Hazardous Waste & Environmental Response Conference – November 25th & 26th

The Hazardous Waste & Environmental Response Conference is scheduled for November 25th & 26th at the Mississauga Convention Centre in Mississauga, Ontario.  The event is co-hosted by the Ontario Waste Management Association and Hazmat Management Magazine.

This 2-day conference provides an essential and timely forum to discuss the management of hazardous waste and special materials, soils and site remediation, hazmat transportation, spill response and cutting-edge technologies and practices. Valuable information will be provided by leading industry, legal, financial and government speakers to individuals and organizations that are engaged in the wide range of services and activities involving hazardous and special materials.

Attendees can expect an informative and inspiring learning and networking experience throughout this unique 2-day event. Session themes provide an essential and timely forum to discuss the management of hazardous waste and special materials, soils and site remediation, hazmat transportation, spill response and cutting-edge technologies and practices.

As the only event of its kind in Canada, delegates will receive valuable information from leading industry, legal, financial and government speakers who are actively engaged in a wide range of services and activities involving hazardous waste and special materials.

Company owners, business managers, plant managers, environmental professionals, consultants, lawyers, government officials and municipalities – all will benefit from the opportunity to learn, share experiences and network with peers.

CONFERENCE SCHEDULE

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25 – GENERAL SESSIONS

8:00 am – Registration

8:45 am – Opening and Welcome Address

9:00 am – 9:40 am

OPENING KEYNOTE – Lessons Learned from Hazmat Incidents

Jean Claude Morin, Directeur General, GFL Environmental Inc.

Dave Hill, National Director Emergency Response, GFL Environmental Inc.

Jean Claude and Dave will discuss lessons learned from hazmat incidents in Canada, including, train derailments, truck turn-overs, and hazardous materials storage depot explosions. This presentation will also provide an overview of some of the more serious incidents in Canada and discuss the valuable lessons learned regarding best practices in hazmat response.

9:40 am – 10:10 am

Legal Reporting Requirements

Paul Manning, LL.B., LL.M, Certified Specialist in Environmental Law and Principal, Manning Environmental Law

Paul will provide an overview of the Canadian federal and Ontario legislation as it relates to the reporting requirements in the event of a hazmat incident and/or spill. Included in the discussion will be an examination of the case law related to hazmat incidents and failure to report.

10:10 am – 10:45 am – Refreshment Break             

10:45 am – 11:15 am

Hazmat and Spill Response Actions and the Utilization of Countermeasures

Kyle Gravelle, National Technical Advisor, QM Environmental

Kyle will be speaking on hazmat and spill response actions and countermeasures to prevent contamination. Included in the presentation will be real-world examples of incidents in Canada and advice on preparations and hazmat management.

11:15 am – 12:00 pm

PANEL DISCUSSION: Utilization of New Technologies for HazMat Emergency Response

Moderator:  Rob Cook, CEO, OWMA

James Castle, CEO & Founder, Terranova Aerospace

Bob Goodfellow, Manager, Strategic Accounts & Emergency Response, Drain-All Ltd.

Ross Barrett, Business Development/Project Manager, Tomlinson Environmental Services Ltd.

The hazmat and environmental response sector is quickly evolving. During this discussion, panelists will share their experiences on new technologies and methodologies for the management of hazmat and environmental incidents and provide advice on what companies should do to be better prepared for hazmat incidents.

12:00 pm – 1:30 pm – Luncheon Speaker

From Hacking to Hurricanes and Beyond – The New Era of Crisis Communications

Suzanne bernier, CEM, CBCP, MBCI, CMCP, President, SB Crisis Consulting, Founder & Author of Disaster Heroes

During any crisis, communicating effectively to all key stakeholders is key. This session, delivered by a former journalist and now award-winning global crisis communications consultant, will look at the evolution of crisis management and crisis communications over the past 15 years. Specific case studies and lessons learned from events like the recent terror and mass attacks across North America, as well the 2017 hurricane season will be shared, including Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico communications challenges and successes. The session will also review traditional tips and tools required to ensure your organization can communicate effectively during any crisis, while avoiding any reputational damage or additional fall-out that could arise.

1:35 pm – 2:15 pm

Fire Risk in Hazmat and Hazardous Waste Facilities – The Impact and Organizational Costs 

Ryan Fogelman, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships, Fire Rover

Fire safety is an important responsibility for everyone in the hazardous materials & waste sector. The consequences of poor fire safety practices and not understanding the risk are especially serious in properties where processes or quantities of stored hazmat and waste materials would pose a serious ignition hazard.

In an effort to prevent fires and minimize the damage from fires when they occur, owners, managers and operators of hazmat and related facilities will learn about fire safety and how to develop plans to reduce the risk of fire hazards.

Learn about:

  • Data and statistics on waste facility fire incidents
  • Materials and processes that create a fire risk
  • Planning and procedures to reduce fire risk
  • Tools and practices to detect, supress and mitigate fire damage.

