2020 SMART Calgary

Edward Domijan,
Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC)

Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP) and the separate Northern Abandoned Mines Reclamation Program (NAMRP)

Mark Youden,
Gowling WLG

CO-PRESENTING: The New Reliance on Criminal Prosecutions to Enforce Environmental Compliance

Mark Youden

Mark Youden is an associate lawyer in Gowling WLG’s Vancouver office, practising in the firm’s Environmental 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, including: • Tribunal and judicial proceedings respecting contaminated sites and public utility matters • Environmental assessment, consultation protocols and impact benefit agreements for energy and natural resource projects • Quasi-criminal liability and environmental prosecutions • Spills management including civil and regulatory liability • Strategic advice regarding brownfield redevelopment • Environmental provisions in share and asset agreements • Waste management, including extended producer responsibility and stewardship issues • Water and wastewater authorizations for energy projects and industrial facilities • Regulatory control of chemical substances and the transportation of dangerous goods Prior to studying law, Mark obtained a Master of Science focused on biophysical interactions and the fate of contaminants in terrestrial and aquatic systems. He also worked as an environmental consultant for an international engineering firm.

CO-PRESENTING: The New Reliance on Criminal Prosecutions to Enforce Environmental Compliance

Enhanced Anaerobic Bioremediation was selected for the remediation of a remote site in northern Saskatchewan after a cost benefit analysis of several alternatives. Underground storage tanks were removed and an anaerobic amendment was placed within the open excavation. A PRB containing anaerobic amendment was placed downstream of the affected area near the property line in order to protect downstream receptors. Groundwater flow was used to spread the amendments throughout the treatment area. Sampling two years after the initial application showed that all soil and groundwater samples were below the applicable criteria. Worst case soil concentrations of PHCs had been reduced by more than 99% while worst case groundwater concentrations had been reduced by more than 83%. Regulatory closure of the Site was achieved within 2 years for approximately 90% less than a conventional remediation program.

Josh Jantzi,
Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP

CO-PRESENTING: The New Reliance on Criminal Prosecutions to Enforce Environmental Compliance

Albert Ho,
First Capital Realty

Environmental Risk Management in Real Estate

Jacquelyn Stevens,
Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP

You Have Been Retained as an Expert Witness in Environmental Litigation – Now What?

Jacquelyn Stevens

Jacquelyn Stevens has significant expertise representing a wide range of clients in environmental civil litigation, defence of prosecutions by environmental regulators, and on administrative appeals. Jacquie also provides effective advice and solutions for environmental due diligence and compliance, brownfields/contaminated site remediation, and environmental approvals for air, odour, noise and waste. Jacquie appears before the Courts and administrative tribunals, including the Ontario Court of Appeal. Jacquie advises on cross-boundary migration of contamination and remediation options during civil litigation and has significant expertise litigating contamination issues at dry cleaning operations and gas stations. Jacquie defends clients against quasi-criminal environmental prosecutions by regulatory authorities, and appeals regulatory orders and approvals. Jacquie is the President of the Women’s Law Association of Ontario and a member of the CBA, OBA, PDAC and ESAA. In addition to her law degree, Jacquie has a B.Sc. in Earth Sciences from Dalhousie University, a Master of Science in Geology from St. Francis Xavier University, and a Master of Studies in Environmental Law from Vermont Law School. Jacquie is called to the bar in Alberta and Ontario.

You Have Been Retained as an Expert Witness in Environmental Litigation – Now What?

Environmental litigation is a world of disputes where science, engineering, and environmental law intersect. These disputes lead to environmental claims. Environmental litigators retain experts to help decipher complexities that come with environmental, technical, and legal issues. We will discuss:  an expert’s duties in regulatory and civil litigation  what Canadian courts say about the expected relationship between lawyers and experts, the admissibility of expert evidence, and how far legal privilege extends over communications with experts and experts’ reports  how best to establish and maintain an expert’s credibility before and at trial  practical

Ryan Riess,
Pinter & Associates Ltd

Enhanced Anaerobic Bioremediation – Case Studies

Kevin French,
Vertex Environmental

Case Study: When In-Situ Technologies Fail

Kevin French

Mr. French is Vice President of Vertex and has over 30 years of experience and expertise in environmental engineering, specializing in site assessment and remediation. Kevin has been involved in the design and implementation of remediation programs across Canada involving PRBs, carbon adsorption, in-situ chemical oxidation and reduction, aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation, etc. in soil, groundwater and bedrock for a variety of contaminants, including petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents and other compounds. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Engineering from the University of Waterloo, is a Professional Engineer and a Qualified Person in Ontario, and frequently presents on environmental site assessment and remediation at conferences and seminars across Canada.

