Posts

Top Environmental Clean Up Projects throughout Canada

by David Nguyen, Staff Writer

1. The Randle Reef Contaminated Sediment Remediation Project – Hamilton, Ontario

Cost: $138.9 million

Contaminant: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
heavy metals

Approximately 60 hectares in size and containing 695 000 cubic metres of sediment contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals, the Randle Reef restoration project is three decades in the making. The pollution stems from various industries in the area including coal gasification, petroleum refining, steel making, municipal waste, sewage and overland drainage.1

Slated to be completed in three stages, the first stage involved the completion of a double steel sheet-piled walled engineered containment facility (ECF) around the most contaminated sediments, with stage 2 consists of dredging of the contaminated sediments into the ECF. Stage 3 will involve dewatering of the sediments in the ECF and treating the wastewater to discharge back into the lake, and the sediments will be capped with 60 cm of sand and silt enriched with organic carbon. This cap will both the isolate the contaminated sediments from the environment and form a foundation or future port structures. The ECF will be capped with layers of several material, including various sizes of aggregate, geo-textile and geo-grid, wickdrains, and asphalt and or concrete. This isolates the contaminants and provides a foundation for future port structures.

The project is expected to be completed by 2022 and cost $138.9 million. The Hamilton Port Authority will take over monitoring, maintenance, and development responsibilities of the facility for its expected 200-year life span. It is expected to provide $151 in economic benefits between job creation, business development, and tourism.

The Canada–United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement listed Hamilton harbour (which contains Randle Reef) as one of 43 Areas of Concern on the Great Lakes. Only 7 have been removed, 3 of which were in Canada.

2. Port Hope Area Initiative – Port
Hope, Ontario

Cost: $1.28 billion

Contaminant: low-level radioactive waste (LLRW),
industrial waste

The town of Port Hope, Ontario has about 1.2 million cubic metres of historic LLRW across various sites in the area. The soils and materials contain radium-226, uranium, arsenic, and other contaminants resulting from the refining process of radium and uranium between 1933 and 1988. Additional industrial waste containing metals, hydrocarbons, and dried sewage and sludge with copper and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) will also be contained at the new facility.

The material was spread across town as the tailings were given away for free to be used as fill material for backyards and building foundations. An estimated 800 properties are affected, but the low-level radiation poses little risk to humans. The Port Hope Area Initiative will cost $1.28 billion and will include monitoring before, during, and after the construction of a long term management waste facility (LTMWF).

The LTWMF will be an aboveground engineered storage mound on the site of an existing LLRW management facility to safely store and isolate the contaminated soil and material, as well as other industrial waste from the surrounding area. The existing waste will also be excavated and relocated to the engineered mound. Leachate collection system, monitoring wells, and sensors in the cover and baseliner will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the storage mound, allowing for long term monitoring of the waste.

The
facility also contains a wastewater treatment plant that will treat surface
water and groundwater during construction of the facility, as well as the
leachate after the completion of the storage mound. The plant utilizes a two
stage process of chemical precipitation and clarification (stage 1) and reverse
osmosis (stage 2) to treat the water to meet the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission requirements for water discharged to Lake Ontario.

3. Marwell Tar Pit – Whitehorse, Yukon
Territory

Cost: $6.8 million

Contaminant: petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs), heavy
metals

This
$6.8 million project funded by the governments of Canada and Yukon will
remediate the Marwell Tar Pit in Whitehorse, which contain 27 000 cubic metres
of soil and groundwater contaminated with hydrocarbons, such as
benz[a]anthracene and heavy and light extractable petroleum hydrocarbons and
naphthalene, and heavy metals such as manganese. Some of the tar has also migrated
from the site.

Contamination
began during the Second World War, when a crude oil refinery operated for less
than one year before closing and being dismantled. The sludge from the bottom
of dismantled storage tanks (the “tar”) was deposited in a tank berm, and over time
other industries and businesses added other liquid waste to the tar pit. In the
1960s the pit was capped with gravel, and in 1998 declared a “Designated
Contaminated Site.”

The
project consists of three phases: preliminary activities, remedial activities,
and post-remedial activities. The preliminary phase consisted of consolidating
and reviewing existing information and completing addition site assessment.

The
second phase of remedial activities began in July 2018 and involves
implementing a remedial action plan. Contaminated soil segregated and heated through
thermal conduction, which vaporizes the contaminants, then the vapours are
destroyed by burning. Regular testing is done to ensure air quality standards
are met. The main emissions from the site are carbon dioxide and water vapour. Remediated
soil is used to backfill the areas of excavation. This phase is expected to be
completed in 2019-2020.

The
final phase will involve the monitoring of the site to demonstrate the
remediation work has met government standards. This phase is planned to last
four years. The project began in 2011 and is expected to be completed in
2020-2021.

4. Boat Harbour – Nova Scotia

Cost: approx.$133 million

Contaminant: PHCs, PAHs, heavy metals, dioxins and
furans

The provinces largest contaminated site, Boar Harbour, is the wastewater lagoon for the local pulp mill in Abercrombie Point, as well as the discharge point for a former chemical supplier in the area. Prior to 1967, Boat Harbour was a saltwater tidal estuary covering 142 hectares, but a dam built in 1972 separated Boat Harbour from the ocean, and it is now a freshwater lake due to the receiving treated wastewater from the mill since the 1967.

