Oil Spill Dispersants Market Surpass $23.6 Billion By 2026

According to a recent market report by Acumen Research Consulting, the global Oil Spill Dispersants market size is estimated to grow at a compound annual growth rate above 3 % over the forecast time frame and reach the market value around USD 23.6 billion by 2026.

The term oil spill is a common term used in the contamination, by accident or human error, of water, land or earth by oil pouring or release. Oil sources are distributed throughout the world, and are drilled both onshore and offshore. Since oil is an essential source of energy, it is very important that oil is distributed and transported consistently. Oil is mainly transported by seaside vessels and land pipelines. Most accidents occur during the shipment of oil, transport and pipeline breakages or during land boiling. Small-scale oil spills take place regularly and can be easily and quickly controlled.

Dispersants contain detergents which help break oil into small droplets that can become diluted in the ocean. They also contain an organic solvent that helps the detergents mix with both the oil and water (Credit: Natalie Renier, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

The market is mainly driven by frequent oil spills and the crucial importance of reducing the after effects on the environment of oil spills. These dispersants work in steady weather, since the efficiency of dispersants is reduced by high tides. Such limitations of oil discharges are the main restrictive factors on the global market for oil discharges.

The growth of the market of petroleum discharges depends directly on frequency, duration and volume of the oil discharges. Since the last decade, there has been a decrease of large oil spills every year, but very frequent small-scale oil spills are mainly driving the market for oil spills. Furthermore, a consistent selection of new petroleum resources and new oil plants will further boost the growth of the petroleum spill market. Another driving factor for the global market for oil spills is stringent government rules and penalties for reinforcing the response to oil spill.

Application Stance

The market share of offshore oil dispersant applications for the application segment was more than 70% in 2017. Similarly, it is estimated that the onshore application sector will grow steadily as newly identified onshore oil sources and frequent oil spills occur during transport or drilling of the oil. Onshore petroleum production accounts for 70 percent, which is projected to increase in the coming years. The demand for oil spill dissipators in onshore spill areas will be further increased.

Asia-Pacific Hold the prominent Share in the market

Geographically speaking, Asia Pacific will lead the global market for oil spillers driven by increased oil demand in the region and increased production pressures on petroleum companies to explore further existing offshore and onshore petroleum sources. Such explorations are certainly expected to have some incidents due to failure or human error in technology / equipment. Middle East & Africa is similar to the Asia-Pacific region, and a major part of the world’s oil demand is made of it. Global financial, trade and political pressures in terms of oil production and demand will certainly compel oil companies to take risks as they explore new petroleum sources.

ACME Environmental is Likely to Continue to Lead the Global Oil Spill Dispersants Market

The Oil Spill Dispersants market is consolidated with large number of manufacturers. The company profiling of key players in the market includes major business strategies, company overview and revenues. The key players of the market are ACME Environmental, Inc., Blue Ocean Tackle, Inc, Canadyne Technologies, Canadyne Technologies, Chemtex, Inc., and Desmi A/S, Blue Ocean Tackle, Inc, Inc, Chemtex, Inc., and Desmi A/S.

To Sample or Not: U.S. EPA Issues Interim Guidance on Site Field Work During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Written by Amy L. Edwards, Bonni F. Kaufman, and Meaghan A. Colligan,  and  Holland & Knight LLP

On April 10, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) issued Interim Guidance on Site Field Work Decisions Due to Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic to all EPA Regional Administrators. The Interim Guidance outlines the factors that EPA Regional Offices should consider on a case-by-case basis to evaluate if cleanup actions should continue as is, be reduced or paused, as well as affirmative steps that EPA Regions must take depending on what decision they make. The Interim Guidance is applicable to Superfund cleanups, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective actions, Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PCB cleanups, cleanups under the Oil Pollution Act, the Underground Storage Tank (UST) program and EPA emergency responses to releases or substantial threats of releases (Response Actions) when EPA is the lead agency. The Response Actions may be performed by EPA, states, tribes other agencies of the federal government and potentially responsible parties where EPA is the lead agency.

EPA was clear that Regional Office decisions and follow-up steps must be made in accordance with EPA’s priorities to 1) protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, EPA staff and third-party environmental professionals, and 2) maintain EPA’s ability to respond to environmental emergencies and protect the environment (EPA’s Priorities). EPA indicated that adherence with federal, state, tribal or local health declarations and restrictions (Health Declarations), when possible, is integral to EPA’s Priorities. EPA was clear that no one factor outlined in the Interim Guidance should be considered in a manner that would override protection against unnecessary potential exposure to COVID-19. Furthermore, EPA indicated that Regional Office decisions to provide extensions or pause work obligations will not supersede or amend enforcement instruments.

