July 12, 2006 The Honourable Rona Ambrose The Honourable Mark Parent Minister of the Environment Minister of Environment and Labour East Block, Room 163 5151 Terminal Road Ottawa ON K1A 0A6 Halifax NS B3J 2T8 Dear Ministers: In accordance with the mandate issued on July 14, 2005, the Joint Review Panel has completed its assessment of the Sydney Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens Sites Remediation Project as proposed by the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency. We are pleased to submit our report for your consideration. Respectfully, © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2006 All Rights Reserved Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Joint Review Panel for the Sydney Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens Sites Remediation Project (Canada) Joint Review Panel Report on the Proposed Sydney Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens Sites Remediation Project. Issued by the Joint Review Panel for the Sydney Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens Sites Remediation Project. Issued also in French under title: Rapport sur le projet d'assainissement des étangs bitumineux et du site des fours à coke de Sydney. Available also on the Internet at www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca and www.gov.ns.ca/enla ISBN 0-662-43508-7 Cat. no.: En106-65/2006E 1. Hazardous waste site remediation – Nova Scotia – Muggah Creek Watershed. 2. Muggah Creek Watershed (N.S.) – Environmental conditions. 3. Sydney Tar Ponds (N.S.) – Environmental conditions. 4. Coke Ovens – Environmental aspects – Nova Scotia – Sydney. 5. Factory and trade waste – Environmental aspects – Nova Scotia – Sydney. I. Title. II. Report on the Proposed Sydney Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens Sites Remediation Project. HD1671.C3J64 2006 333.77'1530971695 C2006-980144-4 Printed and Bound in Canada Printed on recycled paper TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 The Project 1 The Review Process 1 The Panel’s Overall Conclusion 2 Alternatives 3 Remediation of the Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens Sites 3 The Incinerator 4 Social, Economic, and Community Effects 5 Cumulative Effects 6 Environmental Management 6 1 INTRODUCTION 8 1.1 Joint Panel Agreement 8 1.2 Participant Funding 8 1.3 Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines 8 1.4 Public Registry 8 1.5 Environmental Impact Statement 10 1.6 Public Hearings 10 1.7 Panel Report 10 1.8 Project Description 10 1.9 Information Adequacy 12 2 PROJECT NEED, PURPOSE AND ALTERNATIVES 14 2.1 STPA Assessment 14 2.2 Alternative Means of Carrying Out the Project 16 2.3 Government and Public Concerns 20 2.4 Panel Conclusions and Recommendations 22 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BOUNDARIES 27 3.1 Environmental Assessment Boundaries 27 3.2 STPA Assessment 27 3.3 Public Concerns 28 3.4 Panel Conclusions 28 4 TAR PONDS & COKE OVENS REMEDIATION 30 4.1 The Coke Ovens Site – Existing Conditions 30 4.2 The Coke Ovens Site – Proposed Remediation 32 4.3 The Tar Ponds – Existing Conditions 36 4.4 The Tar Ponds – Proposed Remediation 39 4.5 Air Quality and Human Health 44 4.6 Groundwater and Surface Water Quality 51 iii 4.7 Terrestrial Environment and Freshwater Habitat 60 4.8 Marine Environment 64 4.9 Effects on the Capacity of Renewable Resources 68 4.10 Accidents and Malfunctions 68 4.11 Effects of the Environment on Remediation 69 5 INCINERATION 71 5.1 Completed and Proposed Activities 71 5.2 Air Quality and Human Health 74 5.3 Groundwater Resources and Surface Water Resources 84 5.4 Soil Quality 87 5.5 Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation 88 5.6 Marine Environment 90 5.7 Effects on the Capacity of Renewable Resources 90 5.8 Effects of the Environment on the Project 90 5.9 Accidents and Malfunctions 92 5.10 Monitoring and Community Involvement 97 6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 99 6.1 Employment and Economy 99 6.2 Infrastructure and Services 103 6.3 Transportation 103 6.4 Future Uses of the Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens Sites 107 6.5 Effects on Land Use and Resources 116 6.6 Community Health and Well-Being 117 6.7 Property Value 122 6.8 Heritage Resources and Traditional Uses 124 7 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 125 7.1 STPA Assessment 125 7.2 Government Concerns 126 7.3 Panel Conclusions 126 8 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 127 8.1 The Regulatory Context 127 8.2 Government and Public Concerns 129 8.3 Panel Conclusions and Recommendations 131 8.4 Environmental Monitoring and Follow-Up 135 8.5 Ongoing Community Consultation and Dispute Resolution 139 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 142 APPENDIX A – Panel Members 152 APPENDIX B – Joint Panel Agreement 154 iv APPENDIX C – List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 163 APPENDIX D – Public Hearings 166 APPENDIX E – Acknowledgements 167 FIGURES Figure 1: Steps in the Review Panel Process 9 Figure 2: Location of Remediation Project 11 Figure 3: Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens Land Ownership 29 Figure 4: Coke Ovens Site Risk Assessment Areas 31 Figure 5: Tar Ponds, Coke Ovens, and Remedial