Source: https://hazmatmag.com/2020/04/
Timestamp: 2020-06-03 11:53:35
Document Index: 12927061

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 9601', '§ 929', '§ 113', '§ 9613', '§ 122', '§ 113', '§ 113', '§122']

April 2020 – HazMat Management
April 30, 2020 /in HazMat, Industry, News, Trending /by hazzmatt1
The Emergency Response Guidebook 2020 edition will be available late spring 2020. For free paper copies’ pre-order, please send an email to: [email protected]
Who is eligible to get free paper copies?
Canadian First Responders from public emergency services such as:
First Nation emergency services, can get free paper copies according to operational needs
These First Responders can get free paper copies according to operational needs, which include:
one paper copy of the Guidebook per emergency vehicle or per emergency kit bag (such as for volunteer firefighters who use their personal vehicle)
replacement copies as required for broken or damaged copies
copies used in class for in-house training purposes, on the condition they are to be retained for reuse in future classes
Canadian dispatch centers that pass on technical information about dangerous goods to First Responders can get a small number of free paper copies for use in the dispatch center
in remote areas where there are no First Responders available, other Canadian municipal, provincial, territorial or federal authorities acting as public emergency services may get free paper copies according to emergency response operational needs, if they are likely to be the first to arrive on scene of a dangerous goods incident
transportation of dangerous goods inspectors, remedial measures specialists and provincial inspectors who respond to dangerous goods accidents can get one free copy each for use during their duties
https://hazmatmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Emergency-Response-Guidebook-2020.png 912 643 hazzmatt1 https://hazmatmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/hazmat-logo.jpg hazzmatt12020-04-30 17:41:572020-05-01 09:50:34Transport Canada Emergency Response Guidebook — 2020
April 30, 2020 /in Environment, News, Regulation /by hazzmatt1
Written by Jean Lortie, Dominique Amyot-Bilodeau, Jean-Philippe Mathieu, Patrick Ostiguy of McCarthy Tétrault LLP
In a Superior Court decision rendered in 2016, the Honourable Gilles Blanchet concluded that the QPA’s and IMTT’s activities take place on federal property and that they also fall under the federal constitutional domains of navigation and interprovincial trade. Applying the doctrine of federal paramountcy, Justice Blanchet found that the challenged provisions of the EQA conflict with and frustrate the purpose of federal port and environmental legislation, including the Canada Marine Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and related regulations.
Jean Lortie is a partner in the Litigation Group of McCarthy Tétrault in Montréal. His practice focuses on civil and commercial litigation, including class actions; shareholders’ remedies; corporate and securities litigation; insurance law; professional liability; construction law; product liability; property law and intellectual property law.
Dominique Amyot-Bilodeau is a partner in the Business Law Group of McCarthy Tétrault in Montréal. His practice focuses on the development of industrial projects and on environmental, energy and natural resources law.
Jean-Philippe Mathieu is an associate in the Litigation Group of McCarthy Tétrault in Montréal. His practice includes civil and commercial litigation, class actions, insurance litigation and professional liability.
Patrick Ostiguy is an associate in the Litigation Group of McCarthy Tétrault in Montréal. His practice focuses mainly on civil and commercial litigation and medical liability.
https://hazmatmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Supreme-Court-of-Canada.jpg 280 900 hazzmatt1 https://hazmatmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/hazmat-logo.jpg hazzmatt12020-04-30 15:00:182020-05-01 10:00:44Trio of Recent Supreme Court of Canada Decisions Signals Provinces Cannot Impede Federal Undertakings under the Guise of Environmental Protection
April 30, 2020 /in News, Regulation /by hazzmatt1
Written by Christopher D. Thomas, P. Derek Petersen, Katherine E. May, Perkins Coie LLP
The U.S. Supreme Court stepped into the long-simmering debate about the rights of residential homeowners affected by Superfund response actions, ruling that they are indeed bound by the federal statute’s ban against potentially responsible parties taking additional, unauthorized remedial actions. The case, Atlantic Research Company v. Christian et al., 590 U.S. ___ (April 20, 2020), arose out of remedial action of historic hazardous substances releases from the former Anaconda smelter site in Butte, Montana.
The releases impacted surface soils at nearby residences, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) selected a response action that called for surface soil containing excess levels of lead and arsenic to be excavated and removed, with soil impacted below those risk-based goals left in place and capped. Though that is standard practice for soil cleanups under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq, the homeowners were unhappy with the selected cleanup goals. In 2008, 98 of them filed suit in Montana state court under a variety of common law theories.
It is undisputed that CERCLA creates a cause of action for recovery of cleanup costs that must be filed in federal courts, while preserving the rights of affected parties to pursue non-conflicting common law claims against polluters. It is likewise clear that CERCLA precludes federal courts from entertaining collateral attacks on EPA-approved remedies and bars potentially responsible parties (PRPs) from disrupting EPA’s ongoing efforts at Superfund sites by taking unauthorized actions.
What has been greatly disputed is how these CERCLA provisions should apply to owners of homes within Superfund sites, given CERCLA’s broad definition of such sites to include “all areas where hazardous substances have come to be located.” In this update, we review the facts and holdings of Christian, discuss key takeaways, and consider the practical implications of the holding on residential cleanups generally.
Anaconda Copper Company mined copper in the Butte area from 1884 until its stock was acquired in 1977 by Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO). As Anaconda’s corporate successor, ARCO is liable for necessary remediation. Since the site was listed on the federal National Priorities List in 1983, under EPA supervision ARCO has spent more than $450 million cleaning up some 300 square miles affected by the former smelter’s stack emissions. Part of the cleanup work required by EPA, selected after the usual study and public comment process, has included removing hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of soil from residential yards and pasture fields.
The residential landowners within the Superfund site sued ARCO in Montana state court for common law nuisance, trespass, and strict liability—seeking at least $50 million in restoration costs to return their properties to their original condition. Like many states and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 929 (1978), Montana allows homeowners affected by contamination to recover the costs of restoring their personal homes even if the restoration costs exceed the value of the property. And the homeowners sought a declaration that ARCO was liable for the costs of removing impacted soil that EPA agreed could be safely left in place.
ARCO moved for summary judgment on the restoration damages claim, arguing that CERCLA precluded the Montana courts from hearing the case and also that, as PRPs, the homeowner plaintiffs were prohibited from taking additional cleanup action without EPA approval. After the Montana Supreme Court disagreed on both counts, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the following:
Whether state courts are barred from entertaining common-law claims for restorations that are inconsistent with an EPA-selected remedy by the prohibition against collateral attacks on remedial action decisions established under CERCLA § 113(h), 42 U.S.C. § 9613 (h)
Whether CERCLA preempts such conflicting state-law claims
Whether residential homeowners within the broadly defined reach of a Superfund site are PRPs subject to the CERCLA Section § 122(e)(6) prohibition against engaging in remedial action without EPA approval
The United States filed an amicus brief agreeing with ARCO that a state-law claim for restoration damages is a “challenge” to EPA’s remedial plan over which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to CERCLA § 113(b). The agency likewise agreed that CERCLA preempts the landowners’ claims and, further, that as PRPs the homeowners could not take remedial action without agency approval.
Addressing the jurisdictional issues, the Court held that while CERCLA provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction over claims brought under the statute itself, it does not wholly displace state-court jurisdiction over common law claims for restoration damages. The Court reasoned that CERCLA § 113(b) “deprives state courts of jurisdiction over claims brought under [CERCLA]. But it does not displace state court jurisdiction over claims brought under other sources of law.” The Court further ruled that the Section 113(h) bar against federal courts entertaining challenges to remedies did not by itself limit state-court jurisdiction. The Court opined: “Atlantic Richfield remains potentially liable under state law for compensatory damages, including loss of use and enjoyment of property, diminution of value, incidental and consequential damages, and annoyance and discomfort.”
After declining to limit the jurisdiction of state courts to entertain restoration claims, however, the Court’s next ruling made it unlikely that homeowners could accrue such claims. Section 122(e)(6) of CERCLA prohibits PRPs from undertaking “any remedial action” absent EPA approval at any facility where EPA or a PRP acting under an administrative order or consent decree “has initiated a remedial investigation and feasibility study.” Disagreeing with the Montana Supreme Court, the Court ruled that the landowners were PRPs and, as such, were prohibited from taking remedial action without EPA approval.
The Court’s majority rejected Justice Neil Gorsuch’s contention that their interpretation violated CERCLA’s “saving clauses”—which provide that CERCLA does not preempt liability or requirements under state law. On the contrary, the majority held that interpreting CERCLA’s savings clauses to erase the clear mandate of §122(e)(6) would allow CERCLA “to destroy itself.” And the Court noted that Atlantic Richfield remains potentially liable under state law for damages, including costs from the landowners’ own remediation beyond that required under CERCLA—so long as the landowners first obtain EPA approval of that remedial work. But the Court assumed that the landowners’ proposed plan, which required additional costly soil removal to achieve heightened cleanup goals, was inconsistent with the EPA-selected remedy—which the EPA had already determined to be protective of human health and the environment.
The Court’s interpretation of CERCLA should reduce the litigation leverage of homeowners over industrial parties remediating residential yards under CERCLA. While it did not rule that common-law tort claims are preempted, the Court effectively limited the relief available for restoration claims in circumstances where the cost of restoration exceeds the value of the property. Obtaining EPA preapproval for additional remediation—which the Court established as a precondition to obtaining monetary relief—is likely to be difficult.
Ironically, as the dissent warned, the ability of EPA to effectively foreclose restoration relief against PRPs may increase the agency’s own litigation risk. Nothing in CERCLA precludes the government from takings claims when CERCLA is invoked to impose use restrictions.
The decision underscores yet again the role the administrative record can play in subsequent tort litigation. EPA does not approve remedial actions unless it determines that they are protective of human health and the environment. The Christian opinion will give targets of tort claims additional support for the argument that removing all traces of contamination is not necessary to eliminate liability for common law damages.
Christopher D. Thomas, a Partner and Environmental Lawyer at Perkins Coie LLP, has advised industrial, commercial and municipal clients across the United States on a variety of litigated and non-litigated environmental disputes and regulatory compliance issues for more than 30 years. He focuses on complex infrastructure permitting, hazardous substance and toxic tort litigation, enforcement defense and site remediation. Chris has handled matters under all of the major federal environmental and natural resource statutes and numerous parallel state law and tort theories.
Derek Petersen is a Partner and an environmental and business litigator at Perkins Coie LLP with over a decade of experience representing clients before both state and federal courts. He has successfully resolved disputes throughout all stages of litigation—from pre-litigation counseling to jury and bench trials to appeals.
Katherine May is an Associate at Perkins Coie LLP that focuses on complex commercial, environmental, constitutional and regulatory disputes for clients in the mining and minerals, metals, aerospace, health care, real estate and financial services industries. She has experience representing clients in federal and state courts at both the trial and appellate levels, as well as before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings and other state agencies.
https://hazmatmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Anaconda-Smelter-Stack-PC-Butte-Citizens-Technical-Environmental-Committee.jpg 318 618 hazzmatt1 https://hazmatmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/hazmat-logo.jpg hazzmatt12020-04-30 14:25:552020-04-30 14:25:55U.S. Supreme Court Limits Use of Tort Claims By Affected Homeowners at Superfund Sites
April 28, 2020 /in News, Spills /by hazzmatt1
The Canadian Coast Guard recently confirmed that 4,500 litres of diesel fuel was spilled on April 22nd in Haida Gwaii inlet off the coast of British Columbia.
In a statement, a coast guard spokesperson said that Haida Gwaii-based company Taan Forest was responsible for the spill in Dinan Bay, which connects to Masset Inlet.
The incident happened sometime between midnight and 5 a.m. P.T. on April 29th, a valve feeding diesel to the electrical generator failed on the Toba Barge owned by Taan Forest. Consequently, an estimated 4500 liters of diesel leaked onto the deck of the barge and into the ocean near the dryland sort.
Initial estimates from a National Aerial Surveillance Program (NASP) overflight found 1900L on the water, with over 50% evaporating and dissipating within the first 24 hours.
A statement from the company on said a valve feeding diesel into an electrical generator failed on its Toba Barge and spilled diesel onto the deck. “Consequently, an estimated 4,500 litres of diesel leaked onto the deck of the barge and into the ocean near the dry land sort,” the statement said.
Taan Forest said the spill was near the mouth of the bay and because diesel is “non-persistent” it dissipates rapidly. Taan Forest said booms and sorbent pads had been deployed as soon as the spill was discovered.
Following three days of intense spill response, clean-up efforts were then directed to shoreline monitoring and environmental sampling. As of April 25, no diesel has been observed on the water with much of the spill dissipating, evaporating and being recovered by response crews. All deployed spill response gear has been collected for disposal in compliance with the Waste Management Plan.
