HazMat Management Summer 2010

management

HazMat

SUMMER 2010 www.hazmatmag.com

Refinery Tank Management Ontario Brownfields Regulation Emergency Response Acid Mine Drainage

Solutions for the Business of the Environment

SPILLS

BP Oil Spill — page 4 Insurance Perspective — page 8

An EcoLog Group Publication / CPMP no. 40069240

Insurance Risk Management

TM

You may not see why you need environmental liability coverage.

That‘s the point.

Zurich HelpPointTM is here when you need more than just insurance.

Because we understand that no business is immune to the possibility of an environmental liability — whether it’s one that accidentally happens under your watch or from a pre-existing problem, the cleanup can be costly.

This is why Zurich’s team of environmental underwriters, claims specialists, risk professionals and lawyers have been successful at helping businesses identify and minimize their risks for more than 17 years. We know you don’t have to see signs of toxins to already be exposed to them. And that’s the point.

Visit www.zurichcanada.com

Here to help your world.

Because change happenz®, Zurich® and Zurich HelpPointTM are trademarks of Zurich Insurance Company

contents

vol 22 no 3 SUMMER 2010

on the cover SPILLS & LIABILITY

8

Comparing brownfield remediation with spill cleanup reveals important dimensions of risk management and insurance liability.

by Mark Samis

departments

16

features FACILITY PROFILE: NEWALTA

39

WORKPLACE SAFETY: HARASSMENT

42

EMERGENCY RESPONSE: DISASTERS

Newalta’s refinery tank management program.

by Pat Carswell & Mark Conway

Ontario’s new violence & harassment legislation.

by Lynne Bard

World Disasters Report 2009.

by Guy Crittenden

Editorial Up Front Products Ad Index Legal Perspective

4 6 43 45 46

CleanTech Canada (PAGES 29-36) EDITORIAL: GREENHOUSE GAS Carbon compliance strategies.

30

by Teresa Meadows

BROWNFIELDS

MARKETPLACE

(PAGES 17-28) COVER STORY: Regulation 153/04 Understanding Ontario's new brownfield reg.

by David Innocente SITE RESTORATION: ERASE Hamilton's site cleanup program.

by Brian Morris ENVIRONMENT BUSINESS: CLEANUP Bioaugmentation at contaminated sites.

by John Nicholson

18

COVER STORY: FUNDING British Columbia's ICE Funds

by Guy Crittenden

31

CLEANTECH NEWS

33

WASTEWATER TREATMENT: MINES Genomics treatment for mining wastewater.

24

by Rachael Froese Zamperini

34

TECHNOLOGY PROFILES: BIOTEQ Treatment for acid mine drainage.

27

by Brad Marchant

35

next edition (fall 2010) Supplements: Brownfields Marketplace; CleanTech Canada Editorial Focus: • crisis communications • HazMat storage • PCB storage & destruction • asbestos, lead and mould abatement Bonus distribution: Toronto HazMat Conference (Toronto), Canadian Industrial Emergency Conference (Edmonton), Remtech (Banff), Canadian Brownfields (Vancouver) Advertising closes, August 25, 2010. Advertising Artwork required, August 27, 2010. Call 1-888-702-1111.

SUMMER 2010 HazMat Management 3

editorial

BP’s Spill, Space Shuttles and 9/11

I

by Guy Crittenden

know exactly where I was early in the morning on January 16, 2003. I was standing with my friend Martin and our children on the beach in Cape Canaveral watching Space Shuttle Columbia take off. It was an extraordinary sight — the closest I’d ever been to a launch during many annual Florida trips. On February 1 of that year I decided to watch Columbia’s re-entry live on TV. Since I’d seen the launch it was gut-wrenching to watch the shuttle break up in the sky, strewing the remains of the crew and the spacecraft across Texas.

I also know where I was the morning of September 11, 2001: at the Sandals resort in Occho Rios, Jamaica watching a Wall Street investment program on CNN. The show was broadcast from a studio only a few blocks from the World Trade Centre when the towers were hit by the hijacked planes. I watched the terrible events unfold almost in real time; we remained glued to the television for days.

There’s no entry in my journal for the morning of April 20, 2010 — it’s likely I was working at the computer in my home office. That was the day of the explosion and subsequent oil spill from BP’s Deep Water Horizon drill platform in the Gulf of Mexico, what is now the worst oil spill in US history.

So why do I mention these three apparently unrelated events?

Let’s start with the space shuttle disaster. This was a huge turning point for NASA. Up until then, people had assumed NASA was a safety-obsessed organization. Ron Howard’s 1995 film Apollo 13 reminded us of the heroic efforts NASA made to successfully save a crew of astronauts on a failing spacecraft. Over time, NASA’s status and good record led to complacency. Management downplayed risks from the impact of foam insulation debris and didn’t take extraordinary measures to check Columbia’s exterior before re-entry because they couldn’t imagine doing anything if a hole was found. Subsequent hearings investigations BP’s Deep Water Horizon revealed that NASA did not, in fact, practice a true “safety culture.” A risk-taking mentality drill platform ran through the organization, perhaps a hold-over from its early days testing manned and unmanned rockets. Dangerous trade-offs were made in the effort to stick to launch schedules. Take off; cross your fingers.

This is analogous to BP’s operation in the Gulf. The oil industry is a macho place to start with, with companies risking enormous sums looking for a lucky strike. Even on dry land, oil well operations are dangerous. Move all this to an ocean oil rig and the macho culture of men living and working in uncomfortable and dangerous conditions increases, along with the dangers. Sure, BP had safety procedures in place, but it’s emerged that BP’s 582-page regional spill plan for the Gulf and its 52-page site-specific plan for the Deepwater Horizon rig were riddled with omissions and glaring errors. An Associated Press analysis detailed how BP officials “have pretty much been making it up as they go along.” The lengthy plans approved by the federal government last year vastly understated the dangers posed by an uncontrolled leak and overstated the company’s preparedness to deal with one. (The range of estimates about how much oil was gushing each day became a farce all on its own.)

Simply put, BP extended a safety culture sufficient for operations on dry land into the ocean environment of deep sea drilling. It wasn’t nearly enough: the ocean oil rig industry clearly needs a safety culture akin to that of the nuclear power industry, with comparable oversight.

As happened with NASA and space exploration in general, we must hope a complete re-think and re-regulation of the industry will follow the BP disaster.

Now let’s look at the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The horrible events of that day are familiar to everyone so don’t need recounting. Again, up until then Americans thought they were well protected by their government, its large army and its legendary FBI and CIA agencies. Only after the attacks did it emerge that an almost Keystone Kops level of incompetence existed among the different agencies. Apart from ordinary human stupidity and several presidents’ failure to take Al Qaeda seriously enough, it turned out that the agencies charged with protecting Americans were legally prohibited from sharing information with one another, even on matters of national security.

9/11 was what technology entrepreneurs would call a “game changer.” It triggered a total change in how the United States and the international community views terrorism and fights against it.

Likewise, governments and oil companies around the world will review their offshore drilling practices and put more safeguards in place. Offshore drilling in Alaska is now off the table. But it’s more than that: our feelings about reliance on nonrenewable fossil fuels will change. Watch for an even keener demand for energy conservation and investments in solar, wind, tidal and other green energy options. Let’s face it, when a wind turbine fails, an entire ocean isn’t polluted!

Though it won’t help the oil soaked birds and marine animals in the Gulf of Mexico right now, in time the BP spill may come to be thought of as the event that changed everything: the environment’s 9/11.

HMM Guy Crittenden is editor of this magazine. Contact Guy at gcrittenden@hazmatmag.com

4 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010

RESPONSIBLE SUBSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR

PCB

Waste Management

Time Has Run Out! New federal PCB regulations oblige companies to remove, dispose and destroy PCBs! We opened Canada's first fully licensed private sector PCB waste management facility in 1989. Field PCB services include: spill sampling, clean-up planning, collection, packaging, transportation, non destructive removal of PCB from cement and associated services; in addition, we have had the experience of cleaning up after five fires involving PCB electrical equipment.

www.proeco.com

1-800-661-5792

HazMat

SUMMER 2010

management

Vol. 22, No. 2

Solutions for the Business of the Environment

Guy Crittenden EDITOR gcrittenden@hazmatmag.com

Brad O’Brien PUBLISHER 416-510-6798 bobrien@hazmatmag.com Jamie Ross ACCOUNT MANAGER 416-510-5221 jross@hazmatmag.com Sheila Wilson ART DIRECTOR Kimberly Collins PRODUCTION MANAGER 416-510-6779 kcollins@bizinfogroup.ca Selina Rahaman CIRCULATION MANAGER Carol Bell-LeNoury GENERAL MANAGER, ECOLOG GROUP Bruce Creighton PRESIDENT

AWARD-WINNING MAGAZINE HazMat Management, USPS 016-506 is published four times a year by EcoLog Group, a division of BIG Magazines LP, a div. of Glacier BIG Holdings Company Ltd., a leading Canadian business-tobusiness information services company.

HazMat Management magazine provides strategic information and perspectives to North American industry and government on pollution prevention and waste management issues.

Readers include corporate executives, compliance and safe ty officers, industrial plant managers and operators, municipal govern ment environment officials, working scientists, and consulting engineers.

EcoLog Group products include Solid Waste & Recycling magazine, the ERIS risk information service, and a number of newsletters affiliated with EcoLog.com Head Office:

Internet: Email:

12 Concorde Place, Suite 800 Toronto ON M3C 4J2 Call: (416) 442-5600 Fax: (416) 510-5133 www.hazmatmag.com bobrien@hazmatmag.com

Information contained in this publication has been compiled from sources believed to be reliable, thus HazMat Management cannot be responsible for the absolute correctness or sufficiency of articles or editorial contained herein. Al though the information contained in this magazine is believed to be correct, no responsibility is assumed therefore, nor for the opinions ex pressed by individual authors. Articles in this magazine are intended to convey information rather than give legal or other professional advice. Reprint and list rental services are arranged through the Publisher at (416) 5106780. This magazine is printed on RECYCLED PAPER made with 10% post consumer and 50% post commercial waste.

Periodical Postage Paid Niagara Falls, NY, U.S. P.S. #016-506 U.S. Office of publication: 2424 Niagara Falls Blvd., Niagara Falls, NY 14304-0357 U.S. Postmaster: Send address corrections to: HazMat Management, P.O. Box 1118, Niagara Falls, NY 14304 Canadian Publications Mail Product Sales Agreement No. 40069240 Return Undeliverable Canadian Addresses to Circulation Department — HazMat Management magazine 12 Concorde Place, Suite 800 Toronto ON M3C4J2 From time to time we make our subscription list available to select companies and organizations whose product or service may interest you. If you do not wish your contact information to be made available, please contact us via one of the following methods: Phone: 1-800-668-2374

Fax: 416-510-5133

Email: jhunter@bizinfogroup.ca Mail to: Privacy Officer

Business Information Group

12 Concorde Place, Suite 800

Toronto ON M3C 4J2

up-front

OUR TOP LETTERS DEAR EDITOR,

I

enjoy reading your publication immensely; very informative. As a member of a volunteer fire department for nearly twenty-five years, and as the Chief of my department for about half of that time, I have developed an interest in flame retardants and possible toxic exposures to the various versions of them after reading a copy of a National Geographic article my eldest daughter (a registered nurse) sent me last fall. The article dates to the October 2006 issue, it was written by David Ewing Duncan, a journalist employed by the magazine. For the article on human contamination with toxins, NGM paid for some very expensive blood chemical analysis, done in Sweden at Stockholm University, by Ake Bergman, a chemist. These tests revealed a level of poly-brominated diphenyl ethers ten times the average for a small sampling of U.S. residents and over 200 times the average for Swedish residents!

The article goes on to try to figure out the source of his contamination with this particular product (possibly the large number of airmiles flown in a year by a freelancing journalist) that saturates the interior of modern airplanes. (What about the flight crews?) It then goes on to list some of the many other chemicals likely to show up in the average North American’s blood stream as another sample tested by Axys Analytical Services, here on Vancouver Island, is discussed. With this article in mind I was immediately interested in the Chemical Corner article in HazMat’s Spring 2010 issue on the TSCA review in the U.S. As firefighters we have for years carried on our backs self-contained breathing apparatus when battling with the toxic gases produced

©2010 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent.

PAP Registration No. 11032 Print edition: ISSN-1713-9511 Online edition: ISSN 1923-3469

(I’m running your letter in hopes of generating awareness of these disturbing potential toxins and exposure pathways. — ed.)

For more information, visit www.fsc.org

Member

Press

Steve Anderosov, Fire Chief Bow Horn Bay F.D.

