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.

 

Green Remediation: Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint Analysis

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) recently updated a set of analytical workbooks known as “SEFA” (Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint Analysis) to help decision-makers analyze the environmental footprint of a site cleanup project, determine which cleanup activities drive the footprint, and adjust project parameters to reduce the footprint. Information to be input by the user may be gathered from project planning documents, field records and other existing resources. Automated calculations within SEFA generate outputs that quantify 21 metrics corresponding to core elements of a greener cleanup.

 

Environmental Footprint Summary

Core Element Green Remediation Metric Unit of Measure
Materials & Waste M&W-1 Refined materials used on site tons
M&W-2 Percent of refined materials from recycled or waste material percent
M&W-3 Unrefined materials used on site tons
M&W-4 Percent of unrefined materials from recycled or waste material percent
M&W-5 Onsite hazardous waste generated tons
M&W-6 Onsite non-hazardous waste generated tons
M&W-7 Percent of total potential onsite waste that is recycled or reused percent
Water Onsite water use (by source)
W-1 – Source, use, fate combination #1 millions of gallons
W-2 – Source, use, fate combination #2 millions of gallons
W-3 – Source, use, fate combination #3 millions of gallons
W-4 – Source, use, fate combination #4 millions of gallons
Energy E-1 Total energy use MMBtu
E-2 Total energy voluntarily derived from renewable resources
E-2A – Onsite generation or use and biodiesel use MMBtu
E-2B – Voluntary purchase of renewable electricity MWh
E-2C – Voluntary purchase of RECs MWh
Air A-1 Onsite NOx, SOx, and PM10 emissions lbs
A-2 Onsite HAP emissions lbs
A-3 Total NOx, SOx, and PM10 emissions lbs
A-4 Total HAP emissions lbs
A-5 Total GHG emissions tons CO2e
Land & Ecosystems

Qualitative description

SEFA was first released in 2012 and updated in 2014. In 2019, SEFA was updated to incorporate new default footprint conversion factors for additional materials, diesel or gasoline engines of various sizes, and laboratory analyses. The 2019 update (Version 3.0) also provides additional areas for entering user-defined footprint conversion factors.

Instructions for SEFA Users

  • SEFA comprises three internally linked workbooks (files) in a standard spreadsheet (Excel) format; the files should be saved in a single directory to assure accurate/complete data exchange.
  • Optimal functioning of the workbooks relies on use of Microsoft Office 2013 or higher.
  • An “Introduction” worksheet (tab) in the “Main” workbook provides an overview of SEFA, including its data structure.
  • Technical support in using SEFA is not available outside the Agency; other parties interested in using or adapting the workbooks may wish to obtain technical assistance from qualified environmental or engineering professionals.

Supporting Methodology

EPA’s “Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project’s Environmental Footprint” report provides a seven-step process for quantifying the 21 metrics associated with a site cleanup. The report also addresses the value of footprint analysis; discusses the level of effort and cost involved in footprint analysis; details interpretative considerations; provides illustrative approaches to reducing a cleanup project’s environmental footprint; and contains related planning checklists and reference tables.

Newest Guidance on Implementing Advanced Site Characterization Tools

The United States Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) recently published their newest guidance document, Implementing Advanced Site Characterization Tools.  Advanced site characterization tools (ASCTs) are capable of rapid implementation and data generation and can be used to provide data for a more precise and accurate conceptual site model. Although these tools have been available for several years, they often are not used because users perceive them to be expensive and unavailable, or do not understand how ASCTs work and how to interpret the acquired data.

Over the past two years, a team of environmental experts worked together to create this comprehensive guidance to assist stakeholders with the selection and application of ASCTs, as well as the interpretation of data gathered by ASCTs to evaluate the best cleanup options for a project. The guidance divides ASCTs into four categories: Direct Sensing, Borehole Geophysical, Surface Geophysical, and Remote Sensing.

To support the selection and use of ASCTs, this free guidance includes:

  • An ASCT Selection Tool that provides an interactive dataset to identify appropriate tools for collecting geologic, hydrologic, and chemical data,
  • Summary Tables that provide additional information to evaluate the applicability of each tool,
  • Case Studies that provide examples of the use of tools at a site,
  • Checklists that provide information to be considered when planning to use a tool, describe typical content of a report, and identify appropriate quality control checks, and
  • Training Videos that provide an overview of the ASCT document and examples of the application of select tools.

