New U.S. EPA e-Manifesting System Took Effect June 30th

By Laura Ragozzino, Cohen & Grigsby P.C.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) launched its new Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest (“e-Manifest”) System on June 30, 2018. The new requirements impact all U.S. companies that handle waste requiring a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) manifest, a regulated universe that includes approximately 150,000 entities across at least 45 industry segments. Under the new rules, regulated waste handlers will need to use the new paper or electronic EPA manifest form and waste receiving facilities will have to submit the new manifests to the e-Manifesting system, incurring a processing fee.

The goal of the new e-Manifesting system is to reduce costs and improve regulatory oversight and data quality. The EPA estimates that the manual processing and documentation of paper manifests costs regulators and companies $193 million to $400 million annually.

RCRA is the federal law that creates the framework for managing hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste. Since 1980, the EPA has required a RCRA manifest, a multi-copy paper form, to track hazardous waste from the time it leaves the generating facility until it reaches the off-site waste management facility that will store, treat, or dispose of it. The manifest helps the EPA verify proper waste handling.

E-Manifest requirements are effective in all states on June 30, 2018. These requirements apply to domestic hazardous waste (as defined at the federal and state level) and state-only regulated waste subject under state law to RCRA hazardous waste manifesting. The e-Manifesting system is a product of the 2012 Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act and subsequent February 2014 and January 2018 final rulemakings. Starting June 30, receiving facilities are required to submit copies, whether electronic or paper, of RCRA waste manifests to the EPA within 30 days of receipt. Receiving facilities will also incur a processing fee for manifest submittal. In three years, paper manifests will be phased out of use.

The new requirements fall under RCRA enforcement policy. Noncompliance with RCRA, including improper manifesting, exposes waste handers to substantial civil penalties.

Before this e-Manifesting system’s implementation, shipments of waste across state borders could create jurisdictional issues for states with enhanced regulatory requirements. Some states impose manifesting requirements that are more stringent than RCRA’s rules, or define hazardous waste more broadly than under RCRA. When waste generated in these more stringent states was disposed of in less stringent states, the generating state lacked the ability to enforce the receipt of manifest copies from out-of-state receiving facilities. For example, if a disposal site in Ohio received waste oil from Connecticut that was classified as hazardous under Connecticut law but not classified as hazardous under Ohio law, then the Ohio disposal facility may or may not have submitted the manifest to Connecticut, and Connecticut did not have the ability to enforce its collection.

Now, under the 2012 Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, federal and state regulators can access complete cradle-to-grave waste manifesting records from the e-Manifest system because submitting manifests is compulsory. For example, as of June 30, 2018, if a disposal site in Ohio receives waste oil from Connecticut that is classified as hazardous under Connecticut law but not classified as hazardous under Ohio law, then the Ohio disposal facility must submit the manifest to the e-Manifest system, even if Ohio law does not require such submittal.

On or after June 30, waste generators, transporters, receivers, and disposers of waste regulated by the new regulations must track the waste on the new paper or electronic manifest, U.S. EPA Form 8700-22, and submit the manifest to the e-Manifest system. The EPA granted an initial extension of the 30-day manifest-receipt deadline for paper manifests received from June 30, 2018 through September 1, 2018. With this extension, receiving facilities may submit those manifests on or before September 30, 2018.

What Generators and Transporters Need to Know

Waste handling facilities should review the waste and manifest requirements that pertain to their business. It is important to understand the laws and regulations of the generating and receiving state. Any waste defined as hazardous by the generating or receiving state, or any waste requiring tracking on a RCRA manifest (i.e., a hazardous waste manifest), is subject to the e-Manifesting requirements.

Generators have the option to create and submit manifests electronically or to submit paper manifests to the e-Manifest system. The existing 6-copy manifest is being replaced with a new 5-copy form that must be ordered from a registered printer.

What Receiving and Disposal Facilities Need to Know

The new manifesting requirements will impact both RCRA-permitted disposal facilities (i.e., Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (“TSDFs”)) and non-TSDFs when such facilities receive waste that is either (1) non-hazardous but requires a RCRA manifest, or (2) is hazardous under the generating state’s laws and regulations. Therefore, the new e-Manifesting system extends the scope of regulatory obligations under federal law even if the law of the receiving state does not require a RCRA manifest for the waste at issue.

