Technology Simultaneously Measures 71 Elements in Water

Researchers at New York University (NYU) recently developed a new method for simultaneous measurement of 71 inorganic elements in liquids — including groundwater. The method, utilizing sequential inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry, makes element testing much faster, more efficient, and more comprehensive than was possible in the past.

The NYU researchers studied samples of liquid from a variety of sources worldwide, including tap water from a New York City suburb, snow from Italy and Croatia, rain from Brazil and Pakistan, lake water from Switzerland and Croatia, and seawater from Japan and Brazil.  Testing each sample results in a distinct elemental pattern, creating a “fingerprint” that can help differentiate between substances or trace a liquid back to its environmental origin.

The method—developed by researchers at the isotope laboratory of NYU College of Dentistry and described in the journal RSC Advances, published by the Royal Society of Chemistry—may be used to explore and understand the distribution of inorganic elements beyond the few that are typically measured. It has implications for fields such as nutrition, ecology and climate science, and environmental health.

An analytical technique called inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) is used to measure elements. Historically, ICP-MS instruments have measured elements sequentially, or one by one, but a new type of ICP‐MS instrument at NYU College of Dentistry and roughly two dozen other places around the world has the potential to measure the complete range of inorganic elements all at once.

NYU ICP-MS

“Because of this new method, our mass spectrometer can simultaneously measure all inorganic elements from lithium to uranium. We’re able to measure the elements in far less time, at far less expense, using far less material,” said Timothy Bromage, professor of biomaterials and of basic science and craniofacial biology at NYU College of Dentistry and the study’s senior author.

This technological advancement may help to fill gaps in our understanding of element distributions and concentrations in substances like water. For instance, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency monitors and sets maximum concentration limits for 19 elements in drinking water considered to be health risks, yet many elements known to have health consequences—such as lithium or tin—are neither monitored nor regulated.

“The elemental mapping of concentration levels in bottled and tap water could help to increase our understanding of ‘normal’ concentration levels of most elements in water,” said Bromage.

Bromage and his colleagues designed a method for using simultaneous ICP-MS to detect 71 elements of the inorganic spectrum involving a specific set of calibration and internal standards. The method, for which they have a patent pending, routinely detects elements in seconds to several minutes and in samples as small as 1 to 4 milliliters.

In each sample,​ Bromage and ​his team found ​a distinct ​“​fingerprint”​ or elemental ​pattern, ​suggesting that ​samples can be ​recognized and ​differentiated ​by these ​patterns. The ​elemental ​content of ​water, for ​example, ​typically ​reflects its ​natural ​environment, so ​understanding ​the elemental ​composition can ​tell us if ​water had its ​origins from a ​source with ​volcanic rock ​versus ​limestone, an ​alkaline rock.

Is Ontario “Open for Business” when it comes to Excess Soil Management?

by  Grant Walsom, XCG Consultants

Since the 2013 call for a review in the
regulatory gaps surrounding the ability for enforcement on mismanagement of
excess soils in Ontario, the Ministry of Environment (now called Ministry of
Environment, Conservation and Parks – MECP) has tirelessly worked towards a
proposed Excess Soil Regulatory package for Ontario.  The efforts have
included an unprecedented process of stakeholder listening sessions,
consultations and engagement group meetings and inter-Ministerial reviews over
the past 5 years.

The proposed Excess Soil Regulatory Package
was formed through 2 separate postings on the Environmental Bill of Rights
(EBR) and is reportedly ready for Cabinet Approval.  Further, the
regulatory package is formulated with general overall acceptance by the
construction and development industry in Ontario as well as the supporting
industries (i.e., legal, consulting, laboratories) and municipalities.  It
is generally agreed that the proposed Regulation outlines possible
opportunities for beneficial reuse with sustainable considerations (examples
would be reduced truck traffic and reduced greenhouse gases creation).

