Posts

Former Contaminated Mine Site in NWT Declared Clean

The Government of Canada recently announced that the former Tundra Gold Mine, located in the Northwest Territories, has been successfully remediated.  The cost of clean-up was $110 million and was paid for by the government.

Tundra Mine was briefly operational in the 1960’s and was used as a dumping ground in the 1980’s.  It’s former owner, Royal Oak Mines went bankrupt in 1999.

Remediation of the site included revegetating soil, sealing mine openings, consolidating and isolating tailings and waste rock, treating petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils, erecting barriers for erosion control, and removing buildings.  The clean-up project lasted more than a decade.

Though some re-vegetation has begun, the land – around 240 km north-east of Yellowknife – will remain recognizably an old industrial site for decades to come.

Tundra Mine Site post clean-up (Photo Credit: Jamie Malbeuf/CBC)

Dominic LeBlanc, Canada’s newly installed minister for northern affairs, called Tundra’s remediation “a great example of the hard work of northerners and the importance of partnerships with local Indigenous communities.”  Northern residents represented 76 percent of the project’s suppliers and 61 percent of its employees.  The Minister stated that the restoration will help local Dene and Métis peoples once again use the land for traditional practices.

The Canadian government will continue to oversea that monitoring of the site to ensure it remains stable.  Monitoring, using a combination of on-site equipment and drones, will cost an unspecified further sum each year.

More work to be done remediating the North

According to an article in Cabin Radio, Tundra’s successful clean-up remains a drop in the larger ocean of contaminated sites within the NWT.  Tundra is the 24th site under federal supervision to have reached this stage, a spokesperson for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada said by email to on Cabin Radio.

federal webpage last updated in 2013 suggests Canada is responsible for more than 50 significant contaminated sites in the territory, including those 24.

separate federal website lists 1,634 contaminated sites within the Northwest Territories, where a contaminated site is defined by the Federal Goverment as “one at which substances occur at concentrations (1) above background (normally occurring) levels and pose or are likely to pose an immediate or long term hazard to human health or the environment, or (2) exceeding levels specified in policies and regulations.”

Some entries on the latter list are considered remediated and their files closed. Some are smaller sites not felt worthy of their own, separate clean-up projects.  Several dozen of them, for example, are grouped under one project to clean up the Canol Trail, a World War Two initiative which left contaminated soil, asbestos, and a range of hazardous materials strewn across 355 km of the Sahtu.

In the 2017-18 financial year, public records show federal agencies were obliged to spend money on some 275 separate contaminated sites in the Northwest Territories.  $157,000 was spent assessing a range of those sites, while a little over $103 million was spent on remediation work.

Of that figure, around $23.6 million was spent remediating the Tundra site in that financial year.

Unsurprisingly, Yellowknife’s Giant Mine – considered among the most toxic sites in Canada, harbouring 237,000 tonnes of poisonous arsenic trioxide in underground chambers – was the only site receiving more remediation money.

In the same period Canada spent just over $36 million on Giant, where full remediation work does not even begin until 2020.

Giant, like Tundra, was owned by Royal Oak when the company collapsed and the site became an unwanted federal problem. The full bill for Giant’s clean-up and maintenance – a program of indefinite, certainly decades-long duration – is expected to reach $1 billion in today’s money.

Tundra Mine 1963 (Photo Credit: Gerry Riemann)

 

New Technology for Mapping DNAPL Contamination

Laser-induced fluorescence (LIF)

As reported in Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation (38(3):28-42), DyeLIF™ is a new version of laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) for high-resolution 3D mapping of NAPLs in the subsurface.   DyeLIF eliminates the requirement that the NAPL contains native fluorophores (such as those that occur in compounds like PAHs) and therefore can be used to detect chlorinated solvents and other nonfluorescing compounds.

NAPLs were previously undetectable with conventional LIF tools. With DyeLIF, an aqueous solution of water and nontoxic hydrophobic dye is continuously injected ahead of the sapphire detection window while the LIF probe is being advanced in the subsurface.  If soil containing NAPL is penetrated, the injected dye solvates into the NAPL within a few milliseconds, creating strong fluorescence that is transmitted via fiber-optic filaments to aboveground optical sensors. This paper describes a detailed field evaluation of the novel DyeLIF technology performed at a contaminated industrial site in Lowell, Mass., where chlorinated solvent DNAPL persists below the water table in sandy sediments..