The
wastewater effluent contains contaminants including dioxins and furans, PAHs, PHCs,
and heavy metals such as cadmium, mercury, and zinc. In 2015, the government of
Nova Scotia passed The Boat Harbour Act, which ordered that Boat Harbour cease
as the discharge point for the pulp mill’s treated wastewater in 2020, which
allows time to build a new wastewater treatment facility and time to plan the
remediation of Boat Harbour.

The
estimated cost of the cleanup is $133 million, which does not include the cost
of the new treatment facility. The goal is to return the harbour to its
original state as a tidal estuary. The project is currently in the planning
stages and updates can be found at https://novascotia.ca/boatharbour/.

5. Faro Mine – Faro, Yukon

Cost: projected$450 million

Contaminant: waste rock leachate and tailings

Faro Mine was once the largest open-pit lead-zinc mine in the world, and now contains about 70 million tonnes of tailings and 320 million tonnes of waste rock, which can potentially leach heavy metals and acids into the environment. The mine covers 25 square kilometres, and is located near the town of Faro in south-central Yukon, on the traditional territory of three Kasha First Nations – the Ross River Dena Council, Liard First Nation and Kaska Dena Council. Downstream of the mine are the Selkirk First Nation.

The
Government of Canada funds the project, as well as leads the maintenance, site
monitoring, consultation, and remediation planning process. The Government of
Yukon, First Nations, the Town of Faro, and other stakeholders are also responsible
for the project and are consulted regularly to provide input.

The
entire project is expected to take about 40 years, with main construction activities
to be completed by 2022, followed by about 25 years of remediation. The
remediation project includes upgrading dams to ensure tailings stay in place,
re-sloping waste rock piles, installing engineered soil covers over the
tailings and waste rock, upgrading stream diversions, upgrading contaminant
water collection and treatment systems.

6. Sylvia Grinnell River Dump – Iqaluit,
Nunavut

Cost: $5.4 million

Contaminant: PHCs, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), pesticides

Transport Canada awarded a contract of over $5.4 million in 2017 for a cleanup of a historic dump along the mouth of Sylvia Grinnell River in Iqaluit, Nunavut. The dump contains metal debris from old vehicles and appliances, fuel barrels, and other toxic waste from a U.S. air base, and is a site for modern day rogue dumping for items like car batteries. This has resulted in petroleum hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and other hazardous substances being identified in the area.

The Iqaluit airfield was founded in Frobisher Bay by the U.S. military during World War 2 as a rest point for planes flying to Europe. During the Cold War, the bay was used as part of the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line stations across the north to detect bombers from the Soviet Union. When the DEW was replaces by the North Warning System in the 1980s, these stations were abandoned and the contaminants and toxic waste left behind. Twenty-one of these stations were remediated by the U.S. Department of National Defence at a cost of about $575 in 2014.

The Sylvia Grinnell River remediation project is part of the Federal government’s responsibility to remediate land around the airfield that was transferred to the Government of Nunavut in the 1990s.The contract was awarded in August 2017 and was completed in October. The remaining nontoxic is sealed in a new landfill and will be monitored until 2020.

7. Greenwich-Mohawk Brownfield – Brantford,
Ontario

Cost: $40.78 million

Contaminant: PHC, PAC, heavy metals, vinyl
chloride

The
City of Brantford have completed a cleanup project of 148 000 cubic metres of
contaminated soil at the Greenwich-Mohawk brownfield site. The area was historically
the location of various farming manufacturing industries that shut down,
leaving behind contaminants like PHC, PAC, heavy metals like lead, xylene, and
vinyl chloride.

Cleanup
began in 2015, and consisted coarse grain screening, skimming, air sparging,
and recycling of 120 000 litres of oil from the groundwater, using biopiles to
treat contaminated soil onsite with 73% of it being reused and the rest
requiring off site disposal.

Barriers
were also installed to prevent future contamination from an adjacent rail line
property, as well as to contain heavy-end hydrocarbons discovered during the
cleanup that could not be removed due to the release odorous vapours throughout
the neighbourhood. The 20 hectare site took two years to clean and costed only
$40.78 million of the allocated $42.8 million between the all levels of
government, as well as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green
Municipal Fund.

8. Rock Bay Remediation Project –
Victoria, British Columbia

Cost: $60 million

Contaminant: PAHs, hydrocarbons, metals

Located near downtown Victoria and within the traditional territories of the Esquimalt Nation and Songhees Nation, the project entailed remediating 1.73 hectares of contaminated upland soils and 2.02 hectares of contaminated harbour sediments. The site was the location of a former coal gasification facility from the 1860s to the 1950s, producing waste products like coal tar (containing PAHs), metals, and other hydrocarbons, which have impacted both the sediments and groundwater at the site.

Remediation occurred in three stages. From 2004 to 2006, the first two stages involving the remediation of 50 300 tonnes of hazardous waste soils, 74 100 tonnes of non-hazardous waste soils, and 78 500 tonnes of contaminated soils above commercial land use levels. In 2009, 250 tonnes of hazardous waste were dredged from two sediment hotspots at the head of Rock Bay. About 7 million litres of hydrocarbon and metal impacted groundwater have been treated or disposed of, and an onsite wastewater treatment plant was used to return treated wastewater to the harbour.

