New Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) Methods

The Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) is a leaching evaluation system, which consists of four leaching methods, data management tools, and scenario assessment approaches designed to work individually or to be integrated to provide a description of the release of inorganic constituents of potential concern (COPCs) for a wide range of solid materials. The LEAF methods have been designed to consider the effect of key environmental conditions and waste properties on leaching. The LEAF “How-To” Guide describes how the LEAF method results can be used to develop screening level assessments of constituent release or to develop more accurate estimates of release in specific use or disposal scenarios.

LEAF Methods and “How-To” Guide

Method 1313 is designed to evaluate the partitioning of constituents between liquid and solid phases at or near equilibrium conditions over a wide range of pH values. The method consists of 9-10 parallel batch extractions of solid material at various target pH values.

Method 1314 is a percolation column test designed to evaluate constituent releases from solid materials as a function of cumulative liquid-to-solid ratio. The method consists of a column packed with granular material with moderate compaction. Eluent is pumped up through the column to minimize air entrainment and preferential flow.

LEAF Method 1314

Method 1315 is a semi-dynamic tank leaching procedure used to determine the rate of mass transport from either monolithic materials (e.g., concrete materials, bricks, tiles) or compacted granular materials (e.g., soils, sediments, fly ash) as a function of time using deionized water as the leaching solution. The method consists of leaching a sample in a bath with periodic renewal of the leaching solution at specified cumulative leaching times.

Method 1316 is an equilibrium-based leaching test intended to provide eluate solutions over a range of liquid-to-solid ratios. This method consists of five parallel batch extractions of a particle-size-reduced solid material in reagent water over a range of liquid-to-solid ratios. At the end of the contact interval, the liquid and solid phases are separated for constituent analysis.

The purpose of the LEAF “How-To” Guide is to provide an understanding of the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework to facilitate its broader use in environmental assessment. The guide provides background on the LEAF methods, how to perform the methods, and how to understand the method results. It also provides guidance on the application of LEAF to assess leaching potential of COPCs from solid waste materials for beneficial use, disposal, treatment, and remediation applications. In addition, the guide addresses frequently asked questions about the four LEAF methods, data management and reporting using freely-available software, and potential applications of the LEAF approach.

SW-846 Update VI – Phase III will be available for public comment until January 31, 2018. Comments can be submitted using the EPA Docket, ID# EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0210.

For questions about Update VI to SW-846 or submitting public comments, or to sign up for the SW-846 mailing list, please contact orcrSW846@epa.gov.

Environmental Insurance in Canada

By Indrani Nadarajah

Environmental insurance policies are now widely available in Canada. While there are problems with wordings in many of those policies, the portfolio is evolving with more targeted products becoming available to address the changing liability landscape.  Meanwhile, a parliamentary review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has just been completed, confirming that the country’s main pollution laws are outdated, and the courts have been leaning towards a more generous interpretation of current legislation in order to better protect the environment.  Environmental activism is not affecting the insurance portfolio yet as actions thus far have been targeted at prospective projects, but as stakes rise, this may change.

Environmental insurance has been available in this country for a while, with insurers relying on foreign policy wordings without necessarily ensuring their offerings cohere with the Canadian regulatory environment, explains Carl Spensieri, Vice President, Environmental Insurance at Berkley Canada.

“Most of the policies currently available in the Canadian marketplace originate from parent companies based in the US or Europe, where environmental regulations are much tougher.  It doesn’t always make commercial sense for the overseas-based insurers to tailor their wordings specifically to the market here, given that the size of the environmental insurance portfolio in Canada is only about $150 million, about 10 times smaller than the estimated $1.5-$2 billion market in the US,” Spensieri explains.

A complicating factor for the environmental portfolio is that unlike many developed jurisdictions, Canada is not regulated by prescriptive environmental standards. Rather, there are guidelines. (There are, however, exceptions such as when a former industrial site is to be converted to residential use. In these situations, requirements are very explicit.)

It is this difference that creates a misalignment between policy wordings and cover intent, Spensieri explains. The guidelines that stand in lieu for regulation, rather than allowing for greater latitude during cleanup, often pose problems for both the insured and the insurer when a claim is made.

For example, a policy may state that the insurer will foot the cost of cleaning up a polluted site to the standard “as required by law,” but what happens when the law is silent on the matter?

