Largest Clean-up Grant in Canadian History

As reported by Laura Osman of the CBC, Councillors on Ottawa’s finance committee unanimously approved a $60-million grant to clean up contaminants to make way for a massive new development on Chaudière and Albert islands.

Windmill Development Group applied for the grant for its mixed-use Zibi project.

Windmill will clear the contaminated soil on the site, which has historically been used as an industrial site, and demolish a number of buildings.

An artist’s rendering of the Zibi development, which could receive a substantial grant from the city for soil and building cleanup. (City of Ottawa)

“These are contaminated lands on a derelict site in the city’s urban core,” said Lee Ann Snedden, director of Ottawa’s planning services.

“This truly is a poster child for a brownfield grant.

The city’s brownfields redevelopment program awards funds to developers for cleaning up contaminated sites and deteriorating buildings, which helps encourage developers to build in the core rather than the suburbs.

The grant would pay for half of the total projected cost of the cleanup.

Windmill has promised to create a $1.2 billion environmentally friendly community with condos, shops, offices, waterfront parks and pathways on the 15-hectare site, which spans both the Quebec and Ontario sides of the Ottawa River.

The city will only pay for the actual costs of cleanup after the invoices have been verified, Mayor Jim Watson said.

The developer promised to only do the work if they find contamination is present.

“It would be fantastic news for us as the proponent if there’s less contaminants there,” said Jeff Westeinde with Windmill Development Group.

The developer hopes to have the Ottawa part of the development completed in seven or eight years.

Snedden pointed out the city will not  pay to clean up the nearby LeBreton land to allow development because the land is controlled by the federal government.

But the National Capital Commission technically owned about 20 per cent of the Zibi development lands as well said Coun. Catherine McKenney, who argued the federal government should contribute to the cleanup costs.

The NCC owned the lands and had a perpetual lease with Domtar, which operated a paper-mill on the site for nearly 100 years.

“So why are we paying the cost?” asked Peter Stockdale with the Fairlea Community Association.

Some councillors received letters from constituents concerned about the large amount of money going toward a money-making venture.

Capital ward Coun. David Chernushenko acknowledged the grant was “staggeringly” large, but said someone must be responsible for cleaning up contaminated sites.

“I don’t see this as some sort of corporate welfare,” he said.

The grant will still need to be approved by city council.

Chaudière and Victoria islands seen from the air above the Quebec side.

Ontario Graphite Ltd. Subject to Control Order Issued by Environment Ministry

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) recently issued an Emergency Director’s Order to Ontario Graphite Ltd. (OGL) related to its mining site in Butt Township, Kearney, Ontario.  An Emergency Director’s Order is issued when the MOECC is of the opinion that inaction of a situation can result in one or more of the following: danger to the health or safety of any person; harm or serious risk of harm to the environment; or injury or damage or serious risk of injury or damage to any property.

Under an Emergency Order, immediate actions and environmental actions must be taken to protect the natural environment and to prevent or reduce the discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment from the undertaking or property, or to prevent, decrease or eliminate an adverse effect.

Photo Credit: NorthBayNipissing.com

Kearney is a town and municipality in the Almaguin Highlands region of Parry Sound District of Ontario, Canada.  With a landmass of 531 square kilometres and a year-round population of 882 in the Canada 2016 Census, Kearney claims to be the “Biggest Little Town in Ontario.”  Butt Township was amalgamated with the Town of Kearney in 1979.

Since the issuance of Director’s Order Amendment No. 1 Ontario Graphite Limited (OGL) has reported to the MOECC multiple exceedances of discharge limits specified in the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) issued for the Kearney Mine industrial sewage works and Ontario Regulation 561/94 (i.e. including exceedance of limits for acute toxicity to test organisms Rainbow Trout and Daphnia magna, iron, total suspended solids and pH).

As requested by the MOECC, OGL proposed a short term management action plan to address the effluent discharge limit exceedances from the polishing pond until such time that construction can be completed on the industrial sewage works to enhance treatment efficiency once approved by the MOECC through an ECA amendment. OGL further indicated to the MOECC that an application to amend the ECA for necessary modifications to the industrial sewage works is currently being prepared.
Following the MOECC’s review of the short term management action plan and monitoring data submitted by OGL, the MOECC is concerned that measures proposed by OGL will be insufficient in achieving adequate treatment until such time that construction and operation of the proposed modification to the industrial sewage works, subject to the planned application and subsequent approval by the MOECC, if issued, are completed.