2:15 pm – 2:45 pm

Implementation of Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) in Ontario – Treatment Requirements & Associated Costs

Erica Carabott, Senior Environmental Compliance Manager, Clean Harbours Inc.

The field of hazardous waste management in Ontario is complex and places an onus on all parties involved, including, generators, carriers, transfer and disposal facility operators. Initiatives such as pre-notification, mixing restrictions, land disposal restrictions, recycling restrictions and the requirements of the Hazardous Waste Information Network (HWIN) all add to the cumbersome task. The Landfill Disposal Restrictions (LDR) place responsibilities on generators and service providers alike. This presentation aims to navigate the implementation of LDR in Ontario, with specific emphasis on the Clean Harbors Sarnia facility to accommodate LDR treatment and the significant costs associated with it.

2:45 pm – 3:15 pm – Refreshment Break

3:15 pm – 4:00 pm

New Requirements on the Shipment of Hazardous Goods – Provincial, Federal and International   

Eva Clipsham, A/Safety Policy Advisor for Transport Canada

Steven Carrasco, Director, Program Management Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MOECP)

Current federal and provincial frameworks for regulating the movement of hazardous waste and materials are currently undergoing change. Manifesting systems are being upgraded and refocused as electronic systems that will provide efficiencies to both generators and transporters. Learn about the current federal and provincial systems and the changes that are anticipated to be implemented in the near future.

4:00 pm – 5:00 pm – All attendees are invited to attend the Tradeshow Reception!

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26

8:30 am – Registration

8:45 am – Opening & Welcome Address

9:00 am – 9:45 am

Management of contaminated sites & increasing complexity and cost

Carl Spensieri, M.Sc., P.Eng., Vice President Environment, Berkley Canada (a Berkley Company)

This presentation will explore the various elements contributing to the increasing complexity and cost of managing contaminated sites. Carl will examine emerging risks and speak to potential strategies we can use to mitigate them. This presentation will also highlight opportunities for conference participants to offer new services that help owners of contaminated sites best respond to existing and emerging challenges.

9:45 am – 10:10 am – Refreshment Break

TRACK 1: HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION, TRANSPORTATION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

10:15 am – 10:55 am

A National Perspective on the Hazardous Waste

Michael Parker, Vice President, Environmental Compliance, Clean Harbours Inc.

Hear about the challenges and opportunities facing the hazardous waste, hazmat and emergency response sector from an industry leader with a national view. The industry is evolving and the business fundamentals are ever changing. Government administrative and technical burdens are increasing and the volume of hazardous waste is declining – what will the future hold?

11:00 am – 11:40 am

PANEL DISCUSSION: Hazardous Waste & Special Materials – Transportation & Transit Challenges

Jim Halloran, Regional Manager, Heritage – Crystal Clean Inc.

Doug DeCoppel, EH&S Manager, International Permitting and Regulatory Affairs, GFL Environmental Inc.

Frank Wagner, Vice President Compliance, Safety-Kleen Canada Inc.

This panel will discuss key transportation issues and compliance challenges faced by hazardous waste generators and service providers, including significant changes to the documentation, labelling, packaging, emergency planning, and reporting requirements for hazardous waste and special materials shipments resulting from updated regulations and proposed initiatives. The panel will also review key considerations when selecting service providers to manage hazardous waste and special materials.

Topics included in this discussion: E-manifests (provincial and federal – lack of e-data transfer capabilities), HWIN fees (300% increase in fees but no increase in service), Transboundary Permits (lack of e-data transfer capabilities), container integrity and generator awareness.

11:45 am – 12:25 pm

Factors Influencing Treatment and Disposal Options for Hazardous Waste in Ontario

Ed Vago, Director of Operations, Covanta Environmental Solutions

Dan Boehm, Director of Business Development, Veolia ES Canada Industrial Services Inc.

Learn about the many recycling, treatment and disposal options for hazardous waste and hazardous materials in Ontario. Hear about the regulatory and operational factors to consider when deciding on the best management approach.

TRACK 2: SITE REMEDIATION

10:15 am – 10:55 am

Soils – Dig and Dump vs. On-Site Remediation: Factors to Consider & Case Studies

Devin Rosnak, Senior Client Manager & Technical Sales Manager, Ground Force Environmental

D. Grant Walsom, Partner, XCG Consulting Limited, Environmental Engineers & Scientists

Mark Tigchelaar, P. Eng., President and Founder of GeoSolv Inc.

Developers of brownfield site are faced with decisions around how to manage excavated soils. Impacted soils and soils with hazardous characteristics as tested at the site of generation can be managed through on-site remediation, or can be removed from the site to a variety of remediation and/or disposal options. Learn about the key options and factors that contribute to determining the optimum approach to managing soils.

11:00 am – 11:40 am

The Legal Framework for the Management of Contaminated Sites and Materials      

John Tidball, Partner, Specialist in Environmental Law, Miller Thomson LLP

The management of contaminated sites and related materials, including soils, are constrained by both regulatory and legal framework. Hear from a legal expert with unparalleled experience about the regulatory and legal issues that all developers/excavators transporters and service providers should be aware of as the legal liabilities in this area can be significant.

