Posts

Brownfields Road Map (U.S. EPA, 2018)

Prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Office of Land and Emergency Management, The Brownfields Road Map 6th Edition breaks down Brownfields site investigation and cleanup into an easy to understand, step-by-step process that provides valuable and up-to-date information to a wide range of Brownfields stakeholders involved in or affected by the redevelopment of Brownfields sites. It introduces readers to a range of considerations and activities, and provides links to online technical resources and tools.

The first edition of the Road Map, published in 1997, provided a broad overview of the U.S. EPA Brownfields Program and an outline of the steps involved in the cleanup of a Brownfields site. Designed primarily for stakeholders who were unfamiliar with the elements of cleaning up a Brownfields site, the Road Map built awareness of the advantages offered by innovative technologies. As the EPA Brownfields Program
matured, the second (1999), third (2001), and fourth (2005) editions were published to update information and resources associated with the program, innovative technologies, and emerging best practices. The fifth edition, published in 2012, streamlined the publication to make it more accessible to users, providing additional resources covering new technology applications and methods.

This edition builds off the streamlined approach of the fifth edition, providing updated content and guidance on the Brownfields remediation process. New features include an updated list of “Spotlights,” highlighting and describing key issues. This edition provides updated information on Brownfields funding and best management practices (BMPs), with guidance on how to incorporate greener cleanups and new standards into the cleanup process.

This edition of the Road Map will help:

  • New and less experienced stakeholders. The Road Map will help these users learn about the technical aspects of Brownfields by introducing general concepts and methods for site investigation and cleanup.
  • Decision-makers who are familiar with the EPA Brownfields Program but are also interested in obtaining more detailed information. The Road Map provides these users with up-to-date information about the applicability of technologies and access to the latest resources that can assist them in making technology decisions. In addition, it highlights BMPs that have emerged in recent years.
  • Community members. The Road Map helps to encourage community members to participate in the decision making process by providing information about the general site cleanup process and tools and alternatives to site cleanup, as well as guidelines and mechanisms to promote community involvement.
  • Tribal leaders. The Road Map offers information on technical and financial assistance specific to tribes for implementing cleanup and restoration activities on tribal lands, as well as successful remediation examples highlighting the potential community restoration opportunities associated with Section 128(a) Response Program funding.
  • Stakeholders who hire or oversee site cleanup professionals. The Road Map includes information to help stakeholders coordinate with many different cleanup practitioners, such as environmental professionals, cleanup service providers, technology vendors or staff of analytical laboratories. The Road Map provides these stakeholders with a detailed understanding of each phase in a typical Brownfields site cleanup and presents information about the roles that environmental practitioners play in the process.
  • Regulators. The Road Map will increase the understanding by regulatory personnel of site characterization and cleanup technologies and approaches. The Road Map also serves as a resource that regulators can use to provide site owners, service providers and other stakeholders with useful information about the EPA Brownfields Program. The Road Map also provides links and pointers to additional information on specific technologies, approaches, and issues.
  • Other potential Brownfields stakeholders. The Road Map helps other stakeholders, such as financial institutions and insurance agencies, by providing information for their use in assessing and minimizing financial risks associated with Brownfields redevelopment.

The Road Map draws on the EPA’s experiences with Brownfields sites, as well as Superfund sites, corrective action sites under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and underground storage tank (UST) sites to provide technical information useful to Brownfield stakeholders. Specific conditions—such as the nature and extent of contamination, the proposed reuses of the property, the financial resources available, and the level of support from neighboring communities—vary from site to site. Readers of the Road Map are encouraged to explore opportunities to use the BMPs described in the following pages in accordance with applicable regulatory program requirements. The use of BMPs and site characterization and cleanup technologies may require site specific decisions to be made with input from state, tribal, and/or local regulators and other oversight bodies.

 

Canadian DND searching possible contaminated sites for buried Agent Orange stocks

As reported by the CBC, the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) has identified up to six known contamination sites at a New Brunswick military base as it works to determine whether the cancer-causing defoliant Agent Orange was buried surreptitiously there decades ago.

Agent Orange is an herbicide and defoliant chemical. It is widely known for its use by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. It is a mixture of equal parts of two herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. In addition to its damaging environmental effects, the chemical has caused major health problems for many individuals who were exposed.

Officials at the department’s Directorate of Contaminated Sites presented a map showing the various locations to a former military police officer and a retired civilian employee of Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, N.B. — both of whom say they witnessed chemical drums being buried on the base in separate incidents over 30 years ago.

Past Use of Agent Orange at CFB Gagetown

Agent Orange had been used on the base in the past.  In 2010, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, the Canadian Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture) at the time, announced that the Government of Canada was extending the one-time, tax-free ex gratia payment of $20,000 related to the testing of unregistered U.S. military herbicides, including Agent Orange, at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Gagetown in 1966 and 1967.

For three days in June 1966 and four days in June 1967, Agent Orange, Agent Purple and other unregistered herbicides were tested at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Gagetown in cooperation with the U.S. military to evaluate their effectiveness. These are the only known instances that these military test chemicals were used at CFB Gagetown. Agent Orange, Agent Purple and other unregistered herbicides are not used at the base today. The base uses only federally regulated herbicides for brush control during its annual vegetation management program.

Claims 

The claims by retired sergeant Al White and Robert Wilcox, who worked at the training base in the 1970s and 1980s, were first reported by CBC News last month.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan promised an investigation and officials are now trying to cross-reference the eyewitness accounts with existing records. The maps are meant to jog the memories of the two men, and to find out whether their claims involve existing dumps or unreported ones.

A massive asbestos dump

The list of contaminated sites is extraordinary. It shows, among other things, more than 3,900 barrels of asbestos waste buried in the same area as the suspected chemical dump.

Officials have offered to escort White onto the base so he can point out the area where he believes Agent Orange was buried. They and White have yet to agree on a date for the visit.

“Pointing on a map isn’t going to work … obviously it has to be a face-to-face opportunity,” White said in an interview.

A spokesman for the defence department confirmed an invitation had been extended but downplayed the significance, saying officials were “simply conducting discussions … in order to gain further insight into their claims.”

The visit would be closed to the media, said department spokesman Dan Lebouthillier in an email.

White said none of the locations pointed out thus far by defence officials match his recollection of the location.

“I say that with clarity,” he said.

The burial, he claimed, involved over 40 barrels stacked on a flatbed truck. It took place early in the morning in the late spring of 1985 and happened in what he described as a disturbing, clandestine manner that has troubled him ever since.

Map showing the Use of Herbicides at CFB Gagetown from 1952 to Present Day

White said he didn’t believe it was his place to come forward until he lost three friends — all former Gagetown soldiers — to cancer.

Wayne Dwernychuk, an expert who spent over 15 years studying Agent Orange contamination and its effects on combatants during the war in Vietnam, said it’s good the federal government is trying to get to the bottom of the mystery.

Once White points out the area, he said, ground scanning technology can quickly and accurately assess what might be underground.

“They should initiate some sort of ground penetrating radar,” he said. “If something turns up, I believe they should follow through with some deep core sampling to determine the extent of the contamination.”

One of the sites listed by National Defence was a chemical dump that has since been excavated — something Wilcox, the second witness, claims to have seen.

Another location is where the military claims to have disposed of rinsed, empty chemical drums.

The main refuse site — known as the Shirley Road dump — “may also [have] accepted drums,” according to a department statement. There was a separate place for dumping ash from burning coal.

During the investigation 14 years ago into the spraying of Agent Orange at the base in the 1960s, officials looked at a fifth location near a tank firing range, but claimed nothing was buried at that spot.

The sixth possible location involves the dumping of asbestos. Federal environment officials have acknowledged in the past that the fire-resistant insulation, ripped out of 15 nearby federal buildings in 1980s, was present at the base, but have never acknowledged the enormous quantity of it.

The waste asbestos was all wrapped and stuffed into metal barrels.

Five years ago, the federal government’s annual report on contaminated sites pointed to the same locations on the base and said assessment on further remediation was under consideration.

The risks of remediation

The same report noted the unique challenges such a clean-up would involve.

“The waste materials might contain ordnance, presenting an unacceptable safety risk to a remediation team,” said the 2013 review.

The report said tests of the wetland adjacent to the contaminated sites did not show chemical concentrations that would be of concern.

Lebouthillier said the locations are “capped” — meaning there’s a barrier between contaminated and uncontaminated soil — managed and monitored “according to federal environmental regulations and guidelines.”

Agent Orange used during the Vietnam war has left that country’s the soil contaminated and compromised.  Many Vietnamese have life-long health problems as a result to exposure to Agent Orange.  The United States has provided almost $42 million since 2007 toward the effort to clean up the effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam.

Past Investigations in Canada

In 2006, Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was retained by Public Works and Government Services Canada on a series of contracts on behalf of the Department of National Defence (DND) to research, organise and analyse all available information concerning the herbicides used at each Canadian Forces (CF) site across Canada. An objective of this undertaking was to confirm whether tactical herbicides such as Agent Orange and Agent Purple tested in 1966 and 1967 at CFB Gagetown were ever tested at other current and former CF Bases, Stations or Wings.

Golder’s review of the information has found no evidence of spray applications of the tactical herbicides Agent Orange or Agent Purple at any Bases, Stations or Wings aside from CFB Gagetown. Records do indicate that the non-tactical and commercially available herbicides 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D were potentially concurrently used, stored or disposed at each of Carp (Ontario), CFB Chatham and CFB Gagetown (New Brunswick), CFB Borden (Ontario) and another unidentified site.

As such, evidence to-date is to the effect that Agent Orange and Agent Purple were only applied at CFB Gagetown.

Soldiers detect Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) and defoliant Agent Orange in Vietnam’s central Da Nang City.

Tracking brownfield redevelopment outcomes using Ontario’s RSCs

By David Nguyen, staff writer, Hazmat Management Magazine

GeoEnviroPro’s latest webinar event featured Dr. Christopher De Sousa, a professor and director of the School of Urban and Regional Planning at Ryerson University.  He spoke about his research using record of site conditions (RSCs) to track brownfield developments in Ontario.

Christopher De Sousa.BA, MScPL, PhD (Associate Professor, Ryerson University)

A RSC is typically filed on the Environmental Site Registry with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) after property has undergone a Phase I, and often a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and the property is undergoing a zoning change to a more sensitive land use (i.e., industrial to residential).  A record of site condition summarizes the environmental condition of a property, based on the completion of ESAs.

De Sousa’s research focussed on the effects of the RCS legislation since its introduction in 2004, focussing on the scale and value of projects using RSCs from 2004 to 2015 (noting the revisions to the RSC legislation in 2011).  Property Assessments and Tax information was used to determine the nature of the developments that have occurred on brownfields.  Private sector stakeholders were interviewed to determine the factors that influence private sectors to develop on brownfields.

The research showed that from 2004 – 2015, 31% of RSCs were filed for Toronto properties.  However, the cities with the greatest total area redeveloped (based on RSC filings) were Brampton and Vaughn, with Toronto having the third largest total area redeveloped. With the exception of Ottawa, projects requiring RSCs occurred primarily in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area.

Of the RSCs filed from 2004 – 2015, 24% consisted of only Phase I environmental site assessments (ESA), 69% consisted of a generic Phase I and II ESAs, and 7% used a Phase I and II ESA combined with a site specific risk assessment.

With land use changes, the most common previous land use was commercial (36.8%) followed by industrial (22.3%) and the most common intended land use was residential (67.5%) followed by commercial (14.9%).

Toronto’s development focussed on residential projects located near major transit and roadways (85.6% of which being condos).  Smaller municipalities like Waterloo and Kingston also primarily developed residential properties (31% and 58%, respectively).  De Sousa notes that provincial growth plans and community improvement plans can help municipalities be more proactive in housing and economic development goals.

From a private sector perspective, the main motivations for brownfield developments are based on real estate factors (profit, market, locations), with barriers being costs, liabilities, and time (in project reviews and approvals).

Facilitation strategies that governments can utilize involve financial and regulatory changes, particularly in more effective and efficient processes and tools in high priority areas, with perhaps more government intervening regulations in secondary/ weaker markets to encourage development of brownfields vs. greenfields.

Toronto’s Port Lands feature numerous brownfields sites, image by Marcus Mitanis

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.

Examples of Groundwater Remediation at National Priorities List Sites

The U.S. EPA recently issued a report that report highlights a select number of example National Priorities List (NPL) sites where EPA has used innovative and established technologies to restore groundwater for use as a source of drinking water. In these examples groundwater was successfully restored for drinking water use at 17 NPL sites and significant progress toward groundwater restoration was made at an additional 13 NPL sites where contaminants remain above safe drinking water levels. These sites demonstrate how the Superfund program can overcome challenges related to difficult contaminants of concern and complex hydrogeologic settings (May 2018, 114 pages).

The report documents where innovative and established technologies have been used to restore groundwater to beneficial use. This report includes a select number of example National Priorities List (NPL) sites where the remedial action objective (RAO) and associated cleanup levels were to restore groundwater for use as a source of drinking water. Groundwater was restored for use as drinking water at 17 NPL sites and significant progress toward groundwater restoration has been made at an additional 13 NPL sites where contaminants remain above safe drinking water levels in only a few groundwater wells. The RAO of restoring groundwater for beneficial use was achieved under the Superfund program, including the successful treatment of groundwater to federal and state maximum contaminant levels for drinking water. These sites are examples of where the Superfund program overcame difficult remediation challenges, such as groundwater contaminated with chlorinated solvents (including the presence of dense non-aqueous phase liquids [DNAPLs]) and complex hydrogeologic settings.

One of 114 Superfund sites in New Jersey, former Edgewater manufacturing site Quanta Resources has been on the National Priorities List since 2002.

The NPL sites discussed in this report were selected based on several criteria, including the use of innovative cleanup technologies or approaches to remedy concentrated groundwater plumes. The most commonly occurring contaminants of concern at these sites were chlorinated volatile organic compounds, which were present at 26 of the 30 sites. The less frequently occurring contaminants included metals, non-chlorinated volatile organic compounds, semivolatile organic compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, with dioxins or pesticides only present at one site.

The restoration of groundwater was achieved most often by combining remedial technologies. For example, soil excavation and groundwater extraction and treatment (i.e., pump-and-treat) were used to restore groundwater at 17 of the 30 NPL sites. Given that many of these sites were cleaned up during the period from 1983 to 2000, the remedies used at these sites represented state of the art technologies at that time. These traditional technologies were often modified or replaced with innovative technologies such as in situ bioremediation, in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO), in situ thermal treatment (ISTT) or monitored natural attenuation (MNA) at some sites. The application of remedial technologies at these sites decreased contaminant concentrations from 90% up to 99.99% (i.e., one to more than four orders of magnitude).

DNAPLs were found or suspected at eight of the 30 sites. A combination of excavation and pumpand-treat was used most often to remediate these sites along with at least one other technology or approach such as vertical engineered barrier, air sparging, in situ bioremediation, STT, or MNA. Of the eight DNAPL sites, groundwater was restored for use as drinking water at three sites and significant progress towards restoration has been made at five sites. These findings indicate that the Superfund program has achieved the cleanup of sites with DNAPLs.

The time required to restore groundwater for use as drinking water at the 17 NPL sites ranged from three to 27 years with a median time of eight years. Cleanup time generally increased as the amount of contaminant removed increased with the exception of four sites where contaminant concentrations were decreased by nearly 99.99% in less than eight years. Cleanup times were generally shorter for sites with less complex hydrogeologic settings with the exception of three sites with mild heterogeneity that required more than 15 years to restore groundwater. Also, in most cases, cleanup times were shorter for lesser reductions in concentration.

All of the 30 sites, with the exception of two, have achieved the status of sitewide ready for anticipated reuse (SWRAU), and 12 of these sites have been returned to use either in whole or in part. Reuse includes industrial and commercial redevelopment, recreational use, alternative energy use, and lifting of groundwater use restrictions.

View or download at http://www.epa.gov/remedytech/examples-groundwater-remediation-npl-sites.

 

Ontario Legal Report: Thompson Fuels Ordered To Pay Costs

Article by Paula LombardiSiskinds LLP

The case of Gendron v. Thompson Fuels, related to a home furnace oil tank that developed a leak in December 2008. The leak caused damage to the Gendron’s home and the surrounding environment, including nearby Sturgeon Lake. The City of Kawartha Lakes cleaned up the Lake.

On July 17, 2017 the court released its decision on this matter, (2017 ONSC 4009) granting judgement in favour of Gendron against Thompson Fuels. The court appropriated 60% liability to Gendron and 40% to Thompson Fuels. The parties agreed that, based on the court’s findings, Gendron’s total damages were $2,161,570, and Thompson Fuels’ portion of those costs equalled $901,747 ($864,628 plus $37,119 interest). In that decision the court found that the two remaining defendants, the Technical Standards and Safety Authority (“TSSA”) and Les Reservoirs D’Acier De Granby Inc. (“Granby”) were not liable.

Closeup of an oil slick in water with fall colors in the grass on the shore

The parties were unable to agree on costs and requested that submissions on costs be deferred until the decision on the post-trial motions was released. On March 29, 2018 the Court ordered Thompson Fuels to pay Gendron’s costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $473,000.00 (2018 ONSC 2079). In arriving at this amount, the Court considered the Gendron’s contributory negligence, the costs of various post-trial motions brought by the parties, the reasonableness of Gendron’s bill of costs, and the fact that neither party had beat its offer to settle.

The Court then awarded $150,000 in costs to TSSA as against Gendron and Thompson Fuels, who had cross-claimed against TSSA. The Court further ordered Gendron and Thompson Fuels to contribute $140,000 and $10,000, respectively. The Court also ordered Gendron and Thompson Fuels to pay equal shares of TSSA’s costs of $7,500.00 for the post-trial motions. In deciding to award only partial indemnity costs, the Court found that given TSSA’s limited involvement at trial, it did not require two lawyers to attend at trial. The Court also noted that even though Gendron’s action in negligence against TSSA had failed, the trial Court had found that the TSSA had not been “a model of efficiency or clarity” in its dealings with Gendron.

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

This article was first published on the Siskinds Law Firm web site.

______________________

About the author

Paula Lombardi is a partner of Siskinds LLP,  and practices in the areas of environmental, municipal, regulatory and administrative law.  Prior to joining Siskinds, Paula worked as an associate at a Bay Street law firm where her practice focused on occupational health and safety, environmental and regulatory matters.

Paula recently spent two years as in-house counsel for a major privately owned US corporation, whose owner is on the Forbes 500 list, and was responsible for all Canadian legal and business issues relating to the import and export of goods, transportation of hazardous materials, remediation of contaminated sites, construction of large infrastructure projects, regulatory compliance, NAFTA matters, and preparation of environmental assessments in the US and Canada.

Paula has a great deal of experience in: providing due diligence advice; dealing with contamination issues; handling of organic chemicals and hazardous wastes; obtaining environmental approvals; obtaining planning and development approvals; providing advice to municipalities; defending environmental prosecutions; and assisting companies with environmental and regulatory compliance. Paula has appeared before numerous administrative tribunals.

Despite Efforts to Roll-Back Other Program Requirements, U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt Continues to Prioritize Superfund Cleanups

by Van P. Hilderbrand, Jr. and Marian C. Hwang

 

 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) Administrator Scott Pruitt has made it clear that one of his top priorities during his tenure is to expedite cleanups at contaminated sites across the country. To achieve this goal while facing potential budget cuts, he has made several significant decisions over the last year to overhaul and restructure the Superfund cleanup program from within.

First, as we discussed in our earlier post, A New Budget, a New EPA Administrator, and New Uncertainty for Superfund Cleanups, Administrator Pruitt issued a memorandum on May 9, 2017 centralizing decision-making on major Superfund remedies to EPA headquarters. Specifically, final decisions on remedies exceeding $50 million are to be made by Administrator Pruitt or the Deputy Administrator, not by Regional Administrators. According to the memorandum, this change is designed to improve the remedy selection process by promoting increased oversight and accountability and by “enhancing consistency in remedy selection across states and the regions.”

Next, Administrator Pruitt specially convened an EPA Superfund Task Force on May 22, 2017. In our post, EPA’s Task Force Recommendations to Revamp and Expedite Superfund Cleanups and Process – A Welcome Change, we discussed the Task Force Report, issued on July 22, 2017, which identified 5 goals, 13 strategies, and 42 recommendations to (1) expedite Superfund cleanups; (2) re-invigorate responsible party cleanup and reuse; (3) encourage private investment; (4) promote redevelopment and community revitalization; and (5) engage partners and stakeholders. We have seen many of these recommendations realized, including the development and issuance of a priority list of Superfund sites targeted for immediate attention by Administrator Pruitt.

Recent EPA Realignment in Approval Process Sees the Administrator’s Role Expanding

Composite image map showing TRI facilities in blue and Superfund NPL sites in red

In a recent shift to expand the influence of the Administrator’s Office, Administrator Pruitt issued a second memorandum on April 26, 2018 clarifying that EPA’s Office of Land & Emergency Management and regional offices should “coordinate and consult with the Administrator’s Office early on when developing” other significant actions (in addition to remedies) related to costly Superfund cleanups. Such actions would include Amendments to Records of Decision (“ROD”) or Explanations of Significant Differences (“ESD”) that are projected to either increase the estimated cost of a remedy to greater than $50 million or are projected to increase the estimated cost of a remedy that is already greater than $50 million by any amount.

The memorandum also specifically notes that consultations should occur when developing Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions (“NTCRA”) estimated to exceed $50 million. As in the earlier 2017 memorandum, Administrator Pruitt says the additional coordination and cooperation will result in “more accountability and consistency throughout the EPA’s regions.” What this means for potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) at large Superfund sites is that Administrator Pruitt will play an increasingly important role in the decision-making process.

Neither memorandum addressed any change in the role of the National Remedy Review Board (“NRRB”) and the interplay between the NRRB and the increasing oversight and decision-making role of Administrator Pruitt. The NRRB is an internal EPA peer review group that reviews and comments on remedial actions and NTCRAs costing more than $25 million. Questions remain whether the NRRB only reviews actions costing between $25 and $50 million, as not to impede Administrator Pruitt’s review, or do both NRRB and Administrator Pruitt review actions costing in excess of $50 million?

Uncertainty in the Superfund Program

This step comes amid increased turmoil and uncertainty in the Administrator’s Office and the Superfund program. Administrator Pruitt’s top advisor on the Superfund program and chairman of the Superfund Task Force, Albert “Kell” Kelly, resigned unexpectedly in early May, leaving questions regarding who will run the approximately $1 billion program. Further, Administrator Pruitt himself is facing numerous investigations into his own actions and ethical violations; causing many to wonder just how much longer he will be in his current job and whether he will see any of these policy changes implemented.

It is easy to see, therefore, why every decision from the Administrator’s Office comes under significant scrutiny. Many opponents believe these moves are simply ways to reduce costs and time in the cleanup process, and they question whether “expedited” cleanups actually mean less rigorous cleanups. In his first year or so, there are examples where Administrator Pruitt has approved strengthened measures and cleanup requirements at some sites, despite pushback from industry and companies involved in the cleanup, but there are also examples of site decisions that cast doubt on his ability to be independent and impartial. In any case, as long as Administrator Pruitt is in his current role, it is clear that the Superfund program will see continued change and that he will use the authority of that role to expedite cleanups.

Opinions and conclusions in this post are solely those of the author unless otherwise indicated. The information contained in this blog is general in nature and is not offered and cannot be considered as legal advice for any particular situation. The author has provided the links referenced above for information purposes only and by doing so, does not adopt or incorporate the contents. Any federal tax advice provided in this communication is not intended or written by the author to be used, and cannot be used by the recipient, for the purpose of avoiding penalties which may be imposed on the recipient by the IRS. Please contact the author if you would like to receive written advice in a format which complies with IRS rules and may be relied upon to avoid penalties.

This story is was first published on the Miles Stockbridge website.

____________________

About the authors

member of Miles & Stockbridge Products Liability & Mass Torts Practice Group, Van P. Hilderbrand, Jr. focuses his practice on environmental litigation, regulatory compliance issues, and advising on the environmental aspects of business and real estate transactions. His work also includes consulting on renewable energy project development and project finance transactions, conducting due diligence and assisting with permitting issues. He represents clients in a wide range of industries, including energy, manufacturing, consumer products, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, transportation, technology and real estate.

Marian Hwang has been an environmental attorney with the Miles & Stockbridge since 1987 and chairs its Environmental Practice. The breadth of her experiences representing multinational and national clients enables her to develop practical solutions to complex issues, whether involving complicated real estate/corporate acquisitions or divestitures or commercial financing matters to complex multi-defendant toxic tort claims, litigation, and multi-facility compliance matters. Marian works extensively with and appears before Federal and State regulators, and courts, has been certified as a LEED Green Associate by the U.S. Green Building Council, and has served as outside national environmental counsel to the firm’s major clients.

 

EQM awarded $45 million remediation contract by USACE

Environmental Quality Management Inc. (EQM, Cincinnati, Ohio) has been awarded a $45 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District for environmental remediation services at the Callahan Mine site in Maine. The first Task Order will be issued in June for over $6 million.

The former Callahan Mine site was an open-pit mine developed in Goose Pond, a shallow tidal estuary of approximately 75 acres in the town of Brooksville, Maine.  From 1968 through 1972, approximately five million tons of waste rock and 800,000 tons of ore-bearing rock were mined from the open pit.  The waste rock was disposed of on site in three large piles and was also utilized to create a dam for the tailings impoundment.   In summary, the major work elements are remediation of the tailings impoundment; remediation of waste rock pile #3; slope stabilization of the tailings impoundment; consolidation and capping of the tailings impoundment; sediment excavation and disposal in a confined aquatic disposal cell; remediation of residual contamination at waste rock pile #2 and the ore processing area; and site restoration, mitigation, and monitoring.

Tax rebate to fund $8.6M cleanup of former Kitchener Frame site

by Catherine Thompson, Waterloo Region Record

As reported by Catherine Thompson in the Waterloo Region Record, It’ll cost about $8.6 million to rid the soil and groundwater of contaminants at the former Kitchener, Ontario Frame site.

The huge industrial site at Homer Watson Boulevard and Bleams Road has been undergoing cleanup for the past three years. The soil and groundwater were contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), contaminants that are often found at former industrial sites.

The former Kitchener Frame Site (Photo Credit: Philip Walker/Record staff)

The city and the developers — Gary Ball and Marty Pathak — are keen to see the site redeveloped, said Rob Morgan, the City of Kitchener’s co-ordinator of development of former industrial sites. The site of the auto parts plant variously known as Budd Canada, ThyssenKrupp Budd Canada and Kitchener Frame, has been vacant since 2009.

Redevelopment of the sprawling 32-hectare site will give a big boost to the city’s supply of industrial land, Morgan said. About 16 hectares are slated industrial, 10 hectares are retail and 1.5 hectares are office. Another four hectares will be used for things like roads and storm water management.

“It’s much-needed land,” Morgan said. “Kitchener doesn’t have a lot of vacant industrial land left to offer.” There’s a couple of parcels, on Shirley Avenue and Strasburg Road, but not much else, he said.

The developers have applied to the city and region for grants under a program to encourage remediation of contaminated land.

The former Kitchener Frame site would be the biggest property ever to apply for the program, Morgan said.

Under the program, a developer cleans up a site and redevelops it. The new development generates far more taxes than the vacant land had. The city and region hand over the additional tax revenue to the developer for a set number of years, to repay the cost of the environmental cleanup.

The site now has an assessed value of $8 million, and generates about $108,000 in property taxes a year, split roughly 40-60 between the city and the Region of Waterloo. Once it’s cleaned up and redeveloped, it’s expected to have an assessed value of around $112 million, and generate $2.2 million in municipal property taxes.

“It’s a great program,” Morgan said. In exchange for foregoing the increased taxes for a certain number of years, the city gets vacant land cleaned up and converted to a productive use that generates more taxes and jobs.

“These lands are sitting dormant, contaminated, sometimes for many years. As a resident I’d rather see it cleaned up and earning money for the tax base.”

The Kitchener Frame site will be split into 11 different parcels from 1.3 to 10 hectares. Kitchener doesn’t expect to see the first new development on the site until about 2020, and development could continue for the next 10 or 15 years beyond that.

Morgan thinks it’s likely the property will be developed well before then, though. “They’ve got a lot of interest in that property. It’s a great location, because of its proximity to the 401; you’ve got a lot of variety in the lots; Kitchener has a strong manufacturing base, and we’ve got a lot of skilled workers.”

City staff are recommending that Kitchener council approve the application, which must also be approved by regional council, likely in June.

__________________

About the Author

Catherine Thompson covers Kitchener City Hall for the Waterloo Region Record.

Controlling cleanup costs for contaminated land

by Dr. Harm Gross, Western Investor

As reported by Dr. Harm Gross in the Western Investor, in British Columbia, the cost of contaminated site cleanup has grown steadily since the Contaminated Site Regulation became law on April 1, 1997. There are several reasons for this change, some of which are under the control of “persons responsible”, chiefly landowners.

An uncontrollable cost factor is the proliferation of regulations, which ballooned to an estimated 10,000 double-sided pages in British Columbia. On November 1, 2017, Stage 10 omnibus amendments to the CSR came into effect, changing concentrations deemed harmful for a broad range of contaminants and adding a significant number of new ones. This meant that work before that date would become non-compliant overnight, causing environmental consulting companies to rush over 100 submissions for a Certificate of Compliance before this deadline to grandfather their work and avoid additional costs for their clients.

Regulations pertaining to contaminated sites are not just evolving in British Columbia, but have seen substantial updates across Canada in recent years.

Saskatchewan’s updated Environmental Management and Protection Act came into effect in June 2015. This legislation thoroughly overhauled the old Act by introducing a new impacted sites registry and by providing the regulator with more power to order persons responsible to conduct site assessments.

New guidelines were also introduced in Alberta, where the regulator released a new Environmental Site Assessment Standard in March 2016.

Manitoba enacted amendments to the Province’s Contaminated Sites Remediation Regulation in April 2014. While the intended aim of these new regulations and guidelines is to move the focus towards results-based frameworks, any change and expansion of rules inevitably leads to uncertainty for stakeholders. Uncertainty particularly stems from the need of establishing precedent with the regulator when the new rules are applied in the real world. It is up to the consultant to successfully navigate their clients through the new reality and reduce uncertainty. The consultant’s knowledge of the regulations, and proficiency in correctly interpreting and applying new rules, can have significant impacts on the accuracy of cost estimates and actual costs for site assessments and remedial work.

Former bulk fuel storage leak, North Vancouver, BC

With regulations in flux and frequent changes in rules, the potential for lowering and accurately predicting costs for site remediation projects is thus of great interest to responsible persons. The potential savings by inviting an experienced review of proposed remediation plans can be significant. At one site the savings for a client was $15 million; more commonly, savings are in the 6-figure or low 7-figure range. Incorrect investigative work is the most frequent source of error. This ranges from faulty field techniques when sampling groundwater wells, through unfamiliarity with laboratory methods for distinguishing man-made from naturally occurring substances, to inadequate comprehension of the myriad environmental regulations. Investigating contaminants requires great care when the difference between contamination and no contamination is measured at the extremely low concentrations of parts per million in soil, or the even lower concentrations of parts per billion in water. We have seen numerous examples where mistakes have tarred a site.

The public sector is no less prone to erroneous estimations of remediation cost. In April 2014, the parliamentary budget officer reported that the federal government has underestimated the cost of cleaning up contaminated sites under its jurisdiction by at least $2 billion, putting the total liability for contaminated sites to almost $7 billion. This was due to the fact that many sites in the inventory had yet to be assessed. While it seems relatively self-evident that proper site investigations are a prerequisite and absolute must for cost estimates to be accurate, such oversights are unfortunately abundant in the private sector. All too often consultants provide flimsy cost estimates based on incomplete or deficient investigative data.

Businesspeople frequently complain about the irritation of unreliable cost estimates, and rightfully so – nowhere is this more prevalent than in the environmental consulting industry.

Technical experts are often loathe to accept responsibility for cost estimates for fear of finding undiscovered contamination, running into regulatory snafus or overlooking issues which later prove substantial.

Next Environmental has taken the unprecedented step of providing fixed price quotes for a comprehensive scope of work at each step of investigation or remediation, thus entirely eliminating the cost uncertainties for clients. This service, unique in the contaminated sites business, is possible due to the skillful application of regulatory proficiency to address the business needs of clients. Time will tell whether this cost control measure spreads to other firms.

This article was originally published in Western Investor.

____________________

About the Author

Dr. Harm Gross is the owner and President NEXT Environmental Inc.  He is currently a Registered Professional Biologist (R.P.Bio) and an Approved Professional of the Contaminated Sites Approved Professionals Society (CSAP Society), and has a wealth of experience obtaining Ministry Instruments and other environmental certifications for NEXT’s Clients. NEXT provides environmental consulting services including investigation, remediation and risk assessment of contaminated property for clients throughout BC and Alberta.