Manitoba Government releases independent risk analysis report of lead in soil

In response to residents expressing concerns about lead in soil found in ten Winnipeg neighbourhoods, the province released a report prepared by an independent third party.  The 323-page report, prepared by Intrinsik Corp., reconfirms that there is a low heath risk for Manitobans when it comes to lead in soil.

Manitoba Health Seniors and Active Living (MHSAL) and Manitoba Conservation and Climate (MCC) commissioned a third-party review to determine if there are any potential risks to human health, and how best to identify and manage areas with elevated lead concentrations in soil.

The report was presented to government in December 2019, and the province has moved quickly to review its findings and prioritize the recommendations.

As recommended, the province will work towards making blood lead levels in excess of established guidelines reportable under The Public Health Act.  This move will assist the province to track and better understand where lead exposure may continue to pose a problem.  This new information will help focus future public health and environmental efforts where they are needed and will have the greatest impact.

MHSAL and MCC will also move forward with the recommendation to develop a communications and outreach plan that delivers a single, clear and effective message to the public and key stakeholders about how to mitigate potential risks.  This could include a public webpage or social media platform with regular updates for information sharing, and training for parents and caregivers of young children, as well as child care centres, community centres and preschools.

MHSAL and MCC will continue to work with Manitoba Education and school divisions to develop a plan to address recommendations for Weston School.

Given the primary source of lead emissions in Winnipeg are no longer present, the health risk of lead for Manitobans is low.  The report stressed that soil remediation was not recommended as a course of action.

To view the independent report’s findings and recommendations, visit

Lead Contamination of Soil in Winnipeg kept secret

As reported by the CBC in 2018, testing performed on soil in several other Winnipeg neighbourhoods more than 10 years ago showed potentially dangerous levels of lead — but residents were never told about the results because the government at the time withheld the information, according to documents obtained by CBC News.

Documents obtained by CBC through government sources reveal an extensive round of soil testing was conducted by the provincial government in 2007 and 2008 around Point Douglas, Wolseley, Minto and South Osborne.  Residential boulevards were targeted, as were playgrounds, schools and sports fields.

Poison and Preemption: U.S. Supreme Court Considers Common Law Claims and CERCLA Remedies

Written by Gary Shockey, Baker Donaldson

The Anaconda Smelter served southwestern Montana’s mining industry for almost one hundred years before its closure in 1980. Today, the 585-foot “Big Stack” remains as one of the largest free-standing masonry structures in the world and the centerpiece of the Anaconda Smoke Stack State Park. The smelter also has a darker legacy, comprising part of a federal Superfund site of approximately 300 square miles, including soils and groundwater contaminated with arsenic, copper, lead, and other metals from historic mining and smelting operations. Despite more than a quarter century of investigation and cleanup, much of the site remains in remediation overseen by EPA. In a case currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, site owner Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) has challenged the jurisdiction of Montana state courts to order additional “remediation damages” in a suit by private landowners within the Anaconda Site.

The case now pending before the Court began as one for nuisance, trespass, and strict liability by numerous landowners in and around Opportunity, Montana. Those landowners sought damages for various injuries to their property allegedly caused by the smelter contamination, including “restoration damages.” Under Montana law, those damages would compensate the landowners for restoring their property to its pre-contamination state, with the costs placed into a trust upon which they could draw to carry out the restoration work themselves. According to the landowners’ experts, that restoration should be based on a lower cleanup level for arsenic in soils – resulting in removal and re-disposal of substantially more “dirty dirt” – and a lengthy, underground permeable barrier wall for treatment of groundwater. Both of these proposed actions were considered and rejected by EPA when it selected the CERCLA remedy for the site years earlier. ARCO moved for summary judgment on the restoration damages claim, arguing that the state court lacked jurisdiction to order remedies that went beyond those approved by EPA, at least while the EPA-approved remediation continued. The state court disagreed and ARCO sought a writ of supervisory control from the Montana Supreme Court.