11:45 am – 12:25 pm

Anaerobic Bioremediation & Bioaugmentation – from the Lab to the Field

Dr. Elizabeth Edwards (Professor), Dr.Luz Puentes Jacome, Dr. Olivia Molenda, Dr. Courtney Toth, Dr. Ivy Yang (all Post doctoral fellows in the lab), Chemical Engineering & Applied Chemistry, University of Toronto

Together with her Post-Doctoral team, Dr. Edwards will present an overview of anaerobic bioremediation and bioaugmentation with some examples from their research and its application to the field.

12:30 pm – 2:00 pm

CLOSING KEYNOTE & LUNCHEON SPEAKER

Andrea Khanjin, MPP Barrie-Innisfil, Parliamentary Assistant, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MOECP)


Diamond Sponsor

 

 

 

 

 

Emerald Sponsor

 

 

 

 

Supporting Sponsors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Serving ‘Rough Justice’: Assessing Remediation Costs And Liability Allocation Pursuant To The British Columbia Environmental Management Act

Written by Menka Sull and Samuel Kim, Alexander Holburn Law Firm

The British Columbia Environmental Management Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 53, and the Contaminated Sites Regulation, B.C. Reg. 375(96) (CSR), provide the framework for identifying, remediating, and determining responsibility for the remediation of contaminated sites in British Columbia.

There has been relatively little case law considering the EMA; however, a recent BC Supreme Court decision provides an instructive analysis of cost recovery actions. In doing so, Jansen Industries 2010 Ltd. v. Victory Motors (Abbotsford) Ltd., 2019 BCSC 1621 shed light on two key issues: (1) What costs are recoverable as part of remediation costs under the EMA, and (2) How will liability for the remediation be allocated among those considered to be “responsible persons” for contamination?

Factual Background

Between 2009 and 2010, two properties located in Abbotsford – the Jansen site and the Victory Motors site – were discovered to have been contaminated by leaking underground gasoline storage tanks (“USTs”). The contamination originated from the Victory Motors site which was used as a gas station from World War II to 1994.

Example of the leaking underground storage tank

Jansen Industries 2010 Ltd. (“Jansen”) and Victory Motors (Abbotsford) Inc. (“Victory Motors”), the respective owners of the two sites, each brought actions against Actton Super-Save Gas Stations Ltd. (“Super-Save”), which operated the gas station from 1982 to 1992. Chevron Canada Limited (“Chevron”) and Shell Canada Limited (“Shell”) were also previous operators on the site; however, they were released from the action before trial as they settled with the plaintiffs.

Before trial, plaintiffs carried out the required remediation to obtain certificates of compliance for the respective sites pursuant to section 53(3) of the EMA. It was agreed that Jansen was not a responsible party, so the main issues pertained to the scope of the recoverable remediation costs, and allocation of liability amongst the other entities, including Victory Motors, Super-Save, Chevron, and Shell.

Recoverable Remediation Costs

The parties agreed that the amount of $395,706 paid to an engineering consulting company to obtain certificates of compliance for the two sites were properly remediation costs.

In his reasons for judgment, Mr. Justice Sewell held a number of remediation costs claimed by the plaintiffs were not recoverable pursuant to the EMA given the facts of this case, including:

  1. Legal fees incurred in seeking contribution from other responsible parties;
  2. Loss of rental income with respect to a building on the Victory Motors site while remediation was undertaken; and
  3. Costs to defend an action for remediation of contaminants originating on the Victory Motors site.

Although these remediation costs were recoverable in principle, Justice Sewell held that the plaintiff failed to tender adequate evidence regarding these claims.

Stigma Damages

The plaintiffs also sought stigma damages against Super-Save on the basis that residual contamination decreased the value of the sites. Super-Save argued, and the Court agreed, that stigma damages cannot be recovered as remediation costs under the EMA. Only the cost of bringing a site into compliance with the requirements of the EMA were held to be recoverable in a cost recovery action, which, in this case, was the cost of obtaining the certificates of compliance for the sites. Any claim exceeding this cost would have to be recovered in tort, after showing that a property owner was precluded from making optimal use of that property.

Allocation of Fault

Justice Sewell then turned to allocating liability amongst Victory Motors, Super-Save, Chevron, and Shell, having regard to the factors set out in section 35(2) of the CSR.

Price Paid for the Property

Justice Sewell considered the proposition that a party should not be able to recover the full costs of remediation if the remediation increased the value of the property by an amount in excess of those costs.

Here, the facts were complicated. The current owners of Victory Motors struck a bargain when they bought out all of its shares from the previous owner in 2012. The building on the Victory Motors site was then renovated and leased out to high quality tenants. The Court declined to treat the purchase price of the shares as a de facto purchase price of the property. Therefore, the profits realized from purchase of the Victory Motors shares did not form a basis to modify the allocation of remediation costs.

