Document Sample
PUBLIC HEARING Powered By Docstoc
					                        PUBLIC HEARING


                      REMEDIATION PROJECT

                      JOINT REVIEW PANEL


                        V O L U M E     3
                (A F T E R N O O N    S E S S I O N)


HELD BEFORE:      Ms. Lesley Griffiths, MCIP (Chair)
                  Mr. William H.R. Charles, QC (Member)
                  Dr. Louis LaPierre, Ph.D (Member)

PLACE HEARD:      Sydney, Nova Scotia

DATE HEARD:       Tuesday, May 2, 2006

                 Mr. Frank Potter
                 Mr. Gregory Gillis
                 Mr. Shawn Duncan
                 Dr. Brian Magee
                 Mr. Donald Shosky
                 Mr. Wilfred Kaiser
                 Dr. John Walker
                 Dr. Malcolm Stephenson

                       Recorded by:
             Drake Recording Services Limited
                    1592 Oxford Street
                   Halifax, NS B3H 3Z4
        Per: Mark L. Aurini, Commissioner of Oaths
        I N D E X      O F   P R O C E E D I N G S

                                                         PAGE NO.

THE CHAIRPERSON - OPENING REMARKS . . . . . . . . . . 409


    Questioned   by   Environment Canada .   . . .   .   .   .   .   417
    Questioned   by   Health Canada . . .    . . .   .   .   .   .   427
    Questioned   by   C.B. Save Our Health   Care    .   .   .   .   434
    Questioned   by   Dr. James Argo . . .   . . .   .   .   .   .   447
    Questioned   by   Grand Lake . . . . .   . . .   .   .   .   .   450
    Questioned   by   Les Ignasiak . . . .   . . .   .   .   .   .   484
    Questioned   by   Mr. Eric Brophy . .    . . .   .   .   .   .   498
    Questioned   by   Mr. Duff Harper . .    . . .   .   .   .   .   507
    Questioned   by   Ms. Debbie Ouelette    . . .   .   .   .   .   522

1    ---   Upon commencing at 1:01 p.m.

2                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    Well, good afternoon,

3    ladies and gentlemen.

4                    I'd like to get this session started.    So,

5    happy budget day.

6                    My name is Leslie Griffiths, I'm chairing

7    the Environmental Assessment Review Panel.
8                    This afternoon, on my right, is Mr.

9    William Charles, who's escaping the breezes from the air

10   conditioning system, and on my left is Dr. Louis

11   LaPierre.

12                   Mr. Potter, I understand that you have

13   spoken with the Secretariat about the number of issues,

14   and, first of all, we asked yesterday if you would be

15   able to return for questions from the panel on Tuesday

16   afternoon, May 16th, at 1 o'clock, and I believe you

17   confirmed that you haven't got anything else on.

18                   MR. POTTER:   I have no life, other than

19   this hearing.   Thank you.

20                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    Also, I understand that

21   today, in order to maximize the time for the questions

22   from the public that you've agreed to defer any of your

23   verbal responses to undertakings in order that we can

24   proceed directly to the questioning.

25                   Is that correct?
                                 409            OPENING REMARKS

1                  MR. POTTER:   That's correct.

2                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Do you have any written

3    documents that you want to file at this point?

4                  MR. POTTER:   None today, no.

5                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    And are there any other

6    very brief points of clarification that you wish to make?
7                  MR. POTTER:   Nothing now.

8                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Okay.   Thank you.

9                  So, today's session, this afternoon and

10   this evening, has been reserved for questions relating to

11   the Chair's submissions and the EIS from the public.

12                 The purpose of this question is --

13   questioning is to allow the panel and all of the

14   participants to gather information and to explore issues

15   related to the potential environmental effects of the

16   project.

17                 So, as it has been established in the

18   panel's procedures -- and if you need a copy you can

19   obtain a copy from Ms. Debbie Hendricksen, the Panel

20   Secretariat -- but as it's been laid out in the

21   procedures that questions should be directed through me,

22   the Panel Chair and I, in turn, will then ask the Tar

23   Ponds Agency to respond, and I or my colleagues, on the

24   Panel, may ask for clarification on your question, so

25   that we can understand what it is that -- exactly what
                                 410            OPENING REMARKS

1    you're asking.

2                     And as the procedures indicate I may limit

3    or exclude questions or comments that fall outside the

4    mandate of the Panel that are repetitive or irrelevant,

5    but I hope I won't have to do that.

6                     I do want to stress that this afternoon
7    and this evening will go better if you can make sure you

8    get to your questions as promptly as possible, and there

9    will be opportunities when you're making presentations or

10   informal opportunities to speak later on in the coming

11   days.

12                    If people do not adhere to these

13   procedures, I do obviously have the ability to and may

14   have to refuse to permit further questioning from that

15   individual, but I'm perfectly confident that that will

16   not be necessary.   We've had two great days so far.

17                    Now, I'd like to tell you how we are going

18   to organize the questioning of the Tar Ponds Agency, in

19   order to make this as efficient and equitable as

20   possible.

21                    We're going to set the following order for

22   the questioners.

23                    The federal government departments,

24   provincial government departments, municipal government,

25   organizations and individuals that have registered today
                               411             OPENING REMARKS

1    to present information to the Panel, and then I will open

2    up the floor to other members in the audience.

3                  If you are listening to that long list and

4    thinking, "Well, we may never..."   -- "I may never get to

5    ask you questions," do not despair because in a moment

6    I'm going to check to see who, out of the -- of those
7    listed categories who is here, who will wish to ask a

8    question, and I think you'll find we have a much shorter

9    list than that would suggest.

10                 What we're going to do is that each party,

11   when it's your turn, you'll have a maximum of 20 minutes

12   to ask questions to the Agency, and once we get to the

13   bottom of the list we will start back to the top of the

14   list with a second round of questioning, and how long

15   you'll get in the second round will depend, obviously, on

16   how many people there are here who wish to ask questions,

17   and we'll try and use the time effectively, and we will

18   have as many rounds of questioning, organized in that

19   manner, as we can fit in before 9 o'clock this evening.

20                 I'm going to ask questioners to take the

21   seats at the witness table, which is over there, and I'm

22   going to ask you to remain seated unless you really need

23   to make use of audio/visual equipment.

24                 For the purposes of transcripts, obviously

25   I'm going to ask you that you identify yourselves, and
                                412              OPENING REMARKS

1    that you speak clearly into the microphone.    And the

2    microphones have a button that you press and you can see

3    it comes on with a red -- so, what I would like to do is,

4    to start off, is I would like to establish who we have in

5    the room, who wish to ask question, so that I've got my

6    initial roster.
7                   When you've asked your questions, I'd

8    appreciate it if you'd let me know if that's -- if you

9    think you are interested in coming back for the second

10   round, or if you're finished.

11                  And I would also ask that the next group

12   or person who is going to ask the question be ready to

13   sit at the witness table, as promptly as possible.

14                  That way, we should be able to move

15   through this very smoothly.

16                  So, federal government could you indicate

17   to me, please, if you are wishing to ask questions in

18   this round, Public Works and Government Services Canada.

19   I'm sorry.   I don't -- really I need is for you, at this

20   stage is to say -- wave if the answer is "yes."     No.

21                  Sorry to cut you off, but this will be too

22   slow if I do it any other way.

23                  Environment Canada.     Is there anybody here

24   who wishes to ask questions?    Yes.

25                  Health Canada.    Natural Resources Canada.
                                    413            OPENING REMARKS

1    Nobody is asking questions from Natural Resources Canada.

2    Fisheries and Oceans.    No.

3                     Cape Breton Development Corporation.

4    There's nobody here wishing to ask questions from DEVCO.

5                     Provincial government.   Environment and

6    Labour?   No.    Office of the Medical Officer of Health.
7    No.

8                     Transportation and Public Works.      No.

9    Natural Resources.    Okay.    So, I don't have any questions

10   from the provincial government.

11                    Is there anybody here from CBRN and the

12   municipality, who wishes to ask questions?       No.

13                    I'm now going to move to my list of other

14   registered participants.      So, the same thing if you can

15   indicate if you wish to ask questions today.

16                    Mr. Donald DeLeski?   No.   Return to Sender

17   Coalition.   No.    Cape Breton Save Our Health Care

18   Committee.   Yes.   Cape Breton District Health Authority.

19   I don't hear anybody.    Kipin Industries.    I don't hear

20   anybody from Kipin.

21                    Grand Lake Road Residents.   Is the answer

22   "yes"?    Yes.   Cement Association of Canada.   Nobody from

23   Cement Association.    Portland Cement Association.

24   Nobody.   Cape Breton University.    Dr. Ron MacCormick.

25   Sydney Academy.
                                 414              OPENING REMARKS

1                     The Cape Breton Chapter of JCI.    Sydney

2    and Area Chamber of Commerce.     Cape Breton Partnership.

3    ECO Canada.   Sierra Club of Canada, yes.    Mr. Les

4    Ignasiak, yes.

5                     Now, I have TD Enviro down here.   I will

6    need to ask you whether you're questioning as Mr. Les
7    Ignasiak differ from -- significantly from your

8    questioning as TD Enviro.   So, one thing.   Thank you.

9                     Bennett Environmental.   And finally New

10   Waterford and Area Fish and Game Association.      Is there

11   anybody here from the Association who wishes to ask

12   questions?

13                    This means that I have highlighted three,

14   four, five, six, seven -- I have highlighted seven

15   organizations who have registered to present and we are

16   taking them first.

17                    If you are not -- you're not on that list

18   and you have questions that you wish to ask, I'm going to

19   ask you to -- you will get your opportunity after we're

20   done this one round, you'll come onto the end of that --

21   Ms. Debbie Hendricksen, who is standing there, who, I

22   sure, most of you know, if you would approach Debbie,

23   during the next little while, and Debbie will create a

24   list and we will add it onto the end of my list of seven

25   here.
                                  415           OPENING REMARKS

1                    We will do our rounds, 20 minutes,

2    maximum.    Don't feel you need to take the whole 20

3    minutes, but 20 minutes maximum for everybody and then we

4    will be able to start again on the next round.

5                    We will be taking breaks, of course, as we

6    normally do.
7                    And I will find a brief way to remind

8    people when I come back from breaks, if they wish to

9    speak that they should add their name to the Debbie's

10   list.

11                   So, anybody who comes later they will get

12   a chance to do that.   I hope that is all clear.

13                   So, this means that our first questions to

14   the Agency that will be placed -- that will be addressed

15   to me, the Panel Chair, will be from the Public Works and

16   Government Services Canada.

17                   And if the person from Environment Canada

18   could be ready and possibly even move up closer to the

19   front, so that you could sit down -- oh, Public Works

20   said, no.   Is that right?   I'm sorry.

21                   So, Environment Canada and then followed

22   by Health Canada.

23                   MS. MARIA DOBER:   Thank you, Madam Chair.

24   My name is Maria Dober, I'm the Acting Regional Director

25   of Environmental Protection Operations in Dartmouth.

1                    I have with me Greg Bickerton and Michael

2    Hingston.   Greg is a hydrogeologist and Michael Hingston

3    is our air quality specialist, and they will be asking

4    questions related to their areas of expertise.



7                    MS. DOBER:    The first question that I have
8    really is that I'm looking for some clarification on the

9    sequence of events related to the construction of the

10   channel, as it's near the mouth of Muggah Creek.

11                   In the EIS the Chair had indicated that

12   there was -- expected to be an increase in flux of

13   contaminated sediments into the south arm, and I'm just

14   wondering how the sequence of events will play out so

15   that we can make a determination what the importance of

16   that will be.

17                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    Mr. Potter.

18                   MR. GILLIS:   Well, we'll start with Mr.

19   Don Shosky in the construction aspect and then Dr.

20   Stephenson can address the ecological side.

21                   MR. SHOSKY:   We're trying to see if we

22   have a good diagram that we can put up, if you'll bear

23   with us for a second.

24                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    As a general rule I

25   would much appreciate it if you can start -- I'm sorry,
                                  417            STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Environment Canada)

1    have someone start on the verbal part of your answer as

2    fast as possible, so that we don't lose too much time.

3                   I understand the difficulties of trying to

4    find stuff at the same time.

