Proper Sampling of a Waste Pile

The TDJ Group, Inc. is a manufacturer of proprietary chemicals, which are used to stabilize heavy metal wastes for a wide range of industry, including soil remediation and industrial waste recycling recently prepared a YouTube® video demonstrating the proper method

Regardless of waste type, all of TDJ Chemistries have been performance tested & validated for long-term stability by the U.S. EPA, U.S. Federal Highway Administration and the US Department of Defense.

The video demonstrates the proper sampling method referencing ASTM Standard D75 – Standard Practice for Sampling Aggregates and U.S. EPA Manual SW-846 Compendium, Chapter Nine: Sampling Plans.

The video emphasizes that collecting a single grab sample from a waste pile is insufficient and is not representative.  It discusses sampling strategies and equipment.

Who is Charge of Harbour Clean-ups in Ontario?

As reported by the CBC, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) does not consider itself as the lead for the clean-up of Hamilton Harbour or Thunder Bay harbour.  ECCC says, while it is leading an ongoing harbour cleanup in Hamilton, it’s not a role the federal agency usually assumes.

That comes as proponents of cleaning up historical pollution in the harbour in Thunder Bay, Ont., try and sort out who is responsible for spearheading similar efforts in the northwestern Ontario city.

“If your question is, does it need a champion? It absolutely does,” Hamilton Mayor Fred Eisenberger said of the importance that an organization with jurisdiction over a polluted site push for a cleanup. “It needs one organization to keep pushing it along.”

“If it continues to be work that is just secondary work for someone off the corner of their desk, then it’s going to be a long, hard, arduous process.”

Efforts to clean up historical industrial pollution at the Randle Reef site in Hamilton’s harbour date back at least 15 years, said Eisenberger, who also used to be the chair of the board for the Hamilton Port Authority.  For years, he said, the port effectively served the lead agency role, coordinating local stakeholders and senior levels of government to move the project forward.

Environment Canada took the reins well into the project’s lifespan, according to Eisenberger and a spokesperson with the federal agency, and only after the involvement of the Hamilton port — who owns the harbour bed at Randle Reef.

In Thunder Bay, determining who should be that advocate has been difficult; the water lots where 400,000 cubic metres of mercury-contaminated pulp fibre sit in the harbour’s north end are owned by Transport Canada but administered by the Thunder Bay Port Authority.

Transport Canada has told CBC News spearheading a cleanup is up to the port, while port officials say they’ve been told by Transport Canada to advise on — not lead — remediation efforts.  The port has pointed to Environment Canada as the most appropriate lead agency, citing its role in Hamilton.

Approximate Area of Contaminated Sediment in Thunder Bay Harbour

‘No standard model’

Just because Environment Canada takes a leadership role in one project doesn’t necessarily mean it will in all cases, a spokesperson with the agency said.

“There really is no standard model for remediating contaminated sites other than that governments try to apply, where possible, the polluter-pay principle,” Jon Gee, Environment Canada’s manager of the Great Lakes area of concern wrote in an email to CBC News.

In Thunder Bay, the industrial companies largely responsible for the legacy pollution no longer exist.

Environment Canada’s lead role in Hamilton was the result of “a long negotiation between the Government of Canada and the other organizations,” Gee wrote. “It is not a role that the Department usually undertakes.”

The jurisdictional confusion in Thunder Bay has caught the attention of at least one legislator in the area.  Officials with the office of Thunder Bay-Superior North MP Patty Hajdu said she has met with members of the Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan’s public advisory committee and that she will also discuss the matter with the federal ministers of transport and the environment.

Construction of the Randle Reef cleanup project in Hamilton Harbour

Gee said Environment Canada “remains committed” to working with government and other stakeholders on the project.

In Hamilton’s case, funding for the $139 million Randle Reef project is being split among the federal and provincial governments, as well as Hamilton, Burlington, the Hamilton Port Authority and Stelco, a steel company based in Hamilton. It’s expected to be complete in 2022.

In Thunder Bay, a number of remediation options were presented in 2014 to the public, with feedback going into a report.  Environment Canada has said no preferred option was identified because there is no lead agency on the project. Cost estimates at the time ranged anywhere from $30 million to $90 million.

Status of Hamilton Harbour Clean-up

As reported in the Hamilton Spectator, Hamilton Harbour still has an undetermined number of years to go before it can meet water quality and ecological standards acceptable to the International Joint Commission.  The Canada/U.S. bilateral agency that oversees cross-border water issues said in a statement this week that — after three decades — it is growing restless about the slow pace of Great Lakes water improvements on both sides of the border.

“The IJC identifies specific gaps in achieving the human health objectives … for drinkable, swimmable and fishable waters, and recommends that the governments set an accelerated and fixed period of time for effectively achieving zero discharge of inadequately treated or untreated sewage into the Great Lakes,” the agency says.

More than 30 years ago, the commission deemed 43 “areas of concern” on the Great Lakes — including Hamilton Harbour — and only seven sites have so far been delisted, three of which are in Canada.

Two big projects currently underway in Hamilton harbour are expected to lead to major improvements in its water quality. The first is the ongoing work encapsulating the highly toxic coal tar blob at Randle Reef. The Randle Reef Contaminated Sediment Remediation Project is scheduled for completion in 2022 at a total cost of $138.9 million spread out over three phases.