The Forest Stewardship Council logo signifies that this magazine is printed on paper from responsibly managed forests. “To earn FSC certification and the right to use the FSC label, an organization must first adapt its management and operations to conform to all applicable FSC requirements.”

We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Canada Periodical Fund (CPF) for our publishing activities.

Canadian Business

by structural residential, commercial, and industrial fires or the accidental spills or release of hazardous materials in transportation or manufacturing processes; now it seems we may be carrying the very enemy we seek to vanquish on our backs as well. I think the bunker-gear we wear is all treated with these products and would love to know if anyone has looked at this as a potential problem.

Another consideration is the amount of bottled water firemen consume and the possibility of higher than normal levels of Bisphenol A. We (my department) are fortunate to be close to a bottling plant that generously donates to us pallet loads of boxes of 500 ml bottles of water, but it is all out-ofdate stuff that they can no longer ship, so we get it and it sits on our shelves for a year or two, how much Bisphenol A is going to be present in that stuff?

Now we have the spectre of untried and untested nanoparticles being introduced into our environment. One new system now commercially available for purifying or desalinating water involves nanotubes imbedded in a membrane as a one way filter for drinking water, and where do the “loose” nanotubes end up if they detach from the membrane?

It seems our technological advances are running roughshod over our regulatory structures, when did it become so important to “produce” rather than protect?

6 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Michael Cant • John Hosty • Dianne Saxe • Usman Valiante • Laura Zizzo

up-front

Our Brownfields Breakfast Series crosses Canada

Robert (Bob) Funke speaks to the audience about the FCM Green Municipal Fund at our recent Brownfields Breakfast Series event in Halifax, NS on June 2, 2010.

H

ere at HazMat Management magazine we are happy to report our Brownfields Breakfast Series continues to be a success. In March we were in Vancouver discussing updates on BC funding programs and BC Brownfield Renewal Strategy with Alan McCammon BC MOE, the Squamish Downtown Foreshore Remediation Case Study with Michael Choi of Hemmera and FCM GMF Developer Workshop Findings & Updates with Suzanne Moccia of the Green Municipal Fund.

In April we were in Toronto discussing Updates and Implications of Ontario’s recent changes to Bill 153/04 (511/09) that are coming into law July 2011 with John Willms of Willms and Shier Environmental Lawyers and Glenn Ferguson of Intrinsik Environmental Science as well as a discussion about a recent Ontario Phase II Pilot Project with Dave Harper of Kilmer Brownfield Equity Fund followed by a Canadian Brownfields Network update from Angus Ross, the CBN National Spokesman.

On May 27 we traveled to Ottawa to hear about the use of Risk Assessment under Amended Ontario Regulation 153/04: The transition period and beyond with Elliot Sigal of Intrinsik Environmental Science. We also had a presentation from John Willms entitled Brownfields Update: The Amendments to Ontario Regulation 153/04. We then heard about recent examples of innovative remediation approaches by Quantum Murray in response to design-build and performance based contracting tender requests in Ontario from Michael Billowits of Quantum Murray. We finished the day off with FCM GMF Developer Workshop Findings & Further Updates from Suzanne Moccia of the Green Municipal Fund.

Early in June we were in Halifax for a special event. We co-hosted our Brownfields Breakfast Series event with ESANS (Environmental Services Association of Nova Scotia, www.esans. ca) AGM and reception. We had a great crowd out to hear from

a range of speakers including Bob Funke discussing national and provincial brownfield redevelopment; Gordon Smith and Dawn Skinner of CBCL discussing the Role of End Use Planning and Public Consultation in the Development of Brownfields; Lori Whalen of DND and Annette Murphy of DCC talked about the 5 Wing Goose Bay Remediation Project Update; Blanchard Harnum of AMEC spoke about Green Remediation; Rob Willis of Intrinsik Environmental Science talked about the use of soil bioaccessibility testing as a tool to refine/reduce risk estimates and soil remediation at contaminated sites; and finally Dan Hemsworth of Nova Scotia Environment gave a talk on the previously unreleased ARBCA Version 3 from Atlantic PIRI. As we go to press we’re are on our way to Edmonton to hear from Will Ratliffe of Husky Oil, John Skowronski of CPPI, Karl Bresee, Intrinsik Environmental Science and Mike Mellross of the City of Edmonton discuss all aspects of service station remediation and redevelopment, including the CPPI-OCETA Service Station Redevelopment Framework.

We would like to thank our sponsors without whom this series would not be possible: FCM’s Green Municipal Fund, Hemmera, Willms and Shier Environmental Lawyers, AMEC, CBCL, DCC, Maxxam Analytics, CCS Hazco and the City of Edmonton. We send special thanks to our series sponsor, Intrinsik Environmental Science. We would also like to thank our supporters at ESANS, ESAA, ONEIA, CBN, OCETA, Atlantic RBCA, About Remediation, our co-workers at EcoLog ERIS and our sister publication SSGM. Special thanks go to the Past President of ESANS, Adam Cooney, for all his help.

Visit the events tab under www.brownfieldsmarketplace.com Those interested in sponsorship opportunities should contact Jamie Ross at 416510-5221 or jross@hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010 HazMat Management 7

cover-story

An insurance perspective

Brownfield Remediation vs Spill Remediation

I

n the site assessment and remediation industry the major­ ity of the projects and costs (largest segment) involves a “conventional” approach to a “common” situation (e.g., a brownfield site). In general this includes many aspects, such as the site being a historical commercial or industrial facility, where site activities have over the years, caused impacts to the soil, groundwater and/or surface water.

Impacts may have occurred over years of operation and the impacts are in “quasi” equilibrium with the environment (not getting worse rapidly or at all). (For a more complete list, see the sidebar on the opposite page.)

The conventional approach is to conduct a Phase I Environ­ mental Site Assessment (ESA), followed by a Phase II ESA (that may involve more than one iteration). The remediation and/ or site management strategy is then developed followed by the actual execution. This phased process can take months to years, which is appropriate as the impacts are not necessarily getting worse quickly. This phased approach is generally the most cost­ effective. Most jurisdictions in Canada are now experienced with this type of situation and there are acts and regulations along with well­defined steps to move through this process.

How does risk from a contaminated site differ from a spill?

Small drips and “spills” can be on an industrial facility and be part of normal operations; however, larger spills are catastrophic events viewed as abnormal. The BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico is an extreme example but emphasizes the point. Many spills happened on a third­party property (i.e., aren’t the result of the property owner’s actions). In a catastrophic release, material spreads and costs rise rapidly. A major spill requires immediate mitigation and generally requires that the polluter return the site 8 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010

to pre­spill conditions (or compensate the property owner for the financial impacts).

Large spills may be partly or completely covered by an insur­ ance policy(s). This is where the insurance aspects of the spill become important.

The remediation, scientific investigations and final reporting only address the result of the spill and do not investigate or address the entire site history and/or historical impacts (unless these historical impacts are difficult to distinguish from the new spill). The polluter is responsible for their release and subse­ quent impacts and not anything that pre­dated the loss.

So how do insurance issues effect the remediation and why are these issues more frequently important on a spill versus a contaminated site?

“The current legislation, regulations and enforce­ ment vary greatly between provinces resulting in a widely varying range of outcomes.

by Mark Samis

cover-story

SPILLS AND INSURANCE

The polluter (insured) on a spill is strictly liable to restore impacts to the environment from their release to pre-loss conditions, whether the polluter actually caused the release or not. The polluter is the entity against which a ministerial order can be issued and who could face fines and penalties for the spill. The insurance company may have a contract of insurance with the polluter that partially or completely covers the loss (excluding the deductible and/or sales taxes). Under this contract of insurance, there may be other issues such as policy limits or specific exclusions. As well, the insured has an obligation to mitigate the loss and minimize the cost of cleaning up the spill. The insurer may in effect take over the direction of the remediation to control, expedite rapid response and document costs, especially where the insured is inexperienced with such situations. The insurer may have some obligation to defend the insured and to recover costs (subrogation) if there is another at fault party that caused the release.

Transportation spills are very frequent and the example in the sidebar illustrates some of these spill and insurance issues.

(See “Spill Example 1” sidebar) This relatively simple and common spill scenario presented in the sidebar was resolved quickly and cost effectively with minimal confrontation. What would have happened if the excavated soil had not passed the leach test because of heavy metals impacts not related to the diesel release? What would happen in a regulatory environment where the environment ministry was applying a contaminated sites approach to this spill situation, requiring a statement from the licensed professional that all of the impacts had been investigated and/or remediated? What would have happened if the regulator had required groundwater wells to confirm that groundwater was not impacted? What would have happened if a third party was involved that actually caused the accident?

Let’s look at these four questions one at a time.

Question 1: What would have happened if the excavated soil had not passed the leach test

because of pre-existing heavy metals impacts not related to the diesel release?

Had this been the situation, it’s likely that the outcome would have been far more confrontational, costly and not resolved quickly. The trucking firm was reasonable for removing their impacts (fresh diesel) and the costs associated. If there were other pre-existing contaminants mixed with the fresh release and the cost to remove both were the same, there’s likely no additional issue or complication.

For example, had there been pre-existing hydraulic oil impacts in the same soils as the fresh diesel impacts.

But, as presented, had the soils now required special and more costly removal because of the pre-existing high heavy metals concentrations, what would the property owner be entitled to? The property owner was entitled to restoration of the site to pre-loss conditions but no betterment of the situation. If the excavated soils were now disposed at a higher cost because

of the high metal concentrations, who, if anyone pays the difference?

To achieve the remediation without the additional costs, in situ methods could have been used, but the soil is already excavated when the laboratory results identifying the metal concentrations were received. The industrial facility could pay the difference, but they could also make a case that there was nothing forcing them to make this expenditure until the fuel was spilled and could argue damages against the trucking firm.

Certainly there is no clear-cut answer.

Satisfactory resolution would likely require compromise on both sides. This is a situation where a spill and a contaminated site collide.

Question 2: What would happen in a regulatory environment where the ministry was applying a contaminated sites approach to this spill situation, requiring a signed and stamped statement from the licensed professional that all of the impacts had been remediated?

TYPICAL CONDITIONS AT A BROWNFIELD SITE • The site is a historical commercial or industrial facility, where site activities have over the years, caused impacts to the soil, groundwater and/or surface water.

• The impacts have occurred over years of operation and the impacts are in “quasi” equilibrium with the environment (not getting worse rapidly or at all).

• The site is now orphaned and/or is to be decommissioned.

• The operations are to be sold and redeveloped.

• There may or may not be off-site (third party impacts).

• The site will be remediated to specific standards, either generic or site specific.

• There will be some level of residual impacts once the site is sold and/or redeveloped.

• The residual impacts are deemed to be acceptable for the new land use.

• The seller generally expects to receive less than market value for the site.

• The purchaser is aware that the property is impaired and pays less than full market value for the property.

• The scientific investigations must address the complete site history and all possible historical activities on, and adjacent to, the property to fully define all known impairments.

• The entity that caused the impacts is the property owner.

• The property owner will pay for the remediation.

• The remediation costs are usually significant relative to the property value and a phased approach is the most cost effective and appropriate. The phased approach is possible because the impacts are not spreading.

• The property impairment is documented on title at the end of the process (NOTE: There are other factors; this is just a partial list.)

SUMMER 2010 HazMat Management 9

cover-story

Referring to the example presented in the sidebar, the appropriate level of remediation and investigation was conducted to return the site to pre-existing conditions and it was documented that an appropriate amount of the remediation was conducted.

Having said this, there are situations where regulators in some Canadian jurisdictions require (or at least attempt to require) that the licensed professional sign and stamp statements that all existing environmental site conditions have been investigated and documented. Furthermore, there will likely be the requirement to install groundwater wells, monitor these wells over a period of time and then eventually decommission these wells.

Why should the consultant for the trucking company (or their insurer) investigate anything over and above the impacts related to their release, especially when

Chromatograph of spill products.

it is likely that there are other unrelated impacts on the site? Why should groundwater be monitored when it was not encountered, and the fresh diesel impacted soils and all detectible diesel fuel related to the spill were excavated within 72 hours?

What would now happen if there were low-level hydrocarbon impacts detected in the groundwater across the site?

This situation occurs in some jurisdictions in Canada. It goes back to the concept of betterment raised from Question 1 and underscores the need not only to recognize the practical and reasonable difference between a spill and a contaminated site, but the need to have appropriate legislation and regulations in place to address both but different scenarios.

