Guidance on Characterization and Remediation of Fractured Rock

The U.S. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) recently released its newest guidance document, Characterization and Remediation of Fractured Rock.  The guidance addresses significant advances in skills, tools, and lessons-learned in understanding contaminant flow and transport in fractured rock environments.  If the unique characteristics of fractured rock sites are understood, then modern tools and approaches can be applied to successfully set and meet characterization and remediation goals at these sites.

Contaminated fractured rock sites have often been considered too complex to be remediated, so site managers often default to simply containing the contamination. This guidance provides a high-level introduction to the unique puzzle faced when investigating and remediating fractured rock sites. With the new strategies and technologies presented here, fractured bedrock challenges that may have prevented site remediation in the past are now surmountable.

The guidance begins with a general discussion of fractured rock characteristics and a comparison of fractured rock and porous media CSMs. The guidance further introduces the parameters necessary for developing a fractured rock CSM and stresses the need for an experienced multidisciplinary team. The 21-Compartment Model is also introduced. This model is an adaptation of the 14-Compartment Model (Sale 2011) for unconsolidated materials. This model helps its users to visualize and understand contaminant storage, flux, and flow pathways in fractured rock.

Understanding contaminant fate and transport in fractured rock allows site managers to develop a robust CSM that can guide remediation. Specific geology and lithology and structure control the unique mechanics of fluid flow in fractured rock. In addition to these physical properties, chemical properties affect fate and transport and are equally important in developing the CSM.

This guidance details specific steps in solving the puzzle of fractured rock contaminant fate and transport, including:

  • reviewing and refining the CSM
  • defining the characterization problem
  • identifying significant data gaps
  • defining data collection objectives
  • identifying potential tools for data collection
  • developing and implementing the work plan
  • managing, interpreting, and presenting the data

A downloadable and searchable Tools Selection Worksheet is provided , which was initially used in ISC-1 (ITRC 2015b). The Tools Selection Worksheet allows users to screen for tools to address specific data needs and collect qualitative, semiquantitative or quantitative data as needed. The Tools Selection Worksheet links to detailed descriptions of all the tools and to references for further information. The guidance describes how data can be managed, interpreted, and displayed. Table 5-4 presents valuable lessons learned from real-world fractured rock characterization and remediation projects.

As a CSM nears completion, the guidance offers direction for developing remedial objectives and strategies. A table shows how to assess the different remedial strategies that may address mass stored in the compartments described in the 21-Compartment Model.

Strategies for monitoring contamination for compliance, system operation, and performance are also provided. The guidance explains how to design a monitoring well network that will provide the data needed to understand site conditions, remedy performance, and compliance.

When applied properly, mathematical models are powerful tools for understanding contaminant flow. Chapter 8 describes various model types, proper application, data needs, calibration, sensitivity, and limitations.

Finally, a discussion on stakeholder and regulatory considerations are presented, followed by a collection of case studies that demonstrate practical application of the concepts presented throughout the guidance.

Click HERE to access the document.

Ontario Waste Disposal Site fined $105,000 for Failing to comply with a Court Order

Tony DePasquale and Copper Cliff Metals and Wrecking Corp. recently plead guilty to one offence under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act (EPA) for failing to comply with a Court Order to remove waste from a site.  The defendants were fined a total of $105,000 plus a victim fine surcharge of $26,250.

Tony DePasquale is the sole Director and Chief Executive Officer of Copper Cliff Metals and Wrecking Corp., which operated an approved waste disposal site on Twenty Rd. in the Regional Municipality of Niagara.

On April 8, 2010, the ministry issued a ministry order to both defendants ordering the removal of waste located on the site.  The Order was not complied with, which resulted in charges and convictions against both defendants.

As part of the conviction, the court issued a Section 190 Court Order against Mr. DePasquale and the Copper Cliff Metals and Wrecking Corp., which mandated the removal of waste pile # 16 from the site.  The order also required the waste be disposed of properly and that the defendants provide documentation and proof of removal, to the ministry by June 22, 2013.  The Court Order was not complied with.  The incidents were referred to the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch, resulting in charges and one conviction against each defendant.