The other ongoing big-ticket item is Woodward Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is in the second year of a five-year, $340-million upgrade that will raise treatment to a modern tertiary level. This is expected to dramatically reduce discharges into the bay with most notably a reduction of 65,000 kilograms of phosphorus per year.

Status of Thunder Bay Harbour Clean-up

As reported in TB News Watch, the recommendations in a clean-up report of mercury in Thunder Bay, Ontario harbour have yet to be acted upon.  It has been more than three years since a consultant’s report identified options for the management of 400,000 cubic metres (14 million cubic feet) of mercury-contaminated sediment.

Thunder Bay is located at the northwest corner of Lake Superior and has a population of approximately 110,000.

The source of the mercury in the sediment was industrial activity along Thunder Bay’s north harbour for over 90 years including pulp and paper mill operations.  The sediment is contaminated with mercury in concentrations that range from 2 to 11 ppm at the surface of the sediment to 21 ppm at depth and ranging in thickness from 40 to 380 centimeters and covering an area of about 22 hectares (54 acres).

The preferred solution in the consultant’s report was to dredge the sediment and transfer it to the Mission Bay Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) at the harbour’s south end.  That came with an estimated cost of $40 million to $50 million, and was considered the best choice based on factors such as environmental effectiveness and cost.  The consultants also looked at other options, including building a new containment structure on the shoreline adjacent to the former Superior Fine Papers mill.

U.S. EPA Sees New Challenges Ahead for Superfund

by  Loren R. Dunn and Eric L. Klein, Beveridge & Diamond PC

The U.S. EPA released a four-year “strategic plan” in mid-February that continues to emphasize the Superfund program as one of Administrator Scott Pruitt’s top priorities.  While it has been clear since last summer’s Superfund Task Force report that the agency’s new leadership wants to accelerate Superfund site cleanups, the agency’s new strategic plan reveals for the first time that the U.S. EPA also sees emerging challenges ahead for Superfund.

“A number of factors may delay cleanup timelines,” the agency wrote in its strategy document.  These factors include the “discovery of new pathways and emerging contaminants” such as vapor intrusion and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and new science such as “new toxicity information or a new analytical method.”

Photo Credit: Michael Paulsen / Houston Chronicle

According to the strategic plan, the emergence of this kind of new information can reopen previously settled remedy determinations – and the Superfund sites that still remain on the National Priorities List (NPL) already tend to be the harder cases, with more difficult patterns of contamination and more complex remedies.  The U.S. EPA flagged in particular its waste management and chemical facility risk programs, where “rapidly changing technology, emerging new waste streams, and aging infrastructure present challenges[.]”

It remains to be seen whether the agency’s cautions in the Superfund section of its strategy document represent a meaningful shift in the agency’s frequently-stated intention to reinvigorate the Superfund program.  Early in his tenure, Mr. Pruitt charged his Superfund Task Force with generating a series of recommendations centered around Mr. Pruitt’s goals for Superfund: faster cleanups, the encouragement of cleanup and remediation investments by PRPs and private investors, and a process centered on stakeholder engagement and community revitalization.  In December 2017, in response to one of the Task Force’s recommendations, the agency released a list of 21 high-priority NPL sites that Mr. Pruitt targeted for “immediate and intense attention,” according to an U.S. EPA press release.  The cautionary notes in this week’s strategic plan are a subtle shift in tone for the U.S. EPA.

At the same time, the document also sets forth a plan for improving the consistency and certainty of EPA’s enforcement activities in the regulated community.  It remains to be seen how U.S. EPA intends to achieve consistency while being responsive to state and tribal interests.

These goals, of course, will depend on the details of implementation, which are not set forth in the strategic plan.  And such details will depend on the agency’s budget, which remains in flux for 2019 and beyond.  For example, U.S. EPA’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2019 sought a roughly $327 million cut in the Superfund program, but the funds were added back into the budget proposal as part of last-minute budget agreement reached in Congress last week, securing the program’s funding in the short-term.   Last year, the administration proposed a 30% cut in the agency’s funding  but Congress balked and eventually approved a budget that cut roughly 1%.

______________________

About the Authors

Loren R. Dunn represents regional and national companies at locations throughout the country in environmental regulation and litigation issues.  Loren’s environmental projects have involved hazardous waste and large multi-party toxics cleanup sites, including marine and fresh water sediment sites, landfills, and natural resource damages claims. He has also conducted extensive work obtaining permits for key facility operations. He has particularly deep knowledge of the following industries: manufactured gas facilities, regulated utilities, smelters and metals refineries, pesticide sites, and large area contamination sites.

Eric L. Klein is an environmental civil litigator and regulatory counselor in the Washington, D.C. office of Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.  He has handled cases in state and federal courts throughout the United States, litigating a variety of complex civil and commercial matters before juries, trial and appellate courts, arbitrators and administrative tribunals.  Mr. Klein frequently litigates both statutory and common law claims, and specializes in challenging and defending technical experts in the litigation of complex environmental torts.

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

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

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.  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.  The neutral view on oil pipelines have 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.

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.