Department of National Defence fined $175,000 under Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

On June 22, 2020, the Canadian Department of National Defence pleaded guilty to one charge of contravening the Storage Tank Systems for Petroleum Products and Allied Petroleum Products Regulations. The Department was sentenced in the Provincial Court of Alberta in St. Paul and fined $175,000 for committing an offence under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. The fine will be directed to the Government of Canada’s Environmental Damages Fund, where it will be used to advance environmental and conservation projects often in the same community in which the offence was committed.

In addition to the fine, the Court ordered the Department of National Defence to complete a third-party environmental audit of the Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake and the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range, including a review of the Department’s environmental-management systems to ensure compliance with environmental legislation.

The Department of National Defence Cold Lake Air Base is the busiest fighter base in Canada. It provides general purpose, multi-role, combat capable forces in support of domestic and international roles of Canada’s Air Force.

An investigation by Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officers revealed that the Department of National Defence operated a storage tank system for which an identification number had not been issued. To ensure compliance and reduce the risk of releases of petroleum products into the environment, the Regulations require the owner or operator to identify their storage tank system and obtain an identification number for their system from the Minister of the Environment.

The purpose of the Storage Tank Systems for Petroleum Products and Allied Petroleum Products Regulations is to reduce the risk of contaminating soil and groundwater due to spills and leaks of petroleum products from storage tank systems.
The Storage Tank Systems for Petroleum Products and Allied Petroleum Products Regulations establish requirements for systems under federal jurisdiction.

Environmental Indemnity And The Costs Of Regulatory Compliance

Written by by Michael Chernos, Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP

Resolute FP v Ontario, 2019 SCC 60

On December 6, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) held two forest products companies liable for the costs of remediating and maintaining a waste disposal site at the Dryden paper mill in northern Ontario. The decision reinforces that parties must use caution and diligence when drafting environmental indemnities.

Background: the Dryden paper mill

In the 1960’s, the Dryden pulp and paper mill operators dumped waste product from the paper bleaching process into nearby rivers. The harmful discharges caused mercury poisoning in residents of the Grassy Narrows and Islington First Nations living downstream. In response to the harmful pollution, the Government of Ontario required the owner of the mill to construct a Waste Disposal Site (WDS) to contain toxic waste from the plant to prevent future release into the environment.

The Grassy Narrows and Islington First Nations sued the owner of the plant, Reed Ltd. (Reed), for mercury contamination and associated injuries. The future of the plant was in question. Great Lakes Forest Products Limited (Great Lakes) expressed interest in buying the pulp and paper mill but was concerned about assuming any liabilities relating to the prior mercury discharges. To incentivise a sale, the Crown agreed to indemnify Reed and Great Lakes against pollution claims against the mill. In exchange, Great Lakes agreed to purchase the mill and spend roughly $200 million on upgrades.

The First Nations’ lawsuit settled in 1985, and as part of the settlement, the government granted Great Lakes and Reed a new indemnity that covered all claims relating to previous pollution damage. The indemnity applied to any subsequent mill owners.

The scope of the indemnity was broad, providing relief “against any obligation… costs or expenses incurred… as a result of any claim, action or proceeding, whether statutory or otherwise… because of the discharge or presence of any pollutant”.

The parties

In 1998, Weyerhaeuser purchased some of the Dryden paper mill assets from Bowater Canadian Forest Products Inc. (Bowater), a corporate successor of Great Lakes. Weyerhaeuser was concerned about environmental liabilities tied to the WDS, but couldn’t sever the WDS from title before the transaction closed. In 2000, Weyerhaeuser transferred title to the WDS back to Bowater.

Resolute FP Canada Inc. (Resolute) is the current corporate successor to Great Lakes.

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment Director’s Order

The WDS was eventually abandoned through bankruptcy proceedings and in August 2011 the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (the MOE) issued a Director’s Order (the MOE order) to several parties, including the last owners of the WDS, Weyerhaeuser, and Resolute. The order imposed three main obligations on the parties:

  1. repair site erosion and perform certain groundwater testing;
  2. deliver financial assurance $273,063 to cover future costs of maintaining the WDS; and
  3. take reasonable measures to prevent a future discharge of contaminant.

