In Flanders Fields
In Flanders fields.
EnviroTech is Evolving
EnviroTech is now the ESAA Environmental Summit
April 12-14, 2023
AER: Industrial Heartland Designated Industrial Zone Directive
On September 27, 2022, Alberta Environment and Parks released the Industrial Heartland Designated Industrial Zone Directive with an effective date of October 1, 2022. The directive was developed to improve regulatory consistency and achieve targeted environmental outcomes within the Industrial Heartland Designated Industrial Zone. The directive focuses on aligning conditions under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) for all facilities within the zone and clarifies requirements for proponents interested in operating within the zone.
In addition to currently applicable legislation, effective October 1, 2022, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) will also apply the directive to all new EPEA approvals and renewals it receives. As of October 1, 2022, existing AER approval holders operating within the zone may request a voluntary EPEA renewal to apply the directive. The renewal approval will include a condition that the licensee follows the directive.
The Industrial Heartland is northeast of Edmonton and is Alberta’s first designated industrial zone. It includes all or portions of the cities of Edmonton and Fort Saskatchewan and the counties of Lamont, Strathcona, and Sturgeon. For more information, see the Government of Alberta’s Industrial Heartland Designated Industrial Zone website.
For more information about the Industrial Heartland Designated Industrial Zone contact the Government of Alberta by email at [email protected].
For information related to the directive and AER applications, contact our Customer Contact Centre by phone at 1-855-297-8311 or by email at [email protected].
AER: Invitation for Feedback on Revisions to Directive 088
We are proposing to update Directive 088: Licensee Lifecycle Management to support the Government of Alberta’s new Liability Management Framework and rule changes announced in Bulletin 2020-26. We are seeking feedback on section 4.2, “Closure Nomination,” of the draft directive that includes the following changes:
- The introduction of the Closure Nomination Program, which provides an opportunity for eligible requesters (e.g., private landowners, First Nations, Métis settlements, municipalities, disposition holders, ministers) to request the closure of a site.
- A description of the closure plan approaches that a licensee may use when a site becomes eligible for the program and requires a closure plan.
To provide feedback on the proposed revisions to Directive 088, complete the public comment form on our website, aer.ca > Regulating Development > Rules and Directives > AER Forms > Public Comment Form. Comments in other formats can be emailed to [email protected] or mailed to Alberta Energy Regulator, Suite 1000, 250 – 5 Street SW, Calgary, Alberta T2P 0R4. Feedback will be accepted through December 6, 2022.
All feedback received will be reviewed and may be used in finalizing the directive. The comments provided through this consultation will form part of the public record and may be attributed to the specific individuals who provided them. Personal information provided with comments will be collected, used, and disclosed in accordance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We may use the personal contact information you provide for follow-up communication related to your feedback.
The draft directive is available on our website at www.aer.ca > Regulating Development > Rules and Directives > Directives. If you have any questions, contact our Customer Contact Centre by phone at 1-855-297-8311 or by email at [email protected].
TransAlta sues Alberta government to prevent oilpatch fracking near hydro dam
(Source: CBC News) Calgary-based electricity producer TransAlta Corp. is suing the Alberta government and the Alberta Energy Regulator to prevent oil and gas companies from fracking near its largest hydroelectric dam in the province because the technique can cause earthquakes.
The court action, which was filed in September in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, takes place as two oil and gas companies have applied to frack within five kilometres of the dam.
TransAlta is concerned about possible seismic activity causing damage to the Brazeau power plant, near Drayton Valley in central Alberta, as well as the loss of wildlife, habitat and human life.
The company points to an agreement from the 1960s, when the Brazeau Hydroelectric Dam was built, which states that TransAlta should “peacefully enjoy and possess the premises” without any “interruption or disturbance from the province, or any other person.”
TransAlta also refers to a section of the Brazeau Agreement, which states that the provincial government had agreed not to allow oilpatch activity that will restrict or interfere with the power plant.
In court documents, the company said the province “has not developed, implemented or enacted any clear policy directives that will protect the Brazeau Storage and Power Development from “unacceptable” risks posed by hydraulic fracturing in close proximity.”
