Ontario Government Budget & the Environment

Written by John Nicholson, M.Sc., P.Eng., Editor

The Ontario government recently issued its budget for the 2019 fiscal year.  The budget was considered in some circles as not favouring the environment. One environmental activist organization went as far as calling it ““the most anti-environmental budget in Ontario” since Mike Harris was in power in the 1990’s.

For starters, the government cut $300 million from the budget for the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks. The cuts
from that Ministry’s budget come from the end of programs funded by the cap-and-trade system, as well as the cancellation of the Drive Clean program for passenger vehicles.

If one looks closely enough at the budget, there was some good news to professionals that work in the environmental sector, including the following:

  • A province-wide climate vulnerability assessment.  The Government will assess the best science and information to better understand where the province is vulnerable and understand which regions and economic sectors are more likely to be impacted.  Such an assessment is typical in the insurance industry and major companies.  The findings from the assessment will feed into the Province’s Climate Plan announced in November 2018.
  • Clean technology incentives.  The Government has taken steps to encourage private investments in clean technologies. Through the Ontario Job Creation Investment Incentive, the Province is paralleling the Federal Government in allowing businesses to immediately write off investments made in specified clean technology capital equipment. This incentive will make investments in clean energy generation and energy conservation equipment more attractive.
  • Industrial emissions performance standards.  The Government is currently developing emissions performance standards for industries to achieve further greenhouse gas reductions.  When the new standards are promulgated in a regulation, each industrial facility will be required to demonstrate compliance annually.

The budget included these and other sections that are encouraging indications the the Ontario government understands that value of the environmental and cleantech industries.

Environmental Liability Risk Faced by Directors of Dissolved Companies – Getting around the Gehring Defence

Written by Una Rodaja, Harper Grey LLP

Once upon a time, you were a director of a company that owned a parcel of land in the Greater Vancouver area.  A dry-cleaner and an auto-repair shop operated on the property, but you were not too concerned about environmental liability.  This was the 80s after all and the rent was good!  Your tenants caused some environmental contamination, which you addressed when your company sold the site in 1990.  You dissolved your company a year later and forgot all about it.

The property is now owned by a developer who is seeking to build a residential tower on the property.  To do so, the developer is required to investigate and remediate contamination that remained on the property after your company sold it.  Standards have changed and the limited remediation your company did years ago no longer meets the applicable standards.  Your old tenants (both sole proprietorships) are long gone and the developer is seeking to hold you personally liable for the costs of remediation.  You did not personally operate on or own the property, so are you really at risk?  A recent BC Supreme Court case says you are.  Here we explain how and why.

Directors of existing corporations are “responsible persons”

Under BC’s Environmental Management Act[1], a director or officer of a company that owns or operates on, or has historically owned or operated on, a contaminated site is a “person responsible for remediation” of that site simply by virtue of their position with the company.[2]  Such directors and officers can be liable to pay reasonable costs of remediation incurred by anyone in respect of the site owned or operated on by their company, if they authorized, permitted or acquiesced to the activity that gave rise to the cost of remediation.[3]

Directors of dissolved corporations are not “responsible persons”

Although the language establishing the categories of “responsible persons” under BC law is very broad, it is not without limit.  For example, it does not include “persons” who have ceased to exist, such as dissolved corporations.  This was made clear by the BC Supreme Court in a seminal decision called Gehring[4].  The case has undoubtedly motivated many corporate dissolutions by directors and officers seeking to shield themselves from personal liability for contaminated sites owned or operated on by the companies they served.

Dissolved companies can be restored – then what?

However, in the recent decision of the BC Supreme Court in Foster v. Tundra Turbos Inc.[5], a director of a long-dissolved corporation that owned and operated on contaminated land faced exposure in an action to recover environmental remediation costs by virtue of an application to restore the company to the corporate registry.  The company in question, Tundra Turbos Inc., was incorporated in 1978, and was dissolved in 2000.  Prior to its dissolution, it had a single director, one Mr. Clarke. The Plaintiff sought to hold Mr. Clarke liable for the costs of remediation incurred in respect of the property, some 17 years after Tundra had dissolved.  The question before the court was whether it was appropriate to restore Tundra and reconstitute Mr. Clarke’s directorship to make it possible for Tundra and Mr. Clarke to be liable for the costs incurred by the Plaintiff in remediating the property owned by Tundra in the late 1980s and early 1990s.  Tundra and Mr. Clarke presented several arguments against the restoration, including that Mr. Clarke would lose the Gehring defence, a substantive right, and that Tundra’s records pertaining to its operations at the property were destroyed, given the length of time involved.  The court rejected these arguments and ordered the restoration.

In the court’s view, there was nothing inherently unfair in the fact that companies and directors may be exposed to liability under BC’s environmental legislation many years after their association with a contaminated property ended.  Further, the right of a company and its directors to avoid liabilities for which they would have been exposed but for the dissolution is not the kind of right protected by legislation.  In fact, a legitimate purpose of restoring a company is to facilitate the imposition of such liabilities.  While destruction of the dissolved company’s records may, in certain circumstances, result in the court rejecting an application to restore, in Tundra’s case there was no prejudice arising from the loss of records because it was clear, on the facts, that had Tundra not been dissolved, it would have been responsible for the costs of remediation.  If anything, the lost records caused more prejudice to the Plaintiff than Tundra’s director, Mr. Clarke, who had personal knowledge of Tundra’s activities on the site.

In addition, the fact that Mr. Clarke could potentially face personal liability even without Tundra being restored (on the basis that he personally had the right to control, was in control of or responsible for any operation on the site in question) did not have a bearing on the restoration application.  The court recognized that it was easier to hold Mr. Clarke liable if he was responsible solely by virtue of his status as director, which could only be done if the company was restored.

Implications of the Tundra Decision

The Tundra case is an important example of creative counsel work to get around the Gehringdefence.  However, notwithstanding the outcome in that case, there are arguments to be made in future cases to avoid the restoration and, ultimately, responsible persons status for the director in question.  Existence of a limitation defence and loss of evidence that would assist in the defence of the director in question, or unreasonable delay of the Plaintiff in bringing the restoration application, may well result in the application being denied.

For lawyers advancing cost recovery claims, the Tundra case is a good reminder of the need to look at dissolved corporations and their directors and officers, and the need to apply for restoration, in a timely fashion.  For those defending these claims, and restoration applications, finding prejudice, beyond the mere loss of the Gehring defence, will be key.

[1] S.B.C. 2003, c. 53 (“EMA”)

[2] EMA, ss. 39(1), 45

[3] EMA, ss. 47(5); Contaminated Sites Regulation, s. 35(4)

[4] Gehring v. Chevron Canada Ltd., 2006 BCSC 1639, para. 55

[5] Foster v. Tundra Turbos Inc., 2018 BCSC 563

About the Author

Una Rodaja is a partner in Harper Grey’s Commercial Litigation and Environmental Regulation & Disputes practice groups. Una frequently lectures on various aspects of contaminated sites law for the Pacific Business and Law Institute, BC Environmental Industry Association, the Environmental Managers Association, and the BC Continuing Legal Education Society.  She is the co-author of BC Environmental Management Legislation and Commentaryand the recipient of the 2017 Lexpert® Leading Lawyers Under 40 award. Una is recognized by the 2018 Canadian Legal Lexpert® Directory as a Leading Lawyer to Watch in the area of corporate commercial litigation and by Benchmark Canada® as a Future Litigation Star. She has also been recognized by Best Lawyers® in Canada 2019 as a “Leading Lawyer in the area of Environmental Law.

Nature based solutions for contaminated land remediation and brownfield redevelopment in cities: A review

A collaboration of researchers from various Universities from around the world recently published a research paper in Science of the Total Environment that reviews nature based solutions for contaminated land remediation. The paper contends that Nature-based solutions (NBS) including phytoremediation and conversion of brownfield sites to public greenspaces, holds much promise in maximizing a sustainable urban renaissance.

The researchers claim that urban industrialization has caused severe land contamination at hundreds of thousands of sites in cities all around the world, posing a serious health risk to millions of people. The also state that many contaminated brownfield sites are being left abandoned due to the high cost of remediation.

Traditional physical and chemical remediation technologies also require high energy and resource input, and can result in loss of land functionality and cause secondary pollution.

NBS is an umbrella concept that can be used to capture nature based, cost effective and eco-friendly treatment technologies, as well as redevelopment strategies that are socially inclusive, economically viable, and with good public acceptance. The NBS concept is novel and in urgent need of new research to better understand the pros and cons, and to enhance its practicality.

The review article summarizes NBS’s main features, key technology choices, case studies, limitations, and future trends for urban contaminated land remediation and brownfield redevelopment.

United States: U.S. EPA Takes Action Under TSCA Identifying Chemicals For Agency Scrutiny

Written by by Lawrence E. Culleen, Arnold & Porter

Prioritization of Chemicals

In its continuing quest to meet regulatory deadlines imposed by the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has published a list of 40 chemicals that must be “prioritized” by the end of 2019. The announcement marks the beginning of the Agency’s process for designating the 40 listed chemicals identified as either “high” or “low” priority substances for further the U.S. EPA scrutiny. At the conclusion of the prioritization process, at least 20 of the substances likely will be designated as high priority.

A high priority designation immediately commences the U.S. EPA’s formal “risk evaluation” procedures under the amended statute. The risk evaluation process can lead to “pause preemption” under the terms of the 2016 amendments and new state laws and regulations restricting the manufacture, processing, distribution, and use of a chemical substance undergoing a risk evaluation could not be established until the evaluation process is completed. The U.S. EPA commenced its first 10 risk evaluations as required under the amended law at the close of 2016. The Agency is required to have an additional 20 risk evaluations of high priority substances ongoing by December 22, 2019. If the U.S. EPA’s risk evaluation process concludes that a substance presents an “unreasonable risk” to health or the environment under its “conditions of use,” the Agency must commence a rulemaking to prohibit or limit the use of the substance under Section 6 of TSCA.

The Agency’s announcement of the list of chemicals to undergo prioritization provides the makers and users of the listed substances an important, time limited opportunity to submit relevant information such as the uses, hazards, and exposure for these chemicals. The U.S. EPA has opened a docket for each of the 40 chemicals and the opportunity to submit information for the U.S. EPA’s consideration will close in 90 days (on June 19, 2019). The U.S. EPA will then move to propose the designation of these chemical substances as either high priority or low priority. The statute requires the U.S. EPA to complete the prioritization process, by finalizing its high priority and low priority designations, within the next nine to 12 months.

The list of 20 substances to be reviewed as high priority candidates consists entirely of substances previously identified by U.S. EPA in 2014 as “Work Plan” chemicals. Thus, the list contains few chemicals that should be considered complete “surprises.” However, the inclusion of formaldehyde may raise concerns in certain quarters given the scrutiny that has been given to the U.S. EPA’s previous struggles with assessing the potential effects of formaldehyde. The Agency has attempted to address these concerns by stating “Moving forward evaluating formaldehyde under the TSCA program does not mean that the formaldehyde work done under IRIS will be lost. In fact, the work done for IRIS will inform the TSCA process. By using our TSCA authority EPA will be able to take regulatory steps; IRIS does not have this authority.” Also included in the listing are several chlorinated solvents, phthalates, flame retardants, a fragrance additive, and a polymer pre-curser:

  • p-Dichlorobenzene
  • 1,2-Dichloroethane
  • trans-1,2- Dichloroethylene
  • o-Dichlorobenzene
  • 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
  • 1,2-Dichloropropane
  • 1,1-Dichloroethane
  • Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- dibutyl ester)
  • Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) – 1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1- butyl 2(phenylmethyl) ester
  • Di-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) – (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester)
  • Di-isobutyl phthalate (DIBP) – (1,2-Benzene- dicarboxylic acid, 1,2- bis-(2methylpropyl) ester)
  • Dicyclohexyl phthalate
  • 4,4′-(1-Methylethylidene)bis[2, 6-dibromophenol] (TBBPA)
  • Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP)
  • Phosphoric acid, triphenyl ester (TPP)
  • Ethylene dibromide
  • 1,3-Butadiene
  • 1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethylcyclopenta [g]-2-benzopyran (HHCB)
  • Formaldehyde
  • Phthalic anhydride

The U.S. EPA has signaled that it has received a manufacturer request for a EPA to undertake a risk evaluation of two additional phthalates which, if administrative requirements for such request have been met, the Agency would announce publicly in the very near term.

The 20 low priority candidate chemicals were selected from the U.S. EPA’s “Safer Chemicals Ingredients List”—a list of substances previously evaluated and considered to meet the U.S. EPA’s “Safer Choice” criteria for use in certain common product categories, such as cleaning products.

Other Recent and Impending U.S. EPA Actions Under TSCA

Given the numerous deadlines that are looming under the amendments to TSCA, it is critical that chemical manufacturers and processors of chemicals and formulations remain aware of the recent and upcoming actions under TSCA that can significantly impact their businesses. The following provides a short list of important actions of which to be aware.

Active/Inactive TSCA Inventory Designations. EPA released an updated version of the TSCA Inventory in February 2019. The Inventory is available for download here. This version of the Inventory includes chemical substances reported by manufacturers and processors by their respective reporting deadlines in 2018. The updated TSCA Inventory (confidential and non-confidential versions) includes 40,655 “active” chemical substances and 45,573 “inactive” chemical substances. Once the current 90-day “transition period” has concluded, it will be unlawful to manufacture, import or process in the US any substance that is listed as “inactive” without first providing notice to the U.S. EPA. Thus, prior to the expiration of the “transition period” on May 20, 2019, manufacturers and processors of chemical substances that are not listed as active on the February 2019 TSCA Inventory must take steps to activate the substance by filing a Notice of Activity (NOA Form B) for any chemical substance that they currently are manufacturing or processing, or anticipate manufacturing or processing within 90 days of submission.

Final TSCA Section 6(a) for Methylene Chloride in Paint and Coating Removers. EPA has released its long-awaited TSCA Section 6(a) rule restricting the use of methylene chloride in paint and coating removers. The final rule prohibits the manufacture, processing, and distribution of methylene chloride in paint removers for consumer use. The rule prohibits the sale of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers at retail establishments with any consumer sales (including e-commerce sales). The U.S. EPA declined to finalize its determination that the commercial use of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers presents an unreasonable risk. Therefore, distributors to commercial users, industrial users, and other businesses will continue to be permitted to distribute methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers. However, given recent efforts by store-front retailers to “deselect” such products for consumer sales, it remains unclear how distributions to commercial users can or will occur.

The U.S. EPA simultaneously released an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking related to a potential certification program for commercial uses of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers. The U.S. EPA has similar programs in place for certain pesticides and refrigerants, and the United Kingdom currently has in place a program to certify commercial users of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers. The U.S. EPA is seeking comment on whether a certification program is the appropriate tool to address any potential risks that could be posed by the commercial use of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removers.

Upcoming Draft Risk Evaluations. The U.S. EPA is expected to publish within days or weeks the highly anticipated draft Risk Evaluations for the remaining 9 of the 10 initial substances to undergo TSCA Risk Evaluations under the amended law and which have been under review since December 2016. The Agency will accept comments on the drafts for a limited period.

Proposed Rules for 5 PBT substances. The U.S. EPA is required to issue no later than June 2019 proposed TSCA Section 6 regulations for 5 persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances that were identified during 2016 as priorities for regulatory action. The Agency must propose expedited rules intended to reduce exposures to the extent practicable.


*Camille Heyboer also contributed to this Advisory.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

About the Author

Lawrence Culleen represents clients on administrative, regulatory, and enforcement matters involving federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Department of Agriculture, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Mr. Culleen has broad experience advising clients on US and international regulatory programs that govern commercial and consumer use chemicals, pesticides and antimicrobials, as well as the products of biotechnology and nanoscale materials. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Culleen held significant positions at EPA serving as a manager in various risk-management programs which oversee pesticides, chemical substances, and biotechnology products.

United States: When Is Property Damage From A Release “Expected Or Intended”? Only After The Owner Learns Of The Spill And Ignores It

Written by Seth JaffeFoley Hoag LLP

Any good trial lawyer will tell you that the law is about telling stories.

Once upon a time, Timothy and Stacy Creamer bought a house.  Only after they closed did they realize that some strategically placed rugs were hiding the evidence that, “up from the ground come a bubblin’ crude.”