Access the document by visiting https://asct-1.itrcweb.org/


About the U.S. ITRC

The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) is a state-led coalition working to reduce barriers to the use of innovative environmental technologies and approaches so that compliance costs are reduced and cleanup efficacy is maximized. ITRC produces documents and training that broaden and deepen technical knowledge and expedite quality regulatory decision making while protecting human health and the environment. With private and public sector members from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, ITRC truly provides a national perspective.

Researchers develop sponge for recovering oil from wastewater

Researchers at the University at Imperial College London and the University of Toronto have developed a cost-effective sponge that can soak up oil relatively fast (less than 10 minutes). The research article, found in the Journal Nature, describes an innovative surface-engineered sponge (SEnS) that synergistically combines surface chemistry, charge and roughness.  The sponge is adept at adsorbing crude oil microdroplets.

The team of chemical engineers led by Pavani Cherukupally sought to find a solution by turning to polyurethane foam, a common material used in everyday household items like mattresses. Although polyurethane foam has good oil absorption properties, it only works well under certain conditions of acidity, which can strengthen or weaken the affinity between oil droplets and the sponge.

“It’s all about strategically selecting the characteristics of the pores and their surfaces. Commercial sponges already have tiny pores to capture tiny droplets. Polyurethane sponges are made from petrochemicals, so they have already had chemical groups which make them good at capturing droplets,” said Cherukupally.  “The problem was that we had fewer chemical groups than what was needed to capture all the droplets.”

The researchers developed a coating that alters the foam’s texture, chemistry, and charge, thus making it more suitable for a broad range of situations. When viewed under a microscope, the coating contains hair-like particles of nanocrystalline silicon that act like fishing rods for the oil droplets.

“The critical surface energy concept comes from the world of biofouling research—trying to prevent microorganisms and creatures like barnacles from attaching to surfaces like ship hulls,” Dr. Cherukupally said in a statement.  “Normally, you want to keep critical surface energy in a certain range to prevent attachment, but in our case, we manipulated it to get droplets to cling on tight.”

The sponge can remove microdroplets of crude oil in less than 10 minutes.  An earlier version of the sponge the the research team developed was able to remove over 95% of the oil in the tested samples, but it took three hours to achieve to same level of removal.

When tested under four different scenarios of acidity, the coated foam soaked up between 95% and 99% of the oil in approximately 10 minutes.  One of the great aspects of the sponge is that it can be reused after being washed with a solvent to remove the oil.  The oil can be recycled.

University of Saskatchewan Professor provides insight on oil spill remediation

A December 9th train derailment near the near Guernsey, Saskatchewan resulted in a spill of an estimated 1.5 million litres of crude oil.  According to Canadian Pacific Railway, it will take a number of weeks to clean up the spill.  The  Canadian Transportation Safety Board stated that 33 oil tank cars and one hopper car derailed.  Guernsey is approximately 115 kilometres southeast of Saskatoon.

In an interview with Global News, soil science professor Steven Siciliano noted details about how fast oil was spilling out of tank cars could make a difference.  “If it’s slowly seeping, what happens is you can kind of imagine a sort of pancakes, so then it doesn’t go as deep. Whereas if it’s rapidly spilling, it can actually get deeper into the soil. And the deeper in the soil it gets, the harder and harder it can get to remediate,” said the professor in the interview.  He added the Prairies have glacial till soil, which means it is made up of large clay layers which make it hard for water and air to go through them and making clearing oil very difficult.

Prof. Steve Siciliano, U of  Saskatchewan

Professor Siciliano is the NSERC/FCL Industrial Research Chair in In Situ Remediation and Risk Assessment Director, CREATE Human and Ecological Risk Assessment Program at the University of Saskatchewan.  Current and recent research projects undertaken by Professor Siciliano include modelling and assessing the transfer of pollutants from soil to children, development of new soil toxicity test methods and approaches for Antarctic and the Arctic, and assessment of cardiovascular effects of metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Siciliano added many regions don’t have soil that freezes, which means techniques used in other areas won’t be as successful at the derailment site. He said many technologies have been developed in places like Oklahoma, California and southern Ontario, but the soil in Western Canada is much different from those places.

In a 2017 article in the Conversation, Professor Siciliano provided insight into various methods for managing oil spills including in-situ remediation.  In the article he provides estimates for “dig-and-dump” versus in-situ remediation.  He estimated dig-and-dump costing $150 per cubic yard of soil or more ($300 per cubic yard) in remote areas whereas the pricetag for in situ remediation can be as little as $20 to $80 per cubic yard.