We are coming to understand that the
current Conservative Provincial Government is strongly opposed to a majority of
initiatives created by the previous Liberal Government.  The Conservatives
are in favour of the red-tape reduction, streamlining operations and fiscal
responsibility.  In fact, there is now a Deputy Minister of Red Tape and
Regulatory Burden Reduction in the Ontario Cabinet.  His job is to make
Ontario “Open for Business.”  Any new Regulation such as those being
reviewed by MECP could certainly be viewed as counter-productive in terms of
red-tape reduction.    However, with the release of the Made-in-
Ontario Environment Plan on November 29, 2018, it appears that Excess Soil
Regulation will be enacted in some form in the not-to-distant future. 
There will no doubt be some changes to the proposed Regulatory package, but it
is good to see that Regulation will proceed.

To date, one of the biggest challenges that
the enforcement regime of the Environment Ministry had was the gap in how
excess soil (impacted with contaminants or not) could be classified as a “waste
material” if it’s not managed properly or if it’s illegally dumped.  We
have all seen the extensive media coverage of a number of illegal dump sites,
innocent property owners mislead on the quality of the fill they are accepting,
and private air-fields who have capitalized on the regulatory gaps in Ontario
where excess soil is concerned.  Enforcement against illegal dumping or
misrepresentation of the soil quality is not clear or easily achieved under the
current Environmental Protection Act and regulations such as Regulation 347
(Waste Management).  Minor amendments to Regulation 153/04 (Brownfields
Regulation) have also been proposed to assist in streamlining and simplifying
filing of Records of Site Condition and redevelopment of Brownfield
properties.  Further definitions of soil, waste and inert fill are also
forthcoming in the new proposed Excess Soil Regulatory package.

One of the main benefits of the proposed Excess Soil Regulation is the clarity it provides in the expectations of appropriate management of excess soil along with the steps that would be followed to provide the level of certainty that the public would expect.  It puts a heavy onus on the generator of the excess soil (or the source site) to assess the quality against a set of new standards.  The Standards were developed as a subset of the O. Reg. 153/04 Brownfield Standards, aimed at assisting in identifying acceptable and beneficial re-use of the excess soil.

Beneficial reuse of excess soil has a
strong consideration for soil quality in terms of chemical testing to assess
for contaminants; however, Ontario soils are highly variable with respect to
the geotechnical quality for engineered reuse (i.e., silt, clay, sands, gravels
and poor quality mixed fill).  Recovered excess soil may require some
screening/grading to classify the geotechnical qualities prior to identifying
an appropriate engineered and beneficial reuse.  Market-based solutions
and opportunities for excess soil supply and demand services are sure to be
identified as creative Ontarians have historically shown innovation in finding
geotechnical solutions for excess soil.  The new regulatory package allows
for this to happen to the benefit of both sender and receiver parties.
Increasingly, clients are also choosing to avoid moving soils by employing
methods to limit or even eliminate the amount of soils that have to be moved
from a poor fill site with things like landscaped architectural features or
ground improvement to treat soils in place.

Another benefit of the proposed excess soil
regulation is the placement of the responsibility to ensure and “certify” the
quality of the excess soil and the appropriate handling and re-use of the
material by the source site or generator.  This requires a shift in the
thinking around management of any excess soil materials to be assessed and
pre-planned at the beginning of a project, versus at the last minute and left
to the excavation contractor, as has historically been done.  The shift in
thinking and pre-planning may take time, but with the assistance of the
“Qualified Person” community in Ontario, the planning can be simplified.
 The industry is already starting to shift to a more responsible
management of excess soils, with the knowledge of potential Regulatory changes.
The proposed Excess Soil Regulatory package has a well-defined transition
period of two full years to be fully enacted, giving the construction and
development industry time to become used to the shift in thinking and
pre-planning as well as the procurement groups to ensure that the appropriate
assessment and characterization activities are completed.

The benefits of many aspects of the
proposed Excess Soil Regulatory package are clear and are desired in
Ontario.  The business community has hoped that the current Conservative
Government in Ontario understands that the Excess Soil Regulatory package has
been requested by the citizens of Ontario, and formulated through an exhaustive
consultation and engagement of the various stakeholders in the Province. It has
also been hoped that the current Provincial Government sees the value in many
aspects of the proposed regulatory package for management of excess
soils.  With reference to Excess Soil Regulation in the Environment Plan,
it certainly appears that the current Provincial Government does see the
value.  Further, the complimentary minor amendments to the soil and waste
definitions are needed as are the proposed amendments to the Brownfield
Regulation.

