Better Response to Dangerous Goods Incidents Demanded by Community

As reported in the Terrace Standard, leaders in the Regional District of Bulkley Nechako in the interior of British Columbia have called for Canada’s railway operators to improve their response to incidents involving dangerous goods being carried by rail cars.

The Directors of Regional District of Bulkley Nechako are considering a resolution that calls for the provincial government to take the lead in talks with CN Rail to beef up response capabilities.

Canada’s Transportation Minister, Marc Garneau, has told his department to investigate railway incidents in Canada.  As reported in the Globe and Mail, derailments, collisions and other railway incidents soared in the first four months of 2018.

“The volunteer fire departments in the Regional District of Bulkley Nechako do not have the equipment, manpower, or expertise to respond to a notable dangerous goods event in a populated area,” notes background material prepared by regional district staffers for the directors.

“Increased training along will not increase local response capability to any notable degree. Also, many populated areas … are not serviced by a fire department.”

The background material adds that the regional district “and member municipalities are expected to response to a dangerous good incident, with CN Rail being prepared to respond to a dangerous goods event within 12 to 24 hours of being notified. Most of their response resources are located in Alberta.”

The resolution proposal builds on an earlier one which called for fire chiefs and local officials to have full information on the nature of dangerous goods being transported their their areas of jurisdiction.

But regional district staffers then noted that many areas of the province have a limited capacity to deal with a dangerous goods emergency.

“In staff’s opinion, CN Rail needs to play a lead role in developing rail emergency response strategy that is appropriate for northern British Columbia and other areas of the province where local response capacit, and CN Rail response capacity, is not adequate,” indicates the background material.

The new proposed resolution comes at a time of increased rail traffic on the part of CN Rail as the shipment of goods and material to and from port facilities at Prince Rupert increases.

Regional district directors June 7 approved of the new resolution during a committee of the whole session last week and it will be presented during the regional district’s regular meeting tomorrow.

Resolutions forwarded to Union of B.C. Municipalities conventions, if adopted, are then used as topics of discussion with senior governments.

Train Derailment (Photo Credit: (Transportation Safety Board)

 

Canada makes a significant coastal restoration fund investment

The Government of Canada recently announced funding for projects under its Ocean Protection Plan.  The financial contribution by the government is $7 million over 5 years for projects to help restore coastal habitats in Nova Scotia and the Arctic.

Four organizations will receive together over $7 million over 5 years for projects to help restore coastal habitats in Nova Scotia and in the Arctic.

The Clean Foundation is receiving $2,408,947 in project funding towards restoring tidal wetlands in the Northumberland Strait area of Nova Scotia and building community capacity to identify, protect, and rehabilitate this habitat. To do this, the Clean Foundation will: 1) identify, restore and monitor tidal wetland sites in the various areas of the Northumberland Strait, and; 2) work wit

Bay of Fundy

h multi-sectoral partners, including Indigenous organizations and communities to engage, educate and build capacity to protect and restore this important habitat.

Saint Mary’s University, Department of Geography & Environmental Studies is receiving $1,830,594 in project funding towards restoring tidal wetland habitat through the realignment of dyke infrastructure at several sites bordering the Bay of Fundy. It will include building regional capacity for effective scientific, technical and procedural components of managed realignment and marshland restoration projects that can be applied to future sites throughout Atlantic region.

The Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council is receiving $1,259,304 in project funding towards identifying areas for rehabilitation and developing a restoration plan focused on addressing habitat restoration and impediments to fish passage, such as improving the efficiency of tidal-gate or aboiteaux structures. Four of the five watersheds within the project scope are identified as critical habitat for the endangered inner Bay of Fundy (IBoF) Atlantic Salmon.

Dalhousie University will receive $1,985,500 to determine coastal restoration priorities across Nunavut, and restore three priority sites, including a low flow barrier to fish passage located on the Nilaqtarvik River near the community of Clyde River. The study will address data deficiencies in coastal habitat health, habitat fragmentation, fish health, traditional knowledge and science through community consultation and feasibility studies. Researchers will also work in partnership with the Government of Nunavut, hamlets and Hunter and Trapper organizations in all 25 Nunavut communities to develop coastal restoration plans on a case-by-case basis.

Community of Clyde River, Nunavut

The Coast Restoration Fund, started in 2017, is a $75 commitment by the Canadian to help rehabilitate vulnerable coastlines and protect marine life and ecosystems. The Coastal Restoration Fund, under the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, supports projects that contribute to coastal restoration on all of Canada’s coasts, with preference given to projects that are multiyear and involve a broad number of partners, including Indigenous groups.  The Coast Restoration Fund is part of a larger  Oceans Protection Plan.  Under the Oceans Protection Plan, the Canadian Government has committed $1.5 billion to coastal restoration.

 

Are you ready for Ontario’s Excess Soil Management Regulation Changes?

by David Ngugan, Staff Writer

A breakfast and seminar session organized by ECOH Management Inc. was held on June 20th in Mississauga, Ontario.  The seminar included a presentation by Vice President Jeff Muir titled “Digging Deep – Are you ready for Ontario’s Excess Soil Management Regulation Changes?” about the upcoming changes to the Excess Soil Management Regulations. He spoke about the implications of the new regulations, including cost, the depletion of sites with capacity to accept waste soils, illegal dumping and lack of tracking, and inconsistent oversight and criteria for the management of excess soils.

Jeff Muir, VP Environmental, EHOS

Jeff spoke about the current 2014 guidelines – “Management of Excess Soil – A Guide for Best Management Practices” that gives options for the management of excess soils both onsite and offsite,  as well as best management practices for project leaders. These include having an excess soil management plan to indicate where the soil will go and a sampling and analysis plan, including soil characterization and characterization of the receiving site.

He also pointed out some issues with the guidelines, particularly in the lack of clarity regarding who is responsible for the excess soil, as the term “project leader” is loosely defined. In addition, the requirements for proper characterization of soils are not clearly defined, such as a minimum number of samples required for a specific volume of soil. Jeff added that currently, many receiving sites are usually managed by municipalities that issue permits for the receiving of excess soil, and this presents opportunities for inconsistencies between various sites.

The proposed regulations enhance the responsibility and accountability of the generators of excess soil, as well as requiring an Excess Soil Management Plan (ESMP) for high risk or high volumes of soil. Under the proposed regulations, a ESMP should consist of a description of the project area and description and ownership, the names of qualified persons and contractors, excess soil sampling plan and characterizations, a list of receiving sites, a soil tracking system, and a record of the cumulative amount of soil moved.  The new regulations will also establish a registry where ESMPs will be submitted.

Jeff concluded his presentation by stressing the importance of preplanning – have all the costs, receiving sites, and estimated volumes of soil prepared ahead of time, as well as to focus on working with ESMPs well ahead of the promulgation of the regulations.  It is anticipated that the regulations will be promulgated this calendar year.

The Commodification of Phase I ESA’s and the Need for Innovation

Introduction

Individuals who read environmental site assessments (“ESAs”) in the early 1990’s as part of their job will likely remember the unevenness of recommendations and conclusions and the wide range in the quality of reporting.  During that time, as an in-house environmental engineer at a major law firm, I likely read more ESA reports from more environmental consulting firms than I care to remember.  To this day I still read my fair share of ESA reports from various consultants as part of my job.

Standardization

In the 1990’s there was a growing demand from users of ESA reports for some form of standardization.  Back then, and to this day, a potential buyer of a property and the associated lender used an ESA report to aide in determining the monetary risk associated with any environmental liabilities linked to a property.  The wide variety of styles, coverage, disclaimers, recommendations, and conclusions in ESA reports back in the early 1990’s made that task very hard.

More than one consultant in the 1990’s would try to absolve themselves of liability by merely stating the findings of the investigation and avoiding any recommendation or conclusions.  Others would include disclaimers that would essentially hold them blameless for all errors and or omissions.

The first standardized ESA reports that came across my desk conformed with the United States ASTM E1527 standard published in 1993.  The first Canadian ESA standard (Z768) was issued in 1994 by the Standard Council of Canada.

In Canada, the latest version of the CSA Z768 standard is what is used as starting point for conducting Phase I ESA’s.  A vast majority of ESA reports that I read begin quoting the CSA standard but with the added qualifying statement that the report is in “substantial conformance” with the standard.

