Nanoremediation of soil contaminated with Arsenic and Mercury

Researchers in Spain recently published a paper describing the utilization of nanoremediation technology to clean-up soil at the Brownfield site heavily contaminated with arsenic and mercury.

The research draws on a several lab-scale experiments that have shown the use of nanoscale zero-valent iron (nZVI) to be effective in reducing metal(loid) availability in polluted soils.


The core-shell model of zero-valent iron nanoparticles. The core consists of mainly zero-valent iron and provides the reducing power for reactions with environmental contaminants. The shell is largely iron oxides/hydroxides formed from the oxidation of zero-valent iron. The shell provides sites for chemical complex formation (e.g., chemosorption).

The researchers evaluated the capacity of nZVI for reducing the availability of As and Hg in brownfield soils at a pilot scale, and monitored the stability of the immobilization of these contaminants over a 32 month period. The researchers contend that their study is the first to apply nZVI to metal(loid)-polluted soils under field conditions.

In the study, two sub-areas (A and B) that differed in pollution load were selected, and a 5 m2 plot was treated with 2.5% nZVI (by weight) in each case (Nanofer 25S, NanoIron). In sub-area A, which had a greater degree of pollution, a second application was performed eight months after the first application.

Overall, the treatment significantly reduced the availability of both arsenic and (As) and mercury ((Hg), after only 72 h, although the effectiveness of the treatment was highly dependent on the degree of initial contamination.

Sub-area B (with a lower level of pollution) showed the best and most stable immobilization results, with As and Hg in toxicity characteristics leaching procedure (TCLP) extracts decreasing by 70% and 80%, respectively. In comparison, the concentrations of As and Hg in sub-area A decreased by 65% and 50%, respectively.

Based on the findings, the researchers contend that the use of nZVI at a dose of 2.5% appears to be an effective approach for the remediation of soils at this brownfield site, especially in sub-area B.

Alexco/JDS Group buys Abandoned Mine, Agrees to Remediate it

The Supreme Court of Yukon Territory recently approved the sale of the abandoned Mount Nansen Mine site to the Alexco/JDS Group. The unique arrangement with the Alexco/JDS Group, allows the company to pursue future work at the mine while obligating them to remediate contamination from past mining activities at the site.

The abandoned Mount Nansen site is a former gold and silver mine located in the traditional territory of the Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, near the Village of Carmacks. As a Type II Mine site, the Canadian federal government accepted responsibility for its existing liabilities in the 2012 Yukon Devolution Transfer Agreement. The federal government provides 100% of the funding for site care and maintenance operations as well as for the development of long-term remediation plans. This funding is provided through the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan 

Mt. Nansen; August 14; 2008; aerial photo; mill

The sale process began in 2016, when the Yukon Supreme Court appointed PriceWaterhouseCoopers Interim Receiver and Receiver-Manager of the mine’s former operator.

The sale of the mine was complicated by the fact that in involved the court-appointed receiver for the former owner of the mine, the Canadian federal government, the Yukon Territory government, and the Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation.

Under the conditions of the sale, Alexexco/JDS Group must immediately accelerate work on the remediation plan that had been initiated by the Yukon government and submit it for regulatory approval. The Canadian government has committed funding to pay for the remediation.

Russell Blackjack, Chief of Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, stated in a news release: “After almost three decades of concern and constant pressure and monitoring from Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation government, the citizens of the Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation will be pleased to see the finalization of the agreements that will lead to the remediation of the abandoned BYG mine site at Mt. Nansen. ”

The new owners, Alexco/JDS Group, consists of Alexco (TSX: AXR / NYSE-American: AXU) , a primary silver company headquartered in Vancouver and JDS Energy & Mining Inc. , a Canadian-based resource development company with experience in mine design, development.

The Mount Nansen Mine is listed on the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory. Approximately 5,400 hectares of land is contaminated at the site. There is also surface water contamination. Contaminants include petroleum hydrocarbons and metals.

The federal government estimates that clean-up of the site will cost $37 million with an additional $2.8 million for care and maintenance. It is estimated that the remediation of the mine site will take up to 10 years.

