conditions, access, logistics, safety and (unavoidable) budgetary considerations also play a huge part in properly scoping and conducting any successful Phase Two ESA, but these are all wide ranging topics to cover another day.  Next month I will discuss other methods to recognize and avoid common errors in field sampling.

 

About the Author

Bill is the Head Instructor and Course Developer for the Associated Environmental Site Assessors of Canada (AESAC); and the founder and President of Down 2 Earth Environmental Services Inc. You can contact Bill at info@down2earthenvironmental.ca

Transport Canada amends TDGR – Marine Requirements and other miscellaneous changes

As reported by the Compliance Center, the December 13, 2017 edition of the Canada Gazette II contains the expected rewrite of Part 11 “Marine” requirements of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDGR). In addition, there are related changes in other parts, as well as some unrelated miscellaneous changes in other areas.

Marine Amendment

The most wide-reaching change, although perhaps of relatively minor significance to the general regulated community, is the replacement of the term “ship” with “vessel”. This, among other changes, is to update the TDGR to current Canada Shipping Act (CSA, and related regulations) terminology. Many aspects of Part 11 related to the CSA had not been updated since 2008.

Note: Interestingly, the referenced definition of “vessel” in the CSA includes all “means of propulsion”:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.15/page-1.html#h-2

This differs from the TDGR definitions for road and rail vehicles which expressly exclude “muscle power” as a means of propulsion. 

Other definition changes include elimination of the reference to “short run ferry”, previously defined in TDGR Part 1.3 as operating between points “not more than 3 km apart”. TDGR 1.30 special case exemption now refers only to “Ferry,” but describes within the exemption that it’s applicable to operating between two points “not more than 5 km apart.

The definition of an “inland voyage” now cites the CSA Cargo, Fumigation and Tackle regulations (CFTR):
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2007-128/index.html

; which, in turn, defer to the Vessel Certificate regulations (VCR):
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2007-31/

Other aspects of dangerous goods vessel shipment are also found in these CSA regulations.

One more definition that’s been changed to a citation is the one for a roll-on/roll-off (ro-ro) ship. The vessel is still referred to as a “ship”- since the definition cites the IMDG Code. For those without ready access to the IMDG, the current Ed. 38-16 version reads, in Chapter 1.2 (s. 1.2.1 Definitions):

“…Ro-ro ship (roll-on/roll-off ship) means a ship which has one or more decks, either closed or open, not normally subdivided in any way and generally running the entire length of the ship, carrying goods which are normally loaded and unloaded in a horizontal direction.”

Additional requirements now apply also to ferries regarding passenger vessel limitations, location of shipping documents and incident reporting.

Vessel Restrictions & Exemptions

Schedule 1 Column 8 restrictions regarding carrying DG on passenger vessels is further clarified by TDGR Part 1 sections 1.6 and new special case 1.10.

Gasoline and propane now have a Part 1 special case exemption 1.30.1 to facilitate fuel deliveries and reduce the need for equivalency certificates.

UN3156 is also now permitted in 25 L quantities on passenger vessels.

Mercurous chloride (calomel) is no longer included in the s. 1.46 special case exemption list.

The requirement to mark the flash point on packages with Class 3 contents (s. 4.13) has been removed as it was never an IMDG requirement.

IMDG v. TDGR

Additionally, the often-confusing reference to “Home Trade Voyages” in determining the applicability of the IMDG Code, versus the “standard” TDGR extension of ground requirements, has been replaced by a direct, simplified explanation. Voyages where the vessel (oops – I almost said ship!) is within 120 nautical miles – i.e. 222 km- from shore are considered non-IMDG unless the vessel travels south of the ports of New York or Portland, Oregon, or to another foreign destination. Thus, vessel transport of dangerous goods to St. Pierre and Miquelon (territories of France), despite being within 20 km or so from Newfoundland, require compliance with IMDG.