Case Study: When In-Situ Technologies Fail

In-situ remediation of petroleum hydrocarbon compounds (PHCs) is commonly applied across Canada. So why is it that some such projects are successful while other fail? How is a practitioner to know when is the right time to start remediation, what product(s) to use, how to select and how apply an appropriate in-situ remediation technique? How does one know how much data to collect beforehand, during and after remediation, and what data is the most important to remediation success? It seems that rarely do people highlight their remediation failures, yet much can be learned from studying what does not work to figure out the cause(s). The purpose of this talk is to present a case study of an actual site where two different in situ remediation techniques were used to treat PHCs and they both failed. Within this presentation, the site background and subsurface data will be reviewed, the remediation approaches will be presented, and possible reasons for the failed remedial efforts will be put forth. The talk will conclude by showcasing what additional Site data was collected and how a different in-situ remediation approach was selected and applied. This decision making process resulted in a delayed, but ultimately successful, remediation project. The site is a former fueling station located at the corner of a busy intersection in an urban area. There was significant on-site contamination, yet Risk Management Measures were used so remediation of the source area was not required. However, it was essential that the PHC plume be controlled to prevent its continued off-site migration. This talk will highlight how an injected Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB) for PHCs was at first unsuccessfully, and then successfully, installed along a busy down-gradient property boundary. Throughout the presentation recommendations and insights will be offered into how to avoid failure and how to maximize success for in-situ remediation projects.

Jean Paré,
Chemco inc.

In Situ Chemical Reduction for Remediation of Soil Containing Chlorinated Pesticides and Herbicides

Jean Paré

Jean Pare, P.Eng., has a degree in Chemical Engineering from Laval University. He has been involved for the last 22 years in the evaluation, development, design, and promotion of both conventional and innovative environmental technologies. As Vice President with Chemco Inc., his responsibilities include the remediation design, technico-economical analysis and technology supply for chemical oxidation and reduction, soil washing, and enhanced bio-remediation. Last year, he worked with over 400 sites applying his expertise to various types of organic and inorganic contaminants in soil and groundwater. He is also involved with many environmental organizations such as CLRA, CBN, ESAA, BCEIA and Reseau-Environnement where he is an active technical committee member and regular technical speaker.

In Situ Chemical Reduction for Remediation of Soil Containing Chlorinated Pesticides and Herbicides

Problematic: Soil sterilant are non-selective residual herbicides that render the treated soil unfit for plant growth for relatively long periods of time. Sterilant, were commonly used in Alberta from the 1960s to late 1990s for non-selective vegetation control on oil and gas wells, gas processing plants, rights-of-way, railways, saw mills, pulp mills, and electrical utility sites ([1], [2], [7]); residues may also be found at agrochemical dealer sites ([8]). Sterilant treated areas can remain devoid of vegetation for many years, depending upon the type, rate and frequency of application of soil sterilant and the climatic conditions. Soils treated with sterilant can be a source of contamination through leaching, surface runoff and wind dispersion of the sterilant to adjacent land and waterbodies. Reclamation and remediation issues arise when a treated site is no longer needed for industrial use and the site must be returned to equivalent land capability. At present, many of these sites either remain as liabilities for industry, or impacted soil is excavated and disposed at a landfill. In Alberta, awareness of the issues associated with soil sterilant is on the rise as more legacy oil and gas sites (constructed prior to 1970; operational prior to 1990), where sterilant were typically used, are abandoned and slated for remediation and reclamation. Cotton and Sharma ([1]) estimated the number of oil and gas sites in Alberta with soil sterilant residues to be as many as 61,750 sites. Historical work has focused on upstream oil and gas sites, however there are many others in the province. It’s estimated that there are well over 3,000 additional sites associated with distribution sites, pipelines and electric metering stations and many other industrial facilities not yet identified. While a considerable amount of literature review, experimentation and operational activities have occurred over the past 20 years on this topic in Alberta, as of 2018, many of these sites are still in the queue for reclamation and remediation due to the recalcitrant nature of the contaminants that have impacted soil and groundwater and remain as liabilities for their owners.. Overview. Peroxychem manufactures a family of in situ chemical reduction (ISCR) products (i.e., soil amendments) for treatment of soil, sediment and other solid wastes contaminated with halogenated organic compounds. When the contaminants of interest are organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) or herbicides, the keys to this remedial approach are the composition of the soil amendment and application of repeated and sequential anoxic then oxic conditions to the contaminated matrix. The patented products are composed of plant fiber-based organic material and micro-scale elemental iron (US Patent No. 6,083,394) and may be supplemented with sulfate in the form of alkaline earth salts. Approach. Treatment proceeds via reductive dechlorination of the pesticides/herbicides followed by aerobic biodegradation of the partially or fully dechlorinated breakdown products. The soil amendment is typically applied at dosages of between 0.4% and 4% w/w) and therefore causes very little, if any, increase in soil volume following treatment. Over the last 15 years, the technology has been used successfully for in situ and ex-situ treatment of soils contaminated with a range of OCPs, including Chlordane, Lindande, DDT, Toxaphene, 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, Atrazine, Dieldrin and Metolachlor at sites in North America and Europe. Results. This presentation will include an overview of chemistry involved in OCP degradation using the ISCR products, along with case studies from several completed applications in the United States, Canada, and Europe, and cost analysis.