Unlike Jed Clampett, rather than finding themselves millionaires, the Creamers found themselves with a million dollar liability – literally.

This being a law story, of course the sellers were bankrupt.  The Creamers thus pursued the sellers’ insurer.  The case ended up in the Appeals Court, which held that the Creamers could pursue their claims under the policy.

The insurer, Arbella, made three arguments in support of its summary judgment motion.  The Court rejected them all.  In order, the Court held that:

  1. The property damage was caused by an occurrence.  Arbella argued that the damage was caused by the sellers’ fraud, not by the original release of oil.  However, as the Court pointed out, the Creamers’ had claims based on Chapter 21E, the Commonwealth’s superfund law.  Since Chapter 21E is a strict liability statute, the Creamers’ damages were caused by the release, not by the sellers’ fraud.  (But see number 3, below!)
  2. The loss occurred during the policy period.  Following precedent, the Court concluded that, so long as the property damage occurred during the policy period, it did not matter that the harm to the claimant did not occur until later.
  3. At least some of the damage was not “expected or intended.”  This is the most significant part of the case.  While preserving Creamers’ claims, the Court split the baby on this one.  It held that the original release was not expected or intended, but that, once the sellers discovered the spill without doing anything about it, any further damage was “expected” by the seller.  The Court thus remanded for a determination by the Superior Court how much of the total property damage was “expected.”

The Creamers will thus get their day in court, but, depending on when the sellers learned of the contamination, their recovery could be significantly limited.  They certainly will not get enough to move to Beverly Hills.  No swimming pools or movie stars for the Creamers.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

About the Author

Seth Jaffe is recognized by Chambers USA, The Best Lawyers in America and Massachusetts Super Lawyers as a leading practitioner in environmental compliance and related litigation. He is one of the authors of the Law and the Environment Blog, www.lawandenvironment.com, which provides real-world perspectives on current developments in environmental law and regulation. Seth is a past President of the American College of Environmental Lawyers.

Seth works on a wide range of environmental law issues, representing clients in the permitting/licensing of new facilities and offering ongoing guidance on permitting and enforcement related matters under federal and state Clean Air Acts, Clean Water Acts, RCRA, and TSCA. He also advises on wetlands and waterways regulation. Seth’s clients include electric generating facilities, companies in the printing and chemical industries, and education and health care institutions.

Yukon’s Contaminated Site Mapped Online

The Government of Yukon Territory recently posted an online map that shows all known contaminated sites in the Territory.

Map of Contaminated Sites in Yukon

To access the contamination history of properties in the territory, one can visit the online map. This information was previously only available to the public on request.

Properties considered contaminated and included in the map are ones that have the confirmed presence of substances such as petroleum hydrocarbons and metals above specific concentrations. The Government of Yukon claims that many contaminated locations pose no risk to the public. However, in an effort to be transparent, it has created the online map.

The map is based on information the Government of Yukon receives and maintains. There are approximately 529 sites recorded by the Government of Yukon on the contaminated sites map. Of these sites 207 are considered contaminated, 151 are unknown and 171 are remediated.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada Map of Contaminated Sites in the Yukon, 2012

The Yukon Minister of the Environment, Pauline Frost stated in a press release, “This online tool will help increase the health and safety of communities across Yukon, support remediation efforts and help prevent future instances of contamination through greater public awareness. It is an example of our commitment to openly sharing information that is important to Yukoners and making it as accessible as possible.”

Other Canadian Jurisdictions

The federal government has a searchable federal contaminated sites inventory. The Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory includes information on all known federal contaminated sites under the custodianship of departments, agencies and consolidated Crown corporations as well as those that are being or have been investigated to determine whether they have contamination arising from past use that could pose a risk to human health or the environment. The inventory also includes non-federal contaminated sites for which the Government of Canada has accepted some or all financial responsibility. It does not include sites where contamination has been caused by, and which are under the control of, enterprise Crown corporations, private individuals, firms or other levels of government.

According to information compiled by Ecosense in 2018, contaminated site registry systems are in place in 76% of provinces and territories within Canada. This may include contaminated sites that are apart of a stand alone or another property listing system. Provinces and territories that have a registry include: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Yukon, Quebec, Ontario, North-West Territories, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island. However, the degree of information shared within these listings vary extensively. For example, Ontario’s database includes records of site condition (RSC) which entails detailed information of the type of contaminants at a site, contaminant concentrations, as well as information on the phases of environmental site assessments (ESA) completed, the date of site closure and company involved (PIRI, 2014). In contrast, Manitoba’s database provides only a file number, company name, city and address on an impacted sites list. No details of a site’s contamination levels, information concerning the degree of contamination or site remedial status is provided (PIRI, 2014).

Provinces within Canada that provide and inventory on contaminated sites that is available for public access include from west to east: Yukon (YK), British Columbia (BC), North West Territories (NT), Alberta (AB), Manitoba (MN), Ontario (ON, Quebec (QC), Prince Edward Island (PEI) and Newfoundland and Labrador (NL).

In addition, more than half (58%) of the provinces in Canada record contamination over the area of a property (based on property specifics) versus recording contamination over an area (area wide). Contamination doesn’t tend to stick to the boundaries of property lines, therefore inventories that record entries based on property specifics will not accurately represent the breadth or extent of contamination within a given area (PIRI, 2014). Provinces that record area-wide contamination are BC, NT, and NB. Many registries also do not include site information that track the process of assessment or cleanup. AB (only if submitted to the department), BC, YK, QC, and NB keep track of site progress.

Tesla Fire Is A Reminder For Businesses Storing Hazardous Materials

Written by Dawn DeVroom, IDR Environmental Services

fire broke out on Saturday, February 17 at Tesla’s car plant in Fremont, California. This isn’t anything new, because we do hear about businesses that have fires from time to time.

But, what makes this fire different is that it happened in an area where the company stores some of its hazardous materials outside. And, because of this, Tesla was forced to call the local Fremont Fire Department and required a hazardous materials unit.

According to reports, Tesla has a history of fires at this facility. This includes a fire in their paint shop in April 2018 and another outdoor fire in August 2018.

Add to this, Tesla was already under investigation by Cal-OSHA cited in January and fined $29,000 for allegedly violating six different worker safety regulations in their general assembly 4 (GA4) production line.

According to the Silicon Valley Business Journal:

“Tesla allegedly didn’t obtain a building permit or inspect the tent for safety violations, train workers on how to get out of the building in an emergency, or protect themselves from heat illness. Cal-OSHA also claims the tent had exposed metal rods and rebar that workers could potentially impale themselves on, and failed to cover a hole in the floor that was 22 inches wide, 14 inches wide and 8 inches deep.”

Suffice it to say…this fire isn’t helping Tesla’s safety record with OSHA.

So, what can businesses who store hazardous materials do to avoid Tesla’s potential catastrophe with that fire. Here are some very important things you should do.

Store Hazardous Waste In Proper Containers

storing hazardous materials

As a hazardous waste generator, you must satisfy safety, environmental and regulatory guidelines and have a solid base of knowledge and experience in using and handling hazardous materials in your facility.

Using the right storage containers for different types of hazardous waste is the key to safety and compliance. All hazardous waste generators must insure that their containers are built to specification according to the most current codes and regulations.

Following is a list of the different types of hazardous waste storage containers according to the Environmental Protection Agency website.   

  • Containers – portable device in which hazardous waste is stored, transported, or otherwise handled.
  • Tanks – stationary device of man-made materials used to store hazardous waste, either open or closed.
  • Drip Pads – wood drying structure used by the pressure treated wood industry to collect excess wood preservative and drippings.
  • Containment Buildings – completely enclosed self-supporting structures used to store or treat non-containerized hazardous waste.
  • Waste Piles – open, uncovered pile used for treating or storing hazardous waste.
  • Surface Impoundments – a natural topographical depression, man-made excavation or diked area such as a holding pond, storage pit or settling lagoon.

Proper storage and disposal requires you to understand which materials are toxic, what they do, the types of containers needed for storing the material and the type of personal protective equipment (PPE) that must be used.

You can learn more about which container is right for you waste by reading our article, How To Choose The Right Hazardous Waste Storage Container.

Label Hazardous Waste Correctly

Identification of properties and the regulatory status of waste that you generate is vital in maintaining compliance with state and federal regulations.

Hazardous waste generators that accumulate hazardous waste on-site in containers must be aware of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations regarding the proper labeling, marking and placarding requirements for hazardous waste containers.

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) provides the following guidance for the proper labeling requirements for California hazardous waste generators as outlined in Title 22, California Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs.):

  • Date – The date upon which each period of accumulation begins must be clearly marked and visible for inspection on each accumulation unit.
  • Hazardous Waste Notice – Each generator tank or container must be labeled or clearly marked with the words, “Hazardous Waste”.
  • Name and Address – Name and address of the generator.
  • Composition and State – Chemical composition (chemicals in the waste) and physical state of the waste (e.g. solid, liquid, etc.)
  • Properties of Waste – Statement or statements that call attention to the particular hazardous properties of the waste (e.g. flammable, reactive, etc.)
  • Accumulation Dates – If waste is collected or consolidated in containers or tanks, the initial date of the accumulation must be marked, as well as the “90-day or 180-day period” dates, whichever applies to your company. If waste from an older container is added, the initial accumulation date will need to be changed.
  • Recurring Waste Labels – “Recurring use” labels may be used on containers where same waste streams are initially collected and emptied into larger accumulation containers. The labels can revise the initial accumulation and “90-day period” dates (without having to change the other labeling information). If the container is emptied at least once each day, the word “daily” may be used in the date area of the label. 

You can learn more in our article, How To Properly Label Hazardous Waste Containers.

Prepare a Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan

According to federal and state regulations, every hazardous waste generator is required to have an emergency contingency plan. This plan outlines the company’s program to minimize hazards to human health and the environment from fires, explosions or an unplanned sudden release of a hazardous waste.

Failure to implement a plan can lead to hefty fines with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Your Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan should include:

Small Quantity Generators (SQG’s)

  • Designate an emergency coordinator and post contact information
  • Post the location of emergency equipment
  • Post emergency telephones
  • Ensure employees are familiar with emergency procedures

Contingency Plan Requirements for Large Quantity Generators (LQG’s)

  • Create a written plan on-site and make sure the it is up-to-date and reviewed frequently
  • Designate an emergency coordinator(s) and post contact information
  • Post the location of emergency equipment
  • Post emergency telephones
  • Create an emergency evacuation plan
  • Ensure employees are familiar with emergency procedures
  • List name, address and phone number (s) (home and office) for designated emergency coordinator
  • Submit written plan to local authorities

You must maintain at least one copy of the contingency plan at the facility, but multiple copies is even better. In addition, copies must be submitted to local police departments, fire departments, hospitals, and state and local emergency response teams that may provide emergency services to the facility.