Inland (mostly “fresh water”) voyages between Canada and other countries – e.g. Great Lakes or rivers to the US – remain excluded from mandatory IMDG compliance. Conversely, vessels registered in Canada but transporting between two foreign destinations, remain under IMDG requirements.

Other Amendments

Changes not directly related to Part 11 topics include correction of some typographical and miscellaneous errors in the TDGR or website html information.

Examples include re-entering the PG II information for UN1790, UN2734 on the website; editing SP 159 to clarify that the new Class 9 Lithium Battery label illustration is only used for labels and not used for placarding purposes – standard Class 9 placards are used (as is the case in air, ocean and US 49 CFR); and updating ICAO references in Part 12.

The Table in 5.16 has been repealed due to the updates in the referenced CSA standards.

Transition:

The changes are effective as of the December 13th CG II publication date and have a transition period of 6 months for mandatory implementation. The CGII document which includes a discussion of the changes in the RIAS (Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement) is found at:

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2017/2017-12-13/html/sor-dors253-eng.html

 

Brownfield Redevelopment in Western New York

As reported in the Buffalo Law Journal/Buffalo Business First, Gov. Andrew Cuomo designated four Brownfield Opportunity Areas in Buffalo last month, providing another tool for area stakeholders to have the areas developed.

He designated areas in South Buffalo, the Buffalo Harbor, the Buffalo river corridor and the Tonawanda Street corridor.

“These designations will equip Buffalo officials with tools and resources needed to carry out their vision of community revitalization and help turn these blighted properties back into economic engines,” he said. “This is one more reason why Buffalo remains a city on the move.”

Before the designation, the city had to submit plans for the areas, said Michael Hecker, senior associate at Hodgson Russ. “The goal is to find these areas and figure out a way for the state to work with them to help them with long-term planning on how to redevelop the sites.”

It’s a three-step grant process to determine how to revitalize a brownfield area, Hecker said.

“The first step is a pre-nomination study,” he said. “The second is step is nomination and the third is implementation strategy.”

South Buffalo Brownfield Opportunity Area (Credit: Buffalo Urban Development Corporation)

In the pre-nomination phase, a municipality and associated groups look at an area that may have an issue and explore ways to revitalize the area. In the nomination process, funding sources are considered, as well as market trends. And in the third step, implementation of the plan is identified and there’s a thorough accounting of funding sources.

“It’s a wholesome package that the state has developed as a basis to spur economic development,” Hecker said.

The three steps are completed through the New York State Department of State. Once the governor designates a brownfield opportunity area, various programs can lead to more state benefits.

“If you do your redevelopment project through a BOA, there are additional tax credits available,” Hecker said.

“It’s basically the governor recognizing that these areas have spent the time and focus on an economic redevelopment strategy and they should qualify for additional credits to spur redevelopment in these areas.”

He said the designations fit in with the city’s Green Code under Mayor Byron Brown.

“(BOAs) are a central component of our city’s Green Code initiative and my administration’s place-based economic development strategy,” Brown said in a statement.

“The State’s approval of the BOAs, created by the city of Buffalo with significant public input, places Buffalo at the forefront of brownfield redevelopment nationally and will further enhance Buffalo’s ability to compete for investment, bringing new life to even more neighborhoods by making use of underutilized properties that create jobs for city residents.”

Some of the areas will need to go through remediation in order to be redeveloped, according to Hecker. For instance, the South Buffalo Brownfield Opportunity Area, which consists of approximately 1,968 acres in an area that was once heavily industrialized by the steel industry, has sites that will require remediation.

Plans for that site include a nine-hole golf course, indoor and outdoor recreation and expansion of the Tifft Nature Preserve.

The Buffalo River Corridor Brownfield Opportunity Area also has long-standing contamination issues. It’s made up of 1,050 acres in the Old First Ward, containing 58 possible brownfield sites.

“One of the main areas of that project is restoration and enhancement of the environmental quality of the river and enhancing waterfront access,” Hecker said.