Windsor provides $10.5 million in incentives to develop brownfield site

Farhi Holdings Corporation has been approved for almost $10.5 million in financial incentives from the City of Windsor as part of the Brownfield Redevelopment Community Improvement Plan.

The developer has owned a 24.5 hectare (60 acre) piece of vacant land next to the WFCU Centre, Windsors sports and entertainment complex, since 2005. It had been zoned industrial and had been the home of a GM trim plant and other industrial operations.

Farhi is working toward developing the site as office/retail/commercial space that will include 119 detached residential lots, four townhouse blocks, five multiple dwellings buildings, and a hotel. Approximately 3.1 hectares will remain for commercial development. The redevelopment is estimated to cost $59 million. The company is anticipating that work at the site will begin in the Fall.

The 24.5 hectare property represents approximately 11 percent of the City of Windsor’s brownfield inventory. It’s location next to the WCFU Centre makes it an ideal redevelopment opportunity.

The Windsor Brownfield Redevelopment Community Improvement Plan is designed to encourage the development of brownfields by offering incentives for development. In case of the Farhi Holdings property, the
$10.5 million in incentives from the City of Windsor will be in the form of tax breaks over a 13 year time period.

Farhi Holdings had a consultant conducted an environmental site assessment and estimate the cost of remediation. The environmental report estimates that 31,215 cubic metres of contaminated soil will need to be removed and replaced with clean fill. The total estimated cost for remediation and demolition work at the property is $6.4 million.

One section of the property (the area for the proposed hotel) has already been remediated and is not part of brownfield redevelopment incentive agreement. The hotel, once built, would generated between $380,000 to $450,000 in annual property tax revenue to the City.

A search of the Record of Site Condition (RSC) registry shows that one has not yet been filed for the property – 1600 Lauzon Road. Typically, an RSC is required prior a property zoning being changed. An RSC is a record of the site conditions and includes information on any remedial activity and the level of contamination at a site.

Farhi Holdings Corporation is a real estate and development company based in London, Ontario. The company was founded in 1988.

U.S. DOE seeking contractor to provide supplemental organic treatment at Superfund Site

The United States Department of the Energy (U.S. DOE) Washington River Protection Solutions LLC recently issued an Expressions of Interest (EOI) from contractors capable of providing a supplemental organic treatment system for one the 200 Area effluent treatment facility (ETF) at the Hanford Superfund Site.

The Hanford Site is a decommissioned nuclear production complex operated by the United States federal government on the Columbia River in Benton County in the U.S. state of Washington.

The main treatment train at ETF currently eliminates the hazardous characteristics of the waste and allows for delisting the effluent. Beginning around January 2022, the ETF will receive a new wastewater stream that will be generated nearly continuously for a period of ~40 years and is anticipated to contain at least four organic constituents-acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, acetone, and methylene chloride-in concentrations that exceed the expected performance range for the existing system.

Input is requested from Industry to enable an evaluation of an off-the-shelf procurement and a procurement/design activities solution to meet the future requirement. Expressions of interest are due by 9:00 AM PT on May 6, 2019.

More information is available here: https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOE/CHG/ORP/EOI-KJF-19-04-01/listing.html

About the Hanford Site

Established in 1943 as part of the U.S. Manhattan Project in Hanford, south-central Washington, the site was home to the B Reactor, the first full-scale plutonium production reactor in the world.

Most of the reactors were shut down between 1964 and 1971. The last reactor at the Hanford site operated until 1987. Since then, most of the Hanford reactors have been entombed (“cocooned”) to allow the radioactive materials to decay, and the surrounding structures have been removed and buried.

In 1989, the State of Washington (Dept. of Ecology), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) entered into the Tri-Party Agreement which sets targets, or milestones, for cleanup. The U.S. EPA and State of Washington Dept. of Ecology share regulatory oversight based on Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, also referred to as Superfund) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of River Protection (ORP) operates the 200 Area ETF. The ETF has been treating wastewaters from processing activities at the Hanford Site since 1994. The main treatment train at ETF includes, in order: pH adjustment; coarse filtration; ultraviolet/hydrogen peroxide oxidation (UV/OX); pH adjustment; excess peroxide decomposition; degasification; fine filtration; reverse osmosis (RO); and, ion exchange (IX).