Receiving and disposal facilities must submit all RCRA manifests, paper or electronic, to the EPA. Receiving facilities need to obtain an EPA Identification number to use the e-Manifest system. To obtain an EPA ID number, facilities must submit EPA’s Site Identification form (U.S. EPA form 8700-12). EPA will charge receiving facilities a fee for each manifest submitted. Fees, which are differentiated based on how the manifest is submitted, are projected to range from $4 to $20. Late payments are subject to interest penalties.

EPA Resources:

This article was first published at the Cohen & Grigsby website.  To help its clients better understand the most efficient and cost-effective means of compliance, Cohen & Grigsby will continue to monitor this issue. If you have any questions, please contact Laura Ragozzino at (412) 297-4713 or lragozzino@cohenlaw.com.

________________________________

About the Author

Laura Ragozzino is regulatory compliance and environmental attorney for Cohen & Grigsby P.C.  She practices out of the firm’s Pittsburgh offices.

Ms. Ragozzino is an energetic counselor with proven success mitigating compliance risk. She practices in the areas of administrative law, energy law, EHS law, and government and regulatory affairs. She is passionate about building a compliance culture based on mutual respect for engineering, operations, and the regulations that govern their activities.

Ms. Ragozzino manages complex issues with federal, state, and local agencies to achieve results exceeding her business clients’ expectations. She brings creative, detail-oriented, and tactical thinking to the table to find effective and appropriate compliance solutions across industry sectors.

Nova Scotia Homeowner Fined for not Investigating Leaking UST

The Nova Scotia Department of the Environment recently fined a homeowner in Sydney (located on Cape Breton Island) with failing to obtain the services of a site professional to determine whether a leaking oil tank had caused contamination.

The regulator had issued two directives to the homeowner prior to filing the charge in court.  The amount of the fine was $350.  The homeowner has been given two years to complete any necessary remediation on his property.

The Nova Scotia Department of the Environment Homeowner Guide to Heating Oil and Tank Systems provides information on how homeowners can lessen the environmental risk posed by above-ground heating oil tanks.  The Province also has a Domestic Fuel Oil Spill Policy.

Fuel oil tanks owned by homeowners can leak and cause environmental damage (Photo Credit: NACHI.org)

Unsafe Levels of Contamination found in Edmonton Neighbourhood

As reported in the Edmonton Journal, unsafe levels of hazardous chemicals were found in unoccupied land near the property that was previously occupied by a wood treatment plant site.  However, the analytical results from soil samples taken from residential properties in the vicinity of the plant found no hazardous chemicals in the top level of soil.

An Alberta Health official recently stated that soil testing has been completed in the Verte-Homesteader community — located near the former Domtar wood treatment facility.

Workers drill core samples in a contaminated parcel of land at the old wood treatment plant site in Edmonton, June 28, 2018. (Photo Credit: Kaiser/Postmedia)

“The results show no issues in the surface soil of any of the homeowners’ properties, but there were four areas of unoccupied land in the southeast corner of the neighbourhood where chemicals were found above health guidelines and that area is now being fenced off,” spokesman Cam Traynor said in an email.

A map showed two tests in the soon-to-be-fenced area exceeded human health guidelines for dioxins and furans.

In the spring, about 140 homeowners near the site of the former wood treatment plant at 44 Street and Yellowhead Trail were warned soil and groundwater in the area was contaminated with a list of potentially cancer-causing substances.

Officials said no contaminants were known to be in residential areas.

From 1924 to 1987, the land was the site of a plant in which toxic chemicals were used to treat railroad ties, poles, posts and lumber. Parts of the property are now a housing development.

The site’s current owners and developers, 1510837 Alberta Ltd. and Cherokee Canada Inc., were ordered to build a fence around the contaminated land to reduce potential health risks earlier this year.  Cherokee Canada did not immediately respond to a request from the Edmonton Journal.