Since the June 2018 election, the construction and development industries in Ontario have been patiently waiting for clarity on how the current Provincial Government plans to proceed.  It is clear that this new legislative change will help to make Ontario open for business and it appears that the current Provincial Government agrees.  We will now see what changes to the proposed Regulatory Package will be made, hopefully, sooner than later.

This article was first published in the Geosolv website.

About the Author

Grant Walsom, P.Eng., is a Partner at XCG Consulting Limited and recognized as a Qualified Person in Ontario under the Record of Site Condition Regulation (O. Reg. 153/04). He proudly serves on the Board of Directors at the Ontario Environment Industry Association (ONEIA) and the Canadian Brownfields Network (CBN). Grant can be reached at [email protected].

What are the most common HazMat threats for first responders?

by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

The unintentional release of toxic chemicals can pose a wide range of physical, health and environmental hazards. And when it comes to the storage, handling or transport of hazardous materials (HazMat), safety is paramount.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) defines HazMat as any substance that is potentially harmful to human health or the environment. 

While there are a multitude of precautions that industries will take to stay safe, in the event of accidental spillage due to a road traffic accident or as the result of an industrial incident, highly trained HazMat crews will be called on to mitigate the threat.

In this article, we explore eight of the most common hazardous materials that first responders are likely to encounter in the event of an industrial accident or road transport incident.

1) Carbon Dioxide

Refrigerated carbon dioxide is a colorless,
odorless, non-flammable gas used to chill or freeze food products as part of
the process of transport to market.

Although non-toxic, when carbon dioxide
displaces oxygen in confined spaces the carbon dioxide vapors can cause
headache, nausea, dizziness or asphyxiation. And when carbon dioxide comes into
contact with skin it can also cause severe burns.

When responding to incidents where C02 is stored, firefighters need to be alert to the possibility of leakages. A low oxygen meter should be used to determine that an area is safe for occupancy.

2) Chlorine

Chlorine is a key component in the production of key industrial and consumer products including the vast majority of pharmaceutical production and virtually all crop protection chemicals.

It is a highly reactive and volatile
substance, particularly when in the presence of heat, and is considered to be
among the most dangerous of hazardous materials.

Chlorine is classified as both a Toxic Inhalation Hazard (TIH) and a Poison Inhalation Hazard (PIH).

3) Fireworks

Both the transport and storage of consumer fireworks pose a high fire risk. In the United Kingdom (UK), the physical movement (transfer) of explosives from one place to another (excluding those moved within a site) requires a Recipient Competent Authority (RCA) document. 

According to the UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) a license is
required from an appropriate licensing authority in order to be able to store
explosives, however depending on their hazard type certain quantities of
explosives can be kept for a short time without the need for a license. 

In the US, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued mandatory safety regulations for fireworks devices that are regulated under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.

4) Gasoline

Typical gasoline contains approximately 150
different chemicals including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene.

The highly flammable nature of gasoline,
the ease with which it evaporates and its explosive potential in air, makes it
a high exposure risk. Gasoline exposure can occur through the breathing of
gasoline vapours, via the drinking of contaminated water or by coming into
contact with contaminated soil.

Gasoline should only be stored in approved
containers and must not be handled near any ignition source.

5) Argon

A refrigerated liquid, Argon is most
commonly used in the production of fluorescent light bulbs and in welding.

Argon is classed as neither flammable nor toxic, however it can cause significant tissue damage if it comes into contact with skin and it can be extremely harmful if inhaled. To avoid sudden releases Argon is transported in upright cylinders.

6) Sulfuric Acid

Sulfuric acid (also known as “battery
acid”, “hydrgen sulfate” and “oil of vitriol”) is one
of the most important compounds in the chemical industry. The annual
production of sulfuric acid worldwide has been predicted to hit 260 million tonnes by the end of 2018. 

Sulfuric acid is used widely in the
production of phosphate fertilizers, metal processing, lead-based batteries,
fiber production and chemical manufacturing (including paints, pigments, dyes
and synthetic detergents.)