The case highlights a growing debate in the scientific community about the risk of earthquakes posed by fracking.
Fracking is a common technique in the oilpatch. When drilling an oil or natural gas well, a high-pressure mixture of water, sand and chemicals are injected into an underground rock formation to create cracks and access the hydrocarbons. The injection of those fluids has the potential to cause earthquakes.
There have been thousands of documented cases of fracking activity causing earthquakes in North America, including in Alberta and British Columbia.
The Brazeau power plant is located about 200 kilometres southwest of Edmonton.
Fracking activity is currently not permitted within three kilometres of the power plant. However, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) does allow fracking between three and five kilometres in certain instances based on several factors, such as a review of the risk, the potential for seismic events and mitigation measures.
Westbrick Energy Ltd. and Ridgeback Resources Inc. both want to frack in the three-to-five-kilometre zone. A 10-day hearing is scheduled for the first half of 2023.
A 2016 technical report by a government committee stated that there was “unacceptable risk associated with hydro-fracture induced seismicity to the … Brazeau infrastructure within the five-kilometre buffer zone.”
However, a followup report in 2021 stated that “an action to reduce the risk is clearly necessary if the risk is unacceptable, which appears not to be the case.”
TransAlta wants the court to intervene and prohibit fracking near the dam, among other safety measures.
“As we prioritize the safety of all our facilities, TransAlta is taking this prudent step to confirm the government’s contractual obligations to not restrict or interfere with the safe operation of the facility,” the company said in an email.
In its statement of defence filed in September, the provincial government argues that the court should dismiss the case, in part to avoid interfering with the AER’s jurisdiction as the regulator of all oil and gas operations in the province.
In court documents, government lawyers state that “there is considerable debate among interested stakeholders about the risks posed by hydraulic fracturing in the five-kilometre area,” including some who say any fracking is “dangerous,” while others say fracking “presents zero, or close to zero, risk if conducted within specific shallow geological formations.”
The government did not provide comment to CBC News. Westbrick Energy and Ridgeback Resources did not respond to interview requests.
There is no doubt in the scientific community that fracking can cause earthquakes, but researchers aren’t able to accurately predict when a large earthquake will occur.
Statistics show that only a small amount of fracking activity will actually cause a noticeable earthquake, so researchers are focusing on trying to figure out why, said Honn Kao, a senior seismology research scientist with the Geological Survey of Canada.
Without knowing whether or not an earthquake will occur, experts will instead create a risk model to come up with the probability.
“Then the debate begins. The probability is very much like the weather, right? You say there is a 50 per cent chance of rain. What do you mean? For an operator and the local community, if an earthquake happens, it’s 100 per cent. If an earthquake doesn’t happen, it’s zero,” Kao said in an interview.
“But from a scientific point of view, we say, well, there is a 50 per cent chance. That actually is subject to interpretation, and I think a great amount of debate comes from there.”
Induced earthquakes are felt strongest at the oil well drilling site and then slowly diminish in strength the further the distance away.
The earthquakes are caused by a buildup of tectonic stress from fracking activity, although scientists can’t measure how much tectonic energy has accumulated and how close the plates are to failure. Fracking also acts like a trigger for the earthquake.
At some point, regulators have to make a decision about safety standards and decide their level of risk tolerance, but others in the community will disagree. This difference of opinion is central to the court action taken by TransAlta about how close fracking can occur to its hydro dam.
“How far do you want to set up that exclusive zone? That actually is subject to debate,” Kao said. “How high or how low of a risk tolerance level can you accept?
“We know a lot more about injection-induced earthquakes over the past decade. But certainly, in my opinion, I think we still have a lot to learn,” he said.
In a separate case, TransAlta is also taking court action against the AER for approving an oil and gas company’s application to frack between five and 10 kilometres of the dam “immediately,” which “deprived TransAlta of the opportunity to submit a statement of concern to the AER.”
The company is asking the courts to allow it to address its safety concerns about the proposed fracking activity to the regulator.