Challenge to the MOE order

Weyerhaeuser and Resolute challenged the MOE order, arguing that they were protected by the government indemnity, and were successful at trial. The Crown appealed, and the trial decision was reversed in part. The majority at the Ontario Court of Appeal found that although the indemnity applied to the MOE order only one party could benefit at a time, and Resolute had assigned the benefit of the indemnity to Weyerhaeuser.

An important distinction – the cost of regulatory compliance vs environmental liability

The SCC overturned the lower court decisions, largely adopting the reasons of the dissenting Justice Laskin from the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court’s reasoning hinges on an important distinction. The indemnity applies to “pollution claims” relating to the release of harmful waste into the environment, while the MOE order is properly characterized as a cost of regulatory compliance.

In arriving at this distinction, the SCC emphasized that the trial judge made a critical error in finding that the WDS continued to discharge waste into the surrounding ecosystem. The WDS was actually designed to contain waste from the Dryden paper mill and prevent pollution. The obligations in the MOE order relate to maintaining the WDS rather than compensating for the harmful discharge of pollutants. Therefore, Weyerhaeuser and Resolute could not benefit from the indemnity.

As a secondary issue, the Court considered whether the original indemnity could apply to first parties (i.e. the Crown), or whether it applied strictly to third party claims. Despite language in the indemnity referring to “statutory claims”, the SCC found that the nature of the indemnity was against third party claims, and did not apply to claims made by the indemnitor (the Ontario Government), and specifically, did not apply to regulatory compliance orders from the Ontario Government.

Caution when drafting

This case provides a caution for parties that enter into environmental indemnities. The indemnity granted by the Crown to Great Lakes was broadly worded, and yet the courts construed it in a way as to carve out the costs of environmental and regulatory compliance. This result reinforces the need to use explicit and clear language when drafting indemnities and provides an example of the principle “polluter pays”.

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

Michael Chernos is a Student-at-Law at Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP, a leading, independent Canadian law firm of over 115 lawyers with a reputation for providing premier legal service in all areas of business law.  He earned his law degree at the University of Calgary. Whttps://www.bdplaw.com/about-us/hile at law school, Michael took on a leadership role with the Environmental Law Society, organizing events for the club that included career development opportunities for students,  and speaker series.

 

Ontario Delays the Commencement of the new Excess Soil Regulation

In response to impacts from COVID-19, the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) recently announced it was  delaying implementation of requirements under the new Excess Soil Regulation from July 1, 2020 to January 1, 2021. MECP also stated that they are exempting municipalities and health care providers from filing a Record of Site Condition to develop a temporary health or residential facility for emergency situations.

Delayed implementation of the excess soil regulation

In December 2019, the Lieutenant General in Council made the new On-Site and Excess Soil Management Regulation, O.Reg. 406/19 (excess soil regulation) under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA). The excess soil regulation clarifies rules related to the reuse and management of excess soil, including:

  • standards for appropriate reuse of excess soil
  • when excess soil is designated as a waste
  • when waste-related approvals are required for soil management under Part V of the EPA

The excess soil regulation is being phased in. Some provisions would have come into effect on July 1, 2020. However, in light of the COVID-19 outbreak, the MECP is temporarily delaying the implementation of the new regulation for managing excess soil by six months.

As a result, these provisions are temporarily delayed and will now come into effect on January 1, 2021.

In the meantime, the MECP’s current waste regulatory framework will continue to apply, and the ministry will take action with any non-compliance or to address any concerns as it applies to the management and disposal of excess soil.

The MECP will also continue to work with municipalities and other stakeholders to:

  • understand and implement the regulatory changes
  • encourage early adoption of changes as appropriate

Consequential amendments that were made at the same time as the excess soil regulation to O. Reg. 153/04 (Records of Site Condition), Regulation 347 (General Waste Management) and O. Reg. 351/12 (Waste Management Systems EASR Regulation) are also delayed and will come into effect on January 1, 2021.

Other implementation dates in the excess soil regulation have not changed, including implementation of provisions dealing with the excess soil management planning requirements and the Registry which remain coming into effect on January 1, 2022, as well as other provisions on January 1, 2025. Similarly, the excess soil regulation will continue to grandfather contracts related to excess soil management entered into before January 1, 2021.