The waste pile has now been removed.

U.S. Federal Brownfield Legislation: U.S. House of Representatives Passes Amendments

By Walter Wright, Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C.

The U.S. House of Representatives (“House”) on November 30th passed amendments that would address the federal Brownfield program.

H.R. 3017 is titled the “Brownfields Enhancement, Economic Redevelopment, and Reauthorization Act of 2017” (“H.R. 3017”).

H.R. 3017 amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and reauthorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”)Brownfield Program.  The legislation appears to have bipartisan support.

Residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial properties are sometimes difficult to sell, redevelop, and/or finance because of perceived or real environmental contamination issues. Properties or facilities subject to such impediments are typically called “Brownfields.”

The EPA has defined a “Brownfield” as “abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial or commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.” Besides EPA, many states have Brownfield programs whose purpose is to eliminate unnecessary barriers of the redevelopment of commercial or industrial properties which may have environmental concerns. Arkansas has had such a program for several years.

H.R. 3017 makes several changes to the federal Brownfield related statutory provisions, which include:

  • Clarifies the liability of states and local units of government that take title to property involuntarily by virtue of their function as a sovereign
  • Clarifies when sites contaminated by petroleum may be considered a Brownfield site and when a leaseholder may qualify for certain liability protections
  • Expands eligibility for nonprofit organizations and for eligible entities that took title to a Brownfield site prior to January 11, 2001
  • Increases the limit for remediation grants under the Brownfields Program, establishes multipurpose grants and allows recovery of a limited administrative cost
  • Adds to the list of criteria for the grant program, whether a grant would facilitate the production of renewable energy
  • Allows EPA to provide additional funds for small, rural, and disadvantaged communities and Indian tribes
  • Reauthorizes funding for Section 104(k) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and Section 128(a) of the same statute

A bill addressing federal Brownfield issues has also been introduced in the Senate (“S. 822”). This bill is denominated the “Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development Act of 2017.”

Issues addressed in S.822 include:

  • Funding for technical assistance grants to small communities and rural areas
  • Expansion of the scope of eligible grant recipients to include nonprofit community groups
  • Authorization of funding from multipurpose grants to address more complex sites
  • Allow certain entities that do not qualify as bona fide perspective purchasers to be eligible to receive grants (as long as government entities did not cause or contribute to a release or threaten the release of a hazardous substance at the property)
  • Direct EPA in providing grants to give consideration to Brownfield sites located adjacent to federally designated floodplains

A copy of H.R. 3017 can be downloaded here and copy of Senate Bill 822 here.

This article was first published on the Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C. website.

_____________________

About the Author

Walter G. Wright, Jr. is a member of the Business Practice Group.  His practice has focused for almost thirty years on environmental, energy (petroleum marketing), and water law.  Mr. Wright’s expertise includes counseling clients on issues involving environmental permits, compliance strategies, enforcement defense, property redevelopment issues, environmental impact statements, and procurement/management of water rights.

Mr. Wright routinely advises developers, lenders, petroleum marketers, and others about effective strategies for structuring real estate and corporate transactions to address environmental financial risks.  He also serves as General Counsel and provides legislative representation to the Arkansas Oil Marketers Association, Arkansas Recyclers Association (scrap facilities) and Arkansas Manufactured Housing Association.  A unique part of his practice has been drafting and negotiation of a variety of specialized agreements involving the sale or consignment of motor fuels along with the ancillary agreements associated with the upstream segment of the petroleum industry.

U.S. EPA Settlement with UConn resolves Improper PCB Disposal Activity

The University of Connecticut has taken steps to ensure its PCB waste is properly disposed of in the future to settle claims by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) that it improperly disposed of PCBs during a 2013 renovation project at its Storrs campus.

