Jump to content

Super Fund sites outside USA


Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Super Fund sites category only approve US waymarks, all other countries are excluded, so i have few solutions :

1) I submit a waymark, I did it and it was declined https://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/wm1542E_Lusine_de_Canari_la_verrue_du_cap_Corse_France

2) We demote all inactive officers and change category description to expand the category to the world

3) I try to create a new category "Super Fund Sites outside USA"

4) A better idea

 

What do you think ?

 

I prefer 2)

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

As I understood the category description only sites on a specific list of the environment protection agency EPA should be allowed. Since the EPA is only a United States Agency (and not one from the United Nations) this would exclude the rest of the world for waymarks in this category - as a lot of other categories intended only for the US or nearby countries (like the "<State> Historical marker" or "Ansel Adams Photo Hunt" categories). But then we have the "German Benchmarks" (or others in Europe) that the US waymarkers have difficulties to get to - so more than fair.

 

But I just took a look at the links in the description: Unfortunatly that mentioned list at EPA and all the other links are no longer accessible, so the category definitly needs a rework. And I agree with you that expanding the category to allow the "rest of the World" is a better idea than creating a new category for the outside of the US. 

 

I also took a look at the officers last logins - there is one who is active and one who is semi active whose last login was nearly two month ago. The remaining three seem to be inactive :huh: ...

 

So I would also vote for option 2 ...

  • Funny 1
Link to comment

Superfund sites are part of the EPA, a federal agency in the US. Not sure how other countries do or tackle them. Not sure if or even how to expand the existing category to be more inclusive. I am against a new category, as to me that would seem redundant. If you can prove superfund sites (or their equivalent) lie outside the US, I might also agree with option 2. Could you possibly make a list of what the EU or other regions have to offer?

Link to comment

In France we have a database called BASOL and we can find our waymarl location in this page Canari

 

So what do we do ? We include France ? It will we be difficult to manage this category waiting that waymarker give a list for their own country and modify the description each time

It's not so easy to find this kind of list and i could find it only because i speak french, i am not able to find the right list for UK, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Portugal,...

 

We should expand the category, with identified lists and if there is no list for a specific country, we only need active and efficient officers to manage the category.

Edited by Alfouine
.
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

I, too, vote for option 2.

More later if I can find anything of use.

Keith

The more:

After a few moments thought this is what I see:

If you should choose to proceed with option 2 the simplest and most logical way would be to simply throw open the category, including what information and website links you have at hand. Then do a bit of a rewrite, stating at the beginning of the description that you have done so and that, should a Waymarker have a suitable site to submit, they must include the name and website URL for the environmental agency in charge of contaminated sites in their country.

Then take that URL and add it to a list within the category description thus:

 

Australia

Austria

Canada

France

New Zealand

United Kingdom

United States

Etc

Etc

 

The list will expand as Waymarkers from other countries submit their contaminated sites.

Of course you must insist on good, informative writeups accompanying each new submission, a certain minimum of photos, etc.

Doing it this way opens the category to the world quickly while sparing officers the drudgery of trying to find the URLs for each specific agency in each country. The Waymarkers are better able to do this in any event as they will each be more familiar with their country's government agencies and won't be faced with the language barriers that you will.

Keith

Edit: BTW, each URL that I found and included above appears to need the Waymarker to drill down to find the specific site in question, so it would be necessary  for the Waymarker to include the top level URL for the agency AS WELL AS the link to the specific page for the site they're submitting, UNLESS the top level URL for that country is already on your list, OR, for the sake of simplicity, just require both URLs each time. It won't kill any Waymarkers to include both - IE two REQUIRED variables.

 

Then we have to address the site itself and whether it should be acceptable as a Superfund type of site or just a site that has been identified as contaminated but at which no actual cleanup has been undertaken. I've done a few of the US Superfund sites but will have to go back and review the category to see what they're presently requiring. More in the morning - it's bed time now.

 

Edited by ScroogieII
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
On 10/14/2021 at 9:24 PM, Alfouine said:

2) We demote all inactive officers and change category description to expand the category to the world

I also think that would be the best solution, rather than recreating a new category. At least we would have a world category, and which would take on a new lease of life.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Becktracker said:

Please take in consideration that visiting these sites can be a health risk. They are the most polluted zones of a country. 