The claim is often denied, which then forces the insured to petition a regulatory authority to issue a cleanup order.  Canadian regulators, however, are very hesitant to offer specific advice or issue orders.  “In Canada, we have the underlying philosophy of the polluter pays principle.  But if the property you pollute is your own, there is rarely any requirement to remediate,” Spensieri points out.  A regulator, however, will take action (including issuing an order) if the pollution seeps or affects a neighbouring property not owned by the polluter, or a public natural resource.

This lack of clarity has served to dampen the environmental insurance market, with some insurers electing to only offer policies which respond to cleanup when legally required.

David V. Tupper, a partner at Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP in Calgary, notes that the courts have yet to give clear direction in an area which affects commercial and general liability (CGL) policies. CGL policies have a 120-hour provision within which the insured has to report the pollution to the insurer.  Only then can the provision for cover be triggered.  However, whether the 120-hour provision is an absolute requirement has not been clarified by the courts, with no resolution of this matter in terms of reported decisions, says Tupper.

 EVOLVING PORTFOLIO

According to Tupper, there are three broad developments in environmental liability insurance that have occurred over the last five years.

  1. Environmental impairment liability policies (EIL)

EIL policies cover third party exposures for the manufacturing or servicing industries. They cover first party cleanup expenses and pollution from waste material, as well as third party cleanup expenses, bodily injury and property damage arising from a pollution event.

“EIL policies are usually not tied to sudden accidental release of pollutants, but most do provide broad coverage for businesses after extensive due diligence by the insurers,” says Tupper.  “EIL policies also have strict limits.”  Such policies tend to focus on non-legacy, light hazard, and fixed site exposures.  They typically avoid known contamination conditions.

Strategic Underwriting Managers for example, bills its EIL policy as an endorsement that is meant to address the gap created by the pollution exclusion in CGL policies.

  1. D&O insurance and environmental liability

The second development in environmental insurance arose out of a recent case in Ontario.

The decision in Baker et al. v. Director, Ministry of the Environment cast a pall over Canadian boardrooms when the former directors and officers of Northstar Aerospace, Inc. and its parent, Northstar Aerospace (Canada) Inc., were held personally liable by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) for contamination at the insolvent company’s former manufacturing and processing facility in Cambridge, Ontario.

Northstar Aerospace Facility, Cambridge, Ontario (Photo Credit: Richard Vivian, Cambridge Times Staff )

The environmental contamination arose from the migration of trichloroethylene from the site to nearby residential properties.  Northstar began a voluntary remediation of the site in 2005 but after it began to encounter financial difficulties, the MOE issued a remediation order in March 2012 to secure continued performance of the work. Following the sale of substantially all the company’s operating assets (other than the site) in July 2012 under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), no personnel or resources were left to continue the work.  Due to human health concerns, the MOE took the extraordinary step in August 2012 of undertaking the remediation work itself.

When the stay of proceedings under the CCAA expired in October 2012, the MOE issued a remediation order against certain directors and officers of the company.  The directors and officers appealed to the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal, pointing out that some of them were not on the board when the contamination occurred and they had had no specific responsibility for environmental matters.  The MOE counter- argued, pointing out that the directors and officers had allowed the company to file for CCAA protection and stop remediation activities, which therefore made them responsible for remediation under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act.  The ERT agreed with the MOE’s argument and ordered the directors and officers to foot the bill so that remediation work could continue until the appeal process was completed. The directors and officers were forced to pay approximately $800,000 for the interim work and subsequently reached a settlement with the MOE, where eight of the individuals paid a total of $4.75 million.

“It’s not surprising that this case created a significant concern among directors and officers that they would be pursued for environmental cleanup,” says Tupper.  “And what’s happened in the last few years – a focus on D&O insurance and the environmental provision.”

Some D&O policies have been revamped to include environmental cover.  For example, last September, RSA Insurance introduced a policy called “Ironclad,” which the company describes as a comprehensive Side A DIC (Difference in Conditions) insurance policy to bridge the gap between “unavailable corporate indemnification, an unresponsive or exhausted underlying D&O policy, and the directors’ and officers’ personal assets.”  But there are questions about the level of protection that would actually be offered, warns Tupper.

  1. New entrants in the marketplace

There is no doubt that notwithstanding certain shortcomings outlined above, the environmental insurance portfolio is evolving with new entrants in the marketplace differentiating themselves.