It is a highly corrosive substance which is
destructive to skin, eyes, teeth and lungs. Severe exposure can be fatal.

7) Propylene

Propylene is a volatile, flammable gas used
as a crucial product in the petrochemical, packaging and plastics industries.

It is often used in the place of propane in
high-velocity oxygen fuel (HVOF) processes. Propylene gas poses a fire hazard
when it is handled in the vicinity of any equipment capable of causing ignition.

8) Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)

Comprising a combination of propane and butane, LPG is commonly used as
both a fuel (to heat vehicles and appliances) and as a refrigerant. Its mixture
of hydrocarbon gases poses a major fire risk which means it must be stored in
pressured vessels.

Toxic chemicals can pose a wide range of
potential health and physical hazards to those employees operating within
industrial plants and to the personnel charged with handling or transporting
these substances. And as such they are heavily regulated.

In the rare case of accidental release, the knowledge of HazMat crews can provide life-saving assistance in identifying the threat, containing the area and mitigating the effects of the incident. 

This article was first published on the Argon Electronics website.

___________________________________

About the Author

Steven Pike is the Founder and Managing Director of Argon Electronics, a leader in the development and manufacture of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) and hazardous material (HazMat) detector simulators.
He is interested in liaising with CBRN professionals and detector manufacturers to develop training simulators as well as CBRN trainers and exercise planners to enhance their capability and improve the quality of CBRN and Hazmat training.

GFL Fined $300,000 for illegal sale of PERC

On December 10, 2018, GFL Environmental Inc. was sentenced after pleading guilty in the Ontario Court of Justice to violating federal environmental legislation. The company was fined $300,000.

The charges were laid January 2017 after inspectors determined that GFL had supplied tetrachloroethylene, also known as PERC, to nine dry cleaning operations in Toronto, Newmarket, Scarborough, Mississauga, Waterloo, London and Cambridge that had not adhered to containment measures required by law.  According to an indictment filed with the court at that time, infractions noted by enforcement officers included inadequate wastewater containment systems and floor drain plugs that were not resistant to PERC.

The company, along with president and CEO Patrick Dovigi, vice-president of sales and marketing John Petlichkovski, and Louie Servos, identified as a GFL employee, were each charged with 16 counts under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, according to the indictment.

The resolution presented in court on December 10th saw GFL pleading guilty to two counts. The remaining charges were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.

After an investigation led by Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officers, charges were laid and GFL Environmental Inc. pleaded guilty to two counts of contravening the Tetrachloroethylene (Use in Dry Cleaning and Reporting Requirements) Regulations (SOR 203/79) under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 for selling tetrachloroethylene, commonly referred to as “PERC” to owners or operators of dry-cleaning facilities that did not meet regulatory standards.

GFL was fined $150,000 for each offence; the minimum fine for a first-time offender is $100,000. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 allows courts to fine offenders up to a maximum of $4 million.

SOR 203/79 prohibits anyone from selling tetrachloroethylene to dry cleaners unless the dry-cleaning facility is compliant with the equipment specifications set out in the Regulations, which aim to reduce releases into the environment.

dry cleaning equipment

The Regulations are unique in that in places the onus of the seller of “PERC” to ensure that the buyer (typically dry cleaning facilities) have the proper equipment and training to prevent the release of PERC into the environment.

Tetrachloroethylene, used commercially since the early 1900s, has been an important chlorinated solvent worldwide. Tetrachloroethylene is a colourless, volatile liquid with an ether-like odour. It is also commonly referred to as perchloroethylene or PERC.

The most important routes of exposure to tetrachloroethylene for the general public are ingesting contaminated water and inhaling ambient air.  Improper disposal and releases from dry cleaning facilities and landfills can lead to groundwater contamination and potential environmental exposures.

PERC is a dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL), meaning that it is only slightly soluble and more dense than water.  When released in the subsurface, it will migrate downward, adsorbing into soil particles, slightly dissolving into groundwater, and eventually making its way to bedrock where it will pool and continue to dissolve into the groundwater.  As a result, PERC is very difficult to remediate from the subsurface.

