Incident and Emergency Management Market Worth $156.1 billion by 2025

According to a new market research report, “Incident and Emergency Management Market by Component, (Solutions (Emergency/Mass Notification System, Perimeter Intrusion Detection, and Fire and HAZMAT), Services, and Communication Systems), Simulation, Vertical, and Region – Global Forecast to 2025“, published by MarketsandMarkets™, the global Incident and Emergency Management Market size is expected to grow from USD 117.2 billion in 2020 to USD 156.1 billion by 2025, at a CAGR of 5.9% during the forecast period.

Occurrence of unpredictable natural disasters due to the ever-changing climate conditions and growth in terrorist attacks and criminal activities are some of the major factors driving the growth of the market.

The consulting service segment is expected to hold a larger size during the forecast period within the incident and emergency management market

Robust processes and planning are required to prepare for emergencies. Many companies provide emergency planning, consulting, and process development services. These services are provided at local, state, and federal levels. Companies design, develop, plan, and prepare for natural and man-made disasters, and provide end-to-end consulting services for emergency management.

Consulting services include technology consulting in planning and designing of emergency management and preparedness infrastructure. These services ultimately ensure the increased realization of benefits, along with enabling proactive risk management and better alignment of program objectives and business goals. Companies such as Lockheed Martin provide government organizations and enterprises with consulting services for the incident and emergency management.

First responder tools segment to grow at a higher rate during the forecast period

First responder tools include all the technology devices that assist departments and teams in providing early aid or action during an emergency. The first responders include medical teams, police and security personnel, and fire departments. These first responders use sophisticated communication devices that can be used during emergencies, which include wearable devices such as smart glass, smartwatch, wearable camera, Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA), Ultra High Frequency (UHF) and Very High Frequency (VHF) radios, and land mobile radios.

Many communication companies are coming up with public safety LTE communication solutions, along with next-generation software-defined radios and cognitive radios. Though radios have traditionally been the most commonly used first responder tools in case of emergencies, the use of smartphones and smart devices are the most preferred first responder tools, which has increased tremendously over the past decade. In the current scenario, smart gateways can connect sensors, such as body cameras, heart rate monitors, and locator beacons worn by the first responders and feed that data back to a command center so that it can be accessed at a later stage.

The fire and HAZMAT solutions are expected to hold the largest market size during the forecast period

The fire and HAZMAT solution helps in detecting and assessing chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive materials. It helps the first responders in detecting contaminations caused due to hazardous materials. Various companies provide devices that are used for hazardous material monitoring in public places and send alerts to EOCs in case of potential threats.

Fire and HAZMAT solution is adopted majorly among verticals, such as commercial and industrial, government and defense, energy and utilities, and healthcare. The fire and HAZMAT solution also helps the security and public organizations in Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) and Improvised Explosive Device Disposal (IEDD) for bomb disposal operations. With the help of GPS-enabled devices, wireless connectivity, man-down alarms, biometric tracking, and tablet integration, Fire and HAZMAT solution prevent from any loss caused by the disaster. FLIR Systems, Chemring Detection Systems (CDS), Bruker, MSA, Smiths Detection, and Environics Oy are the major market players that provide these systems.

North America to hold the largest market size during the forecast period

North America is expected to hold the largest market size in the global incident and emergency management market, while Asia Pacific (APAC) is likely to grow at the highest CAGR during the forecast period. North America is expected to be the leading region in terms of adopting incident and emergency management solutions and services. The developed economies of North America, such as the US and Canada, there is a high focus on innovations obtained from Research and Development (R&D) and technology. The APAC region is expected to be the fastest-growing region in the incident and emergency management market, due to an increase in government expenditure on emergency and disaster management systems to safeguard people from disasters.