 

Actually, they shouldn't be, as superfund sites have either been cleaned up or are in the process.

No, I'm wrong. After reading the site specific page for the ANACONDA CO. SMELTER, for example, I see that it hasn't yet been cleaned up, only studies done to date.

"Status (July 1983): The Anaconda Co. voluntarily entered into an agreement with EPA and the State for a study to identify and quantify hazardous materials at the smelter. The sampling and analysis of the results have been completed by the parties to the agreement.

EPA is planning a remedial investigation/feasibility study to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site and identify alternatives for remedial action. EPA is also negotiating with Anaconda to have the company take interim remedial measures to stabilize conditions at the site."

 

This appears to mean that a site doesn't have to have been decontaminated in order to be accepted in the Superfund category.

But first, Thierry, you need to get Andreas on board. I notice that he hasn't posted here yet.

The new Superfund URL.

Keith

Link to comment

On a related note:

Did everyone know that International Landscape Day is just two days down the road?

 

International Landscape Day

The International landscape Day is celebrated annually on 20 October. Celebrating Landscape Day began on the initiative of the Council of Europe. The main objective of the Landscape Day is to highlight the importance of the landscapes as integral part of the cultural heritage, identity, well-being and the quality of our living environment.

149514

 

Annual landscape celebration

International Landscape Day was celebrated for the first time in 2017. At that time the Ministry of the Environment challenged the municipalities and NGOs to consider how the day could be celebrated in the coming years.

 

The objective of the Council of Europe is to institutionali[z]e the celebration of the International Landscape day on 20 October as an annual tradition. The International Landscape day is celebrated by all parties to the European Landscape Convention.

 

The European Landscape Convention promotes the protection, management and planning of European landscapes and organi[z]es European co-operation on landscape issues. The European Landscape Convention is the first international treaty to concern solely landscapes.

The European Landscape Convention was adopted on 20 October 2000 in Florence and came into force in Finland on 1 April 2006. The convention is ratified by 40 countries.

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, wayfrog said:

I would like to hear more feedback from other Waymarkers please. In Germany we have "Kataster" but these are often (99%) not accessible to the public. Not sure if we should expand it, I'm getting already a mild headache thinking about it. :signalviolin:

 

Sorry, I wanted to say that even the database is not accessible to the public.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Alfouine said:

I can not imagine that a super fund site could be accessible... even in USA 

 

I, too, have visited several that are accessible.

People seem to be under the impression that Superfund Sites are all "Three Mile Island" type sites, containing oodles of strongly radioactive or carcinogenic material that will surely shorten the life of anyone who visits. For the most part, such is not the case. Each site is different in terms of what caused the site to become contaminated, but, even before cleanup, most were not imminently dangerous to those who visited. Often, they contain mine or industrial wastes containing small amounts of heavy metals which it is feared may leach into the soil or the ground water.

 

As well, many sites may be viewed without actually entering the site itself, such as the one I noted above, the ANACONDA CO. SMELTER site. This is a site that has not even been cleaned up, as the danger it poses is pretty minimal, though still real.

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to comment
11 hours ago, wayfrog said:

 

Sorry, I wanted to say that even the database is not accessible to the public.

OK but it's not because in one country database is not accessible that the category can not be expanded

I repeat but "We should expand the category, with identified lists and if there is no list for a specific country, we only need active and efficient officers to manage the category"

This kind of category can be and should be expanded. The other solution is to create a new category with the same description excluding USA, this is really stupid....

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
On 10/16/2021 at 11:50 AM, ScroogieII said:

... should a Waymarker have a suitable site to submit, they must include the name and website URL for the environmental agency in charge of contaminated sites in their country.

 

In Austria we have https://www.altlasten.gv.at/atlas/verzeichnis.html ("Verzeichnis der Altlasten" = List of contaminated sites). There are separate lists for each province and lots of detailled information about what is/was wrong with site, the size, the status, etc.

 

Link to comment

After quite some research I found 29 different maps for Switzerland. One for each canton plus three different domains under federal control or responsibility.

 

They all have a slightly different look and feel, but the ones I have checked yet do NOT provide any detail information in a way that they could fulfill the specific URL requirement proposed by Keith.

 

There is free access to the map with the exact coordinates and shapes of the sites. Additional provided information are classifications of type (depot/landfill, production site, accident, shooting range ...) and severity (no action needed, supervision needed, decontamination needed, research needed ...).

 

In general, there are no detail pages and no additional information, not even IDs or so. So it's easy to find all the sites, but then it gets difficult.

 

However, there are some selected detail pages about a handful of the largest current or recent decontamination projects, like Bonfol JU (a 12 year project for 420 million US-$ ) or Kölliken AG (15 years, costs around 770 million $)

 

(SCNR: Next to the infamous huge toxic landfill site, the village of Kölliken is also known as the childhood home of International music star DJ Bobo. Some people say there must be a connection between the contamination and his music. :ph34r:)

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, fi67 said:

(SCNR: Next to the infamous huge toxic landfill site, the village of Kölliken is also known as the childhood home of International music star DJ Bobo. Some people say there must be a connection between the contamination and his music. :ph34r:)

 

I know of some music that is worse (sounding like a vacuum cleaner falling down the stairs and an orc at the mike) - probably these were contaminated, too.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, FamilieFrohne said:

 

I know of some music that is worse (sounding like a vacuum cleaner falling down the stairs and an orc at the mike) - probably these were contaminated, too.

Yep, some orcs are really bad singers, but you better don't tell them.

OTOH, a nicely tuned vacuum cleaner has its merits.

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
On 10/23/2021 at 1:07 PM, Alfouine said:

This kind of category can be and should be expanded. The other solution is to create a new category with the same description excluding USA, this is really stupid....

 

OK, Thierry, if you really want to continue with this, I'm willing to help with each and every aspect of the RE-creation of the category. I believe you should still have my email addy, so write me. If you have managed to lose my addy you can get it from Phil. :mad:

Between yourself, myself and Andreas, we should be able to cobble together a presentable rewrite acceptable to our community, and in a minimum of three languages, to boot. :)

This is, in truth, a category ripe for expansion. Waymarking began in the U.S. so, quite naturally, many of the initial categories thought little of the world outside those borders. However, I, and anyone with their eyes open, have come to the realization that the majority of newcomers to the sport have lived their entire lives in a country in which Seattle is not situated.

 

Given that our community has, of late, favoured category expansion, when possible, over category creation, A Superfund category, by any other name, would smell as sweet.

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to comment
1 hour ago, PISA-caching said:

The link to the "USA" list doesn't work and I suggest to use a new window/tab.

 

Does the site have to have a "polluted" status, or are they still valid, when they are on the list, but remediated or secured?

 

A new USA link has been provided and will likely be posted whenever our leader gets out of bed. :D

At the moment, I have just realized that this, the polluted status of a site, has not yet been addressed.

It's something I'll have to bring up with the leader, so we can clarify the question you've posed.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Andreas.

Keith

Link to comment
23 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

and I suggest to use a new window/tab.

 

I had included that in an update, but it's not W3C compliant, so Thierry would rather not use is. There is no simple alternative, unfortunately.

While target="_blank" once was deprecated, it no longer is but will not be accepted by an HTML validator, to the best of my knowledge. Thierry and/or Erik, both much more knowledgeable than myself, may have better information or a better explanation.

I, however, will admit that I use target="_blank" with abandon, pleading ignorance each time.:D

Keith

Link to comment

:D Have you ever tried any Waymarking webpage with an HTML validator? The doctype is "XHTML 1.0 Transitional" and still there are (just tried the front page) "124 Errors, 53 warning(s)". So, do you worry about a 125th error? A few random WMs had 160-200 errors. A random category page had more than 600 errors. 

 

BTW, I always use target="_blank" in the long descriptions of my WMs. And still the W3C police has not knocked on my door. :D

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

Well ... on designing web interfaces many articles (and even some books) were written. Here is what I know about that (even if I do not always adhere to the knowledge myself):

 

  • Although "target='_blank'" is still a valid frame target, its use is frowned upon. The main reason against it is that the user should decide for himself whether he wants to open a new tab or a new window. However, if I use the "_blank" target as a developer, I take away the decision from the user. Also, a new tab/window forces the user to explicitly close that window. Extremely rare exceptions would be longer help texts that are used with forms.
  • It should also be made visually clear to a user that the text is a clickable link - be it by underlining, different styling (color, bold text) or by a symbol following the link text which indicates this fact (e.g. square with an arrow pointing upwards to the right).
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
11 hours ago, FamilieFrohne said:

Extremely rare exceptions would be longer help texts that are used with forms.

 

If I create a new WM, I have to fill out a form and the list of polluted sites in a country is kind of a longer help page in that context, no? Anyway, I can live with or without target="_blank". :D

Link to comment
On 1/20/2022 at 7:27 AM, PISA-caching said:

BTW, I always use target="_blank" in the long descriptions of my WMs. And still the W3C police has not knocked on my door.

 

Nor Mine

 

On 1/19/2022 at 1:29 AM, PISA-caching said:

If different kinds of status are allowed, it might be a good idea to add a variable with the status, but then again: What if I add a polluted site and it is secured/remediated lateron?

 

This has become, for me, a bit of a conundrum. I'm not yet convinced which way we should go with regard to the status of a "registered" site. Here, in Canada I find sites that continue to exist in the register but have been officially closed, yet remain on the register, usually/often after preliminary examinations of a site have resulted in a decision to take no further action.

 

As for sites that are a "polluted site and it is secured/remediated later on", I should think that these would always be acceptable, as this is a common happening, totally outside of your control.

Gotta think more on this.

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to comment

I agree it's really difficult to define a status, and the status is valid when you create the waymark but if can change and no one will change the variable content

The main thing is that the site belongs to an official government list

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Benchmark Blasterz said:

I’m willing to help out as an officer if needed - and this reminds me that I have a superfund site from Christmas vacation to waymark :) 

 

Thanks for the offer. We'll keep you in mind, Perky, should one of us stumble and fall. :)

Keith

Link to comment

Nice to see this category may be revised. An an environmental toxicologist the subject is of interest to me.

 

A few comments if I may:

 

I don't know that all locations will have a sign. For example, My M.Sc. work focused on highly contaminated sediments at Randle Reef within Hamilton Harbour (Ontario). The contaminated area was located offshore. The only indications of the location (at that time) were navigational markers that restricted boats from entering that area. The adjacent shoreline was industrialized and off-limits to the public (inaccessible). However, a containment structure has since been constructed over a part of the area, so possibly there are signs (or at least there is a structure that can be photographed). So I guess what I'm saying is to consider how to handle sites with no signs, or signs that are fully off-shore. Also, some of these sites might have a very large perimeter fence, so getting a suitable photo of the site might be a challenge. I'm thinking specifically of the Sydney Tar Ponds in Nova Scotia, which I visited in 2010 (a few years before I began Waymarking and taking thousands of photos per year) - although I did manage to get a somewhat-representative photo from a boat while working in the adjacent harbour

IMG_6298.thumb.jpg.8c5ba813c9a7d4e5533cd5e679fb6933.jpg

 

Another comment on the use of the term "contaminated sites" -  you might want to add a qualifier, maybe something like "nationally-significant contaminated sites". A house with a leaky heating oil tank might be a contaminated site, but it's not significant. Personally, I would prefer to see the title changed from Superfund Sites to something less US-specific, again I suggest something along the lines of "nationally-significant contaminated sites" or "Priority Contaminated Sites"

 

And here's another list to consider adding - Great Lakes Areas of Concern. I've been fortunate to work in a hand-full of the Canadian AOCs. Again, these locations tended to be offshore with few visible structures (if any) and cover a wide area, but generally there will be at least one infoboard sign installed by the local AOC component in a publicly accessible spot (almost a requirement of the delisting criteria it seems)

 

For fun, I leave you with this lovely image I took from 1500 ft (and that's all I'm going to say)

DSCN7857.thumb.JPG.017498e37c4f7d28178ff6913fb08ae1.JPG

 

I'm a little scatter-brained this Monday afternoon so I might have missed something and didn't read through every line above but happy to reply to any questions / comments

Edited by Bon Echo
spelling
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

Thank you for your comments

Sign is not required, just a suggestion, i would prefer a nice view of the site rather than a sign with just a fence

I am not a great fan of variables, i consider that the web page link content will describe what type of contamination is.

I will leave my canadian partner reply about the great lake link

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Bon Echo said:

And here's another list to consider adding - Great Lakes Areas of Concern

 

Hi Jason. Great to "see" you. Being as forgetful as I am, I had completely forgotten that this would be a topic with which you would be intimately familiar.