 

 

 

Fukushima: Lessons learned from soil decontamination after nuclear accident

Following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in March 2011, the Japanese authorities carried out major decontamination works in the affected area, which covered more than 9,000 square kilometres ( 3,470 square miles). On Dec. 12, 2019, with most of this work having been completed, researchers provided an overview of the decontamination strategies used and their effectiveness in the Scientific Journal Soil.

Of primary concern after the Fukushima nuclear incident was the release of radioactive cesium in the environment because this radioisotope was emitted in large quantities during the accident,  it has a half-life of 30 years, and it constitutes the highest risk to the local population in the medium and long term.

This analysis in the journal provides new scientific lessons on decontamination strategies and techniques implemented in the municipalities affected by the radioactive fallout from the Fukushima accident. This synthesis indicates that removing the surface layer of the soil to a thickness of 5 cm, the main method used by the Japanese authorities to clean up cultivated land, has reduced cesium concentrations by about 80% in treated areas.

The removal of the uppermost part of the topsoil, which has proved effective in treating cultivated land, has cost the Japanese state about $35 billion (Cdn.).  This technique generates a significant amount of waste, which is difficult to treat, to transport and to store for several decades in the vicinity of the power plant, a step that is necessary before it is shipped to final disposal sites located outside Fukushima district by 2050. By early 2019, Fukushima’s decontamination efforts had generated about 20 million cubic metres of waste.

Decontamination activities have mainly targeted agricultural landscapes and residential areas. The review points out that the forests have not been cleaned up -because of the difficulty and very high costs that these operations would represent – as they cover 75% of the surface area located within the radioactive fallout zone.

 

Supreme Court of Canada finds two forest-product companies must pay for remedial work

Written by Peter Brady and Claire Seaborn, McCarthy Tétrault

On December 6, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) found in R v Resolute FP Canada Inc., 2019 SCC 60 (“Resolute”) that two forest-product companies, Resolute and Weyerhaeuser, are on the hook to pay for remedial work at a waste site in Northwestern Ontario.

Resolute and Weyerhaeuser are successors of the companies that abandoned the waste site decades ago. They sought to rely on an indemnity agreement from 1985 between the Government of Ontario and their predecessor companies to argue that they were not responsible for the site’s monitoring and maintenance.

The decision was split 4-3. The majority of judges found that the indemnity agreement did not protect the companies from the province’s remediation order. As a result, Resolute and Weyerhaeuser, and not the provincial government, were found to be responsible for the costs of compliance.

History of industrial activity, contamination and adverse health effects at the site

The history of this case dates back to the 1960s when a pulp and paper mill operated in Dryden, Ontario. The mill bleached paper using a process that involved mercury, which was dumped into the nearby English and Wabigoon rivers. The mercury waste flowed downstream, which resulted in harm to health of some local residents (including members of the Grassy Narrows and Islington First Nations) the closure of a commercial fishery and damage to the region’s tourism industry.[1]

In the mid-1970s, a company called Great Lakes Forest Products was interested in buying the properties where the pulp and paper mill were located from its owner, Reed Ltd. In an effort to ensure the mill remained operational and provided local jobs, the Government of Ontario entered into an indemnity agreement with Great Lakes Forest Products in 1979. Under the indemnity agreement, Great Lakes Forest Products agreed to spend $200 million to expand and upgrade the mill, and the Government of Ontario agreed to cover the costs of past pollution above $15 million.[2]

Meanwhile, the Grassy Narrows and Islington First Nations commenced litigation regarding the mercury contamination in 1977 that ended with a settlement in 1985. When the settlement was reached, the Government of Ontario granted a new 1985 indemnity agreement to Reed Ltd., Great Lakes Forest Products Limited and their successors and assigns for the mercury contamination.[3]

Ontario Ministry of the Environment issues a remediation order in 2011

Twenty-six years later, on August 25, 2011, Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment issued a remediation order for environmental monitoring and maintenance at the waste site where the mill had operated in Dryden, Ontario (“Remediation Order”).[4]

The Remediation Order was issued as a “Director’s Order” under what is now s. 18 of Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act, and imposed three main obligations:

  1. to repair certain site erosion, perform specific groundwater and surface water testing, and file annual reports containing specified information;
  2. deliver to the Ministry of the Environment the sum of $273,063 as financial assurance in respect of the waste disposal site; and
  3. to “take all reasonable measures to ensure that any discharge of a contaminant to the natural environment is prevented and any adverse effect that may result from such a discharge is dealt with according to all legal requirements.”[5]

The property’s ownership had changed several times in that period. The Remediation Order was issued to two former owners of the property: Bowater (which later became Resolute) and Weyerhaeuser.

