Brownfield Remediation Success in Hamilton

A recent report by the City of Hamilton has revealed that significant progress has been made over the last 10 years to reduce the number of brownfield sites in the municipality.

According to Brownfield Inventory Report, there were 91 vacant brownfield sites listed by the City in 2008.  As of early 2018, 51 of the sites had been developed representing over 72 ha. Of the 40 sites still considered vacant and contaminated, approximately 13.2 ha are within the Bayfront Industrial Area.

Hamilton is one of the oldest and most heavily industrialized cities in Canada and includes a large number of brownfields in Hamilton’s older industrial areas, downtown, and throughout the urbanized area.

Part of the success in Hamilton in brownfield’s redevelopment is the Environmental Remediation and Site Enhancement Community Improvement Plan (ERASE) (CIP) which began in 2001.

Since the ERASE CIP was approved, approximately 145 property owners and potential
property owners have been approved for Environmental Study Grants. A number of
these studies have led to brownfield sites being redeveloped. A total of 47 projects
have been approved by City Council for ERASE Redevelopment Grants. These
projects once complete will result in:

  • Over 380 acres of land studied;
  •  Total assessment increase due to Environmental Remediation Grant in excess of
    $129,029,379;
  • Every $1 contributed by the City has generated $11.10 in private sector
    construction; and,
  • Remediation and redevelopment approval of approximately 210 acres of Brownfield land 123 acres (59% of approved land area) remediated to date.

In its 16 years, the ERASE CIP has proven to be very successful in providing the
financial tools needed to promote the remediation and redevelopment of Brownfield
sites. There is consistent support for the expansion of programming and updating of
policy in order to meet the significant challenges associated with Brownfield
redevelopment.

Two noteworthy recent brownfield remediation projects have included the Freeman Industrial Park, located at the site of former Otis Elevator and Studebaker plants, and the former Consumers Glass property.

The Freeman Industrial Park is the site of the old Otis Elevator and Studebaker plants.  It is the largest brownfield development project in the City of Hamilton to date.  the developer, UrbanCore Developments, has City approval to divide the 10.5-hectare property into 18 lots and build a road through the property.

440 Victoria Street, Hamilton (former Otis Elevator Building)

The Freeman Industrial Park property is zoned K, which allows nearly any type of heavy industry from fertilizer production to a coke oven.  UrbanCore has prospective buyers for about half of the lots.

Initiated in 2014, the site clean up and remediation program on the Freeman Industrial Park is now complete.

On the Consumers Glass property, the City has plans to build a sports field.  The property at Lloyd Street and Gage Avenue North is the future home of an outdoor sports facility, which will be an $8-million project that will replace the former Brian Timmis Field.  In 2015, it was used as a parking lot for the Pan Am Games.

With respect to the existing inventory of brownfield sites, consideration by Hamilton city Counsel with respect to the viability of contaminated land to be used
for purposes such as the growing/harvesting of medical marijuana, given the concerns
expressed with respect to this industry placing pressure on current viable farm land.

Staff reviewed the prospect of using brownfield land for growing medical marijuana and noted that under Regulation 153/04, cultivation of marijuana would be treated as an agricultural operation, and therefore, deemed a more sensitive operation if located on former industrial or commercially used lands.  On this basis, a mandatory filing of a Record of Site Condition would be required and the threshold for site remediation would be one of the most onerous to conform.

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Article by Stanley D. Berger and Albert M. Engel

Fogler, Rubinoff LLP

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

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

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

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

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

________________________

About the Authors

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

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

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

Emergency Spill Response Market Report

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

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

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

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

 

Rare Jail Sentence for Environmental Offence in Canada

On August 21, 2018, Collingwood Prime Realty Holdings Corp. and its director, Mr. Issa El-Hinn, were sentenced in the Ontario Court of Justice for offences under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 related to contraventions of the PCB Regulations.

The charges stem from old electrical transformers and capacitors in use on the former Goodyear property at 101 Mountain Rd., which is now owned by Collingwood Prime Realty.

The property at 101 Mountain Rd., used to be a Goodyear plant. Erika Engel/CollingwoodToday

The court sentenced Mr. El-Hinn to a 45-day jail term, which will be served on weekends, for failing to comply with an environmental protection compliance order. The Court also sentenced the corporation and Mr. El-Hinn to pay a combined penalty of $420,000 to be directed to the federal Environmental Damages Fund.

On April 30, 2015, Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officers launched an investigation following the company’s failure to comply with an environmental protection compliance order. The investigation revealed that two electrical transformers and eight electrical capacitors contained higher-than-allowable PCB levels and that the equipment had not been sent for destruction to an authorized facility. The defendants pleaded guilty on September 26, 2017, to ten counts of contravening the PCB Regulations made pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and one count of failing to comply with an environmental protection compliance order.

As a result of this conviction, the company’s name will be added to the Environmental Offenders Registry.

PCBs are toxic industrial chemical substances that are harmful to aquatic ecosystems and species that feed primarily on aquatic organisms.

Earlier this year, Collingwood Fire Department successfully prosecuted Collingwood Prime Realty Holdings Corp., and its owner El Hinn for multiple fire code violations at the property at 101 Mountain Rd.

New Technology for Mapping DNAPL Contamination

Laser-induced fluorescence (LIF)

As reported in Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation (38(3):28-42), DyeLIF™ is a new version of laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) for high-resolution 3D mapping of NAPLs in the subsurface.   DyeLIF eliminates the requirement that the NAPL contains native fluorophores (such as those that occur in compounds like PAHs) and therefore can be used to detect chlorinated solvents and other nonfluorescing compounds.