The DyeLIF system was field tested at a Formerly Used Defense (FUD) facility in Massachusetts in Fall 2013 (Geoprobe® delivery) and again in March 2014 (CPT delivery). The primary field demonstration completed in 2013 included two components: one week of DyeLIF probing and a second week of follow-on soil coring using research-quality direct push (DP) soil coring methods in order to compare DyeLIF results to colorimetric dye shake tests and laboratory analysis.

Several performance objectives were established in the project demonstration work plan and all were met or exceeded. The performance objective for chemical analysis was 70% consistency between positive DyeLIF responses and samples when DNAPL saturations were greater than 5%. The demonstration results showed 100% consistency between chemical analysis and DyeLIF for saturations greater than 1.9% (35 of 35 samples), and 95% consistency for estimated saturations greater than 0.5% (40 of 42 samples).

ESTCP funded Project ER-201121 to demonstrate the DyeLIF technology.  Additional details on the technology can be found at the U.S. Department of Defence Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and the U.S. Department of Defence Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) link at SERDP-ESTCP.

2D and 3D Conceptual Site Models of a Contaminated Property

U.S. Government RFP for Remediation Services – Small Business Opportunity

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Oak Ridge, TN. Recently issued a solicitation for the Characterization, Deactivation/Demolition, and Remediation Services of Low-Risk/Low-Complexity Facilities and Sites for the Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management.

This procurement will be a total small business set-aside under NAICS code 562910, size standard 750 employees.  DOE anticipates awarding one or more IDIQ contracts for support services in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in accordance with the Federal Facilities Agreement.

The Y-12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and East Tennessee Technology Park encompass numerous facilities, soils, concrete slabs, containerized and non-containerized debris, and aging legacy waste populations that require investigation and additional characterization to determine appropriate disposal options.

The estimated maximum value of the contract is $24.9M for a period of performance of five years from date of award.  The full solicitation synopsis is available on the DOE Environmental Management procurement website at FedConnect.

An aerial view of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory campus.

Setting New Legal Standards And Timelines: Alberta’s Remediation Regulation

Article by Alan Harvie, Norton Rose Fullbright Canada LLP

Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) has amended regulations that will require all contamination caused by spills that are reported to regulators after January 1, 2019 to be delineated and assessed as soon as possible through a Phase 2 environmental site assessment that meets AEP’s standards and that is then either remediated within two years or subject to an approved remedial action plan with an approved final clean-up date. These are significant departures from the current requirements.

On June 1, 2018 the Remediation Certificate Amendment Regulation was passed into law under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA). It amends the existing Remediation Certificate Regulation in a number of important ways, including changing the name to the Remediation Regulation.

Groundwater monitoring wells

The Remediation Regulation will be administered by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) for contamination at upstream oil and gas sites, such as wells, pipelines and facilities, and by AEP for all other sites.

Under the EPEA, a person responsible for the release of a substance into the environment that causes or has the potential to cause an adverse effect is under a legal duty, as soon as they know about the release or ought to have known about it, to report it to regulators. They must also, as soon as they know or ought to have known about the release, take all reasonable measures to repair, remedy and confine the effects of the substance, remove or otherwise dispose of the substance in such a manner as to effect maximum protection to human life, health and the environment and restore the environment to a condition satisfactory to the regulators.

Although persons have always been legally required, under the EPEA, to clean up spills, historically there was no legal requirement as to how a person was to assess contamination or any specific time limit as to how long a person could take to remediate the spill as required by the EPEA. This has now changed.

New timelines

The Remediation Regulation requires that a person responsible for a spill that is reported after January 1, 2019 must:

  • As soon as possible, either remediate the spill to meet the criteria set out in the Alberta Tier 1 and 2 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines and submit a report to the regulators about the remediation or undertake a Phase 2 environment site assessment of the site that meets the requirements of AEP’s Environmental Site Assessment Standard.
  • If the site cannot be remediated to the satisfaction of the regulators within two years, then the person responsible for the spill must submit a remedial action plan (RAP) that complies with AEP’s Alberta Tier 1 and Tier Soil and Groundwater Remediation GuidelinesEnvironmental Site Assessment StandardExposure Control Guide and Risk Management Plan Guide.
  • The RAP must include a period of time for completion of the remediation that is acceptable to the regulators.
  • The person responsible must take the remedial measures set out in the approved RAP by such time.

New legal standards

The Remediation Regulation previously incorporated into law the requirements to use the Tier 1 and 2 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines for obtaining a remediation certificate under the EPEA. It now requires that the Guidelines also be followed for assessing contaminated sites and therefore eliminates some historical practices in which persons responsible for spills used other clean-up guidelines or criteria.

The Remediation Regulation also requires the use of the Environmental Site Assessment Standard. The Standard sets out how contamination is to be vertically and horizontally delineated and assessed. The Remediation Regulation requires that this work be done within two years.