5                   MR. SHOSKY:   I'll start answering that and

6    maybe the narrative I give will be clear enough.
7                   Basically, we'll start at the headwaters

8    and work our way down, and in the process of doing that

9    we'll put in a number of check dams, in areas where

10   sediments will be excavated.   Though water around Muggah

11   Creek will be diverted.

12                  So, there will be a series of pumping and

13   dyking systems installed in such a fashion that there

14   aren't any additional sediments released into that

15   particular waterway.

16                  MR. GILLIS:   I'd ask Malcolm Stephenson to

17   talk now about the flux.

18                  DR. STEPHENSON:     Yeah, I'd like to provide

19   clarification on the assumption that there would be a

20   five-fold increase in the flux from Muggah Creek to

21   Sydney River during the actual remediation activities,

22   and subsequently a 90 percent reduction following

23   remediation.

24                  Those were assumptions only.    We felt that

25   it was reasonable to assume that there could be some
                                  418           STPA QUESTIONED
                                           (Environment Canada)

1    situations that would arise that would lead to an

2    increase in flux, either due to routing operations or due

3    to accidents or malfunctions, and that value of five

4    times is something that our engineers assured us could

5    readily be achieved.

6                   So, that's kind of a worst case scenario,
7    and it's well within the capacity of the remediation

8    measures that are routinely available.

9                   Likewise, the 90 percent reduction was a

10   very -- I guess not much of a stretched target.

11                  The assumption is that the remediation

12   activities will be able to easily better that 90 percent

13   reduction.   So, we were trying to be conservative in the

14   sense of being pessimistic about what remediation

15   activities -- sorry, what the mitigation activities could

16   achieve, and not overly optimistic about what the overall

17   remedial activities would achieve in the long term.

18                  MR. GILLIS:   Excuse me for a moment, if I

19   may.

20                  Don Shosky would like to make a

21   modification to his first response.

22                  MR. SHOSKY:   Perhaps, I'll -- it will be a

23   lot clearer if I can show what we're going to -- what the

24   plan is as we construct this creek.   We will actually --

25   or this channel.
                                 419             STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Environment Canada)

1                   We will actually start on this end of the

2    channel and we would continue to divert water around the

3    areas that we are going to isolate around this, so that

4    the discharge would continue to be the same.

5                   As we clean and restore the channel, we

6    will be moving upgradient towards the interior of the
7    site.   I just want to make that clarification.

8                   We will also install some -- the plan is

9    to install some silt curtains and silt barriers at

10   various locations along the workings, as well, in order

11   to eliminate any sediment -- potential sediment problems,

12   and that, in a general sense is how things will work.

13                  So, we'll start at the mouth and work back

14   inland.

15                  THE CHAIRPERSON:   Do   you have any

16   subsequent questions?

17                  MS. DOBER:   I have one follow-up, if I

18   may.

19                  In terms of the excavation and deposition

20   of material back into the north pond, I'm assuming that

21   that takes place as the construction of the channel

22   proceeds, and I'm interested to know how that will be

23   accomplished, as well -- oh, I've just lost my train of

24   thought completely -- the -- there will still be an open

25   channel for tidal action to impact on the Tar Ponds
                                    420           STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Environment Canada)

1    during the channel construction.

2                     MR. SHOSKY:   I'll take a moment and maybe

3    explain in a little bit more detail.

4                     This preliminary work is being completed

5    now.    Before any of the other construction of the channel

6    occurs, this preliminary work will be done here.
7                     Then the plan is to drive the sheet pile

8    wall that we discussed yesterday, along this side here,

9    which basically, in effect, isolates sections of the

10   pond.

11                    Then again we would come in and remove

12   these sediments.    The plan right now is to side cast that

13   material as it -- as we progress into the interior of the

14   site, inside casting it over the sheet piling wall, in

15   order to take that sediment material and be able to keep

16   it contained within a contained system, so that we don't

17   have any sedimentation escape out into the channel, as

18   we're working.

19                    So, the plan would be to side cast into

20   areas that are contained, allow it to drop out and then

21   pick it up again and treat it as remediation of the

22   interior portions of the north and south ponds occur.

23                    MS. DOBER:    That's fine.   I'll turn to

24   Greg and Michael.   They have a couple of questions.

25                    MR. HINGSTON:   Michael Hingston, head of
                                 421           STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (Environment Canada)

1    our Air Issue Section.

2                  In -- and I guess in the points

3    presentation made on April 29th, they did note that sort

4    of all projected emission standards from the project

5    would meet acceptable standards.

6                  They didn't make comment on, sort of,
7    ambient concentrations.   In IR-72, accumulative effect,

8    they predicted 24 hour exceedances for naphthalene,

9    benzoate pyrene and total suspended particulate matter.

10                 I wonder if the Chair could comment on the

11   significance of these exceedances.

12                 MR. GILLIS:   Could you just give us a

13   moment to make sure we have IR-72 in front of us?

14                 Okay.   We're ready now.   We'll ask Dr.

15   Magee to address this.

16                 DR. MAGEE: Yes, Mr. Gillis.   Thank you

17   very much.

18                 We were asked about the exceedances that

19   we predicted as well as what cumulative effects might

20   occur, because there are a few background exceedances

21   that occur from time to time that we pick up in our

22   monitoring around the Coke Oven and Tar Ponds.

23                 So, IR-72 does have a very complete list

24   of tables where we outline where the exceedances are that

25   have occurred historically, where the predicted
                                422            STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (Environment Canada)

1    exceedances are, and let me take a parenthetical to say,

2    remember we are doing a risk assessment that's very

3    conservative.

4                    We are assuming that multiple activities

5    are occurring in a single year, so as to not

6    underestimate what could happen, simultaneously, when
7    construction starts, with the worst case meteorology and

8    the worst case location within the surrounding

9    neighbourhoods and so forth.

10                   But under those assumptions, we do predict

11   a few exceedances and as you can see from those tables

12   there is no overlap.   It's really fortuitous that the

13   exceedances that occur naturally, which, of course, are

14   very few -- let me cite you a few of the numbers -- in

15   the last three or four years what we have seen is there

16   have been five exceedances of the 24 hour benzoate pyrene

17   criterion, and that has mostly been associated with cold

18   winter days when home heating is at its maximum, and

19   you'd expect emissions from oil and coal fired heating

20   units to produce some benzoate pyrene in the air.

21                   And we've seen, historically, only four

22   exceedances of total suspended particulate.

23                   So, the baseline air quality is very good,

24   compared to all the other major cities in Canada.   The

25   air quality is really stellar here in Sydney.
                                  423             STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Environment Canada)

1                    When we predict these worst case

2    exceedances, they are a few.     They're in a few locations.

3    They're minor and they do not exceed our project

4    significance levels, nor do they overlap with the

5    baseline.

6                    So, as you can see in those tables there
7    are no cumulative effects in terms of 24 hour

8    exceedances.

9                    MR. HINGSTON:    One follow up.   When you

10   talk about them not overlapping, is that just sort of

11   adding exceedances or would you take a case, let's say

12   for example, if you had an existing area that was maybe

13   80 percent of the exceedance naturally and supposedly if

14   the project actually added more emissions which would

15   increase the ambient concentration.     And that would push

16   that up to become an exceedance, was that accounted for

17   or did you just add up existing and modelled exceedances?

18                   DR. MAGEE:   Well, yes we did take a look

19   at that and we did not see that we were close and might

20   have been taken over the edge.     We did not show that in

21   those tables.   But we did take a look at that and we did

22   not see that occurring or happening.

23                   MR. BICKERTON:     Greg Bickerton,

24   Environment Canada.   The question I have relates to IR-

25   53, Item 8 and it's just a matter of clarification.
                                  424            STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Environment Canada)

1                   The Chair has indicated in IR-53 that the

2    estimated rate of groundwater capture by the various

3    groundwater cut off walls and control structures was

4    calculated at 25 litres per minute.

5                   I was just hoping that the Chair could

6    further clarify, confirm and provide some additional
7    detail on how this estimate was obtained and what the

8    particular groundwater control measures that were

9    included in that calculation were, with the understanding

10   of course, that final design details are not available.

11                  Presumably they have some conceptual idea

12   of what the extent of these will be.

13                  MR. GILLIS:   Just give us a moment so we

14   can get the IR please and we'll -- I'll ask Don Shosky to

15   answer that question.

16                  MR. SHOSKY:   When -- well, first easy

17   question.   It's from all of the interceptor systems that

18   are located in the Coke Oven site.

19                  And I think that probably the reason there

20   may have been a bit of a surprise there with the volume

21   of water is because during the course of the last six

22   months we conducted a pump -- a full aqua for a pumping

23   test out there and were able to nail down the hydraulic

24   conductivity values of those   hydrogeologic units in a

25   way that they hadn't been defined before.
                                 425             STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Environment Canada)

1                  And the yields of the water was much less

2    than what was originally anticipated.    For the benefits

3    of those that may not understand that, there's a number

4    of different ways to test hydraulic conductivity tests.

5                  The most realistic is to actually pump

6    water out of the ground and watch its response time.
7    That's the type of testing that we did.    A lot of the

8    other testing was done on a very localized area.

9                  This was a full scale pumping test and the

10   results showed that there was much less water available

11   than what was previously thought to be.

12                 MR. BICKERTON:      Just one follow up.   Are

13   those results available to us?

14                 MR. SHOSKY:   Yes, those results are

15   available.

16                 THE CHAIRPERSON:     You mean they're

17   available as in that you will supply them or they're ---

18                 MR. SHOSKY:   Yes, they would be available

19   as we can provide them.   It's prepared.   We can provide

20   that to the panel.

21                 THE CHAIRPERSON:     So that's an

22   undertaking? [u]

23                 MR. SHOSKY:   Yes.

24                 THE CHAIRPERSON:     Thank you.   Are there

25   any additional questions.

1                     MS. DOBER:   No, that's it.   Thank you,

2    Madam Chair.

3                     THE CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you very much.

4                     So if Health Canada would like to come

5    forward and after Health Canada our next questioners will

6    be the Cape Breton Save Our Health Care Committee.

7                     MS. CHARD:   Good afternoon, Madame Chair.
8    My name is Sharon Chard.      I'm the Regional Director for

9    the Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch of

10   Health Canada.

11                    And I have with me today, Nellie Roest who

12   is our Health Canada Regional Health Risk Assessor and

13   Toxicology Specialist.   And I'll ask her to pose some

14   questions for clarification to the Chair.      Thank you.


16                    MS. ROEST:   Hi.   It is my understanding

17   that the excavated material from the Tar Ponds which has

18   been referenced to be the size of a soccer field will be

19   placed in a staging area where it will be allowed to

20   dewater naturally.

21                    That is gravity drained for several days

22   without any type of enclosures.     How can the Chair ensure

23   that the volatile emissions from this material, that is

24   PCBs, Benzene, Naphthalene will not affect the air

25   quality of the neighbouring communities, and what
                                 427            STPA QUESTIONED
                                                (Health Canada)

1    monitoring and mitigation measures will be put into place

2    to protect air quality?   Thank you.

3                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Thank you.   Mr. Potter.

4                  MR. POTTER:   One moment please.

5                  MR. GILLIS:   The first part of that

6    question will be addressed by Dr. Brian Magee.
7                  DR. MAGEE:    Yes, thank you Mr. Gillis.

8                  We certainly were concerned about the

9    emissions that could occur from dewatering and we thought

10   that that might be, in fact, one of the major sources of

11   emissions of volatile constituents.    That was one of our

12   key assumptions in the risk assessment.

13                 We used the standard EPA equation from

14   their Superfund series that gives all of the various

15   emission factors that one should use in assessing the

16   types of emissions that could occur when construction and

17   remedial activities take place.

18                 So that's all considered quantitatively in

19   the risk assessment.

20                 MR. GILLIS:   I'll ask Don Shosky to

21   comment on control measures and monitoring.

22                 MR. SHOSKY:   We certainly wouldn't want to

23   leave you with the misconception that no management of

24   that material would occur while it's gravity draining.