When evaluating whether or not to continue, modify or pause a Response Action, EPA made clear that Regional Offices should closely consider whether or not the Response Action is addressing an imminent public health issue, such as access to clean drinking water or vapor exposure concerns, emergency spills, catastrophic events, disposals of certain wastes that may cause an imminent safety issue and in-progress decommissioning of former nuclear facilities and landfills. Applying EPA’s clear guidance that EPA’s Priorities must be at the forefront of the Regional Offices’ decisions, Holland & Knight does not believe the Regional Offices will permit any schedule alterations in these situations, so long as appropriate lodging and personal protective equipment is available for EPA workers or third-party contractors. In contrast, EPA may be more willing to approve schedule modifications for investigations that are part of long-term remedial actions that would not be completed in six months under ordinary circumstances, and remedial actions that do not address an immediate public health concern, i.e., the remedial action was already not scheduled to begin for at least one or two years regardless of any delays caused by the pandemic.

EPA indicated that Response Actions will not simply be abandoned without any controls. Rather, if Regional Offices decide that an action should be paused, Regions should continue to monitor the site and plan to resume field work as soon as it is safe to do so. If a Response Action will continue, Regional Offices must review and modify the health and safety plan (HASP) to ensure that it accounts for CDC’s COVID-19 guidelines and other Health Declarations.

EPA expects work that can be performed remotely to continue, such as completing investigation and cleanup reports, work plans, negotiations between parties, issuing decision documents, progress reports and maintaining compliance with financial assurance obligations.

Parties that believe a COVID-19 restriction will impact their obligations to perform any element of a Response Action are directed to consult the applicable enforcement instrument to review force majeure provisions and any provisions that outline the process for requesting schedule adjustments. Scheduling adjustments will be made on a case-by-case basis in line with EPA’s Priorities and the factors outlined in the Interim Guidance.

EPA indicated that it will update the Interim Guidance as the current situation evolves, as necessary.

Key Elements of the Interim Guidance

General Guidance for Response Field Work Decisions

EPA made clear that Regional Offices would continue to respond to releases or threats of substantial releases to the environment but that Regions should make every effort to ensure worker safety and compliance with travel restrictions, Health Declarations and access to personal protective equipment and lodging.

Under the Interim Guidance, Regional Offices are to perform an evaluation before deciding to continue, modify or pause Response Actions and pre-construction, construction and post-construction activities. In jurisdictions where Health Declarations have been issued, Regions are to evaluate the status of ongoing response work and the possible impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sites, surrounding communities, EPA personnel and response/cleanup partners. In jurisdictions where Health Declarations have not been issued, Regions should weigh additional factors, including the safety and availability of work crews and EPA, state and tribal staff; the critical nature of the work; logistical challenges such as travel and lodging, and other factors particular to a site.

EPA indicated that Response Actions will not simply be abandoned without any controls. Rather, if Regional Offices decide that an action should be paused, Regional Offices should continue to monitor the site and plan to resume field work as soon as it is safe to do so. If a Response Action will continue, Regional Offices must review and modify the HASP to ensure that it accounts for CDC’s COVID-19 guidelines and other Health Declarations.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, EPA encourages parties and lead agencies to regularly communicate with EPA project managers about the status of the Response Actions and any anticipated challenges and mitigation measures. If COVID-19 restrictions impact a party’s ability to perform any Response Actions, that party should review the enforcement instrument, i.e., consent order, settlement agreement, etc., for the applicable provisions allowing for schedule adjustments or invocation of force majeure provisions. EPA project managers will promptly issue decisions about schedule adjustments on a case-by-case basis.

Factors to Consider for Site Field Work Decisions

EPA provided a list of situations in which Regions have decided and may continue to decide to modify or suspend Response Actions:

  • State, tribal or local health officials have requested suspensions.
  • Any site workers have tested positive for or exhibited symptoms of COVID-19.
  • Any sites where there may be close interaction with high-risk groups or those under quarantine.
  • Sites where contractor field personnel are not able to work due to a jurisdiction’s travel restriction or Health Declarations.
  • Other sites where social distancing is not possible.

