As described in the preceding section, the Former
Sydney Steel Plant Lands have accumulated a variety of potential
environmental issues over its 100-year history. Table 6-1 presents
a matrix of significant environmental issues associated with each
of the 36 SCUs shown in Figure 5-1. The matrix has been developed
based on the information presented in Section 5.0.
The matrix presents three categories of potential environmental
- Known issues have been identified
either by SEACOR Environmental during the course of the current
environmental decommissioning program, by JDAC in the Muggah Creek
Phase II/III ESA reports, or in other environmental studies.
- High Potential issues have either
been observed but not yet confirmed through laboratory testing
(i.e., surface staining), or are strongly suspected due to the
known long-time presence of contributing factors that would cause
such an issue (i.e., lubricant use in the Old Rail Mill).
- Potential issues are those that,
based on the history of land use or of specific activities in
a given area, have a significant potential to be present, but
no analytical or anecdotal evidence has been identified.
The potential environmental issues listed in Table 6-1 are divided
into four categories:
- Buildings and Other Structures
- Waste Disposal
- Underground Utilities
- Soil and Sediment
Within each of these categories are specific issues or contaminant
groups such as petroleum hydrocarbons, buried asbestos waste, and
PCBs. A solid colour indicates the potential for the specific issue
to be widespread within the particular SCU. An “X” indicates
that the potential environmental issue is associated with a specific
location, or is expected to be confined to a small area.
Table 6-2 presents similar information, but from a different point
of view. A list of 27 “Areas of Concern” are provided,
cross-reference to the SCUs that are potentially affected by each
concern. This alternative display of the potential environmental
issues is intended to facilitate planning for the investigation
of each Areas of Concern, should such an approach be taken. An alternative
approach, for example, is to investigate each SCU separately.
Specific recommendations are provided in Section
6.2, followed by a brief description of factors effecting the
implementation of the recommendations.