“Buffalo is lucky in the fact that it has an unbelievable natural resource with water access. Over the last 10 to 15 years, you’ve definitely seen an enhanced focus on trying to leverage that natural resource to be an economic driver. I think the city, to its credit, has done a very good job of doing that. This is just another option for them to utilize that program to benefit it.”

The Buffalo Harbor Brownfield Opportunity Area is 1,045 acres, with six brownfield sites. The area includes waterfront space at both the Inner and Outer harbors.

Assemblyman Sean Ryan said BOA designation will help with future waterfront development.

“Investing in environmental remediation prepares our communities for revitalization and renewed economic activity,” Ryan said. “Contaminated sites along our waterfront have made progress difficult over the years.”

The Tonawanda Street Corridor Brownfield Opportunity Area is 650 acres containing 46 potential brownfield sites. Plans include reconstruction of the Scajaquada Expressway and restoration of Scajaquada Creek.

Hecker said the designated areas represent places where longtime residents can see the potential benefit to redevelopment.

“One of the interesting things to me about these projects is that they really are fully integrated community projects,” he said.

Brownfield funding is available at the federal level through the Environmental Protection Agency, as well, Hecker said.

While the Trump administration has pared back the EPA, Administrator Scott Pruitt has said that brownfields would remain a priority to the agency.

“There hasn’t been any change in that area,” Hecker said.

Pruitt is focused on shifting the responsibility for contaminated sites to states, Hecker said.

“(Pruitt) wants states to work together with the federal government in a limited capacity to manage these things on their own,” he said.

“From a standpoint of economic development, especially with President Trump’s focus on infrastructure, I don’t think this is going to be a major issue unless there are further cuts in the budget. That remains to be seen.”

Canada: Courts Struggle to Mix Bankruptcy and Environmental Law – SCC To Hear Redwater Appeal

Article by John GeorgakopoulosGiselle Davidian and Serin Remedios

Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) granted leave to hear the appeal of Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited.1 The SCC will reconsider whether trustees and receivers in bankruptcy must remediate wells in priority to the claims of secured creditors.

In April 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal released its decision in Redwater.2 The Court found that the Government of Alberta’s environmental orders for oil well remediation did not have priority over secured creditors in bankruptcy proceedings.

In upholding the lower court’s decision, set out in our previous update, the Court of Appeal added to the “untidy intersection” between bankruptcy proceedings and provincial environmental law. Both Courts concluded that receivers and trustees were permitted to renounce an insolvent debtor’s interest in its licensed assets while selling valuable licensed assets to maximize recovery for secured creditors.

The decision, as it stands, allows receivers and trustees in bankruptcy to disclaim unprofitable assets and not be required to fulfill certain environmental obligations associated with those disclaimed assets.

Recap

The case revolves around the assets of a junior, insolvent oil and gas producer, Redwater Energy Corporation (Redwater).

Orphan Oil Well

When Redwater’s primary secured creditor began enforcement proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA), Grant Thornton Limited (GTL) was appointed as receiver and trustee.3 Several of Redwater’s oil wells had costs of remediation exceeding the value of the wells. GTL took control of only 20 of 127 Redwater’s assets and disclaimed the oil wells that had onerous environmental abandonment costs.

Alberta oil and gas legislation requires licensees, including trustees, to comply with “end-of-life” rules for oil wells. Where no one is financially capable of remediating and abandoning a well, the well is designated an “orphan well” under Alberta’s Oil and Gas Conservation Act (OGCA).4/em>

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) ordered GTL to remediate the disclaimed oil wells before distributing funds to creditors. When GTL indicated that it did not intend to remediate the wells, AER and the Orphan Well Association (OWA) brought applications asking the court to void GTL’s disclaimer of the non-producing wells and order GTL to comply with AER’s orders. AER argued that Redwater’s insolvency and bankruptcy did not affect Redwater’s environmental obligations and that GTL was legally required to discharge those obligations before paying Redwater’s creditors.

GTL brought a cross-application challenging the constitutionality of AER’s stance on GTL’s environmental obligations and seeking approval of the sale of Redwater’s valuable wells.

At issue was whether AER’s orders were provable claims in bankruptcy and therefore subject to bankruptcy proceedings. If AER’s orders were subject to bankruptcy proceedings, other creditor’s claims would take priority. The practical outcome being that the corporation would likely have no means of satisfying its environmental obligations after settling its obligations to other creditors. The cost of remediating the orphan wells would then fall on the Government of Alberta.

As we previously reported, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench concluded that the applicable sections of the OGCA and Pipeline Act (PA) frustrate the federal purpose of the BIA of managing the winding up of insolvent corporations and settling the priority of claims against them. Based on the doctrine of paramountcy, the OGCA and PA were inoperable to the extent that they conflicted with section 14.06 of the BIA. This section of the BIA exempts a receiver or trustee from personal liability, allowing a trustee and receiver to disclaim assets, and prescribes the priority of environmental remediation costs.

OWRA and AER appealed the decision.

Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decision. The key issue on appeal was the priority and treatment of environmental claims in bankruptcy, and whether environmental claims were provable claims under section 14.06 of the BIA.

Priority and Treatment of Environmental Claims in Bankruptcy

The Court found that the BIA was amended in 1997 to specifically address environmental claims. The BIA now incorporates environmental claims into the general bankruptcy process, rather than exempting them. Following the test set out in Newfoundland and Labrador v AbitibiBowater Inc., the Alberta Court of Appeal found that AER’s orders were subject to bankruptcy proceedings.5 By refusing to permit the transfer of Redwater’s valuable assets unless funds were set aside for remediation, AER reduced the environmental obligations to “sufficiently certain” monetary claims. Accordingly, AER cannot indirectly interfere with the value of assets in a bankruptcy by placing financial preconditions on the transfer of AER licences.

Constitutional Law Issue

The Court of Appeal held that there was an operational conflict between federal and provincial regimes. The Court found that the provincial regulatory scheme frustrated the purposes of the BIA, which include determining the priority of claims against insolvent corporations. The practical outcome being that GTL did not have to comply with AER’s remediation obligations prior to settling claims of secured creditors.

Nortel and Northstar

The dissenting opinion briefly considered the two leading cases in Ontario on environmental claims in bankruptcy and insolvency: Nortel Networks Corporation (Re) and Northstar Aerospace Inc. (Re).6 In Nortel, the Court found that some of the Ministry of the Environment’s (MOE, as it then was) orders had priority over creditor claims, but in Northstar, the Court found that the MOE’s orders did not have priority.

Implications

The practical implications of Redwater may be far reaching not only for the worlds of bankruptcy & insolvency and oil & gas, but also for the world of director and officer liability.

Will we see more Alberta provincial environmental orders aimed at former directors and officers? In Northstar, after the Court found the MOE’s orders did not have super priority in insolvency proceedings, the MOE issued a remediation order personally against the former directors and officers.7

We will look to the SCC to provide clarity on this important, albeit untidy, area of law.

Footnotes

1 2017 ABCA 124 [Redwater].

2 Ibid.

3 RSC 1985, c B-3 [BIA].

4 Redwater at para 21; Oil and Gas Conservation Act RSA 2000, c O-6, s 70 [OGCA].

5 2012 SCC 67.

6 Nortel Networks Corporation (Re), 2013 ONCA 599 [Nortel]; Northstar Aerospace Inc. (Re), 2013 ONCA 600 [Northstar].

7 Northstar Aerospace, Inc. (Re), 2012 ONSC 4423. Subsequently, on November 14, 2012, the MOE issued a Director’s Order against the former directors and officers personally.

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

John Georgakopoulos resolves complex environmental legal issues for clients, uniquely drawing on his technical knowledge as a former senior environmental scientist with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. John is called to the bars of Ontario and Alberta.

