Recent studies show that a combination of both approaches is equally feasible but not explicitly more beneficial. Evidently, selection of a technology hinges on site specific requirements such as availability of microorganisms capable of degradation in sufficient quantities, nutrient availability to support microbial growth and proliferation as well as environmental parameters such as temperature in combination with duration of exposure. This review focuses on these technologies and efforts are directed towards eventual manipulation of the processes of remediation all geared towards making bioremediation technically and economically viable for comprehensive treatment of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soils.
At the time this Guide is published there may be remediation projects underway where companies are engaged with municipal or provincial agencies to obtain a remediation approval. The NEB will be involved with these projects as a stakeholder until a closure report is produced as required by other regulators. This closure report should also be submitted to the NEB. Going forward under this Guide the NEB will be the lead agency for all contamination incidents or remediation requirements for contamination from an NEB-regulated facility. Other regulators such as provincial or territorial departments of environment and health, as well as municipalities and federal departments may be involved and may be consulted at various stages in the remediation process.
This site specific approach includes remediation that was underway before this Guide was produced or contamination that requires a risk management approach.
Also, if contamination remains on company owned land and there is no risk of migration off-site, then a company can use other criteria providing that appropriate monitoring is conducted. While the NEB expects industry to follow procedures to minimize releases, leaks, and spills, from time to time accidents can occur. When an incident results in a reportable release of a liquid or any other contaminant that may cause an adverse effect on the environment, companies are required to report the incident and take appropriate measures to remediate the contamination.
In these three cases, the NEB expects notification of the contamination by writing to the Secretary of the Board as soon as practicable. This notification is not reportable under the OPR and therefore should not be identified as an "incident". The notification should confirm that:. Once the NEB becomes aware of a contamination that requires remediation, it will appoint an Environmental Specialist ES to act as a liaison with the responsible party.
Once a company reports a contamination incident or notifies the NEB of a contaminated site, it needs to conduct the appropriate level of Environmental Site Assessment ESA. Typical elements of a detailed ESA include a site investigation resulting in delineation of the contamination, calculations of volume, calculations of affected soil and groundwater, identification of remediation objectives and identification of remediation options. In some cases the extent of contamination may be complex enough that a detailed ESA is not possible before significant remediation must commence.
This plan would typically set out the remediation objectives based on initial assessments of the site. It should delineate the contaminated area, identify how contaminants are to be contained, identify sensitive receptors and explain how these are to be protected. The ICP also should identify and facilitate the immediate remediation needs while a detailed ESA is conducted to determine the longer term remediation needs.
Once the ESA is completed then a RAP should be produced that will transition the remediation project from the initial remediation activities to the more extensive remediation identified in the RAP.
The Self Assessment may be used to determine whether the company should submit a RAP or only a Remediation Closure Report discussed in further detail below. The Self Assessment is not designed to collect spill data or to assess adequacy of reports. It is designed to be used by the company and the NEB to determine whether sufficient information has been submitted regarding the need for a RAP.
The company should endeavor to stabilize the contamination so that further movement of contaminants in groundwater or soil is not occurring even before a RAP is submitted. If the contamination has stabilized, then remediation may be put in abeyance until a RAP is approved. Remediation criteria must be selected based on the type of soil and land use. Typical land use categories are industrial, commercial, residential, parkland, and agricultural.
Justification for the use of particular criteria must be provided. Site Specific Remediation Objectives There are times when a RAP cannot accommodate typical remediation criteria; for example, in the following situations:.www.hiphopenation.com/mu-plugins/dwi/lol-riot-matchmaking.php
Remediation Manual for Contaminated Sites
In situations where a RAP cannot accommodate typical remediation procedures, a risk management approach is necessary. This involves the selection and implementation of a risk control strategy based on site specific objectives. Monitoring and evaluation of the proposed strategy's effectiveness is required.
The CCME approach to risk assessment and management is recommended. Other strategies may include controls such as zoning designations, land use restrictions or bylaws. The decision to select a particular risk-based strategy will be informed by risk assessment information. Implementation of a risk management approach for contamination that is contained within a right of way ROW is unlikely to be required due to the limited land base involved and the high potential that contamination can be remediated within a ROW.
If the company wants assurance that its risk management approach is equivalent to remediation then a request can be submitted to the NEB for consideration. The initial ESA identifies that the contaminants are not mobile and are easily accessible for clean up. Inform the assigned ES of the situation and discuss remediation plans. Then produce a closure report or Detailed Incident Report within a specified timeline documenting the remediation project.
