New Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for Methanol

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) recently published an updated the Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health: Methanol.

Canadian environmental quality guidelines are numerical concentrations or narrative statements recommended to provide a healthy, functioning ecosystem capable of sustaining the existing and likely future uses of the site by ecological receptors and humans.  Canadian soil quality guidelines can be used as the basis for consistent assessment and remediation of contaminated sites in Canada. The guidelines in the report were derived according to procedures described in A Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental and Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines (CCME 2006).  According to this protocol, both environmental and human health soil quality guidelines are developed and the lowest value generated from the two approaches for each of the four land uses is recommended by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) as the Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines (CCME 2006).

Sufficient data were available to develop soil quality guidelines for methanol protective of human health, in accordance with the soil protocol.  The human health soil quality guidelines for methanol are 4.6 mg/kg for coarse soil and 5.6 mg/kg for fine soil for all four land uses.  Human health soil quality guidelines were calculated for soil ingestion, inhalation of indoor air, and protection of groundwater for drinking water. The limiting pathway in the calculation of human health guidelines was drinking water.

Sufficient data were available to develop soil quality guidelines for methanol protective of environmental health, in accordance with the soil protocol.  The environmental health soil quality guidelines for methanol are: 7.7 mg/kg for coarse soil and 190 mg/kg for fine soil for all four land uses. Environmental health soil quality guidelines were calculated for ecological direct contact and protection of groundwater for aquatic life.  The limiting pathway in the calculation of environmental health guidelines was aquatic life.  Since it was possible to calculate both human health and environmental soil quality guidelines for methanol, the overall methanol soil quality guidelines are the lower of the two, which are 4.6 mg/kg for coarse soil and 5.6 mg/kg for fine soil for all four land uses.

Advance Technology Camera spots hidden Oil Spills

As reported in the New Scientist, a new kind of polarising camera is available that can detect otherwise invisible oil sheens.

Like many oil imagers, the Pyxis camera sees the infrared radiation emitted by all objects.  That is important because there is often a temperature difference between oil and water.  However, if there isn’t one, thermal imagers don’t work.  So the Pyxis also detects differences between the way oil and water scatter light.  Thanks to this differing polarisation, it works not only when the oil and water are the same temperature – but also in pitch darkness.

Infrared polarimetry has been used in astronomy to help identify distant stellar objects. Polaris Sensor Technologies, based in Alabama, has modified the technology for a new use.

“The optical system and the physics behind it are very complex,” says David Chenault, President of Polaris Sensor Technologies.  “We started building infrared polarimeters several decades ago, but they were bulky and not capable of looking at dynamic scenes.” Only in the past few years did it become possible to significantly shrink the sensor – now roughly the size of a fist – and make it capable of imaging moving scenes. That is important for detecting oil on water.

The new camera can see spills invisible to the naked eye from 2 kilometres away.  Its size means it can be mounted on a small drone or other robot.

Doug Helton of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Emergency Response Division says these cameras could augment NOAA satellite networks, which detect and track suspected oil spills.  While they can spot even small spills, visual confirmation is crucial to rule out false positives. “Wind shadow may look like an oil slick,” he says.

Confirmation is usually done by people in a helicopter or plane, so that is where a drone-mounted camera could save a lot of time.

The camera can also spot and track oil washed up on beaches. Typically, this is a time-consuming task that must be done by people on the ground.

The sensor passed extensive tests with crude oil and diesel in different wave conditions at the massive Ohmsett test facility pool in New Jersey and at an actual spill off Santa Barbara, California, in 2015.  Russell Chipman at the University of Arizona says this is a significant development. “The costs of polarimeters are decreasing,” he says, and the miniaturisation and commercialisation of infrared polarimetric sensors means this technology can now be deployed widely to detect all kinds of oil slicks.

While Polaris is currently concentrating on oil detection, more applications for the camera are likely to be discovered when it goes into mass production, anticipated early next year.

 

United States: Protect Your Company from Waste Liability

Written by: Viggo C. Fish, McLane Middleton

Question: My company is purchasing real estate, and we are concerned there may be existing environmental contamination on the property. What steps can we take to protect ourselves from liability?

