December 10, 1999
Accordingly, the Commission's evaluation of a RAP at any stage includes consideration of an ecosystem approach to the restoration and protection of beneficial use and an assessment of the adequacy of public consultation as well as the Annex 2 requirements for that particular stage RAP submitted for the Commission's review and comment. Thus, the Commission's review and comments on the Stage 2 Hamilton Harbour RAP reflect an assessment of the document submitted in relation to the five Stage 2 requirements outlined in the introduction , consideration of the implementation of an ecosystem approach to the restoration and protection of beneficial uses, and an assessment of the adequacy of public consultation.
Have in-place remedial measures been evaluated?
The Stage 2 RAP presents a comprehensive overview of historical actions to achieve loading reductions of ammonia, phosphorus, suspended solids, zinc, phenols, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), cyanide, and iron. Some information is also provided in regard to lead, copper and chromium.
In-place measures to control industrial discharges of ammonia were documented as having reduced loadings of ammonia (as nitrogen) from about 24,000 kg/day (52,910 lbs/day) in 1967 to about 352 kg/day (776 lbs/day) in 1989. Recent information (Remedial Action Planning Office 1998) shows that while industrial loadings have been reduced, the ammonia loading from the Woodward Avenue wastewater treatment plant climbed over the same period. As a result, total ammonia loadings to Hamilton Harbour have returned to about the same levels measured immediately prior to 1986.
The RAP documented reductions in phosphorus discharges, from industrial and wastewater treatment facilities, from about 1,200 kg/day (2646 lbs/day) in 1967 to less than 10 kg/day (22 lbs/day) currently. This current phosphorus loading level is about one-fourth of the 1974 level, but above the loading level achieved in 1989.
Loading of suspended solids to Hamilton Harbour was reduced from over 100,000 kg/day (220,458 lbs/day) in 1978 to 44,981 kg/day (99,164 lbs/day) in 1989. More recently, loading of suspended solids has been increasing toward pre-1986 levels (Remedial Action Planning Office 1998) of approximately 70,000 kg/day (154,320 lbs/day).
Improvements in operations at the steel mills have resulted in major reductions in zinc concentrations in Hamilton Harbour. Current concentrations are well within the provincial water quality objective.
Loadings of phenols to the Harbour were reduced from about 2,600 kg/day (5,732 lbs/day) in the early 1970s to about 15 kg/day (33 lbs/day) in 1989 as a direct result of improvements to steel mill operations. In 1987, concentrations of phenols in the Harbour were within the provincial water quality concentration objective. But by 1988, the concentrations of phenols exceeded the provincial objective. No recent concentration data were provided to the Commission for its consideration. The 1998 Status Report for Hamilton Harbour notes that development of a reliable loading estimate for phenols is impossible from 1993 onward because of the lack of data.
By 1988, the total loadings of PAHs from point sources were found to be 1.8 kg/day (4.0 lbs/day). Total PAHs from Hamilton Harbour sediment traps also declined from 1987 to 1992. However, as with phenols, the lack of data since 1993 precludes estimation of total loading.
Cyanide loading to the Harbour was about 850 kg/day (1,874 lbs/day) in 1978 and with installation of pollution control facilities, the loading was about 50 kg/day (110 lbs/day) in 1989. In 1989, 98% of the loading came from Dofasco. A lack of data since 1993 precludes a reasonable estimate of loading.
Mercury levels were noted as contributing to fish consumption advisories particularly in the larger, older fish. The 1998 Status Report notes "Mercury is not a regulated substance under MISA because it was not detected in effluent during the monitoring stages . . . mercury remains problematic in the harbour, because it is found in fish flesh at levels which limit fish consumption." The Commission is concerned in regard to increases, from 1985 to 1994, in the levels of mercury in carp and brown bullhead as documented in the 1998 Status Report.
Information regarding levels of iron, lead, copper, and chromium was also detailed. Significant reductions were achieved from the early 1970s to 1989 in regard to the loading of iron. Iron is not regulated and accordingly, no current measurements were available for evaluation.
In 1988, based on 1984-85 data, the RAP's Goals, Problems and Option Discussion Document cited the loading of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from Hamilton Harbour to Lake Ontario as being 7.6 kg/year (16.7 lbs./year). The Stage 2 RAP and its 1995 Update mentioned dredging of the Windermere Basin. The Update states "PCB results closest to Windermere Basin demonstrated a downward trend following the dredging operation . . . (T)his may be attributable to the removal of the PCB contaminated material from the Basin . . ." The Stage 2 RAP notes that this work was already funded for $5.5 million and the these costs were not included in estimated cost figures that were developed for the Stage 2 RAP. Appendix A of the Stage 2 RAP documents completion in 1991 of a comprehensive post-construction sediment quality study of Windermere Basin. The study indicated three remaining zones of contamination in the Basin and it was determined that the Basin was subject to rapid in-filling. Accordingly, this in-place remedial action appears to have been adequately evaluated.
Have alternative additional measures to restore beneficial uses been evaluated?
Potential actions to address ammonia, phosphorus, suspended solids, trace metals and organics, contaminated sediment, bacterial contamination, and degraded fish and wildlife habitat were explicitly evaluated in the Stage 2 RAP. Potential remedial actions, except for those addressing contaminated sediment, were adequately addressed in the Stage 2 RAP.
Consideration of alternative additional measures regarding contaminated sediment is of concern to the Commission. The 1995 Update presents some refinements to the information and strategy contained in the Stage 2 RAP. In regard to the central basin of the harbour, the Update states "This would suggest that roughly 65% of the harbour bed reflects stress to benthos that is principally attributable to eutrophication . . . rather than contaminants such as metals or PAHs." The Update recommends "For this zone we recommend that the focus be on source control, particularly abatement activity associated with the eutrophication problem." The Update further states "Although source control and natural recovery rather than direct intervention such as sediment removal or treatment, is advocated for this category of sediment, it will be necessary to agree on biological and chemical targets and a corresponding timetable for delisting purposes."
Other than the determination that 65% of the harbour bed was primarily impacted by eutrophication, no evaluation including environmental benefits foregone is presented to the reader prior to reporting the decision to "advocate" source control and natural recovery. The need to agree on "biological and chemical targets and a corresponding timetable for delisting purposes" confirms that alternative additional measures to restore beneficial uses could not have been fully evaluated. The Stage 2 RAP detailed the following options to deal with contaminated sediment in the harbour:
However, the Stage 2 Update provides no comparative evaluation of these Stage 2 treatment options. The implementation annex for the Stage 2 RAP states "Staff . . . are working with Environment Canada to establish biologically-based clean-up criteria, and these will be contained in a Stage 2 update which is currently in preparation." The identified update document does not define these clean-up criteria. In fact, the update outlines the following activities necessary for completion or maintenance to assist in further refining future options:
Accordingly, a more transparent evaluation of potential measures to restore sediment quality in Hamilton Harbour is needed. The RAP's own 1998 Status Report recommends "that an assessment of sediment contamination be completed, with a view to early remediation in the worst areas." Thus, as confirmed by the 1998 Status Report, the Stage 1 requirement for definition and detailed description of the environmental problem (contaminated sediment) remains to be met. This lack of definition in regard to contaminated sediment precludes adequate treatment of the Stage 2 requirement to evaluate alternative additional measures to restore beneficial uses. A comprehensive evaluation displaying the range of costs for various alternatives in addition to the potential benefits should be available for use in consultation with the public. This documentation should offer explicit comparisons between alternatives with predicted effects on contaminant levels in fish and any environmental benefits foregone under a no-remediation option.
Have additional remedial measures to restore beneficial uses been selected?
Considerable progress has been made toward addressing the control of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and the restoration of habitat. These activities have moved beyond the selection of additional remedial measures to the implementation of selected remedial actions. For example, the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth has completed five CSO tanks to control the release of untreated waste. These tanks are the first of about 14 tanks/tunnels determined to be necessary for adequate control of this problem. Similarly, construction of a barrier to exclude carp from Cootes Paradise was selected in order to restore habitat conditions there and this action has already been implemented. Significant improvements in habitat conditions appear to have accrued due to this latter activity.
As previously noted, questions remain concerning to the selection of remedial measures for contaminated sediment. Since the 1998 Status Report recommends an assessment of sediment contamination be completed, it would appear that, additional remedial measures regarding contaminated sediment had not yet been reasonably confirmed. In the 1992 Stage 2 RAP, the recommended task dealing with contaminated sediment is "To carry out the investigations necessary and to make the decisions required to proceed promptly with clean-up of the contaminated sediments in the Harbour." As data become available to support decision-making concerning the contaminated sediment situation, a transparent selection process should be undertaken in consultation with the public.
Has a schedule for implementation been adopted and have persons and agencies responsible for implementation of remedial measures been identified?
The Stage 2 RAP contains 50 recommendations developed by stakeholders and the RAP writing team regarding recommended remedial actions and responsible agencies. In response to these recommendations, the federal and provincial governments developed 31 and 41 statements, respectively. Since government agencies state they are unable to commit funds in future fiscal years, these responses do not include future obligations or specific implementation schedules. While total costs were estimated in regard to some of the recommendations, the federal and provincial responses did not estimate costs of implementing many of the responses. The failure to estimate these costs makes the estimation of overall remediation costs and the prioritization of potential remedial actions difficult to achieve. For example, the federal government did not estimate the cost or quantify remediation needs for the recommendation dealing with contaminated sediment. The provincial government estimated the cost for sediment assessment at $5.6 million but did not quantify remediation needs. According to the 1998 Status Report, in 1992, an estimate of implementation costs for contaminated sediment in Hamilton Harbour was $60 million. Cost for an extensive remediation option has been estimated at $1 billion.
In order to track progress toward the restoration and protection of beneficial uses in Hamilton Harbour, there is a considerable need for suitable surveillance and monitoring. Despite this need, in their 1995 response, neither government estimated the cost of the recommendation regarding surveillance and monitoring. The lack of suitable data to develop current loading estimates for substances such as phenols, PAHs, and cyanide outlines the need to anticipate funding needs for surveillance and monitoring.
Responsible agencies and organizations were outlined by the governments in their responses. In regard to contaminated sediment, the federal response notes that discussions have been undertaken with other stakeholders in order to gain their support and participation in the actual clean up of the most severely contaminated sediment. However, these stakeholders are not identified in either the federal or provincial response.
More effort should be devoted to confirming a schedule for treatment of the contaminated sediment. Although highest priority, medium priority, and lowest priority zones for sediment remediation were outlined in the Stage 2 Update, the lack of volume and cost estimates make any meaningful discussion of scheduling for contaminated sediment remediation difficult.
Has an ecosystem approach been taken to the restoration and protection of beneficial uses?
In setting out the General Principles for RAPs, the Parties said they would embody a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach to the restoration and protection of beneficial uses. This approach should include, among other things: an inventory of sources for pollutants especially persistent toxic substances in various media, an assessment of exposure pathways, an identification of highly exposed species and an assessment of impacts, due to the various sources of these pollutants in an AOC, on these exposed fish, wildlife or human populations. The association of atmospheric releases of dioxin1 from local sources2, their impact on water quality through deposition either directly on waters of Hamilton Harbour or its watershed, and the resultant potential for bioaccumulation provides an opportunity to adopt a more comprehensive and systematic ecosystem approach to the restoration and protection of certain beneficial uses in the Hamilton Harbour AOC. For example, the RAP should recognize human health concerns regarding exposure to persistent toxic substances such as dioxin and benzene from local emissions; consumption of environmentally contaminated fish; and exposure to bacteria and other contaminants through swimming or other direct water contact.
The recommendation in Annex A (Formal Implementation Commitments) of the Stage 2 RAP, dealing with air pollution (recommendation number 37), addresses only visual and odorous emissions in order to "make the Harbour area more aesthetically pleasing." The Stelco sintering plant is a significant source of atmospheric releases of dioxin. Dofasco and Stelco are sources of benzene emissions. Hence, in order to demonstrate commitment to an ecosystem approach to the restoration and protection of beneficial uses and consistent with the stakeholders resolution that "the discharge of any or all persistent toxic substances be virtually eliminated", benzene emissions from Dofasco and Stelco and dioxin emissions from the Stelco sintering plant and other local sources should receive greater attention.
It appears, however; that certain obvious sources of persistent toxic substances are currently not receiving adequate attention. For example, due the lack of adequate monitoring since 1993, loadings of phenols, PAHs, and cyanide to Hamilton Harbour are not currently estimated. A systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring and protecting beneficial uses in the Hamilton Harbour AOC will necessitate greater effort be made toward the tracking of reductions in the loadings of persistent toxic substances.
Was the public consulted adequately?
The Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC), once funded by the federal and provincial governments, is now partially funded by the federal government along with other non-governmental funding sources. It has provided an exemplary level of public consultation and involvement and continues to strive to do so. BARC itself has provided an extraordinary level of commitment and support toward remedial activities in the Hamilton Harbour AOC. Accordingly, to date, an exemplary level of public consultation has been achieved and maintained in regard to RAP development and implementation. However, because of reduced funding for the BARC, there is concern that future public consultation needs may not be met. Effort should be made to ensure adequate public consultation particularly with respect to agency decisions concerning remediation of contaminated sediment.
Conclusions
Stage 2 requirements regarding necessary remedial actions necessary for control of CSOs and enhancement of habitat conditions have been fulfilled in a very satisfactory manner. The level of commitment demonstrated by government agencies, local elected politicians, and the BARC is commendable. Completion of Stage 2 RAP requirements, particularly regarding evaluation and selection of remedial measures concerning contaminated sediment requires a more explicit comparison of alternatives during the decision-making process. Although broad priorities were set for the sediment problem, the specific required remedial actions including quantification of treatment needs and costs for selected actions were not detailed. These costs and the extent of remedial activities to be undertaken for contaminated sediment remain unknown, as far as the Commission can determine.
Adoption of a systematic and fully comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring and protecting beneficial uses in the Hamilton Harbour AOC will contribute to the closer scrutiny of sources of persistent toxic substances as well as possible direct benefits through lowering risks to human health. In particular, local sources of dioxin, benzene, and mercury are of concern.
The BARC has proven to be a powerful tool for achieving a desirable level of public consultation. Recent funding cutbacks are a concern to the Commission however and may prove to be a limitation on future public consultation efforts. Care should be taken to ensure that a vigorous BARC continues to exist to assist governments in necessary public outreach activities during RAP implementation.