25                 If there are odours or the material
                                   428            STPA QUESTIONED
                                                  (Health Canada)

1    becomes too dry too fast, mitigation would take place

2    where either odour suppressant foam or additives would be

3    placed on the material so that odours would be

4    eliminated, and during the course of this processing

5    there would be air monitoring occurring that would also

6    add as another benefit to this particular approach.
7                    So there are many checks and balances in

8    place that would allow for the safe handling of this

9    material.

10                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     Do you have further

11   questions?

12                   MS. CHARD:    Yes.   I also have a follow-up

13   to that.    The air monitoring that you referred to, will

14   that be real time, or will that be the six day

15   monitoring?

16                   MR. GILLIS:   That'll be both aspects of

17   monitoring.

18                   MS. ROEST:    Health Canada seeks some

19   further clarification on the use of the one hour and the

20   24 hour health based criteria for Benzene, Naphthalene

21   and Methylnaphthalene.

22                   And these were presented in Table ES-5 of

23   Volume V of the Human Health Risk Assessment for the

24   remediation activities.

25                   Will these numbers be used as emergency or
                                  429             STPA QUESTIONED
                                                  (Health Canada)

1    one-time exposure numbers or are they intended for use

2    for the entire length of the project?   Thank you.

3                   MR. GILLIS:    I'll ask Dr. Brian Magee to

4    address that, Madame Chair.

5                   DR. MAGEE:    Yes, we understand Health

6    Canada's concern in that regard and we'd like to tell you
7    a bit about how that came about.

8                   These numbers were specifically derived at

9    the request of the Medical Officer of Health who wanted

10   to know when we monitor for specific constituents like

11   Benzene and Naphthalene.

12                  Yes, we all know about regulatory criteria

13   that have multiple uncertainty and safety factors in

14   their derivation, and we have to adhere to regulatory

15   criteria.   They are on the table already.

16                  He knows about those and he said, "You

17   know it would help me quite a lot if I also had a number

18   that would really make someone sick if we went over it."

19                  So I was specifically requested to derive

20   these numbers that are associated with health effects for

21   his purpose.   We then put them in the risk assessment for

22   informational purposes only.

23                  MS. ROEST:    So if I understand you

24   correctly, they will not be used as an action level for

25   the ambient air monitoring programs?
                                 430            STPA QUESTIONED
                                                (Health Canada)

1                  DR. MAGEE:    That is correct.   The

2    particular action criteria that we would use would be

3    derived in a later stage of the project and they'd be

4    derived in consultation with all the relevant agencies,

5    assuming Health Canada, I would presume.

6                  MS. ROEST:    The Human Health Risk
7    Assessments indicated there will be health risks for

8    workers at the remediation site if they are not wearing

9    personal protective equipment.

10                 The Chair had recently referenced worker

11   protective equipment as being a hard hat and work boots.


13                 Can the Chair provide detailed

14   clarification if personal protective equipment will

15   include respirators and protective clothing?

16                 MR. GILLIS:   I will ask someone from the

17   Sydney Tar Ponds Agency to address this but I can assure

18   that the protective equipment will be appropriate for the

19   task to be undertaken.   So ---

20                 MR. POTTER:   I guess I can't add too much

21   to that answer.

22                 It's very much based on the activity.         I

23   guess the -- a simple answer is not all workers will be

24   simply wearing a hard hat and steel-toed boots.      They

25   will be having appropriate PPE, personal protective equipment.
                                   431           STPA QUESTIONED
                                                 (Health Canada)

1                    MR. KAISER:   I'd like to add to that

2    comment that we would have a master health and safety

3    plan for all activities on the site.

4                    As well, there would be site specific

5    health and safety plans that would need to be adhered to.

6    And as Mr. Potter had said, the level of personal
7    protective equipment would change depending upon the

8    activity.

9                    MS. ROEST:    The EIS indicated that the

10   incinerator will run 250 days per year and the Human

11   Health Risk Assessment assumptions were based on the

12   incinerator running 365 days per year, and it was

13   indicated that that's a 40 percent overestimate of human

14   health risk.

15                   Yesterday, however, the Chair stated that

16   the incinerator would run 365 days per year.     Can you

17   provide clarification on how many days per year the

18   incinerator is expected to run?     Thank you.

19                   MR. GILLIS:   Perhaps we can clarify the

20   source of the 365 days just so that we're on the same

21   page, please.   The comment from yesterday, I ---

22                   MS. CHARD:    Madam Chair, that was a

23   comment, I think, that one of the consultants made during

24   the time of explanation that was ours.    So we'd have to

25   go back and actually refer to the transcript which I
                                 432           STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Health Canada)

1    don't have a copy of.

2                  MR. GILLIS:   Thank you very much.    Then

3    I'd ask Don Shosky to clarify that to make sure that

4    we're all on the same level.

5                  MR. SHOSKY:   I was the culprit.   The --

6    it's anticipated right now that incinerator -- the actual
7    number of working days will probably be about 240.

8                  There's a certain number of days that

9    it'll be down every year for maintenance and things of

10   that nature without putting out a specific schedule.

11                 They usually run in -- operate five to six

12   days a week with a couple of days off depending on what

13   type of problems they may have.   But at this point in

14   time it could be any one of the 365 days of the year.

15   There isn't a schedule that's set for that at this point.

16                 MR. GILLIS:   If I may, I'd ask Dr. Magee

17   to comment further on the schedule for operation that was

18   assumed, please.

19                 DR. MAGEE:    Thank you very much, Mr.

20   Gillis.

21                 Yes, the number of days is an issue but

22   more importantly the number of years is an issue.

23   Regardless of how many days the incinerator will operate,

24   it is not going to operate for five full years which is

25   what the risk assessment assumed.
                                  433             STPA QUESTIONED
                                                  (Health Canada)

1                   So we have adequately overestimated the

2    emissions to a great deal.   Again, we assumed 365 for a

3    full five years with the upset conditions on top of it.

4                   MS. CHARD:    Thank you, Dr. Magee.    That

5    was going to be our follow-up question.     So thank you for

6    answering that.   Madam Chair, that finishes our questions
7    for today.   Thank you.

8                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     Thank you very much.     So

9    now the Cape Breton Save Our Health Care Committee.



12                  MS. MACLELLAN:      Good afternoon.   My name

13   is Mary Ruth MacLellan.

14                  I'm Chairperson of the Cape Breton Save

15   Our Health Care Committee.   To my right is Dr. Jim Argo.

16   He's -- his specialty is medical geography and we have

17   commissioned him to help us with our presentation.

18                  And he has a number of questions as well

19   as mine so I will try and quickly sum up mine as best I

20   can.

21                  My first question through the Chair is to

22   Sydney Tar Ponds Agency.    And it has to deal with when

23   they were founded, what their mandate is, which

24   government department do they fall under.     To whom do

25   they report, their number of employees, their annual
                                  434             STPA QUESTIONED
                                        (CB Save Our Health Care)

1    budget, what work has been carried out to date?

2                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     I think, unless our

3    memory is terrific, we should break those down if I --

4    would you like to just list the first four of those and

5    then we'll move on to the next four.       So they don't have

6    to remember that huge list.
7                   MS. MACLELLAN:      Okay.   When was the Tar

8    Ponds Agency founded and what was its mandate.         And which

9    government department do you fall under, to whom do you

10   report, what is your annual operating budget and what is

11   your number of employees?

12                  MR. GILLIS:    I'll ask a representative of

13   Sydney Tar Ponds Agency to recount the history.

14                  MR. POTTER:    I think -- well, let's start

15   with, the agency was formed in 2001.       I believe

16   September.   The mandate is fairly well spelled out in our

17   MOA and I believe that's a document we provided to -- I

18   believe we provided it to the panel previously but just

19   to ---

20                  MR. MACLELLAN:      Briefly sum it up.

21                  MR. POTTER:    I'm sorry.

22                  MS. MACLELLAN:      Could you briefly sum it

23   up.

24                  MR. POTTER:    Sure.   The mandate of the

25   agency is basically to be the implementing body for
                                 435             STPA QUESTIONED
                                       (CB Save Our Health Care)

1    carrying out the project that's been assigned to it.    The

2    MOA also addresses the -- besides the scope of work, the

3    funding from the two partners which are Federal

4    Government and the Provincial Government.

5                    The Federal Government's represented by

6    Public Works and Government Services as the lead Federal
7    agency.   The lead Provincial agency is Nova Scotia

8    Transportation and Public Works.    It identifies the time

9    frame for the project to be carried out over ten years.

10                   Upon completion there would be a 25 year

11   monitoring period, again funded within the overall four

12   hundred million dollars ($400,000,000).    Budget figures,

13   I think we've identified in one of our IR responses that

14   there is a portion of the four hundred million dollars

15   ($400,000,000) identified for funding the agency.

16                   The staff complement right now is 18

17   staff.    We're in the process of interviewing I think this

18   week for one additional staff person.    We're expecting

19   right now to probably level off at 20.

20                   When the major component of the work gets

21   going which is, I guess, in a year or two, we may have 25

22   staff.    Now my memory's sets off ---

23                   MS. MACLELLAN:    I'll move on to the next

24   question, then.   What work has been carried out to date

25   and how much money has been spent on each project and
                                  436             STPA QUESTIONED
                                        (CB Save Our Health Care)

1    where did this money come from?

2                   MR. POTTER:   The MOA identifies what's

3    called preventative works.   There's four preventative

4    works activities.

5                   The rerouting of Coke Oven Brook, the

6    remediation of the cooling pond, the Battery Point
7    Barrier, the construction at North Pond and the Victoria

8    Road water main.    The Coke Oven Brook realignment was

9    started last year.

10                  Actually it's just started up again today.

11   This is the first day the contractor's back at it.     That

12   project will run through the end of this construction

13   season.   The other cooling pond project is currently out

14   to tender.   The north -- Battery Point Barrier is out for

15   tender.

16                  The actual construction of the Victoria

17   Road water main was funded through the agreement but

18   administered by CBRN because of the nature.

19                  It is essentially moving their water

20   system and they wish to have control over that.     So they

21   administered and carried out that project which was done

22   last year and completed.   So that's the four preventative

23   works projects.

24                  MS. MACLELLAN:      So approximately how much

25   money has been spent to date and which department, or is
                                    437             STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (CB Save Our Health Care)

1    this part of the four hundred million dollars

2    ($400,000,000)?   Or where did that money come from?

3                     MR. POTTER:   I believe I indicated it is

4    part of the four million dollars ($4,000,000).         It's

5    identified in the MOA as one of those four activities.

6                     I don't have the exact figure right in
7    front of me at this very moment of what we spent to date

8    but the -- I think we've provided some dollar figures in

9    previous IR's for the amount of those projects.

10                    MS. MACLELLAN:      Before this panel is

11   finished could you provide us with the amount of money

12   that has been spent to date? [u]

13                    MR. POTTER:   We could provide a simple

14   number at a later date.

15                    MS. MACLELLAN:      Thank you.

16                    THE CHAIRPERSON:     Thank you.    We'll take

17   that as an undertaking.

18                    MS. MACLELLAN:      Can you tell me what

19   happened to the leftover money that -- when -- that was

20   there when JAG was dissolved, or can you tell me who

21   could tell me?

22                    MR. POTTER:   Could we clarify which money

23   -- the question that we're asking about.          I'm not clear

24   on that.

25                    MS. MACLELLAN:      There was money set aside
                                    438             STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (CB Save Our Health Care)

1    in JAG.   Not all of it was used.      There was money left

2    when JAG was dissolved.   Where did that money revert to?

3    Or if you can't answer that, can you tell me who can?

4                     MR. POTTER:   Madam Chair, I'm not sure the

5    relevance of that question to the purpose of what we're

6    here for.
7                     THE CHAIRPERSON:     Do you have any comment

8    on the relevance, why you consider that question to be

9    relevant to ---

10                    MS. MACLELLAN:      I consider it very

11   relevant.   We've been living here for a number of years.

12   We have seen a lot of money wasted, no clean up yet

13   successful and people's health are still affected, and I

14   think it bears a big relevance across this country

15   because it looks bad on Cape Breton when we can't answer

16   where the money was spent.

17                    THE CHAIRPERSON:     Well, I accept Mr.

18   Potter's answer that that's not an item that they can

19   answer directly.

20                    So we may need to see if future presenters

21   -- whether there is somebody who might be able to answer

22   that question.    Do you have anything to add to that Mr.

