World Distribution Report on Hazardous Waste Treatment & Disposal Lines

Research and Markets recently issued a market report on hazardous waste treatment and disposal lines.  The report covers the years 1997 to the present and provides forecasts to 2020 and from 2021 to 2028.

Included in the report is a description of the distribution (and by implication the marketing and sales) of Products.  The data shows the geographic distribution of products that are consumed in the major Cities and Towns plus associated Distribution Functions, Structures, Costs and Margins.

Data in the report is broken down by Distribution Values, Local Distribution, Per-Capita Distribution, Marketing Costs & Margins, Product Launch Data, Trade Buyers & End Users Profile, Buyer Demographics. Historic Balance Sheets, Forecast Financial Data, Industry Profile, National Data.

For more information please click on: http://www.researchandmarkets.com/publication/m2az3cb/2967877

Market Report on Environmental Testing and Analytical Services Sector

Environmental Business International recently released a market report on the environmental testing and analytical services sector in the United States.  The report provides an analysis of the markets, competition, customer needs, and technology, pricing and M&A trends in the $2.0-billion U.S. market for environmental testing and analytical services.  This 326-page report is based on surveys, interviews and in-depth primary research on revenue generation, financial performance, and customer relationships of leading and emerging analytical services companies.

The market report features valuable perspective on trends over the past 25+ years that help guide forecasts for the future. Sections are devoted to market segmentation, operations, M&As and consolidation, and profiles of competitors large and small.  Included in the report are the following:

·       Detailed market breakdowns by customer type, sample media, service offering, competitor size, and state or region.

·       Primary research results of annual environmental labs survey by EBI and by TechKNOWLEDGEy Strategic Group.

·       Growth projections and factors for success in a competitive market.

·       Implications of new technology in the lab, field, data management, and customer service.

·       List of top firms, market share, ownership structure, and recent M&As.

·       Competitive analysis and changing share and ownership of top firms.

Underground Oil Storage Tanks on Residential Property in British Columbia: What Homeowners need to know

Residential heating oil storage tanks have been used in Canada for over 65 years.  Although many have now been decommissioned and the home converted to natural gas, the implications of owning a property that has a historical underground oil storage tank (a.k.a. “UST”) are potentially significant, especially if the underground oil storage tank has leaked.  As this article will briefly discuss, the resulting costs to investigate and remediate the contamination can be very high and the liability exposure quite broad.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

Contaminated sites – including residential properties contaminated from leaking underground oil storage tanks – are governed by the British Columbia Environmental Management Act (“EMA”).  Under the EMA, and specifically relevant to residential contamination, all current and previous “owners” and “operators” of the contaminated site are responsible for remediation of the contaminated site.  The scope of responsibility also extends to neighbouring properties impacted by the contaminants.  Therefore, if you purchase a property with an underground oil storage tank that has caused contamination (even if you did not own the property when the contamination was caused), you may be responsible for the costs associated with investigating and remediating the property and any impacted neighbouring properties as well.

Of course, the costs to investigate and remediate a property will vary significantly from one situation to the next.  However, many property owners are surprised to learn that it is not uncommon for the costs to reach as high as several hundred thousand dollars, especially in cases where there has been migration of contaminants and possible impacts under the foundation of the homes.

CAN I GET REIMBURSED FOR THE ASSOCIATED COSTS?

The EMA creates a statutory cause of action known as a “cost recovery claim” whereby a person who has incurred costs of remediation related to a contaminated site can recover such reasonably incurred costs from responsible person(s). Generally speaking, the costs recoverable under this cause of action include all costs to investigate and remediate the contaminants from the impacted properties. The key caveat is that the costs must be “reasonable”. The courts heavily rely on the opinion and recommendations of the environmental consultant when determining what costs are “reasonable”. Therefore, it is critical that a person undertaking such work retain a qualified environmental consultant to make any subsequent cost recovery claim against other potential “responsible person(s)” more likely to succeed.

HOW CAN I GET EXEMPTED FROM RESPONSIBILITY?

The scope of “responsible person” status, as indicated above, is quite broad under the EMA.  However, the EMA also creates a number of exemptions.  For example, there is an exemption that applies to an “innocent” purchaser of a property impacted by contaminants.  To fall within the exemption, the person must establish that he or she had no reason to suspect the property was contaminated at the time of purchase and undertook all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership and use of the property.  This exemption is critical to potential purchasers of property where there is or is suspected to be a historical underground oil storage tank.  Indeed, there are certain preventative steps that a potential purchaser can take to make it more likely that they fall within the exemption by, for instance, requiring a completed Property Disclosure Statement and requiring documentation if the tank was said to be decommissioned by a previous owner. Simply because a tank was decommissioned, does not mean that it has not caused or may cause contamination and, therefore, obtaining confirmatory documentation is important.

