Rare Jail Sentence for Environmental Offence in Canada

On August 21, 2018, Collingwood Prime Realty Holdings Corp. and its director, Mr. Issa El-Hinn, were sentenced in the Ontario Court of Justice for offences under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 related to contraventions of the PCB Regulations.

The charges stem from old electrical transformers and capacitors in use on the former Goodyear property at 101 Mountain Rd., which is now owned by Collingwood Prime Realty.

The property at 101 Mountain Rd., used to be a Goodyear plant. Erika Engel/CollingwoodToday

The court sentenced Mr. El-Hinn to a 45-day jail term, which will be served on weekends, for failing to comply with an environmental protection compliance order. The Court also sentenced the corporation and Mr. El-Hinn to pay a combined penalty of $420,000 to be directed to the federal Environmental Damages Fund.

On April 30, 2015, Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officers launched an investigation following the company’s failure to comply with an environmental protection compliance order. The investigation revealed that two electrical transformers and eight electrical capacitors contained higher-than-allowable PCB levels and that the equipment had not been sent for destruction to an authorized facility. The defendants pleaded guilty on September 26, 2017, to ten counts of contravening the PCB Regulations made pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and one count of failing to comply with an environmental protection compliance order.

As a result of this conviction, the company’s name will be added to the Environmental Offenders Registry.

PCBs are toxic industrial chemical substances that are harmful to aquatic ecosystems and species that feed primarily on aquatic organisms.

Earlier this year, Collingwood Fire Department successfully prosecuted Collingwood Prime Realty Holdings Corp., and its owner El Hinn for multiple fire code violations at the property at 101 Mountain Rd.

Mine fined $100,000 for not Monitoring Effluent

On August 20, 2018, Lupin Mines Incorporated was ordered in the Nunavut Court of Justice to pay $100,000 after pleading guilty to a violation under the Fisheries Act related to the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations. Of the total penalty, $80,000 will be directed to the Environmental Damages Fund.

An investigation launched by Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officers revealed that Lupin Mines Incorporated did not carry out an environmental effects monitoring study within the prescribed period, contrary to the requirements of the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations. Lupin Mines Incorporated has since completed the required study.

Owners and operators of mining companies are required by law to conduct environmental effects monitoring studies that examine the potential effects of their effluent (discharge) on fish populations and aquatic invertebrates.

As a result of this conviction, the company’s name will be added to the Environmental Offenders Registry.

Environment and Climate Change Canada is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act, which prohibit the deposit of deleterious substances into water frequented by fish. The Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations authorize the deposit of effluent, provided that conditions prescribed in the Regulations are observed.

Lupin Gold Mine, Nunavut

New U.S. EPA e-Manifesting System Took Effect June 30th

By Laura Ragozzino, Cohen & Grigsby P.C.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) launched its new Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest (“e-Manifest”) System on June 30, 2018. The new requirements impact all U.S. companies that handle waste requiring a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) manifest, a regulated universe that includes approximately 150,000 entities across at least 45 industry segments. Under the new rules, regulated waste handlers will need to use the new paper or electronic EPA manifest form and waste receiving facilities will have to submit the new manifests to the e-Manifesting system, incurring a processing fee.

The goal of the new e-Manifesting system is to reduce costs and improve regulatory oversight and data quality. The EPA estimates that the manual processing and documentation of paper manifests costs regulators and companies $193 million to $400 million annually.

RCRA is the federal law that creates the framework for managing hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste. Since 1980, the EPA has required a RCRA manifest, a multi-copy paper form, to track hazardous waste from the time it leaves the generating facility until it reaches the off-site waste management facility that will store, treat, or dispose of it. The manifest helps the EPA verify proper waste handling.

E-Manifest requirements are effective in all states on June 30, 2018. These requirements apply to domestic hazardous waste (as defined at the federal and state level) and state-only regulated waste subject under state law to RCRA hazardous waste manifesting. The e-Manifesting system is a product of the 2012 Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act and subsequent February 2014 and January 2018 final rulemakings. Starting June 30, receiving facilities are required to submit copies, whether electronic or paper, of RCRA waste manifests to the EPA within 30 days of receipt. Receiving facilities will also incur a processing fee for manifest submittal. In three years, paper manifests will be phased out of use.

The new requirements fall under RCRA enforcement policy. Noncompliance with RCRA, including improper manifesting, exposes waste handers to substantial civil penalties.

Before this e-Manifesting system’s implementation, shipments of waste across state borders could create jurisdictional issues for states with enhanced regulatory requirements. Some states impose manifesting requirements that are more stringent than RCRA’s rules, or define hazardous waste more broadly than under RCRA. When waste generated in these more stringent states was disposed of in less stringent states, the generating state lacked the ability to enforce the receipt of manifest copies from out-of-state receiving facilities. For example, if a disposal site in Ohio received waste oil from Connecticut that was classified as hazardous under Connecticut law but not classified as hazardous under Ohio law, then the Ohio disposal facility may or may not have submitted the manifest to Connecticut, and Connecticut did not have the ability to enforce its collection.

Now, under the 2012 Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, federal and state regulators can access complete cradle-to-grave waste manifesting records from the e-Manifest system because submitting manifests is compulsory. For example, as of June 30, 2018, if a disposal site in Ohio receives waste oil from Connecticut that is classified as hazardous under Connecticut law but not classified as hazardous under Ohio law, then the Ohio disposal facility must submit the manifest to the e-Manifest system, even if Ohio law does not require such submittal.

On or after June 30, waste generators, transporters, receivers, and disposers of waste regulated by the new regulations must track the waste on the new paper or electronic manifest, U.S. EPA Form 8700-22, and submit the manifest to the e-Manifest system. The EPA granted an initial extension of the 30-day manifest-receipt deadline for paper manifests received from June 30, 2018 through September 1, 2018. With this extension, receiving facilities may submit those manifests on or before September 30, 2018.

What Generators and Transporters Need to Know

Waste handling facilities should review the waste and manifest requirements that pertain to their business. It is important to understand the laws and regulations of the generating and receiving state. Any waste defined as hazardous by the generating or receiving state, or any waste requiring tracking on a RCRA manifest (i.e., a hazardous waste manifest), is subject to the e-Manifesting requirements.

Generators have the option to create and submit manifests electronically or to submit paper manifests to the e-Manifest system. The existing 6-copy manifest is being replaced with a new 5-copy form that must be ordered from a registered printer.

What Receiving and Disposal Facilities Need to Know

The new manifesting requirements will impact both RCRA-permitted disposal facilities (i.e., Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (“TSDFs”)) and non-TSDFs when such facilities receive waste that is either (1) non-hazardous but requires a RCRA manifest, or (2) is hazardous under the generating state’s laws and regulations. Therefore, the new e-Manifesting system extends the scope of regulatory obligations under federal law even if the law of the receiving state does not require a RCRA manifest for the waste at issue.

Receiving and disposal facilities must submit all RCRA manifests, paper or electronic, to the EPA. Receiving facilities need to obtain an EPA Identification number to use the e-Manifest system. To obtain an EPA ID number, facilities must submit EPA’s Site Identification form (U.S. EPA form 8700-12). EPA will charge receiving facilities a fee for each manifest submitted. Fees, which are differentiated based on how the manifest is submitted, are projected to range from $4 to $20. Late payments are subject to interest penalties.

EPA Resources:

This article was first published at the Cohen & Grigsby website.  To help its clients better understand the most efficient and cost-effective means of compliance, Cohen & Grigsby will continue to monitor this issue. If you have any questions, please contact Laura Ragozzino at (412) 297-4713 or lragozzino@cohenlaw.com.

________________________________

About the Author

Laura Ragozzino is regulatory compliance and environmental attorney for Cohen & Grigsby P.C.  She practices out of the firm’s Pittsburgh offices.

Ms. Ragozzino is an energetic counselor with proven success mitigating compliance risk. She practices in the areas of administrative law, energy law, EHS law, and government and regulatory affairs. She is passionate about building a compliance culture based on mutual respect for engineering, operations, and the regulations that govern their activities.

Ms. Ragozzino manages complex issues with federal, state, and local agencies to achieve results exceeding her business clients’ expectations. She brings creative, detail-oriented, and tactical thinking to the table to find effective and appropriate compliance solutions across industry sectors.

United States: EPA Soliciting Comments On BUILD Act

Article by Phillip E. Hoover and Vickie C. RusekSmith Gambrell & Russell LLP

The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to streamline the cleanup and reuse of National Priorities List sites with an emphasis on private party participation and private investment. NPL site designation was once a popular way for affected communities to secure federal funding for remediation, but the program has long suffered from lack of funding. Now, the Trump administration seeks to streamline the delisting of NPL sites in the same manner as the redevelopment of brownfields. One example of this initiative is the Brownfields Utilization, Investment and Local Development (BUILD) Act, which was enacted on March 23, 2018, and reauthorizes EPA’s Brownfields program at current funding levels through 2023. EPA is currently developing policy guidance to implement the BUILD Act, and is soliciting comment on three of the Act’s provisions: (1) the authority to increase the per-site cleanup grant amounts to $500,000; (2) the new multi-purpose grant authority; and (3) the new small community assistance grant authority. Click here for more information about these provisions and submitting comments to EPA.

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.

This article was first published on the Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP website.

__________________________

About the Authors

Phillip E. Hoover is a Partner in the Environmental and Sustainability Practice Areas of Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP.  Mr. Hoover’s practice includes providing counsel on numerous environmental regulatory matters, as well as the redevelopment of environmentally impacted properties. These include state and federal superfund sites, corporate mergers and acquisitions of such properties. His environmental experience includes representation of Potentially Responsible Parties at superfund sites. He has negotiated RCRA permits and corrective action plans on behalf of clients in various states.

Vickie Chung Rusek is an Associate in the Environmental Practice of Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP. Ms. Rusek represents clients in all aspects of environmental compliance, enforcement, permitting, and litigation, including Superfund cleanups, Resource Conservation Recovery Act compliance, Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act permitting and compliance, and environmental tort litigation.