To date, $15 billion (U.S.) has been spent on clean-up efforts at the Hanford site. In 2014, the estimated cost of the remaining Hanford clean was $113.6 billion (U.S.). Clean-up was estimated to occur until 2046. There are over 10,000 workers on site to consolidate, clean up, and mitigate waste, contaminated buildings, and contaminated soil.

Nature based solutions for contaminated land remediation and brownfield redevelopment in cities: A review

A collaboration of researchers from various Universities from around the world recently published a research paper in Science of the Total Environment that reviews nature based solutions for contaminated land remediation. The paper contends that Nature-based solutions (NBS) including phytoremediation and conversion of brownfield sites to public greenspaces, holds much promise in maximizing a sustainable urban renaissance.

The researchers claim that urban industrialization has caused severe land contamination at hundreds of thousands of sites in cities all around the world, posing a serious health risk to millions of people. The also state that many contaminated brownfield sites are being left abandoned due to the high cost of remediation.

Traditional physical and chemical remediation technologies also require high energy and resource input, and can result in loss of land functionality and cause secondary pollution.

NBS is an umbrella concept that can be used to capture nature based, cost effective and eco-friendly treatment technologies, as well as redevelopment strategies that are socially inclusive, economically viable, and with good public acceptance. The NBS concept is novel and in urgent need of new research to better understand the pros and cons, and to enhance its practicality.

The review article summarizes NBS’s main features, key technology choices, case studies, limitations, and future trends for urban contaminated land remediation and brownfield redevelopment.

Saskatchewan Accepting Applications for government funding of Contaminated site Clean-ups

The Environment Ministry of Saskatchewan recently announced that it was accepting applications from municipalities for funding to clean-up contaminated sites.

Critics claim the paltry $178,000 in the fund is barely enough to cover the costs of the clean-up of one site. The source of money in Saskatchewan’s Impacted Sites Fund are the fines collected under The Environmental Management and Protection Act, 2010. 

Administered by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, the fund provides financial support to municipal governments to clean up these sites so they can be used for future economic or social development opportunities.  An abandoned, environmentally impacted site is an area, such as a former gas station or laundromat, that has been contaminated.

“In addition to the obvious environmental and human health benefits of cleaning up contaminated sites, the Impacted Sites Fund will allow communities to use those sites for other, economically beneficial purposes,” Environment Minister Dustin Duncan said.

Municipalities can apply for funding at the Saskatchewan Environment Impacted Sites Fund web page. Municipal governments and municipal partnerships, which may include municipally owned corporations, not-for-profit organizations, and private companies, are eligible to apply for project funding to clean up the contaminated sites using the Impacted Sites Fund. 

Applications are not funded on a first-come, first-served basis.  The Ministry of Environment will assess and rank the applications according to environmental, social, and economic factors.  First priority will be given to sites that pose the greatest risk to human or ecological health.

United States: When Is Property Damage From A Release “Expected Or Intended”? Only After The Owner Learns Of The Spill And Ignores It

Written by Seth JaffeFoley Hoag LLP

Any good trial lawyer will tell you that the law is about telling stories.

Once upon a time, Timothy and Stacy Creamer bought a house.  Only after they closed did they realize that some strategically placed rugs were hiding the evidence that, “up from the ground come a bubblin’ crude.”

Unlike Jed Clampett, rather than finding themselves millionaires, the Creamers found themselves with a million dollar liability – literally.

This being a law story, of course the sellers were bankrupt.  The Creamers thus pursued the sellers’ insurer.  The case ended up in the Appeals Court, which held that the Creamers could pursue their claims under the policy.

