Contamination found in sediment of Rideau Canada in Ottawa

As reported by the CBC, Parks Canada (the Canadian equivalent of U.S. National Park Service) is testing the sediment along the Ottawa stretch of the Rideau Canal to determine the extent of contamination along the waterway.  Also, Ontario Ministry of the Environment officials are investigating game fish in the canal to determine if they are safe to eat.

The contaminated sediment was first discovered in November of 2016 when workers doing repairs to the canal accidently churned up bottom sediment that contained contaminants.  Testing of the water found heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

The newest set of tests is designed to determine the extent of the contamination the area.  The stretch of contamination is the section of the Rideau Canal in downtown Ottawa.  It is suspected that the sediment could be contaminated along several kilometres.

Parks Canada has known for some time that the bottom sediment of the canal has been impact by past industrial activities that existed on its banks including a paint factory, regular train traffic, and steam-powered vessels hauling industrial goods.  The recent repair activities, however, have raised the profile of the issue and raised some concerns amongst fisherman and users of the canal.

With respect to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) investigation on game fish, there is concern that game fish caught along the Canal could have ingested contaminated sediment.  The study will determine the level of contamination in various fish species along the Rideau Canal.

The federal Ministry of the Environment, Catherine McKenna, stated “The sediments in question are low risk to health but of course we are monitoring them and we’ll continue to do so.  Parks Canada is going to be working hard making sure that the conditions are safe and taking appropriate measures.”

The Rideau Canal is a Canadian National Historic Site and a World UNESCO Site.  It cuts through the heart of the Nation’s Capital and is a very popular for skating in the winter and all sorts of activities in the summer.

Concerns with Canada’s Arctic Oil-Spill Response Plans

The World Wildlife Fund  Canada (WWF-C), the Canadian arm of the international not-for-profit environmental activist organization, recently issued a report on Canada’s preparedness for cleaning up an oil spill in the Arctic.  In short, the WWF-C is of the view that remote Arctic communities face almost certain environmental catastrophe in the event of an oil spill from large shipping vessels.

The report chronicles research done by the WWF-C on the state and availability of oil-spill response equipment, training resources, and the communications infrastructure in the Arctic.  Report researchers found major issues in all areas related to spill response in Canada’s Arctic.

Gaps in oil spill response capacity are outlined in two parallel WWF-C assessments for the Beaufort region in the western Arctic and Nunavut in the east.  The reports found that:

  • Only a small number of coastal communities have access to the most basic oil-spill response equipment from the Canadian Coast Guard.
  • The communities that do have equipment say it is irregularly maintained, too few community members are trained to use it, and that some communities don’t have a key to access the storage containers.
  • Harsh weather conditions, periods of prolonged darkness and the presence of sea ice make most standard oil-spill response equipment ineffective.
  • Remote locations mean response times for large-scale cleanup and storage equipment can be more than 10 times longer than in waters south of 60 degrees’ latitude.
  • Lack of reliable communications infrastructure makes it difficult for communities to call for assistance, and for responders to communicate with those on land during an oil-spill response.

The report states that first responders in the Arctic are typically members of the community and that they lace effective and reliable equipment to contain and clean-up an oil spill.  Heavy fuel oil (HFO) is the standard marine fuel for cargo ships, tankers and large cruise ships.  It is also one of the world’s dirtiest, most polluting ship fuels, and the most difficult to clean up.

The report also contains are review on the consequences of an oil spill in remote communities.  Firstly, an oil spill would contaminate habitat for arctic wildlife and destroy fish habitat.  Secondly, it would likely contaminant a wider area as it would get trapped under sea ice and potentially travel hundreds of kilometres.

A third report prepared by WWF-C outlines a framework for creating oil spill response plans in Nunavut’s remote communities.  Recommendations from the reports include:

  • Phase out the use by ships of HFO, the most toxic and difficult to clean up of any marine fuel in the Arctic.
  • Align response time standards in the North with those south of 60 degrees latitude.
  • Develop community-based response plans.
  • Increase funding for training of community responders.
  • Consult with Inuit organizations on decisions that affect Arctic communities, and use both scientific and traditional knowledge to identify preferred shipping routes and areas to be avoided.