I am totally in favour of adding your Great Lakes Areas of Concern suggestion to the list of acceptable sites, given your description that: "Again, these locations tended to be offshore with few visible structures (if any) and cover a wide area, but generally there will be at least one infoboard sign installed by the local AOC component in a publicly accessible spot (almost a requirement of the delisting criteria it seems". After all, they should not be excluded simply because they are (mostly) offshore with little to photograph but the lake and an informational sign. Good, informative, Waymarks could easily be created in those locations.

 

As for the highly contaminated sediments at Randle Reef and the Sydney Tar Ponds in Nova Scotia, I suspect that, though certainly equally deserving of inclusion, they present problems in our having to begin creating exceptions, NEVER a desirable circumstance.

 

In any event, THANK YOU, Jason, for contributing here. Of all the people I know, you are far and away the one closest to the topic and the most knowledgeable on it, as well.

 

3 hours ago, Bon Echo said:

Personally, I would prefer to see the title changed from Superfund Sites

 

I, too would be in favour of that, but for one small issue: Americans who wished to add to the category would have difficulty finding the category under a new name in the category list.

 

Thanks, Jason - Keith

 

 

 

Link to comment

Thanks Keith, nice to "see" you too and hope you are well.

 

Now I'm worried I might have over-sold the Great Lakes AOCs, specifically my comment about the signage. There are many AOCs that I have not been too so to be honest I'm not really qualified to make the statement about the prevalence of signage. Each AOC RAP (Remedial Action Plan) Committee operates somewhat independently and while one committee might be inclined to sign, others might choose otherwise. I know that a sign is not absolutely required under proposed revised description (I misunderstood that it was, upon my first read), but I'm just trying to imagine how some of the AOC might be waymarked. I think the challenge is similar to that of Waymarking a natural lake; from the Natural Lakes category description:

 

Quote

Lakes have obviously multiple access points, so use judgment in selecting a point that will appeal to the greatest number of visitors (preferential locations would be a main scenic lookout where it is possible to view a major portion of the lake or a visitors center).

In general, we are looking for only one waymark per lake. In the case of larger lakes, which seeing things with straightforwardness, will be a minority, it is acceptable one waymark per administrative unit which are used by the server Waymarking.com (ie "country" and "state/province").

 

Here's is a better link for the AOCs -  a page that actually lists the various AOCs

https://binational.net/2014/10/31/status-aocs/

 

Let me think about it some more

Link to comment

Another observation if I may. I have only yet looked through the Canadian list and I have noticed that practically every (or at least very many) DND (Department of National Defense) sites, and Water Survey sites (gauge stations) are listed on the Canadian list (actually, I will simplify this to say many Federally owned and managed sites where hazardous chemicals may have been used or stored). I think they were all put on the list for evaluation, and some of them have since been evaluated and deemed to be not of concern.  Should those sites also be acceptable? It is a conundrum, because a site may be waymarked before it is evaluated and later it might be evaluated and found to be not contaminated. And I feel like this is a departure from the Superfund List, where (I imaging, but don't fully know) that a site is only added to the EPA Superfund List after it has been evaluated and is found to be contaminated

 

here's my favourite example as it is also very local to me: the Burlington Bay Main Light (old stone lighthouse) - managed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the chemical of concern is...guano! Yes, bird crap!

 

    Status:     Remediation / risk management completed. No further action required.
    Site Status:     Closed
    Classification:     Not a Priority for Action

 

One could easily Waymark this nice old stone lighthouse into the revised Superfund category, but does it truly meet the spirit of the original category?

(side note - there actually was some sort of clean up at this lighthouse to remove the bird crap - but there is nothing in the linked page to suggest that any work was done (. I only know about the work because I'm local and it's of interest to me, but a traveling waymarker might not know such details)

 

Okay, maybe the above example is not the best one, but there are numerous examples of sites in Canada that are listed, have been evaluated, and deemed to be "okay" without any need for remediation -

a few examples include:

Site 00022221 - High Level RCMP Detachment Site - Alberta

Site 00020617 - Fort Shepherd Upper - No Contamination Identified - British Columbia

Site 00012665 - PORT DALHOUSIE-MARINA (No Contamination Identified) - Ontario

Site 00015226 - Port Dover Gauging Station (No Contamination Identified) - Ontario

 

Thanks to the three new category managers for wresting through these issues. I really look forwards to adding some sites to the revised category (don't know why I never thought to target this category while visiting the USA - maybe I knew my family would not be impressed stopping by wastelands while on the way to vacationland)

Link to comment

Well, Jason, after a day of thought on the matter, I have recommended that an update be made such that the paragraph:

"This site MUST be recorded in a government register, a web page link is required."