In the end, there is the potential for significant inconvenience, costs and complications arising from historical underground oil storage tanks, either to the owner of the property or the owner of an impacted neighbouring property.  As such, it is important that a person who owns a property with an underground oil storage tank or a person who is purchasing a property that may still have an underground oil storage tank (whether it is said to be decommissioned or not) fully understand the risk and issues that may arise.

________________

Five Reasons to perform a Hazardous Building Materials Assessment before every property purchase

Investors, owners, and banks know that a Property Condition Assessment (PCA) is a must on every new commercial property purchase.  Increasingly, these individuals are likewise recognizing the limits of the PCA to fully cover their potential liability.  Along with reserve tables and code compliance reviews, many have begun to add the hazardous buildin2g materials assessment to their due diligence. Here are five reasons to do the same.

1. The Presence of Hazardous Building Materials Increases the Cost of Renovations

Whether you plan to renovate immediately, change the property’s use, or simply want to understand the cost of maintenance and renovations down the road, a hazardous building materials assessment gives you critical information.  Asbestos, lead paint, silica, PCBs, and mercury are among the most common hazardous materials that impact the cost of renovations, and even new buildings are likely to contain one or more of these materials. It pays to know which ones and how much of it is present, as well as what the likely remediation costs will be.

2. Some Materials May Make the Property Unsuitable for Certain Purposes

Lead paint is usually only a problem when you disturb it, due to renovations. However, its presence can make the property unsuitable for use, particularly by child-occupied facilities such as hospitals, child care, and residential developments.  If you plan to use the property for any of these purposes, it’s good to know in advance whether you’ll have an immediate problem to deal with.

3. Other Materials May Make the Property Unusable for Any Purpose At All

Mold can grow for a year undetected until the building changes hands and becomes occupied by that one sensitive individual. Suddenly, remediation becomes the problem of the new owner, even if the mold has been there for years. It’s also possible for hazardous materials that were previously contained to deteriorate and become a problem more or less on their own. For example, we did extensive remediation on the Ringling mansion, Ca d’Zan, after it was discovered that rats had disturbed asbestos-containing materials. The dust had been disbursed through the HVAC system, and coated every surface in the building. Remediation cost the property owner millions of unbudgeted dollars, and was required before any use of the facility could proceed.

4. Improperly Disposed Materials Can Become Your Problem at Purchase

The presence of barrels, cans, bottles, or other containers of hazardous materials can become an environmental problem after the purchase. Current law holds that hazardous material disposal liability stays with the property—meaning that even if you did not create the situation, you are responsible for remediating it if you own the property.  Further, undetected containers of hazardous material can deteriorate over time and create a larger environmental problem that will be even more costly to remediate.  Knowing about the materials before you make the purchase allows you to remediate earlier rather than later—or to require the seller to perform the remediation.

5. Discovering Hazardous Materials Presents an Opportunity to Negotiate More Favorable Terms

Discovering the presence of hazardous materials on a property is not usually a deal-breaker. Instead, having a thorough understanding of the building’s hazardous materials liabilities gives the buyer an opportunity to renegotiate terms to ensure they receive the good value for their purchase. In the event that the purchase decision proceeds with the expectation of renovations, lenders can often increase the value of the loan in order to cover the true cost of those renovations.

Whether you’re a buyer or a lender, a hazardous building materials assessment just makes sense. You can talk to one of our assessment experts right now, or read more about hazardous building materials during renovation here.

__________________________

 About the author

Bob Greene, PE, PG, CIH, LEED AP President As the founder and president of GLE, Bob Greene leads a highly diverse team of architects, engineers, environmental consultants, and construction experts to design fast and effective property solutions.  He has served in the architecture, engineering, environmental consulting and remediation, and general construction arenas for nearly 40 years.

This article was first published on the GLE Associates website.

Demonstration of Innovative New Oil Recovery System

In mid-February, Lamor Corporation demonstrated an innovative new way to recover oil by deploying the Lamor Marine Oil Spill Sweeper LMOS 15 Speed Skimming system in Halifax, Canada in cooperation with their local representative, Griffin Engineered Systems, for leading Canadian response organizations and companies, represented by Eastern Canada Response Corporation (ECRC), Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Defense (DND), ALERT and RMI Marine.