In its 2017 decision, Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Montana Second Judicial District Court, 408 P.3d 515 (Mont. 2017), the Montana Supreme Court rejected ARCO’s preemption arguments. The court found that the potential restoration damages did not constitute a challenge to EPA’s remedy, which would be prohibited by the timing of review provisions of CERCLA § 113(h). The court reasoned that nothing in the landowners’ preferred remedy interfered with ongoing or planned work by EPA and thus fell within CERCLA’s state law savings clauses, CERCLA §§ 114(a), 302(d). In that court’s view, “The Property Owners are simply asking to be allowed to present their own plan to restore their own private property to a jury of twelve Montanans who will then assess the merits of that plan.” Id. at 521. Notwithstanding the contrary views of the U.S. Department of Justice and one dissenting justice, the Montana court did not see that potential judgment by 12 Montanans as a challenge to EPA’s selected remedy. The Montana court also rejected an argument that the landowners were themselves potentially responsible parties (PRPs), whose “inconsistent response action” would require prior EPA approval under CERCLA § 122(e)(6). Rather, the court found that CERCLA’s six-year statute of limitations would bar any efforts to brand them PRPs. Finally, the court concluded that the restoration damages remedy was not otherwise preempted by CERCLA under the doctrine of federal conflict preemption.

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in June 2019 to review the Montana court’s decision. Joined by a plethora of amici on both sides, Petitioner ARCO and Respondent landowners presented their arguments to the Court, along with those of the Solicitor General. In oral arguments held on December 3, 2019, the Court’s liberal justices seemed concerned that ARCO’s preemption theories were hard to reconcile with CERCLA’s state law savings clauses. The parties disagreed about whether CERCLA remedies were “a floor” or both “a floor and a ceiling.” All of the justices seemed concerned over the “restoration damages” procedures requiring that a judgment be deposited into a trust account and doled out to landowners for restoration work in the future. The Solicitor General attempted to address the Court’s concerns by arguing that the Respondents remained free to pursue damages and tort remedies that did not question EPA’s selected remedy, while states could set more stringent cleanup levels in accordance with the ARAR process of CERCLA § 121. Several commentators noted after the oral argument that the Court seemed to be searching for a narrow rationale to overturn a troublesome decision without eliminating the states’ role in cleanups and vindicating the rights of their citizens at common law. The Court’s decision is expected before the end of the term in June 2020.

This article has been republished with the permission of the author.  It was first published on the Baker Donaldson website.


About the Author

Gary has been certified as a Civil Trial Specialist by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. His experience includes environmental, personal injury, class action, antitrust, health care and construction cases. In addition, he has represented businesses and individuals in white collar criminal investigations and prosecutions and conducted numerous internal investigations.

His extensive pro bono practice has included representation of inmates on Tennessee’s death row, veterans, battered women, children and immigrants. He has served in various leadership positions in the Tennessee Bar Association, including on its Board of Governors and as chair of its Litigation and Environmental Law Sections, and as a character and fitness investigator for the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners and a District Hearing Committee officer for the Board of Professional Responsibility. A frequent speaker and author, Gary has published more than 35 articles on evidence, civil and criminal procedure, legal history and related topics.

Oil Spill in B.C. contaminates protected waterway

It took  several days to determine the source of an oil spill that contaminated the Gorge Creek in the Township of Esquimalt in British Columbia. It was confirmed by officials that the cause of the spill was a leaking residential heating-oil tank.  Oil from the tank entered both the subsurface and the stormwater system and eventually made its way to Gorge Creek.

Emergency Management BC found the spill on January 18th.  Esquimalt staff investigated potential spill sites in the north neighbourhoods of Esquimalt as well as monitor the creek to deploy booms and absorbing materials.  It took until January 24th to pinpoint the location of the spill.

As frustrations grew on the inability to locate the source of the spill, the number of officials involved in clean-up efforts grew to include federal, provincial, township and Capital Regional District staff.  Marine-spill and hazardous-materials experts were also at the scene, hired by the Township to assist with the cleanup.

Gorge Creek represents a critical part of the Victoria Harbour Migratory Bird Sanctuary that was created in 1923 to curb the hunting of birds. A Capital Regional District report says the sanctuary includes 1,840 hectares of marine and estuarine waters and provides habitat for rare and endangered plants and wildlife.  The impact of the spill on wildlife has yet to be assessed.

