HazMat Management Spring 2011

management

HazMat

SPRING 2011 www.hazmatmag.com

Solutions for the Business of the Environment

Clean Fill Controversy Waste-to-Energy corrosiveTech Clean Harbors Profile Chemical Oxidation

REMEDIATION The City of Kitchener’s award-winning coal tar cleanup — page 8 An EcoLog Group Publication / CPMP no. 40069240

hmm Spring 2011 cover pg 01.indd 1

10/03/11 8:51 AM

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Trust the 1 that’s Trusted by Others AIR, LAND & SEA and everything in between, First Response Environmental’s got you covered.

Emergency Activation

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

Professional Equipment supplied by

2 www.hazmatmag.com SPRING 2011

SPRING ISSUE.indb 2

3/7/11 9:05 PM

contents

vol 23 no 2 SPRING 2011

on the cover REMEDIATION: COAL TAR

8

A detailed look at an award-winning urban site restoration project for the City of Kitchener that specifically posed an historic coal tar problem.

by David Innocente & Ronald Brecher

features SPOTLIGHT: CLEAN HARBORS

13

departments

Company overview and recent acquisitions.

by Guy Crittenden

31

TRANSPORTATION: EMISSIONS

Lowering Emissions in 2011.

by J. Alexander

BROWNFIELDS

MARKETPLACE

Editorial

4

Up Front

6

Environment Business

33

Health & Safety

35

Products

36

Ad Index

37

Legal Perspective

38

(PAGES 16-21) EDITORIAL: BRIGHTFIELDS FCM including brightfields in its GMF grant process.

17

by Angus Ross REMEDIATON: EXCESS SOILS CBN jurisdictional review.

by Al Durand RESTORATION: CHEMICAL OXIDATION Enhancing organic contaminant remediation with co-solvent surfactants.

by Jean Pare

CleanTech Canada (PAGES 24-30)

18

WASTE-TO-ENERGY: INCINERATION The Durham Region/Covanta waste incineration project

by Jim McKay

24

19

WASTE-TO-FUEL: ETHANOL Canadian Liquids Processors turns food waste into fuel.

by Jack McGinnis

28

next edition Supplements: Brownfields Marketplace • CleanTech Canada Editorial Focus: Emergency Preparedness, PPE, Analytical Testing, PCBs. Space closing: May 23 Artwork required: May 26 Call 1-888-702-1111 .

SPRING 2011 HazMat Management 3

SPRING ISSUE.indb 3

3/7/11 9:05 PM

editorial

Cleaning Up in Scugog

A

by Guy Crittenden

“The complaints led to legal maneuvering between the company and various levels of government, plus a series of raucous public meetings.”

situation in Scugog Township, east of Toronto, Ontario illustrates the kind of fight that can erupt when stakeholders hold different views on whether soil excavated from urban development projects is acceptably “clean” for use in large-scale fill operations.

Unfortunately, as Scugog residents discovered last year, the rules governing soil recycling have grey areas: the definition of “clean” fill is complicated, and regulation often falls to municipal site-alteration bylaws, which may not be suited to dealing with large-scale commercial operations.

The property that concerns Scugog residents is 13471 Lakeridge Rd. — a former gravel pit just north of Ajax and Whitby. Since May 2010 the site has received truckloads of dirt from as many as 16 projects along Toronto’s waterfront. In a June 2010 environment ministry report, site owner Claudio Villa (the site is co-owned by Port Perry resident Gordon Churchill) told the officer he intended to build a house on the property.

That was before last summer when nearby residents became concerned that soil deposited at the site might not be “clean” and that contaminants could eventually find their way into local groundwater. Scugog lies in the Oak Ridges Moraine — part of a provincially-designated anti-sprawl Greenbelt around Toronto that’s also the groundwater recharge area for the region’s significant watershed. Some residents are especially concerned about the potential for wells to become polluted by hydrocarbons, creosote and other contaminants that are part of the legacy of the industrial and waterfront lands being excavated for Toronto high-rise condominiums.

The complaints led to legal maneuvering between the company and various levels of government, plus a series of raucous public meetings.

On October 8, 2010, after learning that a random soil sample failed to meet Table 2 of Ontario’s environment ministry standards, Scugog rescinded the fill permit it had issued to site-operator Earthworx in May, and issued a stop-work order. However, the trucks kept delivering soil while the town and company tried to hammer out an agreement. Scugog attempted to impose conditions that included (among other things) details about the origins of the fill and regular soil sampling. Scugog also expected the company to apply for a new permit under a new more-stringent fill bylaw the town had brought forward in the spring. However, the township watched from the sidelines as trucks continued to deposit fill at the site almost daily. Eventually a control order from the environment ministry imposed conditions on Earthworx similar to those sought by the town, including an environmental site assessment, a soil and groundwater monitoring program, and the requirement to hire a qualified compliance person to work at the site.

Scugog’s next step was to move forward with a court injunction application in an effort to bring a halt to the operation. A hearing on February 14 set a timetable for the injunction application.

After its municipal fill permit was revoked, Earthworx surprised government officials by announcing that activities at the site aren’t subject to municipal or provincial interference because it now plans to build an “aerodrome” on the property. In this scenario, Earthworx lawyers said, the company only has to answer to the federal government — specifically Transport Canada — which regulates aviation.

However, at a meeting attended by about 200 residents, an official from Transport Canada said that “fill underneath the runway is not integral to aviation safety” and therefore does not fall under federal jurisdiction. In a January 26 letter to local politicians, Chuck Strahl, Canada’s Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, stated that his office has no authority over fill issues unless they impact aviation safety. He noted that Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment should have jurisdiction over the fill.

The ministry ordered an environmental site assessment of the property that includes the drilling of a number of test pits and four groundwater monitoring wells up at the corners of the site. Critics say that hot spots might be missed, and that the plan ignores the cumulative effects on the environment and local water of the thousands of loads dumped at the site.

Earthworx officials have requested a judicial review before the Divisional Court to deal with the matter, with their lawyers calling the disagreement between the sides a “constitutional issue” and arguing that Scugog has no right to stop work at the site.

Meanwhile, Durham MPP John O’Toole has prepared a private member’s bill regarding tighter provincial controls around commercial fill operations on both the Oak Ridges Moraine and in the Greenbelt for presentation in the legislature. Debbie Gordon, of the environmental organization Save The Oak Ridges Moraine (STORM) says the organization has called on the province to strengthen the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) to prevent similar instances elsewhere in Ontario.

While it’s unclear what Earthworx charges customers, but a recent newsletter from STORM detailing the issue of commercial fill estimates payouts for fill sites at around $50 per clean load. That’s good pay for simply accepting someone else’s soil.

No accusations have been proven in court and the outcome of the most recent legal maneuvering is uncertain as we go to press. We’ll update readers in the next (Summer 2010) edition.

HMM

Guy Crittenden is editor of this magazine. Contact Guy at gcrittenden@hazmatmag.com 4 www.hazmatmag.com SPRING 2011

SPRING ISSUE.indb 4

3/7/11 9:05 PM

Clean Up Your World!

Participate Now! Exhibit sales have started and space is filling quickly!

Remit your abstract for speaker positions as the conference tracks are being developed.

Contact Jamie Ross, National Account Manager 416-510-5221 today, to discuss how you can participate through speaking, sponsoring or exhibiting.

Visit SitesandSpills.com for more details.

International Sites & Spills Expo Companies Cleaning Up Your World November 3-4 2011 • Toronto, Canada

What do contaminated soil and groundwater, spills and leaks and environmental disasters have in common? Properly managed they can all be cleaned and returned to sustainable use.

The International Sites & Spills Expo – the first event of its kind to combine hazardous materials management and site remediation is focused on emergency response, site cleanup methods, emerging solutions and new technologies.

Whether you are a plant manager charged with controlling spills and hazardous waste at your facility, a first responder containing and cleaning hazmat incidents or a developer looking for cost effective ways to treat contaminated sites, this event is designed for you.

Sites & Spills Conference & Expo November 3-4, 2011

Cleaning Up The World.

sitesandspills.com

SPRING ISSUE.indb SITES AND SPILLS Ad 5Feb2011 copy.indd 1

For registration contact: Simuoko Frayne 416-510-6867 sfrayne@bizinfogroup.ca WINTER 2011 HazMat Management 5

3/7/11 9:42 9:05AM PM 25/02/11

HazMat

SPRING 2011

up-front

management

Vol. 23, 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 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 govern­ment 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. Al­though the information contained in this magazine is believed to be correct, no responsibility is assumed therefore, nor for the opinions ex­pressed 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) 510-6780.

Subscription rates: Canada — $51.95 (add applicable taxes) per year, $82.95 (add applicable taxes) for 2 years, single copy $10.00. USA and all other foreign — $82.95 per year US single copy US10.00 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

Mark Your Calendars!

H

azMat Management magazine presents the International Sites and Spills Expo —November 3-4, 2011. Additional workshops are scheduled for the afternoon of November 2. The conference features two separate streams on HazMat and site remediation issues. The exhibit hall will feature over 100 environmental products and services and clean technologies from around the world.

Visit www.SitesandSpills.com or call Jamie Ross at 416-510-5221 or 1-866-517-5204.

SMART ADS! PRINT AND DIGITAL CONVERGE

H

azMat Management magazine is proud to lead Canadian business publishing into the latest innovation in print publishing and advertising: QR Codes.

QR Codes are two-dimensional bar codes that are scanned using a smart phone (including Blackberry and iPhone) to link the reader with advertisers’ online content.

Print readers can instantly click and get more information on products and services they see in our publications. Click-through content is unlimited, including corporate websites, video, audio and online editions of our magazines.

Scanning apps ship with most new smart phones and are available as a free download direct to the handheld device. Leading edge corporations such as

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

LINDNER OPENS SUBSIDIARY Lindner Recyclingtech, a well-known manufacturer of shredders for the waste-to-energy and recycling industries, has opened a subsidiary in Raleigh, North Carolina. The decision to invest in this market was made to be able to better support the company’s American and Canadian customers as well as to grow its market share in North America.

As market leader in refused-derived fuel (RDF) shredding, the company invites readers to Lindner with any shredder or RDF production questions.

Visit www.l-rt.com

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.”

©2011 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior consent.

Print edition: ISSN-1713-9511 Online edition: ISSN 1923-3469 Member

Canadian Business

Air Canada are already QR-capable. HazMat Management offers the same functionality in a very cost-effective package with lots of optional features and upgrades for forward compatibility with future growth. For more on the simplicity and power of QR codes, contact Jamie Ross at 416-510-5221 or scan here.

For an example of a QR Code embedded in an ad, see the Stuyvesant Environmental ad on page 14.

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Lynne Bard • Michael Cant • John Hosty • Dianne Saxe • Usman Valiante

For more information, visit www.fsc.org Press

6 www.hazmatmag.com SPRING 2011

SPRING ISSUE.indb 6

3/7/11 9:05 PM

up-front

C.D. Howe Institute on groundwater

B

etter oversight of Canada’s groundwater resources is required in the face of numerous challenges, according to a study released by the C.D. Howe Institute. In Protecting Groundwater: The Invisible and Vital Resource, James Bruce, recently chair of the Council of Canadian Academies Expert Panel on Groundwater, assesses present and emerging threats and makes recommendations for better groundwater management in Canada.

Challenges for groundwater management, the author says, include energy issues, such as the uncertain impact of shale gas “fracking,” slow recharge rates of aquifers, agricultural intensification, and contamination. Canada has yet to experience large-scale

over-exploitation of groundwater resources and its groundwater remains of good quality. Bruce says the time is right, however, for establishing the legal, regulatory and management systems, along with the necessary monitoring provisions, to overcome the threats to groundwater. Bruce says an effective groundwater management strategy would adhere to five major principles for sustainability. They are: protection from depletion; protection from contamination; ecosystem viability; allocation to maximize groundwater’s contribution to social and economic well-being; and the application of good governance.

For the study go to www.cdhowe.org/pdf/Backgrounder_136.pdf

Ethanol ER training

S

afety is a top priority for the North American ethanol industry and those who transport and bring ethanol to the marketplace. With this commitment in mind the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) and numerous Clean Cities Coalitions (CCCs) have hosted a series of ethanol safety seminars at several locations. These seminars are free. While primarily targeting first responders, HazMat teams, safety managers, and local emergency planning committees; they are also open to the general public.

As a part of the Alternative Fuels Trade Alliance, the RFA and CCCs are able to hold these seminars through the $1.6 million grant received from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). This grant has been used to raise public awareness and foster understanding of alternative fuels and advanced vehicle technologies. The goal of these seminars is for attendees to gain a full ethanol emergency response training experience that they can put to use immediately in the field, as well as pass along to other first response teams. A majority of this training is based on the Complete Training Guide to Ethanol Emergency

Response, a training package created by the Ethanol Emergency Response Coalition (EERC) that has been distributed to several countries worldwide. “[North] America is nearing a 100 percent saturation point with E10 in our nation’s fuel supply,” says RFA Market Development Director, Robert White.

“As ethanol continues to flow across the country through railways and trucks into fuel retail stations, it is important for first responders in these areas to be well prepared and trained for ethanol related emergencies.”

Already underway, the Ethanol Safety Seminars have been held in Harrisburg, PA and will be held at eight more locations in 2011. Each safety seminar is conducted with the local Clean Cities Coordinator and is taught by a professional trainer with a background in firefighter/HazMat materials response.

The RFA has been working diligently with the state fire academies to offer certificates of training or participation that can be used toward their local department’s training requirements.

Visit www.rfa.traincaster.com

SPRING 2011 HazMat Management 7

SPRING ISSUE.indb 7

3/7/11 9:05 PM

cover-story

Coal Tar

Cleaning up a site in the City of Kitchener, Ontario

I

n 2005, the City of Kitchener embarked on one of Ontario’s largest coal tar remediation programs, helping to transform a historic environmental problem into a jewel of the city’s downtown core. This project involved the reconstruction of Joseph and Gaukel Streets, and the remediation of a former coal gasification plant at 44 Gaukel Street. It also included the design and construction of a new entrance for the adjacent municipal park, Victoria Park, along Gaukel Street.

The project site dates back to 1883 when the city’s utility company operated a coal gasification plant (that generated electricity by burning coal). A byproduct of this process was coal tar — a hazardous waste — that was buried in tanks and then disregarded.

Between 1958 and 1961, the plant was demolished to just below grade, and soon redeveloped for commercial use.

When the environmental impact of those actions came to light many years later, the city decided to remedy the problem.

Construction and remediation occurred in stages, and the final touches were completed in September of 2008.

PROJECT COMPLEXITIES

At the onset and throughout the project, extensive environmental site investigation activities were conducted. These including drilling and installation of a complete monitoring well network, test pitting, soil vapour probe installation, and waste characterization. This was in addition to various sampling tasks that assessed soil, groundwater, soil vapour, and surface water and sediment within Victoria Park Lake.

Following completion of the necessary environmental investigations, the project team prepared detailed remediation work plans, including contractor tender documents.

The necessary works included remediation of the coal tar contamination onsite and in the adjacent municipal roadways and infrastructure. Work also included the decommissioning of two gasometer tanks, the infrastructure associated with the former gas works, and the remediation of hazardous waste (coal tar) on the gas works property. Monitoring of the indoor air within the onsite building and adjacent buildings, as well as the outdoor air, was completed throughout the project. During

Monitoring of the indoor air within the onsite building and adjacent buildings, as well as the outdoor air were completed throughout the project. During the remediation activities, the mitigation of health and odour/air quality impacts was managed and addressed by the project team.

the remediation activities, the mitigation of health and odour/air quality impacts was managed and addressed by the project team.

The project team also completed a complex risk assessment that developed propertyspecific standards for the property

by David Innocente & Ronald Brecher

8 www.hazmatmag.com SPRING 2011

SPRING ISSUE.indb 8

3/7/11 9:05 PM

cover-story

The remediation approach was to start with the removal of hazardous materials in order to take advantage of weather.

at 44 Gaukel Street, for the municipal roadways, and on the adjacent municipal park. The risk assessment has been

accepted by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, with multiple Records of Site Condition to be filed early in 2011.

The project also included the replacement and upgrade of aging municipal infrastructure, including the

“In 2010, the project won a national award from the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies.�

SPRING 2011 HazMat Management 9

SPRING ISSUE.indb 9

3/7/11 9:05 PM

cover-story

A partial overview of the contaminated area. The building in the forefront is 44 Gaukel Street. To the far right there is a clocktower, which marks the entrance to Victoria Park. Behind 44 Gaukel Street is a regional transit facility. Work on the project required coordination as to not disrupt the transit schedule.

installation of new underground hydro and telecommunications networks. Due to the complexity of the project, the civil and environmental components required a detailed strategy for choreographing construction and operational constraints, including the maintenance of existing municipal services, utilities, traffic and transit operations. An adjacent building abutting the property also required structural stabilization due to deep excavations for remediation activities.

The culmination of the project included the creation of a new streetscape and scenic vista from Kitchener City Hall into Victoria Park. It included the design and construction of a prominent park entrance feature with ornate stonework, ponds, waterfalls and restoration of Kitchener’s historic Clock Tower.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

A significant component of the project was to ensure that the community was kept informed and updated during the project. Consultants and the City of Kitchener hosted several open house information sessions, as well as developed a page on the city’s website that was regularly updated with information related to the progress of the project. Information packages consisting of background information, maps, frequently asked questions, project schedule and contact information were emailed and hand delivered to the local neighbourhood and stakeholders.

Door-to-door visits were also conducted on several occasions by the city and its consultants at residences affected by the project to answer questions, collect signed access agreements for monitoring and testing, and to identify the scope of environmental remediation on private property if required. Information was also circulated on a regular basis to 10 www.hazmatmag.com SPRING 2011

HSE Canada HazMat ad OutLnFeb-11_Final.indd 1

SPRING ISSUE.indb 10

2/17/11 12:43:07 PM

3/7/11 9:05 PM

cover-story

The culmination of the project included the creation of a new streetscape and scenic vista from Kitchener City Hall into Victoria Park. It included the design and construction of a prominent park entrance feature with ornate stonework, ponds, waterfalls and restoration of Kitchener’s historic Clock Tower.

describe the remediation and redevelopment process.

Careful attention and emphasis were placed on the redevelopment plans and

neighbourhood improvements that would occur following the remediation activities, such as park amenities, streetscape improvements, improved traffic

and pedestrian flow, and public safety.

Once remediation began, a community office was established for the duration of the project. It was staffed during

remediation d r aw i n g o n e x P e r i e n C e ...

• Civil and Structural engineering • land Surveying • environmental Science • toxicology • Product testing and registration

MTE Consultants Inc. Kitchener 519-743-6500 Guelph 519-766-1000

Burlington 905-639-2552 Stratford 519-271-7952

www.mte85.com ...B u i l d i n g o n St r e n gt h MTE Consultants Inc. Publication: Haz Hat Magazine Size: 3 3/8" x 4 4/8"

SPRING ISSUE.indb 11

Our team of experts specializing in site decontamination and environmental remediation lead the way in the clean-up and rehabilitation of commercial and industrial sites and facilities.

DEMOLITION EMERGENCY RESPONSE HAZMAT ABATEMENT METAL RECYCLING REMEDIATION TRAINING WASTE MANAGEMENT

1.800.251.7773 • info@qmlp.ca • www.quantummurray.com SPRING 2011 HazMat Management 11

3/7/11 9:05 PM

cover-story

Here you can see some of the spoil from the drilling.

Tank contents included pure, viscous coal tar product combined with the mixture of wood debris, slag, stone ballast and contaminated groundwater.

regular working hours and contained a document file with coal tar-related studies, engineering drawings and correspondence for public viewing. A project hotline was established for public use during the project, in order to allow callers to register questions, complaints and/or requests for additional information related to the project. Additionally, radio, television, and newspaper communications, City of Kitchener council meetings, and door-to-door communication with residents were all important methods of keeping the community informed as the project evolved.

OUTCOMES

The project transformed an underutilized, aesthetically-challenged area in the heart of the downtown into a welcoming landscape, revitalizing the downtown core and setting the stage for a more enjoyable and prosperous future for Kitchener’s urban core.

In 2010, the project won a national award from the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies (ACEC). It also garnered a 2009 Award of Excellence through the Consulting Engineers of Ontario (CEO) and was a runner-up for a 2009 Brownie Award through the HMM Canadian Urban Institute.

A byproduct of the coal gasification plant was coal tar, a hazardous waste, which was buried in tanks beneath the site.

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 Ronald Brecher, Ph.D., CChem, QPRA, DABT is Vice President of MTE in Guelph, Ontario. Contact Ron at rbrecher@mte85.com

12 www.hazmatmag.com SPRING 2011

SPRING ISSUE.indb 12

3/7/11 9:05 PM

spotlight

Clean Harbors Growth of an industry colossus

C

lean Harbors (NYSE: CLH) — based in Norwell, Massachusetts — also has offices located throughout the United States, Canada, Mexico and Puerto Rico. The company — founded in 1980 by Alan McKim — is a leading provider of environmental, energy and industrial services.

The company operates a network of more than 175 service centers and waste management, treatment and disposal facilities, and provides a broad range of services that include hazardous and non-hazardous material management and disposal. Clean Harbors also offers environmental cleanup on customer sites or other locations on a scheduled or emergency-response basis. The company also offers industrial and specialty services such as high-pressure and chemical cleaning, catalyst handling, decoking, material processing, as well as industrial lodging, exploration and directional boring services.

Principal customers are utility, chemical, petroleum, pharmaceutical, transportation and industrial firms, as well as educational institutions, other environmental service companies and government agencies. Customers include more than 325 of the Fortune 500.

The firm has achieved continuity within its senior management team, which averages nearly 18 years of experience with the company. Alan McKim founded Clean Harbors nearly 30 years ago and continues as chairman and CEO. As of December 31, 2010, Clean Harbors had approximately 6,800 employees. The company completed its initial public offering in 1987; annual

revenues for the year ended December 31, 2010 were $1.73 billion and at that time there were about 26.2 million shares of common stock outstanding.

GROWTH STRATEGY Clean Harbors has grown both internally and via acquisitions. The first major expansion was in the early 1980s with the acquisition of the Braintree and Natick, Massachusetts facilities. In 1989, the company purchased Chem Clear, Inc., a company known nationally for its industrial aqueous waste treatment capabilities, with facilities in Baltimore, Chicago and Cleveland.

The Chem Clear acquisition vaulted the company into the waste disposal business; Clean Harbors further expanded its geographic coverage by adding a Connecticut and a second Ohio treatment facility. Its position as a fullservice haz-waste disposal provider was enhanced with its acquisition of the Kimball, Nebraska incinerator in 1995.

While broadening waste processing and disposal capabilities, Clean Harbors further developed existing business lines such as field services. Since 1980, field service centres have been strategically located across the continent to perform planned work on thousands of customer locations and provide companies with emergency response services.

Service lines have also been created to meet customer demand. CleanPack was formed in 1986 to provide industries, schools and universities, as well as communities with vital services to manage the collection, packaging and disposal of laboratory chemical and household hazardous waste. With the creation of the Reactive Materials Teams, the company can respond to hazardous and dangerous chemical and compressed gas situations.

Clean Harbors Industrial Services was formed in 1998. This division’s crews focus on industrial cleaning and maintenance projects that typically require fast turnaround. These may include hydroblasting, liquid/dry vacuuming, sodium bicarbonate blasting, steam cleaning and chemical cleaning of equipment and systems.

In 2002, Clean Harbors made a major acquisition when it acquired the assets of the Chemical Services Division of SafetyKleen Corporation. This division is made

by Guy Crittenden

“Clean Harbors will purchase Badger in an all cash transaction for approximately CAD $247 million.”

SPRING 2011 HazMat Management 13

SPRING ISSUE.indb 13

3/7/11 9:05 PM

spotlight

up of 55 service centers, 33 waste management facilities and 4,400 employees. This purchase vaulted Clean Harbors into a position occupied by former industry giants Laidlaw Environmental Services and Philip Services Corp.

In 2007, Clean Harbors acquired Teris LLC with more than 550 employees, several field locations, a treatment, storage and disposal facility located in Wilmington, California and an incineration facility in El Dorado, Arkansas.

In 2008, the company acquired two solvent recycling facilities in Chicago, Illinois and Hebron, Ohio. This acqui-

sition established a substantial presence in the solvent recycling market. Chemicals and solvents are available for sale, or can be recycled and returned to the customer for reuse.

In 2009, the company acquired Eveready Inc., a Canadian-based company that provides industrial maintenance and production, lodging, and exploration services to the oil and gas, chemical, pulp and paper, manufacturing and power generation industries. With the addition of over 2,100 employees, 79 locations, and a service fleet of over 2,400 truck and trailer units, Eveready broadens Clean Harbors’ energy and industrial service offerings and geographic reach in the United States, Canada and internationally. It brought substantial cross-selling opportunities, and further solidified a leadership position in the marketplace.

In May of 2010 Clean Harbors was designated the lead environmental clean-up contractor for the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster. The company deployed hundreds of personnel from throughout the U.S. and Canada along with associated equipment to respond to the catastrophe

Global Experience Proven Technologies

Specializing in soil washing, dredging, river bed remediation, soil treatment, sludge dewatering, solidifaction/stabilization, sediment processing, laboratory testing, beneficial re-use of aggregates.

Stuyvesant Environmental Contracting is the North American affiliate of Dutch based Boskalis Dolman www.boskalisdolman.com who have over 30 years experience in soil management.

Some of our recent projects include: Fox River, WI Miami River, FL Toronto, ON

Complex sediment PCB cleanup Ex-situ sediment management Soil Washing Pilot Project

Stuyvesant Environmental Contracting LLC 212 Carnegie Center, Suite 200 ❘ Princeton NJ ❘ 08540 ❘ (609) 897-0800 www.stuyvesantenvironmental.com

14 www.hazmatmag.com SPRING 2011

SPRING ISSUE.indb 14

3/7/11 9:05 PM

spotlight

and trained and supervised thousands of local residents to work on the cleanup. Company personnel remained on scene in the four Gulf states into the fourth quarter of 2010. Estimated revenue from the spill in the Gulf and another spill in Michigan during 2010 was $253 million.

More recently, on January 26, 2011 Clean Harbors announced that it had entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Calgary based Badger Daylighting Ltd. (TSX:BAD), North America’s largest provider of hydrovac Services. Clean Harbors will purchase Badger in an all cash transaction for approximately CAD $247 million.

Badger generated $135 million in revenues in 2009.

“Within our Energy and Industrial business, increased investments in Western Canada by major energy companies continue to spark production activity, creating new opportunities for us throughout the region and generating another excellent quarter for our lodging business in

Alberta,” says Chairman & CEO Alan McKim. “We’re excited about the prospects of additional growth there when we complete our expansion of our Ruth Lake camp.”

“Our outlook for 2011 remains very positive. The ongoing recovery in our base business continues as we’ve delivered several quarters in a row of improving core results,” McKim says. “We also continue to see a wide range of growth opportunities across many lines of business and we have an active pipeline of potential new projects in both the environmental and energy and industrial sides of our business. We are excited about the prospects for Badger, and we are continuing to evaluate additional strategic acquisition opportunities.”

Exclusive of the pending Badger transaction, Clean Harbors currently derives approximately 34 per cent of its total revenues from the seven Canadian provinces where it currently operates.

HMM

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

NEED ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & SAFETY SOLUTIONS? JUST ASK GOLDER. Golder Associates provides local, national, and multinational clients with expertise in environmental health and safety sciences. Our services include occupational health & safety, industrial hygiene, hazardous materials management, due diligence, emergency preparedness and planning, product stewardship, and training.

Engineering Earth’s Development, Preserving Earth’s Integrity.

Canada 1 800 414 8314 solutions@golder.com www.golder.com

SPRING 2011 HazMat Management 15

SPRING ISSUE.indb 15

3/7/11 9:05 PM

BROWNFIELDS Published by HazMat Management magazine PUBLISHE D The Canadian Real Estate Association

I N

MARKETPLACE

A S S O C I A T I O N

FCM Green Municipal Fund Fonds municipal vert

W I T H :

CORPORATE PARTNER: Real Property Institute of Canada Institut des biens immobiliers du Canada

Canadian Brownfields Network

SPRING 2011

BRIGHTFIELDS SHEDDING LIGHT ON OLD CONTAMINATED SITES

Photo courtesy of MTE Consultants Inc.

S P O N S O R E D

SPRING ISSUE.indb 16

B Y :

3/7/11 9:05 PM

BROWNFIELDS

MARKETPLACE

SHEDDING LIGHT ON DISUSED INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES

I

BRIGHTFIELDS

t’s encouraging to note that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Green Municipal Fund (www.gmf. fcm.ca) has recently expanded its grant/loan eligibility to include “brightfields.” These would previously have fallen between the cracks in neither being part of small-scale renewable energy generation (in the context of the implementation of energy efficiency measures for a particular project) nor being pure brownfield remediation.