EPA provides a list of factors that regional management should consider with respect to site-specific work decisions, including generally:

  • whether failure to continue the Response Action would likely pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment, such as emergency spill responses, catastrophic events, sites that impact drinking water or result in on-site exposures or vapor intrusion, disposals of certain wastes that may cause an imminent safety issue, and in-progress decommissioning of former nuclear facilities and landfills, and whether it is practical to continue the Response Action
  • whether maintaining Response Actions would lead to a reduction in human health risk/exposure in the next six months, such as vapor intrusion investigations, residential site work with current exposures to residents, and drinking water-related work
  • whether the work would not provide near-term reduction in human health risk, such as periodic monitoring, routine sampling activities and field sampling for remedial or facility investigations. In these instances, EPA is more likely to consider the possibility of a delay, suspension, or rescheduling of work and with updated HASPs as appropriate.

Effects on Non-Field Site Work

EPA expects work that can be performed remotely to continue, such as completing investigation and cleanup reports, work plans, negotiations between parties, issuing decision documents, progress reports and maintaining compliance with financial assurance obligations. EPA did recognize that laboratories and other supporting operations may be impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and directed parties to follow procedures in those situations outlined in the applicable enforcement instrument.

Next Steps When Pausing Site Work

If a decision is made to pause work, EPA expects Regional Offices to continue to monitor site conditions, plan to resume field work when appropriate and utilize EPA’s internal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Interim Guidance on Public Engagement During COVID-19.

Conclusion

EPA has made it clear to the Regional Offices that they may approve a modification or pause of certain Response Actions, but not if the Response Action is in the process of addressing or will address an imminent or substantial threat to public health and the environment. EPA does, however, require the Regional Offices to balance any decisions with a close review of Health Declarations and exposure or any potential exposure to COVID-19 to the public, EPA workers, and contractors. Based on recent experience, EPA will not extend deadlines for deliverables such as work plans, reports or settlement negotiations based on COVID-19 that can be prepared remotely.

DISCLAIMER: Please note that the situation surrounding COVID-19 is evolving and that the subject matter discussed in these publications may change on a daily basis. Please contact your responsible Holland & Knight lawyer or the authors of this alert for timely advice.

Information contained in this article is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult competent legal counsel.


About the Authors

Amy L. Edwards is the co-chair of the Holland & Knight LLP’s National Environmental Team. She is a partner in the firm’s Public Policy & Regulation Group, which has been ranked among the top law and lobbying firms in Washington, D.C., by numerous publications. Ms. Edwards has been recognized as a leading environmental lawyer for several years by Chambers USA, Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers.

Bonni F. Kaufman is a partner in the Public Policy & Regulation Group of Holland & Knight, where she focuses her practice on environmental law. Ms. Kaufman represents clients in a wide variety of matters relating to environmental laws, focusing on regulatory enforcement and compliance, product regulation, litigation and environmental aspects of corporate and real estate transactions.

Meaghan A. Colligan is a Washington, D.C., environmental attorney and member of Holland & Knight’s Public Policy & Regulation Group. She focuses her practice in the areas of environmental, land use, energy and municipal law.

Guide to Community Actions that drive Brownfields Development

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) recently developed a Guide to help communities with brownfields to
more successfully address community revitalization and brownfields-related challenges.  The guide outlines concrete actions communities can take to address these challenges.

Through the three case studies described in the Guide, it is shown that attracting public or private investment for the reuse of brownfield properties can bring economic and social benefits to communities, in addition to improving environmental conditions.

The Guide provides details of the five steps for successful brownfield redevelopment:

  1. Lead with stakeholder involvement that empowers the local community to become redevelopment champions.
  2. Create a site reuse vision that is exciting and realistic.
  3. Remove barriers to brownfield redevelopment (i.e., expediting zoning and permitting approvals).
  4. Engage developers and end-users.
  5. Complete site preparations and close the deal.

The Guide also discusses opportunities for obtaining brownfield grants and technical assistance.  The U.S. EPA provides grants and technical assistance to local, state and tribal governments and nonprofit organizations. As of February 1, 2019, these federal government investments in brownfield remediation projects have leveraged $27.527 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding from public and private sources and resulted in the creation of over 144,800 jobs.

PFAS Could Contaminate More Than 600 Military Installations, U.S. DOD Says

Written by The Environmental Working Group

The United States Department of Defense recently released new data showing that more than 600 military sites and surrounding communities could be contaminated with perfluorinated chemicals, or PFAS – far more installations than have been previously disclosed by Pentagon officials.

Details about the new facilities likely contaminated with PFAS leaked last week, a day after a House appropriations subcommittee hearing during which members heard heart-wrenching testimony from retired Army pilot Jim Holmes, who believes his 17-year-old daughter’s death from brain cancer could have been caused by exposure to PFAS-contaminated water on the base where he was stationed.