Key market players

Major vendors in the global incident and emergency management market include Honeywell (US), Lockheed Martin (US), Motorola Solutions (US), Siemens (Germany), NEC Corporation (Japan), Collins Aerospace (US), IBM (US), Hexagon (Sweden), Esri (US), MissionMode (US), Alert Technologies (US), The Response Group (US), Everbridge (US), Juvare (US), Haystax Technology (US), Veoci (US), MetricStream (US), Noggin (Australia), LogicGate (US), 4C Strategies (Sweden), Resolver (Canada), BlackBerry (Canada), Eaton (Ireland), Blackboard (US), Desktop Alert (US), OnSolve (US), Singlewire Software (US), xMatters (US), Alertus (US), and Johnson Controls (Ireland). These vendors have adopted various organic and inorganic growth strategies, such as new product launches, partnerships and collaborations, and mergers and acquisitions, to expand their presence in the global incident and emergency management market further.

Honeywell (US) is Honeywell provides dedicated emergency management solutions for secured communications and emergency alerts. Honeywell’s emergency management solutions are not only restricted to governmental organizations but are also used in educational institutions, private organizations, and critical infrastructures. This diversified portfolio of emergency management products has helped the company to increase its reach in the incident and emergency management market. Honeywell focuses on acquisitions and new product launch as part of its core development strategy in the incident and emergency management industry.

Recent developments

  • In May 2020, Honeywell launched a new line of production to develop disposable face masks for helping the UK government during the COVID-19 pandemic..
  • In March 2019, Lockheed Martin launched LTE-over-Satellite system to deliver connectivity to remote regions to help enterprises in natural disasters, such as hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes, catastrophic floods, or volcanoes.
  • In May 2019, Siemens introduced Cerberus Portal, a cloud-based online fire protection software to monitor fire systems. With this software, the fire panel data is transferred to the cloud via the Cerberus Connect X300 gateway using encrypted transmission technology and a built-in firewall. In case of any fire incidents, maintenance personnel receives real-time information to react promptly, inform customers, and prepare site visits.

Critical questions the report answers

  • What are new market segments to focus over the next 2–5 years for prioritizing the efforts and investments?
  • What are the current trends that are driving the incident and emergency management market?
  • Who are the top vendors in the market, and what is their competitive analysis?
  • What are the innovations and developments done by the major market players?
  • What are the regulatory implications that impact the market directly and indirectly?
  • Which region is expected to lead the global market at the end of the forecast period?

 

CarMax Settles Lawsuit related to Unlawful Handling and Disposal of Hazardous Materials

Seventeen District Attorney’s in California recently settled an environmental protection action against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC. The settlement was based on the unlawful handling and disposal of various hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. The action was filed in Orange County Superior Court.

Waste inspections conducted at various CarMax locations in the seventeen Counties uncovered systemic violations of the management and disposal of hazardous waste items and confidential customer information.

“Today’s settlement is a win for the environment,” stated Alameda District Attorney Nancy O’Malley in a news release. “I want to make it very clear to any business operating in Alameda County and the state of California: there is no excuse for improper disposal of hazardous waste. You put us all at risk when you pollute our soil and our waterways. The state as well as local district attorneys will continue to work together to investigate and bring to justice businesses that ignore our important environmental protection laws.”

Nancy E. O’Malley, Alameda County District Attorney

CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC. is an automotive retailer that operates more than 190 dealerships in at least 28 states, including California. In the ordinary course of business, CarMax handles, transports, stores, manages, uses and disposes of hazardous materials. Additionally, CarMax generates regulated quantities of hazardous waste from its automotive inspection, service and repair departments. Numerous inspections by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control along with local environmental regulators found that CarMax facilities were out of compliance with the hazardous materials and hazardous waste laws.

District Attorney Investigators from several counties conducted undercover inspections of CarMax’s trash containers, which revealed the illegal disposal of hazardous auto body sanding dust, sanding pads, automotive paints, clear coats, solvents, non-empty aerosols, other hazardous substances used during the auto body repair process, and confidential customer information.