Due Diligence, Amount of Contaminants, and Relative Degree of Involvement

There was little evidence before Justice Sewell that any of the responsible persons exercised due diligence on the sites. Super-Save’s ten-year operation did not have an adequate inspection regime to detect small leaks, which were found to be enough to place significant amounts of contaminants in the soil over time. Meanwhile, from 1994 to 2012, Victory Motors did not exercise any due diligence at all, despite knowing that the gasoline infrastructure had remained in place. As Chevron and Shell were no longer parties to the action, no evidence was tendered regarding their exercise of due diligence.

The Court also considered the relative periods of operation, the volumes and toxicity of gasoline sold, and the installation and use of USTs by each of the responsible parties.

Remedial Measures Implemented and Paid for by any Responsible Party

The only remedial measures were the costs to obtain the certificate of compliance, which involved decommissioning the infrastructure and pumping out the remaining USTs.

Any Other Factor Relevant to a Fair and Just Allocation

Here, Justice Sewell took into account the circumstances under which ownership of Victory Motors changed hands in 2012. As Victory Motors received the benefit of remediation costs while being a significant contributor to the contamination, a significant portion of the remediation costs was allocated to it. The Court held that Victory Motors ought to have known about the environmental consequences of allowing disused gasoline infrastructure to remain on the property for nearly two decades.

The lengthy period of time that had passed since the likes of Chevron and Shell operated on the site militated toward a lower allocation of responsibility relative to the parties of the litigation. However, the allocation of liability reflected that a Chevron-installed UST was only decommissioned in 2012.

In the end, responsibility for the majority of the remediation costs was shouldered by Victory Motors and Super-Save.

Takeaways

This decision is important for a number of reasons.

First, it highlights the importance of establishing a sufficient evidentiary basis for claiming remediation costs under the EMA. The costs sought by the plaintiffs were denied not because the categories of costs were inherently unrecoverable as remediation costs, but because the evidence did not adequately support the claims.

The decision also clearly identifies remediation costs under the EMA and stigma damages as occupying distinct territories, with differing rationales and legal tests.

Finally, this decision highlights the practical difficulties in litigating over the relative contributions to a site’s contamination over several decades. The courts may only be able to administer “rough justice”, with all the uncertainty it entails.

This article has been republished with the permission of the authors.  It was first published on Alexander Holburn’s website.


About the Authors

Menka Sull is a member of the firm’s Construction + Engineering, Insurance, Administrative Law and Environmental Practices. Her practice is litigation-focused and includes a variety of areas of law including contractual disputes, construction litigation, environmental contamination, occupiers’ liability claims and professional negligence and disciplinary matters. Within her professional liability practice, Menka specializes in representing the interests of engineers, architects and lawyers in litigation arising out of professional activities.

Samual Kim is a student at the firm.  He has a B.Sc. from the University of the Toronto and a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Victoria.

What are the safety risks when transporting radioactive materials?

Written by Stephen Pike, Argon Electronics

Radioactive materials have a wide variety of applications within the fields of medicine, power generation, manufacturing and the military – and just as with any other product, there are times when these materials may need to be moved from one location to another.

In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that there are around three million shipments of radioactive materials to, from or within the US every year.  In the UK meanwhile, Public Health England (PHE) has reported that somewhere in the region of half a million packages containing radioactive materials are transported to, from or within the UK annually.

Regulation of transport of radioactive materials

Ensuring the safety and security of the transport of radioactive material – whether be it by road, rail, air or sea – is understandably a major priority and one that is highly regulated, depending upon the type, and the quantity, of radioactivity that is being transported.

Materials that are deemed to be low in radioactivity may be able to be shipped with no, or very few, controls.

Materials that are considered to be highly radioactive will be subject to controlled routes, segregation, additional security and specialist packaging and labelling measures.

The UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has a primary role to play in advising on the safe and secure transportation of radioactive substances across a wide of sectors – from the movement of decommissioned nuclear reactors or the carriage of irradiated nuclear fuel to the shipping of medical radio-pharmaceuticals, or the transport of sealed radioactive sources used within the construction or oil industries.

What constitutes a radiation transport event?

The normal transport of radioactive materials can result in transport workers (and sometimes even members of the public) being exposed to small radiation doses.

The strict regulatory conditions of transport however are designed to minimise these exposures.

Accidents and incidents can occur for a variety of reasons – from seemingly minor administrative errors, to problems arising from insufficient packaging, mishaps that occur during loading or unloading of consignments or the theft or loss of a radioactive material being carried.

When such events do occur there is the risk of radiological consequences not just for those transport workers in the immediate vicinity but for emergency responders, HazMat personnel and the wider public.

According to the Radioactive Materials Transport Event Database (RAMTED) there were a total of 16 accidents or incidents involving the transport of radiological materials in the UK in 2012.

These included the receipt of a flask from a nuclear power station where one of the lid-chock locking bolts was found to be loose; the failure of lifting equipment when removing a type 30B uranium hexafluoride cylinder from its protective shipping packaging; and an incident involving the stealing of pipes and plates from a scrap meal facility that were found to have traces of orphan radioactive sources.

Public Health England differentiates radiation transport events into one of the five following categories:

  1. A transport accident (TA) – which is defined as any event that occurs during the carriage of a consignment of radioactive material and that prevents either the consignment, or the vehicle itself, from being able to complete its journey.
  2. A transport incident (TI) – comprising any form of event, other than an accident, that may have occurred prior to or during the carriage of the consignment and that may have resulted in the loss or damage of the consignment or the unforeseen exposure of transport workers or members of the public.
  3. A handling accident (HA) – encompassing any accident that occurs during the loading, shipping, storing or unloading of a consignment of radioactive material and that results in damage to the consignment.
  4. A handling incident (HI) – defined as any handling event, other than an accident, that may occur during the loading, shipping , storing or unloading of the radioactive consignment.
  5. Contamination (C) – defined an an event where radioactive contamination is found on the surface of a package or where the conveyance of a radioactive material is found to be in excess of the regulatory limit.

The role of radiation safety training

When formulating a radiation training strategy, it is vital that personnel are adequately trained to handle the hazards and the risks associated with incidents involving radioactive materials.

Radiation safety training and development programmes should ideally provide personnel with both the knowledge they need and the practical skills that they will rely on in order to carry out their duties safely and effectively.

While most radiation detection equipment is relatively easy to use, the key lies in ensuring that trainees understand the significance of the readings that they get, that they can recognise the implications of changes in units of measurement and that they have the opportunity to train in as life-like a setting as possible.


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.

Researchers scaling up technology that destroys PFAS contamination

Researchers from the University of Purdue recently received funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to scale up a patent technology that can destroy poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in groundwater.

PFAS include perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and other perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) and are found at more than 600 military training sites across the United States where firefighter training involved the use of PFAS-containing foams. They also are found at airports, which use similar chemical foams to put out fires.

PFAS have been linked to cancer, thyroid dysfunction, liver disease, immune system impairment, and other serious medical concerns. The compounds also are found in contaminated drinking water.

Linda Lee, a professor of agronomy in Purdue’s College of Agriculture, has patented a technology that destroys PFAS through the use of a permeable reactive barrier constructed in the subsurface.  Ms. Lee stated, “Our approach is different from current technologies, which are focused on capture and not destruction. We target compound destruction with a design that has potential to be used as part of a permeable reactive barrier underground to eradicate these compounds in groundwater to keep them from spreading.”

compounds graphic

“This is a significant problem because these compounds, which are found in our blood, drinking water, homes and products, do not degrade naturally,” Lee said. “Our team has patented technology involving the use of nickel and iron nanoparticles synthesized onto activated carbon to capture, attack and destroy the compounds.”

Recently, Lee’s team received part of a $6 million science to achieve results grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to address the issue of the compounds ending up in waste streams and eventually drinking water. The latest award comes after the team received earlier funding from the National Science Foundation and the Department of Defense. The team’s recent work also has included international partnerships in Pakistan through The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.

Lee patented her nanoparticle innovation through the Purdue Research Foundation Office of Technology Commercialization. She is looking for additional partners to help scale up the work.

 

Second Opinions Can Offer a Distinctly-Different Path Forward

Written by Alan Hahn, Dragun Corporation

A story in the Washington Post from a year
ago discussed why second medical opinions can be very important.  In one case, a young man, at his mother’s
behest, got a second opinion and received life-saving surgery for cancer that
he would not have otherwise received. 
The other case they highlighted was a woman who did not get a second
opinion and had a double mastectomy and hysterectomy.  Neither, it turns out, were necessary.

A Mayo Clinic Study found
that as many as 88% of those looking for a second opinion left with a new or “refined
diagnoses,” and 21% had a “distinctly different” diagnoses.  

Medical second opinions can literally save
your life.

While environmental consultants are not in
the business of saving lives directly, in our experience,
environmental/scientific second opinions have provided some very stark results.

The intent of second opinions, medical, or
as is the case in our world, environmental, is not (or should not be) to
unjustly criticize.  The intent is to
objectively review the data and offer suggestions for a “refined diagnoses” and
occasionally offer a “distinctly different” path forward.

At Dragun Corporation, we began 30-plus
years ago providing second opinions, or, as we call them, peer reviews.  Below are very
brief discussions of some of these second opinions.

Second
Opinion of Groundwater Investigation

A site assessment and remediation program
that was confounding a company had many complicating factors.  When we were asked to review the project, it
was headed down a path of more investigation and remediation.  What we found, and why the subsurface data
were not making sense, was an underground storage tank that was “missed” early
in the investigation. The problem was compounded as they moved to each
subsequent phase of work.  Once this was
discovered, the other data began to make sense.  Collection of additional supporting data presented
to the regulators was convincing and the site was closed.

Second
Opinion of Remediation

An old industrial site with a lot of
“environmental history” was getting more complicated (and confusing) with each
subsequent set of data.  The calculated
groundwater flow at the site did not make sense, but a multi-million dollar
remediation was proposed nonetheless.  The
major issue uncovered in the peer-review process was improperly-screened
wells.  It was a “simple” mistake (and a
reminder of why field work is so important), but the potential consequences
could have been very expensive.  In this
case, a distinctly-different diagnoses led to a far-different (and less costly)
solution.