Giselle Davidian is an associate lawyer practicing in the areas of environmental law, environmental litigation, energy and natural resource law and Aboriginal law.  Giselle draws upon her technical knowledge as a former environmental scientist at a consulting engineering firm to help clients meet their goals.  Giselle is fluent in French and Armenian and has a working knowledge of Italian.  Giselle is called to the bar of Ontario.

Serin Remedios is an associate lawyer practicing environmental litigation as well as environmental, Aboriginal, northern and energy law.  Serin’s past experience in environmental science helps her understand clients’ problems and assist them in meeting their goals.  Serin is called to the bar in Ontario.

This article was first published in the Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP website.

Innovations in Pipeline Design: Leak-proof technology

By Dema Mamon, M.Sc.Pl, BES and John Nicholson, M.Sc., P.Eng.

In Canada, getting approval to construct an oil pipeline has become increasingly difficult. Despite the fact that new, advanced software has led to more sophisticated caesar piping, in Canada every oil pipeline incident that involves a leak and subsequent clean-up is widely covered in the media, providing fuel for pipeline opponents that call an end to the construction of new pipelines.

Abacus Data Inc., an Ottawa-based research firm, has been tracking public opinion on the construction of new pipeline capacity and has found some interesting trends. Since 2014, polling has shown that the negative view of building new oil pipelines has remained steady at 21 to 22% range. However, there was a drop in the positive attitude amongst Canadians toward building new pipelines – from 58% in 2014 to 44% in 2017. Over that three year span, a good proportion of Canadians who once viewed building new pipeline capacity with a positive attitude have shifted to a neutral view, which will have a pipe heater around the majority of them to reduce heating. The neutral view on oil pipelines has grown from 20% in 2014 to 36% in 2017.

There can be many theories to explain the three year shift in public opinion on new oil pipelines. One plausible theory is that oil spills from pipelines typically make headline news, thus leaving an impression in the minds of Canadians the perhaps pipelines are not as safe as the industry states. Oil leaks from pipelines damage the environment, are costly to clean-up, and fuel public opinion that pipelines are not safe. To prevent future spillages and oil theft, the use of something like bunded fuel tanks would be a good place to start, especially since they are environmentally friendly. Anything worth saving the planet and preventing damage is worth doing for sure.

One way to eliminate the perception that building new oil pipelines is bad for the environment and shift public opinion in favour of such projects is to build pipelines that don’t leak. However, is it even possible to build leak-proof pipelines?

Are Double-Walled Pipelines the Answer?

One logical idea for building leak-proof pipelines is for them to be double-walled. The outer wall would serve as protection from external damage. The technology does exist to construct double-walled pipelines and they are used in certain circumstances such as when there is a large temperature difference between the liquid in the pipe and the surrounding environment.

Double-walled pipelines are not considered the cure-all by some in the industry. Those resistant to the use of double-walled pipelines note that in some instances, it may be more cost effective to protect pipelines from the potential of external damage by burying them or placing slabs over them in higher risk areas. Furthermore, it can be more difficult to monitor a double-walled pipeline and an outer pipe interferes with the maintenance of the inner pipe.

At the University of Calgary, researchers believe their two-walled pipeline design and monitoring system is the solution to preventing spills. Although double-walled pipelines have been around since the 1980’s, Thiago Valentin de Oliveira, an electrical and computer-engineering master’s student, and Martin Mintchev, an engineering professor, say that their design is superior.

The U of Calgary researchers designed and constructed their prototype to consist of a typical steel inner layer with either a steel or plastic outer layer. There is an air gap between inner and outer pipeline contains the oil that leaks from the inner pipeline leak. The real innovation developed by the U of Calgary is the segmentation of the inter-pipe space and the inclusion of a linear wireless network linking the segments. With the segmentation, a leak of oil from the inner pipe enters the air gap between the two pipes and is contained in a section of pipe. Wireless pressure sensors between the two walled layers detect the pressure build up and send an alert to the pipeline control staff.