23   Potter?

24                    MS. MACLELLAN:      I have more questions.

25   Yesterday, they mentioned odours will be present.         And
                                  439             STPA QUESTIONED
                                        (CB Save Our Health Care)

1    that's one of the sources or one of the problems they

2    will have.

3                   I wonder where -- what the sources of

4    these odours will be.    Will they be chemicals?   If so,

5    what type?   What thought was given to the fact that many

6    chemicals affect people before they are detected by their
7    old factory?   That is to say, before anyone can smell

8    them they can harm people.

9                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     Could I clarify what the

10   question is that comes from that?     What do you want the

11   agency to tell you?

12                  MS. MACLELLAN:      I want to know if they

13   have any idea what the source of the odours will be and

14   what -- if it's chemicals, what types of chemicals and if

15   any thought was given to the fact that odours very often

16   harm people before you can detect the odours.

17                  MR. GILLIS:   We most certainly considered

18   odours and we considered the health thresholds, both.

19                  So I'll ask Dr. Brian Magee to address

20   this question, please.

21                  DR. MAGEE:    Yes, I believe we all know

22   that the odours probably -- many of the odours that have

23   been detected over the years may be associated with the

24   sewage.   But that's not what we're talking about in terms

25   of our predictions.
                                  440             STPA QUESTIONED
                                        (CB Save Our Health Care)

1                    Our predictions are primarily that

2    Naphthalene may be above the odour threshold from time to

3    time for a few minutes here and there.

4                    The odour threshold of most chemicals is

5    far, far lower than the level at which effects can be on

6    human health.   And in fact, when odours are detected, it
7    can be because the levels of a chemical lapped over into

8    an area for just a minute or two.     You get a sense of it,

9    it's gone.

10                   If you went there and measured all day

11   long, you'd find that the average level over the day was

12   far below the odour threshold.     But might someone have

13   smelled it for that minute, of course.     And we predict

14   that that will probably happen during the course of the

15   project from time to time.

16                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    So just to clarify, the

17   question -- the assumption of the question is that

18   effects occur below the detection by the human nose and

19   you are saying the opposite?     Is that correct?

20                   DR. MAGEE:   That is correct.   The odour

21   threshold is much more -- your nose is much more

22   sensitive to Naphthalene at lower levels.     Health effects

23   occur only at much higher levels.

24                   MS. MACLELLAN:     But there are other

25   chemicals that cannot be detected in the air that are
                                  441             STPA QUESTIONED
                                        (CB Save Our Health Care)

1    harmful.    Carbon monoxide is just one example.

2                    DR. MAGEE:   Is there a question?

3                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    Is there -- yes, is

4    there a question?

5                    MS. MACLELLAN:     Yes, I'm asking him if

6    they know if there's any chemicals that will be in the
7    air that when they're dealing with the cleanup, that will

8    affect people that can't be detected by the human nose.

9                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    That cannot be detected?

10                   MS. MACLELLAN:     Yeah.

11                   DR. MAGEE:   The chemicals of concern that

12   we know about in the ponds that we've evaluated do not

13   have that phenomenon.   Does that exist for some

14   chemicals?    I'm sure it probably does.    But for the

15   chemicals of concern that we are aware of that

16   historically have been placed into the Tar Ponds, that is

17   not the case.

18                   DR. ARGO:    Madam Chair, may I intrude just

19   briefly in here?

20                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    With a question?

21                   DR. ARGO:    Well, maybe I can answer --

22   maybe I can throw a bit of light on this particular

23   question.

24                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    Sir, I'd like everything

25   at this stage to be couched in terms of a question.
                                 442              STPA QUESTIONED
                                        (CB Save Our Health Care)

1                    DR. ARGO:   All right.   For instance,

2    Benzene has -- the risk -- the concentration which

3    equates to a risk of one in a million in -- for Benzene

4    is -- I'm sorry, let's start off at the beginning and say

5    that Benzene is a carcinogen.

6                    A carcinogen is something which doesn't
7    have a minimum concentration and in the case of Health

8    Canada we insist on a concentration that equates to a

9    risk of one in a million.   Because there isn't a minimum

10   that is our minimum acceptable risk.

11                   The concentration of Benzene that can be

12   -- that equates to that is point 96 micrograms per cubic

13   metre in air.   The concentration when Benzene can be

14   smelled, is registered by the nasal system, is around

15   about five to six milligrams per cubic metres, about

16   1,000 times.

17                   THE CHAIRPERSON:   So if we're translating

18   this to a question, your question is -- well, perhaps the

19   panel's question is, could you provide us with some kind

20   of a table which relates the -- from your perspective,

21   relates the health risk threshold with the human odour

22   detection threshold?

23                   Now we did have some discussion with --

24   about this yesterday and you made an undertaking to come

25   back with respect -- that was in terms of smells that
                                 443             STPA QUESTIONED
                                       (CB Save Our Health Care)

1    might originate from sewage impacts and sediments.

2                   DR. MAGEE:   Well, my colleague here is

3    looking for some tables but if I can just state that

4    Benzene, of course, is one of the major constituents that

5    we have evaluated.

6                   And the risk posed by Benzene is many,
7    many orders of magnitude below the levels that could

8    cause health effects.   I believe it may be true and we'll

9    check here that the odour threshold may be above that

10   level.   But the level that we're predicting from all of

11   our worse case activities is far, far below both levels.

12                  DR. ARGO:    As a carcinogen, Benzene is --

13   has no minimum concentration and Benzene is a systemic

14   toxicant at any concentration.

15                  MS. MACLELLAN:     I'll just sum up ---

16                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    You have additional

17   questions?

18                  MS. MACLELLAN:     I'll just sum up a couple

19   of more questions.   Then I'll turn it over to Dr. Argo.

20   You said that the incinerator -- they said the

21   incinerator that was going to be there was a temporary

22   one.   Previously at a coffee party meeting, it was stated

23   by Tar Ponds Agency that the highest temperature to be

24   achieved in the incineration was 1,000 degrees Celsius.

25   Correct?
                                   444             STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (CB Save Our Health Care)

1                    MR. GILLIS:    I certainly can't speak to

2    that.    I don't know who was at ---

3                    THE CHAIRPERSON:     Would you like to pose

4    your question relating to this subject?

5                    MS. MACLELLAN:      Who did the presentation

6    was Mr. Kaiser and Mr. Donham.       At that time, I asked
7    the question and they told me it would be 1,000 degrees

8    Celsius.   Has that changed?

9                    MR. GILLIS:    I'll ask Mr. Kaiser to

10   respond to that.

11                   MR. KAISER:    Madam Chair, I'm not certain

12   it's appropriate that I respond to what may or may not

13   have been stated in the past.

14                   But certainly what I could say is that any

15   incinerator that would be brought in and commissioned

16   here to deal with the sediments that we have to deal with

17   would comply with whatever regulatory requirements are

18   posed.   And we would certainly seek guidance from the

19   regulators in terms of minimum or maximum temperatures or

20   any other operating parameters.

21                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     What is contained in the

22   -- could you remind me what have you, in fact, indicated

23   in EIS as your predicted operating temperatures.

24                   MR. KAISER:    We expect that there will be

25   components of the incinerator that will operate at or
                                445              STPA QUESTIONED
                                       (CB Save Our Health Care)

1    around 1,000 degrees Celsius.    There are other components

2    that will operate at other temperatures.

3                   MS. MACLELLAN:    Is 1,000 degrees the

4    highest temperature it will operate?

5                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    I get the sense that you

6    have a string of questions on this.     I think it could be
7    quite helpful if you could get to your -- to the --

8    rather than ---

9                   MS. MACLELLAN:    Well, I'm just going to

10   sum up to say that you can't burn PCB's safely at 1,000

11   degrees Celsius.   That's not kosher.

12                  But I'm also going to sum up and turn it

13   over to Dr. Argo now by saying, as I sat through the

14   hearings in the last two days or Saturday and Monday, all

15   I get -- heard from Tar Ponds Agency and their experts

16   were, "We assume so," or "We do not believe."    To me this

17   is not reassuring.   I am appalled to think that we are

18   paying people to come here when they are not fully

19   prepared to give us the answers.

20                  I have lots of questions but I will turn

21   it over to Dr. Argo because I only have one more question

22   for them.   What do I tell my grandchildren when this

23   fails and they have to dig it up again?

24                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Thank you.   I just want

25   to note that you have about five minutes left within this

1    round.   And there will be another opportunity.


3                   DR. ARGO:   Thank you, Madam Chair.

4                   My name is Jim Argo.   I'm -- work out of

5    Wolf Island in Ontario.    I propose medical -- I study

6    medical geography which is the study of how your present

7    day health is affected by where you have lived.
8                   I built a system for Health Canada under

9    the Green Plan that enabled us to study this.     Now this

10   is a question to Mr. Potter.   I have a whole bunch of

11   questions and perhaps they -- I structured it slightly

12   differently and if it doesn't work out exactly, please

13   tell me that I'm not doing -- tell me and I'll try to

14   make it better.

15                  But this is a question for Mr. Potter who

16   told us yesterday he knows where everything is on the

17   site after all his inspections across the site.    So I'm

18   asking Mr. Potter how deep are the infrastructure drains

19   across the Coke Ovens?    Where are they, how many do you

20   know of, are they still operating, what are they

21   draining?   And a sub-question would be, do you know of

22   anything buried in relatively local locations on the Coke

23   Oven sites, essentially dumps.

24                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Yes, Mr. Potter.

25                  MR. POTTER:   Madame Chair, I don't
                                    447           STPA QUESTIONED
                                                   (Dr. Jim Argo)

1    actually recall that being a statement that I can recall

2    stating yesterday.   Now, we can check the transcripts --

3    it doesn't matter -- but I do recall Mr. Kaiser did speak

4    to the Coke Ovens, I think, at one point, and he'll

5    address that response.

6                     MR. KAISER:   Thank you.   Yes, we did speak
7    previously about infrastructure, buried infrastructure at

8    the site.   We know that after many many many years of

9    industrial activity on the Coke Ovens site, there is a

10   lot of buried infrastructure on that site.     There are a

11   lot of drains.   Some of them are relatively deep.    They

12   of course drain many things.     They have been determined

13   to be located through site assessment and

14   characterization work that we have conducted in the past.

15   We have used geophysical as well as actual test pitting

16   and other means to determine where particular

17   infrastructure is located.     And we do know both

18   anecdotally as well as through some of our site

19   characterization work that there are buried both

20   facilities and contaminants on the site.

21                    DR. ARGO:   Thank you, Mr. Kaiser.   May I

22   have a follow-up?    The proposal -- I've looked through

23   the entire EIS and I can find no indication that there is

24   -- that you are intending to remove those drains.     All I

25   can see is that there are two drains, one coming from the
                                   448           STPA QUESTIONED
                                                  (Dr. Jim Argo)

1    Ashby side and one coming from the Whitney Pier side

2    toward -- and I'm wondering if you are -- it sounds to me

3    like you're intending to leave them there.    And if you're

4    going to leave them there, will they not provide a

5    pathway at the very least for anything that has -- that

6    escapes and gets around all of your collecting systems?
7                    MR. KAISER:   The approach is two-fold.

8    The work that Mr. Potter mentioned just earlier that the

9    Coke Oven Brook Realignment Project has restarted today.

10   The Coke Oven Brook Realignment Project is -- it's being

11   conducted so that we can pick up the flows from both the

12   Ashby side and the Whitney Pier side, take that water

13   before it enters the site, and divert it around the site.

14   In conjunction with that, the barrier walls that we spent

15   some time discussing yesterday in conjunction with the

16   pump-and-treat system will pick up any -- any flows that

17   would emanate from the existing infrastructure on the

18   site, collect that entry to appropriate levels prior to

19   discharge.

20                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    I'm afraid the 20

21   minutes of the first round is up, but I will ask a

22   question of clarification there following on Dr. Argo's

23   question.    So what you're saying is those items will not

24   necessarily be removed but your approach is to divert the

25   ground water away from that infrastructure.
                                 449             STPA QUESTIONED
                                                  (Dr. Jim Argo)

1                  MR. KAISER:   It's, I guess, a little bit

2    less than simple.   Predominantly the infrastructure will

3    not be removed, but as we conduct some of our activities

4    on the site and encounter some infrastructure, that

5    infrastructure would be removed.