The AER said it wouldn’t comment on an active legal matter, but it did refer to information about its rules for fracking near the Brazeau dam. The regulator has 50 seismic monitoring systems throughout the province.
Some of the largest earthquakes caused by fracking in Western Canada include a 4.5-magnitude event near Fort St. John in northeastern British Columbia. In the Fox Creek area of Alberta, there have been a pair of 4.4-magnitude earthquakes and a 4.8-magnitude event.
In the Brazeau dam area, an earthquake with a magnitude of more than 4.0 occurred in 2019. In court documents, TransAlta said the epicentre was about 75 kilometres south of the power plant and was confirmed to be caused by fracking. The AER has disagreed, stating that the 4.0 magnitude earthquake was investigated and found to be naturally occurring.
The number of earthquakes has risen rapidly in Texas, Oklahoma and other parts of the United States with oil and gas production. As a result, the number of lawsuits against the industry has also increased significantly.
- More information has been added to this story, in regards to the 2019 earthquake near the Brazeau power plant. In court documents, TransAlta says it was caused by fracking, but the AER says it was naturally occurring.
Dust from mountaintop coal mine contaminated pristine alpine lake, study shows
(Source: CBC News) New Alberta government research has found windblown dust from mountaintop removal coal mines has polluted a pristine alpine lake to the point where its waters are as contaminated as lakes downwind from the oilsands.
The paper, published last week in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, concludes that it’s crucial to consider more than just downstream effects from such mines.
“It is highly likely that our findings extend to other mountaintop mining operations with large fugitive dust emissions,” the paper says. “Permitting of existing mines and approval of new mines should consider and have mitigation plans for broader atmospheric impacts.”
The paper, written by two senior scientists in Alberta Environment and Protected Areas, comes as the province’s United Conservative government ponders whether to retain a ministerial order protecting Alberta’s Rocky Mountains from proposed mines that would remove summits to create open pits and expose coal seams.
The province’s new energy minister, Peter Guthrie, has not responded to questions from The Canadian Press on the issue.
The paper examines Window Mountain Lake, a small, remote alpine lake in southern Alberta accessible only on foot just across the continental divide from coal mines in British Columbia’s Elk Valley. The lake is unconnected to the coal-mining area by any water body, nor does it have coal deposits.
The scientists took a sediment sample from the lake that contains layers from before 1850.
They analyzed the layers for chemicals associated with coal, such as polycyclic aromatic compounds and selenium. The former are known carcinogens and the latter is toxic to fish.
They found the carcinogens were stable until the industrial era. Coal mining in the Elk Valley began around 1900, and by 1970, levels of those chemicals had quintupled.
The pace of contamination quickened after 1970, when aboveground mining in the Elk Valley began. Polycyclic aromatic compounds doubled in concentration in Window Lake every 10 to 15 years after that.
During the past decade, those compounds reached 30 times pre-industrial levels. Some now exceed Canadian guidelines for the protection of aquatic life.
“(Contamination levels) of surface sediments of otherwise pristine Window Mountain Lake are equivalent to or exceed those observed in lakes downwind of the Canadian oilsands, the world’s largest collection of open-pit petrochemical mines,” the paper says.
The researchers compared the compounds found in the lake sediments to similar ones generated by wildfires and from the Elk Valley mines. Those from the lake sediments matched those from the mines.
A similar pattern was found for selenium. Levels of the compound roughly doubled from pre-industrial levels by the mid-1980s, as did the rate of deposition.
Alberta Environment did not make the authors available for an interview.
But Bill Donahue, a former chief of environmental monitoring for the department who has seen the study, said it shows mountaintop mining affects more than the rivers and streams that flow from it and has impacts that cross watersheds.
“You couldn’t ask for more clear results or cleaner results,” he said.
“Everywhere there’s mining, especially mountaintop mining, you can expect to see transport of these substances long distances. It clearly describes and demonstrates coal mining is environmentally destructive any way you cut it.”
Donahue points out the study didn’t even look for toxic heavy metals such as mercury, also commonly associated with coal deposits.
Emily Bernhardt, a prominent ecologist at Duke University in North Carolina who has published extensively on mountaintop coal mining, called the new research both groundbreaking and convincing.