In accordance with the Hazardous Waste Control Law and Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, the stipulated judgment mandates training, reporting and compliance with the regulations on hazardous materials, and hazardous wastes. The settlement totaling $ 1,600,000 requires CarMax to pay $1,000,000 in civil penalties and $300,000 for investigative costs. CarMax will also make an additional payment of $300,000 to fund supplemental environmental projects furthering consumer protection and environmental enforcement in California. CarMax was cooperative throughout the investigation and implemented training and compliance programs at each of its facilities.

The case was brought in conjunction with the District Attorney’s offices of Orange, Riverside, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Fresno, Stanislaus, Kern, Ventura, Sacramento, Placer, San Diego, Solano, Sonoma, Santa Clara, San Mateo and Contra Costa counties, where CarMax facilities are located.

Posted on Jun 11, 2020

Transport Canada Emergency Response Guidebook — 2020

The Emergency Response Guidebook 2020 edition will be available late spring 2020. For free paper copies’ pre-order, please send an email to: [email protected]

Who is eligible to get free paper copies?

Canadian First Responders from public emergency services such as:

  • municipal fire departments
  • police departments
  • ambulance services
  • RCMP
  • First Nation emergency services, can get free paper copies according to operational needs

These First Responders can get free paper copies according to operational needs, which include:

  • one paper copy of the Guidebook per emergency vehicle or per emergency kit bag (such as for volunteer firefighters who use their personal vehicle)
  • replacement copies as required for broken or damaged copies
  • copies used in class for in-house training purposes, on the condition they are to be retained for reuse in future classes
  • Canadian dispatch centers that pass on technical information about dangerous goods to First Responders can get a small number of free paper copies for use in the dispatch center
  • in remote areas where there are no First Responders available, other Canadian municipal, provincial, territorial or federal authorities acting as public emergency services may get free paper copies according to emergency response operational needs, if they are likely to be the first to arrive on scene of a dangerous goods incident
  • transportation of dangerous goods inspectors, remedial measures specialists and provincial inspectors who respond to dangerous goods accidents can get one free copy each for use during their duties

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.

Canada: COVID-19 – Impact On Environmental Compliance And Due Diligence

Written by Bryan J. Buttigieg, Miller Thomson LLP
As these strange times continue to evolve, it is important to ensure that all companies whose operations raise environmental compliance issues try to think through and plan for what might happen in the coming weeks and perhaps months. In particular, both self-imposed and regulatory quarantine protocols may have a significant impact on critical staff levels at a facility. While we are all deep into implementation of directives about working from home when we can, there are, of course, a number of essential jobs that require physical presence for a plant to operate properly.

Despite all the dramatic changes going on in our lives, all conditions of operating permits such as Environmental Compliance Approvals remain in full force, and all obligations such as spill prevention, spill remediation, spill reporting and regular compliance reporting continue to apply. It is never an excuse to say something happened due to a staff shortage. If there are insufficient resources to conduct an operation in full compliance of environmental obligations, there is an obligation to revise operating plans including if necessary, reducing production levels, rather than continuing business as usual in the expectation that regulators will somehow turn a blind eye to non-compliance.

Care needs to be taken to ensure that all safety and regulatory requirements continue to be met. Careful thought should be given as to what minimum staffing would be needed to keep a facility operating safely and in full compliance. Consideration will have to be given as to whether production changes are needed to reduce the risk of an undesirable incident due to unexpected staff shortages. There may, in turn, be impacts on supply chain and customer obligations. While cross border closures are not supposed to impact the movement of goods, what happens if border screening is in place and a driver with essential supplies is refused crossing? Consider communicating regularly with any spill response contractors who are on retainer or may be needed: Are they adequately staffed? Will they be in a position to respond if needed? If not, what other steps need to be taken? We are at the stage where these are becoming foreseeable events and as such planning is required in order to ensure as orderly and safe a transition as possible.