If commercially implemented, the U of Calgary system would allow pipeline operators with the means of quickly shutting down the pipeline when a leak was detected into the outer pipeline and crews could be dispatched to make repairs. The oil that leaked from the inner pipe would be contained in the air gap between the two pipes and be confined to one section of the pipeline.

The U of Calgary researchers estimate that their design would result in an additional 25% in the capital cost of building pipelines. They believe this cost could be reduced if the outer pipeline material was composite materials or plastic.

Is Advanced Monitoring the Solution?

Also in Alberta, a Calgary-based firm, HiFi Engineering, recently announced that it has developed an innovative pipeline leak detection system. Dubbed High-Fidelity Dynamic Sensing (HDS™), the monitoring system can spot the exact location of a leak in a pipeline within seconds of it occurring. The system continuously monitors temperature, sonic and ultrasonic acoustics, and vibration and strain. Any anomaly in the measurements results in an alert being sent to the pipeline company control room.

Hifi Engineering’s High Fidelity Dynamic Sensing (HDS) technology is being called the ‘ears of pipeline monitoring.’

The system works utilizing fiber optic cables that run the length of the pipeline. A laser beam is sent down the length of the optic cable and sends signals back that provide a multitude of information to the pipeline control room.

TransCanada Pipelines Corporation has already installed the HiFi HDS™ monitoring system in sections of the Keystone XL oil pipeline that runs from Canada to the U.S. Also, Enbridge employs the technology in its new northern Alberta pipeline.

_____________________

About the Authors

Dema is a graduate of York University’s Bachelor in Environmental Studies program (2008) and the University of Toronto’s Masters of Science in Planning Programme (2010). She is currently pursuing her Canada Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design’s Green Associate certification. Her research interests include environmental conservation, green infrastructure, and sustainability. She can be reached at dema.mamon@gmail.com.

John Nicholson is the editor of Hazmat Management Magazine. He has over 25 years of experience in the environmental and cleantech sectors. He is a registered professional engineer in the Province of Ontario and has a M.Sc. in environmental engineering. His professional experience includes time at a large engineering consulting firm, a major Canadian law firm, and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

Top 10 Questions to Consider If Sued under U.S. RCRA’s Citizen Suit Provisions

by Beveridge & Diamond PC

No longer only a tool of public interest groups, an ever-expanding group of plaintiffs – including commercial plaintiffs – are using the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6972, to address alleged regulatory violations, seek cleanup of wastes alleged to be causing an imminent and substantial endangerment, and pursue fee awards. In addition, RCRA citizen suits have moved beyond traditional allegations of subsurface wastes migrating to soil and groundwater, and may include claims such as vapor intrusion. In light of this diversified landscape of plaintiffs and media, defendants should consider the following key questions when sued under RCRA’s citizen suit provisions.

  1. Do deficiencies in plaintiff’s pre-suit notice provide grounds for dismissal?

RCRA requires 60-day notice for suits brought under § 6972(a)(1)(A) (violation of specific RCRA requirement), and 90-day notice for suits brought under § 6972(a)(1)(B) (imminent and substantial endangerment). RCRA provides an exception for the notice period for citizen suits alleging violations of Subtitle C hazardous waste management provisions, which can be filed immediately after providing notice. The notice requirement reflects the preference for the government to take the lead enforcement role (rather than citizens), and serves to provide the defendant with adequate information to understand basis of the citizen suit. Evaluate whether the notice satisfies the statutory requirements of § 6972(b), and if applicable, the regulatory requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 254.3. If not, consider a motion to dismiss. Courts routinely dismiss RCRA citizen suits for failure to meet these requirements. In addition, check the law in your jurisdiction for other notice-based grounds for a motion to dismiss. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed dismissal where plaintiff’s notice only identified waste practices, but did not identify the specific contaminants at issue. Dismissal due to lack of notice typically is without prejudice to refile after proper notice is given, but dismissal may provide strategic or procedural advantages.

