Contaminated sites to cost us $7.7 Billion

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83


Contaminated sites pose billions in risk


OTTAWA — The federal government is facing $7.7 billion in environmental liabilities for approximately 22,000 federal contaminated sites across the country and a funding shortfall to clean up the polluted lands, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development warned Tuesday in a new report.

While the government has made progress in identifying contaminated sites for which it is responsible — having closed the files on more than one-third of them — about half of the sites have yet to be assessed for remediation and prioritized for action, Environment Commissioner Scott Vaughan says in his report.

There is also a $500-million shortfall to deal with the sites that have already been assessed, he notes, and federal funding is shrinking significantly for assessing the remaining locations. Most of the allocated funding that remains is earmarked for a few high-risk sites and it remains unclear how thousands of other contaminated sites will be addressed, he said.

"Many of these sites are buried and out of the public eye, but they will impose human health risks and environmental and financial burdens for generations to come," Vaughan says.

Of the 22,000 identified sites, around 14,500 of them are considered active, with the remaining having been closed (deemed no further action is required, but doesn't necessarily mean they have been remediated).

Nearly half of the active sites were in the initial stages of being identified and examined, while 81 per cent of the active sites do not yet have a recorded financial liability.

Furthermore, a performance reporting system does not yet exist so it's difficult to know whether federal dollars spent on cleaning up sites are delivering results.

"We found that the government does not know the full extent of its financial exposure at this time," the report says. "Because so many sites are still at the early steps of the process, the government does not have the information it needs to know the cost and the resulting financial liability for federal contaminated sites."

Federal sites can include anything from small areas of soil contaminated by fuel spills to massive abandoned mines with heavy metals and other toxic substances. The contaminants can include toxic and hazardous substances and range from petroleum products to radioactive materials.

Unless properly managed and remediated, the sites can contaminate water, soil and air, and threaten human health.

The $7.7 billion in federal environmental liabilities includes $4.3 billion for approximately 2,200 contaminated sites and $3.3 billion for the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program for the decommissioning of contaminated lands, research facilities and radioactive waste of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.

"While progress has been made in addressing federal contaminated sites, environmental and human health risks remain, given the number of contaminated sites still to be addressed," the report says.

Nearly half of the identified sites had contaminated soil while about 16 per cent had contaminated groundwater and 14 per cent with sediment, six per cent with surface water and five per cent with surface soil. Petroleum-based products are the most common type of contaminant, found in more than half the sites, with metals accounting for about one-third.

Approximately 827 of the active federal sites are considered high-priority, which are "much more likely to have a greater impact on human health and the environment." There are 2,437 medium-priority active sites.

Some of the high-priority active sites include a soil remediation project at the Attawapiskat reserve in Northern Ontario that has been grappling with a housing crisis. The site includes a former school that had to be closed in 2000 due to health concerns after nearly 25,000 litres of diesel fuel seeped into the soil two decades earlier, when the site was home to a former water treatment plant and underground fuel supply lines.

Since 2005, the federal government has spent about $1.5 billion to address contaminated sites. The investment is part of a $3.5-billion, 15-year (2005-2020) cost-sharing program known as the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan.

The environment commissioner made two recommendations, which have generally been accepted by the government. They are: to conduct a risk review of contaminated sites and issue a publicly available report on the progress of the government's action plan.

The sites identified in the commissioner's report became contaminated due to operations of the federal government as well as from tenants on Crown lands, such as with private mining companies extracting gold and other metals under federal permits.

In thousands of cases, the environmental damage occurred decades before the government adopted grittier regulations on pollution and toxic substances.

Environment Canada, one of the federal departments involved in cleaning up contaminated lands, estimates about 13 per cent of the sites will take a decade or longer to identify and remediate.

The commissioner found that the five federal departments audited — Environment Canada, Treasury Board, Aboriginal Affairs, Fisheries and Oceans, and Natural Resources Canada — have mechanisms in place for assessing the risks associated with contaminated sites and identifying priorities.

However, an important tool for validating the effectiveness of the risk-assessment process and government's decisions to ensuring sites are remediated was not in place for departments when closing a contaminated site. The government is in the process of developing a consistent set of criteria that must be met in order to close a site.

Contaminated sites pose billions in risk
 
Last edited:

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
$7.7B in contaminated sites a legacy of weak oversight

Federally owned contaminated sites will cost the government billions of dollars to clean up, according to the 2012 report of Canada's environment commissioner.

Scott Vaughan says the government has made significant progress, closing the file on 9,000 out of 22,000 sites across the country, but the remaining sites present some major headaches.

"The government has reported its combined environmental liabilities at $7.7 billion," writes Vaughan. "Many of these sites are buried and out of the public eye, but they will impose human health risks and environmental and financial burdens for generations to come."

Many of Canada's toxic sites were created before environmental assessments were enshrined in law. Vaughan drew a parallel between these contaminated areas and the government's proposed changes to the Environmental Assessment Act, calling it a cautionary tale.

"We cannot go back and repeat the errors of the past. I don't think Canadians can afford it and I don't think they would actually accept it," Vaughan told reporters.

"When you look at the legacy of contaminated sites right across this country, this is a legacy that Canadians will be paying for – not for decades. They'll be paying for it literally for centuries," Vaughan added.