 Answer:  Conducting environmental due diligence correctly is essential to protect purchasers of potentially contaminated commercial properties from possible liability far exceeding the value of the property. Strict hazardous waste regulation exists at the federal, state and, sometimes, even the municipal level.

Under both the U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, and corresponding state law, owners of contaminated properties are liable, without regard to fault, for environmental conditions on the property, whether or not the owner was involved in any way in the initial release of the contamination. There are, however, steps prospective purchasers can take to limit this liability.

Hazardous waste laws allow purchasers of potentially contaminated property to conduct the necessary level of investigation, and, if performed correctly, limit their liability.

For example, the Superfund All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) rule provides for certain limitations on liability of a so-called “innocent purchaser” if such an investigation is completed before the acquisition.

The innocent purchaser provision allows a purchaser who, under certain circumstances, did not know and “had no reason to know” that the property was contaminated to avoid later Superfund liability. Similar rules apply to state hazardous waste liability. Importantly, to avoid that liability, the purchaser must be able to establish it “carried out all appropriate inquiries … into the previous ownership and uses of the facility in accordance with generally accepted good commercial and customary standards and practices.”

Careful compliance with AAI requirements can be used later to support the “innocent landowner” defense to liability of the new owner. The burden of proof is on the purchaser to establish it is entitled to this and other such landowner liability defenses.

The key element of proof is the Environmental Site Assessment (ESA).  Buyers of commercial property typically conduct a Phase I ESA to evaluate the potential for contamination in accordance with ASTM Standard E1527-13.

Following the ASTM Standard demonstrates compliance with the EPA’s AAI rule, that protects prospective purchasers of property from liability under CERCLA.  This area of the law is unusually complicated, and it is therefore usually necessary to have the advice and assistance of qualified environmental consultants and environmental legal counsel to assure that the legal and financial protections against hazardous waste liability will actually be available, if needed in the future.

This article was first published in Know the Law, a bi-weekly column sponsored by McLane Middleton, Professional Association.  Know the Law provides general legal information, not legal advice. We recommend that you consult a lawyer for guidance specific to your particular situation. 

_______________________

About the Author

Vigo C. Fish is an Environmental and Energy Associate in the Administrative Law Department where he assists clients with a wide variety of energy and environmental matters.  Viggo received his J.D., cum laude, and Master of Energy Regulation and Law (MERL) degree, magna cum laude, from Vermont Law School (2015), and his B.A. in English from Providence College (2010). While in law school, Viggo worked as a Research Analyst at Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and the Environment and as a Clinician in the Energy Clinic. In addition, Viggo worked as a Markets and Policy Intern in the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Strategic Energy Analysis Center.

When Is a Discharge to Groundwater Subject to the U.S. Clean Water Act? Can You Say “Significant Nexus”?

By Seth Jaffe, Foley Hoag LLP

Whether the United States Clean Water Act regulates discharges to groundwater has been a topic of significant debate.  At this point, there seems to be something of a trend in the cases towards concluding it does, but it remains true that all of the courts of appeal that have addressed the issue have concluded that it does not.  As I have noted, the problem with the “yes” answer is that pretty much all groundwater eventually discharges to surface water, making all such discharges subject to the CWA.  How can that be, given that groundwater is not considered to be “waters of the United States?”

Chief Judge Waverly Crenshaw recently addressed the issue in Tennessee Clean Water Network v. TVA.  Judge Crenshaw’s solution was creative – meaning he pretty much made up out of whole cloth.  That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s wrong, however.

The case involves coal ash management at the TVA’s Gallatin plant.  Some of the – unlined – ponds directly abut the Cumberland River.  The plaintiff citizen groups brought claims under the CWA, alleging that TVA was discharging pollutants to the River – via groundwater – without an NPDES permit.  They requested an injunction requiring that the TVA remove the coal ash from the ponds, at a cost of $2 billion.

Gallatin power plant, operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority in mid-Tennessee on the north bank of the Cumberland River. Location of the main coal-burning facility is indicated by the icon and label.

Judge Crenshaw was clearly frustrated by an absolutist position on either side.  Clearly, he does not think that any link between groundwater and surface water, no matter how attenuated, can be enough for jurisdiction to attach.  On the other hand, he was also trying to reckon with the specific case in front of him.  As he saw it, the Gallatin ash ponds were a complete environmental mess.  They immediately abut the Cumberland River, clearly a water of the United States.  Can the outcome really be different if the ponds discharge directly to the River than if they discharge to groundwater 10 feet from the River, where that groundwater then discharges to the river?

His solution?

the Court concludes that a cause of action based on an unauthorized point source discharge may be brought under the CWA based on discharges through groundwater, if the hydrologic connection between the source of the pollutants and navigable waters is direct, immediate, and can generally be traced.

I confess I like this solution, because it is practical and will generally yield reasonable results.  It avoids either effectively regulating all groundwater under the CWA or having to conclude that the CWA can’t reach situations such as the Gallatin ash ponds.

The problem?

There’s no textual support for this solution in the CWA.  To me, this test sounds a lot like Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus in Rapanos.  There too, his position received a lot of support at a practical level, while many commentators noticed that the CWA says nothing about a “significant nexus.”

We all know how well that’s worked out.

This article was first published in Law and the Environment, a blog from Foley Hoag LLP.

______

About the Authors

Seth D. Jaffe

A partner at Foley Hoag, Seth Jaffe is recognized by Chambers USA, The Best Lawyers in America and Massachusetts SuperLawyers as a leading… MORE

Kathleen Brill

Kathleen Brill is an Associate practicing in the Administrative Department of Foley Hoag’s Boston office. Before joining Foley Hoag, Kathleen had considerable experience…MORE

 

New spill rules tag transport companies with response, recovery costs in B.C.

As reported by Dirk Meissner of the Canadian Press, the Government of British Columbia has introduced pollution prevention regulations to hold transport companies moving petroleum products across the province responsible for the costs of responding to and cleaning up spills.

Environment Minister George Heyman said recently that the new regulations will take affect at the end of October and apply to pipeline, railway and truck company owners and transporters moving more than 10,000 litres of liquid petroleum products.

The rules increase responsibility, transparency and accountability for operators who transport potentially dangerous products through B.C., he said.

“I would hope that business doesn’t believe that individual members of the public through their tax dollars should be responsible for cleaning up spills they incur in the course of doing business and making a profit.”

The aim of the new rules is to prevent spill sites from being left contaminated for months and sometimes years, Heyman said, noting companies will be required to submit spill response and recovery plans ahead of moving their products.

“Most people subscribe to the polluter pay principle,” he said. “These regulations also require that spill contingency plans be put into place and that recovery plans and reporting plans be implemented in the case of a spill. That’s just reasonable.”

CN Rail said in a statement that it continues to work with the B.C. government and its industry partners on emergency response and preparation plans. The railway transports oil and numerous other products, including grain, across B.C.

“Emergency and spill response preparation and training is an important part of our business,” the statement said. “CN has in place emergency response plans and conducts spill and emergency response training with stakeholders across our network.”

The B.C. Trucking Association said in a statement that it supports the province’s new rules.

“We have been actively engaged in working with the government on the development of these regulations because the safety of our drivers, the public and the environment is our number one priority,” the statement said.

New pollution prevention regulations will hold transport companies and pipeline operators moving petroleum products across British Columbia responsible for spill response and recovery costs. A pipeline at the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby, with an oil tanker in dock on Burrard Inlet.

Last spring, the previous Liberal government amended the Environmental Management Act to include some of the new regulations, but Heyman said he further tweaked the polluter pay regulations to ensure annual public reporting by the government.

He said he also shortened the deadline for operators to put their spill contingency plans in place to one year for trucking companies and six months for railways and pipelines.

The new rules do not apply to marine vessels carrying petroleum products along the B.C. coastline.

“Marine spills are regulated by the federal government but there is some jurisdiction for the province if a marine spill ends up washing onto the shoreline of B.C.’s jurisdiction or the seabed,” Heyman said.

The province is developing a strengthened marine response and recovery program that complements federal spill regulations, he added.

The new regulations come on the one-year anniversary of a fuel spill off B.C.’s central coast, where a tug sank, spilling more than 100,000 litres of diesel into waters near the Great Bear Rainforest.

Marilyn Slett, chief of the Heiltsuk First Nation, said the sinking of the tug, Nathan E. Stewart, has had devastating social and economic impacts on her community.

A valuable fishing area remains closed a year after the spill and many Heiltsuk face the prospect of a second year without revenue from the area’s valuable shellfish species, she said.

by Dirk Meissner, The Canadian Press

U.S.: FEMA Releases Refreshed National Incident Management System Doctrine

The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recently released the refreshed National Incident Management System (NIMS) doctrine.  NIMS provides a common, nationwide approach to enable the whole community to work together to manage all threats and hazards. NIMS applies to all incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity.

In April and May 2016, FEMA held a 30-day National Engagement Period, in which stakeholders submitted nearly 3,000 comments and provided feedback on the draft NIMS update, ensuring that it reflects the collective expertise and experience of the whole community.

FEMA will host a series of 60-minute webinars with stakeholders to discuss the updates in the refreshed NIMS and answer questions related to NIMS. All webinars are open to the whole community. For webinar dates, times, and registration information, please go here: https://www.fema.gov/latest-news-updates.

The refreshed NIMS retains key concepts and principles from the 2004 and 2008 versions, while incorporating lessons learned from exercises and real-world incidents, best practices, and changes in national policy.

Download the refreshed NIMS here: www.fema.gov/nims-doctrine-supporting-guides-tools

The refreshed NIMS:

  • Retains key concepts and principles of the 2004 and 2008 versions of NIMS;
  • Reflects and incorporates policy updates and lessons learned from exercises and real-incidents;
  • Clarifies the processes and terminology for qualifying, certifying, and credentialing incident personnel, building  a foundation for the development of a national qualification system;
  • Clarifies that NIMS is more than just the Incident Command System (ICS) and that it applies to all incident personnel, from the incident command post to the National Response Coordination Center;
  • Describes common functions and terminology for staff in Emergency Operations Centers (EOC), while remaining flexible to allow for differing missions, authorities, and resources of EOCs across the nation; and
  • Explains the relationship among ICS, EOCs, and senior leaders/policy groups.

NIMS guides all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations (NGO), and the private sector to work together to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from incidents. NIMS provides stakeholders across the whole community with the shared vocabulary, systems, and processes to successfully deliver the capabilities described in the National Preparedness System. NIMS defines operational systems, including the Incident Command System (ICS), Emergency Operations Center (EOC) structures, and Multiagency Coordination Groups (MAC Groups) that guide how personnel work together during incidents. NIMS applies to all incidents, from traffic accidents to major disasters.

Please refer to the descriptions below to gain an understanding of where to locate certain information.

NIMS Doctrine Supporting Guides & Tools: The National Integration Center develops supporting guides and tools to assist jurisdictions in their implementation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS).

Training: The NIMS Training Program defines the national NIMS training program. It specifies National Integration Center and stakeholder responsibilities and activities for developing, maintaining and sustaining NIMS training.

Resource Management & Mutual Aid: National resource management efforts aid a unified approach in building and delivering the core capabilities across all five mission areas (Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response and Recovery).  Effective resource management is founded on the guiding principles of the NIMS.

Implementation Guidance & Reporting: Federal Departments and agencies are required to make adoption of NIMS by local, state, territorial, and tribal nation jurisdictions a condition to receive Federal Preparedness grants and awards.

NIMS Alerts: The National Integration Center announces the release of new NIMS guidance, tools, and other resources through the distribution of NIMS Alerts.

FEMA NIMS Regional Contacts: The FEMA Regional NIMS Coordinators act as subject matter experts regarding NIMS for the local, state, territorial, and tribal nation governments within their FEMA Region, as well as for the FEMA Regional Administrator and staff.

Incident Command System Resources: The Incident Command System (ICS) is a fundamental element of incident management. The use of ICS provides standardization through consistent terminology and established organizational structures.

Heiltsuk First Nation to sue Kirby Corporation over 2016 diesel spill

As reported in Coast Mountain News, this month marks the one-year anniversary of the October 13 oil spill in Bella Bella, British Columbia. With the community’s recovery efforts undermined by government and Kirby Corporation’s refusal to take responsibility for the spill and to cooperate in its aftermath, the nation says it has no option but to turn to the courts.

“The oil spill continues to be a catastrophic injury to our food sources, culture, and economy,” says Heiltsuk Tribal Council Chief Councillor, Marilyn Slett. “Thanks to Kirby Corporation and the governments of British Columbia and Canada, our community’s road to recovery keeps getting longer and longer.”

The Nathan E. Stewart articulated tug/barge was southbound from Alaska when it ran aground at Edge Reef near Athlone Island on Oct. 13, 2016. (Photo Credit: Western Canada Marine Response Corporation)

Kirby Corporation and government have kept information secret about what occurred on October 13, 2016 when the Nathan E. Stewart grounded, sank and spilled oil into Gale Pass. The Heiltsuk Tribal Council made numerous separate requests for information to the polluter (Kirby Corporation) and various government agencies, including Transport Canada, the Transportation Safety Board, and the Canadian Coast Guard. Those requests were largely denied or ignored.

The Nation claims this secrecy and lack of collaboration has continued throughout the post-spill recovery.

“Recently, we learned the B.C. Ministry of Environment and Kirby have been secretly negotiating an agreement on the post-spill environmental impact assessment since early this year,” says Chief Councillor Slett. “Since this nightmare began, the polluter and provincial and federal governments have ignored our questions and environmental concerns, our collaboration attempts, and our rights as indigenous people. We have no choice but to turn to the courts.”

The nation is preparing to take legal action, aiming to recover damages suffered by its members as well as to examine the actual state of Canada’s “world class” oil spill response system.

The case will seek compensation for loss of commercial harvesting of marine resources and infringement of Aboriginal rights relating to food, social and ceremonial importance of marine resources — factors that the current oil spill liability framework does not account for.

“When I’m not harvesting Gale Pass to feed my family, I am working there as a commercial fisherman, earning an income to support them – and I’m one of many,” says harvester and volunteer oil spill responder, Robert Johnson. “Despite our reliance on Gale Pass, the governments of British Columbia and Canada and Kirby the polluter have little interest in understanding the impacts of this oil spill on the health of my community, this environment, or our economy.”

The existing oil spill response framework excuses the polluter and government from full responsibility for oil spill impacts on Aboriginal rights otherwise protected by the Constitution.

As such, the government of British Columbia and Kirby are not required by law to do comprehensive impact assessments of the oil spill. To date, they have rejected multiple Heiltsuk requests to participate in a study of the current and long-term impacts of the oil spill on the health of the ecosystem and marine resources and the social and economic consequences associated with the loss of harvest and use of the impacted area.

Instead, Kirby Corporation and the BC Ministry of Environment are proposing a limited environmental assessment covering a minority of the area and species affected.

Heiltsuk Nation will be asking the courts to assess whether this existing regime of liability for oil spills can really be considered constitutional.

“We’re learning the hard way that indigenous people and coastal communities can’t count on polluters, Western Canada Marine Response Corporation, or the governments of B.C. and Canada in a crisis situation,” says Kelly Brown, Director of the Heiltsuk Integrated Resource Management Department. “For our sake, and the sake of our neighbours, we are consulting with a range of experts to assess damages, recovery times, and, ultimately, determine how we can prevent a similar disaster in the future.”

The Nathan E. Stewart sinking off Bella Bella, British Columbia

Analyses of the oil spill response have revealed massive safety and planning oversights by the polluter and federal and provincial government regulations. They include: a lack of spill response materials; ineffective booms and delays in employing them; a lack of safety instructions and gear for Heiltsuk first responders exposed to diesel and dangerous marine conditions; and confusion over who was in charge in the early hours of the oil spill.

“Government representatives travel the province, country, and the world preaching reconciliation and nation-to-nation relationships with first people. Meanwhile, back home, they are avoiding our calls and emails, excluding us from meetings, and ignoring our rights,” says first responder and Hereditary Chief Harvey Humchitt. “If the courts have to explain that this is not what nation-to-nation relationships and reconciliation look like, so be it.”

The Heiltsuk Tribal Council expects the results of the various impact assessments, legal analyses, and evaluations to materialize in the coming weeks.

Canada: BC Court Of Appeal Rules That Contaminated Property Must Be Assessed Using Highest and Best Use

Article by Luke Dineley and Jacob Jerome Gehlen

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

In a highly anticipated decision for the valuation of contaminated property in British Columbia, the BC Court of Appeal overturned a decision of the BC Supreme Court and set out how contaminated property should be assessed for tax purposes.

The case involved a Brownfield – a contaminated commercial property with potential for economic redevelopment. The property in question had been operated as a retail gas station, automobile dealership, and repair shop. The soil on the property was contaminated, and the contamination had spread to neighbouring properties. The owner of the property was in considerable financial distress. In addition to tax arrears, legal bills, and accounting bills, she was defending a claim from the owner of a neighbouring property. She therefore arranged to sell the property to this owner through a share purchase agreement for $42,363.24, which was sufficient to cover her debts. She also obtained a full indemnity from any legal liabilities she might have in the future regarding the contamination. The existing structure on the property was renovated and converted into income-producing multi-tenant commercial retail units.

Abbotsford, British Columbia

In 2013, the property was assessed for taxation purposes.

The assessor had valued the land and improvements at $975,000. The property owner, Victory Motors (Abbotsford) Ltd. (“Victory Motors”), appealed, and the Property Assessment Review Panel reduced that assessment to $500,000. Victory Motors appealed to the Property Assessment Appeal Board (“Board”), claiming the property had no value. The Board reinstated the original assessment. The owner appealed again, to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. That court found that the Board had erred in law, and remitted the matter to the Board for reconsideration. The Assessor appealed that decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Assessor’s appeal and restored the Board’s decision.

The issue before the Court was this: how does one properly assess the value of contaminated land for taxation purposes? The assessor determined that because renovation into a two-storey structure would require remediation, the best use of the property was as it currently stood: a one-storey commercial structure. The assessor’s estimate did not otherwise take into account the presence of contamination. Their approach is known as the “income approach,” whereby a property’s value is determined according to the subject property’s highest possible annual net income. The Board agreed with the assessor’s method and ultimate evaluation.

The Supreme Court, however, held that the Board had erred in law. The chambers judge found that the assessor had ignored the property’s brownfield status, which any potential buyer would have in mind as a risk. The chambers judge further held that the land should be valued not according to value for the present owner, but according to the market in accordance with the BCCA’s decision in Southam Inc. (Pacific Newspaper Group Inc,) v. British Columbia (Assessor of Area No 14 – Surrey/White Rock), 2004 BCCA 245 [Southam]. Because there was no evidence a competitive market for the property existed, the Board’s decision was therefore unreasonable.

However, after the BCSC decision was released, a five-judge division of the BCCA overturned Southam in Assessor of Area #01 – Capital v. Nav Canada, 2016 BCCA 71, leave to appeal refused [Nav Canada]. Nav Canada supports the Board’s income-based approach.

Applying Nav Canada, the Court of Appeal allowed the assessor’s appeal and restored the Board’s decision. The Court applied the “highest and best use” principle of assessment, and found that a multi-tenant retail building was the “best use” for the purposes of assessment. The Court held: “that property has value to its current owner can be a sufficient basis on which to determine its value.” In Nav Canada, the BCCA had held that even where there was no other potential purchaser, “one must regard the owner as one of the possible purchasers.” The Court in this case agreed, and held that “when, for whatever reason, there is no market for a property that has value to its owner, that owner can serve as a proxy for a competitive market.”

Going forward, property owners should be aware that even though there are no purchasers lining up to bid for a brownfield, that property may still be assessed at a high value for taxation purposes.

About BLG

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 Authors

Luke Dineley is a partner in both our Insurance and Tort Liability Group and Environmental Law Group in Borden Ladner Gervais LLP‘s Vancouver office. Luke focuses his practice on civil litigation, with an emphasis on insurance and tort law, and environmental law.  In the area of environmental law, Luke’s experience includes representing and advising clients on a wide variety of contaminated site issues relating to both commercial and residential properties — including cost-recovery actions on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants. In addition, Luke has represented and advised major companies on environmental regulatory compliance, emergency spill responses, and environmental prosecutions. Luke is also an executive board member of the British Columbia Environmental Industry Association and frequently publishes and speaks in the area of environmental law.

 

Jacob Jerome Gehlen is an articling student at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP‘s Vancouver office. He has a Juris Doctor law degree from the University of Toronto and a Bachelor’s degree from McGill University.

Canada: Managing Prosecution Risk When Regulators Issue Permits or Orders

Article by Stanley D. Berger

Fogler, Rubinoff LLP

A recent decision from the Yukon Territorial Court is a reminder of how important communication between the regulator and the regulated can be. At the same time, perhaps as an illustration of the power of fate, at least in a narrow set of circumstances, communication may make no difference at all. In R. v. Cobalt Construction Inc., released September 14, 2017 the sole shareholder/director and his road construction company were charged with failing to provide a detailed decommissioning plan in accordance with the conditions of a permit for a facility designed to accept, store and treat dirt contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. The defendants failed to establish a due diligence defence to the charges because of poor communication with the authorities, but were acquitted anyways because it was impossible for them to comply given the weather conditions during the time frame for compliance.

Cobalt Construction Inc. Vehicles (Credit: Brian Boyle/CBC)

The regulator’s plan required sampling results be obtained after contaminated piles of dirt were tilled as configured. The soil was to be mixed two weeks before the samples were taken for analysis. The sample results would then inform further elements of the plan including identification of an appropriate receiving facility. The defendant director testified that it would have been impossible to till the soil as required within the time frame set out by the regulator because snow on the ground would have prevented use of the excavator and the ground would have been frozen requiring a ripper to be used to break up the ground, thereby destroying the configuration of the piles. The defendants had in the initial plan set out dates for sampling beyond the time frame required by the regulator, but failed to offer any explanation as to why the sampling could not be done within the imposed time frame. Further, the defendants at no time sought an extension of time for performing the sampling. The Crown prosecutor argued that the authorities were under no obligation to notify the defendants that their initial plan was insufficient to satisfy the regulatory requirements. The Court observed that the more detailed the decommissioning plan provided, the more likely fairness would demand notification by the authorities of the deficiency and an opportunity to correct it. Conversely, the less detailed the plan, the less likely fairness would demand notification. “To decide otherwise would mean that a defendant could evade responsibility and delay consequences simply by making a cursory attempt at compliance.” The Court suggested that if the defendants had fleshed out the plan and included options for receiving facilities and restoration that would be contingent on the sampling results, this would trigger notification by the regulator that the plan was deficient. However, the initial plan provided was so clearly and objectively deficient on its face that the regulator had no obligation to notify the defendants that the plan did not comply and did not further require the authorities to give the defendants an opportunity to rectify the deficiencies prior to laying charges. The Court consequently rejected the defence of due diligence. Nevertheless, the Court acquitted the defendants, accepting the defence of impossibility, notwithstanding the absence of due diligence.

 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

 Stanley Berger is certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a specialist in environmental law.  He was called to the Ontario Bar in 1981. He joined the law firm of Fogler Rubinoff on July 4 2013.  Stanley was the founder of the Canadian Nuclear Law Organization and served as its President between 2008-2015, and remains a board member.  He is also is a former President of the International Nuclear Law Association.  He has taught nuclear law for the Nuclear Energy Agency in France and is an adjunct professor for York University’s Professional Master’s Degree in Energy.  Stanley is the author of a quarterly publication entitled “The Prosecution and Defence of Environmental Offences” and edits an annual review of environmental law.

Stanley represents suppliers and operators in the nuclear industry on nuclear liability, regulatory and supply chain issues. He provides legal advice to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. Other clients include the CANDU Owners Group and a large Ontario municipality. His environmental practice includes litigation before courts, boards and tribunals, as well as solicitor’s work on behalf of renewable energy companies, landowners and waste management entities. He represented a First Nation on regulatory matters relating to a renewable energy project. His practice also includes the protection of proprietary information on applications before Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Commission.

This article was originally published on the Fogler, Rubinoff LLP website.

Technology to prevent rail disasters is in our hands

Author: Chris Bachmann, Assistant professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo

As the trial of the 2013 Lac-Megantic rail disaster begins, new policies and practices that aim to employ better technology could help avoid similar disasters in the future.

The Transportation Safety Board (TSB) found more than 18 distinct causes and contributing factors in the Lac-Megantic derailment investigation, which makes the likelihood of this type of accident seem nearly impossible.

An unattended 74-car freight train carrying crude oil ran away and derailed, resulting in the deadly fire and explosion in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, in July 2013. (Photo Credit: CBC)

Yet other derailments in Canada involving dangerous goods would soon follow in 2014 in Plaster Rock, N.B. and Clair, Sask., and two incidents in 2015 in Gogama, Ont.

This suggests that we must be mindful of the connection between human interactions and technology and how each will continue to underlie many causes and contributing factors of future incidents.

As a civil engineering professor who researches transportation infrastructure, dangerous goods and risk, I see several new developments and changes to technology and policy that can help to reduce future accidents.

Safer tank car standards

The type of tank cars involved in the Lac-Megantic accident (“Class 111”) were known to be vulnerable to failure, even in low-speed accidents (e.g., Cornwall, Ont. in 1999).

After Lac-Megantic, Canada and the United States developed a more robust tank car standard, Class 117. This new standard features improved puncture resistance, structural strength and fractural resistance.

Despite these improvements, Canadian and U.S. regulations will still allow Class 111 tank cars to be used for the transport of certain dangerous goods until mid-2025.

Even so, Canada accelerated the phase-out of the older Class 111 tank cars from being used for crude oil service in Canada as of Nov. 1, 2016, under Protective Direction 38.

Enhanced braking

In addition to new tank car standards, the U.S. is requiring enhanced braking standards on trains carrying flammable goods.

Any train with a continuous block of 20 tank cars loaded with a flammable liquid, or 35 or more tank cars loaded with a flammable liquid dispersed throughout a train, must have a functioning two-way end-of-train (EOT) device — an electronic unit that can be mounted on the end of a freight train instead of a caboose — or a distributed power (DP) braking system, which spreads braking across different points throughout a train.

Furthermore, any train with 70 or more loaded tank cars containing flammable liquids travelling at speeds greater than 48 km/h must be operated with an electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) braking system by May 1, 2023.

In short, these technologies enable more controlled braking behaviour through a more responsive and uniform application of brake pressure. Benefits would include shorter stopping distances, lower risks of derailment and lower pile-up effects in the event of a derailment.

More information sharing

Technology also allows more information sharing for better decision-making. For example, Protective Direction No. 36 in Canada requires railways to provide municipalities with dangerous goods reports, including information on the number of unit trains, percentage of railway cars transporting dangerous goods, information on their nature and volume and number of trains.

This information is intended to inform emergency planning and responses.

The U.S. is also requiring more accurate classification of unrefined petroleum-based products to ensure proper classification, packaging and record-keeping through a documented sampling and testing process. This information is to be made available to the Department of Transportation upon request.

Human factors

The technology to prevent rail disasters is in our hands — just as it was in 2013. While these and future technologies are likely to reduce the risks of transporting dangerous goods across Canada and the United States, the interactions between humans and other elements of the system — the “human factors” — will remain predominant.

As we now know in the Lac-Megantic accident, the train carrying 7.7 million litres of crude oil sped toward the small Quebec town at 104 km/h before derailing, killing 47 people in the resulting fire and explosions on July 6, 2013.

Hours before derailing, the train was parked and left running on the main track in Nantes, Que., awaiting departure. But shortly after the engineer parked the train, a locomotive engine caught fire and was turned off by the Nantes fire department.

Without power from the running locomotive engine, air slowly leaked from the air brake system. An insufficient number of handbrakes were applied and the train eventually began rolling downhill on its final journey toward Lac-Megantic.

Some of the causes and contributing factors in the Lac-Megantic rail disaster were not technical failures so much as they were failures of humans to properly interact with technology: To properly maintain a locomotive engine, to have knowledge of interactions between locomotive engines and air brake systems and to properly set and test the effectiveness of handbrakes.

Although technical standards were less stringent in 2013, technology did not fail us. In many of the causes and contributing factors of Lac-Megantic, it is evident that we failed to understand and interact with our technology.

______________________________

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Disclosure information is available on the original site. To read the original article:

https://theconversation.com/technology-to-prevent-rail-disasters-is-https://theconvers

About the Author

Chris Bachmann is an Assistant professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo.  His research interests include the interaction between transportation and economics, trade, energy, transportation network resiliency/criticality/robustness/vulnerability, risk, dangerous goods movement, transport economics, transport project and policy evaluation.