Forecast for U.S. Federal and International Chemical Regulatory Policy 2019: Hazardous Materials

The ACTA Group of Bergeson & Campbell PC recently wrote an article in the National Law Review (NLR) forecasting the U.S. federal and international chemical regulatory policy related to hazardous materials for the coming year. The two major areas covered are hazardous materials transportation and trade.

Under hazardous materials transportation, the NLR article predicts that the
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) will face the challenge of a growing burden on it as the scope and complexity of its mission grows. The article predicts this pressure will require the PHMSA to fundamentally rethink how it will use data, information, and technology to achieve its safety goals.

The article states that new information and research will drive much of what PHMSA undertakes in 2019. Advances in technology, enhanced commerce, and a rapidly evolving global trade in hazardous materials must be matched by PHMSA if it is to satisfy its mandates. At this point, PHMSA appears to recognize these new challenges and is poised to maintain its highly honed edge on hazardous materials transportation.

Specific actions that PHMSA will undertake in 2019 include the following:

  • Legislative requirements in the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, especially as it applies to high hazard flammable trains – PHMSA is slated to promulgate a final rule pursuant to the FAST Act that will expand the applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans based on thresholds of liquid petroleum that apply to an entire train ;
  • Transportation of lithium batteries by air;
  • Conversion of special permits;
  • International standards harmonization; and
  • Identifying research gaps and determining priorities.

The NLR article states that PHMSA can be expected to continue to promulgate rules in compliance with its statutory mandates but it also recognizes the need to shore up gaps and to keep pace with an accelerating array of products that are transported in commerce. New information and research will drive much of what PHMSA undertakes in 2019. Advances in technology, enhanced commerce, and a rapidly evolving global trade in hazardous materials must be matched by PHMSA if it is to satisfy its mandates.

With respect to U.S. trade with other countries, the NRL article discusses the five pillars of U.S. trade policy:

  1. Trade Policy that Supports National Security Policy;
  2. Strengthening the American Economy;
  3. Negotiating Trade Deals that Work for All Americans;
  4. Enforcing and Defending U.S. Trade Laws; and
  5. Strengthening the Multilateral Trading System.

Specific trade actions are discussed in the NRL article that apply hazardous materials including the new agreement that replaces the North American Free Trade Agreement and the new focus of the U.S. on bi-lateral trade agreements.

Is Ontario “Open for Business” when it comes to Excess Soil Management?

by  Grant Walsom, XCG Consultants

Since the 2013 call for a review in the regulatory gaps surrounding the ability for enforcement on mismanagement of excess soils in Ontario, the Ministry of Environment (now called Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks – MECP) has tirelessly worked towards a proposed Excess Soil Regulatory package for Ontario.  The efforts have included an unprecedented process of stakeholder listening sessions, consultations and engagement group meetings and inter-Ministerial reviews over the past 5 years.

The proposed Excess Soil Regulatory Package was formed through 2 separate postings on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) and is reportedly ready for Cabinet Approval.  Further, the regulatory package is formulated with general overall acceptance by the construction and development industry in Ontario as well as the supporting industries (i.e., legal, consulting, laboratories) and municipalities.  It is generally agreed that the proposed Regulation outlines possible opportunities for beneficial reuse with sustainable considerations (examples would be reduced truck traffic and reduced greenhouse gases creation).

We are coming to understand that the current Conservative Provincial Government is strongly opposed to a majority of initiatives created by the previous Liberal Government.  The Conservatives are in favour of the red-tape reduction, streamlining operations and fiscal responsibility.  In fact, there is now a Deputy Minister of Red Tape and Regulatory Burden Reduction in the Ontario Cabinet.  His job is to make Ontario “Open for Business.”  Any new Regulation such as those being reviewed by MECP could certainly be viewed as counter-productive in terms of red-tape reduction.    However, with the release of the Made-in- Ontario Environment Plan on November 29, 2018, it appears that Excess Soil Regulation will be enacted in some form in the not-to-distant future.  There will no doubt be some changes to the proposed Regulatory package, but it is good to see that Regulation will proceed.

To date, one of the biggest challenges that the enforcement regime of the Environment Ministry had was the gap in how excess soil (impacted with contaminants or not) could be classified as a “waste material” if it’s not managed properly or if it’s illegally dumped.  We have all seen the extensive media coverage of a number of illegal dump sites, innocent property owners mislead on the quality of the fill they are accepting, and private air-fields who have capitalized on the regulatory gaps in Ontario where excess soil is concerned.  Enforcement against illegal dumping or misrepresentation of the soil quality is not clear or easily achieved under the current Environmental Protection Act and regulations such as Regulation 347 (Waste Management).  Minor amendments to Regulation 153/04 (Brownfields Regulation) have also been proposed to assist in streamlining and simplifying filing of Records of Site Condition and redevelopment of Brownfield properties.  Further definitions of soil, waste and inert fill are also forthcoming in the new proposed Excess Soil Regulatory package.

One of the main benefits of the proposed Excess Soil Regulation is the clarity it provides in the expectations of appropriate management of excess soil along with the steps that would be followed to provide the level of certainty that the public would expect.  It puts a heavy onus on the generator of the excess soil (or the source site) to assess the quality against a set of new standards.  The Standards were developed as a subset of the O. Reg. 153/04 Brownfield Standards, aimed at assisting in identifying acceptable and beneficial re-use of the excess soil.

Beneficial reuse of excess soil has a strong consideration for soil quality in terms of chemical testing to assess for contaminants; however, Ontario soils are highly variable with respect to the geotechnical quality for engineered reuse (i.e., silt, clay, sands, gravels and poor quality mixed fill).  Recovered excess soil may require some screening/grading to classify the geotechnical qualities prior to identifying an appropriate engineered and beneficial reuse.  Market-based solutions and opportunities for excess soil supply and demand services are sure to be identified as creative Ontarians have historically shown innovation in finding geotechnical solutions for excess soil.  The new regulatory package allows for this to happen to the benefit of both sender and receiver parties. Increasingly, clients are also choosing to avoid moving soils by employing methods to limit or even eliminate the amount of soils that have to be moved from a poor fill site with things like landscaped architectural features or ground improvement to treat soils in place.

Another benefit of the proposed excess soil regulation is the placement of the responsibility to ensure and “certify” the quality of the excess soil and the appropriate handling and re-use of the material by the source site or generator.  This requires a shift in the thinking around management of any excess soil materials to be assessed and pre-planned at the beginning of a project, versus at the last minute and left to the excavation contractor, as has historically been done.  The shift in thinking and pre-planning may take time, but with the assistance of the “Qualified Person” community in Ontario, the planning can be simplified.  The industry is already starting to shift to a more responsible management of excess soils, with the knowledge of potential Regulatory changes. The proposed Excess Soil Regulatory package has a well-defined transition period of two full years to be fully enacted, giving the construction and development industry time to become used to the shift in thinking and pre-planning as well as the procurement groups to ensure that the appropriate assessment and characterization activities are completed.

The benefits of many aspects of the proposed Excess Soil Regulatory package are clear and are desired in Ontario.  The business community has hoped that the current Conservative Government in Ontario understands that the Excess Soil Regulatory package has been requested by the citizens of Ontario, and formulated through an exhaustive consultation and engagement of the various stakeholders in the Province. It has also been hoped that the current Provincial Government sees the value in many aspects of the proposed regulatory package for management of excess soils.  With reference to Excess Soil Regulation in the Environment Plan, it certainly appears that the current Provincial Government does see the value.  Further, the complimentary minor amendments to the soil and waste definitions are needed as are the proposed amendments to the Brownfield Regulation.

Since the June 2018 election, the construction and development industries in Ontario have been patiently waiting for clarity on how the current Provincial Government plans to proceed.  It is clear that this new legislative change will help to make Ontario open for business and it appears that the current Provincial Government agrees.  We will now see what changes to the proposed Regulatory Package will be made, hopefully, sooner than later.

This article was first published in the Geosolv website.

About the Author

Grant Walsom, P.Eng., is a Partner at XCG Consulting Limited and recognized as a Qualified Person in Ontario under the Record of Site Condition Regulation (O. Reg. 153/04). He proudly serves on the Board of Directors at the Ontario Environment Industry Association (ONEIA) and the Canadian Brownfields Network (CBN). Grant can be reached at grant.walsom@xcg.com.

GFL Fined $300,000 for illegal sale of PERC

On December 10, 2018, GFL Environmental Inc. was sentenced after pleading guilty in the Ontario Court of Justice to violating federal environmental legislation. The company was fined $300,000.

The charges were laid January 2017 after inspectors determined that GFL had supplied tetrachloroethylene, also known as PERC, to nine dry cleaning operations in Toronto, Newmarket, Scarborough, Mississauga, Waterloo, London and Cambridge that had not adhered to containment measures required by law.  According to an indictment filed with the court at that time, infractions noted by enforcement officers included inadequate wastewater containment systems and floor drain plugs that were not resistant to PERC.

The company, along with president and CEO Patrick Dovigi, vice-president of sales and marketing John Petlichkovski, and Louie Servos, identified as a GFL employee, were each charged with 16 counts under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, according to the indictment.

The resolution presented in court on December 10th saw GFL pleading guilty to two counts. The remaining charges were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.

After an investigation led by Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officers, charges were laid and GFL Environmental Inc. pleaded guilty to two counts of contravening the Tetrachloroethylene (Use in Dry Cleaning and Reporting Requirements) Regulations (SOR 203/79) under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 for selling tetrachloroethylene, commonly referred to as “PERC” to owners or operators of dry-cleaning facilities that did not meet regulatory standards.

GFL was fined $150,000 for each offence; the minimum fine for a first-time offender is $100,000. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 allows courts to fine offenders up to a maximum of $4 million.

SOR 203/79 prohibits anyone from selling tetrachloroethylene to dry cleaners unless the dry-cleaning facility is compliant with the equipment specifications set out in the Regulations, which aim to reduce releases into the environment.

dry cleaning equipment

The Regulations are unique in that in places the onus of the seller of “PERC” to ensure that the buyer (typically dry cleaning facilities) have the proper equipment and training to prevent the release of PERC into the environment.

Tetrachloroethylene, used commercially since the early 1900s, has been an important chlorinated solvent worldwide. Tetrachloroethylene is a colourless, volatile liquid with an ether-like odour. It is also commonly referred to as perchloroethylene or PERC.

The most important routes of exposure to tetrachloroethylene for the general public are ingesting contaminated water and inhaling ambient air.  Improper disposal and releases from dry cleaning facilities and landfills can lead to groundwater contamination and potential environmental exposures.

PERC is a dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL), meaning that it is only slightly soluble and more dense than water.  When released in the subsurface, it will migrate downward, adsorbing into soil particles, slightly dissolving into groundwater, and eventually making its way to bedrock where it will pool and continue to dissolve into the groundwater.  As a result, PERC is very difficult to remediate from the subsurface.

As a result of this conviction, GFL Environmental Inc. will be added to the Environmental Offenders Registry.

The $300,000 fine will be directed to the Environmental Damages Fund.  The Environmental Damages Fund (EDF) is a specified purpose account, administered by Environment Canada, to provide a mechanism for directing funds received as a result of fines, court orders, and voluntary payments to priority projects that will benefit our natural environment. The Environmental Damages Fund (EDF) follows the Polluter Pays Principle to help ensure that those who cause environmental damage or harm to wildlife take responsibility for their actions.

United States: Successor Liability for Environmental Liabilities

by Julie Vanneman, Director, Cohen & Grigsby

What happens when one company acquires the assets of another, then—many years later—receives a demand to participate in the clean-up of a contaminated site based on the acquired company’s long-ago shipment of materials to the site? 