What would happen if in this situation an environment ministry official ordered that the entire site be investigated for all

24/7 Spill Line 1-866-530-4086 Environmental Emergency Management ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS™ Remediation Services provides environmental science, project management and training in the following areas:

 Transportation Spills  Domestic Fuel Oil Spills  Commercial Spills  Mould/Asbestos/Lead  Quantum Review  Subrogation/Litigation Support  Peer Reviews  Health, Safety and Environmental Training  Environmental Preparedness 10 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010

With offices across Canada, please see www.esrs.info

cover-story

potential environmental aspects related to that site? What would happen if such an order were challenged in civil court? To reiterate, the industrial site owner is entitled to return of the site to those conditions that pre-dated the spill of diesel from the truck (or financial compensation); they are not entitled to betterment. How a civil court would view an environment ministry attempting to order a betterment is unclear.

Question 3: What would have happened if another third party was involved, that actually caused the accident?

To better illustrate this issue another example is presented. (See the attached figure and the Spill Example 2 sidebar). The story is complicated, but the conclusion is clear.

Question 4: What often happens when the loss occurs on an open stretch of highway away from the immediate and direct observation of the third party landowner?

SUMMER 2010 HazMat Management 11

cover-story

SPILL EXAMPLE 2

I

t is 16:30 hours on a Friday afternoon before a longweekend. A long-haul transport truck delivering cardboard boxes to a fifty year-old industrial facility, collides with a concrete bollard in the loading/parking area. The truck releases 180 litres of fuel to the gravel parking lot surface. The truck driver immediately calls his dispatcher who calls the insurance company. In the interim the industrial facility calls a vacuum truck company that attends the site within 30 minutes and vacuums up the free product ponded on the surface of the parking lot. An estimated 50 litres of fuel is recovered leaving 130 litres unaccounted for and likely in the ground. This action temporarily stabilizes the situation so fuel will not be spread and/or rapidly end up in catch basins and surface water.

The insurer immediately dispatches a loss adjuster and a project management firm, specializing in emergency response. Both the adjuster and the project manager attend the scene within two hours of the spill and inform the trucking firm that the environment ministry needs to be notified of the spill. The ministry is notified and told that the spill is under control and not likely to impact surface water or leave the site. The ministry official does not attend the site, but issues an incident number. The adjuster attends to the physical damage to the vehicle. The project manger assesses the situation and after consultation with the adjuster schedules a remedial excavation for the following day, Saturday. The project manager takes samples of the soil in the source area as wells as some background samples of the site, which are sent to the laboratory for rush analyses. These samples are to be analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes, (BTEX) petroleum hydrocarbon fractions F1 to F4, PAHs and the leachate parameters required by the disposal facility to receive the waste.

The excavation proceeds on the following day and approximately 100 tonnes (180 cubic metres) of soil are stockpiled on plastic tarps and covered pending approval for landfill disposal. The excavation extended to a maximum depth of 1.8 metres below ground surface and groundwater was not encountered. By the estimation of the project manager, the fresh impacts associated with the spill have been removed, although there is black staining in the walls of the excavation that suggests pre-existing impacts. Also much of the parking area is constructed on rubble and some debris.

The excavation walls are sampled and the soils are sent to the laboratory for rush analyses. The excavation is lined with plastic to accurately identify the limits of the excavation. The excavation is immediately backfilled, as the facility needs to be back in operation by Tuesday morning to prevent a poten-

12 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010

tial business interruption claim by the industrial facility against the trucking company.

The results from the laboratory confirm that the impacted soil is acceptable for disposal. The source sample results are typical of fresh diesel (BTEX and F2 and F3 fractions) but there is also some heavier fraction (F4 impacts) that did not originate from the diesel release. All of the confirmatory sample results were below the laboratory detection limits for BTEX, F1, F2 and F3; however, there are detections of hydrocarbons in the F4 fraction that are not related to the spill.

(See the chart on page 10 to see the difference between fresh diesel and heavier oil.)

The project manager issues a scientific report documenting the actions taken to restore the site to pre-spill conditions, which is signed by the licensed professional overseeing the work.

The activities and the sequence of events clearly differ from a traditional contaminated sites approach. There was no Phase I investigation conducted or necessary and the report does not document all environmental aspect of the site. The remediation was initiated almost immediately to minimize the migration of subsurface impacts and the potential for a business interruption claim. The industrial facility presents the loss adjuster with the bill from the vacuum truck company, which the loss adjuster audits and submits to the insurer for payment. From the trucking company and the insurance company’s perspectives, the obligation to return the site to pre-spill conditions has been fulfilled and no further work is required. While a scientific report documenting the clean up is issued, it is not the same type of report or group of reports that would be issued for a contaminated sites project.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Trust the 1 that’s Trusted by Others

AIR, LAND & SEA and everything in Between, Team-1’s Got You Covered.

Emergency Activation

1-866-774-5501(Spill 01) Ontario Business Office 289 639 2020

Professional Equipment supplied by

cover-story

“A remediation of the spill should then be initiated and documented by an independent licensed professional to verify the remediation has been completed appropriately.”

14 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010

cover-story

T

SPILL EXAMPLE 3

hree transport trucks are involved in an accident on a major highway. Truck #1 is 100 per cent responsible for incident. Truck #2 is not responsible for the accident but releases 500 litres of diesel into the roadside ditch. It’s raining at the time and the fuel migrates in the storm water for 150 metres, crosses under the four-lane highway through a culvert and flows into a wetland. Truck #3 releases diesel into the center median where it pools but does not migrate.

Who’s responsible to remediate these spills? Is it Truck #1? If the environment ministry shows up and orders a cleanup, to whom should the orders be issued?

In this situation, the insurer for Truck #2 immediately retained a loss adjuster, contractor and consultant to remediate the fuel release from their vehicle, with the objective of restoring the impacts from their release to pre-existing conditions. The insurer did what was needed and appropriate. While this cleanup was occurring, Truck #3 was removed from the scene (to another province) and no action was taken to clean up the smaller spill from Truck #3. While the clean up from Truck #2 was progress-

This situation occurs daily on Canadian highways with a wide range of outcomes.

If the trucking firm is responsible they immediately notify their insurer and then notify the provincial environment ministry there has been a spill of fuel (assuming it’s significant enough to be reportable under provincial requirements). A remediation of the spill should then be initiated and documented by an independent licensed professional to verify the remediation has been completed appropriately.

This responsible approach to spills also occurs on a daily basis across Canada; how­ ever, this responsible behavior is driven as much by financial risk management as by any environmental legislation and regula­ tions. Insurance companies are initiating and cleaning up spills to eliminate future liability and make sure their files, once closed, stay closed. In the environmental arena there are requirements that spills be cleaned up, but there are not clear direc­ tions, guidelines or regulations that neces­ sarily drive that the clean ups are being

ing, an environment ministry representative arrived at the scene and suggested strongly if the team doing the remediation from the release from Truck #2 did not clean up the other spill, that an order to do so would be issued. The consultant for Truck #2 conferred with the insurance company and then informed the ministry representative that they would not touch the other spill.

Can the ministry issue an order for Truck #2 to remediate Truck #3’s spill? Can the ministry order Truck #1 to clean up the spill from Truck #3? The answer is “yes” — the ministry could issue an order against Truck #1 or Truck #2 to clean up Truck #3’s release, but it’s doubtful it would stand up to a legal challenge.

In fact, what actually happened is after an onsite discussion with the ministry representative no order was issued, which is the correct approach. Truck #2 and Truck #3 were strictly liable for their releases, were responsible for remediating their releases and then recovering costs for the cleanup and any other damages from Truck #1, which was responsible for causing the accident.

conducted, documented and reported.

Situations where spills are more likely to be reported and cleaned up include but are not limited to: • Locations where the property owners are there to observe the spills.

• Very large spills that draw the atten­ tion of the municipality, the police, the fire department, other government offi­ cials, closes the highway or the press are involved.

• Situations were there are observed sur­ face water impacts.

In situations where the landowner is a public entity (road allowance) and the spill “flies under the radar,” complete re­ mediation and documentation can be hit and miss, causing environmental impacts to public lands that are not necessarily addressed by the polluter.

CONCLUSION

Spills and typical brownfield sites should be addressed using different approaches because of urgency and liability. Legislation

and regulations need to be crafted and enforced to appropriately recognize these differences. In Canada, this responsibility generally falls to the provinces. The current legislation, regulations and enforcement vary greatly between provinces resulting in a widely varying range of outcomes.

A final thought on the topic of better­ ment in light of the BP loss in the Gulf — How will pre­existing conditions be defined? There will be locations along the Gulf Coast where there were pre­existing impacts from past activities, but the chore of trying to differentiate these from the oil rig loss may well be impossible in some HMM situations.

Mark Samis, M.Sc., M.B.A., P.Geo, is Vice President of Operations for the Remediation Services division of Environmental Solutions in Mississauga, Ontario. Contact Mark at mesamis@esrs.info

SUMMER 2010 HazMat Management 15

facility-profile

“Rather than simply discarding brine water as a waste, Newalta introduced evaporation technology as a more environmentally progressive alternative.”

Refinery Tank Management Innovative approach haz-waste and recovers hydrocarbons, water for refineries

R

by Pat Carswell

by Mark Conway

efineries store feedstock, process and waste materials in tanks and other storage containers. Sludge accumulates in the bottom of the tanks due to suspended solids dropping out and gathering over time.

Therefore, the tanks require regular cleaning to ensure optimal efficiency and effectiveness.

The basic steps of tank management involve mobilizing sludge to prepare a “slurry” to be removed, cleaning the tank, and then managing the waste that’s removed.

When making decisions regarding tank cleaning, refineries weigh several considerations including tank down time, environmental and safety risks, and what to do with residues.

Due in part to stricter regulations and new technologies, refinery operators are increasingly looking to service providers to clean tanks while minimizing environmental impacts. Being safer and “greener” doesn’t have to mean extra costs when reductions in injuries and disposal costs (plus the value of product recovered) are taken into account. In Ontario, for example, new Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) now prevent hydrocarbon-

16 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010

contaminated sludge from being sent directly to land farms or landfills.

Conventional disposal-oriented tank management involves removing sludge and sending it to a haz-waste landfill or incinerator. The tank is taken offline and sludge in the bottom is diluted via the adding of light hydrocarbon-based fluids (to mobilize the solids). Once removed, the liquid slurry requires solidification in order to be suitable for disposal.

Each of these steps significantly increases the volume of material requiring disposal, plus adds safety risks from confined space entry into the tank, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (from transporting large volumes), and opportunity costs (from taking the tank offline).

NEWALTA’S APPROACH

Alternatively, in keeping with its “What if Waste Wasn’t?” operating philosophy, Newalta looks at tank cleaning as an opportunity to recover value from what has traditionally been considered refinery waste, while ... continues on page 37

BROWNFIELDS Published by HazMat Management magazine PU BLI SHE D

I N

MARKETPLACE

A S S O C I A TI ON

FCM

The Canadian Real Estate Association

Green Municipal Fund Fonds municipal vert

REGULATION 153/04

W I TH :

Canadian Brownfields Network

SUMMER 2010

Understanding changes to Ontario’s new brownfield regulation — page 18

S P O N S O R E D

CORPORATE PARTNER:

B Y :

BROWNFIELDS

MARKETPLACE

UNDERSTANDING CHANGES TO ONTARIO’S NEW BROWNFIELD REGULATION

I

REGULATION 153/04

n December 2009, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment released much anticipated amendments to Ontario Regulation 153/04 (Record of Site Condition).

Following its initial draft release in 2007, the amendments underwent a lengthy review and comment period. The Regulation provides changes to: • How Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) are conducted; • Site Condition Standards (SCS); • How Risk Assessments (RAs) are conducted; and, • The Record of Site Condition (RSC) filing process.

The above changes will come into effect on July 1, 2011 under specific Transition Rules. Let’s look at each area separately.

Phase I ESAs The amendments appear to have the goal of standardizing how Phase I ESAs are conducted by regulating a process that no longer includes reference to Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standards. Mandatory components of a Phase I ESA include a records review, interviews, site reconnais-

by David Innocente 18 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010

“The amendments include changes to the Record of Site Condition process and a mandatory 30 day response from the ministry for submissions.”

sance, evaluation of information, and conclusions, as well as a report template (including a defined Table of Contents). In addition to the reporting requirements, there are a number of new definitions. These include: Phase I ESA Study Area; Owner; Enhanced Investigation Property (EIP); Potential Contaminating Activity (71 activities identified in Table 2 of Schedule D); and First Developed Use. Another new addition to the Phase I ESA is the Conceptual Site Model (CSM). Although CSMs have always been part of the Risk Assessment process, they are now mandated starting in the Phase I ESA stage and are then refined with additional information in the Phase II stage.

The purpose of the CSM is to describe and assess the Phase I ESA conditions including existing buildings, water bodies, adjacent properties, areas of potentially contaminating activities, and areas of potential concern. The above is also depicted in figures, with a description of any areas of uncertainty or absence of information.