The total about of heating oil spilled into the creek and total cost of clean-up has yet to be determined.

 

CCME Publishes Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance Document

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) recently posted the latest version of its Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance Document.  The document provides general guidance for site managers and risk assessors to conduct ecological risk assessment for soils, sediments, surface water and groundwater in the context of managing contaminated sites. It expands the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance to apply to all jurisdictions and align with CCME’s Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: General Guidance (1996).

Why conduct an ERA?

Once a site is classified as contaminated, and has contaminant concentrations above existing ecologically based guidelines or levels of potential ecological concern, the site may be remediated to generic standards or an ERA may be used to determine whether and to what extent remediation or other risk management efforts are warranted to mitigate current or future ecological risks. An ERA provides a more detailed basis for determining whether remediation or other risk management measures are warranted (e.g., are there ecological risks?) and to what extent (e.g., which parts of a site should be remediated?).

Using ERA at Contaminated Sites

There are numerous potential drivers for the use of ERA at contaminated sites, such as regulatory triggers (e.g., contamination of an off-site property), due diligence or divestiture. The required ERA process may be driven in part or entirely by provincial or territorial regulations and policy.

About the CCME

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) is the primary minister-led intergovernmental forum for collective action on environmental issues of national and international concern.  CCME is composed of the environment ministers from the federal, provincial and territorial governments. The role of President of CCME rotates among the 14 ministers of environment on an annual basis. These 14 ministers normally meet at least once a year to discuss national environmental priorities and determine work to be carried out under the auspices of CCME. The Council seeks to achieve positive environmental results, focusing on issues that are Canada-wide in scope and that require collective attention by a number of governments. Since environment is constitutionally an area of shared jurisdiction, it makes sense to work together to promote effective results.

Canada Environmental Damages Fund – Call for Proposals

The Canadian Environmental Damages Fund (EDF) is a specified purpose account administered by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) to direct funds received from fines, court orders and voluntary payments to priority projects that will benefit Canada’s natural environment.

ECCC recently issues a call for proposals for funding of projects.  The deadline for submission of proposals is February 18th, 2020.

Groups eligible for funding include non-governmental organizations, universities and academic institutions, Indigenous organizations, and provincial/territorial & municipal governments.  Although private companies are not eligible for funding, they are encouraged to partner with eligible groups to apply for funding.

Eligible Projects

When allocating funds, ECCC gives priority to projects that restore the natural environment and conserve wildlife, followed by environmental quality improvement initiatives, research and development on environmental restoration and improvement, and education and awareness on issues affecting the health of the natural environment.

There is no maximum project duration. The average length of a project is approximately two years.

EDF funding is available for projects that meet the following criteria:

  • address one or more of EDF’s four priority areas noted above
  • satisfy all fund use requirements as listed on the EDF Available Funds page
  • are scientifically sound and technically feasible
  • are cost-effective in achieving goals, objectives and results
  • can measure results using EDF performance indicators
  • show that the environment will benefit from the project
  • demonstrate that the applicant possesses or has access to necessary partnership, experience, knowledge and skills required to undertake the project

While matching funds are not required, evidence of other funding sources such as matching contributions and the respective amounts, or demonstration of the applicant’s ability to raise funds from sources other than the federal government in a past project will be considered as an asset at the proposal evaluation stage.

In addition, your project must include at least one of the EDF’s performance indicators.  The EDF Applicant Guide contains the complete list and explanation of indicators and is available upon logging into the Grants and Contributions Enterprise Management System (GCEMS).

Available funds

Available funding varies according to the number of court awards and voluntary contributions directed to the EDF. In its sentencing decision, the court may recommend the recipient, location and scope of a project funded by the fine. This information is considered in the assessment of the fine and in the definition of the appropriate fund use requirement. Funding is currently available in the following provinces and territories:

British Columbia

Application Deadline:  February 18, 2020
Location: British Columbia
Funds Available: $275,033.06

Fund use requirement: For projects related to the conservation and protection of fish or fish habitat or the restoration of fish habitat in any watershed in the Province of British Columbia with priority for projects in the Bulkley River watershed, Fraser River watershed (Cariboo-Chilcotin Central Region), or the Campbell River watershed, or near the city of Powell River, British Columbia. Minimum funding request is $100,000.