The insurer, Arbella, made three arguments in support of its summary judgment motion.  The Court rejected them all.  In order, the Court held that:

  1. The property damage was caused by an occurrence.  Arbella argued that the damage was caused by the sellers’ fraud, not by the original release of oil.  However, as the Court pointed out, the Creamers’ had claims based on Chapter 21E, the Commonwealth’s superfund law.  Since Chapter 21E is a strict liability statute, the Creamers’ damages were caused by the release, not by the sellers’ fraud.  (But see number 3, below!)
  2. The loss occurred during the policy period.  Following precedent, the Court concluded that, so long as the property damage occurred during the policy period, it did not matter that the harm to the claimant did not occur until later.
  3. At least some of the damage was not “expected or intended.”  This is the most significant part of the case.  While preserving Creamers’ claims, the Court split the baby on this one.  It held that the original release was not expected or intended, but that, once the sellers discovered the spill without doing anything about it, any further damage was “expected” by the seller.  The Court thus remanded for a determination by the Superior Court how much of the total property damage was “expected.”

The Creamers will thus get their day in court, but, depending on when the sellers learned of the contamination, their recovery could be significantly limited.  They certainly will not get enough to move to Beverly Hills.  No swimming pools or movie stars for the Creamers.

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

About the Author

Seth Jaffe is recognized by Chambers USA, The Best Lawyers in America and Massachusetts Super Lawyers as a leading practitioner in environmental compliance and related litigation. He is one of the authors of the Law and the Environment Blog, www.lawandenvironment.com, which provides real-world perspectives on current developments in environmental law and regulation. Seth is a past President of the American College of Environmental Lawyers.

Seth works on a wide range of environmental law issues, representing clients in the permitting/licensing of new facilities and offering ongoing guidance on permitting and enforcement related matters under federal and state Clean Air Acts, Clean Water Acts, RCRA, and TSCA. He also advises on wetlands and waterways regulation. Seth’s clients include electric generating facilities, companies in the printing and chemical industries, and education and health care institutions.

Global Remediation Market Forecast

According to the recently updated “Global Environment Clean up & Remediation Market By Medium, By Type, By Application, By Region, Competition Forecast & Opportunities, 2013-2023” issued by Research and Markets, the environment clean up & remediation market is projected to grow to nearly $130 billion by 2023, owing to growing demand for oil & gas, rising industrial pollution, and increasing number of pipeline leakages and incidents affecting the environment.

A similar market study published in 2017 by Zion Market Research estimated the environmental remediation market to reach $122.8 billion (USD) by 2022. According to the Zion Market Research report, entitled “Environmental Remediation Market for Banking and Financial Services, Telecom and IT, Healthcare, Government, Automotive, Government, Manufacturing and Retails and Other application: Global Industry Perspective, Comprehensive Analysis and Forecast, 2016-2022“, the global environmental remediation market was valued at around $79.57 billion in 2016 and was predicted to reach approximately $122.80 billion in 2022, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of slightly above 7.5% between 2017 and 2022. 

Environmental remediation technology deals with the removal of contaminants from environmental media such as soil, groundwater, or surface water. Remediation technologies are generally categorized into ex-situ and in-situ methods. Ex-situ methods offer excavation of affected soils and subsequent treatment at the surface and extraction of contaminated groundwater. In-situ methods offer to treat the contamination without removing the soils or groundwater.

Growing investments in the field of remediation services, stringent and transparent regulatory frameworks, and rapid industrialization in developing countries are drivers for the demand for environmental cleanup & remediation. Other drivers fueling the growth of environmental remediation market are rising demand from different industries such as oil and gas, mining and forestry, mining, automotive, chemicals, and others. 

North America and Europe are the major demand generating regions for environmental cleanup & remediation services, globally, on account of growing industrial and manufacturing activities in both regions. Some of the major players operating in global environment clean up & remediation market are Bechtel, Veolia Group, Clean Harbors, Suez S.A., Golder Associates Corporation, BRISEA Group, Inc., Dredging, Environmental & Marine Engineering NV, Terra Systems, Inc., ENTACT LLC, Weber Ambiental, etc.