As a result of this conviction, GFL Environmental Inc. will be added to the Environmental Offenders Registry.

The $300,000 fine will be directed to the Environmental Damages Fund.  The Environmental Damages Fund (EDF) is a specified purpose account, administered by Environment Canada, to provide a mechanism for directing funds received as a result of fines, court orders, and voluntary payments to priority projects that will benefit our natural environment. The Environmental Damages Fund (EDF) follows the Polluter Pays Principle to help ensure that those who cause environmental damage or harm to wildlife take responsibility for their actions.

What is the best HazMat training method to keep first responders safe

by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

While regulations exist to guide HazMat training requirements for first  responders, the reality is that many personnel still don’t consider themselves to be adequately skilled in the use of their equipment.

Sometimes it’s because there simply isn’t enough time to carry out regular and structured training programmes. Sometimes this lack of preparedness comes as the result of budget cuts where training is one of the first things to go.

So says, independent CBRN consultant and subject matter expert, Debra Robinson in a white paper she has written which explores the subject of keeping first responders safe.

As Debra explains, it’s not enough for a department to simply purchase a full array of safety and monitoring equipment.

“Responders
need to be thoroughly knowledgeable about the capabilities, limitations and
applications and be proficient in the use of each piece of equipment, and that
takes a great deal of training,” she says.

It would seem too that smaller fire departments are often the ones losing out, with many volunteers not always being crystal clear on what their training requirements even entail. 

“Large city or larger communities with paid fire departments are far better off than the smaller departments. Some 70-80% of fire departments across the United States are manned by volunteers and many struggle to find volunteers to provide the services, let alone complete the requisite training,” she says.

For those departments that do have training coordinators and solid programs in place,there is still the challenge of trying to deliver equipment training that provides the most realistic learning experience possible whilst also guaranteeing personnel safety.

As Debra points out,the equipment that is used to detect, identify and measure hazardous materials can often involve significant risk, even in the presumed safety of a training environment.

Some trainers may still defer to more traditional HazMat training methods – such as the use of powerful simulants that closely mimic the properties of chemical materials. But many of these simulants can be hazardous in their own right,even in the smallest and most controlled of quantities.

In recent years, Debra explains, there’s been more of a move towards the use of training simulators which rely on specific frequencies and technologies to replicate the effects of actual, chemical, radiological and biological materials.

Says Debra: “The obvious benefit is the simulators greatly reduce the risks associated with the use of live agents. Used properly, they can be a valuable training tool and can provide for a much more realistic training environment.”

Simulators have developed a strong reputation for their abilities to facilitate hands-on training that can simply not be achieved with live agent training methods. Live agents by their nature carry an extreme level of inherent risk – something that is eliminated through the use of simulator equipment.

As Debra highlights, having the opportunity for some “serious hands-on time with the equipment” is another major plus for trainees, where repetition is the key to successful learning.

And there are also tangible benefits to be gained for a department’s bottom-line, she says, with the return on investment (ROI) being clearly evident in fewer operator errors,as well as “reduced damage to detectors, avoidance of simulant and source related administration etc. and perhaps even lower insurance premiums.”

As Debra argues, it can be easy for political or government leaders to dismiss the need for investment in CBRNe and HazMat training – and particularly when budgets are tight. Bu the risk to communities from chemical, biological or radiological threat is very real. While this may come in the form of terrorist threats, there is also the much greater risk of hazardous materials that exist in our communities’industrial plants, hospitals and businesses.

As Debra concludes:”Ultimately, the decision-point and justification is quite simple. Are you willing to accept the risks associated with under-qualified personnel and insufficient training and capabilities, or should you consider moving toward ensuring you have sufficiently trained, equipped and qualified personnel to respond to the hazards that exist in the community?”

Debra Robinson is founder of 2o8 Consulting & Solutions, based in Lincoln, Nebraska. She provides consulting and SME services in chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) and Emergency Management preparedness across a diverse range of platforms and industries.

This article was first published in Argon Electronics website.

About the Author

Steven Pike is the Founder and Managing Director of Argon Electronics, a world leader in the development and manufacture of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) and hazardous material (HazMat) detector simulators.