NAPLs were previously undetectable with conventional LIF tools. With DyeLIF, an aqueous solution of water and nontoxic hydrophobic dye is continuously injected ahead of the sapphire detection window while the LIF probe is being advanced in the subsurface.  If soil containing NAPL is penetrated, the injected dye solvates into the NAPL within a few milliseconds, creating strong fluorescence that is transmitted via fiber-optic filaments to aboveground optical sensors. This paper describes a detailed field evaluation of the novel DyeLIF technology performed at a contaminated industrial site in Lowell, Mass., where chlorinated solvent DNAPL persists below the water table in sandy sediments..

The DyeLIF system was field tested at a Formerly Used Defense (FUD) facility in Massachusetts in Fall 2013 (Geoprobe® delivery) and again in March 2014 (CPT delivery). The primary field demonstration completed in 2013 included two components: one week of DyeLIF probing and a second week of follow-on soil coring using research-quality direct push (DP) soil coring methods in order to compare DyeLIF results to colorimetric dye shake tests and laboratory analysis.

Several performance objectives were established in the project demonstration work plan and all were met or exceeded. The performance objective for chemical analysis was 70% consistency between positive DyeLIF responses and samples when DNAPL saturations were greater than 5%. The demonstration results showed 100% consistency between chemical analysis and DyeLIF for saturations greater than 1.9% (35 of 35 samples), and 95% consistency for estimated saturations greater than 0.5% (40 of 42 samples).

ESTCP funded Project ER-201121 to demonstrate the DyeLIF technology.  Additional details on the technology can be found at the U.S. Department of Defence Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and the U.S. Department of Defence Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) link at SERDP-ESTCP.

2D and 3D Conceptual Site Models of a Contaminated Property

Environmental Consultant’s Disclaimer of Liability to Vendor effective against Third Party Purchaser

by Stanley D. Berger, Fogler Rubinoff

On July 23, 2018 the Court of Appeal for Newfoundland and Labrador in the case of Community Mental Health Initiative Inc. v. Summit Lounge Ltd. 2018 NLCA 42 upheld summary judgment dismissing a purchaser’s claim against two engineering companies (consultants) alleging negligence in the conduct of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment performed for the vendor. The agreement between the consultants and the vendor and the final report both indicated that the assessment was prepared solely for the benefit of the vendor and that the consultants accepted no responsibility for any damages suffered by any third party. Significantly, the plaintiff-purchaser had knowledge of the disclaimer, having been provided with a copy of the final report by its real estate agent prior to the closing of the transaction. The Court of Appeal referred to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Edgeworth Construction ltd. v. N.D. Lea & Associates Ltd. [1993] 3.S.C.R. 206 as well as decisions from appeal courts in Ontario Wolverine Tube (Canada) Inc. (1995) , 26 O.R. (3d) 577 and B.C., Kokanee Mortgage M.I.C. Ltd. 2018 BCCA 151 and summarized the legal principles as follows: (at par. 23) “… an express disclaimer of liability can be an effective bar against a claim by a third party who relied on work in the knowledge of the disclaimer. Permitting third parties to rely on reports which are expressly protected by a disclaimer would undermine the ability of contracting commercial parties to govern their own affairs.”

IMPLICATIONS FOR REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS?

The long established principle of privity of contract i.e. that the rights and obligations in a contract apply only to the parties to the contract have been further tested by this decision. For engineering consultants, the decision highlights the importance of exacting express disclaimer clauses restricting responsibility for the reporting information to the party retaining them. For purchasers of real estate, it reinforces the necessity of obtaining indemnities from the vendor for undiscovered contamination or if that is not realistic, retaining an independent environmental consultant to verify any consulting reports given to them by the vendor.

This article was first published on the Fogler Rubinoff LLP website.

________________________________

About the Author

Mr. Stanley Berger serves as the Partner at Fogler, Rubinoff LLP. Mr. Berger joined the law firm of Fogler Rubinoff on July 4, 2013. Before joining Fogler Rubinoff, he served for 14 years as Assistant General Counsel to Ontario Power Generation Inc (OPG). In that capacity he provided legal services on licensing, environmental assessment, regulatory compliance, liability, security, decommissioning and waste management to the Nuclear Division of OPG.  Mr. Berger provided strategic legal advice and representation on aboriginal litigation and participated in First Nation settlement negotiations. Prior to joining OPG, he served as the Deputy Director of the Law Division for Prosecutions for the Ontario Ministry of Environment. In that capacity he managed the prosecution staff and helped shape prosecution policy. 

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.

 

Innovation in Detecting Oil Spills at Sea

The company ISPAS AS, headquartered in Norway, recently announced that it has developed a Ku-band polarimetric Oil Spill Detection (OSD) radar that can detect oil spills at sea and the open water under most conditions including dead calm.

The radar is specifically developed for this purpose and uses a higher frequency than typical navigational X-band radars.  The radar has electrically steered antennas with both electromagnetic polarizations and can map an oil spill continuously using the steerable antenna.

Radar image (left) of the oil spill (seen on right).

ISPAS has completed the installation of 4 new OSD radars.  The radars small size and weight makes it easy to integrate without large structural foundations.

ISPAS participated in the 2018 “Oil on water” exercise offshore of Norway recently with a small version of the polarimetric Ku-band OSD radar. The small radar performed exceptionally well. An example showing the real time display of radar measurements of oil on seawater onboard a vessel is presented in this picture. The picture to the right presents the actual view of the sea.

The OSD radar

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.