Environmental Issues in Hamilton Harbor

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Arguments Regarding Randle Reef
My View
The ‘Do Nothing’ Option
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Randle Reef is an industrial city that has now developed into a residential place as well. This place is located at the bottom of Sherman Avenue in Hamilton Harbor in Canada. Due to the high level of toxins in the water and in the reef, this region is considered the most toxic place which is inhabited by humans. It ranks second in the world after the Australian tar ponds. In order to rectify this, the government has been working on an environmental restoration project since the 1980s, which has been finalized only recently.

Arguments Regarding Randle Reef

The main issues that concern the Randle reef region in Hamilton Harbor pertain to the fact that the place is polluted for human as well as animal and plant inhabitation. The toxins present there are deadly which are traveling up the food chain. Moreover, the steel industry in the region also has not been complying with the environmental management committees and the law enforcement agencies.

The other factor which has contributed to the increase in the [pollution in the region is the waste ad water treatment plants. These sewage treatment plants have been overflowing and dumping sewage as well as partially treated water and waste into the bay, making the environment even more contaminated. As a result, human health, as well as the animal and vegetation in the region, are in serious danger of being infected.

The argument that is present here is that the government should make policies and strategies that involve the capping of the toxic waste or should it make efforts for removing it from the region. The situation in the Randle Reef is such that even the mud near the shore is contaminated with heavy metal and coal tar from the steel mills. The sediment in the region and the reefs has also become toxic, so that 80 hectares of the underwater ground is toxic for living creatures of any nature. The amoeba in the region has absorbed these toxins, and they are slowly being transferred in the vegetation and up through the food chain.

The zone has been declared a dead zone and those fish that have been able to survive to suffer from severe reproductive disorders. “John Shaw of Environment Canada calls it “a spill in slow motion” because contaminants deposited in the Sherman Inlet as far back as the 19th century are spreading outward and leaching up into the harbor water. ‘The more diffuse it gets, the more difficult it becomes to implement solutions,’ he warns. (Oliphant, 2007)

The proposed solution that has been passed by the authorities and the governments is to cap the toxins. “The cap-and-contain approach appears to compare favorably with the inherently messy alternative of dredging heavily contaminated sediment and taking it to a hazardous landfill site. In the preferred approach, a berm would be built around the reef, and the sediment would be covered with clean fill. The proposed facility would offer the further potential benefit of containing contaminated sediment dredged from other parts of the harbor.” (‘Cap on Randle reef is a Practical Solution,’ 2007) the critics, however, are against this option as the option would essentially be a landfill of toxic waste. Constant and expensive monitoring would be required. Aside from this, the areas of the harbor would have to be filled in, destroying the environment of the regions. The clean-up facilities for the landfill would also result in exorbitant long-term costs. However, Government officials have been arguing that removing the toxic waste would be too expensive and more dangerous as it would involve extracting the toxins, containing them, and then removing them by transporting them to a nuclear/ toxin waste site. This would be too expensive and increase the dangers of exposing other regions to the dangers of the toxins.

My View

The best plan of action for the state would be to remove the toxins entirely from the site in order to make way for the restoration and maintenance of the region. The problem with the removal of toxins in a short period of time is that it would be highly expensive and impossible to transport the toxins out so quickly. As a result, a better option would be to side with the government and contain the toxins in a landfill in the region by capping them. However, in the long term, the toxins will have to be shipped out or transported to a disposal site where they can be neutralized. Otherwise, the toxic waste site itself is going to present a threat to the environment and the community residing in the region in the long term.

The ‘Do Nothing’ Option

Another option that is present to the ones involved in this situation is to do nothing about the development of the case. This would, however, be disastrous for the regions as the toxin levels right now are somewhat contained in Hamilton Harbor only. However, if nothing is to be done to cap them or remove them, then these toxins would end up in Ontario Lake. This would take place due to wind patterns and the currents underwater, which would wit time take the toxins to the Ontario Lake region, whereby affecting the vast areas harbored by it.

Conclusion

The Hamilton Bay region has been contaminated over a period of 10 decades with the increase in industrial growth in the region. This has resulted in a highly toxic public site that cannot be inhabited by living creatures. In order to restore this capping and then eventually removing the toxins would be the best solution for restoring the area and making it inhabitable for humans as well as animal and plant life.

References

“Annual Report 2002-2003”, Environmental Commission of Ontario.

“Petition No. 57 – Coal tar contamination near Randle Reef, Hamilton Harbor”, Office of the Auditor General of Canada.

“’Cap’ on Randle Reef is a practical solution”, The Hamilton Spectator. 2002.

“Barc Report Recommends Closing Information Gaps to Help Meet Harbor Delisting Objectives”, Bay Area Restoration Council – Media Advisory, 2006.

Joseph, J., 2007, “Restoration at Randle Reef”.

Leppard, G., Flannigan, D., 1998, “Binding of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Size Classes of Particulate in Hamilton Harbor Water”, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 32 Issue 22, p3633.

MacDonald, L., 2006, “For immediate release Hamilton Port Authority continues to make the environment a priority”, Hamilton Port Authority.

Oliphant, K., 2007, “The Crying Shame of Randle Reef “, The Eternal Artizan. Web.

Wakefield, S., 2007, “Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbor Waterfront Trail”, Cities, Vol. 24 Issue 4, p. 298-310, 13p.

“Ward, S., “Waterway cleanup: Port vs. public”, “Citizens urge total removal of mercury”, Whatcom Independent.

Young, D., 2007, “Wrestling with the Specter of Randle Reef”, Hamilton Magazine

Click Here To Order Now!