Second
Opinion Leads to Supreme Court

Another older industrial site that used a
common, but often problematic, chemical, trichloroethylene (TCE), was so
contentious that it ended up in a US State Supreme Court.  When the problem was first identified in the
groundwater, the client recognized that they had used TCE and “stepped up” to
take responsibility.  While operating a
groundwater pump-and-treat system to capture and treat the TCE plume, they were
approached by the state regulators to investigate a newly-discovered
plume.  The state theorized that the
plume had “escaped” the treatment system.  In this particular case, the client’s
consultant was not willing to “push back” and defend the client’s position;
they believed the best course of action was to do as the state directed.

The review of the data suggested that there
was no scientific reason to believe the escaped plume theory.  The subsequent technical and legal battles
ended in the State Supreme Court.  The
unanimous decision of the Supreme Court supported our scientific interpretation,
and the state was ordered to pay the client’s technical and legal costs (nearly
$4 million).

When should you consider a second
“environmental” opinion?  I don’t know if
there are any hard and fast rules.  From
our perspective, the requests for second opinions have come when someone is
considering a new scope of work for additional investigation, considering
remediation, or when a project is potentially headed toward litigation.  In each case, there are potentially-significant
expenses in the next step.

Often, but not always, legal counsel is
involved in this decision including vetting the firm that may be offering the
second opinion.  

Recently, we developed a list of issues we
have encountered more than once in providing second opinions.  You can download this list of “29 Potentially Costly
Soil and Groundwater Investigation Mistakes”
on our website.  This list may provide you with some guidance
as you review your data.

The findings published by the Mayo Clinic regarding medical second opinions providing both refined diagnoses and distinctly different diagnoses are quite remarkable.  And if our experience is any indication of environmental second opinions, it may be worth your effort to seek out a second opinion before taking significant action.   


About the Author

Alan Hahn works at Dragun Corporation, an environmental services headquartered in Farmington Hills, Michigan. His practical experience in the environmental business and the practical experience in marketing, allows him to develop realistic strategic business plans. His undergraduate and graduate studies are both in the environmental field (University of Michigan – Dearborn and University of Maryland). He also has substantial hands-on experience in the environmental field (both in an analytical laboratory and in collection of samples).

Environmental Site Assessments: In Search of Better Conclusions

Written by Bill Leedham, P. Geo., CESA, Down 2 Earth Environmental Services Inc.

Environmental consultants sometimes struggle with reporting their Phase One Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) findings and conclusions, especially for properties with limited available data, or where the identified environmental issues are deemed to be of low to moderate concern.

Environmental consultants are often in search of ‘Better Conclusions’. When I refer to “better conclusions”, I am talking about rational and defensible conclusions that are presented clearly and designed to meet the report objectives (as defined by regulation and client needs) and not simply stating that “no concerns were identified and no further action is needed” (which most clients would prefer).

As environmental consultants, we understand each site and report is unique and the conclusions are dependent on the available data, as interpreted by a qualified professional. The suggestions offered are by no means comprehensive or all inclusive, but are meant to generate some thoughtful discussion when writing and reviewing Phase One ESA reports.

Follow the Regulation(s)

Depending on the locale and client requirements, you could be following one of several ESA guidelines. Make sure you have conducted your ESA in accordance with the applicable and/or client-requested format, and that the content and wording of your conclusions follows the suggested or mandatory requirements. For example, CSA Z-768-01 requires ESA Conclusions to state either no evidence, or evidence of actual and/or potential contamination has been revealed.

Ontario Regulation 153/04, as amended for filing a Record of Site Condition requires, among other things, that the assessor’s conclusions specifically state whether the RSC can be filed on the basis of the Phase One alone; and whether a Phase Two ESA is required to file the RSC. Failure to include the mandatory statements with the specified wording can result in denial of the RSC application.

If the report is to be compliant with ASTM E1527-13, the conclusions must summarize all recognized environmental conditions; provide one of the ASTM-prescribed concluding statements; and include statements certifying that an Environmental Professional (EP) has conducted All Appropriate Inquires (AAI). The assessor should always be familiar with the most current ESA standards, and ensure that that the format they utilize is applicable to the Site and meets all regulatory and stakeholder objectives.

Know Your Client…. And Other Stakeholders

Phase One ESAs are conducted for a variety of reasons including transactional due diligence, mortgage financing, regulatory requirements or private/internal planning needs. The types and objectives of clients can also vary from Site owners to property buyers, sellers, or managers. Often other third parties such as banks, municipalities, government agencies or environmental regulators can have a significant impact on the content and acceptability of the report conclusions.

As an assessor you need to know in advance all the involved stakeholders, especially those that will require and expect reliance on your report in their decision making process. Different clients can tolerate varying degrees of environmental risk.

For example, a client that has owned and operated an industrial facility since first developed use, and has no plans to sell, redevelop or obtain bank financing may be comfortable with the simple identification of potential environmental concerns and decide not to undertake any further confirmatory investigations.