Berkley Canada, for example, offers expedited cleanup in its environmental policies, a feature which it says is unique in Canada.  Expedited cleanup not only ensures that an insured can file a claim for cleanup, but also ensures the cleanup method used is fast and efficient, rather than the most cost-effective.  This enhancement helps minimize project delays, says Carl Spensieri.

The company is also specifically targeting public private partnership consortiums involved in major infrastructure projects in Canada.  Berkley’s environmental policies target companies undertaking such projects by covering not only cleanup of pollution caused by the contractor’s work, but also the financial cost when pollution is discovered on the owner’s site.

“Today, risk is more complex than ever before.  As such an insured should always undertake the appropriate level of due diligence and ensure they are engaging the appropriate underwriting and broking expertise when purchasing environmental insurance,” Spensieri warns.

Over the summer, Beazley, a provider of specialist environmental liability insurance launched its local environmental coverage in Canada, focusing on fixed site and operational liability risks.

“Key target industries are the manufacturing, industrial, real estate, hospital and educational sectors,” notes a company statement.

CANADIAN LEGAL INTERPRETATION BROADENING?

In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada held that environmental laws may be interpreted broadly, even when no obvious damage to the environment was discerned, in order to better protect the public.

In Castonguay Blasting v Ontario, a company, Castonguay Blasting, conducted a blasting operation when it was working on a highway-widening project in Eastern Ontario.  The blast damaged a nearby home and vehicle with fly-rock from the blast-site, but the natural environment was not harmed.  However, Castonguay was charged and convicted for failing to report the incident to the environment ministry under Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act.

Castonuay Blasting,a drilling and blasting contractor, has more than 40 years of experience in the quarry sector

Castonguay Blasting, which was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, argued that the EPA does not apply if the natural environment is not also harmed.  A unanimous Supreme Court, however, disagreed with Castonguay’s position.

Justice Rosalie Abella, writing for the seven-member Court, held that the EPA is entitled to a generous interpretation to ensure that it can properly respond to a wide variety of environmentally harmful scenarios so as to protect the public.  “The statute places both the obligation to investigate and the decision about what further steps are necessary with the Ministry and not the discharger,” she affirmed.

In a separate case, however, the British Columbia Court of Appeal confirmed the application of the environmental exclusion provision in CGL policies.

In Precision Plating Ltd. v. Axa Pacific Insurance Company, 2015 BCCA 277, the BC Court of Appeal held that the insurer had no duty to defend the insured for claims alleging property loss arising from the escape of toxic chemicals.

The insured, Precision Plating, had leased a space within a multi-tenanted commercial strata building and stored vats filled with toxic chemicals used in its electroplating business.  In 2011, a fire broke out on the insured’s premises, activating the sprinkler system.  The water caused the toxic chemicals in the vats to overflow and seep into neighbouring units.  The insured applied for a declaration that the insurer had a duty to defend these claims, which Axa disputed.

At issue was the interpretation of the pollution exclusion clause in the CGL policy.

Precision’s CGL policy stated that insurance does not apply to “Bodily Injury, Personal Injury or Property Damage caused by, contributed to by, or arising out of the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, emission, dispersal, seepage, leakage, migration, release or escape at any time of Pollutants.”

The trial judge determined that a literal interpretation of the pollution exclusion clause would lead to a result that was inconsistent with the insured’s “reasonable expectations” of coverage, especially since the main purpose of the insurance policy was to indemnify against liability for fire damage.

On appeal, Axa contended that the unambiguous terms of the pollution exclusion in the policy state clearly that any liability created because of property damage caused by the “seepage or leakage, migration, release, or escape of a pollutant is expressly excluded from coverage.”  The Appeal Court upheld Axa’s reading, noting that the CGL policy “does not cover a claim where liability associated with the release of pollutants is alleged, whether as a sole or concurrent cause.”

On January 14, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed, with costs, the application for leave to appeal the decision of the BC Court of Appeal.

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM AND INSURANCE PORTFOLIOS

TransMountain Expansion Project

Based on media coverage, it would appear that environmental activism is getting noisier and, in some cases, becoming quite effective in changing the course of projects and the direction of business investments.

In a recent BNN TV interview, ‎managing director and head of portfolio strategy at CIBC World Markets, Ian de Verteuil, said that analysts calculate that about $25 billion of global energy money has left Canada this year, primarily because of the negative reputation that Canada’s oil sands have in Europe.