(Other stand-alone renewable energy projects do not qualify for funding.) This is a very welcome and forwardthinking position to adopt and will be particularly attractive to municipalities in provinces that have active green energy generation policies with guaranteed electricity tariffs.

But what exactly is a “brightfield” and what implications can this have for the Canadian brownfield remediation and redevelopment community?

In the late 1990s the U.S. Department of Energy began a nationwide initiative to turn brownfields into “brightfields” — contaminated sites that would house solar energy and high-tech solar manufacturing jobs. (See http://epa. gov/brownfields/partners/brightfd.htm) The first city to embrace this and act as a pilot was Chicago with a number of brightfield projects over the years, the latest being the largest urban solar power plant in the US, capable of generating 10 MW of power from almost 33,300 solar panels.

Other cities have followed suit, recognizing the benefits of cleaning brownfields and developing power where it can be tapped right into the existing grid systems without the need for costly new transmission lines. (An excellent presentation of a former industrial town, Brockton, Massachusetts, that created a brightfield can be found at http://www. vitanuova.net/journal/Nexamp_VN_Sus_Series.pdf) But there’s no reason why this great concept which I touted in Canada a decade ago with little interest can’t be taken a step further. The U.S. model is largely for power

by Angus Ross

“At the end of a 15to 20-year period, the site would either be cleaned up or need far less costly remediation to bring it up to standards.”

generation in cities with existing infrastructure and generally pre-supposes a remediation or substantial containment of the contamination that led to them becoming unused industrial sites. With Canadian land prices having generally maintained their levels through the recent economic downturn (unlike in the majority of U.S. cities), land values in large Canadian cities are such that in many instances remediation will ultimately take place anyway. A greater problem is with the smaller communities where land values make remediation and redevelopment a far more marginal proposition (certainly if remediation is to be done over a short period of time).

While the original idea of brightfields was as a large city initiative, an alternative concept would be to use these lower-value small community sites for power generation at the same time as a lengthier remediation process is taking place, thus ensuring revenue from the site while the cleanup, possibly bio- or phyto-remediation, is being undertaken on the property. There are solar installations that create little disturbance of soil and elevate the panels to an extent that would permit ongoing remediation activities. At the end of a 15- to 20-year period, the site would either be cleaned up or need far less costly remediation to bring it up to standards; the revenue from the power generation would have either paid for or very substantially subsidized the remediation activities, leaving a site on which economic development could take place and a profit could be anticipated for a developer. (Interestingly, the town of Brockton presentation referred to above refers to a 20-year solar module warranty and an expected system life of 30-50 years.)

Although most brownfield developers wouldn’t view this timeline as ideal, it would have a degree of appeal to smaller municipalities who are frequently burdened with abandoned, contaminated properties that bring nothing to the community but whose remediation and redevelopment is beyond their current financial means.

The component parts are now in place: recognition of brightfields as a potential interim use of brownfields that need additional time or seed money to eventually reach the redevelopment stage; funding to kick-start some pilot projects; and, the chance for smaller communities to do something with their fallow industrial lands.

Will there be Canadian brightfields in the near future?

Watch this space!

Angus Ross is National Spokesman for the Canadian Brownfields Network from Landa Concepts in Toronto, Ontario. Contact Angus at landaconcepts@rogers.com SPRING 2011 HazMat Management 17

SPRING ISSUE.indb 17

3/7/11 9:05 PM

BROWNFIELDS

G

MARKETPLACE

EXCESS SOILS

uidelines and regulatory requirements for the disposition of soil excavated for any purpose vary by jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions facilitate soil reuse or offer soil rehabilitation facilities. In certain Canadian jurisdictions any soils excavated must be sent for disposal as a “waste” to a landfill site due to the soil quality guidelines and or the complexity involved with alternatives to the landfill option.

The beneficial re-use of excavated soils represents a sustainable approach to provide a more responsible, longer term environmentally-driven solution as well as a positive economic opportunity. As landfill tipping fees increase and the full financial and societal costs to move excess soil are better understood, including transportation and environmental greenhouse gas impacts, the need for more efficient handling options becomes more critical. These aspects include on- and off-site excess soil management, relocation, soil recycling centres and generally treating material as a sustainable resource for reuse versus a low value, high cost waste to dispose of. (See main magazine Editorial by Guy Crittenden on page 4.)

The Canadian Brownfield Network Technical Advisory Committee (CBN TAC) proposes to complete a jurisdictional review of soil handling practices and policies for selected progressive Canadian, U.S. and European jurisdictions. Results of

the review are anticipated to include documented soil “handling” processes in various jurisdictions (both the theory and common practice) as well as documentation of the principles of an effective soil handling program and analysis of existing programs in Canada and internationally. The review will identify best practices and recommend a path forward, including how to implement best technical practices and frameworks, and what are the required regulatory changes.

Benefits of an effective excess soil policy potentially accrue to any soil excavation work (not just remediation) and include the following: • Reduced greenhouse gas emissions from soil haulage; • Reduced consumption of limited valuable landfill capacity; and • Reduced consumption (wear and tear) on road and highway infrastructure.

In short, the review will identify the best practices that lead to a sustainable approach that treats soil as a resource, not as a waste! We will report the outcome in a future article in this publication.

Written by Al Durand, Chair of. the CBN Technical Committee. Contact Al at adurand1590@rogers.com or ajconsultingca@ yahoo.ca

18 www.hazmatmag.com SPRING 2011

SPRING ISSUE.indb 18

3/7/11 9:05 PM

BROWNFIELDS

MARKETPLACE

MIP 3D imaging/injection locations.

REDUCING UNCERTAINTIES WITH IN SITU REMEDIATION TECHNIQUES

CHEMICAL OXIDATION

T

he field application of in-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) techniques in a heterogeneous aquifer brings challenging distribution issues that impact the necessary contact between the contaminant and the oxidant in the aqueous and gaseous phase.

The underground distribution parameters therefore influence the outcome and results of the in situ remediation technique.

Let’s look at the necessary considerations to be taken when dealing with a ISCO project before and during when you get in the field, and after the injection event.

Before you get to the field, you must plan to collect data on the following parameters: • Aquifer characteristics; • Soil and groundwater geo chemistry;

by Jean Paré

“The injection grid must be designed in consideration of all these parameters and must cover the contaminant area in a proper way.”

• Oxidant selection and dosage rate; • Volumes to inject; and • Reagent kinetics with the contaminant of concern.

The first figure resumes some of the necessary data to gather.

In addition, bench-scale lab studies are always recommended; if it doesn’t work in the lab under ideal contact conditions it certainly won’t work in the field!

You can thus validate the qualification and quantification of the selected oxidant with bench scale lab studies that include soil and groundwater oxidant demand, and a beaker or column treatability study on the selected contaminant and geology.

Make sure also you have all the necessary field data and your injection plan is set properly. In order to collect these data, many tools are available and can be used like when you’re in the field, such as Membrane Interface Probe (MIP) and Hydraulic Profiling Tool (HPT). Tracer studies validate the distribution and dilution of the oxidant or amendment in the subsurface aquifer.

These equipment and tools will help you evaluate the pros and cons of the site data and injection techniques to induce proper contact before injecting will enable you to locate contaminant mass through high vertical resolution, define injection flows and pressures, and understand soil statigraphy and heterogeneity.

The next step using these parameters will be to define the radius of influence (ROI), plus injection volumes, equipment and pressure. When establishing the ROI you must SPRING 2011 HazMat Management 19

SPRING ISSUE.indb 19

3/7/11 9:05 PM

BROWNFIELDS

MARKETPLACE

Carus Haz Rem Assessment Process Additional Site Characterization (if necessary)

Preliminary Site Assessment Aquifer Characteristics

•Geology •Permeability •Hydraulic conductivity •Heterogeneity •Contaminant phase •Contaminant Distribution

Soil Geochemistry

Groundwater Geochemistry

•Porosity •Particle size distribution •Soil moisture •Fe •pH •TOC

Determine delivery method Determine the number and location of oxidant delivery point

•pH •Alkalinity •DO •COD •TOC •Fe+2 and Mn+2 •Metals

Pilot-scale testing And modeling Determine oxidant Loading rates

Contaminants of Concern (COCs) Treatability Study •Soil oxidant demand •Groundwater oxidant demand •Contaminant oxidant demand •Degradation kinetics

Determine estimated remediation duration

(Adapted from R. L. Siegrist et al., “Principles and Practices of In Situ Chemical Oxidation Using Permanganate”, p. 202.)

20 tharris_half_pg.pdf www.hazmatmag.com 1SPRING 2011

SPRING ISSUE.indb 20

2/16/07 9:24:30 AM

3/7/11 9:05 PM

BROWNFIELDS consider that there are two components to the injected oxidant distribution: advection and dispersion. In tight soils, you‘ll have to consider: • Low injection pore volumes • Tighter spacing for the injection grid • Higher reagent concentrations • Reagent persistence • Fracture pressure When dealing with permeable soils with a flat gradient, consider that you’ll require high injection pore volume and need to stay below fracture pressure.

Finally, in permeable soils with a steep gradient, you might be faced with lower residence time and validating the reaction kinetic versus the oxidant reactivity with the contaminant of concern.

For the injection volume in the saturated zone, you want to reach a minimum of 20 per cent of the effective pore volume of the contaminated zone. There is no set maximum volume as sometimes in unsaturated conditions the injection volume can reach five times the effective pore volume of the impacted zone. A good rule of thumbs is to target 20 to 80 per cent of the effective pore volume in saturated condition and two to five times the pore volume in the vadose zone area. Laboratory bench scale studies are recommended to establish these parameters.

MARKETPLACE The injection grid must be designed in consideration of all these parameters and must cover the contaminant area in a proper way. The choice of delivery systems is pretty extensive; here are examples that can be used for the injection event: direct push; injection wells; hydro-fracturation; extraction/injection sequence with pumps; electro kinetics; and, in-situ soil mixing equipment.

For the injection pressure, try to keep it below the soil fracture pressure as much as possible to prevent fracturing the soil in undesired areas where the contaminant is not located.

Once you’ve done your injection events, you must validate oxidant distribution and contact with your contaminant of concern. Typical field testing and sampling methods can include: • Core sampling • Hydro punch sampling • Groundwater electrical conductivity monitoring • Groundwater sampling through monitoring well for oxidant residual. (Inert tracers might be integrated in the oxidant to evaluate dilution factor.)

• Gas production (CO2, H20, CO) In respect of defining a sequence and with proper planning, you can reduce and control the uncertainties associated with the use of these in-situ techniques for the remediation of organic contaminants in both soil and groundwater.

Jean Paré, P.Eng., is Vice-President, Soil Division of Chemco Inc. in Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures, Quebec. Contact Jean at jean.pare@chemco-inc.com

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.

EXPERT PEOPLE. BETTER DECISIONS.

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

When faced with making decisions in today’s ever-changing regulatory environment, it pays to have an expert on your side. At XCG, we will listen, provide advice and assist you in arriving at the best possible solution for your project.

www.xcg.com

Providing Remediation and Risk Assessment, Decommissioning and Demolition, Brownfield, Environmental Site Assessment, Solid Waste and many other environmental services.

Toronto | Kitchener | Kingston | Edmonton | Cincinnati

SPRING 2011 HazMat Management 21

SPRING ISSUE.indb 21

3/7/11 9:05 PM

SPRING ISSUE.indb 22

3/7/11 9:05 PM

SPRING ISSUE.indb 23

3/7/11 9:05 PM

CleanTech Canada

DURHAM AND YORK REGIONS USE COVANTA TECHNOLOGY TO TURN WASTE INTO POWER

WASTE-TO-ENERGY

Rendering of the facility, scheduled for completion in 2014.

by Jim McKay

“The EA process came to closure on November 19, 2010, with the issuance of approval by the Ontario environment ministry.”

P

lanning and implementing a new waste-to-energy (WTE) facility is technically, environmentally, economically, and (perhaps of most importance) politically complex. These projects require a significant investment of time, research, negotiation and sacrifice with a constant focus on strategic planning and decision making.

In 2004, Durham and York Regional Councils directed staff to proceed with an environmental assessment (EA) process to establish a long-term, local and sustainable waste disposal solution to be incorporated as a key component of the Regions’ long term integrated solid waste management systems. This direction was provided to address increasing difficulties in securing longterm disposal capacity and increasing costs of transportation of waste across the Canada/US border. At that time, and until

24 www.hazmatmag.com SPRING 2011

SPRING ISSUE.indb 24

3/7/11 9:05 PM

CleanTech Canada

Elevation of the facility.

very recently in Durham’s case, the Regions relied upon long-haul shipping to Michigan landfills for managing their post-diversion residual wastes.

“The siting process was likely the most controversial of all aspects of the project.”

In Ontario, only the most difficult and complex municipal projects are subject to approvals as individual EAs under the Environmental Assessment Act process. The EA Act requires the proponent to identify the problem at hand, provide justification for the proposed project, and identify the potential environmental impacts caused by the project, while consulting with the public, agencies, stakeholders, proponents and opponents. This can be a very long and arduous process, with some EAs for disposal facilities lasting 10 or more years. When all is said and done, if the regulators are satisfied approval is usually granted.

The EA was the most significant and most debated approval undertaken by the Regions. Pursuing this approval was never thought to be an easy task in a province where only 10 years earlier waste-to-energy had been banned. Advancing the project was further complicated by external factors such as: older thermal treatment facilities had recently been closed due to poor environmental performance; landfilling was cheap; and, the politics of the day shied away from controversial waste management issues. Despite these many challenges, the Regions felt a long-term waste management solution was necessary and critical decisions, sometimes unpopular, were made. At times the debate polarized the politicians at various governmental levels along with the public.

FIVE-STEP APPROVALS PROCESS Implementation of the project essentially consisted of five key steps. The first step developed the “Road Map” for completion of the study and once everyone agreed to the approach (including the Ontario Ministry of the Environment) the actual study could be initiated. In Ontario, this “Road Map” is called the EA Terms of Reference (ToR), a challenging document to develop given the lack of precedence for this type of facility in Ontario in recent times.

The EA study commenced with a review of technologies capable of managing post-diversion residual solid waste, largely from residential sources. This technology review investigated everything from mechanical/biological treatment (MBT) with stabilized landfill to a range of thermal alternatives, some with a refuse-derived fuel (RDF) component, others without. It was necessary to complete this evaluation early in the process, so a conscious decision was made to focus the evaluation on “thermal technologies” and not to differentiate, at that point, between more traditional mass burn technologies and new and emerging conversion technologies. This differentiation would come later as part of the procurement process where more “concrete” data could be obtained and evaluated. This second step of this process concluded that thermal treatment with materials and energy recovery was the preferred option.

Once a technology process had been identified, the third step of the study was to identify a site to construct and operate the facility. The siting process was likely the most controversial of all aspects of the project. Up to this point there was very little opposition. However, once dots started to be placed on maps, the opposition grew and also became organized.

It was decided that the Regions would select a site before soliciting proposals from vendors for several reasons. First, it would SPRING 2011 HazMat Management 25

SPRING ISSUE.indb 25

3/7/11 9:06 PM

CleanTech Canada allow proposals to be evaluated on an “apples-to-apples” basis.

Second, it was deemed a fairer process if every vendor had the same site by focusing the evaluation on their technology versus their ability to secure a preferred site.

The traditional siting process started with an initial screening, followed by the identification of a long-list, then a short-list and finally a preferred site. What was critical to the success of the siting process was that the approach and evaluation criteria were developed in consultation with the public and approved by both Regional Councils before the site selection process was initiated. This way, the preferred site was selected through a process developed with the public, and without the participation and pressure of the emotional NIMBY participants. In the end, polling suggested that 85 per cent of the residents were in favor of the facility. However, with the vocal minority dominating the public meeting process, you’d think differently. Ultimately, a preferred site was identified in Clarington, Ontario.

With a technology and site in hand, the fourth step was to identify a specific thermal treatment technology vendor.

This was a two-phase process that utilized a Request for Qualifications to short list the number of vendors and technologies, followed by a Request for Proposals to select a single preferred vendor. From this process, Covanta Energy Corporation was identified as the preferred vendor to design, build, operate and maintain the facility.

The final step in the EA process — now in its fifth year of study — was to complete site-specific and vendor-specific impact assessments. Of all the studies completed, the most important was the human health and ecological risk assessment.

The results of this assessment provided the political decision makers the reassurance that they were approving a facility that could be built and operated without impacting the health of their constituents.

The EA process came to closure on November 19, 2010, with the issuance of approval by the Ontario environment ministry.

CONCLUSION The Durham/York situation is not unique. Many Ontario municipalities who relied on Michigan for their disposal needs faced the same issue: “Where do I bring my post diversion residuals once the Michigan option is gone?” In 2004, Durham and York Regional Councils made the decision to establish their own local waste disposal infrastructure and to build an integrated and sustainable waste management solution. The Councils declared that the days of shipping waste into someone else’s backyard were over. To see this vision through to execution took a tremendous amount of effort and political will. However, the precedent that this project sets could force a change in the waste-to-energy industry, setting a new standard for how new facilities are developed, operated, and regulated in the future.

In addition, the implementation of this project shows that, after more than a decade, a greenfield WTE facility can be developed in North America and that such systems are, once again, a viable component for residuals disposal as part of an integrated waste management system.

Jim McKay is with HDR Inc. in St. Catharines, Ontario. Contact Jim at jim.mckay@hdrinc.com

TECHNICAL

T

he proposed facility has an initial approved design capacity of 140,000 tonnes per year (tpy) and with expansion(s) a maximum design capacity of 400,000 tpy. The Regions have contracted Covanta Energy Corporation as the design, build, operate and maintain contractor. Covanta and its team members are planning to start construction of the plant in 2011 with full operation scheduled for 2014.

At the approved design capacity of 140,000 tpy, there will be two completely independent waste processing trains at the facility. Each train will consist of a feed chute, stoker, integrated furnace/boiler, acid gas scrubber, a fabric filter baghouse and associated ash and residue collection systems. Steam produced in the boilers will drive an electrical power generating system consisting of one turbine-generator set, switchgear and an air cooled condenser, to produce electricity for delivery to the grid, for in-plant use and potentially to provide district heating and/or cooling to the neighboring Courtice Water Pollution Control Plant and Clarington Energy Business Park.

The facility will incorporate a state-of-the-art flue gas treatment design that includes: Covanta’s proprietary Very Low NOx system; a Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) system with aqueous ammonia injection for additional NOx control; powdered activated carbon (PAC) injection for mercury and dioxins control; a spray dryer absorber (SDA) for acid gas control; and a fabric filter baghouse for particulate heavy metals removal. In addition to the standard continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS), the facility will also include a state-ofthe-art continuous emissions sampling system for dioxins and furans.

To manage the hazardous fly ash component from the facility, Covanta will employ an innovative system that stabilizes the hazardous material onsite by fixing any potentially harmful elements in the ash using a mixture of Portland cement, pozzolan and water. The facility will be designed as a zero process water discharge facility, with only the need to manage stormwater, some of which will be captured and utilized for irrigation of the onsite vegetation.

The total price tag for the facility is $235.76 million (as of February 19, 2009). The annual operating fee for the facility is $14.67 million (as of February 19, 2009), excluding consideration of revenues from electricity or ferrous and non-ferrous recoveries. The plant will be designed to recover 60 per cent to 80 per cent of the metals received in the waste that can then be sold to recycling markets.