Construction
for the final stage occurred between 2014 to 2016 and involved:

  • installing
    shoring along the property boundaries to remove up to 8 metres deep of
    contaminated soils,
  • installing
    a temporary coffer dams
  • draining
    the bay to remove the sediments in dry conditions, and
  • temporary
    diverting two storm water outfalls around the work area.

Stage
three removed 78 000 tonnes of contaminated and 15 000 tonnes of
non-contaminated sediment that were disposed of/ destroyed at offsite
facilities.

Final post-remediation monitoring was completed in January 2017, with post-construction monitoring for 5 years required as part of the habitat restoration plan to ensure the marine habitat is functioning properly and a portion of the site will be sold to the Esquimalt Nation and Songhees Nation.

9. Bushell Public Port Facility
Remediation Project – Black Bay (Lake Athabasca), Saskatchewan

Cost: $2 million

Contaminant: Bunker C fuel oil

 Built in 1951 and operated until the mid-1980s, the Bushell Public Port Facility consist of two lots covering 3.1 hectares with both upland and water lots. The facility supplied goods and services to the local mines, and petroleum products to the local communities of Bushell and Uranium City. Historical activities like unloading, storing, and loading fuel oil, as well as a large spill in the 1980s resulted in the contaminated soil, blast rock, and bedrock in Black Bay that have also extended beyond the waterlot boundaries.

The remediation work occurred between 2005 to 2007, and involved excavation of soil and blast rock, as well as blasting and removing bedrock where oil had entered through cracks and fissures.

Initial
remediation plans were to crush and treat the contaminated material by low
temperature thermal desorption, which incinerates the materials to burn off the
oil residue. However, opportunities for sustainable reuse of the contaminated
material came in the use of the contaminated crush rock for resurfacing of the
Uranium City Airport. This costed $1.75 million less than the incineration
plan, and saved the airport project nearly 1 million litres of diesel fuel. The
crush was also used by the Saskatchewan Research Council in the reclamation of
the Cold War Legacy Uranium Mine and Mill Sites. A long term monitoring event
is planned for 2018.

10. Thunder Bay North Harbour –
Thunder Bay, Ontario

Cost: estimated at upwards to $50 million

Contaminant: Paper sludge containing mercury and other contaminants

 While all of the projects discussed so far have either been completed or are currently in progress, in Thunder Bay, the plans to clean up the 400 000 cubic metres of mercury contaminated pulp and fibre have been stalled since 2014 due to no organization or government designated to spearhead the cleanup.

While
the water lot is owned by Transport Canada, administration of the site is the
responsibility of the Thunder Bay Port Authority, and while Transport Canada
has told CBC that leading the cleanup is up to the port, the port authority was
informed by Transport Canada that the authority should only act in an advisory
role. Environmental Canada has participated in efforts to advance the planning
of the remediation work, but is also not taking the lead in the project either.
Further complications are that the industries responsible for the pollution no
longer exist.

Industrial activities over 90 years have resulted in the mercury contamination, which range in concentrations between 2 to 11 ppm on surface sediments to 21 ppm at depth. The thickness ranges from 40 to 380 centimetres and is about 22 hectares in size. Suggested solutions in 2014 include dredging the sediment and transferring it to the Mission Bay Confined Disposal Facility, capping it, or building a new containment structure. As of October 2018, a steering committee lead by Environment Canada, Transport Canada, Ontario’s environmental ministry and the Thunder Bay Port Authority, along with local government, Indigenous groups, and other stakeholders met to evaluate the remediation options, as well as work out who will lead the remediation.

New Year, New Environmental Rules: Alberta’s Revised Remediation Rules Take Effect in 2019

by Dufferin Harper and Lindsey Mosher, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

On January 1, 2019, significant amendments to Alberta’s Remediation Certificate Regulation came into force. These include:

  • Renaming the regulation the Remediation Regulation
  • Creating a site-based remediation certificate
  • Creating a new reporting requirement for impacts
  • Defaulting to the application of Tier 1 rather than Tier 2 Guidelines
  • Issuing a Tier 2 compliance letter
  • Establishing a new mandatory remedial measures timeline

As discussed in more detail below, many of the amendments address long-standing concerns within the existing remediation certification process. However, in several instances they also introduce new areas of regulatory uncertainty.

SITE-BASED REMEDIATION CERTIFICATE

One of the primary concerns with the existing regime is that it is too limited in scope. Although it provides for remediation certificates to be issued for specific areas of land impacted by a contaminant release, it does not enable a property owner to obtain regulatory signoff for a complete site as opposed to only an area of a site.

In response to that concern, the Remediation Regulation introduces a new type of remediation certificate applicable to a complete site, which is referred to as a “site-based remediation certificate”. A site-based remediation certificate confirms that all contaminants and areas of potential concern both on and off site have been addressed and necessarily involves the submission of more extensive documentation than what is required for a limited remediation certificate.  To assist in the application process, the Alberta government is expected to develop and release a new application form and guide for a site-based remediation certificate application prior to January 2019.

NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENT

A person responsible for a release currently has a statutory obligation to report the release. In addition to this existing obligation, the Remediation Regulation imposes an additional obligation to report any new information about the “impact” of a released substance. Neither of the terms “new information”, nor “impact”, are defined in the Remediation Regulation, and it remains to be seen what additional guidance, if any, will be provided to clarify the scope of the additional obligation. Until that occurs, or until the courts clarify the scope of the obligation, uncertainty will likely prevail.