In March 2017, Royal Dutch Shell and Houston-based Marathon Oil sold their stake in the Athabasca Oil Sands Project for $12.7 billion to Canadian Natural Resources. Then, in the same month, ConocoPhillips sold its $6.8 billion stake in Cenovus Energy, in order to exit the oil sands.

Global players have a relatively small part of their production output tied to Canadan oil sands but de Verteuil said  European management would regularly be confronted by persistent questioning from a certain segment of shareholders.  For many, the trouble that oilsands was causing them was just not worth their while.  “This exit boils down primarily to environmental concerns,” de Verteuil said.

Blake’s Tupper notes that thus far, environmental activism has not impacted the environmental insurance portfolio because the actions are directed at prospective projects.

Map of proposed Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Configuration (Credit: NRCAN)

An example is the highly contentious TransMountain Expansion Project (TMEP), which was approved by the Federal Government in November 2016. TMEP is currently facing 18 court challenges.  Most recently, Reuters reports that more than 100 environmental activists are practising seaborne drills to disrupt construction, slated to begin in September.  Analysts Credit Suisse even acknowledged in an investment note that, “British Columbia’s political changes translate into a difficult path for TMEP,” after the British Columbia government applied for intervener status in court challenges against the pipeline expansion.  The province’s former Liberal government had issued an environmental certificate for the project earlier this year, but Premier John Horgan successfully campaigned in the spring provincial election on doing everything possible stop it.

Kinder Morgan Canada, however, says it remains committed to expanding its TransMountain Pipeline, and says it expects to have the project in service by the end of 2019.  It reportedly has approximately $4-billion in financial capacity to clean up a pipeline spill — $750-million in spill liability insurance and $3.2 billion in equity (cash reserves and cash flow.)

This is an excerpt from the September 2017 CIP Society trends paper, Environmental Insurance. You can read the full paper online at https://www.insuranceinstitute.ca/en/cipsociety/information-services/advantage-monthly/0917-environmental-insurance

_____________________________

About the Author

Indrani Nadarajah is a business and insurance writer with extensive international experience. She is also an experienced health writer, who enjoys writing on the latest medical developments as well as health economics issues.  She has co-authored papers with researchers from the University of Toronto that have been published in prestigious journal including the Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology (JASIST).  She has previous been the editor of Thomson Reuters Australia for nine years and the news editor at Reed Business Information.  Indrani has a Master’s degree in Library and Information Science and a M.A. in Literature from the National University in Singapore.

HAZ-MATTERS Emergency Management Inc. aligns with STRATEGIC ALLIANCE, HAZTECH GROUP

HAZ-MATTERS Emergency Management Inc. recently announced a newly established strategic alliance with Haztech Group in Saskatchewan for the ongoing provision of specialty hazardous materials training.

Haztech is a vertically integrated, full-service occupational focused Medical, Health, Safety, Security, and Training service provider, with the prime focus being Safety and Service Delivery.  The company claims to have established themselves as “the new standard,” in the health and safety fields by providing best-practice services throughout western Canada.

 

Haztech offers a suite of services to an array of industrial, construction, oilfield and mining clients, including the public sector.  The company directs industry to adopt higher compliance standards in health, safety and security through the comprehensive support and reinforcement.

Opportunities for Tank Hauler and Hazmat Truck Drivers

According to a recent article in The Job Network, there is a high demand in the United States for drivers for tanker trucks and hazmat vehicles.  According to the article the highest-paying trucking jobs in the U.S. Market are as follows:

  1. Tanker Hauler

Tanker trucks are those big machines that haul liquid such as water or gasoline. You’ll need to get your commercial driver’s license (CDL) endorsed to do this particular job, which can be both difficult and dangerous since liquid cargo can be unstable. However, it is one of the highest paying trucking jobs—fuel tanker drivers earn as much as $70,000 per year. Consider the extra training and certification as an investment in your career.

  1. Hazmat Diver

Like tanker hauling, hauling hazardous materials is another way to up your game.  Get your CDL endorsed for this skill and you can widely increase the number of tanker hauls you’re eligible to do. Endorsing your CDL means you have access to a specialized (and lucrative) category of jobs. Hazmat drivers are also guaranteed a minimum of $1,000 a week after a year of experience according to RoadMaster.com.