6                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     I'd like to thank you
7    very much for your questions, and if you've got more

8    questions relating to that topic, if you can hold onto

9    them and come back.   And I thank you very much.   Our next

10   questioner is the Grand Lake Road residents.


12                 MR. MARMON:   Good afternoon, Madame Chair.

13   My name is Ron Marmon, and I have with me Henry

14   Lelandais, and we are representatives of the Grand Lake

15   Road Residents.

16                 Yesterday one of the questions Dr. Charles

17   asked was about the site location in response to why VJ

18   scored higher than Phalen, and I believe Mr. Duncan

19   replied that the cumulative affects of choosing the

20   Phalen site over VJ site would be higher.   In a previous

21   reply to PC05-2, it is stated:

22                 "From a cumulative air quality affects

23                 perspective, the VJ site therefore may

24                 seem less suitable than the Phalen site.

25                 However, this larger scale issue must take
                                  450          STPA QUESTIONED
                                        (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1                   into consideration that the transport

2                   between the VJ site and the Tar Ponds and

3                   Coke Ovens sites would be more efficient

4                   due to the shorter distance.   This is

5                   considered to compensate for any potential

6                   higher cumulative affects that might be
7                   experienced around the VJ site."

8                   And my question is what else can we expect

9    to accumulate travelling a few more kilometres to another

10   site.   I assume that no material would be following along

11   the transport route, so isn't the cumulative affects of

12   air pollution the most important item to be addressed?

13                  MR. GILLIS:   I'll ask Mr. Duncan to speak

14   to this in a moment, but the key -- the key thing about

15   the siting exercise, the siting exercise is a preliminary

16   exercise.   The site underwent -- both sites underwent a

17   full health risk assessment, and that's really the focus

18   point of the exercise.   So I'll ask Mr. Duncan to

19   comment.

20                  MR. DUNCAN:   Thank you, Mr. Gillis.   The

21   discussion yesterday Mr. Charles posed was in relation to

22   cumulative affects associated between the operation

23   either on VJ and Phalen as it relates to the on-site

24   activities in terms of overlaps.   What we found and what

25   the response was trying to portray was the fact that
                                    451            STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    there would be a perception that because the site of VJ

2    is closer to the on-site facilities and the on-site

3    activities, that there would be a perceived overlap and a

4    perceived increase in cumulative affects, but when in

5    reality we have -- when we have looked at those type of

6    things from a quantitative perspective, there is no
7    overlap from an air emissions perspective between the on-

8    site activities that are taking place as well as the

9    incinerator operations at both sites.

10                    MR. MARMON:   So in other words, you're

11   saying that both sites are suitable from an air quality

12   point of view?

13                    MR. DUNCAN:   We've evaluated both sites,

14   both from air quality modelling as well as Human Health

15   Risk Assessment and Ecological Risk Assessment.     Both

16   sites are acceptable from that perspective.

17                    MR. MARMON:   Okay.   I do understand that

18   there was a process involved in choosing the sites, but

19   at the first meeting where we were asked to look at a

20   report and the different site locations and what criteria

21   were used to establish which was the most preferential

22   site -- at that first meeting, we pointed out that there

23   were several items that we didn't agree with in the site

24   location criteria, that we felt that Grand Lake should

25   not have been the preferred site because there are
                                  452           STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    several items there that we questioned.   And this is no

2    way to indicate that the community of Grand Lake would

3    like to see this incinerator in their area or anyone

4    else's area.   We just want some clarification on how we

5    were -- the neighbourhood that was beside the pond would

6    entertain this incinerator.   But on the site location
7    itself, there was a question asked yesterday on the

8    Phalen site -- and again I believe it was Mr. Duncan that

9    replied -- and the question was whether there would be

10   any problem with underground shafts, and Mr. Duncan

11   replied that there could be a problem at the Phalen site.

12   But I believe this item was addressed in Appendix "B",

13   page 9 of the December of 2004 AMEC project description,

14   and were talking about Tab 2-3, and that is the Level 2

15   Potential Candidate Site Evaluation Table.   And there is

16   a criteria item No. 2, Section "J", that describes areas

17   above an active or inactive shaft or a tunnelled mine or

18   other areas of potential substance.   And in this area,

19   Phalen scores a four, which is listed as moderate

20   potential.   Is there any new information that would cause

21   this area to be a problem now and score higher in that

22   regard?

23                  MR. GILLIS:    If you'd just give us a

24   moment to look that particular reference up, we can get

25   right back to you.
                                    453            STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1                     MR. MARMON:   Okay.

2                     MR. DUNCAN:   Yes, thank you.   There was a

3    reference to some screening criteria that were used as a

4    potential restriction or limitation about siting these

5    facilities in relation to underground infrastructure as

6    it relates primarily to mining infrastructure.     That was
7    one of the screening criteria that we evaluated all the

8    sites against.

9                     Phalen, there was some potential there.

10   Again, this was at a desktop preliminary screening level,

11   and one of the things we would need to do at any of the

12   sites that are chosen is to do a full geo-technical

13   evaluation of the site prior to installation of an

14   operating mobile incinerator facility.

15                    So that would be one of the things that we

16   would need to look at prior to commissioning an

17   incinerator at a facility to ensure that the geo-

18   technical aspects associated with any potential

19   underground infrastructure are fully evaluated.

20                    MR. MARMON:   Keeping in mind that a lot of

21   the pits in the Cape Breton area are bootleg pits that

22   DEVCO has no knowledge of, will there be any testing done

23   at the VJ site to determine if there has been any

24   activity in that area on an illegal basis, because I

25   understand there was a coal seam in that area that was
                                 454           STPA QUESTIONED
                                        (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    hit when the former DEVCO operation dug across the road

2    to the Lingan area to install a settling pond.

3                  MR. DUNCAN:   Yes.   We just -- I'll

4    confirm, Mr. Potter, as you're more aware than I am,

5    there are no -- there was no commercial mining of coal at

6    the VJ site, but as you pointed out, there is always a
7    potential for some of these coal seams to have undergone

8    some bootleg mining or excavation activities.    Certainly

9    at the VJ site, it's fairly well documented and has been

10   evaluated from a baseline perspective by both Public

11   Works and Devco.

12                 The site we're evaluating or is currently

13   being considered for the siting -- the specific siting of

14   the incinerator is an area that has, as you're aware,

15   those large asphalt pads and has -- had got some

16   infrastructure associated with drainage control.     But as

17   I indicated, prior to -- even on this site, prior to

18   commissioning an operating a facility there, there would

19   have to be some additional baseline geo-technical

20   information gathered just to ensure that the situation

21   that you've described for bootlegging of small coal seams

22   does not occur or would not impact the operation of the

23   facility.

24                 MR. MARMON:   You mentioned infrastructure

25   relating to water control in that area, I believe.    You
                                    455          STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    just mentioned that just now.

2                     MR. DUNCAN:   Yes, I did.

3                     MR. MARMON:   As I understand it, Devco had

4    very severe flooding problems in that area.      Isn't one of

5    the criteria for setting up an incinerator that the site

6    be not in an area that has flooding problems?
7                     MR. DUNCAN:   Flooding situations are --

8    there's two issues that relate to criteria associated

9    with the siting of any infrastructure.       One is how does

10   it relate to the natural environment, what potential

11   materials could be washed into adjacent water courses,

12   wetlands.    The second one is one the specific operation

13   of the facility as well -- how would that interfere with

14   the operation.

15                    The site at Victoria Junction was

16   evaluated.   There was a flood study conducted.     We looked

17   at elevations for that site.     We looked at potential

18   flooding based on 100-year storm events, and found that

19   the areas that we're considering for siting an

20   incinerator are well outside those areas where flooding

21   has historically occurred or could potentially occur.

22                    MR. MARMON:   Do you have a history of the

23   problems with beavers damming the brook in that area and

24   the total area flooding?   Was that mentioned to you at

25   all?
                                    456            STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1                     MR. DUNCAN:   Sorry, I'm going to have to

2    get you to repeat your question.       Mr. Gillis was talking

3    in my ear.

4                     MR. MARMON:   Oh okay, I'm sorry.   Are you

5    aware of the history of that area of flooding because of

6    the problems with beavers damming the brook in that
7    specific area and what problems were associated with that

8    in the past?

9                     MR. DUNCAN:   We have anecdotal information

10   about potential impacts to water courses related to

11   beaver activity and potential flooding scenarios, yes.

12                    MR. MARMON:   So you are aware there was a

13   flooding because of beaver dams in the area.

14                    MR. DUNCAN:   Yes, I am.

15                    MR. MARMON:   Okay.   I have one more

16   question before I turn it over to Mr. Lelandais.

17   Yesterday it was mentioned that there were no plans to

18   test the fly ash before shipping back to the Tar Ponds

19   site by truck.   Isn't it true that ash from a PCB

20   incinerator is considered toxic, and before it can be

21   transported on public highways, it would have to be

22   analyzed before a permit could be issued?      Also, would

23   each ash load contain the same type of heavy metals or

24   would each load have to be analyzed?

25                    It seems to me that if all your containers
                                 457            STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    are going back to -- that you've hauled the material to

2    the site with for incineration are going back to the Tar

3    Ponds site empty, why would you not just put your ash in

4    one of those containers and send it back?   Why do you

5    have to truck it?

6                  MR. GILLIS:   I'd ask Don Shosky to answer
7    this question, please.

8                  MR. SHOSKY:   The material that you're

9    talking about is the fly ash from the air pollution

10   control equipment, the bag house.   Correct?

11                 MR. MARMON:   Correct.

12                 MR. SHOSKY:   And it's understood that the

13   bottom ash that showed up in different responses is

14   really the clean-treated soil.    The fly ash material

15   should be approximately one percent of the volume of

16   material generated, so it's a very small volume.   Because

17   of the way that the air emission control equipment works,

18   there is a final heating process before it goes into the

19   bag house, which destroys the PCBs that would have made

20   it to the bag house.   It is true that one can speculate

21   that there may be heavy metals there.   The PCBs should

22   not be an issue but that will be tested for.   The metals

23   themselves would need to be confirmed as to what the

24   actual concentrations of those metals are and would be

25   looked at prior to disposal.   But the key criteria for
                                  458             STPA QUESTIONED
                                           (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    disposal back into the Tar Ponds is the concentrations of

2    PCBs.

3                   MR. MARMON:   But we are concerned with the

4    heavy metals that could be in that fly ash which must

5    also be considered as toxic.    And you're saying it will

6    be tested before it is introduced back into the Tar Ponds
7    site, but it will not be tested before it's -- before

8    it's transported on a public highway?

9                   MR. SHOSKY:   Well the testing process

10   would mean that we would test it before it went on the

11   highway.   And if it turned out to be within the

12   guidelines of Canada for special placarding or handling,

13   it would have to be handled that way.

14                  MR. MARMON:   I'll turn it over to Henry

15   now.

16                  MR. LELANDAIS:      Good afternoon, Madame

17   Chair.   My name is Henry Lelandais.    I'm a retired

18   metallurgist with Sydney Steel and the former

19   metallurgical consultant.    Most of the questions have

20   been answered during the earlier part of the afternoon

21   that I had in mind.   As we will be making a presentation

22   ourselves on the -- next Monday, I believe, several of

23   the questions will -- I'll put them off until that time.

24                  At present, I just have two main questions

25   to carry on with what Ron started with here.     One is on
                                    459             STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    the site location.   It states in the category "B" of the

2    Level 1 Site Selection Criteria that the water sheds and

3    water supply areas will not be considered as a site, and

4    therefore, the VJ site, I contend should be eliminated on

5    those grounds, since it is positioned actually within the

6    provincial drainage basin listed as IF-19 in part of the
7    Bridgeport Basin water shed.

8                     Can I get an answer from the Chair's as to

9    how come the site was selected anyway after having due

10   notice that it is a watershed area and using the

11   watershed as a criteria for eliminating a site?

12                    MR. GILLIS:   Thank you.    If you could just

13   give us a moment to find that specific reference, we'd

14   appreciate it.

15                    MR. LELANDAIS:      Section 5.6.2 on page SAR-

16   580 under the Surface Water Resources, Section 3(g).