Alberta Environment and Parks also directed the companies, including former owner Domtar, to take environmental samples and create plans to remove contaminants and conduct human health risk assessments. The orders also affected a greenbelt southeast of the site currently owned by the City of Edmonton.

The recently completed testing covered the top one-third of a metre of soil. Traynor said deeper soil testing in the broader area is ongoing. That work, along with a human health risk assessment, is expected to be completed this fall.

The National Brownfield Summit – A Brief Recap

By David Nguyen – Staff Writer

This year’s conference is about charting the future of the CBN. (Image from CBN).

On June 13, 2018, The Canadian Brownfields Network (CBN) held their 8th annual conference, taking the form of a National Brownfield Summit. This year also marks the 15th anniversary of the 2003 National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy report, and the cornerstone of this year’s summit was to revisit the original report and reflect on the progress since then, as well as the challenges that still need to be addressed.

Keynote Speaker

After an introduction by president Grant Walsom, the conference began with the keynote speaker Marlene Coffey, Executive Director of the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, who spoke about previous examples of the developments on Brownfields, including housing developed on a Goodyear Tires site, or the Vancouver Olympic village or Toronto Pan American housing facilities.

She spoke of Toronto’s current housing crisis and how costs have outpaced income for many renters due to the market response to the economic growth in the Greater Toronto Area, as well as Hamilton and Waterloo. She also spoke about how condominium development is preferred due to the pre-selling and reselling markets providing profit and equity for the developer before and during construction.  Contrast that to rental housing, where developers of must put up front all costs of development before any profits.

The city of Toronto’s plan to address these concerns include building 69 000 affordable rental units within 10 years, extending the life of 260 000 units, as well as income support for 311 000 households. In addition, the federal government launched the National Housing Strategy in 2017, with $40 billion over 10 years to support affordable housing initiatives across Canada. Coffey reports that municipality participation is key to obtaining funding for affordable housing, and a role that can be played is to donate available land for development.

Current Affairs

A series of professional presentations followed, discussing various emerging investigation and remediation techniques. These included Dr. Barbara A. Zeeb discussing the use of phytotechnologies to remediate brownfield sites. She compared the traditional method of soil excavation, transport, and disposal to phytoextraction – the use of plants to remove the contaminant while leaving the soil intact and reusable, such as using natural and native species to remove organics like DDT. Other benefits include its cost effectiveness and the uptake of greenhouse gasses, but technologies are site specific, and can take years to remediate fully – highlighting the role that phytoremediation can play alongside traditional remediation methods.

A legal update with lawyer John Georgakopoulos provided an overview of legal cases currently before the courts, with implications for the brownfield development. His presentation compared cases of regulatory liability to civil liability and about managing environmental liabilities through exercising due diligence. He noted, however, that due diligence plays a bigger role in regulatory liability and a smaller role in civil liability, and he encouraged environmental liability protections like environmental insurance and regulatory liability protection.

Cross-Country Check-Up Panelists Kerri Skelly (front left), Lisa Fairweather (centre) and Krista Barfoot (left) with President D. Grant Walsom (back). (Photo from the CBN).

A cross-country checkup with panelists from across Canada discussed the changing landscape for excess soils. Speakers include Krista Barfoot (of Jacobs Engineering Group) speaking about Ontario’s proposed guidelines on excess soils, such as the emphasis on the use of excess soil management plans and addressing issues such as situations where there is no beneficial reuse site. Lisa Fairweather spoke about the Alberta’s Remediation Certificate and its impacts on reducing barriers to brownfields development; and Kerri Skelly spoke about British Columbia’s new excess soil regulations and its goals of clarifying rules for businesses moving soil and increasing the opportunity for soil reuse.

Angus Ross (left) with Grant Walsom. (Photo from the CBN).

Before breaking up into working groups, the final presentations reviewed the current state of brownfield development in Canada. Angus Ross, who chaired the original task force, discussed how the National Strategy succeeded in addressing liability issues, financial funding, and building public awareness of brownfields. A major recommendation was the formation of a national brownfield network, which led to the CBN.