Commodity

Currently, many of the major lenders in Canada have lists of approved consultants for ESA’s.  Any borrower can choose freely from the list and arrange for an ESA on a property.  Other organizations have similar lists.

The CSA Z768 standard combined with the lists of qualified consultants typically supplied by lending institutions has created, in my opinion, a commodification of Phase I ESA’s.  An unsophisticated and occasional user of environmental services would most likely choose a consultant to conduct a Phase I ESA based on price.

Sophisticated buyers of environmental services have their own favourite consultants.  To earn the trust of a regular user of ESA services, a consultant needs to be able provide a clear explanation of environmental liabilities and a strong justification for the need further investigation (i.e., Phase II ESA).  The exemplary consultant has the ability to uncover the less than obvious environmental liabilities.  All trusted consultants provide timely report in a cost-effective manner.

The advantage of the sophisticated buyers of ESA services is the experience gained from reading reports from dozens of different firms and knowledge of the revelations and oversights of each.  Even amongst sophisticated buyers, there is a level of commodification that exists as they would likely have anywhere from 4 to 5 firms (any maybe more) that they trust to do good work.

Differentiation

When being sold environmental services from consultants, I typically ask a consultant what differentiates them from their competitors with respect tot the conduct of a Phase I ESA.  In essence, I want them to articulate to me how their ESA work is superior to the competition.  The typical list of replies can be found in the table below.  Based on the majority of responses I receive, it is my conclusion that the consultants themselves are unknowingly conceding that they are selling a commodity service.  The differentiators they describe can apply to almost any firm that provides the service.

Table 1: Common Reasons Cited by Environmental Consultants for Choosing Them

“Cost effective”

“better”
“Fast turn-around time” “more effective”
“Use only experienced assessors” “more thorough”
“Experienced reviewers and supervising Staff”

“quality controls”

Innovation

So how can a consulting firm give clients what they want – more certainty on risk associated with a property – and differentiate the ESA service they provide?

I have found one consultant that I now work with has risen above the commodity Phase I ESA.  This consulting firm, through innovation, has gone beyond the bare minimum of a Phase I ESA that would conform to the CSA Standard and utilized technology to enhance the Phase I ESA.

A standard Phase I ESA requires only observation as part of the site visit portion of the ESA.  The use of intrusive testing is saved for a Phase II.  However, with the utilization of field instrumentation that is non-intrusive, an enhanced Phase I can provide much more information that a standard Phase I ESA.

The environmental consulting firm, Altech Consulting Group, uses magnetic surveys as a standard part of the its Phase I ESAs.  A magnetometer measures the magnetic potential underground through non-obtrusive means.  It can identify the presence of underground steel tanks or drums, and other ferrous buried objects (i.e. pipes).

Enhanced Phase I ESA – Seeing underground with the magnetic survey

By including a magnetic survey as a standard part of a Phase I ESA, Altech has more information from which to base its conclusions and recommendations.  It can utilize the information found from the magnetic survey along with historical data and interviews with persons knowledgeable of the property to have a stronger argument for the need for a Phase II ESA or not.

Chad Stewart, the head of the environmental investigation group at Altech stated “one of the biggest sources of environmental liability at the majority of sites is leaks from underground storage tanks or pipelines.  By including a magnetic survey as part of our Phase I ESA, we are in a much better position to state if further intrusive investigation is required.  Our approach saves the client time and money.”

As I said earlier, I have seen my share of ESA reports from numerous consultants.  Their a some that are very quick to recommend a Phase II ESA based on the limited information that only hints that a UST may have been present.  A vast majority of the subsequent Phase II findings reveal that there is no contamination.

Any means of bringing non-intrusive testing and measurement techniques into use for a standard Phase I ESA is a good thing in my opinion.  The more information that can be obtained during the Phase I ESA, the better the decision making on the need for a Phase II.

By not having to perform an unnecessary Phase II ESA, a client could save tens of thousands of dollars.  By performing a Phase II ESA based on information obtained from a magnetic survey that is a standard part of a Phase I ESA, a client could potentially save hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Tracking brownfield redevelopment outcomes using Ontario’s RSCs

By David Nguyen, staff writer, Hazmat Management Magazine

GeoEnviroPro’s latest webinar event featured Dr. Christopher De Sousa, a professor and director of the School of Urban and Regional Planning at Ryerson University.  He spoke about his research using record of site conditions (RSCs) to track brownfield developments in Ontario.