“The only way that these contaminants could have made it into the lake is through atmospheric deposition,” she wrote in an email.
She said the research builds on and confirms what has been found in other papers — that mountaintop coal mining spreads contaminants beyond mine sites.
“This paper suggests that contaminant laden dust is yet another way in which surface coal mine pollution is blown and deposited across large regions. Pollution does not respect permit boundaries, and the amount of pollution in a region increases with the total extent of mining.”
Intense methane cloud over Alberta oil and gas hub goes undetected by regulators
(Source: Financial Post) Canadian regulators said they were unaware of a methane cloud spotted by the European Space Agency’s Sentinel-5P satellite last month near gas pipelines, highlighting a disconnect between the nation’s climate ambitions and its emissions, which are the second-highest per capita among G20 countries. Methane is a greenhouse gas about 80 times as potent in the short term as carbon dioxide.
Geoanalytics firm Kayrros SAS, which analyzed data from Sentinel-5P, identified the Sept. 28 plume. The French-based firm estimated the methane cloud had an emissions rate of 11 metric tons an hour. If the event lasted an hour at that rate, it would have the same short-term climate impact as the annual carbon emissions equivalent from about 200 U.S. cars. Kayrros attributed the cloud to the oil and gas sector.
Both federal and local regulators said they weren’t informed of the plume, observed near the Albertan town of Lloydminster, close to the Saskatchewan-Alberta border in an area dense with oil and gas infrastructure. The Canada Energy Regulator said oil and gas operators are only required to report unintended or uncontrolled releases of methane.
The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), which uses a subset of Sentinel-5P data most appropriate for observing regional, persistent emitters, said the plume didn’t show up in that data. “There were no significant venting events in the area reported to the AER at that time,” said Adrian Mrdeza, an AER spokesperson, in an email. “It should be noted that elevated methane concentrations do not mean there was a non-compliance or industry related event.”
Still, the responses suggest holes in the country’s emissions reporting and tracking efforts and paint a picture at odds with the climate progress Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his country had made in an interview with Bloomberg Green in Ottawa on Oct. 18.
Trudeau said that if Canada’s oil and gas operators reduce their emissions intensity there is room for the nation to expand its production. Many climate scientists and activists argue that expanding fossil fuel output is incompatible with averting catastrophic climate change, because existing infrastructure contributes so much emissions already through intentional releases and accidental leaks.
Earth is on track to heat up between 2.1C and 2.9C by the end of the century compared to pre-industrial times and governments must accelerate efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst of global warming, scientists with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change said in a report last week. Despite some progress in the last year, governments need to do more by 2030 to ensure that the global temperature increase is below 2C and ideally closer to 1.5C, the goal set in the Paris Agreement reached in 2015.
Methane generated from human activity is responsible for about a quarter of the planet’s warming and concentrations of the gas from all sources last year had the biggest year-on-year jump since measurements began four decades ago, a separate study from the World Meteorological Organization found. Methane is the primary component of natural gas and has long flown under the radar of governments in part because the colourless, odourless gas is so hard to track. But the ability to identify some of the world’s biggest leaks has changed over the past few years as new satellites with multi-spectral capabilities enter orbit.
Kayrros analyzed the so-called Level 2 dataset from Sentinel-5P that reflects methane concentrations from each orbit. Level 3 data, the subset used by the Alberta regulator from the same satellite, averages methane observations from multiple orbits over time. This approach can make it easier to observe persistent emitters, although it can also make intermittent emissions harder to detect.
Kayrros’ estimated location for the source of the release was within 10 kilometres of gas pipelines operated by SaskEnergy Inc. and TC Energy Corp. A spokesperson for SaskEnergy said the company didn’t have any planned or unplanned releases within a 30-kilometre radius. TC Energy declined to say if its pipeline system had any releases and the company said it doesn’t comment on third-party information. Cenovus Energy Inc., which operates an asphalt refinery in Lloydminster, said it had “no indication that our operations are the source of the methane emissions in question.”
The area in which the plume was spotted is a hub of oil and gas production and includes both active horizontal and abandoned wells, according to Kayrros. The Sept. 28 release was just the third concentration of methane identified in Canada by Kayrros this year, and the nation isn’t among a list of major oil and gas polluters in the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Methane Tracker, which identifies Russia, the U.S. and Iran as top emitters.
Canada was an inaugural member of the Global Methane Pledge that launched in 2021 and now includes more than 120 nations that are aiming to slash global emissions of the gas from all sectors at least 30 per cent from 2020 levels by the end of the decade. This fall, Canada announced it is aiming to reduce methane emissions more than 35 per cent from 2020 levels by 2030. Environment minister Steven Guilbeault has said the country is on track to cut methane emissions more than 40 per cent by 2025, relative to a 2012 baseline.
Canada’s methane and carbon dioxide releases have climbed more than any other G7 country, relative to a 1990 baseline, according to European Commission data through early 2021. (When asked about this data, from the EC emissions database EDGAR, Bruce Cheadle, a spokesperson for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change of Canada, wrote in an email that Canadian “officials are not very familiar with EDGAR and are taking some time to better understand the methodology questions you raise.”)
Trudeau, in his Oct. 18 interview, defended climate action in the seven years he’s been prime minister and said the government had for the first time set a price on pollution that would continue to increase, although he acknowledged “it’s taking a while” for the impact to show up in emissions.
Bloomberg Green investigations into satellite observations of methane clouds across North America over the past year have found multiple instances in which the observations coincided with so-called pipeline blowdowns, when operators intentionally release gas directly into the atmosphere to perform inspections and maintenance. Although that practice was standard across the industry for decades, groups including the IEA have called on industry to eliminate all non-emergency venting of the gas.
Up to 90 per cent of emissions from blowdowns can be eliminated through techniques like burning the gas through a flare and other mitigation approaches, according to a 2016 report commissioned by the Environmental Defense Fund.
Multiple studies have found methane emissions from the oil and gas industry are often higher than what operators and governments report. Releases of the gas from the U.S. supply chain in 2015 were about 60 per cent higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency inventory estimate, a 2018 study published in Science found. Livestock, landfills and natural sources such as mud volcanoes also generate and release methane.
In 2019, the ministry finalized a new Excess Soil Regulation, supported by risk-based soil reuse standards, to make it easier and safer for industry to reuse more excess soil locally. The Excess Soil Regulation is being phased in over several years.
In April 2022, to help give developers and municipalities more time to better understand their responsibilities under the regulation, we paused the implementation of the provisions that came into effect on January 1, 2022, until January 1, 2023, including provisions related to registration, sampling and analysis and tracking of excess soil. The requirements that were paused will come back into effect on January 1, 2023.
To help ensure the regulation is effective and practical, the ministry is now proposing the following amendments and changes:
- Low-Risk Sites: To exempt low-risk projects from excess soil reuse planning requirements if excess soil is being removed from a project area at which the current or last property use was agricultural, residential, parkland or institutional. The requirements from which low-risk projects would be exempt include:
- filing a notice in the Excess Soil Registry
- retaining a qualified person to prepare an assessment of past uses, and if needed, a sampling and analysis plan and a soil characterization report, along with an excess soil destination assessment report
- implementation of a tracking system.
This exemption would not apply if the excess soil is excavated from a project area that was used as an enhanced investigation project area or a project area known by the project leader to be impacted by historical contamination.
- Storage: Amend the Soil Rules document incorporated by reference in the regulation to allow soil storage piles to be a maximum of 10,000 cubic metres. Other soil storage rules would continue to apply, including the requirement to prevent any adverse effects.
To review the proposed amendments in more detail and to provide your feedback, please visit ERO #019-6240 on the Environmental Registry of Ontario, visit: https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-6240
The document is available for public comment until December 3rd, 2022.
To discuss this proposal, contact Reema Kureishy, Land Use Policy Unit, MECP at [email protected].
On December 6th, Environment Journal will host the annual Excess Soils Symposium. For further information, visit: https://environmentjournal.ca/excess-soils-symposium/
Hydro-Québec fined $40,000 for violating the Species at Risk Act
Across the country, wildlife enforcement officers enforce laws and regulations that ensure the protection and conservation of wildlife and their habitat. They work to reduce threats and harms to biodiversity for the benefit of Canadians and all living things.
On October 13, 2022, at the Longueuil courthouse, Hydro-Québec pleaded guilty to one count of violating prohibitions under the Emergency Order for the Protection of the Western Chorus Frog and the Species at Risk Act. The Crown corporation was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine to the Receiver General for Canada.
On March 23, 2022, during a routine patrol, Environment and Climate Change Canada wildlife enforcement officers observed heavy equipment and work in the geographic area of the Emergency Order for the Protection of the Western Chorus Frog–Great Lakes / St. Lawrence–Canadian Shield Population (Longueuil) [the Emergency Order], in the municipality of La Prairie. The investigation determined that Hydro-Québec was responsible for the work that caused visible damage to an area estimated to be over 3,955 m2.
A violation of the provisions of an emergency order constitutes an offence under the Species at Risk Act. The Act prohibits killing or harming a wildlife species listed as threatened and damaging or destroying its habitat. The Emergency Order prohibits installing or constructing any infrastructure or performing any type of maintenance on infrastructure within the geographic area.
Remediation Technology News and Resource
(The following are selected items from the US EPA’s Tech Direct – http://clu-in.org/techdirect/)
Upcoming Live Internet Seminars
ITRC Vapor Intrusion Mitigation (VIM-1): A Two Part Series – November 15, 2022. When certain contaminants or hazardous substances are released into the soil or groundwater, they may volatilize into soil gas. Vapor intrusion (VI) occurs when these vapors migrate up into overlying buildings and contaminate indoor air. ITRC has previously released guidance documents focused on VI, including the “Vapor Intrusion Pathway: A Practical Guidance” (VI-1, 2007) and “Petroleum Vapor Intrusion: Fundamentals of Screening, Investigation, and Management” (PVI, 2014). However, ITRC has received multiple requests for additional details and training on mitigation strategies for addressing this exposure pathway. The ITRC Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Team (VIMT) created ten fact sheets, 16 technology information sheets, and 4 checklists with the goal of assisting regulators during review of vapor intrusion mitigation systems, and helping contractors understand the essential elements of planning, design, implementation, and operation, maintenance and monitoring (OM&M) of mitigation systems. The Vapor Intrusion Mitigation training is a series of eight (8) modules, presented over two sessions. For more information and to register, see https://www.itrcweb.org
NIEHS Climate Change and Health: Session II – Untangling Complex Exposures and Health Effects – November 4, 2022, 1:00PM-3:00PM EDT (17:00-19:00 GMT). The NIEHS Superfund Research Program (SRP) is hosting a Risk e-Learning webinar series focused on scientific research and tools that can be used to promote health and resilience to climate change. The series will feature SRP-funded researchers, collaborators, and other subject-matter experts who aim to better understand and address how climate change affects human exposures to hazardous substances and the public health consequences of a changing climate and identify ways to build health resilience. People are continually exposed to a complex mixture of environmental toxicants. The second session will describe how extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and wildfires, and other extreme events affect the distribution of these pollutants, their toxicity, and the potential increased risk of exposure to humans. Presenters will introduce new models to track the movement of multiple contaminants in the environment and will discuss the health effects of these complex exposures. We will also hear about the NIH Climate Change and Health Initiative and other ongoing efforts at NIH to reduce the health consequences associated with climate change. This is the second session in a three part series. For more information and to register, please visit https://clu-in.org/live/