Amendment to the Records of Site Condition Regulation

The MECP have also amended O. Reg. 153/04 (Records of Site Condition Regulation), to exempt temporary health facilities or residential facilities that are built on land previously used for community or commercial purposes in response to emergencies declared under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act.

Because a temporary health or residential facility is considered a more sensitive use under the EPA, an RSC is required to be filed in the Environmental Site Registry before the facility can be established on property or in a building that is used for a less sensitive use, such as an industrial, commercial or community use.

The work to file an RSC requires:

  • retaining a qualified person
  • conducting one or more environmental site assessments
  • possibly soil remediation

This work can take several months or longer. This would create a significant delay where these temporary facilities are required urgently to respond to a declared emergency.

This exemption would apply to:

  • a temporary facility established in response to the current emergency, such as COVID-19 testing tents or isolated medical structures
  • the establishment of a temporary facility responding to any future declared emergencies, including any future phases of the pandemic

All other requirements that are part of the MECP’s legislative framework, including the regulation of waste management and discharges to the natural environment, would continue to apply to the operation of these temporary facilities, and the ministry will take action in response to environmental concerns, if they emerge.

How can a wide-area instrumented system boost radiation hazard training?

Written by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

In the event of a known or suspected radiation accident or incident, the speed of response will be a critical factor in maximising the safety and wellbeing of people and the environment.

Understanding the nature and the significance of the radiation threat is key.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) International Nuclear and Radiological Event Severity Scale (INES) provides an invaluable reference for radiological personnel by prioritising radiological incidents or accidents according to seven levels of severity.

The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Severity Scale (INES)

At the least severe end of the INES scale is what is termed a Level 1 Anomaly – which can include events such as the radiological exposure of a member of the public in excess of statutory annual limits, a minor problem with safety components or the loss or theft of a low-activity radioactive source.

Incident levels 2 and 3 on the scale cover such events as a significant failure in the provision of radiological safety, the inadequate packaging or misdelivery of a highly radioactive sealed source or the loss or theft of a highly radioactive sealed source.

An accident where there is a high probability of significant public exposure (such as a release of a significant quantity of radioactive material) is classed as a Level 4 Accident with Local Consequences.

The release of a large quantity of radioactive material (such as a fire within a nuclear reactor) is termed to be an INES Level 5 Accident with Wider Consequences.

A Level 6 Serious Accident refers to the significant release of radioactive material where there is the likelihood of the need for planned countermeasures.

A Major Accident (Level 7) is typified by a major release of radioactive material where there is the risk of widespread health and environmental effects. The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor incident and the 200 Fukushima Nuclear Accident were both deemed to be level 7 incidents on the INES scale.

Enhancing radiological preparedness

Providing the opportunity for realistic hands-on training is a key factor in ensuring that personnel both achieve and maintain the required level of radiological preparedness.

Finding practical and affordable ways to deliver this desired authenticity of training however, can often prove challenging.

Radiological instructors have become well accustomed to juggling a multitude of environmental, health and safety regulations and budgetary considerations.

Often training decisions can come down to one of two choices: to enlist the services of a radiation control technician (RCT) who can oversee the safe execution of the exercise – or to opt for the use of a smaller button source which emits a vastly reduced amount of radiation activity but which can compromise the realism of the exercise.

Simulator detectors, which replicate the look and feel of actual detectors, have proven to be an invaluable asset in the training in the fundamentals of radiation.

But if an instructor wishes to take things further and plan out a whole scenario then it may be desirable to consider other options.

Wide-area instrumented training in real time

Integrated wide-area instrumented simulator training systems such as Argon Electronics’ PlumeSIM and PlumeSIM-SMART, are providing radiological instructors with the ability to deliver even more realistic, rigorous and repeatable radiation training experiences.

Incorporating the use of a simulator training system into radiological exercises has been shown to offer substantial advantages, both for trainee and trainer.

Radiation scenarios can be staged in an unlimited variety of locations including public areas, community institutions, government buildings or enclosed spaces such as an aircraft or armoured vehicle.