The Researd and Markets remediation study discusses the following aspects of Environment Clean up & Remediation market globally:

  • Environment Clean up & Remediation Market Size, Share & Forecast
  • Segmental Analysis – Market By Medium (Surface Water, Ground Water & Soil), By Type (Bioremediation, Pump & Treat, In Situ Vitrification & Others), By Application, By Region
  • Competitive Analysis
  • Changing Market Trends & Emerging Opportunities

The Zion Market Research study provides a view on the environmental remediation by segmenting the market based on environmental medium, application, and region. All the of environmental remediation market have been analyzed based on present and future trends and the market is estimated from 2016 to 2022.In term of the environmental medium, environmental remediation market classified into soil and ground water. Based on application, global environmental remediation market is bifurcated into mining and forestry, oil and gas, agriculture, automotive, industrial, chemical, construction and land development and other application. The regional segmentation comprises of present and forecast demand in Asia-Pacific, Middle East & Africa, North America, Europe, and Latin America for environmental remediation market.

U.S. EPA Releases Annual Superfund Program Report for 2018

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) recently released a summary report of its accomplishments the 2018 fiscal year. The U.S. EPA has made Superfund a priority of the Agency.

Under the Superfund Program, the U.S. EPA is responsible for cleaning up some of the most contaminated sites in the U.S. and responding to environmental emergencies, oil spills and natural disasters. To protect public health and the environment, the Superfund program focuses on making a visible and lasting difference in communities.

For the 2018 Fiscal Year, the U.S. EPA reported that all or part of 22 sites from the National Priorities List (NPL) were were remediated and deleted from the NPL list.

Regional milestones in the Superfund Program for fiscal year 2018 include:

  • Furthering partnerships with state counterparts and local governments in identifying sites for expedited cleanup activities. (Mississippi Phosphates Corporation Pascagoula, Miss. and Fairfax St. Wood Treaters Jacksonville, Fla.)
  • Stepping up efforts to return sites to productive use and deleting sites from the National Priorities List (NPL). (Davis Timber Company (Hattiesburg, Miss.) Reasor Chemical Company (Castle Hayne, NC) Whitehouse Oil Pits (Whitehouse, Fla.)
  • Enhancing emergency response and preparedness efforts using innovative tools, comprehensive training sessions and rigorous exercises to respond to natural disasters such as Hurricane Florence and Hurricane Michael.

Highlights of EPA’s 2018 accomplishments include:

  • Improving human health for people living near Superfund sites by controlling potential or actual human exposure risk at 32 additional Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites and controlling the migration of contaminated groundwater at 29 sites.
  • Deleting 18 full and four partial sites from the NPL – the largest number of deletions in one year since 2005 – signaling to the surrounding communities that U.S. EPA has completed the job of transforming these once highly contaminated areas.
  • Returning sites to communities for redevelopment by identifying 51 additional sites as having all long-term protections in place and meeting our “sitewide ready for anticipated use” designation, the highest annual result since 2013.
  • Completing or providing oversight of 242 Superfund removal actions at sites where contamination posed an imminent and substantial threat to human health and the environment.
  • Quickly and effectively responding to large scale emergencies brought on by hurricanes, wildfires, and other natural disasters in California, North Carolina, Puerto Rico and elsewhere.
  • Moving many sites closer to completion by making decisions that have been delayed, including West Lake Landfill in Bridgeton, Mo.; USS Lead in East Chicago, Ind.; and San Jacinto Waste Pits in Channelview, Texas.

The U.S. EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler has recused himself from working on 45 Superfund sites as a result of his history of lobbying for International Paper Co. and Xcel Energy Inc., among other companies.

In addition, in July 2018, on the one-year anniversary of the agency’s Superfund Task Force Recommendations, the U.S. EPA issued a report covering Task Force accomplishments to date and laying out its plan for completing the remaining recommendations in 2019.

Click here to read the full report.

Disagreement on Human Health Impacts from former Wood Treatment Facility in Edmonton

On February 26th, the Alberta Environmental Appeals Board (AEAB) issued a Report with recommendations related to Orders issued by the Alberta Environment Ministry for the remediation of a former wood preservative facility in Edmonton.