If the spill cannot be remediated within two years, then a RAP which meets the Exposure Control Guide and the Risk Management Plan Guide, and which has been approved by the regulators, must be in effect at the end of the two-year period. For some large contaminated sites, it may be challenging to fully delineate the contamination, develop a RAP and have the regulators approve it within two years. Furthermore, the clean-up under the RAP must have a stated end point.

Abandoned oil well equipment

These changes diverge from historical practices where, in some cases, contamination delineation has taken several or more years, and remedial actions, if any, have not been well planned and have had no fixed end point.

Implications

The implications of the Remediation Regulation for persons responsible for contamination are such that they will no longer be able to ignore or may only be able to slowly proceed with assessing contamination or simply monitor it over the long term. Concrete steps must now be taken according to set time periods and such steps must comply with AEP’s guidelines and standards.

Next steps

As mentioned, the new requirements to delineate and remediate a site apply only to spills reported on or after January 1, 2019. Before then, AEP is expected to release further guidance, host stakeholder workshops and potentially amend the Remediation Regulation.

 

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 Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP Website.

_______________________

About the Author

Alan Harvie is a senior partner at Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP and practices out of the Calgary office.  He has practised energy and environmental/regulatory law since 1989 and regularly deals with commercial, operational, environmental and regulatory issues, especially for the upstream oil and gas, energy, waste disposal and chemical industries. He is a member of our energy and environmental departments.

Mr. Harvie also has significant legal experience in acting for the oil and gas industry in commercial transactions and regulatory matters, including enforcement proceedings, common carrier and processor applications, forced poolings, downspacings and holdings, rateable take, and contested facility, well and pipeline applications. He has also dealt extensively with commercial, environmental and regulatory issues concerning thermal and renewable power plants, electrical transmission and distribution lines, tourism and recreation projects, forestry, mining, agriculture, commercial real estate, industrial facilities, sewage plants, hazardous waste landfills and treatment facilities, transportation of dangerous goods and water storage reservoirs.

Mr. Harvie regularly advises clients about environmental assessments and permitting, spill response, enforcement proceedings, contaminated site remediation, facility decommissioning and reclamation, chemical compliance (DSL, NDSL, MSDS and HMIRC), nuclear licensing, crude-by-rail projects and product recycling and stewardship requirements.

 

Oil deliberately spilled in lake to study ecosystem response

As reported by Lesley Evans Ogden of the Canadian Press, researchers were in northwestern Ontario recently spilled diluted oil sands bitumen and crude oil into a lake to study how the ecosystem, from microbes to fish, responds.

The pilot project, known as Freshwater Oil Spill Remediation Study, is being done at the International Institute for Sustainable Development Experimental Lakes Area (IISD-ELA) southeast of Kenora, Ont.

The reasoning behind the study is that there are currently gaps scientists knowledge regarding the impacts of oil spills on freshwater ecosystems.  North America has the largest network of energy pipelines in the world, and periodic oil spills from pipelines do occur.

Researchers will also explore the effectiveness of oil-spills remediation (clean-up) techniques in a study conducted on the shoreline of an IISD-ELA lake.

Given the significant knowledge gaps, it is hoped that the groundbreaking project undertaken by  IISD-ELA that will answer the questions about what happens when oil enters freshwater systems.

Vince Palace, the scientist who is leading the experiment, said the area is typically known for experiments involving a whole lake, but this work is different.

“We’re using small enclosures to contain that oil,” he said.

The oil was spilled inside four yellow floating boomed rectangles, each along 2.5 metres of shrub and sphagnum moss shoreline.

The enclosures stretch 10 metres into the lake and contain 20,000 litres of water. Curtain-like sides extend down and are carefully affixed to the lake bottom with lines of sandbags filled at the local gravel pit and placed by a small army of students in waders and wetsuits.

The spills were 1.25 litres each and were to be left for 72 hours then cleaned up by professional oil-spill responders.

With any oil spill, even after clean up, there is residual contamination.

“We’re interested in looking at the impact of residuals,” Palace said in an interview before the experiments were conducted.

Palace’s team will study impacts on microbes, algae, zooplankton, insects, wood frogs, and fathead minnows by sampling soil, water, and sediment before and after the spill and clean up.

They’ll look for direct impacts from fouling and poisoning, but also indirect effects on fish survival and reproduction.

Palace notes that when oil spills, social pressure and regulatory commitments create a huge drive to clean it up.

“The problem is, in the shoreline environment, when you spill oil, often times the removal of it can be just as damaging as the impact of the oil on the shoreline environment itself,” he said.