Ryerson PhD student Reanne Ridsdale presented findings on a survey of about 6,500 brownfield remediated sites across Canada, where 80 participants were polled, including environmental consultants, government officials, lawyers and financiers.

Reanne Ridsdale presenting the results of the CBN/Ryerson survey. (Photo from the Daily Commercial News).

Following was a presentation by a Ryerson student planning studio group compared brownfield policies of each province, based on criteria such as clear policies, an accessible brownfield site inventory, and incentives for development. Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia were considered to be very progressive in their policies towards brownfield development, but improvements could still be made across Canada in terms of standardizing rules and policies and producing developer friendly guidelines for site remediation. Then PhD student Reanne Ridsdale talked about the results of the CBN/Ryerson survey of the brownfield community’s view of progress in the last 15 years. Respondents indicated that the CBN is too eastern focused on central and eastern Canada, with little presence in the Prairies, as well as being too research-focussed and not conducting enough outreach.

Charting the Future

The day was capped off with breakout discussion groups to discuss “challenge questions” and allow attendees to contribute ideas to future CBN activities to advance brownfield developments. Challenge question topics included the roles of the federal, provincial, and municipal governments, the development of a brownfield inventory, innovations in brownfield developments, and the societal impacts of brownfield development on communities. One of the key discussion points was for the CBN to promote a “Put Brownfields First” mentality, particularly within governments. This includes developing a financing model/regime for governments to support brownfield developments, particularly in smaller municipalities, as well as to harmonize rules and guidelines for brownfield development. In addition, the CBN should facilitate the education of brownfields to local communities and involve land owners and developers in the process of implementing brownfield policies.

The National Brownfield Summit provided an amazing opportunity for members and attendees to provide input towards the goals of the CBN. More information about the Canadian Brownfields Network can be found at https://canadianbrownfieldsnetwork.ca/ including the summit program and information about the presenters.

BP Reports Drilling Mud Spill Off Nova Scotia

BP Canada Energy Group recently reported an unauthorized discharge of drilling mud from the one of its drilling operations off the coast of Nova Scotia. The company estimated approximately 136,000 litres of drilling mud were discharged.

Anita Perry, BP Canada’s regional manager for Nova Scotia

Anita Perry, BP Canada’s regional manager for Nova Scotia, said a preliminary look at the spill has led the company to believe the cause is mechanical failure, though the investigation is not complete.
Perry said this is not a common occurrence, but the organization has response plans in place to manage spills. She said that before drilling was done in the area, a survey was conducted to assess environmental risks.
“Prior to drilling we did not identify any corals or any species there that could be damaged. So we do not believe there will be any damage,” said Perry.
The company suspended drilling during the investigation of the cause of the spill.

Risks to the Environment

Stacy O’Rourke, the director of communications at the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (CNSOPB) said the synthetic-based mud is dense and sinks rapidly to the sea floor and the synthetic-based oil in the mud has low toxicity.

Ms. O’Rourke added that the effects of these types of spills are usually limited to the area immediately surrounding the well and are associated with the physical smothering of the seabed due to coverage by the mud.

She said the spill happened earlier in the day on Friday, and both the board and coast guard were notified. As of Friday evening, O’Rourke said no one on the board was at the spill.

The incident occurred approximately 330 kilometres from Halifax on a drill rig called the West Aquarius.

West Aquarius drill rig off the coast of Nova Scotia

CBC interviewed Tony Walker, a professor from the Dalhousie University School for Resource and Environmental Studies, about the potential impacts of the release of drilling mud on the environment. The Professor said that in looking at the project’s environmental assessment report, carried out by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA), the drilling mud spill may still be cause for concern.

Professor Walker said while a water-based mud is available for use in this type of drilling, the assessment outlines BP’s decision to use the synthetic, because it can better handle potential gas buildup and temperature regulation.

“Certainly, a synthetic-based mud does contain chemicals and potentially oils and diesel and that sort of thing,” he told the CBC. Walker said he reviewed data from the report based on a 3D modelled test and scaled down the impacts based on the June 22 incident.

