Several times each year, we provide some of our observations on environmental enforcement. The enforcement actions are owed to a variety of reasons from accidents, to oversight, to regulatory confusion, to what might be described as “self-inflicted.” With this said, here are some of our observations.
Environmental Enforcement at a Refinery
An oil refinery in Sarnia, Ontario, was fined $812,000 for an incident that resulted in a release of hydrogen sulfide. According to the September 21, 2016, Ontario Newsroom Release, “…a frozen flare line (on February 7, 2014) at the plant ruptured in two locations and discharged coker stabilizer thermocracked gas into the natural environment.”
While the company reacted promptly (site sirens activated, the primary leak was isolated within 8 minutes, and the remaining leak was addressed in 3.5 hours), the leak affected nearby residents with burning eyes, sore throats, nausea, and more.
The publication, OHS Insider notes that the recent enforcement is the latest in a number of environmental offences at the oil company who has six months to pay the fine.
Environmental Enforcement at a Construction Company
Earlier this year, a construction company plead guilty to illegal dumping near Huntsville, Ontario. In January of 2016, it was reported that the company agreed to pay an $80,000 fine, as a supervisor is alleged to have told employees to bury two drums that were discovered and to “lie about it” afterwards. And then in September of this year, the supervisor who is alleged to have instructed the employees to take the illegal action was individually charged and convicted of one offence and ordered to pay $12,500.
Environmental Enforcement at a Dry Cleaner
And, remarkably, another dry cleaner was fined after a third strike. In spite of what has been anything but a secret (Environment Canada’s focus on Dry Cleaners) and several opportunities to make things right, a dry cleaner finally “came clean.”
Environment Canada inspected the dry cleaner in October 2014 and found drums containing tetrachloroethylene (aka PERC) that were not on secondary containment, an uncovered bucket of sludge containing PERC, and a spout that was leaking wastewater into an uncovered tray – strike one.
A month later, a follow-up inspection found further violations – strike two.
A third inspection in July 2015 found similar violations and leaks so substantial that the officers from Environment Canada had to leave the area – strike three.
According to an article in the Edmonton Journal, the owner accepted full responsibility but told the court that “the federal regulations are hard to understand.” They were fined $20,000.
We understand that compliance can be very challenging, especially since the regulations are routinely modified. In some cases, for example vapour intrusion, these changes can be complicated and substantial. Accordingly, we’ll continue to do our best to keep you informed on issues as we see developments.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me (cpare@dragun.com) at 519-979-7300, ext. 114.