An aerial view of the Storrs Campus on Oct. 9, 2013. (Peter Morenus/UConn Photo)Morenus/UConn Photo)

The university disposed of the waste containing polychlorinated biphenyls during a 2013 window replacement project in violation of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act.  Working with its contractors and an environmental consultant, UConn’s renovation project led to the removal of soils contaminated with PCBs from the window caulk, which are classified as PCB “remediation waste.” PCB remediation waste can be disposed of only at approved facilities, but the transportation manifest did not identify the material as such, and the material consequently was shipped to a facility not licensed for this disposal.  Earlier this year, EPA notified UConn of its potential liability under federal law.  UConn and EPA then reached an agreement to resolve the violation. UConn will also pay a penalty of $28,125 as part of this settlement.

“This action demonstrates how important it is that all parties involved with PCB waste ensure that every step in the handling and disposal of the PCBs is done consistent with the regulations,” said Deb Szaro, acting regional administrator of EPA’s New England office.  “EPA appreciates the steps UConn has taken to minimize future violations.”

Once in the environment, PCBs do not readily break down and therefore may remain for long periods of time, cycling between air, water, and soil.  PCBs are classified by EPA as a probable human carcinogen and have been shown to cause other adverse health effects on the immune system, reproductive system, nervous system, and endocrine system.

For more information about health concerns and safe handling practices for PCBs (www.epa.gov/pcbs)

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mercury Contamination in Sediment of Thunder Bay, Ontario Harbour Awaits Clean-up

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

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

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

Approximate Area of Contaminated Sediment in Thunder Bay Harbour

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

Jim Bailey, a spokesperson for the Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan, a public advisory committee that is partially funded by Environment Canada and the Ontario Government and oversees monitoring of the harbour pollution, says no solution has been chosen as yet, and there is no money for doing the work.

“One of the holdups is identifying a lead organization or agency to lead this cleanup.  Without a lead, obviously the project can’t go forward, so that is one of the sticking points,” Bailey said in an interview with tbnewswatch.com.

Contaminated Sediment Dredged from Thunder Bay Harbour

Thunder Bay RAP members have recently explored the feasibility of getting the contaminated area added to a federal list of contaminated sites, which might make its cleanup eligible for government funding.

The sediment site is adjacent to the mouth of the Current River, and has been described as layers of “pulpy” material up to four metres thick in some spots.

Bailey said being added to the federal list is one of the keys to getting closer to a cleanup, but the project would still require a cooperative effort involving a number of organizations.

The preferred option for disposal at the Mission Bay CDF near Chippewa Park seems unlikely to come to fruition in any case.

“That’s been used for decades to dispose of sediment collected for navigational dredging. It was never designed, to my knowledge, for contaminated material,” Bailey said.

He added that the Fort William First Nation has also made it clear that it doesn’t want to see the contaminated material disposed of near their community.

According to Bailey, the federal government is the legal custodian of the harbour bottom, but “at this point, Transport Canada has not been fully engaged in this process. Work needs to be done to hopefully get them engaged,” he said.

B.C. First Nation says it has created world-class oil spill response plan

As reported by CTV News, A British Columbia First Nation has released a plan it says will give it a leading role in oil spill prevention and response on the province’s central coast.

A report from the Heiltsuk Nation calls for the creation of an Indigenous Marine Response Centre capable of responding within five hours along a 350 kilometre stretch of the coast.

The centre proposal follows what the report calls the “inadequate, slow and unsafe” response to the October 2016 grounding of the tug the Nathan E. Stewart that spilled about 110,000 litres of diesel and other contaminants.

Bella Bella Oil Spill (Photo Credit: HEILTSUK FIRST NATION)

Heiltsuk Chief Councillor Marilyn Slett says during that disaster her people saw what senior governments had described as world-class spill response and she says the Heiltsuk promised themselves that this would never happen in their territory again.

The report says the proposed centre, on Denny Island across from Bella Bella, and satellite operations dotted along the central coast, would need a total investment of $111.5 million to be operational by next summer.

Unlike current response programs which the report says are limited specifically to spills, the new centre would answer all marine calls with the potential for oil contamination, including groundings, fires, bottom contacts and capsizings.

“(The centre’s) effectiveness hinges on a fleet of fast response vessels capable of oil clean up and containment, and a tug and barge system providing storage and additional oil spill clean-up capabilities,” the report says.

The barge would also be equipped with enough safety gear, provisions and living space to allow a response team to remain on site for up to three weeks without outside support.

The marine response centre would have annual operating costs of $6.8 million, covering a full-time staff and crew of 37.

“From Ahousaht with the Leviathan II to Gitga’at with the Queen of the North to Heiltsuk with the Nathan E. Stewart, Indigenous communities have shown that we are and will continue to be the first responders to marine incidents in our waters,” says the report, signed by Slett and hereditary Chief Harvey Humchitt.

Indigenous rescuers were first on the scene when six people died after the whale-watching vessel the Leviathan II capsized north of Tofino in 2015. Two people were killed when the Queen of the North hit an island and sank in 2006 west of Hartley Bay and First Nations helped in the rescue.

“The time has come to meaningfully develop our capacity to properly address emergencies in our territories as they arise,” the report says.

Victoria Harbour, B.C. cleanup contract awarded to Milestone Environmental Contracting Inc.

Cleanup work to remove hazardous substances from Victoria Harbour in British Columbia is scheduled to begin shortly with the announcement early this month by Transport Canada that a clean-up contract had been awarded to Milestone Environmental Contracting Limited.  Under the $5,344,000 contract, Milestone will remove hazardous chemicals in sediments from Victoria’s Middle Harbour sea bed.

Victoria, B.C. is located on the southern tip of Vancouver Island off Canada’s Pacific coast.  The city has a population of 86,000.  The harbour serves as a cruise ship and ferry destination for tourists and visitors to the city and Vancouver Island.

Map of Sediment Clean-up Area of Victoria Harbour, British Columbia

Once the contaminated sediments are removed, it is anticipated that the environmental health of the harbour will be restored.  Studies by Transport Canada found that presence of persistent contaminants in the sediments that don’t break down and remain in the environment.  The contaminants threaten the marine food web.

The cleanup work will begin in November 2017 and is expected to be completed by January 2018.  This involves dredging of contaminated sediment, and transporting the sediment by barge to an approved facility for treatment and disposal.  It is estimated that the dredging work will remove 1,200 cubic metres (4,200 cubic feet) of contaminated sediment from the sea bed.  The harbour bed will be backfilled with clean material.

The project will be closely monitored by Transport Canada to ensure the safety of workers and the community.  Sediment and water quality will be monitored throughout the project to ensure that cleanup objectives are met and that the dredging activities do not have a negative impact on the surrounding environment.  For the public’s safety, sections of the lower David Foster Pathway at Laurel Point Park may be closed, but the upper pathway will remain open for the duration of the project.

The Victoria Middle Harbour Remediation Project is funded through the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan, which is coordinated by Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, and provides funding to assess and remediate federal contaminated sites.

The source of the contamination in the harbour is from a paint factory that occupied Laurel Point from 1906 until the mid-1970’s.  Factory operations caused damage to the sediments surrounding Laurel Point Park.

Laurel Point, Victoria Harbour, British Columbia

New spill reporting, response and recovery requirements in British Columbia

As reported by Norton Rose Fulbright, the Province of British Columbia recently brought into force a new land-based spills regime and three new regulations requiring transporters of liquid petroleum products to have provincial spill response plans, to test such plans and to report and clean up spills. The new regulations apply to two categories of people:

  • “regulated persons,” which are rail and highway transporters in possession, charge or control of 10,000 litres (62.898 barrels) or more of liquid petroleum products and pipeline operators with any quantity of liquid petroleum products in their pipeline; and
  • “responsible persons,” which are persons in possession, charge or control of a substance when a spill occurs or is imminent.

The three new regulations are the Spill Contingency Planning Regulation, the Spill Preparedness Recovery Regulation and the Spill Reporting Regulation.

Spill contingency planning

Regulated persons are required to develop and maintain spill contingency plans based on a worst-case scenario spill. Investigations, tests and surveys must be undertaken to determine the magnitude of the risks to human health, the environment and infrastructure from a worst-case spill. Pipeline and rail transporters must have their spill contingency plans in place by April 30, 2018, while trucking firms have until October 30, 2018.

Spill response efforts have failed to contain an estimated 110,000 litres of diesel and other petroleum products from the tugboat Nathan E. Stewart, which ran aground Oct. 13 in the Seaforth Channel near Bella Bella. (Photo Credit: Ian McAllister/CBC)

It is important to note that, while the spill planning obligations may resemble transportation of dangerous goods-type plans, they impose new requirements.

Spill reporting

New spill reporting requirements require a responsible person to immediately report any intentional or unintentional spill of a substance into the environment that may cause, is causing or has caused an adverse effect to water, the environment, human health or property if the volume of the substance exceeds the amounts set out in a schedule to the Spill Reporting Regulation or if the substance has or is likely to enter a body of water, regardless of the volume. Natural gas spills greater than 10 kg and releases from breakages of pipelines or fittings operated above 100 psi must also be reported.

The new regulation expands the scope of spills that must be reported, as it removes the previous volume/quantity threshold for spills to water.

It also expands the information that must be reported.

If a spill occurs or is imminent, a verbal report must immediately be made to the BC Provincial Emergency Program’s spill reporting hotline (1-800-663-3456) by the responsible person. New requirements stipulate the initial report must include the name of the owner of the spilled substance and a description of the source of the spill.

Starting on October 30, 2018, a written report must also be made within 30 days of the spill, or as soon as practicable on the minister’s request. An end-of-spill report must also be made within 30 days of the end of a spill’s emergency response activities.

Spill response

A responsible person must ensure persons with the skill, experience, resources and equipment arrive at the spill site within a prescribed period and activate an incident command system. They must also ensure actions are taken to address the threat or hazard caused by the spill, including assessing, monitoring and preventing the threat or hazard; stabilizing, containing and cleaning up the spill; identifying the immediate and long-term risks and impacts of the spill; and taking steps to resolve or mitigate such risks and impacts.

 

U.S. EPA Assesses Sunken, Leaking Marine Vessels

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) continues its response to Hurricanes Maria and Irma in close coordination with federal, commonwealth, territory, and local partners. EPA remains focused on environmental impacts and potential threats to human health as well as the safety of those in the affected areas.

“Our role is to assist both Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to minimize environmental damage from boats leaking gasoline, fuel or other contaminants,” said EPA Regional Administrator Pete Lopez. “We are doing this in a way that respects the vessel owner’s rights while still protecting people from spills and hazardous substances that might be onboard the vessels.”

Marine Vessels Recovery Operations

EPA is supporting Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the U.S. Coast Guard in marine vessel recovery work. Teams continue to locate, assess and retrieve sunken, damaged and derelict vessels around Puerto Rico and the USVI.  We are also assisting with the recycling and disposal of recovered oil and hazardous materials from the vessels.

The U.S. EPA’s support role includes recording the vessel’s location and collecting information such as the name of the vessel and identification number, condition, impact to surrounding areas and/or sensitive/protected habitats (e.g. mangroves, coral reefs) for future recovery missions and owner notifications.  A higher priority is placed on vessels found to be actively leaking fuel or hazardous materials, where containment and absorbent booms are placed to decrease contamination.

Once the damaged vessels are brought to shore, or are processed on a staging barge, EPA will be handling various hazardous materials for recycling and disposal, including petroleum products (oil, gas or diesel fuel), batteries, and e-waste, which can harm the environment if they’re not removed from the waters. EPA will also recycle or dispose of any “household hazardous wastes”, such as cleaners, paints or solvents and appliances from the vessels. It is important to properly dispose of these items to prevent contamination to the aquatic ecosystem.

Vessels are being tagged by assessment teams with a sticker requesting that owners contact the U.S. Coast Guard to either report their vessel’s removal, or to request U.S. Coast Guard assistance in its removal. There is no cost, penalty or fine associated with the removal of the vessels.