The amendments also mandate when a Phase II ESA is required. This will occur for sites defined as an Enhanced Investigation Property (i.e., industrial use, garage, bulk fuel, dry cleaner), or when a Potentially Contaminating Activity is identified on the property. A Phase II ESA will also be triggered when the Qualified Person (QP) determines that a Phase II ESA is required based on Phase I ESA conditions.

Finally, a new 18-month stale date for Phase I ESAs has been included. This change only allows a Phase I ESA to support a RSC or Phase II ESA when it has been completed within the last 18 months, and when the QP determines that there has been no material change to the property.

So what does this mean? More time and money will be required to assess a site. Some stakeholders will expect use of the new Phase I ESA model before the transition period (July 1, 2011). More properties will be subject to a Phase II ESA, and stale dates may require work to be updated/ repeated.

BROWNFIELDS

MARKETPLACE

SUMMER 2010 HazMat Management 19

BROWNFIELDS

Phase II ESAs The management of Phase II ESAs also has a goal of standardization. This will be achieved through new requirements. Site investigation must comply with prescribed requirements (e.g., mandatory groundwater analysis on EIP properties). The Phase I CSM must be used in conjunction with other information to determine: media for investigation; locations and depths for sampling; and, parameters for laboratory analysis.

Phase II ESA reports must be completed according to the prescribed template. The Phase II ESA report must be submitted to the owner of the property, including the beneficial owner. Application of Non-Potable Standards now requires a well survey within 250 m of the Phase II ESA Property.

A Soil Vapor Study shall be conducted to support: • Phase II ESA CSM (where a contaminant transport pathway exists); • To verify post remediation conditions (if completed); or • Risk Assessment (RA, where pathway and exposure remains).

There are changes to the meaning of sensitive site for the ministry’s Table 1 to now include a property within 30 m of Area of Natural Significance, and pH restriction. The defin-

Helping you with the Science of Brownfields Intrinsik Environmental Sciences Inc. is a leading science-based consulting firm, with more than 20 years of experience assisting our clients by providing them with leading edge scientific knowledge and advice related to the protection of human health and the environment.

Risk Assessment • Human health and ecological risk assessments • Toxicology and hazard assessment of chemicals • Evaluation of risks related to contaminated sites • Probabilistic, multimedia, exposure and risk assessment modeling • Development of Property Specific Standards • Peer review of contaminated site risk assessments • Public consultation and risk communication

Regulatory Affairs • Experts in Ontario Regulation 153/04 with an established success rate with Ministry Submissions • More than 10 scientists with the qualifications, experience and expertise to qualify as a QPRA • Standing contracts with MOE, Environment Canada, and Health Canada to provide expert advice in toxicology and risk assessment.

For more information, contact Dr. Glenn Ferguson

(905) 364-7800 Ext.206

www.intrinsikscience.com 20 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010

MARKETPLACE

ition no longer includes shallow soil conditions (new Tables 6 and 7), and properties within 30 m of a water body (new Tables 8 and 9).

There are also a number of changes related specifically to groundwater that will impact project budgets and schedules. Groundwater samples must be collected from a monitoring well and not from a test pit, excavation, temporary borehole, undeveloped monitoring well, or any other similar source.

The environment ministry now requires groundwater plume delineation as part of the Phase II ESA. For any point of identified groundwater contamination, groundwater samples must be collected and analyzed cross-gradient and down-gradient. Additionally, where groundwater exceeds the SCS prior to the commencement of remediation activities, there are now prescribed sampling schedules once groundwater remediation activities are complete. This new time frame includes a minimum of 90 days before conducting confirmatory groundwater sampling events, then: • In-Situ remediation: four consecutive quarterly sampling events with positive results (one year minimum); and • Ex-Situ remediation: two consecutive quarterly sampling events with positive results (six month minimum).

BROWNFIELDS

An RSC cannot be filed until the above confirmatory sampling events are complete.

Imported fill The ministry has provided some clarification on the importation of fill material to an RSC property. Under all circumstances, the RSC property can receive fill that meets the ministry’s Table 1 Standards. For an RSC property to receive fill that doesn’t meet Table 1, all of the following Qualifications must apply: • It’s being used or was used as industrial, garage, bulk liquid, a dry cleaning operation (i.e., EIP); • It doesn’t have a previous RSC for agriculture, community, institutional, park or residential use; • A Phase I ESA has identified a PCA and a Phase II ESA has identified a contaminant above its generic standard.

If the RSC property meets the above Qualifications, then the fill must be imported to the property during the Phase II ESA period and must meet applicable generic standards or property specific standards in an approved Risk Assessment.

Additionally, the soil may only be used to backfill an excavation or as final grading.

So what does this mean for a brownfield developer?

MARKETPLACE

The short answer is that if the RSC property meets the above Qualifications, then fill imported to the Phase II ESA property must meet the applicable generic standards or standards specified in an approved RA before the RSC is filed.

What does this mean for a greenfield developer?

It’s unlikely that a Greenfield will meet the above Qualifications; therefore, only Table 1 fill can be imported to the site.

As mentioned previously, there is a new requirement to develop a CSM as part of the Phase II ESA. The purpose of the CSM is to depict the current environmental conditions on the property, including buildings, subsurface structures and utilities, geologic and hydrogeologic conditions, areas of confirmed environmental concern, contaminants of concern, potential human and ecological receptors, and potential contaminant transport and pathways. The Phase II ESA CSM will build upon the Phase I ESA CSM. The amendments also include changes to laboratory analytical procedures. Examples of specific requirements include more comprehensive reporting, all correspondence between the analytical laboratory and the Qualified Person is to be included in the Phase II ESA, and all situations falling outside of specified QA/QC protocols must be

Sustainable Soi lutions

Proven Technologies Stuyvesant Environmental Contracting undertakes soil washing, sludge dewatering, river bed remediation brownfield development and beneficial re-use of aggregates. Modern separation and dewatering plants can be a valuable technique applied in your project. Early involvement of Stuyvesant Environmental Contracting in remediation projects can result in a financially attractive material balance with low investment and project costs. Stuyvesant Environmental Contracting www.stuyvesantenvironmental.com is the North American affiliate of Dutch based Boskalis Dolman. www.boskalisdolman.com

Stuyvesant Environmental Contracting Inc 3525 N. Causeway Blvd, Suite 612 | Metairie, LA 70002 | USA | Telephone Office: (504) 831 - 0880

www.stuyvesantenvironmental.com SUMMER 2010 HazMat Management 21

BROWNFIELDS

22 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010

MARKETPLACE

BROWNFIELDS

addressed by the QP. In addition, there is an updated stand alone document (July 1, 2011) that deals specifically with analytical protocols.

Site Conditions Standards The updated Soil, Ground water and Sediment Standards set out the prescribed contaminants and the applicable generic Site Condition Standards (SCSs) for three types of land use, two ground water potability scenarios, two soil texture scenarios as well as new SCSs for shallow soil properties and properties located within 30 m of a surface water body The SCSs for many of the contaminants in each Table were revised and updated based on new toxicity science, updated transport models, source depletion and biodegradation considerations and the addition of new exposure pathways and receptors (e.g., mammals and birds). There are also new standards for compounds not previously listed (e.g., uranium, 1,4-dioxane, hexane, trichlorofluoromethane and F1-F4 in non-potable land use). It’s important to note that the new SCSs do not come into effect until July 1, 2011.

A comparison of the 2004 and 2009 standards for a common contaminant such as benzene indicates that the concentrations in soil in a Table 2 (potable water) environment are marginally less stringent, while those in a Table 3 (non-potable) environment are more stringent.

Concentrations of trichloroethylene (TCE), a degreaser and dry cleaning fluid, have become more stringent in both Table 2 and Table 3 in soil from the previous 2004 Standards.

In groundwater, concentrations of common contaminants have generally become more stringent in the 2009 compared to 2004 SCSs. However, the provision of groundwater SCSs for petroleum hydrocarbons F1-F4 in a non-potable (Table 3) environment will be a welcome addition, and should reduce the need for risk assessment at some sites.

Risk Assessment (RA) As previously noted, the amendments to the Regulation included a section on RA. The most significant change was the addition of the new Modified Generic Risk Assessment (MGRA) which is also referred to as a Tier II RA. The MGRA is a scaled-down version of a full RA, and is based on the model used to develop the generic site condition standards.

This new model allows QPs in Risk Assessment to adjust some of the physical, geologic, and hydrogeologic assumptions that are part of the generic site condition model. This model also allows for prescribed risk management measures to be included by blocking or eliminating exposure pathways.

If risk management measures are used in this new model, a Certificate of Property Use will automatically be

MARKETPLACE

generated. Although this new MGRA model is available for immediate use, it’s not until after July 1, 2011 that the full capabilities including an online model and submission, and a regulated review time of 8 weeks (including pre-submission form) will be fully realized. It’s still important to note that the MGRA model cannot be used for contaminants where there is no existing site condition standard, where there are other forms of risk management measures needed (other than the prescribed options), or at properties that are classified as sensitive according to revised Section 41 of the Regulation.

Record of Site Condition (RSC) The amendments to the Regulation include changes to the Record of Site Condition process. The new filing process includes a mandatory 30 day response from the ministry to check the Record of Site Condition once submitted. The amendments also include new rules for conflict of interested for Qualified Persons involved in Phase I ESAs, Phase II ESAs, and Records of Site Conditions. There are also some new Record of Site Condition filing details including: that legal description must be prepared by a lawyer; the Owner’s Certificate of Status or other document must be dated no more than one month before the RSC is filed; and the Owner’s affidavit amended to include statement that Owner ensured access to the entire property for the Phase I and II ESA. Additionally, the current plan of survey signed and sealed by surveyor must show: • RSC property; • RA property limits; • Phase I and II ESA property limits; and • Documentation of any soil excavated or brought to the RSC Property.

Finally, the ministry recognizes that some projects may be in progress and will not have the RSC filed before July 1, 2011. The new transition rules will allow an Owner to file a Record of Site Condition based on existing 2004 Standards for projects completed after July 1, 2011 provided that the owner must send a notice to the environment ministry in an approved form, notice must be received between July 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010, and the Record of Site Condition must be filed before January 1, 2013. Eligible projects must have begun remediation or have filed a final Risk Assessment with the ministry before December 31, 2010.

David Innocente, B.E.S., C.E.T., is Manager, Environmental Division, with MTE Consultants Inc. in Guelph, Ontario. Contact David at dinnocente@mte85.com SUMMER 2010 HazMat Management 23

BROWNFIELDS

MARKETPLACE

HAMILTON’S BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

ERASE

E

very successful economic development program or process must be dynamic in nature and possess the ability to change in order to accommodate revisions to policy, trends in the market, and to satisfy the needs of the end user of the program (while simultaneously delivering on the expectations of elected representatives). This is why the City of Hamilton’s brownfield redevelopment program — the Environmental Remediation and Site Enhancement (ERASE) Community Improvement Plan (CIP) — is now in its third generation.

The original ERASE program commenced in 2001 and was the first brownfield redevelopment program of its kind in Canada. Later expanded in 2005, the program has contributed to a number of success stories. Building on this legacy, Hamilton’s Economic Development Office has again

by Brian Morris 24 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010

refined and expanded efforts towards brownfield redevelopment through the ERASE CIP in light of the new regulatory environment in Ontario (see Cover Story, page 18) and drawing on synergies of other momentum in Hamilton.

Amongst the changes is the introduction of an innovative new financial incentive, the Downtown Hamilton/ West Harbourfront Remediation Loan Program. This pilot program has been developed to stimulate residential/commercial development/redevelopment on properties requiring remediation within the city’s downtown or the West Harbourfront, as traditional forms of financing remediation are often difficult to secure.

The program will provide financial assistance through a low interest loan equal to 75 per cent of the cost of remediating a property within the defined areas to a maximum of $100,000 per property/project. The loan is to be a “bridge” until such time as the property owner receives their ERASE Redevelopment Grant money (municipal property tax rebate to off-set costs of the environmental remediation of a property).

In essence, applicants will not owe any money back to the city out of their own pocket for the loan. Rather, the

BROWNFIELDS

loan will be paid back through the future increase in property taxes (that results on property from the redevelopment by assignment of their approved ERASE Redevelopment Grant). Any approved grant monies outstanding to the applicant for their ERASE Redevelopment Grant would then flow back to them as an annual tax grant, up to ten years, after the loan has been paid back in full.

In addition to the new loan program, several other significant changes have been made to existing financial incentive programs for brownfield redevelopment in Hamilton. The city is doubling the incentive for sustainable “green” projects on brownfield lands. Through the ERASE Redevelopment Grant program, the city is cost sharing (50/50) in Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) component costs, as per the city’s LEED Grant Program, on eligible projects. These eligible costs, which increase depending on the level of LEED certification achieved (e.g., silver, gold or platinum), include: the incremental construction costs (to a maximum), consultation, energy modeling, and certification fees of a redevelopment to achieve LEEDadcertification Clean Earth 1/4 4/21/09 through 10:20 the AM Canadian Page 1 Green Building Council (CaGBC).

MARKETPLACE

Furthermore, as a result of the amendments to Ontario Reg. 153/04, and the anticipated increase in costs for several facets of redeveloping brownfield sites in Ontario, the city has increased its maximum contribution for the ERASE Study Grant program. The Study Grant program, which provides a matching grant for Phase II and Phase III environmental site assessments, has increased the maximum contribution by an additional $5,000 per study and $5,000 per property.

For more information on these programs and brownfield redevelopment opportunities in Hamilton, please contact the brownfield office at 905-546-2424 x5602 or visit www. investinhamilton.ca

Brian Morris, Ec.D., is Business Development Consultant, City of Hamilton Economic Development & Real Estate Division, Planning & Economic Development Department. Contact Brian at Brian.Morris@Hamilton.ca

www.xcg.com Environmental Site Assessment

Complete and continuous enhanced deep in situ aerobic hydrocarbon bioremediation solutions without chemical release or mechanical aeration.

Soil and groundwater.

Prudent response.

Ecologically responsible.

CleanEARTH Solutions Ltd. 178 Pennsylvania Ave. Unit 4, Concord, ON L4K 4B1 Canada

Tel: (905) 482-2149 Toll Free: 1-866-885-2706 Fax: (416) 913-1610 Email: ksharfe@cleanearthltd.com

www.cleanearthltd.com

Site Remediation Risk Assessment Hazardous Building Materials Survey Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Groundwater Investigations Environmental Compliance Audits Brownfields Industrial Services

expert people

better

decisions Environmental Engineers and Scientists

Cincinnati Toronto Kitchener Kingston Edmonton SUMMER 2010 HazMat Management 25

KICK-START YOUR BROWNFIELD PROJECT WITH A GMF LOAN We beat the bank!

GMF offers loans for brownfield remediation projects at rates far lower than any municipal government can get on the market. Our rates for municipalities are 1.5% lower than the Government of Canada bond rate and even further below market rates.

GMF also offers loans to private-sector companies or corporations wholly owned by a municipal government for brownfield site remediation at competitive rates, if they are partners in eligible municipal projects.

“ The remediation of this site is a turning point for our town. In these times of very tight municipal budgets, the assistance of the Green Municipal Fund is very useful.”

—Mayor Céline Tremblay, Municipality of Saint-Damien, Québec

www.fcm.ca/gmf

gmf@fcm.ca

613-907-6357

BROWNFIELDS

MARKETPLACE

THE CASE FOR USING IT AT CONTAMINATED SITES

BIOAUGMENTATION Injecting KB-1 into a well at a TCE contaminated site in Thunder Bay, Ontario.

W

ith an estimated 10,000 contaminated sites in Canada, there are plenty of opportunities to use a variety of treatment methods to clean them up.

Bioaugmentation is one method that has received mixed reviews over the years.

The approach is thought of as “pixie dust” by some consultants and others in the clean-up industry that were burned by the claims of salesmen that their product could

by John Nicholson

“In the case of the Thunder Bay project, a total of 65 litres of KB-1 was injected into 65 locations on the contaminated site.”

clean up a site within days merely by injecting the “snake oil” down some wells. When the promised results never came, there was always some explanation as to why (e.g., not enough wells, different flow regime, improper application, etc.).

Although there were (and likely still are) pretenders out there, there are legitimate products that actually can clean up a site.

Bioaugmentation involves the addition of beneficial microorganisms to improve the rate or extent of biodegradation. Theoretically, any soil or groundwater contaminant containing carbon can be biodegraded by microorganisms.

The key is to find the right microbial culture and ensure the conditions are optimal to allow them to eat their food — the contaminant of concern.

Canadian success story In Canada, an anaerobic culture of beneficial microorganisms called Dehalococcoides (Dhc) was developed at the University of Toronto (UofT) under the direction of professor Elizabeth Edwards. Dhc are anaerobic bacteria that SUMMER 2010 HazMat Management 27

BROWNFIELDS

MARKETPLACE

First commercial site in Canada

Dehalococcoide bacteria commercially developed as KB-1

are very good at degrading tetrachloroethene (PCE) and tricholorethene (TCE) in groundwater.

Anaerobic cultures grow in the absence of oxygen (in fact, oxygen in poisonous to them). This allows remediation specialists to inject the cultures directly into the soil and/ or groundwater without the hassle of ensuring adequate oxygen supply as well.

The disadvantage of anaerobic microorganisms is that there growth rate is slower than aerobic cultures.

Nonetheless, their application can be very effective depending on the site.

The Dhc developed at UofT are now produced commercially and sold as KB-1® by SiREM, based in Guelph, Ontario. More than 180 sites in the USA and Europe have used KB-1® as the bioaugmentation culture. Geological conditions at these sites have ranged from clay to fractured rock. Groundwater temperatures at these sites have ranged from 8°C to 30°C. The number of injection wells used has ranged from one to over 800.

KB-1 was used extensively at contaminated sites in the United States and Europe before SiREM completed the costly and time consuming process of registering the product under the New Substances Notification (NSN) Regulation governed by Environment Canada and Health Canada.

The NSN Regulation is a doubled-edged sword for any company looking to commercialize a new microbial culture in Canada. For SiREM, the process of registering KB-1® was a challenge. However, the regulatory hurdle it crossed in registering the product is now a competitive advantage as it is the only provider of such a product in Canada.

28 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010

The first successful application of KB-1 in Canada was in Thunder Bay, Ontario during the summer of 2009. Located in the northwest shore of Lake Superior, Thunder Bay is known for its grain elevators and pulp and paper production. It may also become known as the first place where the application of a dechlorinating microbial culture was used to enhance the cleanup of TCE. TCE is a chlorinated hydrocarbon commonly used industrial solvent, including the degreasing of metal parts.

In the past, its widespread use and poor waste disposal (who hasn’t heard stories about the practice of throwing the bucket of dirty solvent out the back door), TCE is a very common contaminant at brownfield sites across North America.

One challenge of treating TCE anaerobically is that it can be transformed into vinyl chloride, which is far more toxic than TCE. The Dhc found in KB-1 converts TCE to ethene, a non-toxic gas. (Ethene is the same gas given off by bananas as they age in a fruit bowl.)

In the case of the Thunder Bay project, a total of 65 litres of KB-1® was injected into 65 locations on the contaminated site. Within 12 weeks there was up to 60 per cent reduction in TCE in the wells. Once all the TCE is consumed, the microorganisms die off as there is no more food for them.

John Nicholson, M.Sc., P.Eng. is based in Toronto, Ontario. Contact John at john. nicholson@ebccanada.com

Providing award-winning planning, design, and implementation services for redevelopment programs ► ► ► ►

Environmental Site Assessments Environmental Planning and Assessment Brownfield Redevelopment Brownfield GIS 100 Commerce Valley Dr. W., Thornhill, ON L3T 0A1 t: 905.882.1100 | f: 905.882.0055 For further information or to contact any of our other offices, please visit our website: www.mmm.ca

Communities transportation Buildings infrastruCture

CleanTech Canada

Published by HazMat Management and Solid Waste & Recycling magazines.

WASTEWATER

Focus on Acid Mine Drainage

SPONSORED BY:

IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

CleanTech Canada editorial

Alberta’s lessons for CleanTech companies

A

CARBON MARKETS

lthough most Canadian CleanTech companies may think that selling the carbon credits/offsets generated by their products and services is more trouble than it’s worth, with emerging new carbon markets in Canada and the U.S., it may be time to reconsider. As Alberta introduced the first offset/credit trading system in Canada in 2007, it’s the only Canadian jurisdiction with experience in a carbon compliance market to date. Some of the lessons learned by sellers in Alberta may be instructive for CleanTech businesses thinking of becoming involved in the emerging emissions trading systems in jurisdictions such as British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.

Sellers of carbon offsets or credits in the Alberta market have found that differing verification standards across different compliance and voluntary systems significantly limit the ability to readily transfer credits recognized in one regime to another.

Companies intending to engage in offset/credit sales need to understand, at the outset, the standards associated with the particular market, because failure to meet the specific standard will mean the credits/offsets will not be accepted to meet compliance requirements. Consequently, CleanTech companies contemplating the sale of carbon offsets/credits cannot “play the markets” — i.e., they can’t easily move the offsets/credits between the various compliance or voluntary markets to get the highest value.

In addition, given the limited number of qualified offset/ credit verifiers in Alberta, sellers learned that failing to allocate verification time and costs (including the seller’s own time and costs associated with gathering and providing the documentation required by the verifier) can quickly negate the potential gains associated with smaller sales. Alberta’s sellers have also indicated that to be verified and accepted in a compliance market, the ownership of credits (especially aggregated credits) must be clearly established, even though this is sometimes difficult to do.

“Alberta’s sellers found that a lack of price transparency can lead to depressed prices.”

by Teresa Meadows 30 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010

Alberta’s sellers also learned that many buyers require clauses to address what happens when the seller cannot deliver the quantity of carbon offsets/credits itemized in the purchase agreement (i.e., what happens when the third-party verification reveals that the emissions reductions modeled and sold are less than the reductions actually realized and available for sale?).

Failed delivery typically results in increased costs to comply for the buyer because they’re returning to the market to purchase additional offsets/credits at the eleventh hour with a compliance deadline looming. Not surprisingly, buyers pass these increased costs onto the seller who failed to deliver.

In addition, sellers learned the hard lesson that, with no dispute resolution built into Alberta’s regulatory processes, the specific contractual terms contained in the offset/credit purchase agreement are essential to determining the parties’ rights and resolving their disputes. As these transactions are often considered unique, there’s no generally-accepted, standard form or “one size fits all” agreement that is readily applied.

Consequently, sellers should prepare their own draft of an appropriate purchase agreement prior to entering the market.

Lastly, Alberta’s sellers found that a lack of price transparency can lead to depressed prices, as participants assume that the pricing per tonne of offsets/credits must be lower than the cost of the compliance option of paying into Alberta’s technology fund (currently set at $15/tonne).

Although these issues may seem daunting to a CleanTech company thinking of participating in these markets, emerging regional and provincial initiatives are creating expanding opportunities in the low-carbon arena, and the growing markets beyond provincial borders may make the effort worthwhile.

Further, some of the lessons learned from the early jurisdictions, such as Alberta, are being incorporated into the newer regulatory schemes.

To take advantage of the emerging opportunities, CleanTech companies need to realistically assess the quantity, quality and verifiability of the carbon reductions they’re generating in the context of their participation in a specific regulatory or voluntary program. As Alberta’s sellers have learned, there may be issues to address, but with sales of credits/offsets estimated at over US $30 million in 2008 and the market expanding to other provinces, the time may be right for Canadian CleanTech companies to plan their approach to obtaining value for the low carbon attributes of their products and services.

Teresa Meadows, LL.B., is with of Miller Thomson, LLP in Edmonton, Alberta. Contact Teresa at tmeadows@millerthomson.com

CleanTech Canada

BC INNOVATIVE CLEAN ENERGY FUND INVESTS IN NEW CLEANTECH PROJECTS

ON ICE

B

ritish Columbia created the Innovative Clean Energy Fund in 2007 to encourage the development and commercialization of new technologies for clean energy in order to protect the environment and support local economies and in the province.

The fund showcases energy and environmental technologies that solve local problems, yet have international market potential. ICE focuses on pre-commercial technology or commercial technologies not currently used in BC.

Levy and governance The $25 million a year fund is collected through a 0.4 per cent levy on final sales of electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, propane and any other product prescribed by regulation as an energy product. (Transportation fuels including gasoline and diesel are exempt from the levy.) The levy is assessed on residential and commercial/industrial customers. Each year a family will typically about $3 a year for the levy on electricity, $5 on natural gas, and $8 on fuel oil. There’s a $100,000 annual cap for industrial customers.

The fund is governed by a committee comprised of senior government and external representatives.

Projects Initially two calls for application to the ICE Fund resulted in contributions of about $47 million towards 34 projects in communities across BC. These projects represent about $174 million of economic investment and showcase a variety of technologies that include solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, ocean wave, bioenergy and variable street lighting technology. Other projects have followed.

“The $25 million a year fund is collected through a 0.4 per cent levy on final sales of energy products, excluding transportation fuel.”

by Guy Crittenden

With $1.96-million from the ICE Fund, Lignol Innovations Ltd. evaluates biorefinery feedstocks, including beetlekilled pine, and demonstrates the production of enzymes and yeasts for ethanol production. The B.C. government has invested over $60 million — and leveraged over $235 milllion — in 41 clean tech projects across province.

On July 18, 2008 the province announced approval of 15 clean energy projects throughout BC, investing $25 million from the fund. On April 3, 2009 19 projects were approved for rural and off-grid communities. The approved projects represented over $96 million in total value and will create about 750 temporary and full-time jobs in over 25 communities. On the SUMMER 2010 HazMat Management 31

CleanTech Canada

same date eight projects were approved to develop cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, and biofuels technologies. Increased biofuels production will help meet the provincial standard of five per cent minimum annual average renewable content for gasoline and diesel used in B.C. by 2010.

Most recently, in March of this year, $6.6 million was invested in two cutting-edge CleanTech projects <ox2014> one that will create syngas from waste wood to generate heat and power, and another for windows that darken in sunlight and lighten at the flick of a switch.

“The Innovative Clean Energy Fund is helping entrepreneurs bring their new, clean energy technologies into the marketplace,” says Iain Black, Minister of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development. “The 41 projects supported so far — with more to be announced — are creating jobs for British Columbians and green energy solutions for communities across the province, and the world.”

Just over $2 million goes to SWITCH Materials Inc., developers of thin films based on patented organic materials that “switch” optical properties by darkening automatically when

exposed to sun, and rapidly bleaching on command when stimulated by electricity. The project will commercialize “smart” windows using this technology, creating 11 jobs immediately and more than 60 jobs by 2017.

Another $4.5 million will help the University of British Columbia and its project partners, Nexterra Systems Corp., GE Energy and FP Innovations, develop a system that uses biomass to create synthetic gas, which will be fired directly into a gas engine to produce both heat and energy for UBC’s Vancouver campus. The project will create 50 jobs immediately and almost 900 jobs by 2016. The project will lower greenhouse gas emissions by 4,500 tonnes per year, and similar plants could operate in B.C.’s remote northern forest communities and public institutions around the world.

The third call for funding proposals closes on July 5, 2010.

More information on the ICE Fund is available at www.sted.gov. bc.ca (Click on Innovative Clean Energy Fund on the right-hand navigation bar.) Readers can also email ICEFund@gov.bc.ca

Guy Crittenden is editor of this magazine.

You drive innovation.

We help enable it.

Miller Thomson llp’s CleanTech Practice Group applies its depth and breadth of knowledge and experience to help clients in a variety of industries. The CleanTech group provides integrated legal expertise in many areas, such as: • • • • •

Renewable energy project financing and development Innovative remediation technologies Waste and recycling programs Water and wastewater treatment projects Carbon credit verification and trading

For more information about our CleanTech legal services, contact: Aaron Atcheson, Partner 519.931.3526 aatcheson@millerthomson.com

2010

REMEDIATION

technologiesymposium October 20-22, 2010 The Fairmont Banff Springs, Banff, Alberta

Delegate space still available Join Us Join us for the ninth annual Remediation Technologies Symposium 2010, the premier remediation technology transfer event for environmental professionals. Attendance at RemTech 2010 is highly recommended for all industry sectors that have a vested interest in the remediation of contaminated sites.

Symposium organized by: Environmental Services Association of Alberta (ESAA) 102 2528 Ellwood Drive SW Edmonton, AB T6X 0A9 phone: 1.800.661.9278 or 780.429.6363

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF ALBERTA

www.esaa-events.com/remtech 32 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010 MT_CleanTech Canada Guide Ad_v4.indd 1

1 5/28/2010 4:24:03RT2010Delegates1-4pageAD.indd PM Process CyanProcess MagentaProcess YellowProcess BlackPANTONE 581 C

6/10/10 1:51:42 PM

CleanTech Canada

CLEANTECH NORTH NOW OPEN FOR BUSINESS

O

n April 23, 2010 a new consortium in the CleanTech space announced that it’s now accepting applications from Canadian CleanTech companies looking to grow and expand their market reach. CleanTech North (CTN) says the sector is poised for exponential international growth over the next decade and Canadian clean technology companies are recognized as having some of the most advanced science and technology.

“The challenge for Canadian clean technology companies is that many have not yet demonstrated the ability for their technologies to reach their full commercial potential,” Henry Vehovec, the Executive Director of CTN says. “One of the primary goals of CleanTech North is to link innovative Canadian companies with a range of experienced industry partners in order to accelerate their revenue growth and guide them down the path to effective commercialization.”

CTN is a consortium of tier one corporate services providers representing a range of industry sectors (e.g., technology, finance, engineering, financial services, law, tax and accounting, business development, wealth management, etc.). CTN leverages the expertise of its members for the benefit of individual Canadian companies in order to define and expand their unique positions within the global CleanTech marketplace.

“The consortium provides innovative Canadian businesses with the support they need to achieve success in the global clean technology marketplace.”

According to its news release, CleanTech North “provides successful program participants with access to investment capital and leveraged distribution channels, and with guidance and assistance to overcome legislative, regulatory, and market challenges.”

“Canadians have a demonstrated history of developing cutting edge technologies, but all too often, we fail to commercialize these innovations on the global stage,” says Albert Behr, President of CTN. “We’ve brought together some of the brightest minds in the Canadian business world to help early-stage CleanTech companies reach their full potential. We want to make sure Canadian companies have access to what they need to succeed — whether that is business mentorship, legal advice, or help to raise capital.”

CleanTech North is officially open for business and is interested in working with Canadian companies with new and/ or emerging technologies. Companies interested in becoming involved with CleanTech North should visit the CTN website at www.cleantechnorth.com/intake/ The first step in the process is to provide a brief overview of your company and

CleanTech North (CTN) presented a well-attended seminar at the MaRS centre in Toronto on May 12, 2010 on the subject of markets and opportunities in wind power. CTN Executive Director Duncan Stewart led the panel through a lively exchange. Panelists (shown here left to right) were: Nicole Geneau, Nextera Energy Resources; Thomas Schneider, Schneider Power; John McIlveen, Jacob Securities; and Diana Hurdowar, Hatch. (Photo by John Nicholson Jr.)

technology. CTN will review this information as part of its initial screening and needs assessment process.

“Although we are officially launching our call for Canadian clean technology companies, we have been working with several companies over the last six months,” says David Berg, one of the principal founders of CTN. “By working with CTN, we have been able to elevate their positioning and prepare them to expand their market presence in the US and move one step closer to realizing their full commercialized potential. We are excited to be able to announce the beginning of our formal intake process.”

About CleanTech North The CleanTech North consortium provides innovative Canadian businesses with the support they need to achieve success in the global clean technology marketplace. CTN facilitates access to tier one service providers who can provide companies with expertise across a range of market areas, including technology, engineering, accountancy, corporate and intellectual property law, procurement, lean manufacturing, taxation, international trade, business development, finance, and operations.

CleanTech North focuses on the accelerated commercialization of Smart Grid Infrastructure, Water Treatment and Waste Management solutions. The following companies are members of CleanTech North: Behr and Associates, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, GCI Group, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, GrowthWorks, HUB International, MaRS, Maquarie Private Wealth, National Angel Capital Organization, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and the Royal Bank of Canada.

For more information, visit www.cleantechnorth.com SUMMER 2010 HazMat Management 33

CleanTech Canada

GENOMICS TREATMENT OPTION FOR MINING WASTEWATER

WASTEWATER DETOX

C

ompanies that face the challenge of cleaning up toxic wastewater from mining operations will soon have more reliable bioremediation options.

New research from Genome BC will harness the potential of microbes naturally present in mine bioremediation to help improve strategies for cleaning up contaminated mine sites.

This method of bioremediation will provide a valuable alternative to some current mine effluent treatment methods that require large-scale employment of chemicals to treat water contaminated by metal leaching and acid rock drainage.

Dr. Sue Baldwin at The University of British Columbia is leading the $1.5 million project entitled, The Development of Genomic Tools for Monitoring and Improving Passive Mitigation of Mine Drainage.

“There are micro-organisms out there that can do all sorts of things, including the detoxification of water,” says Baldwin. “We’re relying on the microbes that are already present in the environment to do this, and using genomics to determine how to create the conditions in which they will thrive.”

Essentially, the micro-organisms digest the metal toxins in wastewater, sequestering them or reducing them to less toxic forms. One class of microbes in particular, termed SulfateReducing Bacteria (SRB), are known to be powerhouses in the clean up of mine drainage.

But SRB do not work in isolation; they rely on members of a diverse microbial community to provide them with essential nutrients so they can thrive and carry out the detoxification.

This is where genomics come in.

The researchers will study the microbial community as a whole, sequence the DNA to see how the organisms interact, and determine what sort of nutrients and conditions are necessary to ensure that they continue to do their jobs over time.

The researchers are gathering information from two test sites where they’re setting up pilot treatment facilities. The sites are located at the Mt. Polley Mine (a copper and gold mine near

34 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010

Williams Lake) and at the Teck smelter near Castlegar, BC. So what exactly would one of these natural treatment “facilities” look like?

“No different than the surrounding environment,” says Baldwin. “The water would flow through a natural compost area which would serve to nourish the microbes, and this would be capped with grasses. It essentially looks like a series of grasses and water ponds.”

These treatment facilities are universally applicable and can be set up in virtually any environment where there’s sufficient space, and customized to include the natural microbial communities found there. “We have keen interest and active participation from the international mining community,” says Baldwin.

Dr. Alan Winter is Genome BC’s President and CEO. “We’re very pleased to support this innovative research, which is helping to solve a major challenge in the mining industry here in British Columbia and around the world, and doing it in such a way as to not disturb the environment any further,” Winter says.

About Genome BC Founded in 2000, Genome BC works collaboratively with government, universities and industry as the catalyst for a genomics-driven life sciences cluster with significant social and economic benefits for the Province and Canada. The organization’s research portfolio, over $410 million since inception, includes 74 projects and technology platforms focused on areas of strategic importance to British Columbia such as human health, forestry, fisheries, bioenergy, mining, agriculture, and the environment.

Genome BC programs are funded by Genome Canada, the BC government, Western Economic Diversification Canada and other public and private partners.

For more information, contact Rachael Froese Zamperini, Genome BC’s Communications Consultant, at rzamperini@genomebc.ca

CleanTech Canada

BIOTEQ USES SULPHIDE PRECIPITATION ON ACID MINE DRAINAGE

WELLINGTON ORO MINE

The Wellington Oro plant uses a unique sulphide precipitation process to recover dissolved metals from wastewater

The plant produces clean water and a saleable zinc-cadmium concentrate that can be sent to a refinery and recycled into useful products

lthough many mine facilities have implemented environmentally sustainable practices, communities across North America still face the burden of dealing with impacts from their industrialized past. New wastewater treatment technology being used in Breckenridge, Colorado is allowing this forward-thinking community to counter the debilitating effects of acid mine drainage to reclaim parkland for use in recreation, and discharge clean water that supports local fish populations.

move the dissolved metals emanating from the abandoned mine site into the Blue River downstream of French Creek. The water would need to meet Colorado Water Quality Standards, as well as protect the nearby brown trout fishery.

A

Wellington Oro Mine From the late 1880s to the early 1970s the Wellington Oro Mine site, located three miles from the Town of Breckenridge, produced silver, gold, lead and zinc from an extensive network of underground tunnels. The largest mine in Summit County, Colorado, it was closed down in 1972, but left in its wake a legacy of zinc and cadmium-laden contaminated water. High levels of this contaminated “acid mine drainage” drained from the miles of abandoned tunnels into a local river system impacting local fish populations.

Breckenridge has become a popular ski resort and recreational playground, where an appreciation of the environment runs deeply among the community’s population. The water from the closed mine site was a source of concern, and prompted a cooperative effort involving three levels of government.

In 2005, the town and Summit County purchased the 1,800 acre site as part of a plan to create an open space to enhance the region’s public amenities. At the same time, they worked with the US EPA and the Colorado Department of Health and Environment to find a system for suitable water treatment to re-

Challenge and solution Although no longer in operation, toxic runoff from the mine is created when rainfall or snow melt enters the mine’s 12 miles of tunnels and crosscuts. As the water moves through the Wellington Oro Mine site it becomes acidic and dissolves zinc and cadmium found in the mine.

Acid mine drainage is a naturally occurring process that happens at an estimated 70 per cent of the world’s mines. Mining activity can expose rock containing sulphide-based minerals in open pits or underground that, when exposed to water, oxygen and common bacteria, creates acidic water that dissolves residual metals in the mine’s rock.

After an international call to action, the community commissioned a 3,200 sq. ft. water treatment plant with the capacity to process over 150 gallons per minute, or up to 80 million gallons of water a year (equivalent to 120 Olympic-sized swimming pools). The treatment facility uses a process called “sulphide precipitation” in order to return to the French Gulch basin clean water with less than 225 parts per billion (ppb) of zinc and 4 ppb of cadmium, meeting the strict criteria set down by Colorado Water Quality Standards. Prior to treatment the average zinc and cadmium concentrations in the untreated water was 270,000 ppb and 112 parts per billion, respectively, concentrations too high to be tolerable to the local brown trout.

In the sulphide precipitation process, the contaminated water SUMMER 2010 HazMat Management 35

The Town of Breckenridge is applying innovative sulphide precipitation technologies to treat metal-contaminated water emanating from a closed mine site

is collected in an underground tank and pumped into the plant, where the water chemistry is adjusted using sulphide. The changes in water chemistry cause the dissolved metals to precipitate and form solid metal particles that are recovered using a clarifier and filter. The remaining clean water is then safely released into the French Creek tributary of the Blue River.

Results Managed by the Town of Breckenridge Water Division, the treatment plant removes about 4,000 pounds of metal a month and meets strict international ISO 14001 standards for environmental compliance. The alternative process considered was “lime

Atlantic Reclamation Conference

Reclaiming Derelict Land in Atlantic Canada 4th Annual Conference & Trade Show of the CLRA – Atlantic Chapter.

October 27-29, 2010 Halifax, Nova Scotia

treatment”, which would have created a metal sludge requiring specialized disposal and storage. The sulphide precipitation process used by Breckenridge and Summit County instead produces clean, treated water and separated, saleable zinc-cadmium sulphide that can be recycled into useful products.

This unique project, undertaken by three levels of governments, is not only meeting the concerns for addressing water quality, but is allowing this community to reclaim, in perpetuity, a large portion of land that can be protected for public recreation, natural resource protection and as a scenic backdrop. By recovering salable, recyclable metal that can help offset the cost of treatment this innovative plant has been able to leverage advanced technology in order to achieve the community’s goals for sustainability.

Written by Brad Marchant, CEO of BioteQ Environmental Technologies in Vancouver, BC. Contact Brad at bioteq@bioteq.ca HMMsept08gm1307 Kilmer.qxd 9/12/08 4:27 PM Page 1

Kilmer Brownfield Equity Fund L.P. Canada’s leading fund dedicated to the redevelopment of brownfields

Putting Private Equity to Work The Kilmer Brownfield Equity Fund is dedicated to creating value for stakeholders through the clean-up and revitalization of brownfield properties in Canada.

If you have a property for sale, please contact Pamela Kraft, Development Manager at 416-814-3437 pkraft@kilmergroup.com www.kilmergroup.com/brownfield

LW S Full transfer station facilities c/w processing solid & liquid – hazardous & non hazardous waste, drum storage – approx.

200,000 gallon tank farm, shredders, full lab c/w registered chemist. May receive from anywhere in Canada or USA. Transport to & from Ontario and Quebec. Vacuum trucks, vans, or tank trucks and trailers available.

www.arc2010.atlanticclra.ca 36 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010

5555 Power Road Ottawa, Ontario, K1G 3N4 Tel: 613-822-2700 1-800-263-5048 Fax 613-822-6183 Email: mail@lacombewaste.ca

facility-profile

... continued from page 16

Above: A Newalta self-contained mobile circulation unit operating at a customer’s site decontaminating a distil distillate tank as part of the non-entry tank decontamination process.

Below: A typical Newalta refinery installation with generator (left), mixing tank (centre right), heat exchanger (right) and centrifuges on stands (background)

reducing environmental impacts. The company’s approach reduces the volume of waste sent for disposal by up to 95 percent and maximizes hydrocarbon and water recovery.

From the initial consultation and project scoping to cleaning the tank and managing the waste, Newalta tailors tank management solutions to the specific needs of the customer. The company has experience minimizing oil and gas industry waste, and recovering 1.5 million barrels of crude oil each year.

For refineries, safety is of the highest priority. Risks associated with tank cleaning include having extra people onsite and exposure to dangerous substances such as H2S and benzene. In Ontario, Newalta’s Onsite group (based in Sarnia) maintains a Total Recordable Injury Rating — a number measuring the frequency of on-the-job injuries — of zero. The onsite safety program includes core and site-specific trainSUMMER 2010 HazMat Management 37

facility-profile

A typical Newalta refinery installation with centrifuges on stands (left), heat exchanger (centre) and mixing tank (right).

ing, daily safety meetings, self-contained installations to prevent leaks, and odour and vapour control systems.

The company’s typical Newalta tank management process includes: • Consultation, imaging and sampling: Newalta works with the customer to determine the scope of the project and set expectations. Sludge is profiled using infrared technology and 3D-modeling to analyze tank contents and determine optimal processing methods.

• Non-entry tank decontamination and sludge suspension: Robotic or automated technology reduces the need for confined space entry. Tank materials are liquefied to mobilize and suspend solids in the sludge, which is then removed to maximize product recovery potential.

• Centrifugation, filtration and product recovery: Centrifuges separate solids from liquid components in sludge. The company’s centrifuges are specifically engineered to manage oily sludge found 38 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010

in tanks. Depending on the sludge profile and contaminants in the tank, a decanter centrifuge is used to separate solids and hydrocarbons, or a tri-canter to separate oil, water and solids. In the case of sludge with low levels of solids, a filtration system can be used.

• Disposal: By recovering oil and water from sludge, the amount of solids requiring disposal is reduced by 85 to 95 percent. The remaining solids are sent offsite for safe disposal.

• Tank cleaning and coordination of inspection and maintenance: After sludge is removed, tanks are cleaned using safety-oriented tank entry protocols. If required, inspection and maintenance are coordinated with appropriate third parties.

ELIMINATING DISPOSAL, RECOVERING BRINE

While Newalta’s approach already reduces tank waste by up to 95 percent, the com-

pany is exploring opportunities to recover the inherent energy value in the minimized solids, thus eliminating the need for disposal altogether. This includes testing of innovative processes and technologies to treat the waste such that it can be used as an alternative fuel (in cement kilns, for example).

In addition to tank management, Newalta partners with refineries to manage and recover brine from salt cavern operations. Salt caverns are used to temporarily store hydrocarbons and liquefied petrochemicals. Brine (water with very high salt concentrations) is created when the caverns are first developed, and is used to displace the hydrocarbons from the cavern as well as maintain the storage volume and integrity of the cavern while not in use.

Brine is stored above-ground in open reservoirs, where it’s exposed to rain and runoff water. Excess brine water must be managed, and with its extreme salinity, isn’t suitable for traditional water treatment and discharge. Therefore alternative methods of disposal must be used.

Rather than simply discarding brine water as a waste, Newalta introduced evaporation technology as a more environmentally progressive alternative. The excess water is evaporated and brine is re-concentrated and returned to customers. To make this highly energy intensive operation more cost effective, the company uses excess steam produced by the customer’s boiler facilities to power the evaporation process, thus transforming another waste material into a resource.

In the future, Newalta intends to partner with refineries to develop long-term design, build and operate (DBO) tank management facilities on their sites. This will allow for continuous, cost-effective removal and recovery of hydrocarbons and water from minimal amounts of tank sludge, thus eliminating the need for major tank cleanHMM ing projects altogether.

Pat Carswell is Senior Operations Manager, Onsite Services, Eastern Canada in Burlington, Ontario. Contact Pat at pcarswell@newalta. com Mark Conway is District Manager, Onsite Services, Western Canada in Calgary, Alberta Contact Mark at mconway@newalta.com

workplace-safety

Bill 168 Violence and harassment in the workplace

by Lynne Bard

I

n a development that should be of interest to readers in all provinces, Ontario is playing catch-up with the other provinces and jurisdictions such as the federal sphere (federal legislation governs transportation companies, banks, airlines, and other federal undertakings), British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia who have all directly addressed the problem of workplace violence as a health and safety issue for years.

Violence and harassment issues in the workplace and how we handle these matters have been drastically changed in Ontario by Bill 168 as of December 15, 2009 when this new legislation received royal ascent.

Workplaces across the province are required to develop measures to address violence and harassment in the workplace, develop policies, procedures, conduct risk assessments of their organization, and put programs and training in place for their staff.

Statistics from the Ministry of Labour, Statistics Canada and WSIB directly identify the need for Ontario to address workplace violence and harassment issues: • In 2009 the Ministry of Labour (MOL)issued 351 fines related to harassment in the workplace; • The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) identified in 2007 that there were 2,150 lost time claims related to assaults, violent acts, harassment and acts of war or terrorism in Ontario; • Individuals who have been bullied at work waste 10-52 per cent of their time on the job — lost time ratio; • Statistics Canada, 2007 identified from the General Social Survey, 2004 that 17 per cent (356,000 incidents) of all self-reported incidents of violent victimization, including sexual assault, robbery and physical assault happen in the workplace; and • Organizations have identified an increase of 66 per cent in aggressive acts within their workplaces over the past 5 years.

Effective June 15, 2010 organizations in Ontario must have met the new guidelines and legal requirements as set out in the amendment to the Health and Safety Act in addition to their obligations under the existing legislation of the Human Rights Act. This legislative act will remain in force addressing a more victim-focused complaints process than the new occupational health and safety legislation.

This amendment now places an explicit duty on employers to protect employees from workplace violence and harassment and places a positive obligation to take precautionary measures should violence appear likely to

occur within the workplace. All employers must have policies and procedures in place on workplace violence, including harassment and bullying.

Following are steps employers must take to meet compliance, effective June 15 deadline: 1. Conduct a Risk Assessment: Employers must complete an evaluation of their operations to ensure that the vulnerabilities to violence are identified and addressed; update and/or develop policies to control the risks identified and communicate the results of the assessment to the joint health and safety committee, a health and safety representative or to the workers where no committee or representative exists.

2. Make Necessary Changes to the Workplace: Using the information gathered in the risk assessment, employers must make the necessary changes to reduce the vulnerability to violence in the workplace.

3. Develop & Review Policies with respect to Workplace Violence & Harassment: Employers must ensure that policies are in place to address findings of the risk assessment and to address the procedure for the reporting and investigating workplace violence and harassment complaints. Employers must post these policies (in the case of employers with more than five employees) and review them on an annual basis.

4. Develop and Maintain Programs to Implement those Policies: Develop a program for the implementation and maintenance of workplace violence and harassment policies. Employers must include in the program as outlined in the act, measures and procedures that: • to control the risks identified in the assessment required under subsection 32.0.3 (1) as likely to expose a worker to physical injury; • for summoning immediate assistance when workplace violence occurs or is likely to occur; • for workers to report incidents of workplace violence to the employer or supervisor; • set out how the employer will investigate and deal with incidents or complaints of workplace violence; and • include any prescribed elements.

5. Train Employees: Employers must provide information and instruction to their employees on the contents of the policies and programs; how to report violence and/or harassment, domestic violence or bullying in the workplace.

HMM

“Employers with more than five staff must post these policies and review them on an annual basis.”

Lynne Bard is President and Senior Consultant of Beyond Rewards Inc. in Guelph, Ontario. Contact Lynne at info@beyondrewards.ca SUMMER 2010 HazMat Management 39

emergency-response

Six Steps to Prepare Your Business for an Emergency Notes from the World Conference on Disaster Management

I

f your business didn’t have access to electricity, telephones, water or gas for 72 hours or more, would you know what to do? Is your office building protected from flooding, forest fires, or any other natural disasters? Are you and your employees safe from workplace hostility, cyber crime and unexpected computer outages? If your key supplier went on strike tomorrow or a pandemic spread across your community, would you be prepared?

Participants in the 20th World Conference on Disaster Management (WCDM) convened in Toronto June 6 to 9, aiming to make sure Canadian businesses answer a resounding “yes” to these and other emergency preparedness questions in 2010.

“Every Canadian corporation — no matter how large or small — needs an emergency plan,” says Chuck Wright, Director of the 20th WCDM. “It’s the first step to preparedness and to developing a mindset that keeps people safe, not only when disaster strikes but in their daily routines as well.”

Statistics show that without a tested emergency preparedness plan in place, up to 86 per cent of small- and mediumsized businesses will fail within three years of a major incident.

“It’s time for businesses to ask themselves whether or not they want to be a part of that statistic,” says Wright.

“It’s critical to keep appraised of the advances made in the disaster management field year after year,” says Alain Normand, Manager, Emergency Measures of the City of Brampton and Chair, Education Committee of the Ontario Association of Emergency Managers. “The WCDM has been very helpful in enabling me to develop a wide-reaching network of professionals, both in terms of geographic location and in terms of variety of skills, which is key in planning for potential emergencies.”