The site had been owned by Domtar Inc. and had been used to treat wood with preservatives from 1924 through to 1987. The property was purchased by a Cherokee Canada Inc. in 2010. Cherokee planned on remediating the site and developing a residential neighbourhood.

The AEAB report deals with a dispute between Cherokee and the Alberta Environment Ministry on whether the property that housed the wood treated facility is remediated and if it poses a hazard to human health. The AEAB report concludes “there is no immediate risk to these residents and other people.”

The Board also concluded the Alberta Environment had no basis for issuing Enforcement Orders against Cherokee. The Board stated that more clean-up of the site is needed, but none of it is an emergency as claimed by the Alberta Environment Ministry.

John Dill, a managing partner at Cherokee, stated in an interview with Global News: “I’m pleased that the decision confirms that the site is safe for the neighbourhood and its residents. We’re anxious to put an end to any further uncertainty by following the process that’s been set out, suggested by the board and minister.”

If Cherokee had not appealed the Order and won, it would have faced a very significant cost in removing and disposing of the contaminated material. The company estimated the cost to conform to the Orders to be in the at least $52 million.

March 7th Alberta Environment Press Release

On March 7th, the Alberta Ministry of the Environment and Parks released the results of analytical tests performed on soil samples taken at the former wood treatment plant along with findings from a human health risk assessment. The risk assessment concludes that contamination at the site is hazardous to human health.

Officials from the Alberta Ministry of Alberta and Parks conducted sampling at analysis of the soil at site of the former wood treatment plant at various times between 2017 and 2018. The sampling program consisted of sampling surface soil and subsurface soils at more than 1,039 locations at the property and collecting/analyzing over 1,457 soil samples.

The results from the analysis of the soil samples indicate 183 samples have levels of contamination that exceed human health guidelines for dioxins and furans. Of these, 96 per cent are located in fenced-off areas. A number of other contaminants of concern for human health are identified in these reports. Remediation of those locations remains the responsibility of the companies previously ordered by Alberta Environment and Parks to clean up the site.

Google Maps view of the Site and Surrounding Properties

Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Chief Medical Officer of Health for Alberta stated: “Our highest priority is the health and safety of residents, and we will continue to work towards minimizing any potential health risks to local residents. While these reports show that there are hazards in the areas, these risks are being addressed through the protective measures already in place until remediation of the soil is undertaken.”

Human Health Risk Assessment

Alberta Health issued the finding of the Human Health Risk Assessment. It made a preliminary comparison of the rates of cancer, miscarriages and birth defects in the surrounding neighbourhoods. This initial analysis found no difference between rates in the area near the former Domtar site compared with other parts of the province, with the exception of three types of cancer.

Among people who had lived in the area for 10 or more years, there were:

  • 34 cases of breast cancer in women (16 to 31 cases would have been expected)
  • 14 cases of endometrial cancer in women (three to nine cases would have been expected)
  • 22 cases of lung cancer in men (six to 14 cases would have been expected)

No differences in any childhood cancers were found compared with other parts of the province.

This data on its own does not indicate why there are higher rates for these three types of cancer in the area. Many factors could contribute to an increased risk of cancer, including but not limited to medical history, medication use and tobacco use. Alberta Health will, therefore, be working immediately with federal experts to conduct a field epidemiology investigation to try and identify what population health factors might have contributed to higher rates of these three cancers.

The Alberta Environment press release states, as a precautionary measure, women who have lived in the area for 10 or more years should talk to their doctors about the risks and benefits of starting breast cancer screening at the age of 40. This is a precaution until the results of the field epidemiology study are available.

History of the Site

The site itself had been used as a wood preservative plant by Domtar Inc. from 1924 until 1987. The plant manufactured “treated” wood products such as railway ties and telephone poles. The wood products were treated with chemical preservatives, such as creosote, to prolong their lifespan.

Between 1987 and 2008, the plant was decommissioned and Domtar conducted a partial remediation of the property including soil testing. Contamination remains in the subsurface including creosote, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins and furans.

