SNC-Lavalin awarded National Nuclear Cleanup Contract from United States Department of Energy

SNC-Lavalin (TSX: SNC) was recently awarded an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract to provide nationwide deactivation, decommissioning and removal (DD&R) of nuclear facilities, as well as waste management and program support from the United States Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM), through its Atkins Nuclear Secured Holdings Corporation entity. This multiple award contract has a 10-year ordering period, and a maximum ceiling of $3 billion US, split between nine companies. This contract is within SNCL Engineering Services, the cornerstone of our strategy moving forward to greater growth and support for our partners and customers.

“We are pleased to be included in this list of awardees to provide deactivation, decommissioning and removal of nuclear facilities to the US DOE to reduce environmental risks,” said Sandy Taylor, President, Nuclear, SNC-Lavalin. “Waste management and decommissioning is a significant and growing part of SNC-Lavalin’s nuclear business, and this contract solidifies our position in this important market.” SNC-Lavalin previously held a DOE-EM prime contract that preceded this nationwide DD&R contract.

About Atkins Nuclear Secured
Atkins Nuclear Secured Holdings Corporation is a business unit within SNC-Lavalin’s global nuclear sector focused on the US federal market.  SNC-Lavalin acquired WS Atkins plc on July 3, 2017.

About Atkins
Atkins (www.atkinsglobal.com) is a design, engineering and project management consultancies, employing over 18,300 people across the UK, North AmericaMiddle East and AfricaAsia Pacific and Europe.

About SNC-Lavalin
SNC-Lavalin is a fully integrated professional services and project management company with offices around the world. SNC-Lavalin offers services in consulting & advisory, intelligent networks & cybersecurity, design & engineering, procurement, project & construction management, operations & maintenance, decommissioning and sustaining capital.

SOURCE: SNC-Lavalin

Canadian Government Awards Contract for clean-up of KELSET Creek Pond, British Columbia

The Canadian government recently announced that it had awarded a contract to complete the second phase of the ḰEL¸SET (formerly Reay Creek) Remediation Project that will remove sediments with elevated levels of metals from this 200 metre long pond. Last summer, the first phase of creek sediment remediation was completed within the Victoria Airport boundary.

The pond clean-up work will begin this summer and is expected to be complete by fall 2020.  The remediation work will be restricted to a short window of time between the cutthroat trout and coho salmon’s critical spawning timeframe in the ḰEL¸SET (Reay) Creek.

The clean-up work involves diverting the creek around the pond area, excavating contaminated sediment in the pond, transporting the sediment to an approved facility for treatment/disposal, and backfilling the pond. It is estimated that approximately 3,900 cubic meters of sediment will be removed from the pond, which is about seven times more than the volume excavated during last year’s work.

The contract awarded to QM Environmental for $1,144,350 will be closely monitored by Transport Canada to ensure the safety of workers and the community. The work will be conducted in accordance with all federal and provincial guidelines, including those addressing COVID-19. Construction and environmental monitoring will be conducted throughout the project to ensure that clean-up activities comply with Town of Sidney bylaws and do not adversely impact the surrounding environment.

Reay Creek is also known by the Sencoten name ‘Kelset,’ (pronounced “KWAL-sit”). It is a relatively small creek originating both on the east side of the Victoria International Airport and the northeast slope of Mount Newton. It drains into Bazan Bay near Sidney.

A healthy waterway is essential for the well-being of fish who live there. Fish health is threatened when high concentrations of metals that don’t break down remain in the environment, threatening the marine food web.

The ḰEL¸SET (Reay) Creek Remediation Project is funded through Canada’s Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP). FCSAP provides funding to assess and remediate federal contaminated sites and is coordinated by Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Marc Garneau, the federal Minister of Transport stated, “Completing this phase of the ḰEL¸SET (Reay) Creek remediation project demonstrates our government’s commitment to remediating contaminated sites and protecting the environment. Cleaning-up the pond will reduce threats to the pond ecosystem and the food web, in addition to providing a healthier home for cutthroat trout and coho salmon.”

The initial phase of the remediation project, conducted in 2019, removed and treated 923 tonnes of contaminated sediment from portions of the creek bed located on the Victoria Airport.

AGAT partners with SiREM to provide the Waterloo Membrane Sampler™ for passive soil vapour sampling

AGAT Laboratories in partnership with SiREM, recently announced that the Waterloo Membrane Sampler™ (WMS) is now available for passive soil vapour sampling exclusively at AGAT.

The Waterloo Membrane Sampler™ (WMS) is a cost-effective, simple-to-use passive sampler for soil vapour. The WMS provides quantitative concentration measurements with similar accuracy and precision to conventional active soil vapour samples collected using Summa canisters or TD Tubes.

The WMS is a permeation-type passive sampler. When it is exposed, the VOCs permeate through the membrane covering the top of the sampler vial, driven by a concentration gradient. The sorbent inside the sampler then traps the vapours and then the mass of each compound is determined by GC/MS at AGAT Laboratories.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does the WMS work?
Passive samplers can be classified into two general types based on how the VOC uptake is controlled: (1) those that rely on diffusion through a stagnant air region (passive diffusion samplers) and; (2) those that rely on permeation through a nonporous membrane (passive permeation samplers). In the latter, VOCs permeate through the uptake-rate limiting membrane before they are collected by the sorbent. The Waterloo Membrane Sampler™ is a permeation-type passive sampler. When it is exposed to air, VOCs in the air permeate through the membrane covering the top of the sampler vial, driven by a concentration gradient. The sorbent inside the sampler then traps the vapours.
Is the WMS impacted by environmental changes?
Unlike other media, the WMS has minimal effect from moisture, wind velocity, or barometric pressure. The hydrophobic nature of the membrane excludes water and also prevents turbulent uptake so the sampler can be deployed in high velocity environments such as soil gas extraction systems.
How long does the WMS have to be deployed?
 The WMS can be deployed for a minimum of a few days to up to 30 days. You can calculate deployment times by using the online Sample Duration Calculator to determine what WMS will work best for your site.
Why are there different types of WMS samplers?
Each WMS is designed to work in different types of soil as follows:
  • The WMS-LUTM is a low-uptake WMS used for vapour concentrations in soil gas. The lower uptake rates mitigate the effect of the sampler starvation that may occur when collecting soil gas, and will allow for quantitative soil gas sampling in drier subsurface conditions.
  • The WMS-TMTM is designed for VOC vapour concentrations in soil gas with low permeability or very wet soils.
What is the hold time for the WMS?
Once a sample has been taken, the hold time is 14 days.  Samplers should be kept cool (ice packs but NO ICE is recommend, for these types of samples should not get wet) and shipped back to the lab. Target temperature is 10°C.

 Is the use of the WMS accepted by the Regulator?
It depends on the jurisdiction.  In Ontario, Under “Regulation 153 Vapour Intrusion Guidelines,” the WMS is accepted as alternative sampling media for the collection of soil and sub-slab vapour. There is no prescribed sampling method that is recommended or preferred over another. It is the responsibility of the QP to determine what sampling media would be best for their site.

COVID-19 Delays Ontario’s New Excess Soil Regime

Written by Gabrielle K. Kramer , F.F. (Rick) Coburn and Barbora Grochalova, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Ontario’s comprehensive excess soil management regime was set to be phased in starting July 1, 2020, much to the anticipation of the land development industry, municipalities, landowners, and consultants. The implementation of the first phase of the new excess soil regime is now pushed back to January 1, 2021, due to the COVID-19 outbreak.

What you need to know

  • The On-Site and Excess Soil Management Regulation (Excess Soil Regulation) creates new obligations for persons ultimately responsible for projects involving the excavation of soil, including any site alteration, construction of a building or infrastructure, or sediment removal.
  • The Excess Soil Regulation was filed on December 4, 2019, and is set to come into effect in a phased approach, beginning on July 1, 2020.
  • Supporting consequential amendments were made at the time to the Records of Site Condition Regulation (O. Reg. 153/04), General: Waste Management (Regulation 347), and the Waste Management Systems EASR Regulation (O. Reg. 351/12), all under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act.
  • Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP) provided notice on June 12, 2020, delaying the provisions that would have come into effect on July 1, 2020, until January 1, 2021. The current waste regulatory framework will continue to apply until that time.
  • The implementation of the consequential amendments to other regulations, which relate to the first phase of changes, are also delayed.
  • The timing of the next phases of the implementation of the Excess Soil Regulation remain unchanged.

Important features of the new excess soil management regime

Construction and other excavation activities in Ontario generate an estimated 25 million cubic metres of excess soil annually, which is generally classified as “waste”. Currently, excess soil is transported and disposed of at landfill sites at significant cost, re-used on or offsite under uncertain conditions, or, occasionally, illegally dumped.

The aim of the changes to the excess soil management regime is to provide certainty in how excess soil is to be characterized, and clarify the conditions pursuant to which soil may be reused on-site, or transferred to another site for re-use. One of the goals of the new regime is to encourage the reuse of excess soil that meets prescribed standards, and limit the impacts to the environment, community health, and transportation infrastructure.

The new regime will also seek to enhance certainty for parties that choose to accept excess soil, as well as the consultants, haulers, and developers involved in transporting excess soil, by establishing testing requirements, and a system for tracking and registration of soil shipments.

Excess Soil: from waste to reuse for a beneficial purpose

The Excess Soil Regulation allows soil to not be designated as waste if all of the prescribed conditions are met, including:

  • The soil is directly transported to a reuse site from a soil storage site, a soil-processing site, or a project area. The regulation broadly defines “project” to include any project that involves the excavation of soil;
  • The operator of the reuse site has consented in writing to the deposit of the excess soil;
  • The quality and quantity of the soil meets the prescribed standards according to the MECP guidance document entitled “Rules for On-Site and Excess Soil Management”;
  • The excess soil will be used for a “beneficial purpose.” This term is not defined in the regulation, but examples given in connection with development are backfill for excavation, final grading, and achieving the necessary grade for a planned development or infrastructure project.

The provisions of the Excess Soil Regulation that govern the designation of excess soil are part of the first phase of implementation that is now set for January 1, 2021.

Responsibilities of the “Project Leader”

The Excess Soil Regulation places responsibility for excess soil onto the person or persons “who are ultimately responsible for making decisions relating to the planning and implementation” of the project which is the source of the excess soil.

The project leader will be required to ensure a Qualified Professional will implement a soil sampling and analysis plan, and prepare a soil characterization report as well as other documentation obligations. A tracking system must then be implemented to track each load of soil as it is transported from the project area to the reuse site. The Regulation will also establish a public registry where the project leader will be required to publish a notice before removing the soil, subject to certain exemptions. This next phase will come into effect on January 1, 2022.

The final phase to be implemented is the restrictions on landfilling of specified excess soil, which is set to come into effect on January 1, 2025.

Extensive changes underway despite delay

The new excess soil management regime will alter the way risk is allocated amongst those involved in construction projects and soil reuse sites at the same time as it may reduce development costs and environmental impacts associated with shipping excess soils. While soil management contracts that are entered into before January 1, 2021, will be grandfathered until 2026, project leaders and consultants will benefit from ensuring their business is ready for the new world of soil assessments and tracking systems.

This article was republished with the permission of BLG.  BLG retains the copyright. 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

Gabrielle K. Kramer provides environmental risk management strategies to both public and private clients, directing complex environmental claims, advising on new and historic losses, defending regulatory proceedings and advising on transactions. Gabrielle also advises on related insurance issues, municipal law, expropriations law and real estate issues having acted as counsel in numerous cases.

F.F. (Rick) Coburn practises environmental law with an emphasis on environmental aspects of major development initiatives and transactions involving heavy industry, transportation, energy and infrastructure projects, and brownfields redevelopment.

Barbora Grochalova advises public and private clients on environmental matters, including civil claims and regulatory proceedings. She also assists with environmental aspects of complex international and Canada-wide corporate transactions involving clients in heavy industry and manufacturing, as well as environmental matters pertaining to real estate transactions.

U.S. EPA to Terminate Temporary COVID-19 Enforcement Policy

Written by Michael Traynham, Nexsen Pruet, PLLC

On June 29, 2020, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) released an addendum to its previously announced COVID-19 Enforcement Policy, effectively setting a termination date of August 31, 2020, for the temporary enforcement discretion described in its previous memorandum. The U.S. EPA originally released a memorandum on March 26, 2020, addressing the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the agency’s Enforcement and Compliance Assistance Program. The temporary policy relaxed regulatory consequences for most forms of noncompliance caused by COVID-19 related workforce shortages, social distancing requirements, and other limitations.

The temporary enforcement policy has been widely criticized by environmental interest groups for allegedly granting carte blanche to pollute. A number of State attorneys general have challenged the policy as well, asserting that it exceeds EPA’s authority.

The termination addendum reserves EPA’s right to terminate the enforcement discretion policy earlier than August 31, though only by providing a minimum advance notice of seven days. The termination of the temporary policy will require regulated entities to return to timely reporting for all permit and regulation based obligations, though under the terms of the temporary policy “catch-up” reports will not be required for monitoring report requirement that apply to intervals of less than three months. Annual or bi-annual reporting obligations may be required, even if the monitoring is conducted later than typically required. The termination also ends the blanket discretion to eschew civil penalties for noncompliance related to COVID-19, although the addendum states that EPA retains the ability to exercise enforcement discretion on a case-by-case basis.

With confirmed cases of COVID-19 on the rise nationwide, and renewed restrictions being implemented in several states, regulated entities should give additional attention to their compliance plans and contingencies prior to August 31. If workforce shortages or other COVID-19 related legal restrictions make compliance obligations impossible or impractical after the termination of the temporary policy, the documentation framework set out in EPA’s March 26 memo remains good practice:

  1. Act responsibly under the circumstances in order to minimize the effects and duration of any noncompliance caused by COVID-19;
  2. Identify the specific nature and dates of the noncompliance;
  3. Identify how COVID-19 was the cause of the noncompliance, and the decisions and actions taken in response, including best efforts to comply and steps taken to come into compliance at the earliest opportunity;
  4. Return to compliance as soon as possible; and
  5. Document the information, action, or condition specified in a. through d.

While there are no assurances of civil penalty avoidance after August 31, strong documentation of good faith efforts toward compliance will go a long way toward resolving issues as they arise.


About the Author

Michael Traynham is an experienced environmental law attorney based in the firm’s Columbia, South Carolina office. As a member of the Real Estate & Environmental practice group, he brings his trial experience and comprehensive knowledge on a wide variety of South Carolina environmental issues when advising his clients.

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.

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.

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.

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.