The company made the commitment to continue sampling water, soil, and marine life to assess impacts and identify any further requirements for clean-up efforts.
The most recent incident shows the difference that local training and equipment can make in responding to spills. In this case, the Council of the Haida Nation said that they have been building up local capacity and are more prepared than they would have been in the past.
https://hazmatmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/massetinlet-haidagwaii-dru.jpg 1437 2048 hazzmatt1 https://hazmatmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/hazmat-logo.jpg hazzmatt12020-04-28 07:55:552020-05-01 10:01:42Diesel Fuel Spilled of the Coast of British Columbia
April 16, 2020 /in Environment, News, Regulation /by John Nicholson
Written by Jessica E. M. Boily , Anna Côté , Mark Youden , Alexei Paish and Harry Dahme, Gowling WLG
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. It has been republished with the permission of Gowling WLG. It was first published on the Gowling WLG website.
Jessica Boily is an environmental lawyer in Gowling WLG’s Toronto office. Her practice focuses on environmental litigation, drawing on her commercial litigation background to achieve successful and cost-effective outcomes. She uses her procedural expertise and technical knowledge to advocate for her clients.
Mark Youden practises with Gowling WLG’s Environmental, Advocacy and Indigenous Law groups. Mark is called to the bar in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario and advises a wide range of clients on all aspects of environmental, Indigenous and regulatory law issues.
Alexei Paish practises with Gowling WLG’s Environmental and Advocacy Law groups, with a focus on Indigenous, regulatory and procedural matters. Alexei assists clients with a wide range of litigation issues, including energy-related litigation, contaminated sites, spills management, judicial reviews, quasi-criminal liability and environmental prosecutions.
Harry Dahme is a partner in Gowling WLG’s Toronto office and past leader of the firm’s Environmental Law Group. He has practised exclusively in the area of environmental law since 1984, and has a solid reputation as one of the foremost environmental lawyers in Canada.
https://hazmatmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/200403-environmental-obligations-COVID19.jpg 450 930 John Nicholson https://hazmatmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/hazmat-logo.jpg John Nicholson2020-04-16 14:48:572020-04-16 14:48:57Keeping Up With Environmental Obligations In The Time Of COVID-19
April 16, 2020 /in Column, News, Remediation, Trending /by hazzmatt1
Written by Amy L. Edwards, Bonni F. Kaufman, and Meaghan A. Colligan, and Holland & Knight LLP
On April 10, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) issued Interim Guidance on Site Field Work Decisions Due to Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic to all EPA Regional Administrators. The Interim Guidance outlines the factors that EPA Regional Offices should consider on a case-by-case basis to evaluate if cleanup actions should continue as is, be reduced or paused, as well as affirmative steps that EPA Regions must take depending on what decision they make. The Interim Guidance is applicable to Superfund cleanups, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective actions, Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) PCB cleanups, cleanups under the Oil Pollution Act, the Underground Storage Tank (UST) program and EPA emergency responses to releases or substantial threats of releases (Response Actions) when EPA is the lead agency. The Response Actions may be performed by EPA, states, tribes other agencies of the federal government and potentially responsible parties where EPA is the lead agency.
EPA was clear that Regional Office decisions and follow-up steps must be made in accordance with EPA’s priorities to 1) protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, EPA staff and third-party environmental professionals, and 2) maintain EPA’s ability to respond to environmental emergencies and protect the environment (EPA’s Priorities). EPA indicated that adherence with federal, state, tribal or local health declarations and restrictions (Health Declarations), when possible, is integral to EPA’s Priorities. EPA was clear that no one factor outlined in the Interim Guidance should be considered in a manner that would override protection against unnecessary potential exposure to COVID-19. Furthermore, EPA indicated that Regional Office decisions to provide extensions or pause work obligations will not supersede or amend enforcement instruments.
When evaluating whether or not to continue, modify or pause a Response Action, EPA made clear that Regional Offices should closely consider whether or not the Response Action is addressing an imminent public health issue, such as access to clean drinking water or vapor exposure concerns, emergency spills, catastrophic events, disposals of certain wastes that may cause an imminent safety issue and in-progress decommissioning of former nuclear facilities and landfills. Applying EPA’s clear guidance that EPA’s Priorities must be at the forefront of the Regional Offices’ decisions, Holland & Knight does not believe the Regional Offices will permit any schedule alterations in these situations, so long as appropriate lodging and personal protective equipment is available for EPA workers or third-party contractors. In contrast, EPA may be more willing to approve schedule modifications for investigations that are part of long-term remedial actions that would not be completed in six months under ordinary circumstances, and remedial actions that do not address an immediate public health concern, i.e., the remedial action was already not scheduled to begin for at least one or two years regardless of any delays caused by the pandemic.