APPLICATION OF TIER 1 VERSUS TIER 2 GUIDELINES

Under the current Remediation Certificate Regulation, a person applying for a remediation certificate may elect to apply either generic Tier 1 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines (Tier 1 Guidelines) or site -specific Tier 2 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines (Tier 2 Guidelines).

The Remediation Regulation removes this discretionary election. Instead, the Tier 1 Guidelines will always be the default remediation standard. Regulatory approval will be required to remediate to Tier 2 Guidelines.

TIER 2 COMPLIANCE LETTER

Another major concern (and criticism) of the existing regime involves the situation where contaminant levels exceed Tier 1 Guidelines but not Tier 2 Guidelines. In such a situation, if the Tier 2 Guidelines are applied, the affected area will not require remediation. Notwithstanding the levels exceed Tier 1 Guidelines and would otherwise require remediation but for the application of the Tier 2 Guidelines, the regulator’s position is that, since there has been no “remediation”, it is unable to issue a “remediation certificate”.  The Remediation Regulation addresses this situation, albeit indirectly.  Rather than amending the scenarios under which a remediation certificate can be issued to account for the above situation, the Remediation Regulation introduces a hybrid type of approval, described as a “Tier 2 compliance letter”. Such a letter will be issued by the regulator when it is satisfied the area or the site meets Tier 2 Guidelines and therefore does not need to be remediated. The difficulty with such a hybrid approach is that it is unclear what type of legal protection a “Tier 2 compliance letter” provides. For example, a remediation certificate currently provides protection against a subsequent environmental protection order being issued for the same contaminant and area. A Tier 2 compliance letter provides no similar protection.  Furthermore, no reference to a Tier 2 compliance letter is set out in Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and its legal significance is therefore unknown.

NEW REMEDIAL MEASURES TIMELINE

The Remediation Regulation introduces a mandatory timeline for remedial measures for all releases reported after January 1, 2019. If remediation cannot be completed to the satisfaction of the regulator within the following two years, a remedial action plan acceptable to the regulator must be submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Remediation Regulation.

The timeline is not mandatory for the complete remediation of a release. Rather, it is a timeline for the submission of a remedial action plan that will describe what further remedial activities will occur in the future. As such, it appears to be nothing more than an administrative requirement as opposed to an actual remedial efficiency requirement.

NEXT STEPS

The Remediation Regulation came into force as of January 1, 2019, and all releases now must comply with its provisions. Releases reported before January 1, 2019 continue to be regulated in accordance with the old regime under the Remediation Certificate Regulation.

This article was first published on the Blakes Business Class website. It is republished with the permission of the authors and Blakes. Copyright of this article remains with Blakes.


About the Authors

Dufferin (Duff) Harper practices in the areas of environmental law, commercial litigation and regulatory law. He routinely acts for clients on environmental due diligence and liability issues, especially as they pertain to brownfield redevelopment and transportation of dangerous goods. On the corporate side, he specializes in crafting complicated environmental agreements that allocate environmental risks and address remediation requirements. He also advises clients on greenhouse gas matters including the purchase and sale of greenhouse gas emissions credits, offset credits and other environmental attributes.

Duff has acted as lead counsel in several litigation cases involving contaminated sites, both on behalf of contaminated property owners and parties who were allegedly responsible for the contamination. On the regulatory front, he has appeared before numerous levels of courts and assessment tribunals, including tribunals constituted pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) ), the National Energy Board (NEB) and numerous provincial regulators.

Duff also provides strategic regulatory compliance and environmental impact assessment advice to industrial clients, such as conventional oil and gas companies, mining companies, companies operating in the oil sands, and liquefied natural gas proponents.

Lindsey Mosher’s practice focuses on energy regulation, as well as environmental and administrative law. She has experience in a broad range of regulatory matters, including regulatory compliance issues, regulatory approvals and hearings, and corporate matters.

Prior to joining Blakes, Lindsey obtained industry experience working in the legal department of a large Canadian oil and gas company, Alberta’s utilities regulator and a large Canadian telecommunications company.

Lindsey has appeared before Alberta’s utilities regulator, the Provincial Court of Alberta and the Court of Appeal of Alberta.

Clean-up of Potential CFL Stadium Site for Halifax Schooners

Shannon Park is located in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, across the bay from Halifax. It is the the site of a former military housing complex. Environmental studies show that the site is contaminated with approximately 24,000 tonnes of soil containing arsenic and hydrocarbons.

The site has been empty since 2003. In 2014, it was purchased by Canada Lands Company, a federal crown corporation. In 2017, all buildings on the site were demolished.

In November 2018, the federal government issued tender documents for remediation of the site with the goal of it being cleaned up by the spring of 2019.

In December, it was announced that Dexter Construction Company Ltd. was recently awarded a contract to excavate, transport, and dispose of the contaminated soil from the Shannon Park site. They are also required to backfill the excavated area with clean fill as part of the contract. The value of contract is $900,933.

Dexter Construction, located in nearby Bedford, is the largest civil contractor in Nova Scotia with over 40 years of experience in infrastructure, mining, and the environment. Dexter Construction Company Limited is a subsidiary of Municipal Enterprises Limited and is the construction arm of the Municipal Group of Companies.

Previous environmental projects that Dexter Construction has been involved with include the Halifax Regional Municipality landfill development and the Halifax Harbour sewage treatment system construction.

