The Commodification of Phase I ESA’s and the Need for Innovation

Introduction

Individuals who read environmental site assessments (“ESAs”) in the early 1990’s as part of their job will likely remember the unevenness of recommendations and conclusions and the wide range in the quality of reporting.  During that time, as an in-house environmental engineer at a major law firm, I likely read more ESA reports from more environmental consulting firms than I care to remember.  To this day I still read my fair share of ESA reports from various consultants as part of my job.

Standardization

In the 1990’s there was a growing demand from users of ESA reports for some form of standardization.  Back then, and to this day, a potential buyer of a property and the associated lender used an ESA report to aide in determining the monetary risk associated with any environmental liabilities linked to a property.  The wide variety of styles, coverage, disclaimers, recommendations, and conclusions in ESA reports back in the early 1990’s made that task very hard.

More than one consultant in the 1990’s would try to absolve themselves of liability by merely stating the findings of the investigation and avoiding any recommendation or conclusions.  Others would include disclaimers that would essentially hold them blameless for all errors and or omissions.

The first standardized ESA reports that came across my desk conformed with the United States ASTM E1527 standard published in 1993.  The first Canadian ESA standard (Z768) was issued in 1994 by the Standard Council of Canada.

In Canada, the latest version of the CSA Z768 standard is what is used as starting point for conducting Phase I ESA’s.  A vast majority of ESA reports that I read begin quoting the CSA standard but with the added qualifying statement that the report is in “substantial conformance” with the standard.

Commodity

Currently, many of the major lenders in Canada have lists of approved consultants for ESA’s.  Any borrower can choose freely from the list and arrange for an ESA on a property.  Other organizations have similar lists.

The CSA Z768 standard combined with the lists of qualified consultants typically supplied by lending institutions has created, in my opinion, a commodification of Phase I ESA’s.  An unsophisticated and occasional user of environmental services would most likely choose a consultant to conduct a Phase I ESA based on price.

Sophisticated buyers of environmental services have their own favourite consultants.  To earn the trust of a regular user of ESA services, a consultant needs to be able provide a clear explanation of environmental liabilities and a strong justification for the need further investigation (i.e., Phase II ESA).  The exemplary consultant has the ability to uncover the less than obvious environmental liabilities.  All trusted consultants provide timely report in a cost-effective manner.

The advantage of the sophisticated buyers of ESA services is the experience gained from reading reports from dozens of different firms and knowledge of the revelations and oversights of each.  Even amongst sophisticated buyers, there is a level of commodification that exists as they would likely have anywhere from 4 to 5 firms (any maybe more) that they trust to do good work.

Differentiation

When being sold environmental services from consultants, I typically ask a consultant what differentiates them from their competitors with respect tot the conduct of a Phase I ESA.  In essence, I want them to articulate to me how their ESA work is superior to the competition.  The typical list of replies can be found in the table below.  Based on the majority of responses I receive, it is my conclusion that the consultants themselves are unknowingly conceding that they are selling a commodity service.  The differentiators they describe can apply to almost any firm that provides the service.

Table 1: Common Reasons Cited by Environmental Consultants for Choosing Them

“Cost effective”

“better”
“Fast turn-around time” “more effective”
“Use only experienced assessors” “more thorough”
“Experienced reviewers and supervising Staff”

“quality controls”

Innovation

So how can a consulting firm give clients what they want – more certainty on risk associated with a property – and differentiate the ESA service they provide?

I have found one consultant that I now work with has risen above the commodity Phase I ESA.  This consulting firm, through innovation, has gone beyond the bare minimum of a Phase I ESA that would conform to the CSA Standard and utilized technology to enhance the Phase I ESA.

A standard Phase I ESA requires only observation as part of the site visit portion of the ESA.  The use of intrusive testing is saved for a Phase II.  However, with the utilization of field instrumentation that is non-intrusive, an enhanced Phase I can provide much more information that a standard Phase I ESA.

The environmental consulting firm, Altech Consulting Group, uses magnetic surveys as a standard part of the its Phase I ESAs.  A magnetometer measures the magnetic potential underground through non-obtrusive means.  It can identify the presence of underground steel tanks or drums, and other ferrous buried objects (i.e. pipes).

Enhanced Phase I ESA – Seeing underground with the magnetic survey

By including a magnetic survey as a standard part of a Phase I ESA, Altech has more information from which to base its conclusions and recommendations.  It can utilize the information found from the magnetic survey along with historical data and interviews with persons knowledgeable of the property to have a stronger argument for the need for a Phase II ESA or not.

Chad Stewart, the head of the environmental investigation group at Altech stated “one of the biggest sources of environmental liability at the majority of sites is leaks from underground storage tanks or pipelines.  By including a magnetic survey as part of our Phase I ESA, we are in a much better position to state if further intrusive investigation is required.  Our approach saves the client time and money.”

As I said earlier, I have seen my share of ESA reports from numerous consultants.  Their a some that are very quick to recommend a Phase II ESA based on the limited information that only hints that a UST may have been present.  A vast majority of the subsequent Phase II findings reveal that there is no contamination.

Any means of bringing non-intrusive testing and measurement techniques into use for a standard Phase I ESA is a good thing in my opinion.  The more information that can be obtained during the Phase I ESA, the better the decision making on the need for a Phase II.

By not having to perform an unnecessary Phase II ESA, a client could save tens of thousands of dollars.  By performing a Phase II ESA based on information obtained from a magnetic survey that is a standard part of a Phase I ESA, a client could potentially save hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Innovative Technology to streamlines brownfield industry projects

As reported by Martin Menachery in Arabian Oil and Gas, Over 95% of projects in the process industry in the Middle East (and comparable percentages around the world) are retrofits or expansions of existing plants that seek to increase capacity, comply with regulations, or introduce new technology to improve performance.

Moreover, often the building of a new plant is done on the brownfield site of an existing facility. For all these projects, capturing and modelling the existing context is critical to decision making and both conceptual and detailed engineering design. 3-D Software reality modelling technology is increasingly being leveraged to support these critical workflows.

In this year’s submissions for the ‘Be Inspired Awards’, there are five excellent examples using reality modelling technology in the process industry, demonstrating how this technology has now become an essential part of any brownfield or greenfield plant design project.

UCB, a global biopharmaceutical company, is using reality modelling for its iconic manufacturing plant in Belgium (which was established in 1928) to assess options and communicate ideas to help this complex and established site become carbon neutral by the year 2030.

ContextCapture was used to create an engineering-ready 3D model of the entire complex, including all the buildings, production facilities, roads, and parking areas, using both drone and terrestrial photography.

This context enabled the engineering team to quickly produce a 3D model to convey ideas and determine options. Point-cloud data from laser scans was then added to the model to enable accurate quantities to be calculated and precise measurements to be given to contractors for the priority work packages.

ABS Steel needed to modernise the fume extraction system for its large steel complex in Udine, Italy, to meet new regulations. It did not have a survey of the entire site since the complex was the result of a merger of two plants in 1988. ABS Steel awarded the contract to BM Engineering to survey the site.

It used laser scanning for inside the plant and photography for outside the plant, creating a combined engineering-ready model in MicroStation using ContextCapture and Bentley Pointools, which was read into AECOsim Building Designer and used to design the new fume extraction system. The model was then used to test the structural integrity of the aging parts of the factory.

By using a drone to capture photos of the roofs of the industrial buildings, and using ContextCapture to accurately create the 3D model, the project avoided the need to construct at least 70,000 temporary structures (guardrails, walkways, ladders, PPE, etc.) to conduct the survey work.

Flightline Geographics (FlightlineGeo) solved a problem for an owner of an ethanol plant in Kansas, United States, plant expansion of which was impeded by a lack of a drainage plan that would satisfy the local municipality. Traditional alternative methods, such as ground surveying and either ground or aerial LiDAR, were eliminated as possible solutions due to the short time frame and limited project budget involved.

A drone was able to survey this 200-acre ethanol plant site in one hour. (Image courtesy: FlightlineGeo)

It was decided to use a drone (UAV) and, once survey ground control was placed, the UAV capture of the 200-acre site was completed in a single one-hour flight. The team used ContextCapture to produce the 3D model that engineers needed to quickly calculate the results for the drainage and construction study, which was presented to municipal authorities a few days later.

Moreover, the team leveraged the same work to create a 3MX reality mesh that could then be used for visualisation within the Acute 3D viewer. It took just one week to conceive, capture, process, and deliver the project, and gain approval.

Technical Solutions International (RBI) is a world-class engineering inspection company headquartered in Durban, South Africa. RBI has deployed a solution that combines the use of unmanned autonomous vehicles (UAVs or drones), 3D reality modelling software (ContextCapture), a geographical information system (Bentley MAP), and engineering documentation management (ProjectWise) to manage the entire inspection process.

Its clients include petrochemical, pulp and paper, power generation, and telecommunications firms. The new process enables RBI to deliver more competitive services to its clients that speed survey time considerably and increase the value and visibility of its inspection survey data.

“UCB SA is driving a ‘smart factories’ initiative, leveraging Industry 4.0 and Bentley technology. Our objective is to reorganise production so that we are more adaptable and effective in the allocation of resources. We store our engineering data in ProjectWise for better collaboration among colleagues,” said Joseph Ciarmoli, Head of CAD engineering, UCB SA.

“Using ContextCapture for 3D modelling of our site provides geo-referencing and allocates geographical coordinates to our data. Analysing the 3D model together with the orthophoto drawings provides the official record of our land registry data, waterways, and buildings,” added Ciarmoli.

“We can also bring this 3D model into AECOsim Building Designer to support any building design changes. For proposed modifications to our production facilities, we use OpenPlant Modeler and OpenPlant Isometrics to provide precise 3D data for contractors and to automate the detection of clashes between pipes, structures, and equipment,” observed Ciarmoli.

“The interoperability of Bentley products has made it possible to optimise and significantly reduce the survey and reality modelling time, while also allowing a BIM model to be created that can easily be used by all stakeholders (structural and plant designers), who have decidedly and significantly improved the efficiency of their integrated design, allowing the implementation of the first revamping phase to be reached just three months after delivery of the BIM model,” said Marco Barberini of BM Engineering.

“Reality modelling using ContextCapture from Bentley enabled FlightlineGeo to process a large amount of data into information for the client in near real time. The project was completed ahead of time and under budget, allowing the company to acquire its expansion permit and move on with production of renewable energy,” commented Devon Humphrey, CEO, FlightlineGeo.

“Bentley’s range of products and integration between their products and our automated UAV systems gives us and our clients an added advantage against an ever-improving competitive market. The future we live in today,” said Stanley du Toit, technical and solution director, RBI Technical Solutions International.

3D design and conceptual model of the city of Coatesville’s “The Flats” brownfield redevelopment, a rugged, 30-acre former steel-mill site located 40 miles west of Philadelphia.

Recent Trends in the Selection of Remedies at Superfund Sites

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) recently issued the 15th edition of its Superfund Remedy Report (SRR).  The report is a compilation of over 300 remedies selected in decision documents for contaminated sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) from October 2011 to September 2014.

Summary

Remedies included in the document relate to soil, groundwater, and sediment.  The remedies were counted by specific technology or approach, and also grouped into categories, such as treatment, on-site containment, off-site disposal, monitored natural attenuation (MNA), and institutional controls (ICs). The study analyzed remedies by media (i.e., soil, sediment, and groundwater), and the types of contaminants of concern (COCs) in those media. The evaluation also included vapor intrusion mitigation remedies.

The SRR compiles data on remedies and presents separate analyses for contaminants overall and contaminants in select media (soil, sediment and groundwater). This edition also includes a separate analysis of remedy and response action data for large sediment sites.

Dredging PCB-Contaminated sediment on the Hudson River

For the majority (78 percent) of the 1,540 Superfund sites with decision documents available, treatment has been selected, often in combination with other remedies. Most of these sites have more than one contaminated media, most frequently groundwater and soil. Most sites also have different types of contaminants of concern (COCs): more than half of sites address volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and metals, while a quarter of sites address two of these groups.

For FYs 2012 to 2014, remedies were selected in 308 decision documents, including 242 RODs and ROD Amendments, and 66 ESDs with remedial components. Of the 308 decision documents, 188 (61 percent) include a remedy for source materials (such as soil and sediment) and 160 (52 percent) for groundwater. Remedies were also selected for soil gas and air related to vapor intrusion.

Source Remedies

For this three-year period, nearly half of decision documents with source remedies include treatment. A quarter of all source decision documents include in situ treatment. Soil vapor extraction, chemical treatment, and in situ thermal treatment are the most frequently selected in situ treatment technologies for sources with soil being the most common source medium addressed. Physical separation, recycling, and solidification/stabilization (S/S) are the most common ex situ treatment methods. Metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and halogenated VOCs are the COCs most commonly addressed.

Table 1: Summary of Source Control Remedies

Treatment
• Chemical, biological, or physical means to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminated source media

• Can be either in situ or ex situ

• examples include chemical treatment and in situ thermal treatment

On-site containment
• Examples include the use of caps, liners, covers, and landfilling on site
Off-site disposal
• Includes excavation and disposal at an off-site facility
Monitored natural attenuation (MNA)
• Reliance on natural processes

• Natural attenuation processes may include physical, chemical, and biological processes

Monitored natural recovery (MNR)
• Reliance on natural processes to reduce risk from sediments

• Natural attenuation processes may include physical, chemical, and biological processes

Enhanced monitored natural recovery (EMNR)
• Combines natural recovery with an engineered approach for sediments

• Typically includes placing a thin layer of clean sediment to accelerate the recovery process

Institutional controls
• Nonengineered instruments, such as administrative and legal controls, that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and protect the integrity of the remedy

• Examples for source media include land use restrictions and access agreements

Other
• Source control remedies that do not fall into the categories of source control treatment, on-site containment, off-site disposal, MNA, MNR, EMNR, or engineering controls

• Examples include wetlands replacement and shoreline stabilization

Sediment Remedies

Of the 188 recent source decision documents, 39 include a remedy for sediments. Most of the sediment decision documents (87 percent) include dredging, excavation, off-site disposal or on-site containment as part of the selected remedy. Some treatment was also selected — for example, in situ amended caps and ex situ and in situ S/S. Examples of other remedies include wetlands replacement and enhanced or monitored natural recovery (EMNR or MNR). Two-thirds of the sediment decision documents include institutional controls (ICs). Metals, PAHs and polychlorinated biphenyls are the COCs most frequently addressed.

EPA also analyzed newly acquired remedy and response action data on the largest sediment sites, known as Tier 1 sediment sites. The data include 112 actions for 66 sites. Some of these actions have progressed to design or implementation. Most remedies for these sites include dredging and excavation (84 percent), 48 percent include residual caps, and 29 percent include engineered caps designed to isolate contaminants from the waterway. A quarter of the Tier 1 sites include MNR and 18 percent include EMNR.

The U.S. EPA analyzed the contaminants of concern (COCs) addressed by sediment remedies in recent decision documents.  Over three-quarters of these documents include metals. PCBs and PAHs are the next most frequent categories of COCs with 44 percent each, as seen in the Figure below.

Figure 1: Detailed COCs in Decision Documents with Sediment Remedies

Groundwater Remedies

For the 160 groundwater decision documents signed in FYs 2012 to 2014, the groundwater remedies continue to be primarily a mix of in situ treatment, pump and treat (P&T), and monitored natural attenuation; most also include ICs. The use of in situ groundwater treatment continues to rise and is now selected in over half of groundwater decision documents. Of these, bioremediation and chemical treatment remain the most frequently selected. The majority of in situ bioremediation remedies specify anaerobic bioremediation, and more than half of chemical treatment remedies specify in situ chemical oxidation. The selection of P&T in groundwater decision documents has decreased significantly since the early 1990s and reached its lowest, 17 percent, in FY 2014. Containment technologies (vertical engineered barriers such as slurry walls) were selected at a few sites. By far, halogenated VOCs (primarily chlorinated VOCs) are the most common type of groundwater COC, addressed in 72 percent of recent groundwater decision documents.

Table 2. Summary of Groundwater and Vapor Intrusion Remedy Categories

Groundwater
In situ treatment
• Treatment of groundwater in place without extraction from an aquifer

• Examples include in situ chemical oxidation and in situ bioremediation

Pump and treat (P&T)
• Pumping of groundwater from a well or trench, followed by aboveground treatment

• Examples of aboveground treatment include air stripping and granular activated carbon

Monitored natural attenuation (MNA)
• Reliance on natural attenuation processes

• Natural attenuation processes may include physical, chemical, and biological processes

Containment
• Containment of groundwater using a vertical, engineered, subsurface, impermeable barrier
Institutional controls
• Examples include drilling restrictions and water supply use restrictions
Alternative water supply
• Examples include installing new water supply wells, providing bottled water or extending a municipal water supply
Other
• Groundwater remedies that do not fall into the categories of in situ treatment, P&T, MNA, containment, institutional controls, or alternative water supply

• Examples include drainage/erosion control and wetlands restoration

Vapor intrusion
Mitigation
• Mitigation of soil gas or indoor air to reduce exposure to vapor contamination in buildings

• Examples include active depressurization technologies and passive barriers

Institutional controls
• Examples include land use restrictions and vapor intrusion mitigation for new buildings

Vapor Intrusion Remedies

EPA selected vapor intrusion mitigation for existing structures in nine of the recent decision documents, and ICs for either existing structures or future construction in 34 of these documents. Some ICs restrict the future use of structures to avoid vapor intrusion exposure and others require the installation of mitigation systems as part of future construction. Active depressurization was the most common mitigation method specified, followed by passive barriers and subslab ventilation systems.

Combined and Optimized Remedies

In this report, the U.S. EPA also discusses the use of combined remedies and optimization reviews. The combined remedy highlights provide examples of recent decision documents where remedies are combined spatially or in sequence. The optimization highlights provide examples of how optimization efforts have informed remedy decisions in recent decision documents.

The remedy and site information provided in this report can help identify program needs for expanded technical information and support. For example, growing use of in situ groundwater technologies suggests the need for additional knowledge and support associated with those technologies. This analysis also provides information of value to stakeholders including technology developers; consulting and engineering firms; and federal, state, and tribal remediation professionals. In particular, developers and service providers can gain insight into the demand for specific remedial technologies.

 Conclusions

The analysis of most recent Superfund decision documents shows continued selection of a full range of treatment, containment, and disposal technologies and approaches for both source material and groundwater. Selection of some remedies is increasing in frequency (such as in situ groundwater technologies), while others are decreasing (such as pump-and-treat). Remedial approaches, including in situ bioremediation, are often combined in time or space to address different areas of the site or applied sequentially. Remedy optimization and reevaluation has resulted in changes to previously selected or implemented cleanup approaches. Overall, most Superfund sites contain different types of COCs: more than half of sites with remedies address VOCs, SVOCs, and metals/metalloids, and almost a quarter of sites address two of these groups.

 

 

Key Developments in Environmental Law in Canada from 2017

A book on the developments in environmental law in Canada during 2017 was recently published by Thomson Reuters.  Edited by Stanley D. Berger of Fogler Rubinoff LLP, the book includes a number of interesting chapters related to contaminated sites and the issues raised in the Midwest Properties Ltd. v. Thordarson (“Midwest”) court case.  The Midwest case is part of a possible trend in Canada toward awarding damages based on restoration costs rather than diminution in value.  If nothing, else the Midwest Case has introduced uncertainty to the law of damages in contaminated sites cases.

In the chapter written by Natalie Mullins, a litigation partner in the Advocacy and Environmental groups in the Toronto office of Gowling WLG, on the evolution and current state of law on damages in contaminated sites, she states that despite being explicit about awarding compensatory damages only under section 99 of the Alberta Environmental Protection Act (“EPA”) and not at common law, the Alberta Court of Appeal may have implied that restoration costs are the default measure of damages in contaminated sites cases.  She also explores some other critical issues that have arisen post-Midwest, such as:

  • Whether diminution in value is still relevant to the measure of damages;
  • What it means to “restore” a real property;
  • How the court can take a proactive role to ensure that awards made to benefit the environment actually meet that objective; and
  • How defence counsel might prevent similar awards in the future, and how plaintiff’s counsel might use the case to obtain significant damages for their clients.

An interesting point raised by Ms. Mullins in her contaminated sites chapter is that in recent court cases, highlighted with Midwest, court decisions may be paving the way for plaintiffs to recover very significant damage awards for the contaminated of their sites that grossly exceed their actual loss and, in certain circumstances, may be completely unwarranted.

Ms. Mullins questions if the Midwest decision has created the potential for litigants to profit off purchasing contaminated sites and for defendants to face double jeopardy following judgment at trial.

The book is available at online for $144 (Cdn.).

 

Char Technologies Ltd. Announces Acquisition of the Altech Group

CHAR Technologies Ltd. (“CHAR”) (YES:TSXV) recently announced that it has closed the acquisition of  the Altech Group (“Altech”), which is comprised of  Altech Environmental Consulting Ltd. and Altech Technologies Systems Inc.  Altech provides solutions to environmental engineering challenges.  Founded in 1986, Altech has 12 employees and a diverse and stable client base.  CHAR acquired all issued equity in both Altech Environmental Consulting Ltd., and Altech Technology Systems Inc.  Altech shareholders received 4,523,810 in common shares of CHAR as well as $150,000 in cash.

Bill White, Chairman of CHAR stated that, “The acquisition of the Altech Group adds over 30 years of experience in environmental technologies and professional engineering consulting” and that “Altech provides CHAR with a growth catalyst to move much of our engineering design in-house, while at the same time allows us to greatly expand our technology solutions offering for industrial clean air and clean water.”

CHAR brings the shareholders of Altech a succession plan and an opportunity to realize value at an optimal time.  According to Alexander Keen, Founder and CEO of Altech, “CHAR brings an exciting future for Altech. Our joint efforts going forward will bring tremendous opportunities”.

The new joint enterprise plans to commercialize a new cleantech solid fuel branded “CleanFyre”.  This product is a GHG neutral coal replacement, generically referred to as biocoal.  CleanFyre will allow large industrial customers the ability to greatly reduce their GHG emissions without significant capital expenditures.  According to Andrew White, CEO of CHAR, “CleanFyre will leverage both Altech’s experience and expertise, and CHAR’s platform pyrolysis technology, the same technology used to create SulfaCHAR, to create a solution with strong market pull and significant growth opportunity.”

About CHAR

CHAR is in the business of producing a proprietary activated charcoal like material (“SulfaCHAR”), which can be used to removed hydrogen sulfide from various gas streams (focusing on methane-rich and odorous air).  The SulfaCHAR, once used for the gas cleaning application, has further use as a sulfur-enriched biochar for agricultural purposes (saleable soil amendment product).

About Altech Group

Altech is a full-service engineering and consulting firm providing energy, environmental, and health and safety services to clients.  Altech specializes in corporate management systems, energy and environmental audits and assessments, contaminated site investigation and remediation, health & safety management, training, and industrial hygiene.  Established in 1986, Altechemploys multi-disciplinary professionals including energy and environmental engineers, scientists, hydrogeologists, geologists, and technicians committed to providing our clients the highest quality service and integrated solutions for business and the environment.

Ontario Environment Industry Day – December 12th 2017

Register now: https://environmentindustryday2017.eventbrite.com

With a provincial election coming in June 2018, this year’s Environment Industry Day at Queen’s Park will feature a unique afternoon program and panel!

  • Join representatives from a range of environment and cleantech firms as we discuss what policies we need from Ontario’s major political parties in the coming election.  What does your firm need to grow?
  • What regulatory and legislative barriers are holding you back?
  • What do politicians of all stripes need to know about running and growing an Ontario environment and cleantech business?

We will hold a series of roundtable discussions, followed by our annual industry political panel that will feature:

  • Trish Nixon, Chief Impact Investing Officer, ‎CoPower Inc
  • Brandon Moffatt, cleantech entrepreneur and VP, Development & Operations, Stormfisher Environmental
  • Michele Grenier, Executive Director of the Ontario Water Works Association (OWWA)

Moderated by Sandra Odendahl, President & CEO, CMC Research Institutes

AGENDA for Tuesday, December 12, 2017:

1:30 PM                Registration and networking
2:00 – 2:45 PM     Roundtable discussions of industry issues
2:45 – 4:00 PM     Tables report back and panel responds
4:00 – 4:30 PM      Political and policy response
4:30 PM                 Networking and walk to Queen’s Park reception

LOCATION: Charbonnel Lounge of St. Michael’s College at the University of Toronto, 81 St Mary Street, Toronto, ON M5S 1J4

TO REGISTER:
Please visit link https://environmentindustryday2017.eventbrite.com

Register now to secure your seat as space is limited!

Consider becoming a sponsor of EID for as little as $750 – and all sponsorships include tickets to the event.  Please contact Sonia Zorzos at info@oneia.ca / 416-531-7884 and she can put you in touch with the sponsorship committee.