EPA indicated that Response Actions will not simply be abandoned without any controls. Rather, if Regional Offices decide that an action should be paused, Regions should continue to monitor the site and plan to resume field work as soon as it is safe to do so. If a Response Action will continue, Regional Offices must review and modify the health and safety plan (HASP) to ensure that it accounts for CDC’s COVID-19 guidelines and other Health Declarations.
EPA expects work that can be performed remotely to continue, such as completing investigation and cleanup reports, work plans, negotiations between parties, issuing decision documents, progress reports and maintaining compliance with financial assurance obligations.
Parties that believe a COVID-19 restriction will impact their obligations to perform any element of a Response Action are directed to consult the applicable enforcement instrument to review force majeure provisions and any provisions that outline the process for requesting schedule adjustments. Scheduling adjustments will be made on a case-by-case basis in line with EPA’s Priorities and the factors outlined in the Interim Guidance.
EPA indicated that it will update the Interim Guidance as the current situation evolves, as necessary.
Key Elements of the Interim Guidance
General Guidance for Response Field Work Decisions
EPA made clear that Regional Offices would continue to respond to releases or threats of substantial releases to the environment but that Regions should make every effort to ensure worker safety and compliance with travel restrictions, Health Declarations and access to personal protective equipment and lodging.
Under the Interim Guidance, Regional Offices are to perform an evaluation before deciding to continue, modify or pause Response Actions and pre-construction, construction and post-construction activities. In jurisdictions where Health Declarations have been issued, Regions are to evaluate the status of ongoing response work and the possible impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sites, surrounding communities, EPA personnel and response/cleanup partners. In jurisdictions where Health Declarations have not been issued, Regions should weigh additional factors, including the safety and availability of work crews and EPA, state and tribal staff; the critical nature of the work; logistical challenges such as travel and lodging, and other factors particular to a site.
EPA indicated that Response Actions will not simply be abandoned without any controls. Rather, if Regional Offices decide that an action should be paused, Regional Offices should continue to monitor the site and plan to resume field work as soon as it is safe to do so. If a Response Action will continue, Regional Offices must review and modify the HASP to ensure that it accounts for CDC’s COVID-19 guidelines and other Health Declarations.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, EPA encourages parties and lead agencies to regularly communicate with EPA project managers about the status of the Response Actions and any anticipated challenges and mitigation measures. If COVID-19 restrictions impact a party’s ability to perform any Response Actions, that party should review the enforcement instrument, i.e., consent order, settlement agreement, etc., for the applicable provisions allowing for schedule adjustments or invocation of force majeure provisions. EPA project managers will promptly issue decisions about schedule adjustments on a case-by-case basis.
Factors to Consider for Site Field Work Decisions
EPA provided a list of situations in which Regions have decided and may continue to decide to modify or suspend Response Actions:
State, tribal or local health officials have requested suspensions.
Any sites where there may be close interaction with high-risk groups or those under quarantine.
Sites where contractor field personnel are not able to work due to a jurisdiction’s travel restriction or Health Declarations.
EPA provides a list of factors that regional management should consider with respect to site-specific work decisions, including generally:
whether failure to continue the Response Action would likely pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment, such as emergency spill responses, catastrophic events, sites that impact drinking water or result in on-site exposures or vapor intrusion, disposals of certain wastes that may cause an imminent safety issue, and in-progress decommissioning of former nuclear facilities and landfills, and whether it is practical to continue the Response Action
whether maintaining Response Actions would lead to a reduction in human health risk/exposure in the next six months, such as vapor intrusion investigations, residential site work with current exposures to residents, and drinking water-related work
whether the work would not provide near-term reduction in human health risk, such as periodic monitoring, routine sampling activities and field sampling for remedial or facility investigations. In these instances, EPA is more likely to consider the possibility of a delay, suspension, or rescheduling of work and with updated HASPs as appropriate.