When recreating the conditions of a radiological plume, the instructor has the power to predetermine every detail – be it the specific nuclide, the release time, latitude and longitude, the release rate, the source height, the source radius and the release duration.

Depending on the objectives of the exercise, and/or the availability of resources, scenarios can also be conducted live or virtually – with the option for trainers to test their trainees’ skills both in table-top mode or in a field exercise.

Instructors can select the equipment that they wish to be used in the scenario – and they can allocate specific items of equipment to individual team members. In addition it is also easy to simulate all the possible errors that the trainee could make when using their equipment.

The addition of an instructor remote ensures that the trainer retains total control throughout the duration of the exercise, with the option to manage and manipulate a wide range of environmental factors such as the level of remaining contamination, persistency, and changes in wind and weather conditions.

Powerful after action review (AAR) provides an invaluable resource which enables trainer and trainee to replay and scrutinise the key events of an exercise and to verify each student’s performance.

Integrated live training systems such as PlumeSIM enable radiological safety instructors to ramp up the level of realism of their exercises by simulating lethal threat levels and testing their trainees’ multi-threat training capability.

When budgets are tight, the use of a subscription-based training option such as Argon’s Plume-SIM Smart can also offer a viable alternative to purchasing a training system outright – by removing the need for expensive equipment or consumables, and with no requirement for calibration, maintenance or repair.


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.

British Columbia fuel-supply company fined $200,000 for environmental offences

Recently, Scamp Industries Ltd., a fuel supplier based in Western Canada, was fined $200,000 in the Provincial Court of British Columbia after pleading guilty on June 17, 2019, to five counts of transferring petroleum products into a storage-tank system where storage-tank-system identification numbers were not visible. This action is contrary to subparagraph 29(b)(i) of the Storage Tank Systems for Petroleum Products and Allied Petroleum Products Regulations, made pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. The penalty will be directed to the Government of Canada’s Environmental Damages Fund.

In March 2015, Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officers inspected several gas stations on federal and Indigenous land in the south-central area of British Columbia, including the Kamloops and Salmon Arm areas, to monitor compliance with the Regulations. During these inspections, the enforcement officers found that Scamp Industries Ltd. had been delivering fuel to a number of unregistered tank systems and a number of tank systems that did not display the required identification numbers.

In January 2013, Scamp Industries Ltd. was issued a written warning for delivering fuel to a gas station in Chilliwack, which had not registered its storage-tank systems with Environment and Climate Change Canada.

According to the Scamp Industries Ltd. website, the company has a Health, Safety & Environment Program that includes “constantly developing it’s training and monitoring procedures.”  It also states that it has the “best-in-class training programs to a strong safety culture”.

Storage Tank Systems for Petroleum Products and Allied Petroleum Products Regulations

 

The Storage Tank Systems for Petroleum Products and Allied Petroleum Products Regulations, which came into force in 2008, help reduce the risk of releases of petroleum products from storage-tank systems located on federal or Indigenous land (referred to as aboriginal land in the Regulations) and from systems operated by or that provide a service to federal works or that are operated or owned by the Crown. The Regulations apply to storage-tank systems with a capacity of more than 230 litres, which contain petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel, and home-heating oil, or allied petroleum products.

The Storage Tank Systems for Petroleum Products and Allied Petroleum Products Regulations require that owners identify their storage-tank systems to Environment and Climate Change Canada before operating the system.

The Federal Identification Registry for Storage Tank Systems is the online database where storage-tank system owners enter information about their storage-tank systems to receive an Environment and Climate Change Canada identification number.

Preparing Post-Construction Cleanup Sites for Natural Disasters

The United States Association of State and Territorial Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) CERCLA Post Construction Focus Group has developed a checklist called, Preparing Post-Construction Cleanup Sites for Natural Disasters, which is intended to help States in identifying efficient and effective measures for preparation in advance of potential natural disasters to aid in the identification of likely concerns following a natural disaster. The information provided on the checklist can be used to identify and respond to changed conditions at sites to support action to ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment.

Purpose of the Checklist

The purpose of this checklist is to provide a planning tool for post-construction sites (sites) in the event of a natural disaster. The checklist was developed for CERCLA post-construction sites; however, it may also be used for similar “non-CERCLA” post-construction sites. The checklist includes site-specific information that should be considered prior to and post natural disaster event to streamline site security, minimize damage to remedy components, and reduce the risk of site-related environmental impacts. The checklist does not replace Health
and Safety Plans (HASP), Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), or other site-specific / programmatic guidance documents. Site managers are encouraged to complete the checklist following review of these guidance documents, and incorporate supporting information, as  appropriate.

Recommendations

Based upon the development of this checklist, the team recommends the following practices that will help States be prepared to react following a natural disaster:
• Pre-event planning: Assess site conditions to compile site specific details to complete the checklist prior to a natural disaster.
• Pre-event information: Identify and collect site plans/data and contact information so the information is readily available should a disaster occur. Periodically review this information to ensure that it is current.
• Post-event information: Use the checklist to identify conditions that require action/repair and track planned actions.

The team also recommends considering the use of a version of this checklist for sites that may be in active cleanup stages.

 

About the ASTSWMO CERCLA CPC FG

The ASTSWMO CERCLA Post Construction Focus Group (CPC FG) is comprised of State and Territorial (State) members from all United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regions. This checklist was prepared by the ASTSWMO CPC FG, under Cooperative Agreement 83870001 with the U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI).

The mission of the ASTSWMO CPC FG is to promote facilitation and maintenance of reliable, effective, and protective remedies constructed at contaminated sites, to include identification of the resources necessary following remedy construction, and to communicate State program strategies effectively among interested parties.

Saskatchewan’s Accelerated Site Closure Program Announces New Details

Written by Brad Gilmour, Keely Cameron, Stephanie Ridge, and Kassandra Devolin, Bennett Jones

On June 26, 2020, the Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources (the Ministry) released new details regarding its Accelerated Site Closure Program (ASCP). The ASCP will administer $400 million in funds from the federal government’s COVID-19 Economic Response Plan for Canada’s Energy Sector. The ASCP will distribute funds to Saskatchewan-based service companies completing abandonment and reclamation work in the province.

The June 26, 2020 update was included within the Ministry’s ASCP Questions and Answers document, which is updated regularly and provides key instructions on the operation of the ASCP.

Phase 1 Funding Allocation Complete

As of May 29, 2020, the $100 million available in Phase 1 had been completely allocated. Licensees were notified of their allocated funding amount via email on June 1, 2020.

Licensee Nomination Process Opens

With funding allocation amounts in hand, licensees can now proceed to nominating wells and facilities through the Integrated Resource Information System (IRIS). On June 26, 2020, the Ministry provided further guidance regarding the nomination process, including a supplemental guide and online training module. The Ministry recommends these resources are reviewed prior to completing applications on IRIS.

Notably, the ASCP does not require licensees to nominate their projects on a first come, first serve basis. The funding allocated to licensees in Phase 1 will remain with the licensees until the amount is used or the program ends in December 2022.

The Ministry has also provided templates which can be uploaded into IRIS during this process, including a preferred vendor and site nomination template. The site nomination template is intended to be used on a project basis, allowing licensees to nominate specific stages of work within a project. Licensees can also substitute, remove or add wells during the nomination process. With regards to preferred vendors, licensees are able to select service companies on a project basis.

Eligible Service Company Pre-Qualification is Ongoing

Eligible service companies may pre-qualify to bid on area-based work packages once procurement contracts tendered to nominated sites have been released. The Ministry will issue a Business Associate (BA) code to all prequalified service companies. Licensees will be able select their preferred vendors within the system on the condition they have a BA code. Service company codes will be updated throughout the process, and a current listing is available on the ASCP website.

There are three additional updates of note with regard to eligible service companies.