Holmes was joined at the hearing by EWG’s Senior Vice President for Government Affairs Scott Faber, who urged Congress and the Pentagon to accelerate efforts to clean up legacy PFAS pollution at military installations around the country.

Previously, DOD testified that 401 of its installations could be contaminated with PFAS, which have been linked to cancer, liver damage and harm to the reproductive and immune systems.

The updated list of installations identified by DOD can be found here.

The DOD’s use of firefighting foam made with PFAS, also known as aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF, is the primary source of PFAS pollution at military installations.

(Note: Several of the installations where PFAS contamination is suspected include more than one military operation on the site, which is why some reports list the number of facilities at 651. When those locations with duplicate installations are considered, the actual number is just over 600 bases.)

EWG has so far confirmed PFAS in the tap water or groundwater at 328 military sites. Until recently, PFAS contaminated the drinking water of dozens of bases, and many communities near these installations continue to drink contaminated water.

Through Freedom of Information Act requests, EWG also discovered that many of the highest PFAS detections in the nation have been found on or near DOD installations.

In particular, within DOD documents, EWG found evidence of PFAS detections in groundwater at 14 installations that were above 1 million parts per trillion, or ppt, far above the 70 ppt drinking water advisory level recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency.

“DOD has failed to treat PFAS pollution with the urgency service members and their families rightly deserve,” said EWG’s Scott Faber. “We’ve all known for decades that PFAS are toxic, but DOD is still trying to understand the scope of the problem.”

DOD officials have understood the risks of AFFF since the early 1970s, when Navy and Air Force studies first showed the firefighting foam was toxic to fish; since the early 1980s, when the Air Force conducted its own animal studies on AFFF; and since the early 2000s, when the maker of PFOS, the main ingredient in AFFF, exited the market. In 2001, a DOD memo concluded that the main ingredient in AFFF was “persistent, bioaccumulating and toxic.”

“DOD waited a decade to warn service members and has been slow to switch to PFAS-free alternatives to AFFF or clean up legacy PFAS pollution,” Faber said. “What’s more, some DOD officials have argued for cleanup and screening levels that are less protective of our service members and their families than those proposed by EPA.”

The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2020 included important bipartisan PFAS reforms, including a provision to phase out AFFF by 2024. But the NDAA fell short of what’s needed to address the serious public health risks posed by PFAS, especially PFOA and PFOS.

“In light of these new revelations, Congress should do much more to accelerate the cleanup of legacy PFAS contamination,” said Faber. “To do so, Congress should increase funding for programs like the Defense Environmental Restoration Program and designate PFAS as hazardous substances under EPA’s Superfund program, which will ensure that PFAS manufacturers pay their fair share of cleanup costs.”


The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

UNBC professor receives $1.9 million to study oil spill response

Fisheries and Oceans Canada recently pledged $1.9 million to a University of Northern British Columbia environmental and engineering professor to further his research into improving oil spill cleanups.  Dr. Jianbing Li is leading part of a national project that is looking at methods to separate oil from water to make it more efficient and less costly to clean up marine oil spills. He will also conduct experiments to treat oily waste and convert it into useful energy.

The project began last fall and Li and his collaborators spent the first year reviewing regulations and technologies and developing experiments.

Current techniques for cleaning up marine oil spills involve collecting oily wastewater from the ocean and transporting it to shore for processing or disposal. Li’s research will explore ways to separate the oil from the water while the response ships are still at sea.

Among the tasks Li and his fellow researchers will work on include developing improved decanting techniques to separate oil and water, exploring how oily waste can be minimized and generate useful energy, and developing an integrated oily waste management decision-support system to assist in determining the best response for marine oil spill.

The federal funding will help support 11 scientific trainee positions at UNBC, ranging from post-doctoral researchers and PhD candidates to graduate students to senior undergraduate researchers.

In addition to assisting in Li’s research project, the funding will provide valuable training opportunities.

“This project will also assist in training the next-generation of oil spill response professionals. The experience our students will gain by working on this study will help them become highly qualified people in the field,” Li said.

A Review of the Emerging Treatment Technologies for PFAS Contaminated Soils

Two researchers from Charles Sturt University in New South Wales, Australia recently published a review of emerging treatment technologies for PFAS contaminated soils in the Journal of Environmental Management (255:109896[2020]). The article provides a comprehensive evaluation of existing and emerging technologies for remediating PFAS-contaminated soils and provides guidance on which approach to use in different contexts. The functions of all remediation technologies, their suitability, limitations, and the scale applied from laboratory to the field are also presented in the article as a baseline for understanding the research need for treatment in soil environments.

Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are very stable manmade chemicals that have properties that allow them to repel both water and oil.  Chemicals in this class of more than 5,000 substances are found in products like nonstick pans (e.g. “Teflon”), waterproof jackets, and carpets to repel water, grease, and stains.  PFAS don’t easily break down, and they can persist in your body and in the environment for decades. As a result of their pervasiveness, more than 95 percent of the U.S. population has PFAS in their bodies, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The article states that remediation of soil contaminated with PFAS is extremely challenging.  The most widely used method to manage PFAS contaminated soil is the immobilization method.   Immobilization methods that are generally less expensive and disruptive to the natural landscape, hydrology, and ecosystems than are conventional excavation, treatment, and disposal methods. The article concludes that PFAS immobilization methods need further study to assess their long-term efficiency.

The article also examines the use of soil washing methods for the remediation of PFAS in soil.  Soil washing is an ex-situ remediation technique that removes contaminants from soil by washing the soil with a liquid (often with a chemical additive), scrubbing the soil, and then separating the clean soils from contaminated soil and washwater.  The article concludes that further work to determine the efficacy of the washing solvents.

The article also discusses other soil remediation methods that have been tested effectively in lab trials including thermal treatment techniques, chemical oxidation, ball milling, and electron beams.

 

 

Interim Recommendations for Addressing Groundwater Contamination with PFOA and PFOS

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) recently released interim recommendations for screening levels and preliminary remediation goals to inform the development of final cleanup levels for PFOA and/or PFOS groundwater contamination at sites being evaluated and addressed under federal cleanup programs, including CERCLA and RCRA.

The recommendations are consistent with existing EPA guidance and standard practices, in addition to applicable statutes and regulations. The recommendations may be useful for state, tribal, or other regulatory authorities.

In a news release, U.S. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler stated, “The interim recommendations will provide clear and consistent guidance for federal cleanup programs and will help protect drinking water resources in communities across the country. This is a critical tool for our state, tribal, and local partners to use to protect public health and address these chemicals.”

U.S. Federal agencies and states have asked the U.S. EPA to provide guidance on this issue. After reviewing public comments on the agency’s April 2019 draft guidance, the U.S. EPA is finalizing these interim recommendations based on the available data and scientific information on PFAS toxicity. The U.S. EPA acknowledges that the scientific information on these compounds continues to evolve. As part of the PFAS Action Plan, the U.S. EPA is continuing to develop and assess toxicity information, test methods, laboratory methods, analytical methods, exposure models, and treatment methods, among other research efforts to improve the knowledge about this class of chemicals. As new information becomes available on other PFAS chemicals, the agency will consider additional recommendations as the agency advances its knowledge of these other substances.

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.

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%.

U.S. Federal Toxmap Website Closes

TOXMAP® is no longer.  Launched an run by the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM) fifteen years ago, the website closed down in December.

ToxMap was a Geographic Information System (GIS) that usedmaps of the United States and Canada to help users visually explore data primarily from the U.S. EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and Superfund Program, as well as some non-EPA datasets. It combined pollution data  from the U.S. EPA and at least a dozen other U.S. government sources.

ToxMap helped users create nationwide, regional, or local area maps showing where TRI chemicals are released on-site into the air, water, and ground. It also provided facility and release details, color-codes release amounts for a single year or year range, and aggregates release data over multiple years. Maps also showed locations of Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites, listing all chemical contaminants present at these sites. Two versions of TOXMAP wereavailable: the classic version of TOXMAP released in 2004, and a newer version of TOXMAP based on Adobe® Flash/Flex technology. The newer version provided an improved map appearance and interactive capabilities and additional datasets such as U.S. EPA coal plant emissions data and U.S. commercial nuclear power plants.

ToxMap began in 2004 as a way of culling data that the U.S. EPA collected on toxic releases and conveying it to the public in more accessible and relevant way. Thanks largely to the 1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), the agency had been collecting huge amounts of data on chemicals of concern being released from individual facilities—the Toxic Release Inventory. But until the early 2000s, this vast store of “public” information demanded considerable time and expertise to find and tap, much less to interpret.

The development of ToxMap was part of a broader government push towards data transparency. ToxMap made it much easier to find out about the chemicals a plant in a neighborhood was releasing into the local water or air, or about where the nearest hazardous wastes sites were located.