As a general rule, the buyer of assets in an asset acquisition does not automatically assume the liabilities of the seller. However, under the doctrine of successor liability, a claimant may be able to seek recovery from the purchaser of assets for liabilities that were not assumed as part of an acquisition. This claim may be employed in cases involving environmental liabilities, especially when the original party is defunct or remediation costs are greater than the original entity’s ability to pay for the cleanup.[1]

Courts have taken different positions on whether state law or federal common law governs the determination of successor liability for claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), known also as Superfund. This distinction may have little practical effect because federal common law follows the traditional state law formulation. Notably, though, when evaluating successor liability under federal law, and specifically environmental laws like CERCLA, the doctrine may be more liberally applied because of policy concerns about contamination.[2]

Under the successor liability doctrine, a buyer can be held responsible for liabilities of the seller if one of four “limited” exceptions applies:

(1) the successor expressly or impliedly agrees to assume the liabilities; (2) a de facto merger or consolidation occurs; (3) the successor is a mere continuation of the predecessor; or (4) the transfer to the successor corporation is a fraudulent attempt to escape liability.

K.C.1986 Ltd. P’ship v. Reade Mfg., 472 F.3d 1009, 1021 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Mex. Feed & Seed, Co., Inc., 980 F.2d 478, 487 (8th Cir. 1992)). A fifth exception, the substantial continuity exception, is a broader standard,[3] but most circuit courts do not apply it in CERCLA cases.[4]

Exception 1, express or implied assumption, must be analyzed in terms of the specific asset agreement in question. Exception 4, fraud, is generally employed in circumstances where the acquired company shifts its assets to avoid exposure to another entity.[5]

Courts have addressed the main issue of successor liability by asking whether the transaction is simply the handing off of a baton in a relay race (successor liability) or whether the new company is running a separate race (no liability).[6]  Examining factors relevant to the remaining elements—numbers 2 (de facto merger) and 3 (continuation)—helps answer the question. Under the doctrine of a de facto merger, successor liability attaches if one corporation is absorbed into another without compliance with statutory merger requirements. A court would look at whether there is a continuity of managers, personnel, locations, and assets; the same shareholders become part of the acquirer; the seller stops operating and liquidates; and the acquirer assumes the seller’s obligations to continue normal business operations.[7]  The “mere continuation” theory “emphasizes an ‘identity of officers, directors, and stock between the selling and purchasing corporations.’”[8]

Given the high stakes that can be involved with CERCLA cleanups, assessing prospects for applying the successor liability doctrine could be an important part of the liability analysis.


[1] See, e.g., James T. O’Reilly, Superfund and Brownfields Cleanup § 8:16, at 360 (2017-2018 ed.) [hereinafter O’Reilly] (“Mergers, sales of assets, and changing corporate names does not remove potential CERCLA liability.”).

[2] See O’Reilly § 8:16; see also, e.g.In re Acushnet River & New Bedford Harbor Proceedings re Alleged PCB Pollution, 712 F. Supp. 1010, 1013-19 (D. Mass. 1989) (in the CERCLA context, concluding that successor liability applied where there would be “manifest injustice” if one of the companies could “contract away” liability for PCB contamination).

[3] See K.C.1986 Ltd. P’ship v. Reade Mfg., 472 F.3d 1009, 1022 (8th Cir. 2007)

[4] See Action Mfg. Co. v. Simon Wrecking Co., 387 F. Supp. 2d 439, 452 (E.D. Pa. 2005).

[5] See, e.g., Eagle Pac. Ins. Co. v. Christensen Motor Yacht Corp., 934 P.2d 715, 721 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). This exception is rarely used. Restatement (Third) of Torts:Prod. Liab. § 12 cmt. e (Am. Law Inst. 1998).

[6] See, e.g.Oman Int’l Fin. Ltd. v. Hoiyong Gems Corp., 616 F. Supp. 351, 361-62 (D.R.I. 1985).

[7] Asarco, LLC v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No. 2:12-CV-00283-EJL-REB, 2017 WL 639628, at *18 (D. Idaho Feb. 16, 2017).

[8] United States v. Mex. Feed & Seed Co., 980 F.2d 478, 487 (8th Cir. 1992)  (quoting Tucker v. Paxson Mach. Co., 645 F.2d 620, 626 (8th Cir. 1981)).

This article was first published on the Cohen & Grigsby website.