A site survey is expected. The ESA demonstrates that contaminants are mobile and that remediation will take considerable effort. Inform the assigned ES of the situation and immediately begin containment and recovery operations. Only those remediation expenditures required to bring the site to a "risk manageable" condition would be included in a remediation liability. Where more than one department is involved with the site i.
If determining the level of responsibility for the contamination is unclear, departments should seek the advice of Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Real Property and Materiel Policy Division. The estimate of the remediation liability should include costs that are directly attributable to remediation activities and are required to bring the site up to the current minimum standard for federal use prior to contamination, or for the intended federal use, whichever is less. Costs included to bring the site up to a higher level would be considered a "betterment" and should be capitalized.
Directly attributable costs would include, but are not limited to, payroll and benefits, equipment and facilities, materials, and legal and other professional services.
Remediation Manual for Petroleum Contaminated Sites
Costs related to the damage of natural resources are normally not included. Remediation costs should include the costs to develop and implement a remediation strategy once the site has been reclassified as a contaminated site. Remediation costs would also include final confirmatory sampling and the final report.
- YOU SHOULD WRITE A BOOK! How to Get Your Book Published for Free and Selling Online in 24 Hours or Less!?
- More about Spill Response and Remediation Guidance Documents:?
- Risk-based Standards for Kansas Manual.
Costs incurred once the site has been brought to a level that is considered acceptable are considered regular operating costs. The estimate may include costs of assets acquired as part of remediation activities to the extent that the assets have no alternative use.
Remediation Manual for Contaminated Sites by David L. Russell | | Booktopia
These assets would be expensed. Care, maintenance and monitoring can be included only if they are a part of the remediation strategy and are completed during the remediation phase. Costs incurred for care, maintenance and monitoring before the remediation liability is recognized, or after the remediation phase is complete, are considered operating costs. The measurement technique adopted by the government should result in the best estimate of the amount required to settle the liability.
- The Master.
- Remediation Manual for Contaminated Sites.
- Legal Issues Associated with the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline.
- Remediation Manual for Petroleum Contaminated Sites - David L Russell - Bok () | Bokus!
The best estimate can be described as the amount that a government would rationally pay to settle or otherwise extinguish the liability at the financial statement date. The amount would be based on the best estimate of the expenditures required to complete the remediation. The estimate of expenditures would require professional judgment supplemented by experience, third party quotes and, in some cases, reports of independent experts. Governments may estimate their liability for remediation based on an assessmentof a group of contaminated sites that have typical or common characteristics, such as similarities in historical land use, site-specific conditions, and the nature and extent of the contamination.
Note that each site must be recorded separately in the FCSI. Extrapolation examples are provided in Appendix D. Estimated costs that are not incurred specifically for remediation activities, such as research and development of technologies i. Any costs relating to surveying areas in order to find archaeological sites, excavating sites in order to recover cultural remains, and the subsequent classification, analysis, and preservation of the sites should not be included in the liability. If the liability estimate is based on a future cash requirement, the estimated future cash flow should be discounted using the government of Canada lending rate to approximate its present value..
An example of discounting can be found in Appendix A. The liability estimate should be reviewed each year-end to reflect any changes in estimates. At a minimum, prior year estimates should be increased by inflation over the previous year. Events that may indicate a need to do a detailed reassessment of the contaminated sites on which the estimate of the liability is based can include, but are not limited to, the following:.
A liability for remediation of contaminated sites should be reduced by expected net recoveries if the item has an appropriate basis of measurement, and a reasonable estimate can be made of the amount involved; and it is expected that future economic benefits will be obtained or given up.
A financial statement should disclose information on an aggregate basis about the following:. FRA coding rationale: All assessment costs are considered to be operating expenses. Therefore, a debit is recorded in , and an accounts payable account is established.
Authority coding rationale: Depending on the department's vote structure, the authority code B11A or B12A could be used. Since there is no impact on authorities for the accounts payable, R is used. Object coding rationale: Object code is used to track all expenses incurred by the contractor to assess potential contamination regardless of the type of expenditure invoiced.
FRA coding rationale: Salaries and wages are debited under , and travel and equipment rental are recorded as a debit to operating expenses under Accounts payable is credited using for the total amount payable.
Object coding rationale: Object code is used to track salaries and wages.
Related Remediation Manual for Contaminated Sites
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved