 |
 |
Yes it is. About another order of magnitude lower. Tony Windsor <http://www.linkedin.com/in/tonywindsor> On 24 June 2014 09:33, David Fountain <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > So you mean the incoming EPA standard is even lower than the current MOE > criteria? No wonder there is some difficulty with (or resistance to) this. > > > > Dave Fountain > > Pollution Officer (Contaminated Land) > > > > Tel. (01283) 508848 > > Mobile (07966) 342121 > > > > East Staffordshire Borough Council > > www.eaststaffsbc.gov.uk > > > > [image: cid:image007.png@01CF27E1.91154990] Follow us on Twitter > @ESBCEnvHealth <http://twitter.com/ESBCEnvHealth> > > > > *If you are visiting The Maltsters please note that we have limited car > parking spaces available. * > > *Bays marked ES5, 6, 7 are allocated for our Visitors ONLY. Other ES > spaces are strictly for PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY.* > > > > *Civil Enforcement Officers patrol this area. If there are no visitor > spaces available please park at the Meadowside Leisure Centre Car Park > (P&D)* > > > > [image: LGC13 winner logo-02 small.jpg][image: MJAwardslogo-Commended_R > small.jpg] > > > > *From:* Tony Windsor [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > *Sent:* 24 June 2014 13:47 > *To:* David Fountain > *Cc:* [log in to unmask] > > *Subject:* Re: Canada: Alberta TCE Class Action - Claims In Trespass, > Nuisance, Rylands V. Fletcher Dismissed > > > > The point is that they do not intervene unless indoor air concentrations > are measured at concentrations far above their own "safe" criteria for > indoor air quality. If concentrations are measured anywhere between 2.3 > and 23 ug/m3, nothing happens. So, residents are left breathing air that, > according the MOE numbers, could potentially be unacceptable. > > > > The 24/7/365 and 1 in a million risk is very conservative (and pretty > unrealistic) but, the main reason that I have been given from the MOE of > them not having action levels this low is that they cannot achieve their > own standards. However, all new risk assessments have to make sure new > development meets the new, lower EPA standard. > > > > The end result being that it leaves a complex legal situation - developers > having to meet lower standards than the MOE themselves are meeting and > existing residences being left with measured indoor air quality that the > MOE are telling them is "unsafe" in the long-term but, "don't worry about > it". > > > > Those public meetings are very "interesting"! > > > > > Tony Windsor > > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.linkedin.com/in/tonywindsor> > > > > On 24 June 2014 08:31, David Fountain <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > Forgive my ignorance, but isn’t the Ministry of Environment criteria of > 24/7 exposure and in 1 in 1,000,000 risk ‘quite’ protective? I can > understand (like with Part 2A) why an intervention/unacceptable level would > be higher than that.... > > > > Dave Fountain > > Pollution Officer (Contaminated Land) > > > > Tel. (01283) 508848 > > Mobile (07966) 342121 > > > > East Staffordshire Borough Council > > www.eaststaffsbc.gov.uk > > > > [image: cid:image007.png@01CF27E1.91154990] Follow us on Twitter > @ESBCEnvHealth <http://twitter.com/ESBCEnvHealth> > > > > *If you are visiting The Maltsters please note that we have limited car > parking spaces available. * > > *Bays marked ES5, 6, 7 are allocated for our Visitors ONLY. Other ES > spaces are strictly for PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY.* > > > > *Civil Enforcement Officers patrol this area. If there are no visitor > spaces available please park at the Meadowside Leisure Centre Car Park > (P&D)* > > > > [image: LGC13 winner logo-02 small.jpg][image: MJAwardslogo-Commended_R > small.jpg] > > > > *From:* Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Tony Windsor > *Sent:* 24 June 2014 13:22 > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Canada: Alberta TCE Class Action - Claims In Trespass, > Nuisance, Rylands V. Fletcher Dismissed > > > > What's of, perhaps, more interest toxicologically is that the impacts of > TCE in Canada are being felt more and more frequently. There are a number > of community wide risk assessment/risk management programs ongoing in > Ontario alone right now. The attached link provides a good synopsis of one > major one where the company directors were personally found liable (*Wambolt > v Northstar*): > > > > > http://www.willmsshier.com/docs/default-source/articles/vapour-intrusion-paper---updated-january-6-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=2 > > > > What is also interesting is that the standards that the Ministry of > Environment/local city require to be treated as action levels before > ventilation occurs are at least an order of magnitude too high (Action > level of 2.3-23 ug/m3 v MOE human health criteria for residences of > 0.6ug/m3). The MOE criteria is based on 24/7/365 exposure of course and 1 > in 1,000,000 risk. > > > > What this does suggest is that meeting the Ministry health standards is > "difficult" to start with and it is only going to get worse as the new EPA > tox values are implemented (we have to use them in all new risk assessments > so vapour mitigation/on-site vapour testing is being the norm). > > > > End result - Tort law is the beginning and its likely that the lawyers > will be getting more and more active! > > > > > > Tony Windsor > > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.linkedin.com/in/tonywindsor> > > > > On 24 June 2014 04:31, Paul Nathanail <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > I am grateful to Lenny Siegel, Executive Director, Center for Public > Environmental Oversight (http://www.cpeo.org) for bringing this to my > attention. I was struck by the reference to Ryalnds v Fletcher - sometimes > we forget the long legal shadow cast over the former colonies: > > > > > > Canada: Alberta TCE Class Action – Claims In Trespass, Nuisance, Rylands > V. Fletcher Dismissed > > > > by Meredith James, Saxe Law Office > > Mondaq > > June 23 2014 > > > > Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) operated a train repair facility, known as > the Ogden shops, since the early 1900s in a heavily industrialized area > outside Calgary. Over the years, a residential area grew up around the > shops. TCE was used as a degreaser in the shops from the mid-1950s to the > mid- 1980s. In 1999, CPR discovered that TCE had contaminated the > groundwater and migrated into parts of the adjacent residential community. > It subsequently installed sub-slab depressurization systems under > approximately 70 homes, where the TCE exceeded Health Canada thresholds. It > did not provide any remediation at properties below those thresholds. > > > > In 2006, CPR's neighbours successfully certified a class action against it > in negligence, nuisance, trespass and strict liability under Rylands v. > Fletcher, based on the diminution in property value and loss of rental > income. They did not claim damages for physical injury or health problems. > > > > > > ... > > > > For the entire article, see > > > http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/322454/Waste+Management/Alberta+TCE+class+action+claims+in+trespass+nuisance+Rylands+v+Fletcher+dismissed > > > > kind regards > > > > > > Paul > > > > > ------------------------------ > > This e-mail and files or other data transmitted with it are confidential > and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. > If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, dissemination, > forwarding, printing or copying is strictly prohibited and you must not > take any action in reliance upon it. Please notify the sender immediately > and delete the message. > > Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not > necessarily represent those of East Staffordshire Borough Council unless > explicitly stated otherwise. East Staffordshire Borough Council may monitor > the contents of e-mail sent and received via its network for the purposes > of ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures. > > East Staffordshire Borough Council does not enter into contracts or > contractual obligations via electronic mail, unless otherwise explicitly > agreed in advance in writing between parties concerned. > > The Council believes in being open with its information and the contents > of this e-mail and any replies may be released to a third party requesting > such information at a future date. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > This e-mail and files or other data transmitted with it are confidential > and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. > If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, dissemination, > forwarding, printing or copying is strictly prohibited and you must not > take any action in reliance upon it. Please notify the sender immediately > and delete the message. > > Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not > necessarily represent those of East Staffordshire Borough Council unless > explicitly stated otherwise. East Staffordshire Borough Council may monitor > the contents of e-mail sent and received via its network for the purposes > of ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures. > > East Staffordshire Borough Council does not enter into contracts or > contractual obligations via electronic mail, unless otherwise explicitly > agreed in advance in writing between parties concerned. > > The Council believes in being open with its information and the contents > of this e-mail and any replies may be released to a third party requesting > such information at a future date. > >