About the Author

Julie counsels and represents clients in a range of environmental and litigation matters. She assists clients with day-to-day environmental compliance concerns and provides enforcement defense counseling, particularly with solid waste and groundwater issues. Her extensive background in CERCLA matters includes serving as legal counsel for clients involved in remediation initiatives at complex Superfund sites as well as litigating cases through multiple phases, including discovery, allocation negotiations, and alternative dispute resolution. Julie’s litigation practice encompasses not only environmental matters, but also insurance coverage actions and other commercial and business disputes.

Business Opportunities for Environmental Research and Development

The United States Department of Defense’s Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) is seeking environmental research and development proposals for funding beginning in FY 2020. Projects will be selected through a competitive process. The Core Solicitation provides funding opportunities for basic and applied research and advanced technology development. Core projects vary in cost and duration consistent with the scope of the work proposed.

The Statements of Need (SON) referenced by this solicitation request proposals related to the SERDP program areas of Environmental Restoration (ER), Munitions Response (MR), Resource Conservation and Resiliency (RC), and Weapons Systems and Platforms (WP).

The SERDP Exploratory Development (SEED) Solicitation provides funding opportunities for work that will investigate innovative environmental approaches that entail high technical risk or require supporting data to provide proof of concept.

Funding is limited to not more than $200,000 and projects are approximately one year in duration. This year, SERDP is requesting SEED proposals for the Munitions Response and Weapons Systems and Platforms program areas. All Core pre-proposals are due January 8, 2019. SEED proposals are due March 5, 2019. For more information and application instructions, see https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Funding-Opportunities/SERDP-Solicitations.

Market Report on VOC Detectors

VOC Detector Market

QY Research recently published the Global Market Study VOC Detector Market Provide Forecast Report 2018 – 2025.  The report presents a detailed analysis of the VOC Detector market which researched industry situations, market Size, growth and demands, VOC Detector market outlook, business strategies utilized, competitive analysis by VOC Detector Market Players, Deployment Models, Opportunities, Future Roadmap, Value Chain, and Major Player Profiles. The report also presents forecasts for VOC Detector investments from 2018 till 2025.

United States is the largest Manufaturer of VOC Detector Market and consumption region in the world, Europe also play important roles in global VOC Detector market while China is fastest growing region. The 126 page VOC Detector report provides tables and figures and analysis the VOC Detector market. The report gives a visual, one-stop breakdown of the leading products, submarkets and market leader’s market revenue forecast as well as analysis and prediction of the VOC Detector market to 2025.

Geographically, this report splits the global market into several key Regions, with sales (K Units), revenue (Million USD), market share and growth rate of VOC Detector for these regions, from 2013 to 2025 (forecast), covering United States, China, Europe, Japan, Southeast Asia, and India.

The report provides an analysis of the global VOC Detector market competition by top manufacturers/players, with VOC Detector sales volume, Price (USD/Unit), revenue (Million USD) and market share for each manufacturer/player.  The top players include the following: REA Systems; Ion Science; Thermo Fisher; Skyeaglee; Omega; and E Instruments.

The report provides an overview of the global market on the basis of product.  This report displays the production, revenue, price, market share and growth rate of each type, primarily split into the following types of detectors:
PID and Metal-oxide Semiconductor.   The report also breaks down the global market based on application as follows:  Environmental Site Surveying; Industrial Hygiene; and HazMat/Homeland Security.

RAE Systems Gas Detector

Environmental Industry M&A in 2018

Environmental Business International, Inc. (EBJ) recently published the 2018 Environmental Industry Mergers and Acquisitions.  The book provides an in-depth analysis of the mergers and acquisitions (M&A’s) that have occurred in the environmental industry in 2018.  Included in the publication are discussions on Stantec’s additions in the UK, Australia and New Zealand along with cultural fit in employee-ownership model at Golder.

The publication states that experts are calling 2018 as the “strongest year we have seen in this decade” with respect to M&A’s in the environment industry. According to the findings in the publication, M&A activity is at record levels and is up 20% over 2017. Some experts assert that Merger & Acquisition activity may be cresting in 2018, but many experts and deal-makers see scope for continued pace. Generally optimistic outlooks drive investment strategies of companies, private equity firms and corporate acquirers, but acquirers and sellers keep their correction contingency plans close at hand.