Effects on Non-Field Site Work
EPA expects work that can be performed remotely to continue, such as completing investigation and cleanup reports, work plans, negotiations between parties, issuing decision documents, progress reports and maintaining compliance with financial assurance obligations. EPA did recognize that laboratories and other supporting operations may be impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and directed parties to follow procedures in those situations outlined in the applicable enforcement instrument.
If a decision is made to pause work, EPA expects Regional Offices to continue to monitor site conditions, plan to resume field work when appropriate and utilize EPA’s internal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Interim Guidance on Public Engagement During COVID-19.
EPA has made it clear to the Regional Offices that they may approve a modification or pause of certain Response Actions, but not if the Response Action is in the process of addressing or will address an imminent or substantial threat to public health and the environment. EPA does, however, require the Regional Offices to balance any decisions with a close review of Health Declarations and exposure or any potential exposure to COVID-19 to the public, EPA workers, and contractors. Based on recent experience, EPA will not extend deadlines for deliverables such as work plans, reports or settlement negotiations based on COVID-19 that can be prepared remotely.
Information contained in this article is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult competent legal counsel.
Amy L. Edwards is the co-chair of the Holland & Knight LLP’s National Environmental Team. She is a partner in the firm’s Public Policy & Regulation Group, which has been ranked among the top law and lobbying firms in Washington, D.C., by numerous publications. Ms. Edwards has been recognized as a leading environmental lawyer for several years by Chambers USA, Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers.
Bonni F. Kaufman is a partner in the Public Policy & Regulation Group of Holland & Knight, where she focuses her practice on environmental law. Ms. Kaufman represents clients in a wide variety of matters relating to environmental laws, focusing on regulatory enforcement and compliance, product regulation, litigation and environmental aspects of corporate and real estate transactions.
Meaghan A. Colligan is a Washington, D.C., environmental attorney and member of Holland & Knight’s Public Policy & Regulation Group. She focuses her practice in the areas of environmental, land use, energy and municipal law.
https://hazmatmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/contaminated_sites_soil_samples_0.jpg 525 750 hazzmatt1 https://hazmatmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/hazmat-logo.jpg hazzmatt12020-04-16 14:45:262020-04-16 14:45:26To Sample or Not: U.S. EPA Issues Interim Guidance on Site Field Work During the COVID-19 Pandemic
April 16, 2020 /in Column, Environment, News, Trending /by hazzmatt1
Written by Bryan J. Buttigieg, Miller Thomson LLP
Bryan Buttigieg is recognized as one of the leading practitioners of environmental law in Canada and is certified by the Law Society of Ontario as a specialist in Environmental Law. His practice includes a combination of litigation and transactional advice involving civil litigation and regulatory defence representation in environmental and occupational health and safety matters.
https://hazmatmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/due-diligence.jpg 194 259 hazzmatt1 https://hazmatmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/hazmat-logo.jpg hazzmatt12020-04-16 13:58:332020-04-16 13:58:33Canada: COVID-19 – Impact On Environmental Compliance And Due Diligence
April 15, 2020 /in News, Remediation /by John Nicholson
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) recently developed a Guide to help communities with brownfields to
more successfully address community revitalization and brownfields-related challenges. The guide outlines concrete actions communities can take to address these challenges.
Through the three case studies described in the Guide, it is shown that attracting public or private investment for the reuse of brownfield properties can bring economic and social benefits to communities, in addition to improving environmental conditions.
The Guide provides details of the five steps for successful brownfield redevelopment:
Lead with stakeholder involvement that empowers the local community to become redevelopment champions.
Create a site reuse vision that is exciting and realistic.
Remove barriers to brownfield redevelopment (i.e., expediting zoning and permitting approvals).
Engage developers and end-users.
Complete site preparations and close the deal.
The Guide also discusses opportunities for obtaining brownfield grants and technical assistance. The U.S. EPA provides grants and technical assistance to local, state and tribal governments and nonprofit organizations. As of February 1, 2019, these federal government investments in brownfield remediation projects have leveraged $27.527 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding from public and private sources and resulted in the creation of over 144,800 jobs.
https://hazmatmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Brownfields-Redevelopment-Guide.jpg 264 191 John Nicholson https://hazmatmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/hazmat-logo.jpg John Nicholson2020-04-15 20:57:142020-04-15 21:07:10Guide to Community Actions that drive Brownfields Development