 

be expanded thus:

"This site MUST be recorded in a government register. A web page link is required. As well, the site must have been found to be contaminated, requiring either further study or remedial action. Sites which remain on a register of contaminated sites, yet are not contaminated and require no action, OR registered sites which have yet to be evaluated, will not be accepted. Otherwise, the current status of the site is immaterial."

 

That should eliminate the sites which were never the real aim of the category.

 

BTW, right around my town, the results are the same as what you've found elsewhere. Though there are several sites to be found, none required action following preliminary study. They did, however, manage to spend $32,097.85 on a study of our RCMP building's site, which, naturally, got a clean, if expensive, bill of health.

 

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
12 hours ago, ScroogieII said:

... Sites which remain on a register of contaminated sites, yet are not contaminated and require no action....

 

Does that include sites, which are not contaminated anymore? On the website https://www.altlasten.gv.at/ I see:

 

secured
remediated
contaminated site

 

I suppose "secured" means that there is still contamination, but not in a dangerous amount, while "remediated" means, that all contaminations were removed. If I ever will post a WM in that category I will definitely choose a still contaminated site, but nevertheless it would be interesting to know.

Link to comment

PISA-caching, I took a look at the Austrian database (impressive I might add, very detailed!). I looked at a few of the "secured" sites and agree with your conclusion - appears to be sites where actions were taken to reduce exposure to those chemicals. In toxicology / risk assessment,  Risk = Hazard x Exposure. Hazard is the toxicity of something (a physical or chemical agent). Exposure is is just that. The gasoline/petrol in your car might be very toxic to you, but the risk to you while driving the car is negligible because you are not exposed to is - it is in a sealed system. It is a similar calculation with these sites. Previously, the chemicals might have been able to enter into drinking water or air and therefore the exposure risks were higher. After some actions were taken (maybe capping the site with clean soil), the risk is considerably lower. Although the contaminants might still be present in dangerous amounts (Hazard), the "risk" is reduced because of exposure is reduced. Hope that makes sense.

 

In that list (Austria), I think all sites (secured, remediated, contaminated site) should be accepted. Those sites are - or were - heavily contaminated and do - or did - pose a significant health risk. The difference with the Canadian list is that it seems to include every federally-owned site that might have contaminants, and those sites are listed before being tested. AND they continue to be listed, even after testing is conducted and shows no contaminants. Such as the RCMP detachment that Keith mentioned.

 

Keith, I like your proposed changes. I think this might only be relevant to the Canadian sites given the nature of the Canadian database. In fact, after spending too much time clicking around the Canadian database, I recommend that Waymarks of sites from that database only be accepted if the site has been 1) thoroughly investigated and 2) found to require some sort of action to reduce hazard. I think the easiest way to do that is to only accept a site once it reached one of these Steps

07. Develop Remediation/Risk Management Strategy

08. Implement Remediation/Risk Management Strategy

09. Confirmatory Sampling and Final Reporting

10. Long-Term Monitoring (Optional)

 

You can view the list of various levels and the number of sites at those levels here: https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/fcsi-rscf/ls-de-eng.aspx

 

This effectively excludes sites that are of no concern (testing reveals no or low levels of contaminants). It also defers acceptance of sites where detailed testing remains to be completed - such sites might be acceptable in the future, if the testing reveals the need for Remediation/Risk Management

 

Finally, one shortcoming of the Canadian list is that it excludes many contaminated sites that in the US would surely make the Superfund list, but they are not on the Canadian list because they do not come under Federal jurisdiction. A prime example would be Central Park in Hamilton. Please read the linked article  consider how those sites could be accepted to the Waymarking SuperFund category

Hamilton’s Central Park Soil Contaminated with Carcinogens: Environmental Site Assessment Reports

 

And another example:

‘Recovery can take years’ — assessing the future safety of contaminated site

(if you get a pop-up blocking out most of the article and asking you to sign in, try refreshing the article. That worked for me)

 

Thanks, Jason

Edited by Bon Echo
spelling / clarifications
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...