According the findings in the report, analysts, management consultants and investment bankers report that multiple factors are aligned to continue the strong pace of M&A and high valuations,

Exhibits in this 2018 Environmental Industry Mergers and Acquisitions edition of EBJ include:

  • Consolidation of U.S. C&E Industry 1990-2017
  • Top 10 U.S. Remediation Firms 2000-2016 (Gross Revenues in $mil)
  • Share of Top Companies in U.S. C&E Industry 2000-2017
  • Top 5 & 10 U.S. Environmental C&E Firms 1995-2017(Gross Environmental C&E Revenues in $mil)
  • A Decade of US M&A Activity in the AEC Industry
  • 2007-2018 Interstate M&A Deal Flow in AEC
  • 2018 Year-to-Date Heat Map of Regional AEC M&A Activity
  • Influence of Publicly-Traded Buyers in AEC M&A, 2007-2018
  • Influence of Private Equity in AEC M&A, 2013-2018
  • Most Prolific Buyers (2011 – YTD 2018)
  • Several revenue history and acquisition lists for profiled companies
  • Levels of Interest That Help Determine Value in AE Firms
  • U.S. M&A Activity in Environmental and Industrial Services: 2009-2018
  • M&A Activity in Environmental Services: Special Waste & Environmental Engineering & Consulting

For more information on the environmental C&E industry, visit Reports & DataPacks page.

When Oil and Water Mix: Understanding the Environmental Impacts of Fracking

Dan Soeder, director of the Energy Resources Initiative  at the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology, has co-authored the cover article titled “When oil and water mix: Understanding the environmental impacts of shale development,” in the recent issue of GSA Today, a magazine published by the Geological Society of America.

The article explores what is known and not known about the environmental risks of fracking with the intent of fostering informed discussions within the geoscience community on the topic of hydraulic fracturing, says Soeder. Soeder’s co-author is Douglas B. Kent of the United States Geological Survey.

In this paper, Soeder and Kent bridge the gap in consensus regarding fracking, providing current information about the environmental impacts of shale development. The article is open access and adheres to science and policy, presenting a complicated and controversial topic in a manner more easily understood by the lay person.

“Geoscientists from dinosaur experts to the people studying the surface of Mars are often asked by the public to weigh-in with their opinions on fracking. We wanted the broader geoscience community to be aware of what is known and not known about the impacts of this technology on air, water, ecosystems and human health.  A great deal has been learned in the past decade, but there are still critical unknowns where we don’t yet have answers,” Soeder says.

Development of shale gas and tight oil, or unconventional oil and gas (UOG), has dramatically increased domestic energy production in the United States and Canada.  UOG resources are typically developed through the use of hydraulic fracturing, which creates high-permeability flow paths into large volumes of tight rocks to provide a means for hydrocarbons to move to a wellbore. This process uses significant volumes of water, sand, and chemicals, raising concerns about risks to the environment and to human health.

In the article, Soeder and Kent address the various potential impacts of fracking and how those impacts are being addressed.  Risks to air include releases of methane, carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter. Water-resource risks include excessive withdrawals, stray gas in drinking-water aquifers, and surface spills of fluids or chemicals. Landscapes can be significantly altered by the infrastructure installed to support large drilling platforms and associated equipment. Exposure routes, fate and transport, and toxicology of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process are poorly understood, as are the potential effects on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and human health.

Schematic diagram illustrating unconventional oil and gas (UOG) development activities relevant to research on human-health and environmental impacts (not to scale): well-pad construction (1); drilling (2); completion/stimulation (3, 4); production of natural gas (5) and oil (6) with well casings designed to protect drinking-water aquifers; ultimate closure (plug and abandon), illustrating legacy well with leaking casing (7); wastewater disposal (8); induced seismicity (9); landscape disturbance (10); and potential for transport pathways from deep to shallow formations (11). Also represented are water supply wells in shallow and deep aquifers (12). Photographs by Dan Soeder.