Application Deadline:  February 18, 2020
Location: British Columbia
Funds Available: $90,000

Fund use requirement: For projects aimed at waterfowl, bird and fish habitat conservation and restoration in British Columbia with priority for projects in or around the Fort St. John area, British Columbia. Minimum funding request is $90,000.

Alberta

Application Deadline: February 18, 2020
Location: Alberta
Funds Available: $269,950.17

Fund use requirement: For projects related to the conservation and protection of fish or fish habitat or the restoration of fish habitat in the Province of Alberta, with priority for projects in the North Saskatchewan River watershed. Minimum funding request is $100,000.

Application Deadline: February 18, 2020
Location: Alberta
Funds Available: $35,227.65

Fund use requirement: For projects aimed at managing and/or conserving and protecting fish and/or fish habitat in the Lesser Slave Lake watershed. Minimum funding request is $35,227.65.

Northwest Territories

Application Deadline:  February 18, 2020
Location: Northwest Territories
Funds Available: $32,765.08

Fund use requirement: For projects aimed at protecting, conserving or restoring the environment or promoting the conservation and protection of fish or fish habitat or the restoration of fish habitat in the Northwest Territories with priority for projects within the Yellowknife watershed, Northwest Territories. Minimum funding request is $32,765.08.

Saskatchewan

Application Deadline:  February 18, 2020
Location: Saskatchewan
Funds Available: $40,000

Fund use requirement: For projects aimed at promoting the proper management and control of fisheries or fish habitat or conservation and protection of fish or fish habitat in the Province of Saskatchewan with priority for projects in the Moose Jaw watershed, Saskatchewan. Minimum funding request is $40,000.

Application Deadline:  February 18, 2020
Location: Saskatchewan
Funds Available: $104,000

Fund use requirement: For projects aimed at protecting, conserving or restoring the environment in the Province of Saskatchewan, with priority for projects in the west-northwest region of Saskatchewan. Minimum funding request is $104,000.

Yukon

Application Deadline:  February 18, 2020

Location: Yukon
Funds Available: $20,000

Fund use requirement: For projects aimed at protecting, conserving or restoring the environment in the Yukon Territory with priority for projects near Whitehorse, Yukon. Minimum funding request is $20,000.

Ontario

Application Deadline:  February 18, 2020
Location: Ontario
Funds Available: $75,000

Fund use requirement: For projects aimed at the conservation and protection of fish or fish habitat or the restoration of fish habitat within the municipal boundaries of the City of Kawartha Lakes. Minimum funding request is $75,000.

Québec

Application Deadline: February 18, 2020
Location: Quebec
Funds Available: $404,199

Fund use requirement: For projects aimed at promoting the conservation, protection and restoration of the habitat of Lac Mégantic and the Chaudière River. Minimum funding request is $100,000.

Application Deadline: February 18, 2020
Location: Quebec
Funds Available: $380,000

Fund use requirement: For projects aimed at scientific research, improvement and/or restoration of fish habitat or the conservation and protection of fish or fish habitat in the region of la Capitale-Nationale or the Chaudières-Appalaches. Minimum funding request is $100,000.

Application Deadline: February 18, 2020
Location: Quebec
Funds Available: $1,126,627

Fund use requirement: For projects aimed at promoting the protection, conservation, recovery or restoration of the environment in the Province of Quebec, more specifically in the Montreal region. Minimum funding request is $200,000.

Newfoundland and Labrador

Application Deadline: February 18, 2020

Location: Newfoundland and Labrador
Funds Available: $200,000

Fund use requirement: For projects aimed at protecting, conserving, or restoring the environment in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Preference will be given to projects in coastal locations. Minimum funding request is $100,000.

New Brunswick

Application Deadline: February 18, 2020
Location: New Brunswick
Funds Available: $50,000

Fund use requirement: For projects aimed at promoting the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, or the restoration of fish habitat in the Province of New Brunswick. Minimum funding request is $50,000.