Covanta has provided an electricity production guarantee of 767 kilowatt hours per tonne of waste resulting in a minimum of $8.59 million in annual electricity revenues, based on the agreement with Ontario Power Authority to purchase electricity at a fixed price of 8 cents per kWh.

26 www.hazmatmag.com SPRING 2011

SPRING ISSUE.indb 26

3/7/11 9:06 PM

CleanTech Canada

DETAILS

SPRING 2011 HazMat Management 27

SPRING ISSUE.indb 27

3/7/11 9:06 PM

CleanTech Canada

CLP TURNS FOOD AND BEVERAGE WASTE INTO CLEAN FUEL

FUEL FOR LOVE

I

n Ontario, a little known industry exists, built by creating value out of what was production discards from another company. Canadian Liquids Processors (CLP) takes food and beverage “wastes’ and turns them into recycled commodities and fuel. The wastes are created from situations such as overproduction, quality or packaging issues, stale-dated or recalls by the producer; CLP transforms them into valuable commodities such as container glass, cardboard, aluminum, etc. and the liquid becomes ethanol for industrial use. Traditionally these discarded products and packaging would have ended up in landfills across Canada and the United States. They can include pop, juice, fruit drinks, sports drinks, concentrates, beer, wine, coolers, distilled spirits, bulk liquid, and bulk products that cannot be discharged by companies and need to be recycled.

For more than 12 years, CLP has been transforming waste beverages into ethanol, pioneering this method of recycling in Canada. At CLP’s 60,000 sq.ft. facility in Hamilton, Ontario millions of litres of liquid waste are converted into ethanol each year. CLP is the only distillation and product destruction facility of its type in Canada that is licensed by both the Ministry of Environment and Canadian Customs and Revenue (Excise). All recyclable packaging such as glass, plastic, aluminum, steel, tetra, other specialty packaging, cardboard is recovered and primarily sent to end users such as glass bottle manufacturers, sheet aluminum and cardboard manufacturers.

CLP’s customers include many of the major international alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverage and sugar-based manufacturers. They trust their quality rejects, recalls, and stale dated product with CLP because the company can ensure that their less-than-perfect products never re-circulate back into the marketplace where their brand can be compromised or a consumer can potentially be harmed. In addition to 24-hour on-site security, video

by Jack McGinnis 28 www.hazmatmag.com SPRING 2011

SPRING ISSUE.indb 28

3/7/11 9:06 PM

CleanTech Canada

surveillance, secure fencing and controlled access, CLP tracks every product from the time it is received until destruction.

During times of crisis management, food and beverage companies call upon CLP to provide the complete recall service. This is a comprehensive arranging of transport, pickups and destruction

of the food or beverage products. CLP provides the Retailer and Distributor Product Destruction Log that the FDA requires and/or any certificate of destructions that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Canadian Customs and Revenue (Excise) needs. CLP works very closely with the FDA, Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

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: • • Innovative remediation technologies • Waste and recycling programs • Water and wastewater treatment projects •

Summit Series 2011 Join us at one of our upcoming sessions:

Toronto

April 20, 2011

Saskatoon May 3, 2011

For more information about our CleanTech legal services, contact:

Regina

May 4, 2011

Halifax

Aaron Atcheson, Partner 519.931.3526 aatcheson@millerthomson.com

June 3, 2011

Calgary

June 22, 2011

Edmonton June 23, 2011

REGISTER AT www.ecologevents.com, or 1-888-702-1111 ext 1 SPRING 2011 HazMat Management 29 MT_CleanTech Canada Guide Ad_v4.indd 1

SPRING ISSUE.indb 29

5/28/2010 4:24:03 PM

3/7/11 9:06 PM

CleanTech Canada

CLP appreciates that recalls are a difficult time for a company as there are many factors to consider, the most important being the expedient removal of the product from the retail environment and ensuring that all recalled product is completely destroyed while protecting the brand and reducing opportunities for negative impact on public safety. CLP through its closed loop system ensures that the destruction is done completely and confidentially. In January 2011 they will work very closely with the Packaging Association of Canada for one of the most comprehensive mock recall and traceability field trials for the packaging industry including retailers, food manufacturers and suppliers.

CLP is a wholly owned Canadian company, operating in Hamilton, Ontario owned since 2004 by Emmie Leung, an innovator in the recycling industry for more than 30 years. Ms. Leung is also the driving force behind Halton Recycling Ltd. in Ontario and International Paper Industries Ltd. in Western Canada. A number of these divisions are now being brought under the new banner of the Emterra Group. All the companies are focused on waste management, specializing in diverting and converting waste into saleable, marketable products. The newest member is Canadian Eco Rubber, an innovative tire recycling company in Ontario. Leung’s personal philosophy is to find opportunities in every challenge; and, all things, even “waste,” is a resource. CLP also has Emterra as one of its clients providing glass processing services to recyclers who collect municipal waste glass.

CLP has a passion for glass recycling and beneficiation (the cleaning and sizing of recycled glass into furnace-ready cullet.)

CLP ships more than 46,000 tonnes per year of furnace ready cullet to container glass manufacturers such as Owens-Illinois, Saint Gobain and Anchor Glass. Significant sustainability benefits are realized from the cradle to cradle use of recycled glass in making glass containers.

• Every 1 kg cullet used as raw material = 1.2 kg virgin materials saved.

• Every 10 per cent cullet used is a 5 per cent savings in carbon emissions and 3 per cent energy savings.

• Melting cullet requires only 70 per cent of the energy needed to melt raw materials.

As a firm believer in “zero waste,” CLP completes waste audits and waste reduction work plans for retail, manufacturing, hotel/motel, restaurants, hospitals, special events among many others. These custom designed waste diversion programs with the 3Rs in mind are required by Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment under the Ontario Regulation 102 for the Institutional, Commercial and Industrial sector.

CLP designs customized programs to meet specific goals of the company by assessing the recycling needs, helps to set goals and targets as well as define strategies to accomplish these goals.

Jack McGinnis was Manager of RDC Group in Brougham, Ontario before he passed away on January 29, 2011.

Bringing Clean Soil Technologies to Market SDTC-supported companies grow four times faster than other Canadian cleantech companies. So could you.

If you have an innovative clean soil technology, we want to hear from you.

Talk to us know about submitting a Statement of Interest.

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

SDTC supports the commercialization of clean soil technologies by Canadian companies.

www.sdtc.ca/ applications

30 www.hazmatmag.com SPRING 2011

SPRING ISSUE.indb 30

3/7/11 9:06 PM

transportation

Lowering Emissions in 2011 Four factors for new fleet fuel technology

H

eavy engines and oversized loads take an environmental toll, but until recently engine and fuel technology didn’t offer many solutions to reduce emissions without drastically cutting performance. Fortunately, in 2011 two technologies are changing the way heavy fleets use fuel.

Emissions standards are tightening in the United States, with Canadian regulations not far behind. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) engines and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) engines, which allow certain fleet applications to meet the new standards without performance concerns, are thus gaining in popularity, especially among waste haulers, manufacturers, government and municipal contractors and heavy duty fleets.

In the U.S., CNG for transportation use has grown

Photo courtesy of Yara International ASA

250 percent since 2000, representing approximately 200 million gallons in 2009. British research firm Integer estimates that 85 percent of the 95,000 new trucks ordered in 2010 were SCR-equipped and projects 1.2 billion gallons in global annual sales by 2020 of diesel exhaust fluid (DEF), the urea solution that SCR engines use to lower nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions 83 percent over regular diesel engines.

Both fuels, CNG and SCR-treated diesel, dramatically reduce emissions and provide an effective means to comply with contracting requirements for reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. DEF actually provides a welcome five percent fuel economy boost. CNG reduces carbon-intensive emissions by 30 to 40 percent and saves fleets between 55 cents and 75 cents per gallon, since natural gas prices are significantly less than diesel.

Both SCR and CNG technologies create a win-win situation in which fleet operators no longer have to sacrifice power per gallon to enjoy eco-friendly, costeffective options. So how do you know which of these is right for you?

Four factors guide the relationship between your fleet and its fuel and can help drive your fleet fueling decisions in this time of change and increased government regulatory focus on cleaner fuel technology.

1. Equipment Application: Your equipment application is a critical factor to consider when determining which emissions-reducing technology is right for your fleet.

Cummins Westport ISL G 8.9-litre, one of the most widely used CNG engines in the waste industry, has a horsepower rating of 320 and 1000 pound-feet of torque.

As for SCR diesel engines, most manufacturers offer a wide array of vehicles that can fit a variety of applications.

In the past, environmentally-friendly engines often didn’t have the horsepower that waste hauling, recycling and manufacturing required. The scene is changing rapidly, however, as new equipment continues to come on the market at a record pace.

2. Operational Model: To successfully fuel using CNG, your fleet will likely need to work as a hub-and-spoke operation. CNG retail fueling options are not yet welldeveloped and, thus, range can become an issue. CNG, for example, is an ideal option for urban waste-hauling fleets that return to a home base each day. CNG fueling options continue to expand in North America, but if you do not operate on a hub-and-spoke model, SCR engines that use DEF may be a better option for your fleet.

Not only is DEF available in a number of retail locations but for commercial fleets, there is an increasingly well-developed North American infrastructure in place to

by J. Alexander

“To successfully fuel using CNG, your fleet will likely need to work as a hub-and-spoke operation.”

SPRING 2011 HazMat Management 31

SPRING ISSUE.indb 31

3/7/11 9:06 PM

transportation

accommodate SCR engines. For example, Mansfield Oil joined forces in 2009 with Yara, the largest producer of DEF in the world, to create an extensive DEF network throughout the continent. That network, Delivery1, already includes 300 outlets and we are looking forward to seeing that number grow in 2011.