To help Canadian companies prepare for the unexpected, Wright points to the following six key steps for preparedness recommended by the Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness (CCEP), presenters of the 20th WCDM: 1. Know your risks. It’s vital to identify and know the risks in your community so your business is able to prepare for all types of disruptions. In addition to obvious hazards like flooding, severe weather and threat of pandemic or terrorism, risks may include: supply chain disruption, staff shortage, power outage, fire, computer or machinery failure, hazardous chemical spill or workers’ strike.

2. Know the impact. This step involves answering three important questions. What are the key products and services offered by your business? How long can you stop delivering those products and services before feeling an impact? What are the critical inputs (staff, electricity, water, computer, debit/ credit card machine) required by your business to deliver your 42 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010

key products and services? Your answers will provide a clearer picture of the overall impact to your business.

3. Develop strategies. For each key product or service identified, you need to develop a strategy for restoring business before your maximum acceptable outage is reached. Strategies may range from cross-training staff, renting equipment, having backup equipment and identifying alternative suppliers, to storing critical information off-site, maintaining computer back-ups off-site, practising manual processes, and contracting out certain services.

4. Create contact lists. In this step, your company needs to collect the names and phone numbers for all of the people and organizations it will need to contact for help in an emergency.

Where applicable, this list should include the following information: name, organization, office number, cell number, email, fax number and after-hours number.

5. Compile the plan. This is where you compile the information from steps one to four into one comprehensive document that contains all of the information required for your company’s basic emergency plan. The primary elements of the plan include: contact details, alternate location (if applicable), risks, planning team members, crisis team, key products and services, maximum acceptable outage, critical inputs, strategies and contact lists.

6. Review and exercise. To ensure all employees are aware of the risks, and their roles and responsibilities in the event of a disruption, it’s important to review and exercise the plan. One suggestion is to take 15 minutes at the start of a meeting to go over potential situations, such as an electrical disruption, computer failure or loss of a key supplier, and discuss the response to each one.

Pointing to the World Disasters Report 2009, which calls for an increased focus on “early warning, early action,” WCDM organizers emphasize the need for heightened awareness about emergency preparedness. The report encourages greater use of disaster funding for preparedness in order to reduce the impact of catastrophic events, underscoring the importance of emergency planning for businesses and communities alike.

“Being prepared makes a world of difference before, during and after any emergency,” Wright says. “It’s a critical step that’s necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of everyone, if and when disaster strikes.”

New to this year’s conference program was a Resiliency Stream that provided lessons from real-life experiences that demonstrated how to build resilience in organizations, governments and communities. Whereas traditional business continuity focuses on getting an organization back up and running after a disruption, business resiliency ensures that operations never falter in the first place.

HMM

hazmat-products

Portable detector senses ammonia Gas detection specialist Crowcon has expanded the capabilities of its Tetra:3 (T3) personal multi-gas detector with an additional toxic gas sensor for ammonia (NH3). The existing sensor range includes flammable gases, oxygen (O2), hydrogen sulphide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2), ozone (O3), sulphur dioxide (SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO).

The new sensor widens the applications for the T3 to include the chemical, pharmaceutical, food and beverage processing industries, as well as water and wastewater treatment facilities.

With a top-mount display and the capacity to detect up to four gases at once, the T3 is suitable for use in the most demanding industrial environments, including confined space work. Its intuitive, single button operation is essential for users with gloved hands. If a hazard is detected, the T3 gives rapid and effective warning with a powerful 95 dBA audible alarm, an extremely bright red/blue LED visual warning, and by vibrating. Despite its compact size and low weight (less than 300g), the T3 is very rugged. Its shatterproof housing and rubber over-molding provide extra shock and vibration protection with water and dust resistance to IP67.

A lithium-ion battery provides over 18 hours continuous operation from a single charge, and there is a 30 day countdown warning of the calibration due date. The T3 is provided with a stainless steel alligator pocket clip as standard and has an optional harness for chest mounting. Crowcon has launched a new universal vehicle charger, for reliable charging of detectors used by service and maintenance crews in the field.

Visit www.crowcon.us

Leak detection dye OIL-GLO™ 33 fluorescent oil dye is a versatile dye specially formulated to detect leaks in systems with all types of oilbased fluids including hydraulic and lubrication fluids, compressor oil, engine oil and gearbox oil. It’s highly concentrated and contains more active ingredients per dose than competitive dyes. OIL-GLO 33 is easy to use. Just add a small amount of the dye to any oil-based system and allow it to circulate.

Wherever there is a leak, the dye escapes with the oil and remains at each and every leak site. Simply scan the system with a Spectroline® high-intensity UV or blue light inspection lamp and observe its bright green glow. It works with any host fluid and will not damage the fluid’s properties or the system’s components. OIL-GLO 33 can remain safely in the system until the next oil change, which makes it ideal for preventive maintenance. Periodic inspections will detect any new leaks before they can damage the equipment.

Visit www.spectroline.com

SUMMER 2010 HazMat Management 43

hazmat-products

Ammann dealer named for BC and Yukon Peter Price, Area Sales Manager for Ammann Canada, has announced that Parker Pacific Equipment is the newest addition to the growing network of Ammann distributors in the country. Parker Pacific Equipment will represent the full line of Ammann compaction equipment through its 13 branch dealerships in British Columbia and one branch in the Yukon.

The Ammann line includes light and heavy compaction lines for plate compactors, vibrating rollers, double drum asphalt machines and 30-ton rubber-tired rollers. Partnering with quality equipment manufacturers and completely covering its market with an extensive network of branch locations has been a winning strategy for Parker Pacific.

Visit www.ammann-group.com

Leak detection flashlight Spectronics Corporation has unveiled the new Spectroline® OPX3000 OPTIMAX™ 3000 that the company claims is the world’s most powerful, portable fluorescent leak detection flashlight. With its focused beam, the device makes it easier than ever for technicians to pinpoint all refrigerant leaks — even those elusive leaks missed by other lamps and other methods of leak detection. And there are no cords that can become snagged on components of the industrial equipment.

The OPTIMAX 3000 uses breakthrough super-hi-flux LED technology to deliver 15 times brighter leak detection light than regular LED lamps. Its power equals that of 150-watt lamps that must be plugged into an AC power source, and it has an inspection range of up to 20 feet (6.1 m) or more. Powered by a rechargeable NiMH battery, the unit has a 50,000-hour LED life. The flashlight comes with fluorescence-enhancing glasses and an AC and DC battery charger for added convenience.

Visit www.spectroline.com

Service for parts cleaner system The Walter Company has introduced its new national Bio-Circle Care Service to underscore emphasis geared to “Making Green Work.” For the last few years, BioCircle parts washers have been successfully replacing toxic solvents at industrial facilities, thereby reducing the chemical waste streams of many companies worldwide, through biological transformation of contaminants on dirty tools and parts into plain water.

The “no hassle” features of CARE SERVICE include a 21 point maintenance procedure, carried out by professionally trained representatives; this ensures the 44 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010

system is always working at peak performance. Their mission is clearly to save clients time and money.

The procedure includes: thorough cleaning of interior and exterior of the parts washer unit; filtering of the cleaning solution; and, no charge replacement if necessary, of such items as filter cartridge, air diffusers and hand brush. Replacement of other items can be invoiced through the customer’s Bio-Circle distributor. This can include topping-up of Bio-Circle liquid and addition of other accessories.

Visit www.walter.com

advertiser index

SUMMER 2010

ADVERTISER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PG.#

ADVERTISER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PG.#

Aird.&.Berlis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Kilmer.Brownfield.Equity.Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.

ARC/Atlantic.Reclamation.Conference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Lacombe.Waste.Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

CERCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40-41

MMM.Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Clean.Earth.Solutions.Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Miller.Thomson.LLP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

CSA.Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Pinchin.Environmental.Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Environmental.Solutionsâ&#x201E;˘.Remediation.Services. . . . . . . . . 10

Proeco.Corporation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Envirotec.Services.Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Quantum.Murray. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

ESAA/Remtech. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Stuyvesant.Environmental. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Federation.of.Canadian.Municipalities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Team.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Hazco. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

XCG.Environmental.Engineers.and.Scientists . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Intrinsik.Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Zurich.Insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Legal counsel from a business perspective Every business is affected by complex regulatory legislation and exposure to litigation. From environmental requirements and occupational health and safety laws, to TSSA legislation, civil liability and insurance issues, our experience and insight allow us to help you focus on the identification and management of your liability.

For more information, please contact: Cynthia R. C. Sefton csefton@airdberlis.com 416.865.4730

David S. Reiter dreiter@airdberlis.com 416.865.4734

Partnership. Results. Success. ÂŽ

Brookfield Place, 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800, Box 754, Toronto, ON M5J 2T9

www.airdberlis.com SUMMER.2010...HazMat Management. . 45

legal-perspective

Pollution and human rights

by Dianne Saxe

T

“The US EPA may have to change how it regulates cumulative effects.”

he Inter American Commission on Human Rights has agreed to hear a precedent-setting case against the United States based on environmental racism. Heavily polluting industries are often concentrated in poor areas, typically occupied by minorities. In the United States, these minorities tend to be black. The Canadian equivalents may be First Nations communities, such as the reserve just downwind of Sarnia’s Chemical Valley.

The IACHR case relates to an African American hamlet named Mossville, Louisiana. Fourteen heavy industries lie between Mossville and its neighbour, Westlake, including an oil refinery, a coal burning power station and several vinyl chloride manufacturers. In 1998, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) confirmed that Mossville residents have dioxin levels in their blood three times the national average. Dioxin is one of the most powerful toxins people have ever created.

A 2001 study confirmed that fish in Mossville waters, yard soil and indoor dust all exceed regulatory cleanup standards. Unsurprisingly, Mossville residents also report high levels of health problems, including cancer, respiratory ailments and diseases affecting the kidney and liver. There are plausible connections between these diseases and their documented dioxin exposure. A 2007 study concluded that the types of dioxins found in the residents’ blood are the same types emitted by six of the local industries. Mossville is also heavily exposed to other toxins, such as PCBs, PAHs, toluene, lead and mercury.

The 14 plants near Mossville all have legal permits to operate, and now appear to be complying with those permits. (Previous legal action by the Mossville residents forced Louisiana to crack down on those who did not; several were fined.) The permits are based on valid state laws, which comply with rules established by the federal EPA. This is what leads the Mossville residents to the IACHR: it’s the government that seems to be at fault, not the individual companies.

Mossville residents, represented by the Advocates for Environmental Human Rights, say it was racism to put 14 heavy industries so close to their homes. Mossville is not an incorporated municipality, so planning decisions are made for them by the County, known as the Calcasieu Parish. Most of the Parish is rural, and white; Mossville is less than one per cent of the population.

The plants were established decades ago, when Louisiana was unapologetically racist. While there may be no intentional racism now, Mossville residents say they are suffering from the real, if unintentional, effects of living next to a cluster of heavy industries, a burden not imposed on other residents of the Parish.

They also say that state and federal governments

46 www.hazmatmag.com SUMMER 2010

have done little or nothing to help them. American laws against racial discrimination have been interpreted to mean intentional discrimination, not acts that result in a discriminatory effect. American privacy laws do not govern pollution. And American sovereign immunity laws prevent them from suing the federal government without its consent.

It has taken the Mossville community five years to persuade the IACHR to hear their case, over the fierce opposition of the federal and Louisiana governments. This spring, the IACHR finally agreed to permit Mossville Environmental Action Now to argue that the United States government has breached two articles of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man: The right to equality before law and the right to protection of honor, personal reputation, and private and family life.

The IACHR is not permitted to hear cases that could plausibly be resolved under domestic law. It therefore refused to hear the Mossville complaints about alleged violations of the right to life and the right to health; these, it ruled, had to be brought in American courts under the American Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. But the IACHR takes a broader view of the right to equality before the law and the right to privacy and inviolability of the home than American courts do. It interprets the right to equality to include protection against discriminatory effects, not just against intentional discrimination. And although the IACHR has previously ruled that the right to privacy does not include protection against pollution, the commission has now decided to reconsider.

International bodies, such as the IACHR, have very slow processes, and no direct power to enforce their decisions. However, they have significant “soft power”, and are generally taken seriously by democracies. If the IACHR decide that it is a serious breach of human rights to allow the cumulative effect of lawful pollution to affect human health in nearby communities, the US EPA will have to change how it regulates cumulative effects. Environmental justice, and the effect of industrial clusters on minority groups, is already an important priority for Lisa Jackson, the current Administrator of the EPA. Condemnation of US conduct by the IACHR would make this an even higher priority for the Obama administration.

And where US environmental regulation goes, we usually go too.

HMM

Dianne Saxe, Ph.D. in Law, is one of Canada’s leading environmental lawyers with her own practice in Toronto.

Contact Dianne at dsaxe@envirolaw.com