Activities 38 Figure 6: Cross-Section of a Typical Barrier and Restored North Tar Pond 40 Figure 7: Tar Ponds Cap Cross Section 45 Figure 8: Residential Areas and Air Monitoring Stations 47 Figure 9: Temporary Incinerator Simplified Flow Diagram 73 TABLES Table 1: Alternatives to the Project as Described by the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency 17 v JOINT REVIEW PANEL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THE PROJECT incineration. The remaining sediments in the Tar Ponds would be solidified in-place using The Sydney Tar Ponds Agency (STPA) cement and other materials, and capped. STPA proposes to remediate contamination at the site would construct an internal drainage system in of the old Coke Ovens and in the adjacent order to manage the influx of both groundwater Muggah Creek estuary, also known as the Tar and seawater. Remediation of the Tar Ponds Ponds. The contamination was caused over would be complete by 2014. many decades by releases of PAHs, PCBs and heavy metals from the steelmaking industry in During the construction phase Sydney, now defunct. The intent of the Project wastewater generated by activities at both sites is both to reduce risks to people and the will be treated before discharge to one or more environment, and to create social and economic water treatment facilities. STPA would continue benefits. STPA has already begun a program of to pump and treat groundwater after preventative works, including construction of a construction has been completed for as long as barrier at the mouth of Muggah Creek at Battery monitoring results showed it to be necessary. Point and diversion of streams currently flowing through the contaminated sites. STPA is A temporary incinerator would be proposing to remediate the two sites using a constructed at either the Victoria Junction or combination of removal and destruction Phalen sites in order to incinerate approximately technologies and containment systems. 150,000 tonnes of contaminated sediments and soils. The incinerator would operate for three At the Coke Ovens site, containment years; construction and then decommissioning structures around the perimeter would prevent would take another two years. STPA has also groundwater from entering the site. Material proposed an alternative means of carrying out from the Tar Cell and sediments from Coke the Project that would eliminate the use of Ovens Brook would be excavated and sent by incineration, and would solidify / stabilize all of rail to a temporary incinerator. Approximately the Tar Ponds sediments in-place. The Tar Cell 40% of the site, where contaminants in the soils material and Coke Ovens Brook sediments exceed certain levels, would be capped to limit would be similarly treated together at the Tar the infiltration of surface water and to prevent Cell. people or wildlife from coming into contact with the contaminants. In some areas, STPA STPA expects to generate between 380 would carry out a form of bioremediation called and 435 years of fulltime employment during landfarming before capping, in order to treat the construction phase, and predicts that 65-75% some of the hydrocarbons in the soil. Non- of labour and supplies will be sourced within hazardous waste debris generated during the Nova Scotia. remediation at both sites may be landfilled in an uncapped portion of the site. Remediation of the THE REVIEW PROCESS Coke Ovens site would be complete by 2011. An independent Joint Review Panel was At the Tar Ponds, two areas of sediments appointed on September 19, 2005 to conduct an with PCBs in higher concentrations (over 50 environmental assessment of the proposed part per million) would be excavated, Project. The members of the Panel are Ms. conditioned and transported by rail for Lesley Griffiths (Chair), Mr. William H.R. - 1 - SYDNEY TAR PONDS AND COKE OVENS SITE REMEDIATION PROJECT Charles, and Dr. Louis LaPierre. This report approach. Nevertheless, the Panel believes details the Panel’s findings. that further pilot studies must be carried out and specific targets reached before this In conducting its review of the Project, technology is approved for use in the the Panel was guided by the terms of a Joint Project; Panel Agreement signed on July 14, 2005 by the • The Panel has concluded that, with Minister of the Environment for Canada and the appropriate technology selection and Nova Scotia Minister of Environment and stringent regulation, incineration could be Labour. The Panel held 17 days of public carried out without significant adverse hearings in Sydney, Nova Scotia in April and environmental effects. However, the Panel May, 2006. heard and takes seriously the widespread community concerns about the use of THE PANEL’S OVERALL CONCLUSION incineration and agrees that a measure of stress and anxiety would likely result. The The Panel’s mandate was to determine Panel believes that, under the terms of the whether the Project presented by STPA or any Toxic Substances Management Policy, the alternative means of carrying out the Project federal government is obliged to weigh the that are technically and economically feasible, relative merits of choosing to remove and would result in significant adverse destroy PCBs versus managing them in- environmental effects.