“It could [result in] impacts of a kilometre or more from the drilling site. It could actually cover and smother [ocean floor dwelling] organisms; it could impact fish species which have larvae and eggs on the seabed.”

Professor Walker told the CBC that the CEAA report also references data from past drill sites, where little to no spilling was reported, in which surrounding marine habitats took up to five years to recover from drilling.

“The kind of consistent thread or theme I get from the report … is that if there are releases, it’ll be localized and it’ll have short term impacts,” Walker told the CBC.

“A kilometre is quite a big area, and [the report] talks about a recovery period of about five years for recolonization. I wouldn’t call five years entirely short-term.”

Nova Scotia’s energy minister says he’s concerned about spill of the drilling fluids off the province’s coast. However, he also added that he remains committed to growing the oil and gas industry.

Geoff MacLellan said he has “complete confidence” in the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board’s investigation into BP Canada’s leak of 136 cubic metres of synthetic drilling mud on Friday.

Approval to drill was granted in the Spring

BP Canada Energy Group was given approval in the spring of 2018 to drill of the coast of Nova Scotia. At the time, the Aspy D-11 exploration well was the first in BP Canada’s Scotian Basin Exploration Project. It was estimated that up to seven exploration wells could be drilled off the southeast coast of Nova Scotia over a three-year period.

At the time of the issuance of the approval, Anita Perry of BP Canada Energy stated in a phone interview with Canada’s National Observer, “We’re confident we addressed all issues and risks for a safe drilling program.”

Snapshot of the Canadian Brownfields Programs

As reported by Don Proctor in The Daily Commercial News, the federal government has an important role to play in supporting brownfield development, suggests a recent report authored by third-year undergraduate Ryerson University students working on behalf of the Canadian Brownfields Network (CBN).

“There is a sense among industry professionals and academics that the industry as a whole has not progressed as much as it should,” said one of the students, David Sturgeon, at the CBN’s annual conference held recently at the downtown Toronto university campus.

Map of Brownfield Sites in Regina, Saskatchewan

The students conducted a broad snapshot of federal brownfield programs, highlighting cleanup and best practices.

Sturgeon said the student team organized a three-tier rating scoresheet for each province’s progress on brownfields. B.C., Ontario and Quebec got the highest marks. Quebec is a leader because of its incentives-based cleanup programs. One initiative offers 70 per cent funding for onsite remediation work.

Quebec also has an accessible and up-to-date brownfield site inventory, which is a step ahead of other provinces, Sturgeon told delegates.

While the country’s three most populous provinces scored high, the students ranked Alberta lower down, closer to the middle tier.

“It (the Alberta government) has made quite a bit of progress towards cleanup in the last couple of decades,” Sturgeon said. “But where they struggle is helping developers to act sooner than later on idle or vacant contaminated sites.”

The student team was led by Chris De Sousa, the vice-president of the CBN and a professor at the School of Urban and Regional Planning at Ryerson University. De Sousa said the study compiled extensive information on brownfields from federal, provincial and territorial governments. Also reviewed were provincial stakeholder groups and comparisons were made with the U.S. and the United Kingdom.

Reanne Ridsdale, a Ryerson PhD student, conducted research into actual practice versus the objectives outlined in the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE), founded in the late 1980s. For a survey of about 6,500 brownfield remediated sites across Canada, Ridsdale polled 80 participants, including environmental consultants, government officials, several lawyers and financiers.

Eighty-five per cent of those polled said brownfields were a medium to high priority in their organization.

She said 59 of the 80 respondents indicated Canada would benefit from a national fund for brownfield redevelopment. The top three developmental barriers indicated by respondents deal with remediation costs and lack of information available on site conditions, Ridsdale said.

The survey also supported the CBN as a national organization but some respondents were negative because the CBN does not receive federal funding so its scope is limited.

“We are a little bit eastern-centric,” which is probably because of the lack of funding, Ridsdale told delegates, adding the survey results will be published as part of a white paper this summer.

Angus Ross, chairman of L and A Concepts, chaired two government task forces on brownfields, including one that created the National Brownfield Redevelopment Strategy for Canada in 2003. The findings were not the last word on brownfields “but they did a tremendous job in kickstarting the entire brownfield file in Canada,” he said.

Ross, who was appointed by the federal government in 1996 to head the NRTEE and in 2004 to chair the CBN’s advisory panel, said brownfields became “a household word” in the early 2000s through media reports on the NRTEE.

“We got very immediate provincial and municipal buy-in,” he told delegates at the conference.

Hamilton Waterfront

Global Emergency Spill Response Market – Trends and Forecast

Analytical Research Cognizance recently issued a report on the Global Emergency Spill Response Market.  The report focuses on detailed segmentations of the market, combined with the qualitative and quantitative analysis of each and every aspect of the classification based on type, spill material, spill environment, vertical, and geography.

The report provides a very detailed analysis of the market based on type, the emergency spill response market has been classified into products and services.  The products include booms, skimmers, dispersants and dispersant products, in-situ burning products, sorbents, transfer products, radio communication products, and vacuum products.

The report has a services section that provides a forecast on the future growth of the services sector.  The services segment has been classified into product rental services, waste management services, manpower training services, transportation and disposal services, spill response drill and exercise services, tracking and surveillance services, risk assessments and analysis services, and other services.

Scope of the Report:

This report studies the Emergency Spill Response market status and outlook of global and major regions, from angles of players, countries, product types and end industries; this report analyzes the top players in global market, and splits the Emergency Spill Response market by product type and applications/end industries.

The market is expected to have significant growth in the coming years owing to stringent environmental regulations across the world to reduce the environmental pollution from spills.

Skimmers held the largest market size, in terms of product, primarily due to the increased demand for mechanical recovery methods for spill recovery.  Unlike other methods, the mechanical recovery methods remove the spill material from the spill environment.  Thus, skimmers are more effective in mitigating the environmental impact of the spills.

The global Emergency Spill Response market is valued at 2,530 million USD in 2017 and is expected to reach 3,410 million USD by the end of 2023, growing at a CAGR of 5.1% between 2017 and 2023.

The Asia-Pacific will occupy for more market share in following years, especially in China, fast growing India, and Southeast Asia regions.

North America, especially The United States, will still play an important role which cannot be ignored. Any changes from the United States might affect the development trend of Emergency Spill Response.

 

Nano-Scale Selective Ion Exchange used to Remove Radioactive Contamination from Water

Researchers from the University of Helsinki in Finland recently reported that they have developed a new method to remove radioactive contamination from water.  They claim their method of nano-scale selective ion exchange is faster than the conventional method and more environmentally-friendly as less radioactive solid waste is produced.

Risto Koivula, researcher at the University of Helsinki

The new method of selective ion exchange uses electrospun sodium titanate.  Electrospinning is a fibre production method which uses electric force to draw charged threads of polymer solutions or polymer melts up to fiber diameters in the order of some hundred nanometers  “The advantages of electrospun materials are due to the kinetics, i.e. reaction speed, of ion exchange,” says Risto Koivula, a scientist in the research group Ion Exchange for Nuclear Waste Treatment and for Recycling at the Department of Chemistry at the University of Helsinki.

One conventional method of removing radioactive ions from water is using granular sodium titanate as an ion exchange medium.  It is currently used to treat the 120,000 cubic meters of radioactive wastewater generated as a result of the Fukushima, Japan nuclear accident.  As radioactive wastewater is run through the ion exchanger, the radio-active ions are exchanged with the sodium in the sodium titantate.  The radioactive pollutants remain bound by the granules in the ion exchange unit.

Sodium Titanate fibres

The advantage of sodium titanate over other ion exchange media is that it is selective, which means that it is picks out only the radioactive ions from the water.  One disadvantage of ion exchange is that a water pollution problem is being transferred into a waste management problem.  When the ion exchange capacity is filled, the filtering material has to be switched out.  This leaves solid radio-active waste which must be managed.