 

Ontario construction groups launch video series on excess soil management

In southern Ontario, the management and use of excess soil is a growing issue.  There has long been concerns of unscrupulous players wrongly classifying contaminated soil as excess soil and managing it incorrectly.  Likewise, there has been long-standing concerns expressed by those wanting to do the right thing of ambiguous and uncertain rules with respect to determining what is excess soil and how to manage it.  As a result, honest industry participants end up hauling excess soil to landfill that could have otherwise been utilized for useful purposes.

According to data compiled by the the Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario (RCCAO), Ontario’s  construction market generates almost 26 million cubic metres of excess construction soil every year.  About $2 billion is spent annually to manage excess soil – which comes from civil infrastructure projects such as transit, roads, bridges, sewers, watermains and other utilities.  Even though most municipal roadways contain only minor amounts of salt from winter road treatment, large quantities of soil are often hauled up to 100 kilometres away to designated dump sites, rather than being reused on site or at other nearby construction sites.

“Clean excess soil can be more responsibly managed through better upfront planning,” says Andy Manahan, executive director of the Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario (RCCAO). “That’s why we co-produced a three-part video series to increase awareness that there are alternatives to the ‘dig, haul long distances and dump’ approach.”

RCCAO teamed up with the Greater Toronto Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association (GTSWCA) to produce this video series to inform the public, government and industry on the benefits of using best management practices. It’s called “The Real Dirt on Dirt: Solutions for Construction Soil Management.”

There are a lot of trucks on the road travelling 60 to 100 kilometres to dump excess soil as a waste material – and that is completely wrong, says Giovanni Cautillo, executive director of GTSWCA.

“It’s not a waste – it’s a reusable resource,” Cautillo says. “When municipalities provide guidance to contractors about where soil from local infrastructure projects can be reused, the costs of handling and disposing of soil can be dramatically reduced. Wherever possible, soil should be reused onsite, but if this is not possible, having an approved reuse site within a close distance saves taxpayers money.”

When best management practices are used, there are fewer trucks travelling long distances, causing less wear and tear to the roads – and less traffic congestion. Fewer trucks on the road reduces greenhouse gas emissions, creating a cleaner, healthier environment.

The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) is currently reviewing draft regulations to help improve ways to manage soil on building and infrastructure projects across the province. Manahan says that “a multi-ministry approach – environment, municipal affairs, transportation, infrastructure and others – will also help to achieve a more coordinated effort.”

CHAR Announces Successful Commissioning of Biocarbon Facility

Andrew White, CEO of CHAR Technologies Ltd.

CHAR Technologies Ltd. (“CHAR”) (YES – TSXV) recently announced that it has successfully commissioned its biocarbon production facility.  CHAR creates two types of biocarbon, an activated charcoal “SulfaCHAR” and a solid biofuel (bio-coal) “CleanFyre.”  At full capacity, the facility will be capable of producing up to 5 tonnes per day of biocarbon.

“Successful commissioning is a very significant milestone for CHAR,” said Andrew White, CEO of CHAR. “We are now able to produce commercial quantities of SulfaCHAR, as well as enough CleanFyre to test as part of our project with ArcelorMittal Dofasco and Walker Environmental.”

The completion of commissioning is the next milestone in CHAR’s Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) project.  Upon acceptance of the milestone report by SDTC, the next progress payment can be processed.

CleanFyre is a carbon neutral solid biofuel, and through its implementation will allow users to significantly reduce their GHG emissions.  SulfaCHAR is a zero-waste activated charcoal, with application in the desulfurization of renewable natural gas.  Both are made from low-value materials, including anaerobic digestate and wood-based by-products.

About CHAR

CHAR Technologies Ltd. is a cleantech development and services company, specializing in biocarbon development (activated charcoal ‘SulfaCHAR’ and solid biofuel ‘CleanFyre’) and custom equipment for industrial air and water treatment, and providing services in environmental management, site investigation and remediation, engineering, and resource efficiency.

CHAR Pyrolysis Unit, pre-installation and commissioning (Photo Credit: CHAR)