United States: Successor Liability for Environmental Liabilities

by Julie Vanneman, Director, Cohen & Grigsby

What happens when one company acquires the assets of another, then—many years later—receives a demand to participate in the clean-up of a contaminated site based on the acquired company’s long-ago shipment of materials to the site? 

As a general rule, the buyer of assets in an asset
acquisition does not automatically assume the liabilities of the seller. However,
under the doctrine of successor liability, a claimant may be able to seek
recovery from the purchaser of assets for liabilities that were not assumed as
part of an acquisition. This claim may be employed in cases involving
environmental liabilities, especially when the original party is defunct or
remediation costs are greater than the original entity’s ability to pay for the
cleanup.[1]

Courts have taken different positions on whether state law
or federal common law governs the determination of successor liability for
claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (“CERCLA”), known also as Superfund. This distinction may have
little practical effect because federal common law follows the traditional
state law formulation. Notably, though, when evaluating successor liability
under federal law, and specifically environmental laws like CERCLA, the
doctrine may be more liberally applied because of policy concerns about
contamination.[2]

Under the successor liability doctrine, a buyer can be held
responsible for liabilities of the seller if one of four “limited” exceptions
applies:

(1) the successor expressly or impliedly agrees to assume
the liabilities; (2) a de facto merger or consolidation occurs; (3) the
successor is a mere continuation of the predecessor; or (4) the transfer to the
successor corporation is a fraudulent attempt to escape liability.

K.C.1986 Ltd. P’ship v. Reade Mfg., 472 F.3d 1009,
1021 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Mex. Feed & Seed,
Co., Inc.,
 980 F.2d 478, 487 (8th Cir. 1992)). A fifth exception, the
substantial continuity exception, is a broader standard,[3] but most circuit
courts do not apply it in CERCLA cases.[4]

Exception 1, express or implied assumption, must be analyzed
in terms of the specific asset agreement in question. Exception 4, fraud, is
generally employed in circumstances where the acquired company shifts its
assets to avoid exposure to another entity.[5]

Courts have addressed the main issue of successor liability
by asking whether the transaction is simply the handing off of a baton in a
relay race (successor liability) or whether the new company is running a
separate race (no liability).[6]  Examining factors relevant to the
remaining elements—numbers 2 (de facto merger) and 3 (continuation)—helps
answer the question. Under the doctrine of a de facto merger, successor
liability attaches if one corporation is absorbed into another without
compliance with statutory merger requirements. A court would look at whether
there is a continuity of managers, personnel, locations, and assets; the same
shareholders become part of the acquirer; the seller stops operating and
liquidates; and the acquirer assumes the seller’s obligations to continue
normal business operations.[7]  The “mere continuation” theory “emphasizes
an ‘identity of officers, directors, and stock between the selling and
purchasing corporations.’”[8]

Given the high stakes that can be involved with CERCLA
cleanups, assessing prospects for applying the successor liability doctrine
could be an important part of the liability analysis.


[1] See, e.g., James T. O’Reilly, Superfund and
Brownfields Cleanup § 8:16, at 360 (2017-2018 ed.) [hereinafter O’Reilly]
(“Mergers, sales of assets, and changing corporate names does not remove
potential CERCLA liability.”).

[2] See O’Reilly § 8:16; see
also,
 e.g.In re Acushnet River & New Bedford
Harbor Proceedings re Alleged PCB Pollution
, 712 F. Supp. 1010, 1013-19 (D.
Mass. 1989) (in the CERCLA context, concluding that successor liability applied
where there would be “manifest injustice” if one of the companies could
“contract away” liability for PCB contamination).

[3] See K.C.1986 Ltd. P’ship v. Reade
Mfg.
, 472 F.3d 1009, 1022 (8th Cir. 2007)

[4] See Action Mfg. Co. v. Simon Wrecking
Co.
, 387 F. Supp. 2d 439, 452 (E.D. Pa. 2005).

[5] See, e.g., Eagle Pac.
Ins. Co. v. Christensen Motor Yacht Corp.
, 934 P.2d 715, 721 (Wash. Ct.
App. 1997). This exception is rarely used. Restatement (Third) of Torts:Prod.
Liab. § 12 cmt. e (Am. Law Inst. 1998).