Christopher De Sousa.BA, MScPL, PhD (Associate Professor, Ryerson University)

A RSC is typically filed on the Environmental Site Registry with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) after property has undergone a Phase I, and often a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and the property is undergoing a zoning change to a more sensitive land use (i.e., industrial to residential).  A record of site condition summarizes the environmental condition of a property, based on the completion of ESAs.

De Sousa’s research focussed on the effects of the RCS legislation since its introduction in 2004, focussing on the scale and value of projects using RSCs from 2004 to 2015 (noting the revisions to the RSC legislation in 2011).  Property Assessments and Tax information was used to determine the nature of the developments that have occurred on brownfields.  Private sector stakeholders were interviewed to determine the factors that influence private sectors to develop on brownfields.

The research showed that from 2004 – 2015, 31% of RSCs were filed for Toronto properties.  However, the cities with the greatest total area redeveloped (based on RSC filings) were Brampton and Vaughn, with Toronto having the third largest total area redeveloped. With the exception of Ottawa, projects requiring RSCs occurred primarily in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area.

Of the RSCs filed from 2004 – 2015, 24% consisted of only Phase I environmental site assessments (ESA), 69% consisted of a generic Phase I and II ESAs, and 7% used a Phase I and II ESA combined with a site specific risk assessment.

With land use changes, the most common previous land use was commercial (36.8%) followed by industrial (22.3%) and the most common intended land use was residential (67.5%) followed by commercial (14.9%).

Toronto’s development focussed on residential projects located near major transit and roadways (85.6% of which being condos).  Smaller municipalities like Waterloo and Kingston also primarily developed residential properties (31% and 58%, respectively).  De Sousa notes that provincial growth plans and community improvement plans can help municipalities be more proactive in housing and economic development goals.

From a private sector perspective, the main motivations for brownfield developments are based on real estate factors (profit, market, locations), with barriers being costs, liabilities, and time (in project reviews and approvals).

Facilitation strategies that governments can utilize involve financial and regulatory changes, particularly in more effective and efficient processes and tools in high priority areas, with perhaps more government intervening regulations in secondary/ weaker markets to encourage development of brownfields vs. greenfields.

Toronto’s Port Lands feature numerous brownfields sites, image by Marcus Mitanis

Medical Waste Management Market predicted to reach $16.35 billion by 2023

According to the new market research report by IndustryARC, the world-wide medical waste management market is predicted to reach $16.35 billion by 2023.  The report, entitled “Medical Waste Management Market by Waste Type (Biomedical, Cytotoxic, Pharmaceutical, Genotoxic, Radioactive); by Treatment Technology (Thermal, Irradiative, Biological, Mechanical) – Forecast (2018-2023)”, provides useful insights and predictions on the medical waste management market. 

The report predicts that the North American medical waste market is expected to reach revenue of $6,077.7 million by 2023 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.1%.  It states that the North American market is driven by growing number of healthcare facilities.  The reports sties the reason for growth in North America is due to large amount of medical waste produced and effective management of the waste with the use of advanced technologies.  Hospitals have a major share in the market due to the amount of hazardous waste generated per day.  In the US, many organisations provide services to the healthcare facilities.  The government has been levelling fines on such hospitals in the region, if the infection rate is high.  This factor increases more number of companies in the market.

With respect to incineration of medical waste, the report states that the incineration segment had revenue of $3,851 million in 2015.  The report predicts revenue in the medical waste incineration sector to reach $5,627 million by 2023 at a CAGR of 4.3%.  The report defines incineration as the process of burning waste materials which are hazardous, at higher temperatures for eliminating contaminants.  In this process, toxic elements are burnt and the ash is disposed into landfills.

Largest Clean-up Grant in Canadian History

As reported by Laura Osman of the CBC, Councillors on Ottawa’s finance committee unanimously approved a $60-million grant to clean up contaminants to make way for a massive new development on Chaudière and Albert islands.

Windmill Development Group applied for the grant for its mixed-use Zibi project.

Windmill will clear the contaminated soil on the site, which has historically been used as an industrial site, and demolish a number of buildings.

An artist’s rendering of the Zibi development, which could receive a substantial grant from the city for soil and building cleanup. (City of Ottawa)

“These are contaminated lands on a derelict site in the city’s urban core,” said Lee Ann Snedden, director of Ottawa’s planning services.

“This truly is a poster child for a brownfield grant.

The city’s brownfields redevelopment program awards funds to developers for cleaning up contaminated sites and deteriorating buildings, which helps encourage developers to build in the core rather than the suburbs.

The grant would pay for half of the total projected cost of the cleanup.

Windmill has promised to create a $1.2 billion environmentally friendly community with condos, shops, offices, waterfront parks and pathways on the 15-hectare site, which spans both the Quebec and Ontario sides of the Ottawa River.

The city will only pay for the actual costs of cleanup after the invoices have been verified, Mayor Jim Watson said.

The developer promised to only do the work if they find contamination is present.

“It would be fantastic news for us as the proponent if there’s less contaminants there,” said Jeff Westeinde with Windmill Development Group.

The developer hopes to have the Ottawa part of the development completed in seven or eight years.

Snedden pointed out the city will not  pay to clean up the nearby LeBreton land to allow development because the land is controlled by the federal government.

But the National Capital Commission technically owned about 20 per cent of the Zibi development lands as well said Coun. Catherine McKenney, who argued the federal government should contribute to the cleanup costs.

The NCC owned the lands and had a perpetual lease with Domtar, which operated a paper-mill on the site for nearly 100 years.

“So why are we paying the cost?” asked Peter Stockdale with the Fairlea Community Association.

Some councillors received letters from constituents concerned about the large amount of money going toward a money-making venture.

Capital ward Coun. David Chernushenko acknowledged the grant was “staggeringly” large, but said someone must be responsible for cleaning up contaminated sites.

“I don’t see this as some sort of corporate welfare,” he said.

The grant will still need to be approved by city council.

Chaudière and Victoria islands seen from the air above the Quebec side.

Environmental Fine for Violation of Canada’s Regulations related to Petroleum Products Storage

Mosquito Grizzly Bear’s Head and Lean Man First Nation and band administrator, Arnold Moosomin, were recently sentenced in the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan for failing to comply with an environmental protection compliance order issued by Enforcement Officers from Environment Canada and Climate Change (the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. EPA).

Mosquito First Nation is an Assiniboine Nation located in the Eagle Hills approximately 30 kilometres south of Battleford, Saskatchewan.  It is nearly 50,000 acres in size and has approximately 1000 members.

The Court fined the Mosquito Grizzly Bear’s Head and Lean Man First Nation $100,000 and Moosomin $5,000.  The funds will be directed to the Environmental Damages Fund.

The fine was the result failing to comply with an environmental protection compliance order following an inspection to ensure compliance with the Canadian Storage Tank Systems for Petroleum Products and Allied Petroleum Products Regulations.  These regulations establish technical standards for the design and installation of storage tank systems under federal jurisdiction and include requirements for operation, maintenance, removal, reporting and record-keeping.

Environmental Officers subsequently laid charges under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 after it was determined that the First Nation and band administrator failed to comply with all of the terms of the order. The defendants were convicted following a trial.

Ontario Graphite Ltd. Subject to Control Order Issued by Environment Ministry

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) recently issued an Emergency Director’s Order to Ontario Graphite Ltd. (OGL) related to its mining site in Butt Township, Kearney, Ontario.  An Emergency Director’s Order is issued when the MOECC is of the opinion that inaction of a situation can result in one or more of the following: danger to the health or safety of any person; harm or serious risk of harm to the environment; or injury or damage or serious risk of injury or damage to any property.

Under an Emergency Order, immediate actions and environmental actions must be taken to protect the natural environment and to prevent or reduce the discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment from the undertaking or property, or to prevent, decrease or eliminate an adverse effect.

Photo Credit: NorthBayNipissing.com

Kearney is a town and municipality in the Almaguin Highlands region of Parry Sound District of Ontario, Canada.  With a landmass of 531 square kilometres and a year-round population of 882 in the Canada 2016 Census, Kearney claims to be the “Biggest Little Town in Ontario.”  Butt Township was amalgamated with the Town of Kearney in 1979.