Currently, the lime dosing system being used at the Kearney Mine as part of the existing industrial sewage works operation is operated on a batch basis over, typically, an eight hour period during daylight hours.  The enhanced pH monitoring and reporting required by the January 31, 2018 Director’s Order amendment has demonstrated that the pH of the discharge is not consistently meeting the required pH range over a 24 hour period.  Therefore, the MOECC is directing that the operation of the batched system be extended over a daily, 24-hour period to ensure compliance with pH at all times.

In addition to adjusting the lime dosing system the MOECC is ordering a contingency plan be developed to including the use of an approved mobile treatment unit to ensure adequate treatment is achieved if proposed measures are not sufficient in achieving compliance with all discharge water quality limits until such time that modifications, approved through an amendment to the ECA, are implemented.

In summary the Emergency Director’s Order requires OGL to do the following:

  • Conduct an enhanced monitoring program for pH.
  • Ensure that the operation of lime dosing system is supervised by a Qualified Person and that effluent is maintained within a pH range of 6.5 – 8.5 at all times.
  • Retain a Qualified Person to develop and submit a contingency plan to treat the Kearney Mine polishing pond waters.
  • Retain a Qualified Person to submit an amendment to the issued Industrial Sewage Works, Environmental Compliance approval.

The Order was served to the company as well as a number of a company director, the CFO & CAO, and the CEO.

Vancouver files claim against owners of vessel that leaked fuel in 2015

As reported by CTV News, the City of Vancouver has filed a federal court claim against the owner of a vessel that spilled fuel into English Bay in 2015, as part of the city’s continuing effort to get compensation for its response efforts.

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson says three years after the MV Marathassa spilled 2,700 litres of bunker fuel into the bay, the city still hasn’t been compensated for about $550,000 it spent on response efforts.

Robertson says Vancouver has sought repayment through the federal government’s Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund, but has only been promised compensation for 27 per cent of its costs — something Robertson called “totally unacceptable.

“It’s ridiculous that it’s taken over three years now fighting for our costs to be covered by an oil spill in our harbour,” Robertson told reporters gathered at Sunset Beach in Vancouver on Sunday.

The city’s claim against the ship owners — filed last month but announced on Sunday — calls for damages, interest and court costs related to the spill.

Robertson said the city’s difficulty in getting paid back for what he described as a “relatively small oil spill” shows there aren’t enough measures in place to protect coastal communities against more major spills.

He said the costs and impacts of a potential diluted bitumen spill from the increased tanker traffic that would come with the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion has not been meaningfully addressed by the federal government.

Robertson said the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund was set up by the federal government to act in the interest of communities like Vancouver, but is failing to do so.

“It clearly does not do that, does not deliver the results. This speaks to the greater concern we have with Kinder Morgan and oil tankers,” he said.

Transport Canada, which oversees spill response, could not immediately be reached for comment.

The claim’s statements have not been proven in court.

Crews on spill response boats work around the bulk carrier cargo ship Marathassa after a bunker fuel spill on Burrard Inlet in Vancouver, B.C., on Thursday April 9, 2015. (Darryl Dyck/THE CANADIAN PRESS)

BCEIA 2018 Environment Industry Guide Now Available

The eighth edition of the British Columbia Environment Industry Guide is your doorway to an industry sector that is growing faster than the economy as a whole – a sector full of opportunity for a new generation of highly skilled and educated workers.

Our industry provides the services and support needed to protect our natural and social environments in a period of rapid expansion.

Download the pdf version here or request a copy be mailed to you by contacting Kate MacDonald at info@bceia.com.

MOECC Releases Notice of Updated Excess Soil Management Proposal

By David Nguyen – Staff Writer

The Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) recently posted notice on the Environmental Bill of Rights Environmental Registry of the regulatory changes to the management of excess soil (Excess Soil Management Regulatory Proposal, ERO# 013-2774). Excess soil is soil that has been dug up, such as during excavation activities, and cannot be reused at its original site and must be moved off site.  There is much controversy in the Province of Ontario and other provinces concerning the management of excess soil as there are claims and growing evidence that some companies mix clean soil with contaminated soil, some companies dispose of contaminated soil as clean soil, and other questionable practices.

The MOECC proposal clarifies where soils can be reused based on the soil characterization and aims to reduce greenhouse gasses from the transportation of soil by encouraging local reuse. The proposal also clarifies that the project leader is responsible for the management and relocation of the excess soil generated during a project to ensure proper characterization and relocation. Minor amendments to O.Reg. 153/04 and to O. Reg. 347 are also proposed.

The current proposal incorporates responses and comments from the previous proposal as well as from engagement with stakeholders and Indigenous communities. Changes from the previous proposal include:

  • A revised approach to waste designation
  • Reduced regulatory complexity and some details moved to guidance
  • A two to three years transition time for key regulations
  • Several O. Reg. 153/04 amendments to come into effect sooner
  • More flexibility for reuse through new reuse standards and a Beneficial Reuse Assessment Tool to develop site specific standards

This proposal is part of the MOECC’s response to the commitments outlined in Ontario’s Excess Soil Management Policy Framework. Other actions of the framework include developing priority education, outreach and training initiatives to support implementation.

The specific regulations and proposals provided for comments are summarized below:

  • A new proposed On-Site and Excess Soil Management Regulation
    • Excess soil would be designated as waste when it leaves the project area unless it is reused in accordance with the rules set out in this regulation.
    • If designated waste, the regulation would clarify when an ECA is not required.
    • Hauling of excess soil would generally not need an ECA, but is still subject to certain rules, such as maintaining records.
    • Project leaders may use temporary soil storage sites without an ECA as long as certain conditions are met.
    • Unless exempted, a project leader is responsible for preparing an Excess Soil Management Plan (ESMP), which involves determining contaminant concentrations on the soil, finding appropriate receiving sites, develop a tracking system and record keeping requirements.
    • Key information from the ESMP would be registered on a public registry. A qualified person (QP) would need to prepare or supervise the ESMP.
    • The regulation would be phased in over two to three years.
  • Amendments to O. Reg. 153/04
    • Align the requirements for soil being taken to Record of Site Condition (RSC) or phase two properties with the new rules for excess soil proposed in the On-Site and Excess Soil Management Regulation.
    • Resolve delineation challenges experienced at properties going through the Risk Assessment process.
    • Remove Record of Site Condition triggers for low risk projects.
    • Provide flexibility for meeting contamination standards where exceedances are cause by substances used for ice and snow safety, discharges of treated drinking water, and presence of fill that matches local background levels.
  • Amendments to O. Reg. 347
    • Clarify that excess soil is no longer part of the definition of “inert fill.”
    • Clarify operational requirements to support exemptions from ECA requirements for excess soil related activities.
  • Proposal of Rules for On-site and Excess Soil Management
    • A proposed document to be adopted by reference in the On-Site and Excess Soil Management Regulation
    • Specifies ESMP contents, including an assessment of past uses, sampling and analysis plan, excess soil characterization, requirements for excess soil tracking systems, a destination assessment and identification, and declarations required of the project leader and qualified person, and applicable soil quality standards and related rules.
  • The proposed “Beneficial Reuse Assessment Tool” (BRAT)
    • An alternative rules that aim to promote greater reuse of excess soil and the protection of human health and the environment
    • Allows a QP to generate site specific standards using a spreadsheet model

Comments can be made on the proposal up to June 15, 2018 on the Environmental Registry of Ontario proposal site or by mail.

Activated Carbon-Based Technology for In Situ Subsurface Remediation

The U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation recently published a fact sheet about an emerging remedial technology that applies a combination of activated carbon (AC) and chemical and/or biological amendments for in situ remediation of soil and groundwater contaminated by organic contaminants, primarily petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents.  The technology typically is designed to carry out two contaminant removal processes: adsorption by AC and destruction by chemical and/or biological amendments.

With the development of several commercially available AC-based products, this remedial technology has been applied with increasing frequency at contaminated sites across the country, including numerous leaking underground storage tank (LUST) and dry cleaner sites (Simon 2015).  It also has been recently applied at several Superfund sites, and federal facility sites that are not on the National Priorities List.

The fact sheet provides information to practitioners and regulators for a better understanding of the science and current practice of AC-based remedial technologies for in situ applications. The uncertainties associated with the applications and performance of the technology also are discussed.

AC-based technology applies a composite or mixture of AC and chemical and/or biological amendments that commonly are used in a range of in situ treatment technologies.  Presently, five commercial AC-based products have been applied for in situ subsurface remediation in the U.S.: BOS-100® & 200® (RPI), COGAC® (Remington Technologies), and PlumeStop® (Regenesis) are the four most commonly used commercial products.  CAT-100® from RPI is the most recent product, developed based on BOS-100®.  One research group in Germany also developed a product called Carbo-Iron®.  The AC components of these products typically are acquired from specialized AC manufacturers.  These types of AC have desired adsorption properties for chlorinated solvents and petroleum hydrocarbons.  Different products also have different AC particle sizes, which determine the suitable injection approach and the applicable range of geological settings.

Example of powdered activated carbon “fracked” into the subsurface under high-pressure, causing preferential pathways into existing monitoring wells (Photo Credit: Regenesis)

 

Canadian National Brownfield Summit – June 13th 2018

Learning from the Past; Charting the Future
Attend Canada’s First Brownfield Summit, hosted by CBN

CBN is pleased to host the first-ever Brownfield Summit as this year’s edition of our annual conference. Join us in
Toronto June 13. The summit will feature:

  • Our popular Cross-country Check-up: a session on recent regulatory changes and an opportunity to learn about new initiatives from our panel of regulators
  • Legal Update: case law shapes our practice as brownfielders. This session will feature presentations on the most recent court cases affecting brownfields
  • Emerging Technology: focused presentations on the technological trends that will affect your brownfield practice today and in the future
  • NRTEE +15: the cornerstone of the Summit. Revisit the 2003 National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) report as we find out what has worked, what still needs to be done, and what challenges are emerging. Then, join us in a discussion and determination of the brownfield agenda for the next few years

This will be a working event, so be prepared – bring the knowledge you’ve gained as a brownfield practitioner and your insights into brownfield redevelopment/reuse, roll up your sleeves and set the stage for the future of brownfields in Canada!

Register Today!

Clean-up of Radioactive Material in Port Hope Finally Underway

After decades of study and planning, the clean-up or radioactive contamination in the community of Port Hope, Ontario is finally underway.  The Town of Port Hope, located approximately 100 km (60 miles) east on Toronto on Lake Ontario, has an estimated 1.2 million cubic metres (1.5 million cubic yards) of historic low-level radioactive waste scattered at various sites throughout the town.

The contaminated soil and material will be excavated to moved to the LongTerm Waste Management Facility, which is essentially an engineered aboveground landfill where the waste will be safely contained, and the long-term monitoring and maintenance of the new waste management facility.

Other historic low-level radioactive waste – primarily soil contaminated with residue ore from the former radium and uranium refining activities of Eldorado Nuclear — and specified industrial waste from various sites in urban Port Hope will be removed and safely transported to the new facility.

The historic low-level radioactive waste and contaminated soil, located at various sites in the Municipality of
Port Hope, are a consequence of past practices involving the refining of radium and uranium by a former federal Crown Corporation, Eldorado Nuclear Limited, and its private-sector predecessors. These waste materials contain radium-226, uranium, arsenic and other contaminants resulting from the refining process.

The historic waste and surrounding environment are monitored and inspected regularly to ensure the waste does not pose a risk to health or the environment. As part of the Port Hope Area Initiative (PHAI) construction and clean-up phase, the waste will be excavated and relocated to the new Port Hope long-term waste management facility.

In an interview with CBC, Scott Parnell is the General Manager of the Port Hope Area Initiative, which is in charge of the cleanup. He says that after decades of planning, the first loads of an estimated 1.2 million cubic metres of historic low-level radioactive waste will be on the move.

Scott Parnell, general manager of the Port Hope Area Initiative, stands near the town’s harbour.

“There’s been a lot of planning a lot of studies a lot of determination into how to approach the work safely, but this will be the first time we will be removing waste from the community,” said Parnell, who has overseen similar operations in Washington state and Alaska.

The $1.28-billion cleanup operation is a recognition by the federal government that the waste is its “environmental liability.” The radioactive tailings were the byproduct of uranium and radium refining operations run by Eldorado, a former Crown corporation, between 1933 and 1988.

Parnell says that the tailings were given away for free, which helps explain how the contamination was spread through the town.

“So, basically they offered it up and it was used for fill material to level up people’s backyards, for building foundations, for those kinds of things. So, that’s how the material got spread around the community,” Parnell said.

Parnell says an estimated 800 properties may be affected, but says there’s no indication the low levels of radiation are dangerous.

“There’s little human risk associated with the waste that’s identified here in Port Hope,” he said.

The first wastes to be remediated are currently stored under tarps at three locations including the Centre Pier, the Pine Street North Extension in the Highland Drive Landfill area and at the municipal sewage treatment plant. The Centre Pier is the first site to be remediated.

Aerial image of the first locations to be remediated. (source: Canadian Nuclear Laboratories)

 

 

Funding available for Cleantech Demonstration Projects in Ontario

BLOOM is issuing a call for funding applications to support the completion of low carbon, clean technology demonstration Projects in Ontario.  BLOOM is a private, not-for-profit federally incorporated company that brings together public and private sector stakeholders to achieve sustainable outcomes that manage risk and deliver economic, environmental and social benefit.

As a requirement, applications must be submitted by 2 co-applicants: a cleantech solution provider and a customer host that is representative of a broader sector.

BLOOM will be providing grant funding on a 50:50 cost-share basis, up to a maximum of $150,000 per Project.  BLOOM is responsible for managing this Program to support Ontario’s Climate Change Action Plan and transition to a low carbon economy.  Ideally, proposed Projects have strategic partners to support the roll-out and market adoption of the low carbon cleantech solution, following completion of the demonstration Project.

Applications are due by May 31, 2018. Successful co-applicants will be notified by June 30, 2018. Demonstration projects must be completed by March 15, 2019.

For additional information, click here.

SJC Clarifies Statute of Limitations for Contaminated Property Damage Claims but Raises Questions of Application

by Marc J. GoldsteinBeveridge & Diamond PC

Plaintiffs with property damage claims under the Massachusetts cleanup law have more time to bring their claim than might be expected under the three-year statute of limitations according to a recent ruling by the top Massachusetts court.  The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the statute of limitations begins running when the plaintiff knows that there is damage to the property that is “permanent” and who is responsible for the damage, pointing to the phases of investigation and remediation in Massachusetts’ regulatory scheme as signposts for when a plaintiff should have that knowledge.  Grand Manor Condominium Assoc. v. City of Lowell, 478 Mass. 682 (2018).  However, the Court left considerable uncertainty about when the statute of limitations might begin for arguably more temporary property damages such as lost rent.

In this Google image, the Grand Manor condominium complex is visible at the center-right.

In this case, the City of Lowell owned property that it used first as a quarry and then as a landfill in the 1940s and 50s before selling the property in the 1980s to a developer.  The developer constructed a condominium project on the site and created a condominium association soon thereafter. As part of work to install a new drainage system in 2008, the contractor discovered discolored soil and debris in the ground.  Subsequent sampling indicated that the soil was contaminated and that a release of hazardous materials had occurred.  The condo association  investigated in early 2009, and MassDEP issued notices of responsibility to both the condo association as well as the city in May 2009.  The city assumed responsibility for the cleanup and worked the site through the state regulatory process known as the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP).  In the city’s MCP Phase II and III reports in June 2012, it concluded that the contamination was from the city’s landfill operations, that it would not be feasible to clean up the contamination, and proposed a pavement cap and a deed restriction.

The condo association and many of its members filed suit in October 2012 for response costs under Chapter 21E, § 4 and damage to their property under G.L. c. 21E, § 5(a)(iii).  At trial, the jury awarded the plaintiffs response costs under Section 4 but found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that their property damage claim was brought within the three-year statute of limitations for such claims under G.L. c. 21E, § 11A.  The Supreme Judicial Court took the case on direct appellate review.

Section 11A provides that an action to recover damage to real property “be commenced within three years after the date that the person seeking recovery first suffers the damage or within three years after the date the person seeking recovery of such damage discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the person against whom the action is being brought is a person liable…”  Quoting Taygeta Corp. v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 436 Mass. 217, 226 (2002), the Court summarized this as a requirement that the claim must be brought within three years of when plaintiff “discovers or reasonably should have discovered [1] the damage, and [2] the cause of the damage.”

The Court quickly agreed that “the damage” referred to in Section 11A was, for these purposes, the property damages of Section 5 and moved on to the plaintiffs’ contention that the limitations period should not run until they discovered or reasonably should have discovered that the damage was “permanent” or, in other words, not reasonably curable.  Until that time, they argued, they could not know if they had a property damage claim because the site could be fully remediated.

The Court examined the application of the statute of limitations in the context of the statutory scheme for investigating and remediating sites in Massachusetts.  The Court found that the primary purpose of Chapter 21E is to clean up environmental contamination and to ensure responsible parties pay for the costs of that cleanup.  As a result, the statute prioritizes “performance and financing of cleanup efforts, and then considers the calculation of property damage that cannot be cured by remediation and remediation cost recovery.”

In interpreting the statute of limitations, the Court crystalized the question as “whether the word ‘damage’ in § 11A(4) refers specifically to damage under § 5, that is, damage that cannot be cured and compensated by the cleanup and cleanup cost recovery processes defined by the MCP and §§ 4 and 4A, such that the limitations period does not begin to run until the plaintiff knows there is residual damage not subject to remediation and compensation.”  In order to have knowledge that a plaintiff has suffered damage that is not curable by the MCP remediation process, the MCP process must have run sufficiently to know that § 5 damages exist – that there is contamination that will not be addressed through remediation leaving the property at a diminished value.  Since the liable party is required to determine the extent of the damage in Phase II and evaluate available remedies in Phase III of the MCP, as the Court noted, “[i]t would make little sense to require the plaintiff to independently determine whether residual property damage exists prior to the completion of these reports.” As a result, the Court concluded that the statute of limitations did not start to run until the plaintiff became aware that the site would not be fully remediated in the Phase II and III reports in June 2012 months before they filed their lawsuit.  Exactly what constitutes full remediation remains to explored in further cases, as the range of outcomes from achieving background conditions, implementing deed restrictions, reaching temporary solutions, or even leaving just a few molecules of contamination left behind could impact this analysis.

The Court contended that this interpretation of the statute of limitations provides a “prescribed and predictable period of time” within which claims would be time barred, given that there are timetables associated with the production and submission of MCP Phase II and III reports.  Under normal circumstances, the Court expected that a plaintiff will know it has a claim within five years of notifying MassDEP of contamination.

Despite the Court’s pronouncement that it had provided predictability for these types of claims, the statute of limitations for non-permanent property damages, such as lost rental value, or for sites where there is a long-term temporary solution in place, remain uncertain.  Lawyers and clients evaluating how and when to bring claims for temporary and permanent damages will need to carefully evaluate a range of potential options in pursuing a preferred single case for property damage without unacceptable risk that an uncertain statute of limitation may have run.

The article was first published at the Beveridge & Diamond website.

Beveridge & Diamond’s Massachusetts office assists parties at all phases of contaminated sites, guiding clients through the MCP investigation and remediation process and prosecuting and defending claims in court for cost recovery and property damage.  For more information about this practice, contact Marc Goldstein or Jeanine Grachuk.

About the Author

Marc Goldstein helps clients resolve environmental and land use disputes and to develop residential, commercial, and industrial projects. He serves as the Managing Principal of Beveridge & Diamond’s Wellesley, Massachusetts office and the Chair of the firm’s Technology Committee.

Marc provides practical, cost-effective advice to clients with environmental contamination issues, whether those clients are cleaning up hazardous materials and seeking contribution from previous owners or adjacent landowners or facing claims under Chapter 21E or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for their alleged role in contamination.