17                    MR. DUNCAN:   Madame Chair, my apologies, I

18   was looking at the wrong document.       I wonder if I could

19   just have the page reference again.       I suspect that we're

20   referring to the EIS.

21                    MR. LELANDAIS:      The Level White Site

22   Section Criteria.    It's listed here as Category 3(b), and

23   Section 5.6.2, 5.6.2 on page 580 under Surface Water

24   Resources.   Section 3(g) refers to where the surface does

25   not have suitable characteristics.       Table 2.1 might be
                                 460             STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    another reference there.

2                  MR. DUNCAN:   I have five -- page 580 here

3    that speaks to the environmental setting related to the

4    project and project-related boundaries, and there are --

5    this is a reference to the surface water resources as

6    described for the general area.    And I'm having -- I'm
7    having trouble, I guess, remembering the specific

8    question you had about that reference.

9                  MR. LELANDAIS:      The question is that why

10   was the site selected for the incineration in spite of

11   the fact that it is considered a watershed -- part of the

12   Bridgeport Basin watershed, and its position within the

13   provincial drainage basin area listed as IFJ-9 in the --

14   part of the Bridgeport Basin watershed destinations, when

15   your -- your criteria for selecting sites specified that

16   watersheds will not be considered.

17                 THE CHAIRPERSON:     Just for my purposes,

18   this -- you're saying that the VJ site falls within the

19   watershed of a public water supply?

20                 MR. LELANDAIS:      Of the Bridgeport Basin

21   drainage area in general.   It's listed as a watershed and

22   ---

23                 THE CHAIRPERSON:     As a watershed that is a

24   public water supply?

25                 MR. LELANDAIS:      Well, Kilkenny Lake is a
                                  461             STPA QUESTIONED
                                           (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    public -- part of the public water supply of New

2    Waterford, and it is within a close proximity to the VJ

3    site.

4                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     Um-hmm.     Thank you.

5                   MR. DUNCAN:   Yes.    As you indicated, most

6    rivers, lakes and everything are -- do -- are part of the
7    watershed.   One of the criteria that we evaluated the

8    very -- the multiple candidate sites against was are

9    these protected watersheds, are there restrictions in

10   terms of development around these watersheds.

11                  We obtained information for the Department

12   of Environment and Labour, from the provincial agencies,

13   related to protections of watersheds, and there are --

14   there are specific watersheds that have buffer zones

15   around them that do provide specific setback distances

16   for development or any type of facility.        We used that as

17   part of our selection for candidate sites for the

18   incinerator site.   Victoria Junction was -- the site

19   there was outside any of those protection measures

20   dictated by the Province of Nova Scotia.

21                  MR. LELANDAIS:      Thank you.   My other

22   question refers to the criteria choices of incinerator

23   sites again.   And where you state that a site must not

24   have -- or must not have a residence located within 500

25   metres of the property boundary, I assume that it's the
                                   462          STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    boundary of the property, not necessary the center

2    location of the incinerator proper.   But that is not too

3    important.    My main concern here is that the CCME

4    Guidelines guaranteed the community during the JAG

5    deliberations that no homes should be within 1,500 metres

6    of the incineration facility, which is a thousand metres
7    different to what the criteria that you are using.     How

8    can you reconcile the fact that you're going contrary to

9    the CCME Guidelines guaranteeing that distance from a

10   residence?

11                   MR. GILLIS:   CCME siting criteria are

12   high-level siting criteria and they are protective in the

13   event that you don't have a whole lot of information.    So

14   they're highly protective of the situation.   In the

15   application of the CCME criteria and the CCME approach to

16   the siting criteria, you can look down and continue to do

17   more extensive investigations as you increase the level

18   of information that you have, and that's why, for

19   example, the Human Health Assessment was conducted for

20   the appropriate sites that we identified as possible

21   here.   And the Human Health Assessment indicated that the

22   work that would be conducted in the incinerator location

23   and the operation was indeed health protective and met

24   all the requirements to show that it was health

25   protective.
                                   463             STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1                    MR. LELANDAIS:      I don't feel that answers

2    my question.    My question was that the CCME Guidelines

3    guaranteed the community that no homes would be within

4    the 1,500 metres of the incineration facility.      Now, the

5    present site location shows in the Victoria Junction.

6    There's 17 homes that are within the 15,000 metres, plus
7    a dairy farm that's about 500 metres away, and I just

8    can't reconcile the fact that you're going against your

9    own criteria by selecting that site.

10                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     That is the end of the

11   20 minutes.    I'm just going to finish off with a -- for

12   my own purposes -- a question of clarification relating

13   to what you're asking, and you're welcome to come back

14   for a second round.   You may wish to pick up on this.

15                   But the clarification is was there at some

16   point some indication to the community that the CCME

17   Guidelines would in fact be used?

18                   MR. GILLIS:   I'll ask Mr. Potter to

19   address that.

20                   MR. POTTER:   Thank you, Madame Chair.    We

21   were going to address that point.      I believe Mr. -- the

22   witness indicated that there was a prior commitment

23   through the JAG process to follow this 1,500-metre

24   criteria.   I can say with great certainty that we

25   repeatedly indicated that with the construction or
                                    464           STPA QUESTIONED
                                           (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    placement and installation of the incinerator, the Chair,

2    STPA, would follow all applicable guidelines that the

3    regulators required us to follow.     We do not feel that

4    guideline necessarily does apply to this situation at

5    hand with our situation, our project, but we did commit

6    to following all the requirements that the regulators
7    would require us to follow with the construction and

8    installation of that facility.

9                     THE CHAIRPERSON:    But the Agency did -- it

10   was a JAG recommendation the Agency did follow through

11   with -- agreed with following the CCME approach to the

12   remediation of the contaminated sites, a phased approach.

13   So the CCME siting guidelines didn't come along with that

14   package approach of dealing with this problem?

15                    MR. POTTER:   That's correct.   We committed

16   to the CCME approach for the remediation.     The CCME

17   document in question was a 1992 document which is

18   currently under review by Environment Canada.     Our

19   commitment again is that we will -- at the time of the

20   necessary permitting stage, we will follow all the

21   necessary regulatory requirements that the regulators

22   place upon us.   We don't feel that one at this present

23   time is applicable.   We have not committed to it.      The

24   commitment we have is that we will follow all the

25   necessary regulations and stipulations that the
                                  465             STPA QUESTIONED
                                           (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    regulators place on us at the time of the permitting for

2    the facility.

3                     THE CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you very much, Mr.

4    Marmon and Mr. Lelandais.    Is it -- do you think you're

5    going to wish to come back for a second round of

6    questions?
7                     MR. LELANDAIS:    I think the more questions

8    we ask, the more questions we have.     So yes, we probably

9    will be back for another round of questions.

10                    THE CHAIRPERSON:   I take that as a yes.

11   I'm going to ask Sierra Club to come forward, and after

12   their 20 minutes, we will take a break.


14                    MS. MAY:   Good afternoon.   My name is

15   Elizabeth May.   I'm here on behalf of Sierra Club of

16   Canada and our local Cape Breton group.       I'd like to

17   start by thanking the Panel for being here collectively

18   and personally and for your diligence and concern and

19   commitment to a full and impartial review of this

20   project.   As you can see, it's not going to be easy.

21                    I would start with a couple of questions

22   that follow up from yesterday.      And the first question is

23   a follow-up from your question, Madame Chair, you had put

24   to the Panel.    I believe you asked about the Goose Bay

25   incinerator, and I don't believe I heard an answer.         And
                                    466           STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (Sierra Club of Canada)

1    I believe you put to the STPA Panel, relating to the

2    Goose Bay incinerator, "Was that a successful operation?"

3    I don't think we got an answer.      You can decide you don't

4    care about the answer, but I'm still interested.

5                     MR. GILLIS:   I don't recall we supplied an

6    answer to that question.    I think we took an undertaking
7    that we would look up performance of some additional

8    information, as I recall.

9                     THE CHAIRPERSON:    Now, you've stumped me

10   there.   I can't remember, but we will check and find out.

11   Yes, I'm getting a nob that that was an undertaking.

12                    MS. MAY:   So can we just clarify that

13   undertaking, because as my notes recorded it, the

14   undertaking wasn't specific to the characterization of

15   Goose Bay as a successful operation.     If that can be part

16   of the undertaking, then we're fine.

17                    Yesterday there was a question ---

18                    MR. GILLIS:   Excuse me, if I may.   We'll

19   get the information related to the operation at Goose

20   Bay.   And I think that was the undertaking.    Is that

21   right?   Okay.

22                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    You're saying that that

23   is going to be -- you're going to take that.     Whether --

24   I don't have the original undertaking in front of me, but

25   whether or not it's there, you will undertake to provide
                                  467           STPA QUESTIONED
                                        (Sierra Club of Canada)

1    information about the performance of the Goose Bay

2    incinerator?

3                   MR. GILLIS:    We will.    I guess my concern

4    here is the adjudication -- the use of the term,

5    "successful," and it's -- we'll bring back the

6    information as best we can.
7                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    Yes.   Thank you.

8                   MS. MAY:   I was -- I'm grateful, Madame

9    Chair, that -- I think from my notes, that was how you

10   put the question, but it moved on, and I think the

11   undertaking related to a subsequent question.     But as

12   long as we're aware of that, we can look for it in the

13   undertaking.

14                  A second question relates to -- and this

15   is a question to Dr. Magee if he's ready for -- I want to

16   follow up on one that Dean Charles -- I'm sorry, Mr.

17   Charles put to Dr. Magee on the Health Risk Assessment

18   and looking at the question of the modelling in the risk

19   assessment of the toddler, the fisher toddler, the farmer

20   toddler, and I believe the premise to Mr. Charles'

21   question was that the community -- this is a community

22   with health problems.   The question as my notes reflected

23   it was would that protect adults with health problems.

24   And the response I have recorded is from Dr. Magee, "Yes,

25   absolutely."   So my question is, through the Chair, can
                                  468            STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Sierra Club of Canada)

1    you describe how the risk assessment modelled for adults

2    with various illnesses and which illnesses were included

3    in that modelling.

4                   MR. GILLIS:   I'd ask Dr. Magee to address

5    the issue.   As I understand it, you're talking -- you're

6    asking about the sensitivity to modelling with respect to
7    conditions of disease and the recipients.      Is that

8    correct?

9                   MS. MAY:   I think it was clear.    The

10   question was put to Dr. Magee yesterday from Panel Member

11   Mr. Charles whether the risk assessment included

12   community health problems.   And the quote was, "Would

13   that protect adults with health problems?"     Dr. Magee's

14   response was, quote, "Yes, absolutely."   I would like to

15   have some information on what diseases were modelled and

16   how that risk assessment modelling of vulnerable adults

17   who already are suffering from disease -- how that was

18   undertaken and if it's publicly available.

19                  MR. GILLIS:   Thank you very much.    I'll

20   ask Dr. Magee to answer that.

21                  DR. MAGEE:    Yes, thank you.   First of all,

22   I'd like to clarify that I personally am not aware that

23   there are vulnerable adults that are any more vulnerable

24   in this community than any other.   I will take that as a

25   premise, but I cannot testify to that being the case or
                                469            STPA QUESTIONED
                                       (Sierra Club of Canada)

1    not.   But what is certainly true is that in the conduct

2    of Human Health Risk Assessment, the regulatory agencies

3    that present to us the guidance that we must follow and

4    that present to us the toxicological reference values

5    that we must follow are always mindful that their goal is

6    not to protect an average person in good health, 40 years
7    old, who eats a good diet and doesn't smoke.   The entire

8    set of rules and regulations that we operate under

9    assumes that we have to protect the most sensitive

10   individual.

11                  So for instance, when the toxicological

12   reference value for cancer effects is defined, the

13   government agencies look at all the papers, both human

14   and animal-oriented studies, they take the study that

15   gives the answer, the response at the lowest possible

16   dose, they then take that, model it assuming that there

17   is a straight line linearity at high dose to low dose,

18   i.e., they assume that there is no protective effect at

19   low doses, that there's a risk even at the lowest

20   possible dose of one atom or one molecule, they then

21   construct a dose response curve, and they don't even stop

22   there.   Then they take the upper 95th confidence interval

23   on the data and present that number to us.   So that

24   number is so protective that it is designed to protect

25   the most sensitive individual in any population.    That's
                                  470           STPA QUESTIONED
                                        (Sierra Club of Canada)

1    for cancer.