Soil removal, compaction, and moving heavy equipment into remote areas are ecologically destructive.

“In marine environments, there are microbes present that will respond to the presence of oil to degrade it.  So it may be that there is a benefit to leaving the oil in place to degrade,” Palace said.  Diluted bitumen’s behaviour in freshwater has been studied extensively in laboratories.

Project collaborator Heather Dettman, senior scientist with Natural Resources Canada in Alberta, has simulated spills in laboratory wave tanks using North Saskatchewan River water.

Her studies have manipulated variables such as wave action and temperature, but not things like wind, rain and sun.

So, when it comes to understanding how oil behaves in a lake “maybe we’re missing something,” she said.

This is “the next step up” from the lab.

The researchers hope to find out if such oil-eating microbes exist in the freshwater environment of oil-naive Boreal shield lakes.

Researchers deliberately add a very small and controlled amount of crude into the equally strictly controlled sections of an actual lake in order to study the effects on the ecosystem in the second phase of the study. (IISD-ELA / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Events

Best Practices for Site Characterization throughout the Remediation Process

 

Event Name: Best Practices for Site Characterization Throughout the Remediation Process
Hosted By: U.S. EPA
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Description: Best Practices for Site Characterization Throughout the Remediation Process is based on best management practices (BMP) implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), partnership organizations, federal and state partners, and consultants. Participants will learn how to streamline projects in a legal, technically sound, and cost-effective manner. By taking the course, participants achieve the following objectives:

  • Integrate best practices into traditional project activities. This course illustrates how to use more effective sampling plan design, data collection, analysis, and management strategies at various entry points in a typical project time-line. The course highlights emerging quality assurance and quality control methods for evaluating data sufficiency and optimizing project sequencing. Case studies highlight benefits of using best practices at hazardous waste sites.
  • Effectively collect and communicate critical project information. The course stresses the use of the systematic planning process to involve key stakeholders and develop the conceptual site model (CSM). The course provides examples of CSMs and describes how they are used as the basis for project and sampling plan design, and as a tool for maintaining stakeholder consensus throughout the project life cycle. Participants will be shown how comprehensive systematic planning extends beyond normal data quality models. The course examines tools for managing the uncertainties associated with sampling, social, economic, and political factors that significantly impact hazardous waste cleanup and reuse projects.
  • Design dynamic work strategies. Systematic planning provides the foundation for designing effective dynamic work strategies (DWS). The course describes the components of a DWS, including (1) methods for verifying performance, (2) using collaborative data sets, (3) methods for real-time decision making, (4) managing sample and small-scale variability, (5) designing project and field decision logic, (6) implementing contingencies, and (7) creating streamlined work plans.
  • Recognize and overcome the challenges presented while implementing a dynamic work strategy. Controlling a project during a DWS is challenging and involves communication and planning. Participants will learn how to manage and adjust programs in the field while maintaining the project’s integrity. The course describes methods for controlling and directing work during dynamic work efforts, which include using unitized costing, setting project ceilings, and lowering project costs. Participants will examine how more focused characterization efforts can extend project funds and maximize the data collected.
  • Use BMPs to support all phases of the environmental cleanup life cycle. In addition to supporting site characterization, site characterization and remediation BMPs can directly support risk assessment, technology selection, remedial design, remedy implementation, long-term operations, and optimization efforts. The course describes specific ways practitioners can apply the BMPs to support these major project phases.

Course Outline

  1. Overview of Best Practices for Site Characterization and Remediation
  2. Systematic Project Planning
  3. Developing Dynamic Work Strategies
  4. Implementing a Dynamic Field Investigation
  5. Risk Assessment and Real-Time Data
  6. Best Practices for Remedy Design and Implementation
Registration Status: Registration Open
Event Begins: December 03, 2018 at 1:00 PM
Event Ends: December 06, 2018 at 12:00 PM
For questions about this event, please contact: Jodi McCarty (ICF)
Phone: 773-934-3091
E-mail: jodi.mccarty@icf.com
Additional Information: Daily Class Times:
Monday – 1:00 PM to 4:30 PM
Tuesday – 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM
Wednesday – 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM
Thursday – 8:30 AM to 12:00 PM
Location
This event will be held at: U.S. EPA – Region 1
5 Post Office Sq.
1st Fl. Conference Center – Leighton Hall
Boston, MA 02109

Location Contact:
Cosmo Caterino
617-918-1264
caterino.cosmo@epa.gov

Location Map:
These maps are for getting a general idea of the location – they may not be 100% accurate.
Click here to view