As of November 16, 2017,

  • 340 vessels were identified as being impacted in Puerto Rico
  • 589 vessels were identified as being impacted in the U.S. Virgin Islands

The effects of an spills from marine vessels will depend on a variety of factors including, the quantity and type of liquid (i.e., fuel, oil) spilled, and how it interacts with the marine environment. Prevailing weather conditions will also influence the liquid’s physical characteristics and its behaviour. Other key factors include the biological and ecological attributes of the area; the ecological significance of key species and their sensitivity to pollution as well as the time of year. It is important to remember that the clean-up techniques selected will also have a bearing on the environmental effects of a spill.

Asbestos & Disaster Relief Precautions

By Alison Grimes, MAA Center

2017 has proven to be an unfortunate memorable year of natural disasters.  Across the globe, countries including Afghanistan, China, Colombia, The Democratic Republic of the Congo Mexico, Peru, Sierra Leone, South Asia, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and more, have all suffered heartache and destruction as a result of natural disasters.

The United States even experienced the hardship of more than 50 separate weather, climate and flood disasters, above the 10-year average of 45 disasters.  With hundreds and thousands of lives affected, fast action and relief saves lives. However, although quick relief is important, safety and health should not be taken for granted.

Aerial view of flood damage from Hurricane Harvey (Photo Credit: Brett Coomer, Houston Chronicle)

Disaster Relief Precautions

Following a natural disaster, first responders, insurance adjusters, and contractors are called upon to re-build or repair damage in the home or workplace.  To ensure safety with relief and reconstruction, the following precautions and best practices will ensure good health and well-being, long after a natural disaster.

Asbestos

While managing flood recovery and other natural disaster reconstruction, asbestos is not often thought of.  Although entirely natural, asbestos is very harmful to health, leading to cancer such as mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer and more.  There is no safe level of asbestos exposure and once asbestos fibers are consumed by way of inhalation or ingestion, health concerns can develop anywhere between 10-50 years later.  Therefore, it is important to consider the age of a structure before performing a repair.

Flood Damage Asbestos Abatement (Photo Credit: Patriot Abatement Services)

Asbestos use was widespread during the early 1930s with heightened use during the mid to late 1970s throughout the 1980s.  Its fire-resistant properties, abundance and malleability made it a popular additive in many products used in construction such as tiling, insulation, cements, caulking, heating ducts, roofing, siding, drywall and more.  When such products or materials that contain asbestos are properly encapsulated or enclosed, they will not pose harm to health, however in the case of natural disasters and water damage, the risks of being exposed to asbestos increase as a result.

 Mold

Natural disaster relief zones are breeding grounds for mold, which can begin to develop in as little as 48 hours.  Similar to asbestos, mold is often forgotten about during repairs and disaster relief.  When mold forms, spores enter the air and are easily inhaled, causing skin, eye and nasal passage irritation, wheezing and respiratory health concerns.  Considering the harm associated with mold exposure, it is essential to first dry any wet, humid or damp areas to prevent mold growth.  Additionally, any existing mold should be remediated by a specialist to ensure that all mold spores are eradicated. Control and prevent mold growth by limiting humidity levels, fixing leaky roofs, windows and pipes, cleaning and drying wet areas, and ensuring proper shower, laundry and cooking area ventilation.

 Awareness and training are two essential steps to ensure successful and safe, disaster relief.  However, asbestos and mold are only two concerns to be mindful of,  as lead, silica, PCBs, particulate matter and other hazardous building materials pose great harm to health as well.  Moreover, first responders and all others called upon during disaster relief, must prioritize self-care techniques to prevent burnout and secondary traumatic stress.

____________________________

About the Author

Alison Grimes is a Health Advocate at the Mesothelioma + Asbestos Awareness Centre (MAA Center).  The MAA Center is an independent group working to help mesothelioma patients, caregivers, advocates, and others looking to learn more about the disease.