  1. Contractors have not yet been selected for the ASCP. Contractors can apply through SaskTenders and their eligibility will be determined based on the program’s criteria. The Ministry also clarified that companies and vendors listed on the Saskatchewan Industrial & Mining Suppliers Association Inc. website are not prequalified for the ASCP by virtue of being included on that list. Similarly, the vendor pre-qualification process for the orphan fund program is applicable only to the orphan fund program. Contractors will need to apply for the ASCP separately.
  2. Pre-qualification period opened on June 15, 2020. Service companies may now apply for ASCP eligibility by completing a Request for Service Qualifications (RFSQ) on SaskTenders.
  3. Generally, only bidders require pre-qualification. The Ministry has confirmed that businesses supporting ASCP activities, such as subcontractors or small, individually staffed companies that do not intend to bid on area-based work packages offered for bid, are not required to apply for pre-qualification or complete the RFSQ. However, companies must still be Saskatchewan based and otherwise eligible to receive ASCP funds.

Notwithstanding, the Ministry has identified that companies delivering services (as opposed to supporting their delivery) in the following major service areas are expected to prequalify for the RFSQ:

  • well decommissioning activities, including service rig operations, wellsite supervision, coil tubing, wireline, fluid hauling and disposal, cut and cap, pressure testing, cementation and service maintenance, downhole tools; and
  • remediation and reclamation activities, such as initial environmental assessment (i.e., Phase 1), detailed site assessment, environmental contracting (i.e., heavy equipment, transport and waste disposal).

Licensee Responsibilities Elaborated

The Ministry has also provided further information regarding the role of licensees in the ASCP. Notably, licensees are encouraged, to the greatest extent possible, to nominate routine wells. This is defined as projects which are routine from a regulatory perspective, with the overall intent being to decrease the time spent processing applications. Where non-routine projects are nominated, licensees are advised to submit infrastructure projects where there are no known or foreseeable issues which could increase costs or project duration. A general expectation of the ASCP is that nominated projects may be completed in a timely manner and in accordance with expected costs.

As part of the ASCP, licensees will also be expected to follow applicable regulations and directives with regard to abandonment and reclamation. Licensees will be responsible for updating IRIS with all relevant reporting requirements.

Moving Forward

At this time, the Ministry has not announced its plans for next phases, including criteria for distribution or the funds available. The Questions and Answers indicates additional details will depend on the execution and initial results of Phase 1 of the ASCP.


About the Authors

Brad Gilmour is head of the firm’s regulatory department and co-head of the environmental department. His practice focuses primarily on environmental, energy, regulatory and aboriginal law.

Keely Cameron is an experienced legal counsel with a solid business background. She has a proven track record for finding innovative solutions and generating value. Keely helps clients on both commercial litigation, insolvency and regulatory matters.

Stephanie Ridge has a general regulatory law practice with an emphasis on environmental, Aboriginal, and regulatory law. She has experience with matters and proceedings before the National Energy Board, Alberta Energy Regulator, and Alberta Utilities Commission.

Kassandra Devolin is a Summer Student a Bennett Jones.

 

Incident and Emergency Management Market Worth $156.1 billion by 2025

According to a new market research report, “Incident and Emergency Management Market by Component, (Solutions (Emergency/Mass Notification System, Perimeter Intrusion Detection, and Fire and HAZMAT), Services, and Communication Systems), Simulation, Vertical, and Region – Global Forecast to 2025“, published by MarketsandMarkets™, the global Incident and Emergency Management Market size is expected to grow from USD 117.2 billion in 2020 to USD 156.1 billion by 2025, at a CAGR of 5.9% during the forecast period.

Occurrence of unpredictable natural disasters due to the ever-changing climate conditions and growth in terrorist attacks and criminal activities are some of the major factors driving the growth of the market.

The consulting service segment is expected to hold a larger size during the forecast period within the incident and emergency management market

Robust processes and planning are required to prepare for emergencies. Many companies provide emergency planning, consulting, and process development services. These services are provided at local, state, and federal levels. Companies design, develop, plan, and prepare for natural and man-made disasters, and provide end-to-end consulting services for emergency management.

Consulting services include technology consulting in planning and designing of emergency management and preparedness infrastructure. These services ultimately ensure the increased realization of benefits, along with enabling proactive risk management and better alignment of program objectives and business goals. Companies such as Lockheed Martin provide government organizations and enterprises with consulting services for the incident and emergency management.