With respect to the site being the home to a new stadium for the Halifax Schooners of the Canadian Football League, there is much to be done including the football team purchasing the land, raising $200 million to build the stadium, and getting approval for construction.

Plan for Football Stadium at Shannon Park, Dartmouth

Financing Soil Remediation: Exploring the use of financing instruments to blend public and private capital

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) recently released a report entitled Financing Soil Remediation: Exploring the use of financing instruments to blend public and private capital.

The report makes the statement that governments around the world are looking at opportunities to attract private capital participation in both land remediation and its productive use and redevelopment thereafter. The business case is intrinsically the value capture in the increase in retail price of land and related business opportunities once the remediation is complete. However, where land value capture is lower and related revenue streams remain uncertain, the case for private capital participation is much less compelling. Governments, in this case, have to fund the remediation through public budgets and thereafter seek opportunities to partner with private counter-parties to use the land as “fit for purpose.”

The IISD report presents 17 case studies on a variety of financing instruments that blend public and private capital. Each case study includes a short discussion on the extent to which each instrument could be used to finance the remediation of contaminated soil. The case studies in thereport demonstrate a variety of financing strategies, from index-linked bonds to savings accounts and from peer-to-peer lending platforms to debt-for-nature swaps. Find out more about Loanpad by reading this review, if peer-to-peer lending is something you have been considering to do for your business.

This report is a part of a series of outputs of a four-year project, Financing Models for Soil Remediation. The overall objective of the project is to harness the full range of green finance approaches and vehicles to manage the associated risk and fund the remediation of contaminated soils.

The series of reports focuses on the financial vehicles available to attract investment to environmental rehabilitation of degraded land and the financial reforms needed to make these vehicles a viable and desirable means of investing in land rehabilitation. The IISD draws on best practices worldwide in funding environmental rehabilitation, with a special focus on the design and use of financial mechanisms to attract private investors, share the risk and offer a clear benefit for the rehabilitated land. If you would like to make some investments, with regards to personal investment then you may want to check out some mutual funds.

Several lessons emerge from these case studies described in the report in the context of financing the remediation of contaminated land, including the following:

  1. As with all financial arrangements, the risk appetite of different investors has to match the risk profile of
    the investment. It is difficult to crowd in private and institutional investors when projects remain below
    investment grade.
  2. Money follows a good deal. When legal, technological, revenue and other risks are understood and are
    transparent, feasible ways to reduce these uncertainties can be planned and financing strategies can be
    worked upon.
  3. When there is reasonable certainty that the value of the land will increase after remediation and will
    subsequently generate stable and predictable revenues, there is a strong case for blending public and
    private financing.
  4. When, on the other hand, projects have less attractive revenue potential, governments have to step in to
    finance the remediation, or at least a larger part of it.

About the IISD

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), headquartered in Winnipeg, Manitoba, is an independent think tank championing sustainable solutions to 21st–century problems. The mission of the IISD is to promote human development and environmental sustainability. IISD focuses on research, analysis, and knowledge products that support sound policy making.

Did the City of Hamilton overpay for a Brownfield Site

As reported by the CBC, the City of Hamilton recently paid $1.75 million for a brownfield site that once sold for $2.  The property, located at 350 Wenworth Street North, sold for $2 a decade ago and then for $266,000 two years ago.

In the property was purchased in 2013 for $266,000, hundreds of barrels of toxic waste were discovered behind a fake wall.  The barrels contained coal tar byproducts and industrial solvents, and roof tar.  The new owner arranged for the proper disposal of the barrels.  The Ontario Environment Ministry confirmed  in  an e-mail to CBC that the waste had been from the building and it was decontaminated by the fall of 2017.  It also confirmed that the clean-up included the removal of approximately 200,000 litres of liquid waste.

The cleanup of the toxic property has been going on intermittently since 2010 (Photo Credit: Hamilton Spectator) photo

It is not known how much the clean-up of the 800 barrels of toxic waste cost, but the Hamilton Spectator quoted the owner  in 2017 that the clean-up would cost $650,000.

Property records for the building stretch all the way back to 1988, when Currie Products Limited spent a million dollars for 350 Wentworth. Currie ran a tar facility that went out of business there in the late 1990s, and was considered by many to be the company that originally polluted the site. Owner John Currie died in 2013.

Through the years, the building has changed hands multiple times for a wide swath of prices, ranging from that original million dollars, to $610,000 in 2007, to $2 in 2008, to the tax sale in 2016 and now, for $1.75 million. Over that time, building owners fought with each other and the province over who was actually responsible for cleaning up the site, in some cases heading to court in search of a resolution. For each sale, the price of the property reflected what buyers knew about the site at the time.

The city’s purchase of the property is all part of a reshuffling of buildings in the area to create a transit hub for the lower city like the Mountain Transit Centre at 2200 Upper James.

While it appears the city could have saved money by taking over the property when it was up for tax sale, that’s not really the case, officials say. The city does sometimes take carriage of properties after a failed tax sale, but woudn’t do so on a property like this one with environmental issues, Hamilton City Councillor Matthew Green told the CBC.  He added, “The city won’t take on the liability by policy.  The liability is way too big, because you don’t know what you’re buying … you have no idea what could be found or buried.”

The city bought 350 Wentworth St. N., which has required much cleanup over the years. Most recently, 200,000 litres of liquid waste was removed from the site in 2017 (Credit: The Hamilton Spectator)

 

 

 

Brantford Showcases its Brownfield Projects

Known as the Telephone City, Brantford may also become famous as one of the first municipalities in Canada to proudly showcase its brownfield projects.

Instead of hiding from its industrial past, the city is showcasing several brownfield projects and is encouraging residents and visitors to take the self-guided tour.  Eight projects in various stages of remediation or redevelopment are highlighted in the  tour.

Highlights of the the tour are the Greenwich Mohawk Site, Sydenham-Pear Site and Edward Gould Park.  The Greenwich Mohawk Site alone is over 50 acres and was remediated over the course of two years, starting in 2014.

 

 

 

The City is investing $5,000 per year to promote the tour and hopes to attract interested individuals, school groups, and others.  The tour itself provides participants with access to historical photos, newspaper articles and other project details through the tour website.

Users can access the Brownfields Discovery Tour online at Brantford.ca/BrownfieldsTour where they can follow along digitally or print a hard copy of the tour.

“The City of Brantford has become widely recognized as a leader for remediation, redevelopment and public education of brownfields,” said Amy Meloch, chair of the brownfields community advisory committee in an interview with the Brantford Expositor. “The tour is an exciting continuation of the work of the committee to raise awareness to both residents and visitors of the extensive work already accomplished in the city.”

The sites on the tour include those that are municipally and privately owned.  They are:

  • 186 Pearl St. – a 0.38-hectare site located in a residential area, this site was home to Brantford Emery Wheel Co. (1910-1920) and the Brantford Grinding Wheel Co. (1920-1939). Bay State Abrasives was involved in similar manufacturing operations there. The city removed an underground storage tank, removed the existing structures, cleaned the contaminated soil and planted sod at a cost of about $175,000. The property has been converted into a park.
  • 347 Greenwich St. and 22 and 66 Mohawk St. – Referred to collectively as the Greenwich Mohawk Brownfield Site, the companies and industry formerly housed on these properties are a significant part of the city’s history. The 27.9-acre 347 Greenwich property is the former site of Massey-Harris Co., established in 1891. It employed thousands of Brantford employees over the years. A 2005 fire destroyed most of the buildings and the city acquired the property in 2007.
  • 22 Mohawk St. – This 7.25-acre property has been home to Adam’s Wagon Co. and Brantford Coach and Body, later Canada Coach and Body, where military vehicles were manufactured during the Second World War. Later, Sternson Group was there.
  • 66 Mohawk St – The Brantford Plow Works, later Cockshutt Plow Co., was established here in 1877, making high-quality farm implements. The farm division was sold to White Farm Equipment in 1962. That company went bankrupt in 1985. The city acquired all three properties by 2007 and a two-year remediation started in 2014 at a cost of $40.5 million.
  • Sydenham Pearl site – Consists of two properties: 17 Sydenham St., the former Crown Electric, and 22 Sydenham, the former Domtar (Northern Globe) site. The sites served as the main locations for mass industry for almost a century. The city took over the properties 2004 and 2006. Remediation was done in 2015 and 2016 and a soil cap was installed. The site will be green space until next steps are explored by the city.
  • 85 Morrell St. – The city sold the property, once occupied by Harding Carpets Limited, to King and Benton Development Corporation, which cleaned and renovated the 10-acre property to include warehouses and offices for industrial use.
  • 168 Colborne St. West – This 11.5-acre property was the site of the former Stelco Fastners manufacturing plant. In 1999, it was purchased by King and Benton. Work is underway to redevelop the site for mixed uses, including multi-storey residential buildings.
  • 111 Sherwood St. – Home to Brantford Cordage Co. during the early 1900s. At its peak, the twine producer employed 700. It has remained active with a variety of commercial and industrial uses, including a brewery and fitness studio.
  • 232-254 Grand River Ave. – In 1891, this 4.87-acre site was developed as a cotton mill by Craven Cotton Mills Co. It then became Dominion Textiles Co. and then Penman’s Manufacturing Co. Textile manufacturing continued on the site for almost 100 years until it was sold to a land developer in 1984. It is now being remediated for a mix of affordable housing and market-rate townhouses.
  • 180 Dalhousie St. – The 0.52-acre site is a consolidation of four properties, which, over the years, housed various residential and commercial operations, including Castelli Bakery, which closed in 2011. Today, a four-storey student apartment building is there.

Greenwich-Mohawk Brownfield Site circa 2013

Former Contaminated Mine Site in NWT Declared Clean

The Government of Canada recently announced that the former Tundra Gold Mine, located in the Northwest Territories, has been successfully remediated.  The cost of clean-up was $110 million and was paid for by the government.

Tundra Mine was briefly operational in the 1960’s and was used as a dumping ground in the 1980’s.  It’s former owner, Royal Oak Mines went bankrupt in 1999.

Remediation of the site included revegetating soil, sealing mine openings, consolidating and isolating tailings and waste rock, treating petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils, erecting barriers for erosion control, and removing buildings.  The clean-up project lasted more than a decade.

Though some re-vegetation has begun, the land – around 240 km north-east of Yellowknife – will remain recognizably an old industrial site for decades to come.