2                    For non-cancer, they take all the studies,

3    find the study that has the effect at the lowest possible

4    dose, they say that is the effect level, then they divide

5    by 10 and say, "Let's be more protective.   Let's get to a

6    no-effect level."   Then they divide by 10 to say maybe
7    the animals are less sensitive than average humans, and

8    then they divide by 10 another time to say maybe there

9    are people in the population that are more sensitive than

10   an average human.

11                   So the entire process is designed from the

12   get-go to be protective of people who are vulnerable, who

13   have kidney disease, who are elderly, they're on

14   medications, what have you, following the government

15   procedures.   And that's how they design the risk

16   assessment process.

17                   MS. MAY:   In other words, this was a

18   standard risk assessment.    There were no special

19   additional parameters for people with illness within this

20   community.    I'm just checking.

21                   DR. MAGEE:   It was standard in the regard

22   that I just presented, and it was nonstandard in that we

23   over-estimated the exposures by a considerable degree.

24   As we've talked about already, we assumed that the

25   incinerator would operate for 365 days a year for five
                                   471           STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Sierra Club of Canada)

1    years.   That's about double what it's really going to

2    operate.   We assumed that people live in the most highly

3    affected location and they eat -- I just calculated this.

4    The toddler in the community eats six percent of their

5    body weight every day from food grown at a location that

6    is the most high-affected location.     The adult doesn't
7    eat quite that much, but they eat one percent of their

8    total body weight every day from food that we are

9    pretending they grow at that location -- all of their

10   beef, all of their dairy, all of their pork, all of their

11   eggs.    If that is not conservative, I don't know what is,

12   Madame Chair.

13                   MS. MAY:   Thank you.   Following up on a

14   question yesterday in response to Mr. Charles, Mr. Gillis

15   described the evaluation of the Phalen Mine as, quote,

16   unquote, "pretty stringent."    At page 577 of Volume 1,

17   the EIS states that there was little to no hydrology

18   undertaken at the Phalen Mine by way of studies.    I'm

19   wonder if subsequent to the EIS report, there was more

20   work done on hydro-geology at Phalen Mine.    And if so, if

21   it could be publicly available.

22                   MR. GILLIS:   We did not collect any

23   additional information at the Phalen Mine site.

24                   MS. MAY:   I'll repress the -- I will

25   repress the second question about how you understand the
                                  472            STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Sierra Club of Canada)

1    term, "stringent," but I'll go on to Question 4.    In

2    response to a question from Mr. LaPierre about the

3    treated water released, that it would meet criteria, I

4    believe from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans --

5    Madame Chair, if you could ask them to confirm which DFO

6    criteria are being used, if it relates to acute lethality
7    or to some other indicator for relief to aquatic

8    ecosystems.

9                   MR. GILLIS:   Could you please clarify the

10   question for us?   Thank you.

11                  MS. MAY:   Yesterday one of your witnesses

12   -- and I'm afraid in the back from where I'm able to plug

13   in my laptop, I'm not sure which one -- responding to Mr.

14   LaPierre from the Panel, confirmed that any treated water

15   released would meet Fisheries criteria.    I would like to

16   pursue which DFO Fisheries criteria you are referring to

17   and if they are the DFO criteria that relate to avoiding

18   acute lethality or to some other action level.

19                  DR. STEPHENSON:     Sorry for the break

20   there.   I guess the first criterion certainly is the

21   Fisheries Act, which deals with non-lethality, but the

22   project also references CCME Guidelines and values --

23   SSTL values, which is site specific threshold limits,

24   that were calculated to be protective of fish and fish

25   habitat through the JDAC evaluation of Coke Ovens Brook
                                473             STPA QUESTIONED
                                        (Sierra Club of Canada)

1    and the Coke Ovens site in about 2002.   So some

2    combination of those.   Clearly anytime you operate a

3    facility like a water treatment plant, it goes through a

4    licensing process, and in that process, with the

5    regulators, you establish the specific targets that will

6    be required -- that the plant will be required to meet.
7    Given the level of development of the project right now,

8    we know that treating this water is technically feasible.

9    Questions of the specific targets that the treatment

10   plant will have to meet would be essentially a matter for

11   licensing with the provincial and federal authorities at

12   the time.

13                 MS. MAY:   Thank you.   Yesterday -- and

14   moving on to another point -- Dr. Magee said that worst

15   case scenarios were used in assessing the circumstances

16   for all the risk assessments.    And the question is that

17   in the EIS, the remediation of the tar cell within the

18   Coke Ovens was assumed for purposes of the risk

19   assessment to be within a fully enclosed structure with

20   negative pressure to contain any volatile emissions.     I

21   would like to ask if they also ran a risk assessment on

22   remediation of the tar cell that proceeded without any

23   structure or based on real life here in Sydney where the

24   structure and air system that failed, as in the

25   experience with the attempted clean-up of the Domtar
                                  474            STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Sierra Club of Canada)

1    tank.

2                   MR. GILLIS:   I'll ask Dr. Magee to answer

3    that question, please.

4                   DR. MAGEE:    When we started the risk

5    assessment process, we asked about what the various

6    elements of the project were, and we were told very early
7    in the process that the agency had made a commitment to

8    construct an enclosed structure with an air pollution

9    control system.   I was told that that system would

10   operate at 99 percent efficiency at removing volatile

11   components from the air, but I chose to take a health

12   protective assumption and assumed slightly less

13   efficiency, and therefore the 90 percent was set by me.

14   So we can -- we can ask the engineers whether they're

15   going to in fact get 99 percent efficiency or not, but 90

16   certainly is fairly easy to achieve.   Thank you very

17   much.

18                  MR. GILLIS:   I would ask Frank Potter to

19   comment on the experience of the Domtar tank.

20                  MR. POTTER:   Yes.   I just wanted to

21   indicate that the Domtar tank was successfully completed

22   and removed.   It was not attempted.   Thank you.

23                  MS. MAY:   In the Domtar tank experience,

24   perhaps now that we're onto that, perhaps the Panel might

25   be interested to know what happened with exceedances with
                                    475             STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Sierra Club of Canada)

1    the failure to replace the charcoal filters at the

2    enclosed structure and the exceedances of naphthalene

3    that were experienced in the community.

4                     MR. POTTER:   There were a number of

5    shutdowns on the Domtar tank.        As per our protocol and as

6    our procedures had outlined, there were criteria we had
7    to meet.   There was an instance when the charcoal became

8    expended and had to be replaced or replenished.       The

9    project was shut down, the charcoal was replaced.       There

10   was some upgrading of some exhaust fans at the same time,

11   and the project proceeded to completion.

12                    THE CHAIRPERSON:     For my clarification,

13   this is -- this is a system of enclosures that is similar

14   to the one proposed for the tar cell?

15                    MR. POTTER:   That's a good question.      The

16   tar cell is simply an excavation activity.       The Domtar

17   tank had coal tar material in it.       The nature of the

18   material was that it sat there since -- I think somewhere

19   in the mid to late '50s -- and had to be heated

20   significantly to get it mobile so that it could be

21   trucked away.    The heating of the coal tar in that tank

22   generated, of course, a higher level of emissions that we

23   would ever expect for the -- a simple excavation of the

24   tar cell area.   So it's a dramatically different

25   situation.
                                    476           STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (Sierra Club of Canada)

1                     MS. MAY:   Could I ask your question again,

2    Madame Chair?    Will the structures be similar between the

3    two operations?

4                     MR. POTTER:   I'll refer that to Mr.

5    Shosky.

6                     MR. SHOSKY:   I've been involved with over
7    10 enclosed structure excavation works across North

8    America, including sensitive areas like downtown Santa

9    Barbara, and properly maintained, those systems work

10   extremely well.   I'm not privy to all the information

11   that happened at the Domtar tank, but properly monitored

12   and if the proper calculations are done as far as when to

13   change out carbon, those sorts of incidents should not

14   occur.

15                    In addition to that, there's typically

16   enough monitoring going on to identify any problem well

17   before it would become an issue with the community.

18                    MS. MAY:   Moving along -- I agree with

19   you, people in Santa Barbara are terribly sensitive, but

20   we'll move on to the next question, which relates to one

21   the Chair put.

22                    There is an undertaking on this, but if I

23   could just get a sense of it, it's relating to the

24   questions yesterday -- and I'm going to ask a slightly

25   different one -- I don't believe it's covered by the
                                    477           STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (Sierra Club of Canada)

1    undertaking -- if it is, then we can move on -- about

2    what you are actually removing in terms of PCB

3    contaminated material.

4                     We have Figure 2.2-3 of the Environment

5    Impact Statement.   With two specific areas that are being

6    removed, we know that some level of PCBs will remain.
7                     And my question is how confident are you

8    that all the PCB areas exceeding 50 parts per million

9    have been identified and are within the two sections that

10   you have shaded as being targeted for removal to the

11   incinerator.

12                    MR. GILLIS:   We've provided an information

13   -- in a response to an information request we've provided

14   this information.   If you'll just give us a moment, we'll

15   look it up.

16                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    That would be IR-12, is

17   that right?

18                    MR. GILLIS:   This was the IR that we were

19   referring to when we undertook to provide additional

20   information, so I just want to be clear on that, so ---

21                    MS. MAY:   Perhaps you misunderstood my

22   question then.

23                    How confident are you that you have

24   identified all the PCB areas exceeding 50 parts per

25   million, that they have been identified and are within
                                 478            STPA QUESTIONED
                                        (Sierra Club of Canada)

1    the areas you plan to excavate?

2                  I don't really think it is but I'll -- if

3    the Panel believes it is, I'll put it aside.

4                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Well, I believe that

5    there were additional areas over 50 parts per million

6    that are not within the two main areas, and that
7    information is included in that IR-12.

8                  Your question about how confident, that --

9    I think we could still get a response to that.

10                 MS. MAY:   Right.

11                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    Maybe you need to have

12   another look at IR-12 and if there's anything that has

13   not been answered ---

14                 MS. MAY:   Okay.

15                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    But in terms of the

16   confidence question, how confident are you that you have

17   identified all the areas exceeding 50 parts per million?

18                 MR. POTTER:   The Tar Ponds have been

19   extensively sampled and we're very confident we know all

20   the locations for the PCB levels in the ponds.   And as

21   you indicate, IR-12 does respond to the question.

22                 MS. MAY:   Okay.    Moving on to some

23   questions relating to the Coke Ovens site.

24                 On the first day, on Saturday I believe,

25   Mr. Potter stated that on the municipal land use planning
                                  479            STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Sierra Club of Canada)

1    process, "We are currently engaged with the Municipality

2    in some initial discussions on not just our property but

3    the neighbouring properties alongside of us about

4    potential ideas the Municipality has for land use, for

5    future land use."

6                   The question is, are you -- does this --
7    this inference, this means you're not following JDAC

8    recommendations, and I wonder if you can provide the

9    Panel with your rationale for not following the JDAC

10   recommendations on this point.

11                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Could you clarify for me

12   the JDAC recommendations?

13                  MS. MAY:   I will if I can speak to my

14   expert who wrote this question.    Be right back.

15                  Madam Chair, with your permission, I'd

16   like to come back to that.   We're pulling it up on a

17   laptop.   We're quite far from plugs at this table, so we

18   have a little separation anxiety.   I'll have it in a

19   moment.

20                  Moving to a question that was originally

21   put to the Chair in the deficiency statement, we have a

22   number of questions that we -- for which we did not feel

23   we had a response.   We have searched for them.     If

24   they're there and we missed them, I apologize.

25                  One question was we would request a
                                    480           STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (Sierra Club of Canada)

1    breakdown of funds received for the production of this

2    Environmental Impact Statement.      We don't believe we have

3    that anywhere.   Extended by the collectivity of

4    consultants who have produced the Environmental Impact

5    Statement, what was the total cost?

6                     MR. POTTER:   I'd seek clarification from
7    the Chair on the relevancy of that question to the

8    assessment.