Consider creating a dedicated COVID-19 Environmental Compliance Team whose main purpose is to review all applicable environmental obligations and try to anticipate internal compliance risks in the event of reduced staffing levels. Ensure that if employees are asked to step into temporary roles due to the absence of others, proper training is given on all obligations including spill detection and reporting. Be prepared to make quick decisions and make changes as the situation evolves. Communicate decisions to all affected clearly and concisely and ensure there is a channel for employee feedback and comments as quite often, those in the field will be the first to identify practical difficulties with any changes to long standing work practices.

Proactive communication with the regulators might be a useful step to consider. While many government employees are also working from home, they continue to enforce regulatory obligations. Proactive communication with a local abatement officer might be a useful way to ensure there is awareness of any special steps you are taking and an ongoing dialogue to ensure any concerns raised by the regulator are addressed.

Similarly, industry organizations might have put some thought into protocols applicable to all members that would assist you in ensuring you are exercising the appropriate level of diligence. Consider the need for community communications with neighbours or neighbourhood groups at this stage.

As the current situation continues to develop, vigilance to ensure ongoing environmental compliance is going to remain of utmost importance in order to minimise any additional disruption to daily business operations beyond that being caused by events that cannot be controlled or foreseen.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.


Bryan Buttigieg is recognized as one of the leading practitioners of environmental law in Canada and is certified by the Law Society of Ontario as a specialist in Environmental Law. His practice includes a combination of litigation and transactional advice involving civil litigation and regulatory defence representation in environmental and occupational health and safety matters.

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. UNITED STATES: CHEMICAL FORECAST

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

II. KEY GLOBAL CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT PREDICTIONS

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

APPENDIX A: B&C SPEECHES AND WRITINGS

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

APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY

 

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.

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.

Ontario to promulgate Excess Soil Regulations

After much speculation and delay, the Province of Ontario finally announced that the On-site and Excess Soil Regulation will take effect on July 1, 2020.  In a speech at the Excess Soil Symposium in Ajax, Ontario, the Environmental Minister, Jeff Yurek announced that the government is moving ahead with making changes to and finalizing the regulations under the Environmental Protection Act.

“As Ontario’s population continues to grow, we need to ensure our valuable resources and prime land don’t go to waste,” said Minister Yurek. “These changes will remove barriers for communities, developers and property owners to clean up and redevelop vacant, contaminated lands and put them back into productive use. This will benefit the local economy and create jobs, and keep good, reusable soil out of our landfills.”

Under the new regulations, Ontario is clarifying rules on the management and transport of excess soil to help optimize the resources we have and reduce costs in development, which will benefit communities. Clear rules and new tools to work with municipalities and other law enforcement agencies will also strengthen enforcement of illegal dumping of excess soil. These regulatory changes will provide greater assurance that soil of the right quality is being reused locally, reduce greenhouse gas impacts from truck transportation, and prevent reusable soil from ending up in landfills.

Ontario’s government is moving forward with its commitment to make it safer and easier to use local excess soil and put vacant, prime lands back into good use

“The Ontario Home Builders’ Association is supportive of clarifying rules regarding the reuse and management of excess soils generated from construction sites,” said Joe Voccaro, CEO, Ontario Home Builders’ Association. “This will create business certainty, while ensuring the tracking and quality of soil being deposited and increasing opportunities for reuse on other sites. Furthermore, exempting historic road salting that was preventing developers from obtaining an RSC is a very positive amendment supporting new housing supply.”

Ontario is also reducing barriers to clean up brownfields, which are properties where past industrial or commercial activities may have left contamination, so underused land in prime locations can be cleaned up and put back to productive use, benefitting the neighbourhood and businesses. This will also provide developers with more certainty and opportunity to redevelop brownfield properties, while still maintaining human health and environmental protection.

Quick Facts

  • An estimated 25 million cubic metres of excess construction soil is generated each year.
  • The management of excess soil, including trucking and disposal fees, can account for a significant part of the costs in large development projects, accounting for an estimated 14 per cent of overall construction costs.
  • Soils travel long distances to either a landfill or reuse site. On average, a load of excess soil travels 65 km or more.
  • Greater local reuse of excess soils can save between five to 10 per cent of overall project costs.