Even if a facility will be providing its own responders, the contingency plan should still be sent to appropriate authorities in the local community in case of an off-site release or major emergency that requires their assistance.

You can read more about how not having a hazardous waste contingency plan affected another company in our article, No Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan Leads To Big Fine For Manufacturer.

Consider a HazMat Emergency Response Team

storing hazardous materials

The risks of working with hazardous substances and generating hazardous waste are great, and the consequences of a release, fire or spill can be dire.

Many companies choose to outsource their emergency response as an alternative to training, equipping and maintaining an emergency response team in-house. And, some companies will have more than one company at their disposal to ensure availability when an event occurs.

Emergency response companies have a fully-staffed, fully-trained hazmat emergency response team that are available 24 hours a day, 365 days per year.

It is important to establish a relationship in advance to allow for fast response times, with experienced supervisors who coordinate with all responsible agencies (such as local fire and rescue) to limit liability and costs.

Whether you need to control a situation or stop a potentially dangerous one, having an outside HazMat emergency response team provides the following benefits:

  • Save Lives
  • Protect Property
  • Preserve the environment
  • Limit Liability

You can learn more about using a HazMat emergency response team in our article, What A HazMat Emergency Response Team Can Do For Your Business.

Final Thoughts

Tesla serves as an example of what could happen to companies that use, generate and require storage of hazardous materials. Although nothing serious happened in Tesla’s recent fire, it could be much worse for your company if you don’t have the above procedures in place.

If you need assistance with putting together your program, contact a hazardous materials company that specializes in helping companies create and maintain their program.


About the Author

Dawn DeVroom is the CFO at IDR Environmental Services based in California. The company specializes in hazardous waste disposal.

What are the core requirements of wide area CBRNe training?

Written by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

When you are required to conduct wide area emergency preparedness training – be it in the setting of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNe) school, a dedicated military center or an industrial facility – the ongoing challenge for any CBRNe instructor is to be able to create a scenario that is realistic, safe, reliable and cost effective.

Trainees need to be equipped with the practical knowledge and skills to respond with confidence to an enormous variety of potential live incidents. And each threat brings with it a unique set of practical, physical and psychological tasks that need to be ‘experienced’ in order to be understood.

So what is the recommended approach to help instructors implement a realistic but safe CBRNe training environment?

Overcoming regulatory obstacles

While the spreading of chemical simulants can still occasionally be an option, strict environmental regulations generally make it unfeasible – and the use of any form of radiological source is almost always going to be unrealistic for all but the most high specialized of training facilities.

Simulant training also brings with it the problem of being very location-dependent, which restricts the ability to create scenarios in public settings or confined spaces. And there is the added difficulty of it not being able to be readily integrate simulant training with other conventional live training methods.

Wide-area instrumented training systems

When the highest degree of realism is required, a powerful modular exercise control system such as PlumeSIM enable instructors to take their CBRNe training exercises to an entirely new level. And it especially comes into its own in the context of counter terrorism scenarios, nuclear training drills and HazMat emergency exercises.

So what benefits does the PlumeSIM training system offer?

Portability – Plume-SIM is highly portable making it quick to set up and to use in any environment. The inclusion of a planning mode also means that instructors can easily prepare exercises on a laptop or PC without the need for any form of system hardware.

Realism – Students are equipped with simulators and GPS enabled players, to enable them to take part in large area exercises that can include sequential multi-threat releases or that integrate with third-party live training systems.

Instructor control – The instructor retains complete control of the exercise including the ability to decide the type, quantity, location and nature of the source.

Environment – Specific environmental conditions can also be easily defined by the user, including temperature and changes in wind direction.

Repeatability – The Plume-SIM’s exercise parameters can be saved so the identical scenario can be repeated as many times as required.

Real-time action -The trainees’ movements, progress and instrument usage can be monitored in real time from a central control station.

After action review – The recording of student activity in real-time provides useful after action review (AAR). This can be used to encourage discussions about the effectiveness of an exercise and to facilitate further improvements.

Data capture – All recorded exercise data can also be exported and emailed to external personnel for future analysis.

Pre-exercise capability – The table-top planning mode uses standard gamepad controllers which enables trainees to undertake pre-exercise practice to take place within the classroom environment. The exercise can also be recorded and analysed prior to heading for the live field training area.

Versatility – If environmental conditions preclude the ability to obtain or maintain continuous long-range radio communication then the scenario can be pre-loaded on the player unit for timed activation.

Compatibility – The Plume-SIM system is compatible with a wide variety of simulator equipment including the M4 JCAD-SIMCAMSIMAP2C-SIMAP4C-SIMRDS200-SIMEPD-Mk2-SIMAN/PDR-77-/VDR-2 and RDS100-SIM.

Room to grow – The modular system gives instructors the flexibility to expand their range of training equipment as and when their budgets allow.

Achieving the highest level of realism in CBRNe training is paramount – and assuring personnel safety will always be key.

A flexible, modular simulator-based training solution such as the PlumeSIM system can provide trainees with the opportunity to practice and perfect their response to a wide variety of highly-realistic simulated threats in a completely safe environment.


About the Author

Steven Pike is the Founder and Managing Director of Argon Electronics, a leader in the development and manufacture of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) and hazardous material (HazMat) detector simulators. He is interested in liaising with CBRN professionals and detector manufacturers to develop training simulators as well as CBRN trainers and exercise planners to enhance their capability and improve the quality of CBRN and Hazmat training.

When Is It Too Late to Sue for Environmental Contamination? The Alberta Court of Appeal Rules

Written by Laura M. Gill, Stephanie Clark, and Justin Duguay, Bennett Jones LLP

On February 6, 2019, the Alberta Court of Appeal (ABCA) released its first ever decision on section 218 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA), which may extend limitation periods applicable to environmental contamination claims.

By a unanimous decision in Brookfield Residential (Alberta) LP (Carma Developers LP) v Imperial Oil Limited, 2019 ABCA 35 [Brookfield], the ABCA upheld a lower court decision where the judge refused to exercise his discretion under section 218 of the EPEA to extend the limitation period for an environmental contamination claim. Extending the limitation period would have likely been prejudicial to the defendant’s ability to maintain a defence to the claim, as the alleged cause of the environmental damage occurred over 60 years ago. We previously discussed the 2017 Court of Queen’s Bench decision in an earlier post, When is an Environmental Contamination Claim Too Old to Extend the Limitation Period?

Background

Brookfield Residential (Alberta) LP (Brookfield) brought a negligence claim in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (ABQB) against Imperial Oil Limited (Imperial) for environmental contamination from an oil well. Imperial drilled and operated the well between 1949 and 1950, and disposed of it in either 1950 or 1954. Multiple owners operated the well between 1950 and 1957 and then used it for salt water disposal between 1958 and 1961, at which point the well was decommissioned and abandoned. After several additional transfers of ownership, the site was issued a reclamation certificate in 1968. Contamination requiring remediation was not discovered until 2010, when Brookfield was preparing the site for residential development.

Brookfield brought an application under section 218 of the EPEA to extend the limitation period, and Imperial cross-applied with a summary dismissal application, asserting that the limitation period had expired. Since it was clear that the ten-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act had expired, Brookfield’s negligence claim was entirely dependent on an extension of the limitation period under section 218. The ABQB refused to extend the limitation period and summarily dismissed the action against Imperial. Brookfield appealed.

The appeal was dismissed. In its reasons, the ABCA provided guidance on three important aspects of section 218 applications: (i) procedure and timing; (ii) the impact of the passage of time on prejudice to the defendant; and (iii) policy considerations relevant to the fourth factor in section 218(3).

1. Applications Under Section 218 of the EPEA Should Be Decided Prior to Trial

The ABCA in Brookfield ruled that applications under section 218 of the EPEA should be decided prior to trial, overruling the two-part test in Lakeview Village Professional Centre Corporation v Suncor Energy Inc, 2016 ABQB 288 [Lakeview]. In Lakeview, the ABQB set out a two-part approach to section 218 applications where the court may make a preliminary determination on limitations and allow the action to proceed subject to a final determination on the merits of the limitations issue at trial. Lakeview became the leading case on the procedure for section 218 applications.

In overturning the Lakeview test, the ABCA found two problems with the approach of deferring the decision on extending limitation periods until trial. First, the Lakeview approach “is inconsistent with the wording of section 218, which provides that the limitation period can be extended ‘on application'”. Second, the approach defeats the whole purpose of limitation periods because it forces a defendant to go through the expense and inconvenience of a full trial on the merits for a determination on limitations, notwithstanding that a limitation period is intended to eliminate the distractions, expense, and risks of litigation after the prescribed time has passed.

2. The Passage of Time Increases the Likelihood of Prejudice to the Defendant

The ABCA affirmed the approach of balancing the four factors in section 218(3), which in this case revolved primarily around the third factor (prejudice to the defendant). The ABCA found that it was reasonable for the ABQB to infer prejudice from the passage of time, noting that this is the presumption behind statutes of limitation. The allegations in Brookfield’s claim occurred over 60 years ago, and as such, witnesses and documentary evidence were difficult to identify and were no longer available. The passage of time also made it difficult to establish the proper standard of care. The ABCA agreed that attempting to determine 1949 industry standards and the standard of care at that time would prejudice Imperial.

3. The Competing Policy Objectives of the Limitations Act and the EPEA

The ABCA also provided guidance on the fourth factor listed in section 218(3), which grants judicial discretion to consider “any other criteria the court considers to be relevant”. The ABCA found that policy considerations behind limitations statutes were relevant criteria that should be weighed. In particular, the ABCA noted the policy objectives of statutes of limitations that actions must be commenced within set periods so that defendants are protected from ancient obligations, disputes are resolved while evidence is still available, and claims are adjudicated based on the standards of conduct and liability in place at the time. However, on the other hand, the ABCA highlighted that the EPEA has a “polluter pays” objective where a polluter should not escape responsibility by the mere passage of time.

Implications

The ABCA’s decision in Brookfield changes the procedure for extending limitation periods in environmental contamination claims. Rather than waiting until trial, parties must bring section 218 applications early on. As a result, plaintiffs in contaminated sites claims should also carefully assess the impacts on defendants of the passage of time in making section 218 applications. Brookfield reinforces that a court will likely presume greater prejudice from a longer passage of time, especially if witnesses and evidence may be difficult to identify and the standard of care may be difficult to assess. Going forward, Brookfield suggests that the Court will take a practical approach to assessing prejudice against a defendant when deciding whether to extend limitation periods in contaminated site claims where the ultimate limitation period has passed.


This article has been republished with the permission of the authors. It was first published on the Bennett Jones website.

About the Authors

Laura Gill is called to the bar in Alberta and British Columbia and has a commercial litigation practice specializing in energy and natural resources, First Nations issues, and environmental matters. Laura advises clients on disputes in a wide range of corporate matters, including complex breach of contract claims and joint ventures.

Laura’s experience in the energy industry includes litigating disputes involving leases, right-of-way agreements, ownership stakes, royalties, gas supply contracts, farmout agreements, and CAPL operating agreements. Laura also acts on appeals and judicial review proceedings following decisions of regulatory bodies, in particular with respect to regulatory approvals for energy-related projects in Alberta and British Columbia.

Stephanie Clark has a general commercial litigation practice. Stephanie has assisted with matters before all levels of the Alberta court system. During law school, Stephanie held a student clerkship with the Honourable Mr. Justice Nicholas Kasirer at the Court of Appeal of Quebec, competed in the 2015 Jessup International Law Moot, and was awarded with the Borden Ladner Gervais Professional Excellence Award. Stephanie articled with the firm’s Calgary office prior to becoming an associate. 

Justin Duguay is an articling student at Bennett Jones.

With more oil to be shipped by rail, train derailments show enduring safety gaps

by Mark Winfield and Bruce Campbell, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Canada

The recent runaway CP Rail train in the Rocky Mountains near Field, B.C., highlighted ongoing gaps in Canada’s railway safety regime, more than five years after the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster that killed 47 residents of the small Québec town.

The British Columbia crash resulted in the deaths of three railway workers and the derailment of 99 grain cars and two locomotives.

In the B.C. accident, the train involved had been parked for two hours on a steep slope without the application of hand brakes in addition to air brakes.

The practice of relying on air brakes to hold trains parked on slopes was permitted by both the company and by Transport Canada rules. Revised operating rules, adopted after the Lac-Mégantic disaster, had not required the application of hand brakes under these circumstances.

The latest accident was one of a rash of high-profile train derailments in Canada since the beginning of 2019. While none compares in magnitude with Lac-Mégantic, they evoke disturbing parallels to that tragedy. Although investigations are ongoing, what we do know raises questions about whether any lessons have in fact been learned from the 2013 disaster.

Now must apply hand brakes

Within days of the B.C. runaway, both CP Rail and Transport Canada mandated the application of hand brakes in addition to air brakes for trains parked on slopes. This after-the-fact measure parallels the action Transport Canada took days after Lac-Mégantic, prohibiting single-person crews, after having granted permission to Montréal Maine and Atlantic Railway to operate its massive oil trains through Eastern Québec with a lone operator.

Furthermore, like the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, existing mechanical problems with the locomotives involved reportedly played a role in the CP Rail derailment, raising questions about the adequacy of oversight with regard to equipment maintenance practices.

Like Lac-Mégantic, worker fatigue may have also played a role in the crash. Despite efforts within Transport Canada to force railways to better manage crew fatigue, railway companies have long resisted. Instead they have taken page out of the tobacco industry playbook by denying inconvenient scientific evidence as “emotional and deceptive rhetoric.”

The situation has prompted the Transportation Safety Board to put fatigue management on its watchlist of risky practices, stating that Transport Canada has been aware of the problem for many years but is continuing to drag its feet.

Oil-by-rail traffic explodes

The implications of the B.C. accident take on additional significance in light of the dramatic growth seen in oil-by-rail traffic in Canada over the past year. Export volumes reached a record 354,000 barrels per day in December 2018, with the vast majority of the oil going to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast and Midwest. These oil tankers potentially being able to derail is a legal claim waiting to happen with the help of a personal injury attorney, compensation could and would be very wholesome.

This development has not gone unnoticed by people living in communities across North America, who are concerned about the growing danger of another disastrous derailment.

The increase in traffic — now bolstered by the Alberta government’s plan to put another 120,000 barrels per day of crude oil on the rails by next year — is occurring at a time when the Transportation Safety Board reported a significant increase in “uncontrolled train movements” during 2014-17 compared to the average of the five years preceding the disaster.


Read more: Technology to prevent rail disasters is in our hands


This is despite the board’s Lac-Mégantic investigation report recommendation that Transport Canada implement additional measures to prevent runaway trains.

Two weeks after the B.C. crash, a CN train carrying crude oil derailed near St. Lazare, Man.; 37 tank cars left the tracks, punctured and partially spilled their contents. The cars were a retrofitted version of the TC-117 model tank car, developed after Lac-Mégantic, intended to prevent spills of dangerous goods. The train was travelling at 49 mph, just under the maximum allowable speed.

Budgets chopped

In the lead-up to the Lac-Mégantic disaster, the Harper government squeezed bothTransport Canada’s rail safety and transportation of dangerous goods oversight budgets. These budgets did not increase significantly after the disaster.

Justin Trudeau’s government pledged additional resources for rail safety oversight. However, Transport Canada’s plans for the coming years show safety budgets falling back to Harper-era levels. It remains to be seen whether these plans will be reversed in the upcoming federal budget.

Safety Management Systems-based approach remains the centrepiece of Canada’s railway safety system. That system been fraught with problems since it was introduced 17 years ago.

It continues to allow rail companies to, in effect, self-regulate, compromising safety when it conflicts with bottom-line priorities. Government officials claim there has been a major increase in the number of Transport Canada rail safety inspectors conducting unannounced, on-site inspections. But the inspectors’ union questions these claims.

If an under-resourced regulator, with a long history of deference to the industry, is unable to fulfil its first-and-foremost obligation to ensure the health and safety of its citizens, the lessons of Lac-Mégantic have still not been learned. The B.C. accident highlights that the window for history to repeat itself remains wide open.


This article is republished with permission. It was first published on The Conversation website.

About the Authors Authors

Mark Winfield is a Professor of Environmental Studies, York University, Canada

Bruce Campbell is an Adjunct professor, York University, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Canada