Though the chances of a large-scale oil spill in the Arctic are currently small, the consequences would be significant.  As sea ice melts and ship traffic increases, there is an opportunity now, while traffic is still relatively low, to put measures in place to respond to spills, or prevent them from happening in the first place. Because sparsely populated Arctic communities assume the risk of spills, they need both adequate equipment and response plans specifically tailored to the extreme Arctic environment.

Ontario Statistics on Environmental Fines and Penalties

Berkley Canada recently published a white paper that provides information on environmental fines and penalties in Ontario for 2016.

In the report, it states that historical evidence shows that fines and penalties have been used sparingly in Canada when compared to Europe or the USA. In notes that in late 2014, Canada’s use of fines and penalties changed dramatically. That year, Environment Canada imposed its largest penalty to date, a $7.5 million fine against Bloom Lake General Partners (a subsidiary of Cliffs Natural Resources) for breaches of the Fisheries Act and Metal Mining Effluent Regulations.


Berkley, an insurance company, notes that that landmark decision attracted significant attention within the environmental and legal community. The result was a very quick move by industry to limit risk through the use of environmental insurance.

The report is intended to provide readers with additional context regarding how fines and penalties are being used by Canadian regulators post 2014.  To that end, we note the following facts:

1.     Between 1991 and 2009 the average quantum of fines and penalties issued by all federal and provincial regulators in Canada was $1.4 million per year.

2.     Between 1991 and 2009 Ontario issued a total of $14.7 million in fines and penalties (average of $816,667 per year).

3.     In the years 2014 and 2015 Ontario issued a total of $2.9 and $3.2 million in fines and penalties, respectively.

4.     17 large (> $75,000) fines and penalties were issued by all federal and provincial regulators in Canada in 2015. The 17 fines and penalties totalled $3,836,750.

5.     Based on the number of fines and penalties issued in 2015, Ontario was the most active jurisdiction, followed by Alberta and British Columbia.

Examining large (> $75,000) fines and penalties by Province for 2015, Berkley Canada noted the following:

Ontario: $2,418,750 in fines (focus: air emissions such as dust, smoke and chemicals)

Alberta: $745,000 in fines (focus: Fisheries Act)

British Columbia: $540,000 in fines (focus: Fisheries Act)

Newfoundland: $100,000 in fines (focus: waste management)

Ontario saw a 10% increase in the total value of fines and penalties issued in 2015 versus 2014. Comparing this to the average yearly fines and penalties issued between 1991 and 2009, Ontario saw an increase of 290% in 2015 versus the long term historical average.

In 2015, the value to large fines and penalties outside of Ontario also increased, exceeding historical averages by some $2.4 million.

In the view of Berkley Canada, Canadian regulators are making greater use of fines and penalties than at any other time in the past.  As such, Berkley Canada is of the opinion that this risk should continue to be of particular focus to companies operating in Canada.  Environmental managers and committees should continue to monitor, evaluate and look for ways to improve operations so as to reduce the risk of incurring an environmental fine or penalty.  Lastly, insurance brokers and risk managers should examine the use of environmental insurance as a backstop to a company’s environmental management system.

With regards to environmental insurance, Berkley Canada notes that it is important to understand that carriers make use of a non-compliance or wrongful act exclusion.  This exclusion precludes cover when a pollution condition is caused by an Insured’s wilful action or non-compliance.  As an example: an Insured elects not to operate an emission control device that is required per its air emission permit. The resulting pollution condition (discharge of a contaminant above the applicable regulatory standard) would be excluded from cover via the non-compliance or wilful act exclusion as the Insured deliberately elected not to operate the needed engineering control.

Berkley Canada states in the report that while it should not be surprising that an insurance carrier would exclude loss arising out of a deliberately caused pollution event, the carrier’s intent is quite different when it comes to covering fines and penalties that result from an accidental (as opposed to deliberate) event.  Insurance Carriers offering fines and penalties coverage do intend to insure fortuitous events causing pollution that result in the imposition of fines and penalties.

An insurer’s coverage response is determined on a case by case basis, after careful review of both the particular facts and circumstances of a claim and the insurance policy terms and conditions. The table on the following page summarizes actual recent loss scenarios. We have included a column to help illustrate when fines and penalties cover may be afforded.

Berkley Canada notes in its report that they are not aware of what, if any, insurance coverage was available in these scenarios, but were simply noting the likelihood the facts describe a fortuitous event, and the potential coverage response based on a policy providing fines and penalties cover.

UPS Expands Capabilities on Shipping of Dangerous Goods

UPS recently announced that it has expanded its global dangerous goods shipping program by adding more than 400 new commodities that can be accepted in its global air network and more than 300 products across its ground network in Europe.

The company also increased the allowable quantity of select dangerous goods accepted for shipment.

There is a growing demand from companies in a variety of industries to ship products that are classified as hazardous goods.  For example, healthcare companies need to transport chemicals to clean laboratory equipment.  Industrial manufacturing companies transport paint, compressed gases, adhesives and batteries, among other items. UPS can now help these businesses ship between 36 countries.

UPS is confident it can ship the dangerous goods without incident has it provides extensive employee training and takes extra precautions to ensure dangerous goods are safely transported. The company’s integrated transportation network utilizes leak-proof packaging, fire-resistant containers and fire containment covers.

Court Ruling Requires Neighbors to Contribute to Contamination Investigation Costs

What does a New Jersey Appellate Court decision mean for the New Jersey Spill Act?

A recent Appellate Division decision may spur contribution suits under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (the Spill Act). In Matejek v. Watson (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div., Mar., 3, 2017), the appeals court held that a property owner may compel neighboring property owners to share in the costs of investigating potential environmental contamination prior to establishing liability for the pollution.


The Spill Act renders “all dischargers [of contamination] jointly and severally liable for the entire cost of a cleanup.” The statute, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11f(a)(2)(a), also authorizes a private cause of action by a responsible party for contribution from other responsible parties.

In this case, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) removed five underground storage tanks, one from each of five adjoining condominium units, after oil was discovered on the surface of a nearby brook. After confirming the absence of oil in the tributary, the NJDEP took no further action, and its file remained open.

Approximately seven years later, plaintiffs Greg and Renee Matejek sought to remove the cloud on the title of their condominium unit, which was one of those impacted. They filed a complaint under the Spill Act against the owners of the other four units. The suit sought to compel the other owners to participate in and equally share in an investigation and, if necessary, remediation of the contaminated property.

The trial court found that even though the precise source of the contamination had not yet been determined, the fact that the NJDEP had removed all five tanks was sufficient to impose on the impacted parties the obligation “to participate in the investigation process.” The court ordered the plaintiffs to retain the services of a licensed site remediation professional (LSRP) to investigate and prepare a report to the parties as to whether remediation was required. If remediation was required, the court order compelled the division of the costs equally among the five owners. One of the owners appealed, arguing that there was no evidence that they caused the contamination, in whole or in part.


The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court ruling, citing that it found “nothing in the letter or spirit of the Spill Act that would preclude the issuance of such a remedy.”

While the court acknowledged that the “plaintiffs’ suit varies from what the Legislature likely anticipated when authorizing a private cause of action for contribution,” it further noted that the plaintiffs would have no other way to remove the encumbrance other than to solely bear the expense of investigation and remediation.

“We agree with the trial judge that such a scenario leaves plaintiffs with no adequate remedy at law. And we agree that, in such circumstances, a court may provide a remedy that fairly and justly alleviates the inequitable burden that a narrow interpretation of the Spill Act would impose,” the court explained. In affirming the trial court’s ruling, the Appellate Division further wrote that “we do not interpret the Spill Act as being so narrow or ineffectual as to permit a private action only on proof that another caused contamination in whole or in part.”

The Appellate Division also agreed with the trial court’s assumption that additional environmental litigation is likely in the future, including the possibility that the parties might seek further adjustment of their rights depending on the outcome of the investigation. “By affirming that judgment, we also do not foreclose that possibility nor limit the scope of any future litigation or the potential issuance of a remedy for those property owners who may be exonerated by the investigation to follow,” the court noted.


The Appellate Division’s decision is significant in that it makes it possible for responsible parties to seek contribution much earlier in the remediation process. In certain circumstances, responsible parties may now be required to share in the investigation costs without a prior determination of liability. While such costs may be recouped once the exact cause of the contamination is proven, the court’s decision in Matejek v. Watson could still cause legal headaches for commercial and residential property owners. This ruling therefore has applications to other similar cases. Official court documentation is essential in cases like these. Are you looking to get a lawsuit off the ground but don’t know where to begin? If you’re in the Rocky Mountains area, then a Colorado Springs Process Server may be able to offer some advice.


About the Author

Dan McKillop has more than fifteen years of experience representing corporate and individual clients in complex environmental litigations and regulatory proceedings before state and federal courts and environmental agencies arising under numerous state and federal statutes. Dan’s additional areas of expertise include issues pertaining to federal and state Hazard Communication and Right-to-Know requirements, occupational safety and health issues, asbestos requirements, and underground storage tank regulations. Dan is a Director of the New Jersey State Bar Association Environmental Law Section. Dan graduated cum laude from Pace University School of Law in 2001, where he earned certificates in both Environmental Law and International Law. Dan previously earned his Bachelor’s degree in Government and International Studies from the University of Notre Dame. He can be contacted at 201-806-3364 and at [email protected]

This article was originally published on the Scarinci Hollenbeck website at

Free Online Emergency Response Tools

FLIR recently announced the launch of its new educational resource, FLIR PRIMED – Prepare, Recognize, Input, Monitor, Experience, Decision – a free, online tool that provides First Responders with best practices for HAZMAT accidents and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and/or Explosives (CBRNE) attacks.

Throughout FLIR PRIMED’s video series, Grant Coffey, retired Portland Fire & Rescue Hazmat Team Coordinator and CBRNE expert for nearly 40 years, delivers industry insights and real-life experiences designed to keep responders prepared, by staying current with the industry standards and best practices. In addition, each episode will conclude with a free field checklist, or downloadable guide, to increase subject knowledge for a safer and more successful response.

The first three episodes of FLIR PRIMED, along with free downloadable checklist and guidebooks, are available NOW at

  • Episode 1: PRIMED – A tool you can use right now to stay prepared.  Grant introduces you to PRIMED – a tool responders can use right now to stay prepared.
  • Episode 2: STOP – What are the cues and clues.  When responding to a scene, STOP! Grant discusses the cues and clues responders should pay attention to.
  • Episode 3: RAD – Turn it on and put it on.  Radiation is not well understood. Grant covers the important safety basics responders need to know.

The next seven episodes of FLIR PRIMED will air between April 24 – June 26 on the FLIR PRIMED page and an additional 20 videos will be release into the second half of 2017, featuring guest appearances by other industry leaders.

Questions or topics viewers would like to see featured on FLIR PRIMED can be submitted to[email protected].

Webinar on Vapour Intrusion

Land Science® is presenting a webinar on vapour intrusion and the impact on environmental due diligence.  The event will take place on Wednesday, April 26th at 2 pm Eastern (11 am Pacific).  The key speaker at the webinar is Dr. Kenneth S. Tramm, a founding Principal with Texas-based engineering firm, Modern Geosciences.  Dr. Tramm specializes in air quality monitoring, environmental due diligence, risk-based closures, and remediation design.  Dr. Tramm’s presentation will provide us with an update on how Vapor Intrusion is impacting the Environmental Due Diligence industry.

Joining Dr. Tramm will be Thomas Szocinski, Director of Vapor Intrusion at Land Science, who will review vapor intrusion mitigation solutions currently available.

Street Sweepings deemed Waste by Regulator

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) recently issued an Order to the City of Mississauga (a City of 800,000 immediately west of Toronto) to remediate street sweeping it had distributed to a number of private and public enterprises as “clean fill”.  Testing by the MOECC determine the street sweepings had high concentration of arsenic and other contaminants that could be deemed dangerous to human health.

In the Order itself, the MOECC refers to its protocol titled Management of Excess Materials in Road Construction and Maintenance, dated July 22, 1994, allows for the management of street sweepings (called roadsweeping material and defined as “sand/gravel/vehicle grit mixture resulting from winter maintenance operations, but does not include litter and abandoned material components”) in three ways:

(1) within road and highway rights-of-way for engineered applications,

(a) by sweeping directly onto the shoulder,

(b) by blending with virgin sand and reusing for winter sanding operations, or

(c) by stockpiling on municipally or provincially owned land for future use as described above;

(2) reuse “in a construction material or any other reuse or recycling option, as endorsed by the MOEE” [Ministry of the Environment and Energy, now known as the Ministry]; and

(3) disposal in an approved landfill as “solid non-hazardous industrial or commercial waste”

Street Sweeping Disposal Practices date back to 2004

The events leading to the MOECC issuing the Order goes back to 2012.  At that time the MOECC learned that the City of Mississauga had deposited Waste Street Sweepings as fill material on various properties located in southern Ontario.

Mississauga conducts street cleaning each spring, with road sweeper trucks, to collect materials that may have accumulated over the winter.  In 2012, The City of Mississauga indicated to the MOECC that between 2004 and 2011, waste street sweepings were eventually brought back to the Mississauga works yard on Mavis Road in Mississauga where they were deposited and accumulated.

Prior to 2004, the City of Mississauga sent street sweepings to an approved landfill site. After 2004, the City of Mississauga informed the MOECC that it processed street sweepings by screening out debris, such as litter, and then deposited the material on properties including residential, commercial and agricultural properties upon the request of the owners of such properties.

In February 2012, Mississauga provided to the Ministry a report dated June 20, 2011, prepared by a consultant to assist Mississauga “in determining disposal options for the material collected as street sweepings”.  The report, based on the chemical testing of two samples collected on June 6, 2011 of street sweepings from Mississauga Mavis Work Yard, concluded that “Based on the chemical test results, in our opinion the subject material may be shipped to any registered landfill site licensed to receive this category of waste”.  The report did not recommend sending the street sweepings to any other location or that the sampled street sweepings could be reused for any other purposes.

In April 2012, during a meeting between staff from the MOECC and the City, municipal officials indicated it would dispose of its current street sweepings at an approved waste disposal site and investigate long-term options for the management of street sweepings.

Mississauga initially disclosed to the Ministry that fifteen properties had received street sweepings between 2004 and 2011.

In a letter dated October 22, 2012, lawyers from the MOECC restated the MOECC’s position that street sweepings are waste and should have been managed and disposed of accordingly.  The letter also explained that street sweepings may also be managed as set out in the 1994 protocol “Management of Excess Materials in Road Construction and Maintenance“.

Testing at Sites

In October 2012, after discussions with the MOECC, Mississauga retained a consultant, to carry out a site sensitivity analysis of the 15 properties that had been identified at that time to have received street sweepings.  Based on the findings, in November 2012, Mississauga provided a letter to the MOECC proposing to assess the three most sensitive receiving sites out of the 15 properties.

Based on the results of the soil testing at the two of the three sites (the owner of the third site did allow the City to access the site) the 937.5 tonnes of street sweepings had been deposited at one site and that there were contaminants of concern (mainly arsenic and lead) in the material.  At the second site, it was determined that 67 tonnes of street sweepings have been deposited although City records showed that 1600 tonnes had been deposited.  The analysis of samples at the second site showed that electrical conductivity measurements at levels that could present an unacceptable risk to plants and soil organisms.

Further investigations and testing in 2015 by a second consultant hired by the City of Mississauga uncovered that there were at least 40 sites that had received street sweepings from the City.  Moreover, only specific details and addresses were available for only two thirds of the sites.

City Appeals Order

The City of Mississauga is appealing the Order on the grounds that street sweepings are not waste within the meaning of the Ontario Environmental Protection Act and the applicable regulations.  As such, the MOECC has no jurisdiction to issue the Order.  Moreover, in its appeal to the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) claims that the MOECC has not established that there are sufficient potential adverse effects, or any potential adverse effects at all, associated with the street sweepings to justify the work ordered.  Finally, the City’s submission states that regardless on if the ERT finds that the street sweepings are “waste” and there are sufficient potential adverse effects from them to justify the Order, the work required is excessive, unnecessary, unreasonable and on advisable in the circumstances.

“There is no risk to human health or the environment from the materials delivered” to the Cayuga site, Mississauga’s lawyer said in a 2016 corporate report.

MOECC Opinion on dealing with Street Sweepings

In the Order issued to the City of Mississauga, the MOECC details the steps required, in its view, for dealing with street sweepings.  The MOECC believes the City should have hired a qualified consultant (typically an environmental engineer or geologist) as defined in the province’s Brownfields Regulation (O. Reg. 153/94) who then make a decision on what to do with the street sweepings in keeping with the MOECC publication entitled Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (Clean-up Standards).  The decision would be based on taking representative samples of the street sweepings, arranging for them to be analyzed and comparing the results to the Clean-up Standards.  If analysis of the samples shows that the street sweepings meet the appropriate Clean-up Standard, then it can be treated as if it is excess fill and be used practically anywhere in the Province.  If it does not meet the appropriate Clean-up standard, then is should be disposed of in a landfill or treated to remove contaminants prior to future use.

ERT Ruling

The ERT Ruling on Mississauga’s appeal to the MOECC Order was stay some of the items of the Order and to dismiss the City’s request for a stay on other parts.  In essence, the City needs to hire a qualified consultant and do further investigation.  The information uncovered needs to be shared with the owners of the properties and the MOECC.  There is, as of yet, not a determination on if the street sweepings must be dug up and transferred to a landfill.



Canada’s position on upcoming international meetings on chemical agreements

The Canadian Environmental Law Association, a not-for-profit non-government organization, recently made a submission to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) that makes recommendations on Canada’s position for the upcoming international meetings of Parties to key chemicals agreements to the StockholmBasel, and Rotterdam Conventions which takes place in later this month in Geneva, Switzerland.

The Stockholm Convention is an international agreement that protects human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants (POPs).  The Basel Convention is an international agreement on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal.  The Rotterdam Convention is an international agreement on shared responsibility and cooperative efforts in the international trade of certain hazardous chemicals in order to protect human health and the environment from harm.

In the submission, CELA suggests that public engagement should be strengthened and that the federal Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (ECCC) add additional substances to the limitation list.  CELA further suggests that the ECCC commit to reviewing and reconsidering its position on pentachlorophenol (PCP), considering there are safe and economically viable non-chemical alternatives.   Finally, CELA, urges the ECCC to take action on the listing of chrysotile asbestos during the international meetings.



Regulator warns North Dakota Pipeline Susceptible to Failure

As reported in the Bismark Times, documentation prepared by the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) shows that the regulator is of the view that the Belle Fourche Pipeline system is vulnerable to future spills due to the location of the pipeline in a landslide-prone area.

A spill in the pipeline back in December 2016 resulted in contamination of a tributary of the Little Missouri River.  The cause of the spill is under investigation, but Belle Fourche Pipeline Co. (the owner of the pipeline) points to the slumping of a hillside in the rugged Badlands terrain where the pipeline break occurred.

The PHMSA documentation on The Belle Fourche pipeline shows that the pipeline company may have experienced other spills in southwest North Dakota that went undetected due to inadequate leak detection monitoring and unstable terrain.

The agency issued a corrective action order to Belle Fourche Pipeline Co. following the spill.  It was estimated that 529,830 gallons contaminated about 5 miles of Ash Coulee Creek, which flows into the Little Missouri River.

Belle Fourche Pipeline Co. contested the corrective measures ordered by regulators and argued the spill was an “isolated, unpredictable event,” the document shows.

However, after holding a hearing, the PHMSA concluded the pipeline system is potentially hazardous to life, property or the environment unless additional steps are taken, according to a document made public this week.

The Office of Pipeline Safety, part of PHMSA, argued there is a risk of repeat failure on the pipeline system due to the topography of the area, soil conditions and slope stability issues.

Federal regulators say significant questions remain about the cause of the pipeline failure and they upheld most of the corrective action items, including requiring the company to excavate and analyze the failed section of pipe and submit a root cause failure analysis.

Regulators also ordered geotechnical evaluation of pipeline segments and a risk assessment of steep slope areas to determine if land movement could damage the pipeline.

Belle Fourche Pipeline Co. wrote in its response to the PHMSA that the company has cooperated with regulators and is “working diligently to address its impact on the environment.”

The segment of the pipeline that failed was shut down and can’t be restarted until the PHMSA allows it to restart.  The pipeline system was built in the 1980s, but it’s believed a portion of the line near the failure was replaced in 2013, according to PHMSA documents.

The North Dakota Department of Health has issued a notice to the pipeline company alleging violations of water quality standards and other state regulations.  The agency has not yet decided on a fine.