George (Bud) Ivey,
Ivey International Inc.

Surfactant Enhanced Extraction (SEE) at LNAPL and DNAPL Impacted Sites Pilot to Full Scale

Bio |
Abstract

George (Bud) Ivey

George (Bud) Ivey is the President and Senior Remediation Specialist with Ivey International Inc. of Vancouver, Canada. He has over twenty-nine years of environmental remediation experience and has worked on more than 2000 environmental projects internationally. His multi-disciplinary education background includes: Organic Chemistry, Geological Engineering, and a Master’s Certification in Project Management. Among some of his more noticeable accomplishments include: • He holds several International Patents; • Is recipient of many International Environmental Awards (Globe, Frost & Sullivan, MISTIC, Environmental Business Journal, and Roy F. Weston Awards); • Has developed several innovative remediation product and process technologies for air, soil, water, and groundwater remediation; and • Is currently working on several high-profile remediation projects globally. When he’s not busy solving complicated contaminated site remediation problems, he very much enjoys long distance running, multi-day hiking, great red wine and dining in the company of good friends!

Surfactant Enhanced Extraction (SEE) at LNAPL and DNAPL Impacted Sites Pilot to Full Scale

Background/Objectives. This applied presentation will explain hydro-geo-chemical fundamentals of hydrophobic organic chemical (HOC) behavior, including petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, PFAS, and Pesticides, in saturated and unsaturated regimes, from their general physical chemistry characteristics to detailed phase partitioning and sorption (i.e. absorb and adsorb), and how this behavior kinetically limits their ‘Availability’ for remediation, and their root causes of contaminant rebound (a.k.a. back-diffusion). Contaminant sorption and reduced availability can be significantly reduced with integration of surfactant enhanced extraction (SEE), to enhance contaminant phase-desorption (i.e. of vapour, liquids, and solids) and significantly increase their ‘Availability’ for improved in-situ and ex-situ Physical, Biological and Chemical remediation methodologies. Approach/Activities Three (3) international SEE brownfield remediation site case studies, are presented that each evolved from pilot scale to full scale applications, will be used to provide integration details and the client’s evidence based findings and the statistically measurable benefits realized at each site, using SEE as part of site specific physical (MPE), biological (MNA) and/or chemical (ISCO/ISCR) treatment train strategies that expedited vapour, soil and groundwater remediation to achieve the applicable regulatory and/or risk assessment based clean-up objectives for the sites. The presentation will be technically underpinned by established scientific principles, well supported by client data and visually driven using figures, charts and three dimensional computer animation models, using adult learning principles, for improved audience interaction. Results/Lessons Learned: The three full-scale SEE remedial efforts resulted in the recovery of approximately greater than 99% of the NAPL at each site, prior to on-set of second physical, biological or chemical remediation, with soil groundwater contaminant concentrations in the source areas having been reduced by >90 to 95%. Based on these results, SEE as a combined 2-step remediation strategy was easy to implement, and can resulting in significant project life-cycle cost savings to achieve regulatory or risk based site clean-up objectives.