Weyerhaeuser and Resolute successful in courts below

In May 2013, Weyerhaeuser sought a declaration from the Superior Court of Justice that the 1985 indemnity agreement required the Government of Ontario to compensate for all of the costs of complying with the Remediation Order.[6] Resolute intervened. Ontario submitted that it was not responsible for compliance costs.

All three parties moved for summary judgment. The motions judge held that the 1985 indemnity agreement applied to the Remediation Order and granted summary judgement in favour of Weyerhaeuser and Resolute.[7] Ontario appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that the 1985 indemnity agreement applied to the Remediation Order; however, it applied that decision only to Weyerhaeuser and found that Resolute had assigned its benefit under the agreement.[8]

SCC decision: the 1985 indemnity agreement does not cover the Remediation Order

By a narrow margin of 4-3, SCC overturned the courts below and found that the 1985 indemnity agreement did not apply to Remediation Order, thereby leaving Resolute and Weyerhaeuser on the hook to pay for remediation costs.

The majority’s key findings include:

  • The 1985 agreement only provided an indemnity for claims brought by “third parties.” The provincial government was a party to the 1985 agreement, and therefore cannot be considered a third party.
  • The 1985 agreement was intended to cover only “pollution claims” (a term defined in the agreement). The Remediation Order is not a “pollution claim” since it requires monitoring and maintenance to prevent more pollution, and is not intended to stop ongoing pollution.[9]
  • The 1985 agreement must be considered in the context of prior indemnities and the settlement with Grassy Narrows and Islington First Nations. This context indicates that the 1985 indemnity agreement should apply more narrowly and was not intended to provide protection against the costs of regulatory compliance.[10]

While the “polluter-pays principle” is not referenced explicitly in the decision, the SCC has interpreted the 1985 indemnity agreement in such a way as to hold successor companies liable for past environmental contamination, as opposed to requiring the provincial government to foot the bill.

Parallels to the recent decisions in Orphan Wells and HBBC

The Resolute decision comes less than a year after the SCC released its decision in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited, 2019 SCC 5 (“Orphan Wells”), another case in which a successor entity was liable for historic environmental cleanup costs.

In Orphan Wells, the SCC held a bankrupt energy company’s estate liable for abandonment and reclamation obligations for certain old oil and gas wells. These environmental responsibilities were found to take priority over obligations to pay back creditors in the case of insolvency or bankruptcy. Like in Resolute, the SCC in Orphan Wells overturned the appellate court below and reached a decision ensuring that taxpayers were not left paying for environmental remediation.

Please refer to the article, “Redwater – SCC Delivers the Final Word”, for an in-depth summary and analysis of the Orphan Wells decision.

The issue of ongoing regulatory liability for contamination for “non polluters” and/or successor companies was also front and center in the Hamilton Beach Brands Canada, Inc.  v Ontario (Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change), 2018 ONSC 5010 (“HBBC”).

In HBBC the Ontario Ministry of Environment issued an Order to three parties to take steps to delineate and monitor (with the potential for future remediation) ground water contamination that had migrated from an industrial property to surrounding commercial, residential and municipal lands. The contamination had occurred decades early through actions of a prior lessee of the property. The Orderees were a corporate successor of a prior owner of the property, the current owner and the current Lessee of the property.

The Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal (“ERT”) dismissed the appeal of the Order, rejecting the argument that the Order under s. 18 of the Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act could not apply to off site contamination that was not caused by the Orderees.[11] The Ontario Divisional Court, on Review, upheld the ERT decision holding that there is no geographical constraint limiting orders to the source property of the contamination.[12] Leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was sought and refused.[13]

What comes next

The Resolute decision has not quite ended the series of legal disputes that have plagued this Dryden, Ontario site for decades, but has provided clarity on how the 1985 indemnity agreement ought to be interpreted.

In a statement, Resolute indicated that it would continue its monitoring of the site and posting of financial assurance while an appeal of the Remediation Order proceeds to the ERT.

We can help

Our team at McCarthy Tétrault has experience navigating the legal and regulatory uncertainties that arise in environmental matters. If you would like more information on these developments and their potential impact on your business, we can help. Please contact Peter Brady or Claire Seaborn with any questions or for assistance.

[1] R v Resolute FP Canada Inc., 2019 SCC 60 at para 4.

[2] R v Resolute FP Canada Inc., 2019 SCC 60 at para 9.

[3] R v Resolute FP Canada Inc., 2019 SCC 60 at para 13.

[4] R v Resolute FP Canada Inc., 2019 SCC 60 at para 20.

