News release

Experts Present Cleanup Options

Transportation and Public Works (to Oct. 2007)

NOTE: A summary of the cleanup options follows this news release.


Technical experts today, Feb. 24, presented a short list of options for cleaning up the Sydney tar ponds and coke ovens.

The options -- six for the tar ponds and four for the former coke ovens site -- use more than 20 different technologies, ranging from bioremediation, soil washing and containment to incineration, thermal desorption, and co-burning.

They are contained in a two-volume technical document, the Remedial Action Evaluation Report, presented to a special noontime meeting of the Joint Action Group's (JAG) remedial action working group. The presentation marks the kickoff of an intense, two-month community consultation in which JAG will seek the public's views on which options are acceptable to Cape Breton Regional Municipality (CBRM) residents.

In late May, JAG will present a cleanup recommendation to governments based on this community consultation.

The report was prepared by two engineering firms, CBCL Ltd. of Halifax and Sydney, and ENSR Inc. of Westford, Mass., under the direction of Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Ltd., project management consultants.

"We selected only technologies that had proven successful at cleaning up sites of comparable size and complexity," said Ray D'Hollander, senior regional engineer with ENSR. "Both the community and the government partners made it clear that they did not want any experimental processes."

"The community and the government partners can choose any of these options with confidence that they are effective and safe," said Mr. D'Hollander. "Any one of them can do the job."

CBRM Mayor John Morgan welcomed the report.

"Think what Sydney could be without the tar ponds in its midst," he said. "Solving this problem will advance so many aspects of this community's life: business, health care, education, recreation."

The mayor said his administration would continue to work with JAG and the other government partners to keep The Big Cleanup on schedule.

In addition to conceptual options, the report lists cost and time estimates. Depending on the options chosen, the estimated cost of cleaning both sites ranges from $140 million to $440 million, and The Big Cleanup could take four to 11 years.

"CBCL and ENSR engaged some of North America's top experts in environmental remediation in the preparation of this report," said JAG chair Dan Fraser. "We are very confident that the options presented provide the community the information it needs to move forward."

The report culminates six years of work by scientists, engineers, and community volunteers. The work included:

  • Intensive environmental investigation to determine the type of contaminants present, their concentration and their location;
  • Risk assessments that determined the pathways by which people and animals might be exposed to specific contaminants;
  • Cleanup targets based on actual conditions, as recommended by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment;
  • A review of technologies proven safe and effective on sites of comparable size and complexity;
  • Results of testing technologies on actual tar ponds sediments;
  • Public consultation by JAG to determine what criteria CBRM residents wanted The Big Cleanup to meet.

"The public told us they wanted a solution that protected health, used reliable technology, and maximized long-term benefits," Mr. Fraser said. "The technical experts used these community evaluation criteria to develop the cleanup options presented today."

David Darrow, CEO of the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency, called the list of options "a turning point for Sydney that would let this community get on with the job."

With the help of an independent facilitator, JAG will host workbook sessions where CBRM residents will indicate which options they find acceptable. A technical expert will be available to answers questions while people are completing the workbooks.

"No community in Canada has ever had so much influence in a major environmental cleanup," Mr. Darrow said. "It's important for residents to participate in the JAG workbook sessions over the next two months, so JAG can present the clearest possible recommendation to government."

"The landfill is capped, the sewer lines are in place and the stacks are down. It's now time for the community to take the next step to review the options and make a recommendation on how to clean up the tar ponds and coke ovens," said Garth Bangay, regional director general for Environment Canada.

The tar ponds are a tidal estuary that filled up with contaminated waste during 100 years of steel and coke production at the nearby Sydney Steel plant. Major contaminants include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals. Small sections of the tar ponds also contain PCB material.


NOTE: Following are the cleanup options in brief. Estimated costs and duration of the cleanup are included in brackets.

The Tar Ponds Options:

Excavation of North Pond, containment in South Pond -- This option would excavate sediments from the North Pond and place them in a bermed containment area to be built in the South Pond. When completed, the containment facility would be fitted with an engineered cap and planted with grass. The North Pond would once again become a healthy aquatic environment. PCB material would go to an off-site incinerator. ($150 million; four years.)

Excavation of both ponds with containment at the coke ovens -- This option would excavate sediments from both ponds, solidify them and place them in an engineered containment facility at the coke ovens site. Both ponds would once again become a healthy aquatic environment. PCB material would go to an off-site incinerator. ($250 million; five years.)

Soil washing, bioremediation, co-burning and containment -- This option would excavate sediments from both ponds and treat them with soil washing and possibly bioremediation. Fuel material recovered in this manner would go to an off-site power plant or cement kiln for co-burning. Treated sediments would, if necessary, go to an engineered containment facility at the coke ovens. PCB material would be treated on site with pyrolysis or thermal desorption, then destroyed through off-site incineration, plasma or hydrogen reduction. Cleaned sediments would go to the engineered containment facility at the coke ovens. ($320 million; seven years.)

Co-burning -- This option would excavate sediments from both ponds and send them to a power plant or cement kiln for co- burning. PCB material would go to an off-site incinerator. ($220 million; 11 years.)

On-site incineration -- This option would excavate sediments from both ponds and incinerate them on site in a portable facility designed to handle both PAHs and PCBs. Incinerator ash would go to an engineered landfill at the coke ovens. ($240 million; 11 years.)

Containment and capping of both ponds -- This option would contain sediments in both ponds under an engineering cap. Grass would cover the above-water portions of the cap (all of the South Ponds and part of the North Pond). ($110 million; four years.)

Coke Ovens Options:

Bioremediation and containment -- This option would bioremediate PAH-contaminated surface soils, then cover the excavated area with soil and plant grass on top. Cutoff walls would prevent coal tar from intruding into the lower reaches of Coke Ovens Brook. A trench in the old stream bed would collect coal tar and groundwater going to a water treatment plant. ($70 million; four years.)

Containment -- This option would excavate the top two metres of soil from contaminated areas and replace it with clean fill. The contaminated soil would go into an engineered landfill on site. Underground chambers and tunnels would be removed or filled and the site would be covered with clean soil and grass planted on top. ($40 million; five years.)

Soil washing and co-burning -- This option would excavate the top two metres of soil from contaminated areas and replace it with clean fill. Soil washing would separate out contaminants, which would go to a power plant or cement kiln for co-burning. The remaining material would go to an engineered landfill on site. Underground chambers and tunnels would be removed or filled, and the site would be covered with clean soil and grass planted on top. ($120 million; seven years.)

Pyrolysis and co-burning -- This option would excavate the top two metres of soil from contaminated areas and replace it with clean fill. Pyrolysis would separate contaminants from the excavated soil. The contaminants would serve as fuel for co- burning at a power plant or cement kiln, where the remaining material would go into an engineered landfill on site. Underground chambers and tunnels would be removed or filled and the site would be covered in soil and grass planted on top. ($110 million; seven years.)