The demonstration in Halifax involved deploying the LMOS 15 (15 indicates the size of the opening in meters, it is also available in 25m, 40m and 50m) from a jetty, and towing the system with a single vessel and a paravane (the paravane floats independently of the vessel and is connected by ropes, and once under way, will hold the sweep system open).  Once in the water, the observers boarded a second vessel which allowed them to see how the water flow was visibly slower as it moved through the LMOS Sweeper.

The system is designed to slow the velocity of the oil from 4.5 knots at the entrance, to approximately 0.7 knots in the collection pool, which allows the skimmer to collect and pump the oil back to the tow vessel.  The observers at the Halifax demonstration were able to see how easily the LMOS was to maneuver through the water, even when changing directions, the parvane keeps it in formation.

Although the Halifax demonstration did not include skimming of oil, a 2015 demonstration of the system in Norway did.  During that demonstration, the LMOS Sweeper was tested by NOFO during their oil on water spill response exercise.  During that exercise 45 m3 of oil was discharged and the LMOS Sweeper collected 43.4m3, a recovery efficiency of 96.4%.

Despite the harsh weather conditions Halifax harbor that day, with winds up to 35 knots, including snow changing to freezing rain and ice pellets, while temperatures were ranging from minus 4°C to plus 6°C, the deployment of the LMOS 15 went well and proved the system’s effectiveness and recovery capacity in various climatic scenarios.

Michael Hebb, VP Sales of Griffin Engineered Systems, commented: “Its solid floatation design ensures it [LMOS] is easier to deploy, is less susceptible to wind forces, and provides continuous pumping of oil to the tow vessel from the collection pool.  The LMOS Sweeper’s design allows for a single vessel operation that provides effective maneuverability and superior recovery at speeds of up to 4.5 knots.”

Jacek Dabrowski, Marine Environmental Emergency Response Officer, OHM, from the Canadian Department of National Defence enjoyed the demonstration and thought that the equipment looked very promising.

“Being able to demonstrate our equipment on location in the operators’ environment utilizing their people and resources is key to proving its ease of use and effectiveness,” said Dan Beyer, General Manager Lamor USA.

One of the unique features of the LMOS Sweeper is the multi-barrier system consisting of deflectors in a herringbone pattern, used to concentrate the oil in the water and to lead the oil back through the system to the skimmer.  These same multi-barriers help to prevent entrainment of oil under the barriers during turns or maneuvers.

Podcast on Excess Soil By-Law Tool

For those unable to attend the webinar hosted by the Canadian Urban Institute (CUI) on the Excess Soil Bylaw Tool for use in Ontario, the webinar recording is now available in the Workshops and Webinars section of CUI website.  It can also be found on the CUI YouTube channel.

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) has finalized the Excess Soil Management Policy Framework (the “Framework”).  The goal of the Framework is to protect human health and the environment from inappropriate relocation of excess soil.  The other goal of the Framework is to enhance opportunities for the beneficial reuse of excess soil and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the movement of excess soil.

The Framework provides principles to guide policy and program development; has a description of existing policy and current roles and responsibilities; and details policy needs, actions and priorities.

The Framework recognizes excess soil as a resource and promotes a system which strives for environmental protection, local beneficial reuse, consistency, fairness, enforceability, and flexibility.  Management of excess soil is a growing concern in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and rural municipalities surrounding the GTA.  The issue has received media attention with a focus on illegal dumping of soil, site alteration by-laws, commercial fill operations, tracking excess soil, concern over the quality of excess soil, and protection of the environment, water, and agriculture.

Of interest to municipalities is a by-law language tool that can be used in the development and updating clean fill and site alteration by-laws.  As part of the initiative, the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MMA) has introduced legislative amendments to the Municipal Act which includes a proposed change to allow site alteration by-laws to apply in conservation authority regulated areas.

Since the draft framework was posted for input, significant progress has been made on several of the proposed actions. For example, a by-law language tool has been prepared by the Canadian Urban Institute, with support from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MMA) as a resource for municipalities in developing or updating fill and site alteration by-laws.

Of interest to quarry owners and operators is the fact that the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) has introduced proposed legislative amendments to the Aggregate Resources Act, which include increased authority to make future regulations about record keeping on aggregate operations e.g., fill records.

To support integration and implementation, work is underway to examine market-based tools and programs to encourage reuse, and several MOECC-organized working groups have been established to support framework finalization and delivery, including the Excess Soil Engagement Group.

Managing excess soil in a responsible way is integral to building sustainable communities.  Improper management can result in impacts to ground or surface water quality and/or quantity, natural areas and agricultural lands, and cause several local issues including concerns regarding noise, dust, truck traffic, road damage, erosion, drainage and other social, health and environmental concerns.  Proper management of excess soil can result in benefits to the environment and economy.