Application process

Step 1: Confirm available funds and project eligibility

Review funding opportunities, and confirm funds are available in your project’s location. Review fund use requirements associated with each available fund and ensure your project’s activities satisfy those requirements.

Log into GCEMS to access the EDF Applicant Guide. Refer to the Applicant Guide to ensure all proposed project activities are eligible EDF expenditures. For questions or clarification, please contact an EDF office in your region.

Step 2: Prepare your funding application using GCEMS

Visit the GCEMS application instructions page for technical assistance documents, tutorials, and support throughout your application preparation.

If desired, contact the EDF office in your region prior to the application deadline to discuss your project application with an EDF Program Officer. Officers can also help provide advice/information on:

  • the EDF program
  • the funding process
  • official languages requirements

Step 3: Submit your application

Once you have submitted your application, you will receive an acknowledgment of receipt email confirming successful submission.

Following the project review phase, you will receive notification on the status of your funding application.

Canada-based, Cleantech-Focused Arctern Ventures Fund reaches $200 million

Canada-based and Cleantech-focused venture capital firm ArcTern Ventures recently announced it has raised an additional $35 million for its second fund, bringing the fund’s total commitments to $200 million.

The fund is targeting early-stage ventures in six sectors in the cleantech space: clean energy, energy use and storage, mobility, advanced manufacturing and materials, resource use and efficiency, and AgTech and foodtech. ArcTern has stated that it will lead first investments at a minimum of $500,000 and can fund ventures through their growth stages.

The company is one of a few Canadian venture capital firms that invest in early stage cleantech startups.  Murray McCaig, Managing Partner at ArcTern stated, “We are at the dawn of a multi-decade overhaul of the global economy where clean technology will enable economic growth and sustainability to co-exist.”

ArcTern Ventures has deployed capital into several Canadian tech startups, including Kitchener-Waterloo’s Smarter Alloys, which recently received $4.8 million from Sustainable Development Technology Canada, as well as Toronto-based carbon emissions reducer, Parity. ArcTern Fund II was the sole investor in Parity’s $5 million Series A.

The second close of Fund II, totalling $165 million, was announced in September, exceeding the firm’s original target of $100 million. New limited partners (LPs) participating in the $35 million raise include Norway-based Nysnø and Investissement Québec. These new investors join existing LPs OMERS, Equinor, TD Bank Group, Suncor, and the Business Development Bank of Canada. The Canadian government’s Venture Capital Catalyst Initiative (VCCI) has committed $10 million.

 

 

Illegal dumping results in $190k remediation in Grande Prairie, Alberta

In May of last year, there was an incident in which hydrocarbon was illegally disposed into a curbside drain that contaminated a popular fishing pond in the County of Grande Prairie, Alberta.  The pond was closed for two months during the clean-up and remediation.  The final bill for the clean-up and remediation was recently tallied at $184,125.

Investigators from Alberta Environment Parks and Recreation (AEP) estimated that approximately five cubic metres (1,320 U.S. gallons) were released into the pond.  Although a determination was made that the release of hydrocarbons was intentional, fines have not been laid and AEP has closed the file.

After the initial response to contain the oil waste and prevent further contamination, the County’s environmental consultants conducted extensive remediation work along the shoreline, including removal of approximately two-thirds of the cattails surrounding the pond.

“The County along with Alberta Environment have been monitoring the wildlife in the area since the incident occurred and there is no known impact to the health of animal or aquatic life,” said Christine Rawlins, parks and recreation manager. “Out of an abundance of caution, however, we will continue to operate the pond on a catch and release basis only.”

In response to the incident, the County has reviewed its own internal processes for environmental emergency response and have made updates to the health and safety management system. Action steps include updating the Standard Operating Procedure, coordinating response through the Incident Command System, and ensuring an up-to-date list of qualified environmental contractors who can respond to similar events. The key is prompt detection and notification that leads to a quick response when these types of events occur.