Tundra Mine Site post clean-up (Photo Credit: Jamie Malbeuf/CBC)

Dominic LeBlanc, Canada’s newly installed minister for northern affairs, called Tundra’s remediation “a great example of the hard work of northerners and the importance of partnerships with local Indigenous communities.”  Northern residents represented 76 percent of the project’s suppliers and 61 percent of its employees.  The Minister stated that the restoration will help local Dene and Métis peoples once again use the land for traditional practices.

The Canadian government will continue to oversea that monitoring of the site to ensure it remains stable.  Monitoring, using a combination of on-site equipment and drones, will cost an unspecified further sum each year.

More work to be done remediating the North

According to an article in Cabin Radio, Tundra’s successful clean-up remains a drop in the larger ocean of contaminated sites within the NWT.  Tundra is the 24th site under federal supervision to have reached this stage, a spokesperson for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada said by email to on Cabin Radio.

federal webpage last updated in 2013 suggests Canada is responsible for more than 50 significant contaminated sites in the territory, including those 24.

separate federal website lists 1,634 contaminated sites within the Northwest Territories, where a contaminated site is defined by the Federal Goverment as “one at which substances occur at concentrations (1) above background (normally occurring) levels and pose or are likely to pose an immediate or long term hazard to human health or the environment, or (2) exceeding levels specified in policies and regulations.”

Some entries on the latter list are considered remediated and their files closed. Some are smaller sites not felt worthy of their own, separate clean-up projects.  Several dozen of them, for example, are grouped under one project to clean up the Canol Trail, a World War Two initiative which left contaminated soil, asbestos, and a range of hazardous materials strewn across 355 km of the Sahtu.

In the 2017-18 financial year, public records show federal agencies were obliged to spend money on some 275 separate contaminated sites in the Northwest Territories.  $157,000 was spent assessing a range of those sites, while a little over $103 million was spent on remediation work.

Of that figure, around $23.6 million was spent remediating the Tundra site in that financial year.

Unsurprisingly, Yellowknife’s Giant Mine – considered among the most toxic sites in Canada, harbouring 237,000 tonnes of poisonous arsenic trioxide in underground chambers – was the only site receiving more remediation money.

In the same period Canada spent just over $36 million on Giant, where full remediation work does not even begin until 2020.

Giant, like Tundra, was owned by Royal Oak when the company collapsed and the site became an unwanted federal problem. The full bill for Giant’s clean-up and maintenance – a program of indefinite, certainly decades-long duration – is expected to reach $1 billion in today’s money.

Tundra Mine 1963 (Photo Credit: Gerry Riemann)

 

New Technology for Mapping DNAPL Contamination

Laser-induced fluorescence (LIF)

As reported in Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation (38(3):28-42), DyeLIF™ is a new version of laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) for high-resolution 3D mapping of NAPLs in the subsurface.   DyeLIF eliminates the requirement that the NAPL contains native fluorophores (such as those that occur in compounds like PAHs) and therefore can be used to detect chlorinated solvents and other nonfluorescing compounds.

NAPLs were previously undetectable with conventional LIF tools. With DyeLIF, an aqueous solution of water and nontoxic hydrophobic dye is continuously injected ahead of the sapphire detection window while the LIF probe is being advanced in the subsurface.  If soil containing NAPL is penetrated, the injected dye solvates into the NAPL within a few milliseconds, creating strong fluorescence that is transmitted via fiber-optic filaments to aboveground optical sensors. This paper describes a detailed field evaluation of the novel DyeLIF technology performed at a contaminated industrial site in Lowell, Mass., where chlorinated solvent DNAPL persists below the water table in sandy sediments..

The DyeLIF system was field tested at a Formerly Used Defense (FUD) facility in Massachusetts in Fall 2013 (Geoprobe® delivery) and again in March 2014 (CPT delivery). The primary field demonstration completed in 2013 included two components: one week of DyeLIF probing and a second week of follow-on soil coring using research-quality direct push (DP) soil coring methods in order to compare DyeLIF results to colorimetric dye shake tests and laboratory analysis.

Several performance objectives were established in the project demonstration work plan and all were met or exceeded. The performance objective for chemical analysis was 70% consistency between positive DyeLIF responses and samples when DNAPL saturations were greater than 5%. The demonstration results showed 100% consistency between chemical analysis and DyeLIF for saturations greater than 1.9% (35 of 35 samples), and 95% consistency for estimated saturations greater than 0.5% (40 of 42 samples).

ESTCP funded Project ER-201121 to demonstrate the DyeLIF technology.  Additional details on the technology can be found at the U.S. Department of Defence Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and the U.S. Department of Defence Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) link at SERDP-ESTCP.

2D and 3D Conceptual Site Models of a Contaminated Property

U.S. Government RFP for Remediation Services – Small Business Opportunity

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Oak Ridge, TN. Recently issued a solicitation for the Characterization, Deactivation/Demolition, and Remediation Services of Low-Risk/Low-Complexity Facilities and Sites for the Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management.

This procurement will be a total small business set-aside under NAICS code 562910, size standard 750 employees.  DOE anticipates awarding one or more IDIQ contracts for support services in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in accordance with the Federal Facilities Agreement.

The Y-12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and East Tennessee Technology Park encompass numerous facilities, soils, concrete slabs, containerized and non-containerized debris, and aging legacy waste populations that require investigation and additional characterization to determine appropriate disposal options.

The estimated maximum value of the contract is $24.9M for a period of performance of five years from date of award.  The full solicitation synopsis is available on the DOE Environmental Management procurement website at FedConnect.