However, a bank financing a purchase of the same industrial property may have a lower risk tolerance, and will likely require a better understanding of the environmental issues, including Phase One ESA conclusions that clearly state whether or not a Phase Two ESA is recommended by the assessor.

To produce a valid report that assists the stakeholders in their decision making, the assessor must also know all stakeholder objectives, and understand their respective risk tolerance and required level of comfort.


About the Author

Bill Leedham is the Head Instructor and Course Developer for the Associated Environmental Site Assessors of Canada (www.aesac.ca); and the founder and President of Down 2 Earth Environmental Services Inc. You can contact Bill at [email protected].

Business Opportunity: U.S. EPA’s Solicitation for Small Business Innovation Research

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is calling for small businesses to apply for Phase I awards up to $100,000 to demonstrate proof of concept environmental technology. The solicitation is open the U.S. companies that have a ground-breaking idea that can be commercialized. The areas of interest to the U.S. EPA with respect to funding can be found below.

CLEAN AND SAFE WATER

  • Sampling devices for microplastics
  • Technologies for the rehabilitation of water infrastructure
  • Technologies for the destruction of PFAS in water and wastewater
  • POU treatment for opportunistic pathogens
  • Technologies for detection and treatment of antibiotic resistant bacteria in wastewater
  • Treatment for cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins in drinking water
  • Resource Recovery for Decentralized Wastewater Systems

AIR QUALITY

  • Air monitoring technology for Ethylene Oxide
  • Air monitoring technology for Sulfur Dioxide

LAND REVITALIZATION

  • Mining site characterization and remediation

HOMELAND SECURITY

  • 3-D Gamma Camera to Map Radiological Contamination
  • Water distribution and stormwater system sensors

SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

  • New Applications for Industrial Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials
  • Preventing Food Waste

SAFER CHEMICALS

  • Safer paint and coating removal products

Phase II Funding and Deadline for Applications

Successful Phase I companies are eligible to apply for Phase II funding, which awards up to $400,000 for two years with a commercialization option of up to $100,000, to further develop and commercialize their technologies.

Last year, the U.S. EPA awarded Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Phase I contracts to 23 small businesses across the United States to develop technologies that provide sustainable solutions for environmental issues. These SBIR Phase I recipients are creating technologies that improve water infrastructure, air quality and homeland security.

More information on the solicitation can be found here. Applications are due by July 31, 2019.

Training for CBRNe & HazMat incidents at mass public events

Written by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

Preparing civilian first responders and military teams for the threat of possible chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or explosive (CBRNe) attacks is a top priority for countries around the world.

The very nature of CBRNe threat detection, however, all too frequently relies on the ability to monitor and manage the ‘invisible’ – which can present unique challenges for both trainees and their trainers.

And the landscape in which CBRNe events can take place is ever expanding, as perpetrators exploit soft civilian targets at mass public gatherings – evidenced by the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka in 2019, the terrorist attack at the UK’s Manchester Arena in 2017 or the Boston Marathon bombing in April 2013.

When training for these types of mass public CBRNe incidents, the challenge for instructors is to be able to authentically replicate the environment and conditions that are typical of large-scale public areas – be it a music stadium, sports arena or religious venue.

The value of CBRNe training exercises

Realistic, hands-on exercises can provide a useful opportunity for trainees to practice carrying out their roles, and to gain familiarity and confidence with their CBRN detector equipment.

The more life-like the exercise, the greater the likelihood that the participants will become fully engaged in ‘alert’ mode rather than simply remaining in an ‘exercise’ mindset.

But while authenticity is valuable, it is also crucial to ensure that in creating these realistic scenarios there is no risk of harm to the participants, the trainers, the environment or the public at large.

Selecting the optimum training method

As we have explored in previous blog posts, traditional methods of CBRNe and HazMat training (such as those that incorporating Live Agents or simulants) can have their limitations.

The use of live simulants, for example, can often only be detected at very close range, which means the training scenarios can lack realism.

In addition, many simulated substances are not well suited to being used in repeated training exercises, due to the practical issue of managing residual contamination.

Electronic simulator detectors, however, offer a safe and practical alternative – by replicating the appearance, feel and functionality of actual detectors and by responding to safe electronic sources.

CBRNe training in action

With the use of electronic simulation equipment, it is possible to conduct realistic and easily repeatable training exercises that present no risk of harm to the personnel or the environment in which they are operating.

In one recent case study, the use of an inventory of electronic simulators was seen to vastly enhance the realism of a large-scale CBRNe training exercise that was conducted by the Bristol Police at the Bristol City Football Ground.


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.

Researchers to study Arctic Spill Response and Clean-up

Researchers from Dalhousie University recently received $523,000 in Canadian federal government funding to investigate strategies to better separate oil from water and examine the risk of spills in the Canadian Arctic Archipeligo.

As climate change accelerates the melting of sea ice in the Arctic, the Northwest Passage could become a significant route between the Pacific and North Atlantic oceans. With the potential of increased Arctic vessel traffic, the Government of Canada is investing in science and research to ensure that we are prepared in an event of a spill.  