“We are grateful to the member of the public who reported the sheen in the pond, which alerted us to the fact that there was an illegal dumping of hydrocarbon into a nearby drain,” said Daniel Lemieux, Director of Community Services for the County of Grande Prairie. “Vigilance is an important part of our early detection and mitigation strategy, so we ask that the public contact the Alberta Environment’s 24-hour Emergency Response Line at 1-800-222-6514 or Alberta Environmental and Dangerous Goods Emergencies at 1-800-272-9600 immediately if they see anything unusual, including someone dumping materials into the drains. This incident was costly to the County, the community, and the environment and was entirely preventable.”

 

 

How hands-on scenarios can enhance radiological survey training

Written by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

Radiological surveying is an integral task in maintaining safety wherever quantities of ionizing radiation are in use, or where they are suspected to be present.

Whether it is in the context of a military operation, emergency first response or an industrial setting, radiation safety personnel need to be equipped with the right tools to ensure they can accurately assess their environment and determine the best course of action.

Most radiological survey instruments have been designed to be easy to deploy, but it is important to be competent not just in the hands-on operation of the equipment but in being able to interpret the readings that are obtained and decide upon the appropriate recommendations to ensure safety is not compromised.

Once it has been established that the radiation hazard originates from a sealed source – meaning that there is no contamination risk – the principles of time, distance and shielding are vital.

Whenever possible, trainees should be provided with the opportunity to explore and test these principles in hands-on training scenarios that replicate real-life situations.

By adding the use of simulator detector equipment, there is also an opportunity for trainees to fully experience the characteristics, the behaviour and the risks of ionizing radiation – and to do so in a learning environment that is safe, immersive and highly realistic.

The flexible and high-fidelity nature of well-designed simulator detectors makes it possible for trainers to create a virtually unlimited range of realistic training scenarios for their students.

In this blog post we explore how the key principles of radiation safety can be put to the test in a range of hands-on scenarios.

1. Time

Radiation safety hinges on the understanding of the correlation between dose (or exposure) and dose rate (or the radiation present in the atmosphere) is directly related to time.

When the time (or the duration of exposure) is reduced by half, for example, the dose received will also be halved.

Once the trainee has been able to assess the dose rate present in the atmosphere, this information can be used to calculate their incident stay time in the hot zone (calculated as Exposure Limit divided by Dose Rate), which will allow them to carry out their activities as quickly and as safely as possible.

2. Distance

Distance – or how close an individual is to a radiological point source – is a key factor in enabling trainees to control exposure.

When the distance between the individual and the point source is doubled, this will reduce personal exposure by 75%, according to the rules of the Inverse Square Law.

How close it will be possible to get to a source of radiation without high exposure will depend on the energy of the radiation and the activity of the source.

Distance is a prime concern with gamma rays as they travel at the speed of light. Alpha particles, meanwhile, travel just a few inches in air, while beta particles can travel several feet – meaning that once an operator backs out of the affected area (and assuming that the material is not being spread by wind, rain or other forces) the trainee is no longer at risk.

3. Shielding

Radiation shielding is another vital skill that be put to the test during radiation training exercises.

Shielding is based on the principle of attenuation – or the extent to which a barrier can be used to block or bounce a radio wave.

Which radioactive shielding material will be best suited to the task, will depend on the penetration of the dose.

Alpha particles, for example, can be stopped by shielding that is as thin as a sheet of paper – while beta radiation requires something much heavier, such as an inch of wood or a thick piece of aluminum.

The highly penetrating nature of gamma radiation requires far denser shielding – ideally several inches of concrete or lead.

4. Establishing hazard perimeters

The readings obtained from portable survey meters provide essential information to enable personnel to establish operational control zones or hazard perimeters.

The ability to control (and operate within) a hazard perimeter will rely on a trainee’s proficiency in the following skills:

  • Understanding the physical considerations of the scene – for example, being able to assess the nature and severity of the radiation incident, identifying the presence of other co-existing threats, and protecting critical infrastructure.
  • Using existing topography (roads, structures etc) to enforce the perimeter and to aid in the protection and gathering of forensic evidence

 

Portable radiological survey meters provide radiation protection officers, first responders and CBRNe teams with the vital information they need to detect and measure external ionizing radiation fields.