Business Continuity half-day workshop – London, ON – March 24th

The Ontario Association of Emergency Managers, in partnership with the City of London, Ontario and the Disaster Recovery Information Exchange (DRIE), is presenting a Business Continuity half-day workshop.

The event will take place on March 24th from 8am to 12pm. Tickets are still available and can be purchased at the OECM website.

Brownfield Coalition of the Northeast Conference – March 15th

The 8th annual Brownfield Coalition of the Northeast (BCONE) is hosting its annual conference at the New Jersey Institute of Technology on March 15th 2017.

The theme of the conference is “Driving Revitalization Sustainably: identifying sustainable goals and strategies for revitalizing their communities and brownfields.”  The premier metropolitan workshop on identifying sustainable goals and strategies for revitalizing communities and brownfields

The conference brings together experts and attendees to discuss the most current and state of the art approaches and strategies that you will not hear anywhere else.  Past events have been attended by representatives from government, higher education, professional organizations, and laboratories, as well as attorneys, developers, contractors, and consultants.

The event will include a number of experts in their respective fields including Sarah Crowell, NY Department of State; Schenine Mitchell, Jim Cummings and Sabina Byck, U.S. EPA; Buddy Bealer, Shell Oil Company; Melissa Target, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Invited); John Morris, P.E., Honeywell; and Douglas Reid-Green, BASF.

To find out more about the conference and to register, visit the BCONE website.

 

Environmental Restoration Webinar – March 9th

The U.S. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and the U.S. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) are co-hosting a webinar on March 9, 2017, 12:00 PM EDT (16:00 GMT).  The webinar will feature Department of Defense (DoD) research in the environmental restoration program area.

Dr. Andy Martin and Dr. Steven Larson of the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center will be presenting at the webinar.   Dr. Martin will present on the use of lime to immobilize metals and transform explosives found in soil and surface water runoff from active military training areas.  Dr. Larson will discuss the use of a concentrated natural biopolymer for soil erosion control. For more information and to register for the webinar, please visit https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Tools-and-Training/Webinar-Series.

 

Canada’s Safety Board seeks strategies to reduce Hazmat Derailments

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) recently issued a recommendation (R17-01) calling for Transport Canada (TC) to develop strategies to reduce the severity of derailments involving dangerous goods.  The recommendation was issued as part of its investigation(R15H0013) into the February 2015 derailment and fire involving a Canadian National Railway (CN) crude oil unit freight train near Gogama, Ontario.

On 14 February 2015, a CN unit train transporting 100 tank cars loaded with petroleum products derailed.  It was travelling at 38 mph, below the 40 mph speed limit in place at the time.  Twenty-nine tank cars of petroleum crude oil derailed and 19 of these breached, releasing 1.7 million litres of product.  The crude oil ignited, resulting in fires that burned for 5 days.  There were no injuries.

“This accident occurred at a speed below the maximum speed permitted by the Transport Canada approved Rules Respecting Key Trains and Key Routes,” said Kathy Fox, Chair of the TSB.  “The TSB is concerned that the current speed limits may not be low enough for some trains — particularly unit trains carrying flammable liquids.  We are also calling for Transport Canada to look at all of the factors, including speed, which contribute to the severity of derailments, to develop mitigating strategies and to amend the rules accordingly.”

The investigation found that the derailment occurred when joint bars in the track failed.  Pre-existing fatigue cracks in the joint bars at this location had gone unnoticed in previous inspections. Once the fatigue cracks reached a critical size, the combination of the cold temperatures (-31 °C) and repetitive impacts from train wheels passing over the joint caused the joint bars to fail.  These defects went undetected as the training, on-the-job mentoring, and supervisory support that an assistant track supervisor received was insufficient.

The cars in this train were Class 111 tank cars built to the newer CPC-1232 standard.  Although this standard requires the cars to have additional protective equipment, the TSB determined that the speed of the train had a direct impact on the severity of the tank-car damage.  Additionally, the lack of thermal protection contributed to thermal tears in those cars located in the pool fire, which led to additional product release.  Consequently, the cars displayed similar performance issues as in theLac-Mégantic derailment.

“The Transportation of flammable liquids by rail has been on the TSB Watchlist since 2014”, said Chair Fox.  “While stronger tank cars are being built, the current ones will be in service for years to come.  The risks will also remain until all of the factors leading to derailments and contributing to their severity are mitigated.  This is the focus of the recommendation we issued today.”

The TSB is an independent agency that investigates marine, pipeline, railway and aviation transportation occurrences. Its sole aim is the advancement of transportation safety. It is not the function of the Board to assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability.