December 4, 2001
Accordingly, the Commission’s evaluation of a RAP at any stage includes consideration of an ecosystem approach to the restoration and protection of beneficial uses 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 St. Lawrence River 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 adequacy of public consultation.
Have in-place remedial measures been evaluated?
Chapter seven of the Stage 2 RAP, Remedial Actions Completed Or In Progress,
discusses fifteen actions. Several of the actions discussed are not remedial
measures, however, they do contribute to the development of the RAP. These
include:
The remaining eight elements outlined in this chapter include remedial measures that have been implemented, were underway or were under consideration at the time the RAP was published. While implementation details were provided in the document a more detailed evaluation is needed to understand the significance of these activities. For example, the document states “The extent [at ICI Forest Products] of mercury contamination of the soil on the property has been determined and a proposal for treating the soil has been presented to MOEE to determine whether formal approval is required to proceed with soil remediation.” Therefore, mercury contamination has been documented at this site and a proposal for treatment has been prepared. Without details of the extent of mercury contamination or content of the proposal for remediation in the RAP, it is difficult to assess the benefit from potential actions.
The document notes Domtar’s installation of secondary treatment at a cost of $61 million, but evaluation of this activity was limited to “The facility has been operating since February 1995 and has been meeting the requirements of both MISA and federal pulp and paper regulations.” Quantification of water quality improvements would raise the profile of this contribution to the clean-up effort.
A Cornwall Sediment Management Strategy is outlined on page 132. The RAP states “The strategy will consist of a series of steps to evaluate, select and implement the most appropriate actions for sediment management, consistent with Recommendations #16 and #17". Page 162 of the RAP states “The implementation of remedial actions to address sediment contamination in the AOC will be contingent on the development of the Cornwall Sediment Management Strategy.” This is neither a completed nor in-progress remedial action, but a planning stage for clean-up.
Have alternative additional measures to restore beneficial uses been evaluated?
The RAP Team and the Public Advisory Committee (PAC) performed a comprehensive examination of 233 potential remedial actions. Appendix I enumerates 42 remedial options that were rejected during a review of the potential actions. The PAC also consulted with the broader public and incorporated input that was received in a final set of accepted remedial options. This evaluation of potential remedial actions and subsequent consultation with the general public are notable accomplishments.
Have additional remedial measures to restore beneficial uses been selected?
Chapter six of the Stage 2 RAP details 64 actions that are recommended as a result of extensive technical investigation and consultation with the public. As noted on page 83 of the RAP, these recommendations were selected by the RAP Team and PAC.
Recommendation #17 which is related to areas where contaminant levels in sediment exceed the severe effect level for mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls or other persistent toxic substances merits further examination. Although the RAP states “Detailed information on sediment contaminants exists for the area along the Cornwall waterfront . . .”, little information regarding the recommended remedial measure is provided. For example, no estimate of the volume of contaminated sediment that requires remediation is provided and the estimated costs have not been determined. Since remedial costs related to the contaminated sediment issue could easily exceed several million dollars, it appears that considerable information is still required to better define this issue, to evaluate remedial options and to undertake meaningful public consultation.
Priority setting among the 64 recommended actions could help develop a specific workplan schedule for implementation. Recommendation #19 concerning an upgrade of the Cornwall sewage treatment plant with an estimated cost of $30 million appears to receive no higher priority for implementation than does Recommendation #49 that is designed to encourage municipalities to protect wetlands with an estimated zero cost for implementation. While these two recommendations should not compete for resources, clear priority setting, based on benefits which would accrue to beneficial uses within the AOC, would assist in setting and carrying out a reasonable implementation schedule. Priority setting sends a clear message regarding which environmental issues the RAP Team and PAC consider the most pressing.
Has a schedule for implementation been adopted and have persons and agencies responsible for implementation of remedial measures been identified?
Implementation schedules and responsible implementors are outlined for many of the 64 recommended actions. For some recommended actions, the implementation schedule is inconsistent with the date on which the document was submitted to the Commission for review. An update of the status and schedules would benefit those responsible for implementing the RAP.
Has an ecosystem approach been taken to the restoration and protection of beneficial uses?
Recommendations developed by the RAP and PAC fully recognize the multi-media
aspects in regard to the restoration and protection of beneficial uses. Most
of these recommendations, as noted in the RAP document, are beyond the control
of the RAP Implementation Team. Examples of recommendations that reflect
this ecosystem approach include:
This listing presents substantial evidence of the scope of effort undertaken by the RAP Team and PAC in their examination of the environmental problems within the AOC. While implementation efforts related to many of these suggested initiatives may be difficult to pursue, the RAP Team and PAC have identified important relationships which often go unaddressed in RAP efforts. For example, local and global sources of air pollutants have been considered and appropriate recommendations have been formulated.
Was the public consulted adequately?
Chapter 3 of the RAP details public involvement in decision making. This chapter outlines an intensive, continuing effort toward achieving a desirable level of public consultation. Consultation efforts related to the consideration of preferred remedial options are of particular distinction. The PAC has also taken steps to exchange information with the AOC effort at Massena, New York.
Conclusion
Since its initiation in 1986, the St. Lawrence [Ontario] River RAP effort has undertaken an impressive array of activities that have contributed to a credible Stage 2 RAP document. Some follow-up effort is required to confirm some issues. In particular, additional information concerning contaminated sediment and an upgrade of the Cornwall sewage treatment plant (Recommendations #17 and #19) should be made available to the public, government agencies, and the Commission. These recommendations may involve multi-million dollar remedial actions. Accordingly, it is important that a greater level of detail regarding identification of the partners and determination of the implementation schedule be provided.