An aerial view of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory campus.

Setting New Legal Standards And Timelines: Alberta’s Remediation Regulation

Article by Alan Harvie, Norton Rose Fullbright Canada LLP

Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) has amended regulations that will require all contamination caused by spills that are reported to regulators after January 1, 2019 to be delineated and assessed as soon as possible through a Phase 2 environmental site assessment that meets AEP’s standards and that is then either remediated within two years or subject to an approved remedial action plan with an approved final clean-up date. These are significant departures from the current requirements.

On June 1, 2018 the Remediation Certificate Amendment Regulation was passed into law under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA). It amends the existing Remediation Certificate Regulation in a number of important ways, including changing the name to the Remediation Regulation.

Groundwater monitoring wells

The Remediation Regulation will be administered by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) for contamination at upstream oil and gas sites, such as wells, pipelines and facilities, and by AEP for all other sites.

Under the EPEA, a person responsible for the release of a substance into the environment that causes or has the potential to cause an adverse effect is under a legal duty, as soon as they know about the release or ought to have known about it, to report it to regulators. They must also, as soon as they know or ought to have known about the release, take all reasonable measures to repair, remedy and confine the effects of the substance, remove or otherwise dispose of the substance in such a manner as to effect maximum protection to human life, health and the environment and restore the environment to a condition satisfactory to the regulators.

Although persons have always been legally required, under the EPEA, to clean up spills, historically there was no legal requirement as to how a person was to assess contamination or any specific time limit as to how long a person could take to remediate the spill as required by the EPEA. This has now changed.

New timelines

The Remediation Regulation requires that a person responsible for a spill that is reported after January 1, 2019 must:

  • As soon as possible, either remediate the spill to meet the criteria set out in the Alberta Tier 1 and 2 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines and submit a report to the regulators about the remediation or undertake a Phase 2 environment site assessment of the site that meets the requirements of AEP’s Environmental Site Assessment Standard.
  • If the site cannot be remediated to the satisfaction of the regulators within two years, then the person responsible for the spill must submit a remedial action plan (RAP) that complies with AEP’s Alberta Tier 1 and Tier Soil and Groundwater Remediation GuidelinesEnvironmental Site Assessment StandardExposure Control Guide and Risk Management Plan Guide.
  • The RAP must include a period of time for completion of the remediation that is acceptable to the regulators.
  • The person responsible must take the remedial measures set out in the approved RAP by such time.

New legal standards

The Remediation Regulation previously incorporated into law the requirements to use the Tier 1 and 2 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines for obtaining a remediation certificate under the EPEA. It now requires that the Guidelines also be followed for assessing contaminated sites and therefore eliminates some historical practices in which persons responsible for spills used other clean-up guidelines or criteria.

The Remediation Regulation also requires the use of the Environmental Site Assessment Standard. The Standard sets out how contamination is to be vertically and horizontally delineated and assessed. The Remediation Regulation requires that this work be done within two years.

If the spill cannot be remediated within two years, then a RAP which meets the Exposure Control Guide and the Risk Management Plan Guide, and which has been approved by the regulators, must be in effect at the end of the two-year period. For some large contaminated sites, it may be challenging to fully delineate the contamination, develop a RAP and have the regulators approve it within two years. Furthermore, the clean-up under the RAP must have a stated end point.

Abandoned oil well equipment

These changes diverge from historical practices where, in some cases, contamination delineation has taken several or more years, and remedial actions, if any, have not been well planned and have had no fixed end point.

Implications

The implications of the Remediation Regulation for persons responsible for contamination are such that they will no longer be able to ignore or may only be able to slowly proceed with assessing contamination or simply monitor it over the long term. Concrete steps must now be taken according to set time periods and such steps must comply with AEP’s guidelines and standards.

Next steps

As mentioned, the new requirements to delineate and remediate a site apply only to spills reported on or after January 1, 2019. Before then, AEP is expected to release further guidance, host stakeholder workshops and potentially amend the Remediation Regulation.

 

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.

This article was first published on the Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP Website.

_______________________

About the Author

Alan Harvie is a senior partner at Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP and practices out of the Calgary office.  He has practised energy and environmental/regulatory law since 1989 and regularly deals with commercial, operational, environmental and regulatory issues, especially for the upstream oil and gas, energy, waste disposal and chemical industries. He is a member of our energy and environmental departments.

Mr. Harvie also has significant legal experience in acting for the oil and gas industry in commercial transactions and regulatory matters, including enforcement proceedings, common carrier and processor applications, forced poolings, downspacings and holdings, rateable take, and contested facility, well and pipeline applications. He has also dealt extensively with commercial, environmental and regulatory issues concerning thermal and renewable power plants, electrical transmission and distribution lines, tourism and recreation projects, forestry, mining, agriculture, commercial real estate, industrial facilities, sewage plants, hazardous waste landfills and treatment facilities, transportation of dangerous goods and water storage reservoirs.

Mr. Harvie regularly advises clients about environmental assessments and permitting, spill response, enforcement proceedings, contaminated site remediation, facility decommissioning and reclamation, chemical compliance (DSL, NDSL, MSDS and HMIRC), nuclear licensing, crude-by-rail projects and product recycling and stewardship requirements.

 

Events

Nothing Found

Sorry, no posts matched your criteria