The utilization of electrospun sodium titanate results in nano-scale spindles.  The result is an ion exchange solution that occupies less space but provides an equal treatment capability.  “Since less electrospun material is needed from the start of the process, the radio-active waste requiring a permanent repository will also fit in a smaller space,” says Koivula.

The electrospinning equipment at the University of Helsinki was developed and built in the Centre of Excellence for Atomic Layer Deposition, led by Mikko Ritala. The researchers successfully tried this quite simple method for working sodium titanate into fibre.  Koivula’s team studied the ion exchange features of fibre produced this way and found it worked like the commercially produced ones.

The utilization of this selective ion exchange method could be applied to the sites with groundwater contaminated with radioactive ions.

In Canada, the Town of Port Hope (located approximately 100 km east to Toronto) has over 1 million cubic metres of low-level radioactive waste as well as radioactive waste in treatment ponds.  The source of the radioactive contamination is the historic operation of the former radium and uranium refining activities of Eldorado Nuclear.  The wastewater treatment facility at Port Hope is a two-stage process that removes salts, heavy metals, and contaminants such as radium and arsenic.  The process involves chemical precipitation with clarification followed by reverse osmosis.

Setting New Legal Standards And Timelines: Alberta’s Remediation Regulation

Article by Alan Harvie, Norton Rose Fullbright Canada LLP

Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) has amended regulations that will require all contamination caused by spills that are reported to regulators after January 1, 2019 to be delineated and assessed as soon as possible through a Phase 2 environmental site assessment that meets AEP’s standards and that is then either remediated within two years or subject to an approved remedial action plan with an approved final clean-up date. These are significant departures from the current requirements.

On June 1, 2018 the Remediation Certificate Amendment Regulation was passed into law under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA). It amends the existing Remediation Certificate Regulation in a number of important ways, including changing the name to the Remediation Regulation.

Groundwater monitoring wells

The Remediation Regulation will be administered by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) for contamination at upstream oil and gas sites, such as wells, pipelines and facilities, and by AEP for all other sites.

Under the EPEA, a person responsible for the release of a substance into the environment that causes or has the potential to cause an adverse effect is under a legal duty, as soon as they know about the release or ought to have known about it, to report it to regulators. They must also, as soon as they know or ought to have known about the release, take all reasonable measures to repair, remedy and confine the effects of the substance, remove or otherwise dispose of the substance in such a manner as to effect maximum protection to human life, health and the environment and restore the environment to a condition satisfactory to the regulators.

Although persons have always been legally required, under the EPEA, to clean up spills, historically there was no legal requirement as to how a person was to assess contamination or any specific time limit as to how long a person could take to remediate the spill as required by the EPEA. This has now changed.

New timelines

The Remediation Regulation requires that a person responsible for a spill that is reported after January 1, 2019 must:

  • As soon as possible, either remediate the spill to meet the criteria set out in the Alberta Tier 1 and 2 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines and submit a report to the regulators about the remediation or undertake a Phase 2 environment site assessment of the site that meets the requirements of AEP’s Environmental Site Assessment Standard.
  • If the site cannot be remediated to the satisfaction of the regulators within two years, then the person responsible for the spill must submit a remedial action plan (RAP) that complies with AEP’s Alberta Tier 1 and Tier Soil and Groundwater Remediation GuidelinesEnvironmental Site Assessment StandardExposure Control Guide and Risk Management Plan Guide.
  • The RAP must include a period of time for completion of the remediation that is acceptable to the regulators.
  • The person responsible must take the remedial measures set out in the approved RAP by such time.

New legal standards

The Remediation Regulation previously incorporated into law the requirements to use the Tier 1 and 2 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines for obtaining a remediation certificate under the EPEA. It now requires that the Guidelines also be followed for assessing contaminated sites and therefore eliminates some historical practices in which persons responsible for spills used other clean-up guidelines or criteria.

The Remediation Regulation also requires the use of the Environmental Site Assessment Standard. The Standard sets out how contamination is to be vertically and horizontally delineated and assessed. The Remediation Regulation requires that this work be done within two years.