[5] R v Resolute FP Canada Inc., 2019 SCC 60 at para 20.

[6] R v Resolute FP Canada Inc., 2019 SCC 60 at para 22.

[7] Weyerhaeuser Company Limited v Ontario (Attorney General), 2016 ONSC 4652.

[8] Weyerhaeuser Company Limited v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2017 ONCA 1007. Note that in dissent, Justice Laskin had found that the 1985 indemnity agreement only applied to claims brought by third parties, and not regulatory claims by governments.

[9] R v Resolute FP Canada Inc., 2019 SCC 60 at para 14-28.

[10] R v Resolute FP Canada Inc., 2019 SCC 60 at para 30.

[11] Hamilton Beach Brands Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change), ERT Case No. 17-025.

[12] Hamilton Beach Brands Canada, Inc. v Ontario (Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change), 2018 ONSC 5010.

[13] The Ontario Court of Appeal refused leave on December 12, 2018: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/leave/2018.htm#refused.

This article has been republished with the permission of the authors.  It was first published on the McCarthy Tétrault ‘s website.


About the Authors

Peter Brady  is a partner in McCarthy Tétrault ‘s Litigation and Mining Groups and co-head of the firm’s National Environmental, Regulatory & Aboriginal Group. He regularly advises and represents clients in all legal aspects of regulatory litigation, with particular emphasis in the areas of environmental law, occupational health & safety law, mining law, and extractive industry projects. Peter also has significant experience in anti-corruption compliance, investigations, and due diligence for transactions involving Canada, Indonesia, China, the USA, and Africa.

Claire Seaborn’s litigation practice focuses on commercial disputes, public law and regulatory matters. She draws from her experience in the public and private sectors in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. Claire’s involvement in high-profile and high-stakes files has sharpened her ability to advocate for her clients and provide sound legal advice.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. EPA Green Remediation Best Management Practices

Excavation and Site Remediation

Excavation of soil, sediment or waste material is often undertaken at contaminated sites to address immediate risk to human health or the environment; prepare for implementation of remediation technologies and construction of supporting infrastructure; and address contaminant hot spots in soil or sediment.

The excavation and subsequent backfilling processes rely on use of heavy earth-moving machinery and often involve managing large volumes of material. Many opportunities exist to reduce the environmental footprint of the various cleanup activities and improve ultimate restoration of the disturbed land, surface water and ecosystems.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Fact Sheet outlines specific best management practices (BMPs) that can be used to minimize the environmental footprint concerning emission of air pollutants and use of water, energy, and other resources at excavation sites. The refined set of BMPs is based on recent experiences reported by regulators, property owners, cleanup service contractors and other stakeholders in the cleanup community.

Sites with Leaking Underground Storage Tank Systems

The U.S. EPA estimates that approximately 65,450 releases of petroleum or hazardous substances from federally regulated underground storage tanks (USTs) had not yet reached the “cleanup completed” milestone as of September 2018.  The Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) estimates that in 2017, alone, state cleanup funds collectively spent approximately $1.113 billion in cleaning up UST releases.

Use of green remediation best management practices (BMPs) can help minimize the environmental footprint of cleanup activities at UST-contaminated sites and improve overall outcomes of the corrective actions. In accordance with the EPA Principles for Greener Cleanups, BMPs outlined in the updated “Green Remediation Best Management Practices: Sites with Leaking Underground Storage Tanks” fact sheet are intended to complement federal requirements for corrective actions at UST-contaminated sites and may enhance state-administered UST program requirements.

Nova Scotia’s Auditor General Concerned about Mine Contamination

In a recent report issued by Nova Scotia’s Auditor says more work needs to be done to address contaminated mine sites throughout the province.

“I drew attention to this accounting because the cost to clean up the province’s contaminated sites could significantly change in the future as the province collects more information on these sites,” Michael Pickup, Nova Scotia’s Auditor General said.

This was the first year the report drew attention to accounting for contaminated sites. The report showed that contaminated site liabilities increased to $372 million in 2019 compared to $107 million five years ago.

According to Pickup’s report, the Department of Lands and Forestry’s investigations of contamination at abandoned mine sites is lacking, leaving a risk of unknown financial, ecological and human health concerns. The report also found an additional 63 mine sites with no liability for remediation because the contamination extent is unknown.

Historical Gold Mining Area Map for Nova Scotia

“Those sorts of legacy sites, unfortunately, date from a period in which there really wasn’t environmental science and people just didn’t have a good understanding of our impact on the environment,” says Sean Kirby, the Executive Director of the Mining Association of Nova Scotia.