Understanding the principles of time, distance and shielding, and having the opportunity to put this knowledge to the test in realistic training scenarios, will be vital in ensuring that radiation safety personnel are able to carry out their duties safely, efficiently and effectively.


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.

 

Forecast for U.S. Federal and International Chemical Regulatory Policy 2020

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) and its consulting affiliate, The Acta Group (Acta®), recently released their Forecast for U.S. Federal and International Chemical Regulatory Policy 2020. In this detailed and comprehensive document, the legal, scientific, and regulatory professionals of B&C and Acta distill key trends in U.S. and global chemical law and policy, and provide our best informed judgment as to the shape of key developments we are likely to see in the New Year.

The forecast was prepared by the global team of professionals from the two firms. The core business of the firms are the law, science, regulation, and policy of chemicals of all varieties — industrial, agricultural, intermediate, specialty, and biocidal, whether manufactured at the bulk or nano scale, or using conventional or innovative technologies, including biotechnology, synthetic biology, or biobased.

The team that put together the forecast was comprised of scientists (seven Ph.D.s), including toxicologists, chemists, exposure experts, and geneticists; regulatory and policy experts; and lawyers is deeply versed in chemical law, science, and policy and our unique business platform seamlessly leverages and ensures the integration of law and science to achieve success at every level, and in all parts of the globe.

The table of contents for the forecast can be found below.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. UNITED STATES: CHEMICAL FORECAST

  1. INTRODUCTION
  2. TSCA
  3. FIFRA
  4. U.S. NANOTECHNOLOGY
  5. BIOTECHNOLOGY
  6. BRAG
  7. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION
  8. TRADE
  9. PROP 65
  10. INGREDIENT DISCLOSURE
  11. FDA FOOD AND COSMETICS REGULATION
  12. OSHA, WHMIS, AND GHS

II. KEY GLOBAL CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT PREDICTIONS

  1. OECD
  2. SAICM
  3. EU
  4. UK/BREXIT
  5. BIOCIDES
  6. ASIA
  7. MIDDLE EAST
  8. UN GHS

APPENDIX A: B&C SPEECHES AND WRITINGS

APPENDIX B: B&C WEBINARS AND PODCASTS AVAILABLE ON DEMAND

APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY

 

Thermally enhanced bioremediation for DNAPLs

In the fall of 2019, a group of researchers from CDM Smith, the U.S. Army Core of Engineers, TRS Group, and the U.S. EPA presented a paper on the implementation and performance of thermally-enhanced bioremdiation for targeted dense non-aqueous phase liquid (NDAPL) source treatment at the Northwest Remediation Conference in Tacoma, Washington.
In the paper, they describe a multi-component remedy, including in situ thermal remediation (ISTR) and enhanced anaerobic biodegradation (EAB), was implemented at a Superfund site in Tacoma, Washington. The goal of ISTR and EAB was to reduce mass discharge from the source areas by 90%.
EAB was implemented over a large area of the site containing a thin silt unit with residual chlorinated solvent mass and two localized areas above containing DNAPL (predominantly 1,1,2,2-PCA and TCE). Following implementation, dissolved-phase concentrations increased in the DNAPL areas due to enhanced dissolution. Reductive dechlorination products increased, but at a slower rate than desired.
Thermal enhancement by electrical resistance heating (ERH) was designed to increase the rate of dissolution of the DNAPL and to increase the biodegradation kinetics. The ERH treatment zone was created using an array of electrodes around each DNAPL area, with temperature monitoring in the center of each array.
The ERH system was maintained at a target temperature between 45-50°C throughout most of the 12-month operation. Monitoring data indicated that the smaller DNAPL source was substantially depleted during the first six months of operation, while the larger DNAPL source exhibited declining concentrations after 12 months of operation.
Monitoring indicated only minimal biodegradation occurred at the DNAPL-impacted locations. Rapid reductive dechlorination occurred in areas immediately surrounding the electrode array, where temperatures were slightly lower and more favorable for enhanced biological degradation. Since the implementation of ERH, PCA and TCE concentrations in the DNAPL source wells have declined between 80 and 99%.