First responder tools segment to grow at a higher rate during the forecast period

First responder tools include all the technology devices that assist departments and teams in providing early aid or action during an emergency. The first responders include medical teams, police and security personnel, and fire departments. These first responders use sophisticated communication devices that can be used during emergencies, which include wearable devices such as smart glass, smartwatch, wearable camera, Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA), Ultra High Frequency (UHF) and Very High Frequency (VHF) radios, and land mobile radios.

Many communication companies are coming up with public safety LTE communication solutions, along with next-generation software-defined radios and cognitive radios. Though radios have traditionally been the most commonly used first responder tools in case of emergencies, the use of smartphones and smart devices are the most preferred first responder tools, which has increased tremendously over the past decade. In the current scenario, smart gateways can connect sensors, such as body cameras, heart rate monitors, and locator beacons worn by the first responders and feed that data back to a command center so that it can be accessed at a later stage.

The fire and HAZMAT solutions are expected to hold the largest market size during the forecast period

The fire and HAZMAT solution helps in detecting and assessing chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive materials. It helps the first responders in detecting contaminations caused due to hazardous materials. Various companies provide devices that are used for hazardous material monitoring in public places and send alerts to EOCs in case of potential threats.

Fire and HAZMAT solution is adopted majorly among verticals, such as commercial and industrial, government and defense, energy and utilities, and healthcare. The fire and HAZMAT solution also helps the security and public organizations in Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) and Improvised Explosive Device Disposal (IEDD) for bomb disposal operations. With the help of GPS-enabled devices, wireless connectivity, man-down alarms, biometric tracking, and tablet integration, Fire and HAZMAT solution prevent from any loss caused by the disaster. FLIR Systems, Chemring Detection Systems (CDS), Bruker, MSA, Smiths Detection, and Environics Oy are the major market players that provide these systems.

North America to hold the largest market size during the forecast period

North America is expected to hold the largest market size in the global incident and emergency management market, while Asia Pacific (APAC) is likely to grow at the highest CAGR during the forecast period. North America is expected to be the leading region in terms of adopting incident and emergency management solutions and services. The developed economies of North America, such as the US and Canada, there is a high focus on innovations obtained from Research and Development (R&D) and technology. The APAC region is expected to be the fastest-growing region in the incident and emergency management market, due to an increase in government expenditure on emergency and disaster management systems to safeguard people from disasters.

Key market players

Major vendors in the global incident and emergency management market include Honeywell (US), Lockheed Martin (US), Motorola Solutions (US), Siemens (Germany), NEC Corporation (Japan), Collins Aerospace (US), IBM (US), Hexagon (Sweden), Esri (US), MissionMode (US), Alert Technologies (US), The Response Group (US), Everbridge (US), Juvare (US), Haystax Technology (US), Veoci (US), MetricStream (US), Noggin (Australia), LogicGate (US), 4C Strategies (Sweden), Resolver (Canada), BlackBerry (Canada), Eaton (Ireland), Blackboard (US), Desktop Alert (US), OnSolve (US), Singlewire Software (US), xMatters (US), Alertus (US), and Johnson Controls (Ireland). These vendors have adopted various organic and inorganic growth strategies, such as new product launches, partnerships and collaborations, and mergers and acquisitions, to expand their presence in the global incident and emergency management market further.

Honeywell (US) is Honeywell provides dedicated emergency management solutions for secured communications and emergency alerts. Honeywell’s emergency management solutions are not only restricted to governmental organizations but are also used in educational institutions, private organizations, and critical infrastructures. This diversified portfolio of emergency management products has helped the company to increase its reach in the incident and emergency management market. Honeywell focuses on acquisitions and new product launch as part of its core development strategy in the incident and emergency management industry.

Recent developments

  • In May 2020, Honeywell launched a new line of production to develop disposable face masks for helping the UK government during the COVID-19 pandemic..
  • In March 2019, Lockheed Martin launched LTE-over-Satellite system to deliver connectivity to remote regions to help enterprises in natural disasters, such as hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes, catastrophic floods, or volcanoes.
  • In May 2019, Siemens introduced Cerberus Portal, a cloud-based online fire protection software to monitor fire systems. With this software, the fire panel data is transferred to the cloud via the Cerberus Connect X300 gateway using encrypted transmission technology and a built-in firewall. In case of any fire incidents, maintenance personnel receives real-time information to react promptly, inform customers, and prepare site visits.

Critical questions the report answers

  • What are new market segments to focus over the next 2–5 years for prioritizing the efforts and investments?
  • What are the current trends that are driving the incident and emergency management market?
  • Who are the top vendors in the market, and what is their competitive analysis?
  • What are the innovations and developments done by the major market players?
  • What are the regulatory implications that impact the market directly and indirectly?
  • Which region is expected to lead the global market at the end of the forecast period?

 

Welland Canal Terminal Operator fined $50,000 for Environmental Protection Act Violation

Port Weller Marine Terminal Inc., located in Port Colborne, Ontario was recently convicted of one violation under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act and was fined $50,000 plus a victim surcharge of $12,500 and was given six months to pay the fine.  The conviction relates to the discharge of cement dust that migrated off-site affecting local residential properties.

The conviction relates to activities that occurred  on or about July 28, 2016 and ending on or about August 3, 2016.  On July 28, 2016, the Ontario Environment Ministry was notified that clinker dust had migrated off the terminal site and an investigation indicated that despite Port Weller Marine’s efforts to contain the dust, a quantity was carried off-site and fell onto residential properties in the area. The company was unaware of the discharge at the time.  An investigation resulted in charges being laid, which resulted in one conviction.

Port Weller Marine Terminal Inc. operates a terminal on the Welland Canal which is part of the St. Lawrence Seaway. At the time of the violation, the company was under contract to unload vessels carrying cement clinker, which had been imported by a Port Weller Marine client.  Clinker is a component of cement and is used in cement manufacturing and can become caustic when wet, potentially causing burns to eyes and skin.

 

CarMax Settles Lawsuit related to Unlawful Handling and Disposal of Hazardous Materials

Seventeen District Attorney’s in California recently settled an environmental protection action against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC. The settlement was based on the unlawful handling and disposal of various hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. The action was filed in Orange County Superior Court.

Waste inspections conducted at various CarMax locations in the seventeen Counties uncovered systemic violations of the management and disposal of hazardous waste items and confidential customer information.

“Today’s settlement is a win for the environment,” stated Alameda District Attorney Nancy O’Malley in a news release. “I want to make it very clear to any business operating in Alameda County and the state of California: there is no excuse for improper disposal of hazardous waste. You put us all at risk when you pollute our soil and our waterways. The state as well as local district attorneys will continue to work together to investigate and bring to justice businesses that ignore our important environmental protection laws.”

Nancy E. O’Malley, Alameda County District Attorney

CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC. is an automotive retailer that operates more than 190 dealerships in at least 28 states, including California. In the ordinary course of business, CarMax handles, transports, stores, manages, uses and disposes of hazardous materials. Additionally, CarMax generates regulated quantities of hazardous waste from its automotive inspection, service and repair departments. Numerous inspections by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control along with local environmental regulators found that CarMax facilities were out of compliance with the hazardous materials and hazardous waste laws.

District Attorney Investigators from several counties conducted undercover inspections of CarMax’s trash containers, which revealed the illegal disposal of hazardous auto body sanding dust, sanding pads, automotive paints, clear coats, solvents, non-empty aerosols, other hazardous substances used during the auto body repair process, and confidential customer information.

In accordance with the Hazardous Waste Control Law and Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, the stipulated judgment mandates training, reporting and compliance with the regulations on hazardous materials, and hazardous wastes. The settlement totaling $ 1,600,000 requires CarMax to pay $1,000,000 in civil penalties and $300,000 for investigative costs. CarMax will also make an additional payment of $300,000 to fund supplemental environmental projects furthering consumer protection and environmental enforcement in California. CarMax was cooperative throughout the investigation and implemented training and compliance programs at each of its facilities.

The case was brought in conjunction with the District Attorney’s offices of Orange, Riverside, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Fresno, Stanislaus, Kern, Ventura, Sacramento, Placer, San Diego, Solano, Sonoma, Santa Clara, San Mateo and Contra Costa counties, where CarMax facilities are located.

Posted on Jun 11, 2020