The report’s two other chapters dealt with Canada’s approach to dealing with greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs).

http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/dollar77b-in-contaminated-sites-a-legacy-of-weak-oversight-1http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/08/allan-harding-mackay_n_1501579.html
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,187
14,244
113
Low Earth Orbit
“Environment Canada’s own forecast shows that in 2020, Canada’s emissions
will be seven per cent above the 2005 level, not 17 per cent below it,” Vaughan
pointed out.
By 2020 we'll have another 10 million people trying to survive winter.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,187
14,244
113
Low Earth Orbit
$7.7B in contaminated sites a legacy of weak oversight

Federally owned contaminated sites will cost the government billions of dollars to clean up, according to the 2012 report of Canada's environment commissioner.

Scott Vaughan says the government has made significant progress, closing the file on 9,000 out of 22,000 sites across the country, but the remaining sites present some major headaches.

"The government has reported its combined environmental liabilities at $7.7 billion," writes Vaughan. "Many of these sites are buried and out of the public eye, but they will impose human health risks and environmental and financial burdens for generations to come."

Many of Canada's toxic sites were created before environmental assessments were enshrined in law. Vaughan drew a parallel between these contaminated areas and the government's proposed changes to the Environmental Assessment Act, calling it a cautionary tale.

"We cannot go back and repeat the errors of the past. I don't think Canadians can afford it and I don't think they would actually accept it," Vaughan told reporters.

"When you look at the legacy of contaminated sites right across this country, this is a legacy that Canadians will be paying for – not for decades. They'll be paying for it literally for centuries," Vaughan added.

The report’s two other chapters dealt with Canada’s approach to dealing with greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs).

$7.7B in contaminated sites a legacy of weak oversight - *News - MSN CA
The part Flossy removed... and is playing games over....


Targets beyond reach

The chapter about the government’s new 2020 GHG target found the easier-to-meet, Kyoto Protocol replacement goals were still far out of reach.

“Environment Canada’s own forecast shows that in 2020, Canada’s emissions will be seven per cent above the 2005 level, not 17 per cent below it,” Vaughan pointed out.

The big problem appears to be the government’s sector-by-sector approach. Each set of regulations takes up to five years to develop.

So far, only three sets of regulations have been written. There are two for the transportation sector, which are in place, and one for electricity, which doesn’t come into effect until 2015.

There are no regulations yet for the oil and gas sector, which is the fastest-growing GHG emitter, accounting for one-fifth of Canada’s total emissions. The auditor notes that regulations for this sector are expected to be made public by December.

Some experts were skeptical about the date for those oil and gas rules.

"I have seen governments say 'might' for almost three decades now on climate, and about 95 per cent of the 'mights' became 'nots.' So a government that says 'might' for a regulation should not, according to the very strong historical evidence, get credit until the 'might' becomes 'is,'" said Mark Jaccard, a professor at Simon Fraser University's school of resource and environmental management, one of Canada's leading experts on climate change.

All this is compounded by the lack of an overall implementation plan to show how the government’s multiple regulations will lead to the end goal of GHGs falling 17 per cent below 2005 levels.

Vaughan also noted Ottawa hasn’t costed its plan.

“The government said it was withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol because remaining in it would be too costly to the Canadian economy. We therefore expected the government would have estimated how much it will cost to meet its target and identified the least-costly options,” the report said.

Absence of dollar figures raises fears

Environment Minister Peter Kent accepted the commissioner's recommendations, but took issue with the costing critique.

"Asking for costing in advance of consultations with industry and the provinces would be premature and speculative," a spokesperson from Kent's office wrote to CBC News.

"These regulations are not being created in a vacuum in Ottawa. Costing is one of the elements of consultation with provinces and industry," the spokesperson added.

The opposition echoed the commissioner's concerns about the absence of dollar figures in the government's 2020 plan.

"We seem to be uncovering a pattern with this government. It always seems to be two sets of numbers. Are they hiding these numbers? Are they incompetent? Was this a typographical error? How can we know for sure?" asked the NDP's environment critic Megan Leslie.

Kent's office also contests the commissioner's claim that "Environment Canada's own forecast" showed the government would not meet its 2020 targets.

His spokesperson said that forecast was "speculative" and based on a report published in 2009, before many of the current sector regulations were written.

The report's other chapter about the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act found Canada will not meet the targets set in the 1997 agreement.

Kent announced Canada would pull out of Kyoto last year. The budget implementation bill currently up for debate in the Commons, C-38, would repeal that act.
 
Last edited:

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
I left that out, because there is another thread about Kent and GHG reductions, but if you want to talk about it in this thread, that's fine.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
You cropped it then moved goal posts.....nice try.

What are you talking about?

I kept the discussion about the contaminated sites (which is what this thread is about) and have no problem entertaining your inclination on GHG reductions (which is actually a movement away from the goal posts).
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
SO if I read this correctly the environment al ministry wants $7.7 billion to clean up contaminated sites which may or may not exist or need remedial action because they haven't finished the assessments yet or identified all the sites. Wonder how they came up with the number? Draw from a hat perhaps?
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Ohh, Ohh!!!

I know the answer to this one.

(Ahem).... Canadians use energy exclusively for protecting the environment and blogging on the internet about how badly the Harper gvt is doing in this regard.

And don't forget making hamfisted goal post changes when they don't like their medicine.