One research project funded under this program will test new methods to remove oil from water for greater efficiency during a cleanup. The other project will use advanced technology to help responders locate and identify spills, while minimizing harm to the marine environment. This new science and data will be important to inform decision makers and will help accelerate efficient decision making capacity. 

The two researchers that will be heading the investigation are Dr. Haibo Niu, and Dr. Lei Liu.

Dr. Niu currently works at the Department of Engineering, Dalhousie University. Haibo does research in Civil Engineering, Environmental Engineering and Ocean Engineering. His most recent research paper is entitled A Comprehensive System for Simulating Oil Spill Trajectory and Behaviour in Subsurface and Surface Water Environments.

For the Arctic research project, Dr. Niu is trying to develop a computer model that will predict the movement of an oil spill so responders know where it’s going and what it threatens.

Dr. Liu’s major research interests include coupled simulation-optimization modeling for groundwater management, site remediation system design, modeling of air/water/waste pollution control systems, and environmental risk assessment. He also has exposure to areas of regional environmental systems planning and management, climate-change impact assessment and adaptation planning, GIS and its application to environmental information systems, system dynamics, and uncertainty analysis.

The federal government is funding Dr. Liu’s project that will involve trying to find a way to use existing membrane technology to filter oil from oily waste water collected on board vessels during a spill cleanup. The goal is to create a unit carried on board to remove oil, allowing clean water to be discharged at sea rather than carried back to shore for treatment.

The projects are funded under the $45.5 million Multi-Partner Research Initiative, which aims provide the best scientific advice to respond to spills in Canadian waters. The initiative connects leading researchers both in Canada and around the world. These efforts will improve our knowledge of how spills behave, how to contain them and clean them up, and how to minimize their environmental impacts.

How does After Action Review benefit HazMat training?

Written by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

Emergency response teams are constantly looking for ways to improve their operations.

Simulated exercises, training classes and seminars can all provide valuable insight into tactics and technologies that can be applied in real life HazMat incidents.

However unless feedback on incident response and command is recorded (and can be easily shared with personnel), a valuable learning opportunity can risk being lost.

An effective way to enhance learning outcomes is through the use of a post-incident critique or After Action Review (AAR).

An AAR is a structured means of analyzing what took place during a particular training exercise or event to identify strengths, weaknesses and areas for improvement.

As well as providing a method to scrutinize the actions that occurred, an AAR is also an opportunity to consider what could have been done differently – both by those who took part in the exercise and by those who were in charge.

The evolution of AAR

The origins of After Action Review can be found in the US military where formal AARs evolved out of the combat action debriefs that were carried out during World War Two and the Vietnam war.

The use of AAR in a military context has also been documented in the memoirs of Chinese military leader Gong Chu’s during the 1934-1938 three-year war in South China; and by Emperor Napolean’s Marshall’s and Generals in the early 19th century.

Military AARs fall into two types – formal AARs (which require detailed planning, preparation and resources) and informal AARs (which take the form of on-the-spot reviews of individual or group training performance).

Over the years, a wide variety of public health and emergency management agencies have recognized the value of AARs – using them within training programs to aid better understanding of the perspectives and expectations of all involved and to capture crucial learning that can be widely shared.

One potential challenge with any form of realistic HazMat training exercise is that much can be going on in a relatively short time-frame. When the exercise ends, participants can sometimes find that many of the events, and the associated learning opportunities, have become a “blur” in their minds.

A 2018 article in the online magazine FireEngineering.com discussed how taking a “stop-and-start” approach to full-scale HazMat training exercises can help to cement learning. By breaking up the scenario into several smaller sections with regular breaks for review, there is the opportunity to discuss what’s just happened, to explore alternative tactics, to quickly correct any misunderstandings and to enhance exercise efficiency.

In addition there is also the advantage of being able to ensure that departmental procedures and guidelines are being followed, and that they are modified when necessary.

The application of AAR in simulator detector technology

The integration of AAR capability into simulator detector technology has been shown to reveal important lessons that improve professional practice, minimize risk and enhance communication.

When we think about AAR in the context of a simulator detector, it is the technology within the device itself (rather than a human) that maintains a record of all the activity.

The simulator version of the LCD3.2 Chemical Hazard Detector (the LCD3.2e) is just one example of a device that keeps a record of all real-time trainee movement – from the initial set-up of the equipment through to the completion of the exercise.

Once the scenario has concluded, the instructor is able to easily switch the device to display a detailed (and indisputable) performance report.

AAR is a powerful and constructive way to obtain valuable knowledge that can improve processes and enhance training efficiency – be it in the form of constructive group discussion, via fact-finding exercises or by harnessing the intelligent technological capability of simulator detectors.

The process of regularly critiquing can serve as a powerful tool for understanding the impact of one’s actions and effecting change.

And by regularly comparing the “expected outcome” with what “actually happened”, adjustments and improvements can continually be made, to improve safety at both an individual and an organizational level.

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.