3. Costs and Benefits: While CNG and DEF vehicles have higher up-front costs than a traditional diesel vehicle, CNG features low fuel costs while DEF improves fuel economy. Buying a new CNG vehicle typically costs $30,000 to $50,000 (USD) more than it does to buy a diesel engine. Infrastructure costs represent a significant one-time investment and must be considered in the initial return on investment, but CNG offsets the initial cost with overall fuel savings due to wholesale pricing versus retail for natural gas supply.

SCR-equipped vehicles’ up-front cost is significantly less than a CNG purchase, priced at about $10,000 (USD) more than a typical diesel vehicle. When you buy DEF in bulk, the improved fuel economy of a SCRequipped engine should cover the higher up-front costs

in less than 130,000 miles.

4. Regulation Projections: Don’t base your equipment purchasing decisions on your two to three year projections; you may run the risk of buying equipment that will not serve your needs for 10 years. Take into account the fact that DEF and CNG both require infrastructure and operational investments, but also look at the lifespan of your equipment and governmental trends. If it takes 12 to 15 years to turn a fleet, a change in government regulations may force you into purchasing new equipment prematurely. Coordinate closely with your municipal and county customers to include their future plans and requirements for emission reductions in your decision.

We typically recommend incorporating these technologies sooner rather than later. While up-front costs can be high, joining a clean air initiative group can help to position your company as a green, forward-thinking organization. In the meantime, you will reap the benefits of improved fuel economy or reduced fuel costs, depending on the technology that best suits your operation.

HMM

J. Alexander is President and Chief Operations Officer of Mansfield Oil in Gainesville, Georgia. Contact J. via kkimzey@ mansfieldoil.com

The business of rediscovering resources is our unique purpose.

By focusing on recycling and recovery, we push beyond conventional thinking and find cost-effective ways to transform industrial residues back into valuable products. Our experience and innovative solutions help our customers improve efficiencies and reduce costs, while improving their environmental performance. These solutions are provided through our network of 80 facilities across Canada and at our customers’ facilities where we mobilize our people and equipment to process residues directly onsite. There’s a better way to think about waste.

32 www.hazmatmag.com SPRING 2011

SPRING ISSUE.indb 32

CLIENT:

Newalta

TRIM:

JOB #:

NE-1034-HM

LIVE:

7" x 4.875"

PUBLICATION:

HazMat

3/7/11 9:06 PM

environment-business

Chemical Oxidation When should regulators allow full-scale use of an innovative technology?

W

hen Bennett Environmental Inc., a publicly listed company specializing in the thermal treatment of contaminated soils and PCBcontaining material, blew the whistle on the Quebec government for not enforcing its environmental rules with respect to hazardous waste, it got me thinking as to why the news release didn’t raise more of a wrinkle in the mainstream press.

Bennett submitted its complaint against the Quebec government to NAFTA’s Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation.

In its submission to the CEC, Bennett claims that Canada, and more specifically the Province of Quebec, is failing to effectively enforce Quebec’s Environment Quality Act and the Regulation Respecting the Burial of Contaminated Soils by issuing a permit for the use of chemical oxidation

to treat PCB-contaminated soils without evidence that the process works.

One can understand why Bennett is concerned about the use of chemical oxidization to treat contaminated soil and PCB-containing material since it would compete against its commercial incinerator. Any process that can be successfully applied in situ to PCB-contaminated soil would most likely be cheaper than thermal treatment.

The success of Bennett’s submission will hinge on whether or not the Secretariat agrees that the Quebec government issued permits (for full-scale chemical oxidation of contaminated soil) without adequate evidence that it actually works. Bennett’s argument is that a study carried out by experts found no evidence that, outside a laboratory context, at commercial scale, chemical oxidation can

by John Nicholson

“The history of companies complaining to the CEC has shown that it can be lucrative.”

DIANNE SAXE Ph.D. in Law

Certified Specialist in Environmental Law

124, de Hambourg Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures (Québec) G3A 0B3 CANADA Office: 418 878-5422 Fax: 418 878-5323

Training and Education: technical transfer session, health and safety training; Consulting and Technology Site Assessment: technology support and selection (chemical oxidation, co solvent-surfactant soil washing and enhanced bioremediation); Product supply, logistics and storage: nutrients, bacterial preparations strains, oxidants, catalysts, oxygen and hydrogen release compounds, co solvent-surfactant blends Laboratory Services and Analysis: Groundwater Parameter Analysis, Tracer Study, Soil and Groundwater Oxidant Demand Evaluation (SOD), Bench Scale Treatability testing.

Visit us at Americana booth #1704 • www.chemco–inc.com Contact: Jean Paré, P. Eng., Vice-President - Soil and Groundwater Division

248 Russell Hill Road, Toronto, Ontario M4V 2T2 dsaxe@envirolaw.com Telephone: 416 962 5882 envirolaw.com VISION

INNOVATION

EXCELLENCE SPRING 2011 HazMat Management 33

SPRING ISSUE.indb 33

3/7/11 9:06 PM

environment-business

reduce PCB concentrations in contaminated soils to meet the maximum levels for landfilling set by the EQA and the regulations. (See article, page 19.)

A quick literature search shows papers prepared by the United States Department of Energy (1998), the U.S. EPA (2004), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2007) indicating that chemical oxidation can be effective in treating PCBs. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluated lime and persulfate treatment for mixed contaminated soil from the Plum Brook Ordnance Works in Sandusky, Ohio.

The report concludes: “All the treatments resulted in >80 percent reduction of PCBs.” Developers of innovative technologies in Canada have it tough enough right now getting regulatory approval for full-scale use. A cynic might argue that Bennett is attempting to make it as difficult as possible for chemical oxidation to get approval in the province until all the PCBs are destroyed (prefer-

ably at Bennett’s PCB incinerator).

When it comes to blowing the whistle on the government action or inaction, regulated companies need to think about the long-term ramifications of their actions.

The history of companies complaining to the CEC has shown that it can be lucrative. For example, in the 1998, SD Myers, a U.S.-based PCB waste management company, complained to the CEC when the Canadian government closed the border to PCB waste shipments to the U.S. The company successfully sued the Canadian government for $50 million in damages for business lost when the short-lived ban was in place. Interestingly, the U.S. government closed the border to inbound shipments of PCB waste sometime thereafter.

That said, the decision by the CEC on Bennett’s submission may boost technology companies trying to commercialize their remediation technologies HMM

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

Is this a

problem ? for you

Over 10,000 metric tons of Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Soil safely transported and disposed from the North since 2003 • Mining Industries • Federal and Territorial Agencies • Abandoned Site Decommissioning

Let us manage your environmental liability Qikiqtaaluk Environmental is a joint venture between and ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC.

Iqaluit, Nunavut • (867) 979-8400 • info@qenv.ca • www.qenv.ca 34 www.hazmatmag.com SPRING 2011

SPRING ISSUE.indb 34

3/7/11 9:06 PM

health-and-safety

Slips, Trips and Falls?

Facility audits can determine if your workplace is safe

L

osing a loved one due to an occupational accident just isn’t fair. Unsafe work practices, unsafe workplaces and lack of proper training are key reasons for accidents in the workplace. Every one of us must take a closer look at our workplace to ensure the safety of all workers. A ladder without anti-slip feet, mezzanines without railings and improper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) are just a few of the often overlooked hazards.

On September 29th, 2000, Constable John Petropoulos of the Calgary Police Service was not so lucky; neither was his family. Cst. Petropoulos responded to a break-and-enter call at a local warehouse. He went up to the mezzanine to investigate and stepped from a safe surface directly onto a false ceiling.

He fell nine feet into the lunchroom below because there were no guardrails in place and succumbed to a brain injury.

This could easily happen to someone close to you.

On January 17, 2007, a young worker employed by an Ontario roofing company died after he fell over 42 metres (140 feet) from a roof canopy. The investigation found that the worker was wearing a full body harness but it was not connected to any anchor or fixed support at the time of the incident. The roofing company was fined $150,000 and two individuals of the firm were convicted for violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA).

Throughout Ontario, in the case of the majority of completed facility safety and health audits, unsafe mezzanine, working and storage surfaces and non-guarded raised structures were identified as not meeting the minimum requirements under the OHSA and building codes. The situation is likely similar in other provinces.

These structures raise risk of accidents due to slips, trips and falls and other structural concerns from improper or unsafe access, no guard rails, improper structure, improper lag to floor and walls, no safety training and not being approved by a structural engineer.

In Ontario, one in every six lost-time injuries is caused by a fall (slips and falls totaled 65 per cent of accidents overall). Falls killed 11 workers in 2009 in

Ontario; slips trips and falls accounted for one in five injuries and one in four fatalities in industrial workplaces alone. 429 fatalities were reported in Ontario as of October 2010. In BC, 7.5 per cent of all accidents are related to falls; over the past five years, 700 BC workers were injured due to slips, trips or falls.

Don’t be a statistic: work safe!

A thorough “facility audit” will identify any unsafe, non-compliant hazards in the workplace. It’s very easy to miss the obvious when we look at the same things day-in and day-out. It’s always a good idea to have an outside party (consulting firm) complete a facility audit at least once per year. Fresh (and trained) eyes often identify hazards overlooked by others who may not be aware of certain risks in the first place.

The OSHA and Canada’s building codes are explicit in their requirements to protect workers from slips, trips and falls. A guardrail is required on structures that are over three metres (nine feet) pursuant to section 46 of the OSHA General Requirements 2.1(e). The guardrail must be 107 centimeters above the surrounding floor, ground, platform or other surface pursuant to section 13(1) of O. Reg. 851/90 in accordance with section 14 of O. Reg. 850/90.

Guardrails that are constructed or installed at a workplace must be in accordance with section 46 — the guardrail must extend around the perimeter of all open sides from which the worker may be exposed to the hazard of a fall as outlined in 2(1)(a) to (c) of the Act. (For complete fall protection requirements under the Act, go to http://www.gov.pe.ca/law/regulations/pdf/O&0101-1.pdf) Inspectors will look for fall-from-height hazards involving platforms, raised floors, mezzanines and balconies, stairs, ladder and other access points, fall-arrest equipment, guardrails and storage rack safety issues. For each violation of the Act the courts can impose a fine of up to $500,000 against a corporation and up to $25,000 or imprisonment of up to 12 months (or both) for an individual.

We are all responsible for ensuring that our workplaces are safe. Don’t be afraid to speak up!

HMM

by Lynne Bard

“Don’t be a statistic: work safe!”

Lynne Bard is President and Senior Consultant of Beyond Rewards Inc. in Guelph, Ontario. Contact Lynne at info@ beyondrewards.ca SPRING 2011 HazMat Management 35

SPRING ISSUE.indb 35

3/7/11 9:06 PM

products

Biohazard container

Lifting magnets Winkle’s OptiMag “L-Series” lifting magnets for scrap recyclers now include two model ranges, the LDSA magnets, updated from the previous LSA standard, and a new ELDSA line created specifically for smaller hydraulic scrap handling machines. The new L-Series models offer increased lifting capacity with lighter weight magnets. Through the redesign and enhancement process, Winkle also reduced costs in the new line-up of L-Series magnets through improved manufacturing and material efficiencies.

The LDSA and ELDSA types are both recommended for fixed and mixed loads in general duty scrap handling applications, providing a large lifting surface and reduced total weight to best utilize the crane’s load-lifting capacity.

Visit www.winkleindustries.com

LW S

The new P-433 “Ship Shape” Biohazard bulk container from material handling product manufacturer Meese Orbitron Dunne Co., Ashtabula, Ohio has earned the UN 11H2 design qualification documenting its ability safely transport hazardous materials. Developed for handling clinical waste, biomedical waste, regulated medical waste, soiled laundry, oil- and paint-soaked shop rags and other flammable solid and non-fluid materials, the new P-433 bulk forklift biohazard container features a rugged, rigid plastic container with a seal-tight plastic cover and closure to ensure materials in transport remain safely inside the container in the event of being flipped over, rotated or dropped. An optional, tamper-evident security lock is also available. Visit www.ShipShapeContainers.com

OHE is a multidisciplinary firm that specializes in providing high

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.

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

quality services in the field of environmental and health and safety consulting. We are a Canadian company with our head office located in Mississauga, Ontario and a network of associate companies strategically located in major centres across Canada.

Tel: 905.278.7000 • Toll Free: 1.866.OHE 4 EOH www.oheconsultants.com

HMMsept08gm1307 Kilmer.qxd 9/12/08 4:27 PM 496 South Service Road • Mississauga, ON L5G 2S5

TAKING ON THE TOUGHEST JOBS www.accuworx.ca

Page 1

™

Kilmer Brownfield Equity Fund L.P.

OHE/MC7607/HMM.indd 1

• Environmental Services • Emergency Spill Response Services • Waste Management • Haz Waste Transportation & Disposal (M.O.E. Carrier & Waste Site C. Of A.’s)

5/12/09 4:06:48 PM

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.

40 Advance Boulevard, Brampton, Ontario L6T 4J4

1-877-898-7222

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

36 www.hazmatmag.com SPRING 2010

SPRING ISSUE.indb 36

3/7/11 9:06 PM

advertiser index

SPRING 2011

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

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

AccuWorx. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

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

Brownfield’s Summit Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

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

Cdn Brownfield’s Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

MMM Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

CERCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-23 Chemco. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Dianne Saxe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 EnviroTech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 First Response Environmental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Golder Associates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 T Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

MTE Consultants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Miller Thomson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Newalta Environmental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 OHE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Pinchin Environmental Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Proeco. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Qikiqtaaluk Environmental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Quantum Murray. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Hazco. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Sustainable Dev. Tech. Can. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Health, Safety & Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Stuyvesant Environmental. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Intrinsik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

XCG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

CBN new version

9/2/08

1:31 PM

Page 1

Canadian Brownfields Network Working on Brownfields?

Canada's Voice for Brownfield Redevelopment Building Capacity

Advocacy

Think Tank

Forum

Linkages

Expertise

Communication

Connectivity

Community

Sustainability

Revitalization

www.CanadianBrownfieldsNetwork.ca SPRING 2011 HazMat Management 37

SPRING ISSUE.indb 37

3/7/11 9:06 PM

legal-perspective

Are we serious about mercury?

I

by Dianne Saxe

“We should still ask, ‘What have they done to the rain?’”

n 2003, the United Nations Environment Program published a Global Mercury Assessment Report. The report found that both elemental mercury and its compounds are highly toxic, causing significant health and environmental impacts around the world.

One third to one half of mercury air emissions come from volcanoes, geothermal activities and erosion of mercury-based deposits. The rest are from: mining/processing ore; burning coal and oil; use, disposal and burning of products that contain mercury (e.g., batteries, paints, thermometers, electrical devices); small-scale gold mining; and re-mobilization of mercury from disturbances such as land use change, burning of biomass, heavy rain, floods or fire.

Mercury travels long distances in air, depositing in water and soil. Some compounds, like methylmercury, can bioaccumulate and move up the food chain. Mercury levels in some beluga whales and Arctic ringed seals have doubled or quadrupled over the past quarter century.

Many fish advisories advise consumers (especially pregnant women) to limit ingestion of certain fish due to high mercury levels. And evidence continues to grow of the serious health consequences of consuming mercury, including an increased risk of Alzheimer’s.

So why haven’t we done more? I am always sad when I see children with those “cute” shoes that flash on and off as they run; what a reason to put poisons in their clothes!

The federal government used to fend off Pollution Probe and other activists, saying they could do no more about mercury. Three years ago, Pollution Probe answered this excuse, by retaining our firm to prepare a legal opinion showing federal and provincial governments that they could ban mercury, e.g., in consumer products. In late 2010, Environment Canada finally released its Risk Management Strategy for Mercury. And a ban on unnecessary mercury in consumer products is finally in sight.

The Risk Management Strategy spends a lot of ink bragging about how much Canada has already done. After all, Canada has reduced our domestic mercury releases by 90 per cent since the 1970s. Today, Canada receives more mercury than we emit. In 2005, Canadian sources emitted seven tonnes of anthropogenic mercury, more than half of it from burning coal. Other countries emitted 2,000 tonnes (45 per cent from China). Over 95 per cent of the estimated 65 tonnes of anthropogenic mercury deposited in Canada in 2006 came from outside the country.

Canada’s past successes include: the 1972 Alkali Mercury Liquid Effluent Regulations; the 1998 National

Emission Guidelines for Cement Kilns; Canada-wide Standards for Mercury-Containing Lamps and for Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Power Generation Plants; guidelines for mercury in fish, drinking water, soil quality and blood; and best management practices for dentists. Environment Canada seems satisfied with current monitoring of mercury in food, products and the environment. Mercury in blood is being measured in the Canadian Health Measures Survey. Canada is also party to international agreements, such as the Basel Convention, that should help control mercury in hazardous wastes.

Nevertheless, we can do better. Elemental mercury is on the list of toxic substances in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). Canada now proposes to add mercury compounds (e.g., methylmercury) to the list. Base metal smelters and refiners must implement “pollution prevention” plans for mercury by 2015.

New regulations (called for in our Pollution Probe opinion) could prohibit the import, manufacture and sale of mercurycontaining products (maybe including those embarrassing shoes!). The Products Containing Certain Toxic Substances Regulations are predicted to come into force by 2012.

Ironically, our best hope for reducing Canadian emissions of mercury is a byproduct of promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Cutting reliance on coal-fired electricity “could reduce mercury emissions by up to 96 per cent by 2050.” The government is also funding studies into the faint hope of “clean coal.”

Since most of the mercury that threatens Canadians comes from abroad, the government promises to participate in international mercury control efforts, like the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation’s North American Regional Action Plan on Mercury. Canada also participates in scientific research, such as UNEP’s Global Mercury Programme and Global Mercury Partnerships. A Canadian Mercury Science Assessment is scheduled for 2013. The strategy even promises to develop a way to measure its own performance.

Considering how long we have known about its dangers, mercury remains an astonishingly widespread threat. And the more data we have, the more questions arise: Why do women have heavier loads of mercury than men? Why do baby boomers have more mercury in their blood than their parents or children? And, what must we do to stop foreign mercury from poisoning our air, water and fish? We should still ask, “What have they done to the rain?”

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 Jackie Campbell contributed to this article.

38 www.hazmatmag.com SPRING 2011

SPRING ISSUE.indb 38

3/7/11 9:06 PM

New Proeco Mar11/AB/SWR

3/1/11

2:21 PM

Page 1

RESPONSIBLE SUBSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR

Hazardous 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.

PCB Decontamination for Electrical Equipment Paint Recycling Program Compressed Gas Cylinders Fluorescent Tube Recycling

Low Temperature Vacuum Extraction Processes Waste Minimization, Bulking and Volume Reduction Alternative Fuel Blending

www.proeco.com 1-800-661-5792 SPRING ISSUE.indb 40

3/7/11 9:06 PM

EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES CBRN Responders ‫ ׀‬Post Fire & Flood Clean-up ‫ ׀‬24 Hour On-call HAZMAT Team Retainer Service Agreements ‫ ׀‬North America Wide Coverage Emergency Response Training ‫ ׀‬Fuel & Chemical Pipeline Breaks Motor Vehicle Accidents & Rollovers ‫ ׀‬Chemical Segregation & Lab Packing Clandestine Drug Laboratory Decommissioning ‫ ׀‬Spill Containment, Neutralization & Reclamation

www.hazco.com ‫ ׀‬1.800.32.SPILL (77455)

Progressive Thinking. Responsible Solutions.

Innovative and Effective Solutions to Environmental, Decommissioning and Waste Management Challenges.

SPRING ISSUE.indb 39

3/7/11 9:06 PM