ITRC Strategies for Preventing and Managing Harmful Cyanobacteria Blooms (Two Part Series) – November 8, 2022, 1:00PM-3:15PM EST (18:00-20:15 GMT). Cyanobacteria are microscopic, photosynthetic organisms that occur naturally in all aquatic systems but most often in freshwater systems. Under certain conditions, cyanobacteria can multiply and become very abundant, discoloring the water throughout a water body or accumulating at the surface. These occurrences are known as blooms. Cyanobacteria may produce potent toxins (cyanotoxins) that pose a threat to human health. They can also harm wildlife and domestic animals, aquatic ecosystems, and local economies by disrupting drinking water systems and source waters, recreational uses, commercial and recreational fishing, and property values. It is likely that continued population growth, land use change, increases in nutrient inputs to our waterways, and the warming climate will favor proliferation of these problematic species. Providing a range of practical approaches to minimize these blooms and their likely societal and wildlife effects is critical to our future vitality, health, and economic prosperity. This is the second part. For more information and to register, see https://www.itrcweb.org
ITRC Sustainable Resilient Remediation (SRR) – November 17, 1:00PM-3:15PM EST (17:00-19:15 GMT). Extreme weather events and wildfires are increasing and impacting hazardous waste sites. The primary goal of cleanups, which is protecting human health and the environment, is undermined. Confronted with these risks, environmental professionals should assess, and de-sign remedies that are sustainable and resilient. Sustainable resilient remediation (SRR) is an optimized solution to cleaning up and reusing a hazardous waste site that limits negative environmental impacts, maximizes social and economic benefits, and creates resilience against increasing threats. The objective of the ITRC Sustainable Resilient Remediation (SRR-1) is to provide resources and tools for regulators, stakeholders, consultants, and responsible parties to help integrate sustainable and resilient practices into remediation projects. This guidance updates the Inter-state Technology and Regulatory Council’s (ITRC) Technical and Regulatory Guidance: Green and Sustainable Remediation: A Practical Framework (ITRC 2011a) and includes a strong resilience component to address the increasing threat of extreme weather events and wildfires. Recommendations for careful and continuous consideration of the social and economic costs and benefits of a cleanup project are included. For more information and to register, see https://www.itrcweb.org
New Documents and Web Resources
Technology Innovation News Survey Corner. The Technology Innovation News Survey contains market/commercialization information; reports on demonstrations, feasibility studies and research; and other news relevant to the hazardous waste community interested in technology development. Recent issues, complete archives, and subscription information is available at https://clu-in.org/products/tins/. The following resources were included in recent issues:
- EPA Announces Proposed Plan for Remedy Modification
- Pilot Test Work Plan: Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Groundwater Remediation at Site 5 – Former Fire Training Area, Former Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove, Horsham Township, Pennsylvania
- Combined Technologies for In Situ Remediation of Tc-99 and U in Subsurface Sediments
- The Importance of Abiotic Transformations in Natural Attenuation of Contaminated Groundwater
Upcoming Industry Events
SUSTAINTECH CONFERENCE 2023
Call for Abstracts
- Saskatchewan’s premier environmental conference
- Regulatory Sessions Wednesday
- Technical Sessions Thursday
Canadian Environmental & Engineering Executives Conference
January 25-27 – Vancouver
We are less than three months away from the next CE3 Conference in Vancouver. There has been excellent response to our registration calls and we will have representation of company executives from across the country. We have lined up outstanding speakers, panelists and moderators who will discuss some of the key challenges and opportunities facing the environmental and engineering consulting sector in Canada.
We are very pleased to present to you the executives who will be speaking at CE3C in January in Vancouver. Don’t miss this rare networking and business opportunity to meet with your peers and colleagues in the industry.
See you in Vancouver on January 25-27, 2023
ESAA Job Board
Check out the new improved ESAA Job Board. Members can post ads for free.
- Intermediate Environmental Scientist –
- Practice Area Lead, Natural Sciences –
- Project Coordinator –
- Senior Environmental Consultant –
- Intermediate Biologist –
- Environmental Scientist (Biology/Biologist) –
- Intermediate/Senior Environmental Specialist –
- Senior Technical Specialist –
- Intermediate/Senior Environmental Specialist –
- Intermediate Environmental Specialist –
- Project Manager –
- Municipal Approvals Engineer –
- Environmental Compliance Administrator –
- Environmental Compliance Administrator –
- Labourer (4 – Various Locations) –
- ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST/ENGINEER – SALT IMPACTED SITES –