If the spill cannot be remediated within two years, then a RAP which meets the Exposure Control Guide and the Risk Management Plan Guide, and which has been approved by the regulators, must be in effect at the end of the two-year period. For some large contaminated sites, it may be challenging to fully delineate the contamination, develop a RAP and have the regulators approve it within two years. Furthermore, the clean-up under the RAP must have a stated end point.

Abandoned oil well equipment

These changes diverge from historical practices where, in some cases, contamination delineation has taken several or more years, and remedial actions, if any, have not been well planned and have had no fixed end point.

Implications

The implications of the Remediation Regulation for persons responsible for contamination are such that they will no longer be able to ignore or may only be able to slowly proceed with assessing contamination or simply monitor it over the long term. Concrete steps must now be taken according to set time periods and such steps must comply with AEP’s guidelines and standards.

Next steps

As mentioned, the new requirements to delineate and remediate a site apply only to spills reported on or after January 1, 2019. Before then, AEP is expected to release further guidance, host stakeholder workshops and potentially amend the Remediation Regulation.

 

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.

This article was first published on the Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP Website.

_______________________

About the Author

Alan Harvie is a senior partner at Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP and practices out of the Calgary office.  He has practised energy and environmental/regulatory law since 1989 and regularly deals with commercial, operational, environmental and regulatory issues, especially for the upstream oil and gas, energy, waste disposal and chemical industries. He is a member of our energy and environmental departments.

Mr. Harvie also has significant legal experience in acting for the oil and gas industry in commercial transactions and regulatory matters, including enforcement proceedings, common carrier and processor applications, forced poolings, downspacings and holdings, rateable take, and contested facility, well and pipeline applications. He has also dealt extensively with commercial, environmental and regulatory issues concerning thermal and renewable power plants, electrical transmission and distribution lines, tourism and recreation projects, forestry, mining, agriculture, commercial real estate, industrial facilities, sewage plants, hazardous waste landfills and treatment facilities, transportation of dangerous goods and water storage reservoirs.

Mr. Harvie regularly advises clients about environmental assessments and permitting, spill response, enforcement proceedings, contaminated site remediation, facility decommissioning and reclamation, chemical compliance (DSL, NDSL, MSDS and HMIRC), nuclear licensing, crude-by-rail projects and product recycling and stewardship requirements.

 

United States: EPA Soliciting Comments On BUILD Act

Article by Phillip E. Hoover and Vickie C. RusekSmith Gambrell & Russell LLP

The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to streamline the cleanup and reuse of National Priorities List sites with an emphasis on private party participation and private investment. NPL site designation was once a popular way for affected communities to secure federal funding for remediation, but the program has long suffered from lack of funding. Now, the Trump administration seeks to streamline the delisting of NPL sites in the same manner as the redevelopment of brownfields. One example of this initiative is the Brownfields Utilization, Investment and Local Development (BUILD) Act, which was enacted on March 23, 2018, and reauthorizes EPA’s Brownfields program at current funding levels through 2023. EPA is currently developing policy guidance to implement the BUILD Act, and is soliciting comment on three of the Act’s provisions: (1) the authority to increase the per-site cleanup grant amounts to $500,000; (2) the new multi-purpose grant authority; and (3) the new small community assistance grant authority. Click here for more information about these provisions and submitting comments to EPA.

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.

This article was first published on the Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP website.

__________________________

About the Authors

Phillip E. Hoover is a Partner in the Environmental and Sustainability Practice Areas of Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP.  Mr. Hoover’s practice includes providing counsel on numerous environmental regulatory matters, as well as the redevelopment of environmentally impacted properties. These include state and federal superfund sites, corporate mergers and acquisitions of such properties. His environmental experience includes representation of Potentially Responsible Parties at superfund sites. He has negotiated RCRA permits and corrective action plans on behalf of clients in various states.

Vickie Chung Rusek is an Associate in the Environmental Practice of Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP. Ms. Rusek represents clients in all aspects of environmental compliance, enforcement, permitting, and litigation, including Superfund cleanups, Resource Conservation Recovery Act compliance, Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act permitting and compliance, and environmental tort litigation.