Cherokee Canada Inc. bought the site from Domtar in 2010 for $1.8 million. The purchase of the property is made with the company fully aware of the contamination at the site and with the acknowledgement by the Alberta Environment Ministry of a remediation plan to clean-up the property prior to redeveloping it for residential use.

Between 2011 and 2016, Cherokee Canada Inc. works on its remediation plan. Part of the plan consists of constructing a berm with contaminated soil from the site and covering it with clean soil. Cherokee Canada Inc. claims the berm structure contains contamination and that natural attention of the organic contaminants in the soil will occur over decades.

A 2013 environmental risk assessment conducted by Cherokee Canada Inc.
concludes that the constructed berm should not lead to any adverse health or environmental outcomes. The Alberta Environment Ministry approves a remediation certificate for a parcel of the site and allows for construction of a residential housing development on the parcel.

By October 2014, the contamination berm is nearly complete. The Alberta Environment Ministry claims that it was the first it had heard of the berm’s construction. The company says the province knew about the project all along and even had representatives on-site from time to time.

In 2016, the Alberta Environment Ministry conducts its own environmental testing at the site and claims that there is evidence of naphthalene in most of the samples, and that the substance is not contained.

Late in 2016, Cherokee sues the Province of Alberta for $126 million, claiming Alberta Environment acted in bad faith by “recklessly” changing its position on the remediation plan after the company had already spent considerable money.

Also in 2016, Alberta Environment issues an Enforcement Order that requires Cherokee to conduct further environmental testing. It also issues an Environmental Enforcement Order against both Cherokee and Domtar requiring further environmental testing in other parcels at the site.

In 2018, the Alberta Environment Ministry said third-party testing at the site found chemicals dangerous to human health. It imposed five enforcement orders on Cherokee, requiring the company to remediate any contamination.

Cherokee appealed the decision, arguing it had already undertaken remediation efforts (as had Domtar), including isolating and protecting contaminated soil from exposure.

The February 26th, 2019 decision by the Alberta Environmental Appeals Board vindicated Cherokee as the Board stated the Orders were inappropriate.

Cherokee Canada Inc.’s Position

In response to the Alberta Environment’s March 7th announcement, Cherokee issued its own press release. In the release, the company claims that Alberta Environment March 7th publication provides unsubstantiated information to community members about potential health risks. It also states that the issue of health risk and the appropriate standards and scientific criteria for remediation for certain chemicals of concern were addressed in by the Environmental Appeals Board in 2018.

The press release also states “We are concerned that the Ministry’s approach is a veiled attempt to influence the Minister’s response to the Board’s independent Report and Recommendations or to attempt to discredit the Board’s findings.”

March 13th Alberta Environment Orders

On March 13, Alberta Environment and Parks Minister Shannon Phillips released her decision on the appeal of the orders issued to Cherokee Canada Inc., 1510837 Alberta Ltd. and Domtar Inc.

In the the newest order, the minister directs the both Cherokee and Domtar to undertake the work on the site within specific periods of time from the issuance of the order. This work includes:

  • Temporary dust control plans (within seven days)
  • Dust control plans (within 60 days)
  • Site delineation (sampling) plan (within 90 days)
  • Site delineation(sampling) (within 150 days)
  • Site modelling identifying all current and historical sampling (within 180 days)
  • Human health risk assessment (within 210 days)
  • Site-specific risk assessments (within 210 days)
  • Reclamation and remediation plans (within 240 days)
  • Long term site monitoring plans (within 240 days)
  • Completion of residential reclamation components (within 280 days)

The minister also issued two environmental protection orders:

  • An order to Cherokee Canada Inc. and 15120837 Alberta Ltd. to conduct sampling and remediation within the neighbouring community and for the berm to the south of the community to address the presence of dioxins and furans.
  • An order to Domtar Inc. to conduct sampling and remediation within the neighbouring community and for the Greenbelt to the south of the community to address the presence of naphthalene, dioxins and furans.

A spokesperson for the Province of Alberta pointed out the AEAB’s recommendations “did not take into consideration the new testing results and health outcomes issued by the chief medical officer of health, as this information was not before the board at the time of the hearings (see below).