[6] See, e.g.Oman Int’l
Fin. Ltd. v. Hoiyong Gems Corp.
, 616 F. Supp. 351, 361-62 (D.R.I. 1985).

[7] Asarco, LLC v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No.
2:12-CV-00283-EJL-REB, 2017 WL 639628, at *18 (D. Idaho Feb. 16, 2017).

[8] United States v. Mex. Feed & Seed Co.,
980 F.2d 478, 487 (8th Cir. 1992)  (quoting Tucker v. Paxson Mach.
Co.,
 645 F.2d 620, 626 (8th Cir. 1981)).

This article was first published on the Cohen & Grigsby website.

About the Author

Julie counsels and represents clients in a range of environmental and litigation matters. She assists clients with day-to-day environmental compliance concerns and provides enforcement defense counseling, particularly with solid waste and groundwater issues. Her extensive background in CERCLA matters includes serving as legal counsel for clients involved in remediation initiatives at complex Superfund sites as well as litigating cases through multiple phases, including discovery, allocation negotiations, and alternative dispute resolution. Julie’s litigation practice encompasses not only environmental matters, but also insurance coverage actions and other commercial and business disputes.

Englobe and DST Join Forces

Englobe Corp. (“Englobe”), a Canadian-based company specializing in Soils, Material and Environmental Engineering, with an established network of more than 55 offices and 30 laboratories across Canada, recently acquired DST Group Inc. (“DST”). DST is a consulting engineering firm founded over 60 years ago with more than 165 employees and nine offices across Ontario and Western Canada. By joining forces, Englobe and DST increase their footprints with 14 offices and 350 staff in Ontario and nearly 160 staff across six offices in Western Canada.

Both companies will be well positioned to offer complementary services and expertise to each other’s clients in both geographical areas, including municipalities, provincial and federal governments, and private sector clients.

“DST shares the same important values as Englobe – focusing on our employees, offering innovative solutions to our clients and emphasizing high-quality project management. We are very happy to have found a partner in Englobe with whom we can build upon our mutual strengths and provide exciting new opportunities to both employees and clients. Our enhanced service offering in the regions will benefit clients nationwide,” says Maurice Graveline, former CEO of DST and new Vice President Operations Ontario at Englobe.

Stephen Montminy, Englobe Co-President, says: “We are extremely pleased to welcome DST to the Englobe family. Its well-established reputation will contribute to consolidating our presence in Ontario and Western Canada and I look forward to seeing the beneficial impacts as we grow together. This is an exciting continuation of our pan-Canadian growth path and creates many new jobs and business opportunities.”

In November, Englobe Corp eacquired McIntosh Lalani Engineering Ltd, a Calgary-based consulting engineering business specializing in geotechnical engineering and materials testing services.  McIntosh Lalani, established in 1997, will continue to operate under its existing name.

Englobe is backed by ONCAP, the mid-market investment arm of Canadian private equity firm Onex Corp. ONCAP invested in 2006 and later partnered in Englobe’s acquisitions and go-private deal in 2011.

Englobe Soil Treatment Facility

About Englobe Corp. and DST, a division of Englobe Corp.

Englobe offers a full range of services and solutions in soils, material and environmental engineering ranging from project design and environmental impact surveys, to technical know-how and consulting to, ultimately, regenerating the earth. The firm provides integrated, sustainable and innovative solutions designed to exceed the expectations of its clients, in both private and public sectors, who are looking for reliable technical expertise, know-how and capabilities customized to each of their projects. Englobe is proud to leverage more than 50 years of achievements in Canada, France and UK to go beyond expertise by empowering its dedicated people to share their work and passion for the benefit of our partners, communities and the environment. englobecorp.com

DST Group Inc. is a consulting engineering firm specializing in Environmental Engineering/Science, Hazardous Materials Consulting, Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Materials Testing, and collectively, Facilities Blasting/Demolition Engineering/Acoustics & Vibration Monitoring. The firm provides services in Ontario and Western Canada. DST was established in 1956 and is an employee-owned firm. dstgroup.com