  1. Has plaintiff alleged an injury sufficient to satisfy constitutional standing requirements?

A plaintiff must meet the standing requirements of Article III of the U.S. Constitution in order to have standing to sue in federal court. An invasion of a concrete and particularized legally protected interest that is actual or imminent is required to establish standing; the injury may not be conjectural, hypothetical, or too temporally remote. In the RCRA context, standing defenses can be asserted, for example, where there are allegations of an injury to property the plaintiff no longer owns, where the claimed injury is based on future, speculative development plans, or a corporation claims its aesthetic interests have been injured. In such situations, an early motion for summary judgment may expose a plaintiff’s inability to show actual harm, although plaintiffs’ claims of standing are often viewed liberally.

  1. Is plaintiff’s claimed injury redressible by RCRA?

An injury must also be redressible for a plaintiff to have constitutional standing. RCRA provides only forward-looking injunctive relief; not monetary compensation for past costs. Accordingly, suits seeking such compensation are not redressible under RCRA, and thus lack standing. Additionally, where a remediation plan is in place and cleanup is ongoing, the plaintiff may lack an injury needing redress because a court cannot order superfluous relief.

  1. Is there government action that bars the suit?

Certain RCRA citizen suits are barred where the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) or the state is “diligently prosecuting” a RCRA or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) action. Plaintiffs have the burden of proving that prosecution is not diligent. This burden is heavy as a presumption of diligence attaches to government prosecution of actions; complaints about the government’s prosecution schedule or strategy generally will not suffice in themselves. Some courts have found that consent decrees and their enforcement amount to diligent prosecution.

  1. Is there an action under CERCLA that bars the suit?

Certain CERCLA removal and remedial actions will bar a RCRA citizen suit. These CERCLA actions include: (i) state or federal government engagement in a CERCLA § 104 removal action; (ii) federal or state government incurrence of costs to initiate a CERCLA § 104 remedial investigation/feasibility study (“RI/FS”) combined with diligent remedial action; and (iii) a court order (including a consent decree) or an administrative order under CERCLA § 106 or RCRA § 7003, pursuant to which a responsible party is “diligently” conducting a removal action, RI/FS, or a remedial action. RCRA suits are also precluded if they “challenge” a removal or remedial action selected under CERCLA § 104. Courts generally find any actions consistent with initial investigations, monitoring, initial clean up, or negotiation or entry of a consent decree will constitute a CERCLA removal action sufficient to preclude a RCRA claim. Remedial actions barring RCRA claims generally consists of those actions consistent with the permanent remedy.

  1. Is the plaintiff alleging entirely past regulatory violations, or violations of superseded federal regulations?

Many RCRA citizen suits concern activities that occurred several decades ago. If a suit alleges regulatory violations based on claims of entirely past conduct (i.e., the violations are not ongoing), such claims should be dismissed. Courts have also ruled that a plaintiff may not bring suit to enforce federal RCRA regulations where they have been superseded by an authorized state program. (However, suits seeking enforcement of state regulations issued pursuant to a state program

authorized under RCRA are typically allowed to proceed in federal court). All claims of regulatory violations should be scrutinized in light of these simple arguments, which can be applied to quickly narrow the claims in a RCRA citizen suit.

  1. Do primary jurisdiction or abstention doctrines provide grounds for a stay, or dismissal?

The doctrines of primary jurisdiction and abstention have seen success as defenses to RCRA citizen suits in some jurisdictions. Abstention doctrines arise out of concern for the proper jurisdictional balance between state and federal courts, and can provide a basis for dismissal of a federal court complaint. Defendants in RCRA citizen suits most frequently invoke the doctrine known as Burford abstention, which applies in situations where a federal suit will interfere with a state administrative agency’s resolution of difficult and consequential questions of state law or policy doctrine. While some courts have rejected the application of Burford abstention to RCRA citizen suits, the argument has seen more consistent success in suits challenging agency permitting, licensing or siting decisions under state law.

Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, a federal court may stay proceedings where a claim involves issues within the special competence of an administrative body. Primary jurisdiction has been found applicable where: a consent order with the state completely overlapped with the relief sought by plaintiff’s RCRA claims; where EPA investigation and remediation had been diligent and ongoing for many years, and injunctive relief ordered by court could be conflicting; and where a state agency had extensive involvement in addressing alleged contamination and federal court intervention could result in delay of state agency response or substantial duplication of effort. Courts have been willing to apply primary jurisdiction to stay (or even dismiss) RCRA suits to allow these types of administrative activities to run their course.

  1. If plaintiff has alleged an endangerment to health or the environment, is it imminent?

To prevail on the merits of a RCRA citizen suit, a plaintiff must establish that an endangerment to human health or the environment is “imminent.” The Supreme Court has ruled that “[a]n endangerment can only be ‘imminent’ if it ‘threatens to occur immediately,’ and the reference to waste which ‘may present’ imminent harm quite clearly excludes waste that no longer presents such a danger.” Imminence may be absent where the endangerment is premised on speculative development plans or contingencies, where there is no exposure pathway (e.g., a claim of endangerment to human health based on alleged groundwater contamination, where groundwater is not used for drinking), or remediation has occurred, and to the extent waste remains, it no longer poses a risk. Imminence can be found lacking in these types of fact patterns, notwithstanding the presence of contamination.

will not likely be met. Risk assessments may also be very useful in showing the absence of a substantial risk, and defendants should evaluate the relative risks and benefits of performing such an assessment. For example, in a recent case alleging vapor intrusion, a risk assessment showed that the alleged vapor levels were many magnitudes below risk thresholds, and even below the risk presented by the same contaminants present in ambient (outdoor) air.

  1. If plaintiff has alleged an endangerment, is it substantial?

If a plaintiff cannot show that an alleged endangerment is imminent, it follows that it that RCRA’s substantiality requirement will not likely be met. Risk assessments may also be very useful in showing the absence of a substantial risk, and defendants should evaluate the relative risks and benefits of performing such an assessment. For example, in a recent case alleging vapor intrusion, a risk assessment showed that the alleged vapor levels were many magnitudes below risk thresholds, and even below the risk presented by the same contaminants present in ambient (outdoor) air.

  1. Can you recover your attorneys’ fees?

Although the majority of fee awards under RCRA are for plaintiffs, fee awards have been granted to defendants, especially where the suit was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or where the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so. Don’t overlook other bases for fees as well. If there is a contractual relationship with the plaintiff (for example, as is common between successive property owners), all contracts should be reviewed for any applicable fee shifting provisions.

In conclusion, if sued under RCRA’s citizen suit provision, consider whether these common defenses or fact patterns apply. Defenses based on notice, standing, or governmental action can provide an early and cost-effective dismissal of the case. Facts showing, for example, speculative alleged endangerment or lack of an exposure pathway should be explored fully in discovery, as they can provide effective defenses on the merits.

_____________________________

Beveridge & Diamond holds a United States nationwide Tier 1 ranking for Environmental Litigation in U.S. News/Best Lawyers. The Firm’s litigators perform trial and appellate work in enforcement defense (civil and criminal), citizen suit defense, rulemaking challenges and defenses, and private litigation under all major federal and state environmental laws.  For more information about our experience defending RCRA citizen suits, please contact Harold L. Segall (+1.202.789.6038, hsegall@bdlaw.com) or Bina R. Reddy (+1.512.391.8045, breddy@bdlaw.com).

This update is not intended as, nor is it a substitute for, legal advice. You should consult with legal counsel for advice specific to your circumstances. This communication may be considered lawyer advertising.

This article was first published on the Beveridge & Diamond website.