Since the issuance of Director’s Order Amendment No. 1 Ontario Graphite Limited (OGL) has reported to the MOECC multiple exceedances of discharge limits specified in the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) issued for the Kearney Mine industrial sewage works and Ontario Regulation 561/94 (i.e. including exceedance of limits for acute toxicity to test organisms Rainbow Trout and Daphnia magna, iron, total suspended solids and pH).

As requested by the MOECC, OGL proposed a short term management action plan to address the effluent discharge limit exceedances from the polishing pond until such time that construction can be completed on the industrial sewage works to enhance treatment efficiency once approved by the MOECC through an ECA amendment. OGL further indicated to the MOECC that an application to amend the ECA for necessary modifications to the industrial sewage works is currently being prepared.
Following the MOECC’s review of the short term management action plan and monitoring data submitted by OGL, the MOECC is concerned that measures proposed by OGL will be insufficient in achieving adequate treatment until such time that construction and operation of the proposed modification to the industrial sewage works, subject to the planned application and subsequent approval by the MOECC, if issued, are completed.

Currently, the lime dosing system being used at the Kearney Mine as part of the existing industrial sewage works operation is operated on a batch basis over, typically, an eight hour period during daylight hours.  The enhanced pH monitoring and reporting required by the January 31, 2018 Director’s Order amendment has demonstrated that the pH of the discharge is not consistently meeting the required pH range over a 24 hour period.  Therefore, the MOECC is directing that the operation of the batched system be extended over a daily, 24-hour period to ensure compliance with pH at all times.

In addition to adjusting the lime dosing system the MOECC is ordering a contingency plan be developed to including the use of an approved mobile treatment unit to ensure adequate treatment is achieved if proposed measures are not sufficient in achieving compliance with all discharge water quality limits until such time that modifications, approved through an amendment to the ECA, are implemented.

In summary the Emergency Director’s Order requires OGL to do the following:

  • Conduct an enhanced monitoring program for pH.
  • Ensure that the operation of lime dosing system is supervised by a Qualified Person and that effluent is maintained within a pH range of 6.5 – 8.5 at all times.
  • Retain a Qualified Person to develop and submit a contingency plan to treat the Kearney Mine polishing pond waters.
  • Retain a Qualified Person to submit an amendment to the issued Industrial Sewage Works, Environmental Compliance approval.

The Order was served to the company as well as a number of a company director, the CFO & CAO, and the CEO.

Vancouver files claim against owners of vessel that leaked fuel in 2015

As reported by CTV News, the City of Vancouver has filed a federal court claim against the owner of a vessel that spilled fuel into English Bay in 2015, as part of the city’s continuing effort to get compensation for its response efforts.

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson says three years after the MV Marathassa spilled 2,700 litres of bunker fuel into the bay, the city still hasn’t been compensated for about $550,000 it spent on response efforts.

Robertson says Vancouver has sought repayment through the federal government’s Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund, but has only been promised compensation for 27 per cent of its costs — something Robertson called “totally unacceptable.

“It’s ridiculous that it’s taken over three years now fighting for our costs to be covered by an oil spill in our harbour,” Robertson told reporters gathered at Sunset Beach in Vancouver on Sunday.

The city’s claim against the ship owners — filed last month but announced on Sunday — calls for damages, interest and court costs related to the spill.

Robertson said the city’s difficulty in getting paid back for what he described as a “relatively small oil spill” shows there aren’t enough measures in place to protect coastal communities against more major spills.

He said the costs and impacts of a potential diluted bitumen spill from the increased tanker traffic that would come with the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion has not been meaningfully addressed by the federal government.

Robertson said the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund was set up by the federal government to act in the interest of communities like Vancouver, but is failing to do so.

“It clearly does not do that, does not deliver the results. This speaks to the greater concern we have with Kinder Morgan and oil tankers,” he said.

Transport Canada, which oversees spill response, could not immediately be reached for comment.

The claim’s statements have not been proven in court.

Crews on spill response boats work around the bulk carrier cargo ship Marathassa after a bunker fuel spill on Burrard Inlet in Vancouver, B.C., on Thursday April 9, 2015. (Darryl Dyck/THE CANADIAN PRESS)