  1. Oversized Load Hauler

You need a special license and special training to haul extra-large loads such as heavy machinery, but, again, driving wide or oversized loads will mean you’ll be paid more. According to WideLoadShipping.com, oversized load truckers earn between $53,125 and $90,000 on average. You might even earn six figures if you’re willing to sacrifice some home time and work extra hard.

  1. Ice Road Trucker

When it comes to trucking, no one earns more than ice road truckers. These are the brave souls who deliver their loads over pure ice. It’s an extremely dangerous career, but it is also extremely well paid—AOL Jobs reports that some ice road truckers earn up to $250,000 for just two months of icy-season work.

  1. Transport Driver

Hauling junked cars, specialty vehicles, or luxury cars will earn you more than the standard cargo. Transport drivers earn about $53,000 a year on average.

  1. Team Driver

Team drivers hook up with others to go twice as far, twice as fast. You won’t get a lot of breaks outside of the truck in this field, but you will make amazing time—and money. The average team truck driver makes $50,000 per year.

  1. OTR Driver

Specialize in long hauls from coast to coast and you’ll be sure to earn a good living. OTR, or “Over the Road,” drivers do daunting work and must be 21 or older to score gigs, but at a starting annual salary of $40-45,000 per year according to RoadMaster.com, the pay is great.

  1. Instructor

Not every job in the trucking industry involves actual trucking. Instructors teach others how to do this specialized work while still being able to go home every night. They earn between $22,500 and $51,800 a year according to PayScale.com.

  1. Recruiter

If you’d rather just get paid to send other guys out on the road, you should consider becoming a recruiter. According to GlassDoor.com, the national average salary is a very enticing $50,000 a year for this comparatively low-effort career.

  1. Owner/Operator

Would you rather be your own boss? Well, owning a trucking company may sound like a great job, though there are numerous expenses to consider. Nevertheless, you’re still likely to end up earning a lot more than the drivers who actually have to lug their loads across the country. Indeed.com estimates that the average owner/operator makes an average annual salary of $141,000. That’s not bad for playing with trucks!

 

Ontario Environment Industry Day – December 12th 2017

Register now: https://environmentindustryday2017.eventbrite.com

With a provincial election coming in June 2018, this year’s Environment Industry Day at Queen’s Park will feature a unique afternoon program and panel!

  • Join representatives from a range of environment and cleantech firms as we discuss what policies we need from Ontario’s major political parties in the coming election.  What does your firm need to grow?
  • What regulatory and legislative barriers are holding you back?
  • What do politicians of all stripes need to know about running and growing an Ontario environment and cleantech business?

We will hold a series of roundtable discussions, followed by our annual industry political panel that will feature:

  • Trish Nixon, Chief Impact Investing Officer, ‎CoPower Inc
  • Brandon Moffatt, cleantech entrepreneur and VP, Development & Operations, Stormfisher Environmental
  • Michele Grenier, Executive Director of the Ontario Water Works Association (OWWA)

Moderated by Sandra Odendahl, President & CEO, CMC Research Institutes

AGENDA for Tuesday, December 12, 2017:

1:30 PM                Registration and networking
2:00 – 2:45 PM     Roundtable discussions of industry issues
2:45 – 4:00 PM     Tables report back and panel responds
4:00 – 4:30 PM      Political and policy response
4:30 PM                 Networking and walk to Queen’s Park reception

LOCATION: Charbonnel Lounge of St. Michael’s College at the University of Toronto, 81 St Mary Street, Toronto, ON M5S 1J4

TO REGISTER:
Please visit link https://environmentindustryday2017.eventbrite.com

Register now to secure your seat as space is limited!

Consider becoming a sponsor of EID for as little as $750 – and all sponsorships include tickets to the event.  Please contact Sonia Zorzos at info@oneia.ca / 416-531-7884 and she can put you in touch with the sponsorship committee.

Heiltsuk First Nation to sue Kirby Corporation over 2016 diesel spill

As reported in Coast Mountain News, this month marks the one-year anniversary of the October 13 oil spill in Bella Bella, British Columbia. With the community’s recovery efforts undermined by government and Kirby Corporation’s refusal to take responsibility for the spill and to cooperate in its aftermath, the nation says it has no option but to turn to the courts.

“The oil spill continues to be a catastrophic injury to our food sources, culture, and economy,” says Heiltsuk Tribal Council Chief Councillor, Marilyn Slett. “Thanks to Kirby Corporation and the governments of British Columbia and Canada, our community’s road to recovery keeps getting longer and longer.”

The Nathan E. Stewart articulated tug/barge was southbound from Alaska when it ran aground at Edge Reef near Athlone Island on Oct. 13, 2016. (Photo Credit: Western Canada Marine Response Corporation)

Kirby Corporation and government have kept information secret about what occurred on October 13, 2016 when the Nathan E. Stewart grounded, sank and spilled oil into Gale Pass. The Heiltsuk Tribal Council made numerous separate requests for information to the polluter (Kirby Corporation) and various government agencies, including Transport Canada, the Transportation Safety Board, and the Canadian Coast Guard. Those requests were largely denied or ignored.

The Nation claims this secrecy and lack of collaboration has continued throughout the post-spill recovery.

“Recently, we learned the B.C. Ministry of Environment and Kirby have been secretly negotiating an agreement on the post-spill environmental impact assessment since early this year,” says Chief Councillor Slett. “Since this nightmare began, the polluter and provincial and federal governments have ignored our questions and environmental concerns, our collaboration attempts, and our rights as indigenous people. We have no choice but to turn to the courts.”

The nation is preparing to take legal action, aiming to recover damages suffered by its members as well as to examine the actual state of Canada’s “world class” oil spill response system.

The case will seek compensation for loss of commercial harvesting of marine resources and infringement of Aboriginal rights relating to food, social and ceremonial importance of marine resources — factors that the current oil spill liability framework does not account for.

“When I’m not harvesting Gale Pass to feed my family, I am working there as a commercial fisherman, earning an income to support them – and I’m one of many,” says harvester and volunteer oil spill responder, Robert Johnson. “Despite our reliance on Gale Pass, the governments of British Columbia and Canada and Kirby the polluter have little interest in understanding the impacts of this oil spill on the health of my community, this environment, or our economy.”

The existing oil spill response framework excuses the polluter and government from full responsibility for oil spill impacts on Aboriginal rights otherwise protected by the Constitution.

As such, the government of British Columbia and Kirby are not required by law to do comprehensive impact assessments of the oil spill. To date, they have rejected multiple Heiltsuk requests to participate in a study of the current and long-term impacts of the oil spill on the health of the ecosystem and marine resources and the social and economic consequences associated with the loss of harvest and use of the impacted area.

Instead, Kirby Corporation and the BC Ministry of Environment are proposing a limited environmental assessment covering a minority of the area and species affected.

Heiltsuk Nation will be asking the courts to assess whether this existing regime of liability for oil spills can really be considered constitutional.

“We’re learning the hard way that indigenous people and coastal communities can’t count on polluters, Western Canada Marine Response Corporation, or the governments of B.C. and Canada in a crisis situation,” says Kelly Brown, Director of the Heiltsuk Integrated Resource Management Department. “For our sake, and the sake of our neighbours, we are consulting with a range of experts to assess damages, recovery times, and, ultimately, determine how we can prevent a similar disaster in the future.”

The Nathan E. Stewart sinking off Bella Bella, British Columbia

Analyses of the oil spill response have revealed massive safety and planning oversights by the polluter and federal and provincial government regulations. They include: a lack of spill response materials; ineffective booms and delays in employing them; a lack of safety instructions and gear for Heiltsuk first responders exposed to diesel and dangerous marine conditions; and confusion over who was in charge in the early hours of the oil spill.

“Government representatives travel the province, country, and the world preaching reconciliation and nation-to-nation relationships with first people. Meanwhile, back home, they are avoiding our calls and emails, excluding us from meetings, and ignoring our rights,” says first responder and Hereditary Chief Harvey Humchitt. “If the courts have to explain that this is not what nation-to-nation relationships and reconciliation look like, so be it.”

The Heiltsuk Tribal Council expects the results of the various impact assessments, legal analyses, and evaluations to materialize in the coming weeks.

Environmental Opportunity for Women-owned Small Business Firms in the U.S.

Federal Business Opportunities, FBO-5787, Solicitation W912P917R0055, 2017

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued a solicitation that is earmarked  for woman-owned small business (WOSB) firms.  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, plans to seek firms for environmental remediation construction efforts that include remedial design, remedial action, and remedial excavations of contaminated material at pre-determined depths; HTRW manifesting; utility relocation; water management; engineering support; and construction support.  The anticipated work lies within the geographic boundaries of the Mississippi Valley Division and U.S. EPA Regions 5 and 7.  Solicitation W912P9-17-R-0055 will be an RFP for lowest-price technically acceptable proposals. Contract duration is five years. The NAICS code for the work is 541620 (Environmental Consulting Services), with an SBA size standard of $15M.  Release of the solicitation is anticipated on FedBizOpps on or about October 9, 2017. For more information, visit https://www.fbo.gov/notices/106dd6fa43c17c865b58b8f17de28425

QM Environmental Announces Appointment of New CEO

QM Environmental, a Canadian environmental and industrial services company, recently announced the appointment of Justin Sharp as Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. Sharp brings more than two decades of experience in senior leadership roles, most recently as President and Chief Operating Officer of FirstOnSite Restoration, a Canadian disaster restoration company, where he led a restructuring effort to position the company for sale to a US operator, resulting in the creation of the second largest restoration firm in North America.  Prior to that, he held progressive positions over almost twenty years at SNC-Lavalin, serving his last five years as Senior Vice President, Operations and Maintenance across North America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, where he led expansion efforts, refined product offerings to better serve the local markets and clientele, created a world-class team, and prepared the groundwork to position the company for long-term growth.

Mr. Sharp holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Saint Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia and a Master’s degree from the University of Toronto.

QM Environmental is a environmental and industrial services company with offices located across Canada.  QM services include: Environmental Remediation, Demolition and Decommissioning, Hazardous Materials Abatement, Civil Earthworks, Emergency Response, Training, Waste Management and Facilities, and Water Treatment.

Canadian Environmental Code of Practice for AST’s and UST’s

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) recently updated the Note to Reader of the Environmental Code of Practice for Aboveground and Underground Storage Tank Systems Containing Petroleum and Allied Petroleum Products to reflect Canadian Standards Association standard CAN/CSA-B837-14.  The new standard addresses collapsible fabric storage tanks.  Please click on the following link for details: http://www.ccme.ca/en/resources/contaminated_site_management/management.html

TURI Publishes Nanomaterials Fact Sheet

Recently, the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI), a research, education, and policy center established by the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act of 1989, published a nanomaterials fact sheet.  The fact sheet is part of a series of chemical and material fact sheets developed by TURI that are intended to help Massachusetts companies, community organizations, and residents understand the use of hazardous substances and their effects on human health and the environment.  The fact sheet also includes information on safer alternatives and safer use options.

According to the fact sheet, TURI researchers have started a blueprint for design rules for safer nanotechnology.  The design rules include five principles, which together follow the acronym SAFER, as shown below.  The principles focus on aspects such as modifying physical-chemical characteristics of the material to diminish the hazard, considering alternative materials, and enclosing the material within another, less hazardous, material.  The fact sheet notes that other researchers have proposed other more specific design rules, which include avoiding chemical compositions of engineered nanomaterials that contain known toxic elements, and avoiding nanomaterials with dimensions that are known to possess hazardous properties.

Design Principles for SAFER Nanotechnology

  1. Size, surface, and structure: Diminish or eliminate the hazard by changing the size, surface, or structure of the nanoparticle while preserving the functionality of the nanomaterial for the specific application;
  2. Alternative materials: Identify either nano or bulk safer alternatives that can be used to replace a hazardous nanoparticle;
  3. Functionalization: Add additional molecules (or atoms) to the nanomaterial to diminish or eliminate the hazard while preserving desired properties for a specific application;
  4. Encapsulation: Enclose a nanoparticle within another less hazardous material; and
  5. Reduce the quantity: In situations where the above design principles cannot be used to reduce or eliminate the hazard of a nanomaterial, and continued use is necessary, investigate opportunities to use smaller quantities while still maintaining product functionality.

The fact sheet provides a summary of regulations concerning nanomaterials.  Massachusetts currently has no regulations specifically governing the use or release of nanomaterials.  At the federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) primarily regulates nanomaterials under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

The fact sheet notes that as of 2017, companies using or manufacturing nanomaterials that have not been subject to pre-manufacture notices or significant new use rules will be subject to a one-time reporting and recordkeeping rule.