9                     THE CHAIRPERSON:    You're asking for the

10   total amount spent on the environmental assessment to

11   date?

12                    MS. MAY:   Yes.

13                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    And you're ---

14                    MS. MAY:   And I'm happy to explain the

15   relevance.

16                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    Yes, please do.

17                    MS. MAY:   Mr. Potter opened this up by

18   having explained yesterday that in terms of looking at

19   these technologies it was important to look at all kinds

20   of other costs that weren't just the technology.       So, as

21   we look at costs, I'd like to know about this one.      It's

22   part of the whole package of costs of the project and

23   it's not broken down for the public at all.

24                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    Do you have an objection

25   or a reason why you are not prepared to provide the total
                                  481            STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Sierra Club of Canada)

1    cost spent on the environmental assessment, especially as

2    it -- in terms of it is one component and you are

3    undertaking to provide us with a better breakdown of the

4    project costs, I believe?

5                   MR. POTTER:    We will come back with some

6    -- a better breakdown on the project costs, but I fail to
7    see the relevancy of the breakdown between our various

8    consulting team costs.

9                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    I wasn't -- I didn't

10   believe that that was the request.       I believe the request

11   is simply the total amount spent on the environmental

12   assessment.   Is that ---

13                  MS. MAY:     I'd be very satisfied with that

14   answer, Madam Chair.

15                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Yes, I believe that's

16   reasonably relevant to what we're talking about.

17                  MS. MAY:     Returning to the earlier

18   question, I'm sorry about the delay in pulling it up on

19   the laptop here, but it was JDAC Recommendation, Phase 3

20   ---

21                  MR. GILLIS:    Excuse me.

22                  MS. MAY:     I'm sorry?

23                  MR. GILLIS:    We may have an answer to that

24   question here if you'd just give us a moment.

25                  MS. MAY:     Oh?
                                   482           STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Sierra Club of Canada)

1                    MR. GILLIS:   The first one that -- this is

2    the one relating to the one associated with cost of the

3    overall environmental assessment.    Is that ---

4                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    You think you can

5    provide it now?   That, in fact, will conclude your 20

6    minutes.
7                    MS. MAY:   I'll be back.

8                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    Or has already

9    concluded.   I imagine you will be, yes, but ---

10                   MR. POTTER:   The IR did answer that

11   question previously, IR ---

12                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    1?

13                   MR. POTTER:   --- 1, and it was $5 million

14   for the assessment process.

15                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    Okay.   Well, thank you

16   very much.

17                   MS. MAY:   Thank you.

18                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    Thank you.   And we are

19   now going to take -- it is now 10 to 3:00, or almost 10

20   to 3:00.   We will return at 10 past 3:00, a 20-minute

21   break.   So, thank you very much.

22   (25-MINUTE BREAK)

23                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    We're going to restart

24   this session.   Please take your seats.

25                   Before I ask our next questioner to come

1    to the table -- or he's very welcome to come to the table

2    anyway, it's Mr. Ignasiak from TD Enviro -- I wanted to

3    indicate to anybody who has arrived after the session

4    began at 1 o'clock, we have a very -- we have an

5    organized system of questioning and we're doing it in

6    rounds.

7                   If you are interested in asking questions
8    of the Chair, I would -- and you have not already done

9    so, I would ask that you speak with Debbie Hendricksen,

10   who is standing on my left, and she will add your name to

11   the list and we will call upon you.

12                  I have four additional names that I will

13   be calling on after Mr. Ignasiak, and as you know, you

14   have a 20-minute time period to ask your questions and

15   we're going to try and fit in as many rounds as we can

16   before 9 o'clock.    So, Mr. Ignasiak?


18                  MR. IGNASIAK:   Good afternoon.   Thank you

19   very much.   I would like to tell you at the beginning

20   that my interest in Tar Ponds, particularly in Tar Ponds,

21   goes back to 1987.   Also, I've been -- I have an

22   experience of about 45 years working on R&D of fossil

23   fuels, general science and technology of fossil fuels.

24                  I worked also for a number of United

25   States agencies including the United States Department of
                                 484            STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1    Energy, and I also had an opportunity to work as the

2    research director for the United States Electric Power

3    Research Institute on characterization of the MGP sites

4    in the United States and also within this program -- and

5    that was an eight-year program -- within this program we

6    were working actually on developing methods for
7    reclamation or remediation of those sites.

8                  So, I think I can start now with questions

9    which I will direct to the Panel, and I will start with

10   very basic questions.    If the Panel will allow me later

11   on to repeat this round, I will go to more advanced

12   questions.

13                 Before I start those basic questions, I

14   would like to refer to Elizabeth and to information that

15   she received about the cost of the environmental

16   assessment.

17                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    Mr. Ignasiak, I would

18   ask you to move directly to your questions, if that's

19   possible.

20                 MR. IGNASIAK:    Very good.

21                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    If you have statements

22   and information you want to share with us, you will be

23   making a presentation and we'd be very pleased to hear

24   about it at that time.

25                 MR. IGNASIAK:    Okay.   Thank you very much.
                                   485           STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1    I will move straight to questions.    There was -- actually

2    on last Saturday and yesterday there were questions asked

3    by Dr. Charles regarding the in-situ moisture content for

4    the sediment.

5                    If my memory doesn't fail -- and generally

6    it's quite good -- Saturday the answer was 20 to 30
7    percent and yesterday it was from 30 to about 52 percent.

8    Is that correct?

9                    MR. GILLIS:   We'd like to check the

10   reference that you've quoted there, sir, if you could

11   give us the reference.   Is it in the transcript, is it in

12   one of the presentations or ---

13                   MR. IGNASIAK:   Sir, I'm depending on my

14   memory that Mr. Shosky last Saturday mentioned that the

15   in-place moisture content is 20 to 30 percent, Dr.

16   Charles repeated this question, I believe, again and

17   yesterday he got an answer that it is somewhere between

18   30 to 52 percent.

19                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    And your question would

20   be, which is it?

21                   MR. IGNASIAK:   My point is that

22   essentially if you really want to get Dr. Charles numbers

23   on the subject you really have to go back significantly

24   to 1996 and the report ---

25                   MR. SHOSKY:   Madam Chairman, may I answer
                                  486            STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1    that I think what his question was originally, which was

2    the moisture content ---

3                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     Well, I would like to

4    know what the question is.   Your question is that you

5    would like clarity on what the moisture content is?

6                  MR. IGNASIAK:    Yes, that's correct.
7                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     Yes, please, Mr. Shosky.

8                  MR. SHOSKY:    Thank you, Madam Chair.     We

9    have a couple of sets of data.     The information that we

10   collected ranged from 20 to 30 percent and there was some

11   additional data provided by other people at various times

12   in assessments that have taken the moisture content up as

13   high as 40 percent.

14                 So, there is a variation in moisture

15   content from 20 to approximately 40 percent -- or, I'm

16   sorry, 50 percent.

17                 MR. IGNASIAK:    Can I respond to that?

18                 THE CHAIRPERSON:     With a question of

19   clarification or with ---

20                 MR. IGNASIAK:    With clarification.

21                 THE CHAIRPERSON:     --- your next question?

22                 MR. IGNASIAK:    With clarification, Madam.

23                 THE CHAIRPERSON:     I must clarify that

24   today we are seeking questions from the public and not

25   statements and not elaborations.
                                 487             STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1                  MR. IGNASIAK:     Okay.   Thank you very much.

2    My next question is also on moisture content but on

3    moisture content and on air-dried basis.

4                  I believe that for any project for any

5    remediation approach, and specifically here when we are

6    taking about solidification/stabilization I think we
7    should really have some information on air-dried moisture

8    content.

9                  I wonder whether the Chair could provide

10   me with moisture average or perhaps a range of moisture

11   content for the sediment.

12                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    At which stage in the

13   process?

14                 MR. IGNASIAK:     Air-dried.   It means a

15   sediment which is exposed to air for a period of time to

16   remove the moisture from the sediment, which is the

17   primary objective of this ---

18                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    So, this would be before

19   transportation to the ---

20                 MR. IGNASIAK:     That is correct, yes.

21                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    Yes.

22                 MR. GILLIS:   So, I'd ask Mr. Shosky to

23   answer this with respect to the moisture content prior to

24   transportation following demoisturization.

25                 MR. SHOSKY:   Apparently there's still some
                                  488           STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1    misunderstandings on exactly what process we're following

2    here.

3                   I believe over the last three days I've

4    said that material would first be gravity drained and

5    then further dried using treated soil from the

6    incineration process for the material that would go back
7    up for incineration.

8                   That criteria that needs to be met with

9    moisture content is what we referred to over the last few

10   days as the feed stock criteria for efficiently burning

11   within the thermal unit.

12                  On the stabilization front, the cement

13   does take a bit of moisture, there will be gravity

14   draining of water in the in-situ areas where the

15   excavations will occur with stabilization, allowing that

16   material to be of a higher moisture content when we add

17   the cement for it to cure into the monolith.

18                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Mr. Ignasiak, have you

19   ---

20                  MR. IGNASIAK:   Well, I think my question

21   was very simple.   What is roughly the moisture content of

22   the material that is excavated and deposited on the floor

23   of the pond?

24                  MR. SHOSKY:   Again, we gave a range of

25   between 20 and 50 percent from the testing data that we
                                  489           STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1    have.   That's the in-place moisture content when samples

2    were collected for various analysis with the -- for the

3    thermal characteristics for the thermal plant and also

4    for the stabilization.

5                   I'm not sure exactly what the doctor is

6    getting at and I would like some clarification on the
7    question.

8                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    I would just like to

9    point out to any of you who sat there to ask questions

10   for 20 minutes, you know that 20 minutes goes by rather

11   fast, so I just would encourage a style of questioning

12   that moves as rapidly as possible to the nub of the

13   inquiry that you wish to make, because unfortunately you

14   don't have unlimited time to make a very slow progression

15   of step-wise questions.

16                  That may be not what you're doing, Mr.

17   Ignasiak.

18                  MR. IGNASIAK:   Thank you, Madam Chair.    I

19   think I will not ask more questions on the subject of

20   moisture content.   However ---

21                  MR. SHOSKY:   Madam Chair, could I just

22   interrupt on an administrative matter for a moment.

23                  I've noticed that the witness stand or

24   table is leaving the mike on during the questioning, and

25   I'm not sure if you pick it up but when two mikes are on
                                  490           STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1    at the same time the sound goes a little funny.

2                   MR. IGNASIAK:   I'm sorry, I forgot to shut

3    it off.   I'm sorry.

4                   MR. SHOSKY:   So, if you'd all just try to

5    turn the mikes off.

6                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    We're probably all
7    somewhat guilty of doing that from time to time.    I am

8    probably doing it as well.   All right, we'll try and keep

9    one mike on.

10                  MR. IGNASIAK:   Can I go to the next

11   question?

12                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Please do.

13                  MR. IGNASIAK:   Obviously, the moisture

14   content is causing a lot of problems, so we can drop it

15   and we'll be talking about from now on, for me to prepare

16   next question, on a dry basis composition.

17                  Could I have from the Chair some rough

18   content of the components of the sediment in percent,

19   weight percent?

20                  MR. GILLIS:   You say that you want a

21   breakdown of the components of the sediments on a dry

22   weight percentage, is that correct?

23                  MR. IGNASIAK:   That's correct, yes.

24                  MR. GILLIS:   Could you provide us with a

25   list of categorization?   My experience with soil
                                    491           STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1    geochemistry indicates that there's a variety of ways to

2    break down soil properties and I'd like to make sure that

3    we come close to addressing your question.

4                     So, if you could give us the sort of

5    parameters that you're looking for with respect to the

6    various elements, we will certainly endeavour to respond.
7                     MR. IGNASIAK:   Thank you very much.   I

8    will try, actually, to simplify this thing.     Could you

9    give me weight percent of all organic components versus

10   non-organic components?

11                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    Is that a question that

12   you are able to answer here or do you wish to undertake

13   to provide it?

14                    MR. GILLIS:   Well, Madam Chair, I've just

15   been handed a chemical analysis breakdown by various

16   components.   I'm not sure that these are the elements

17   that the gentleman is looking for, because it ranges from

18   things down to heavy metals through organic compounds.

19                    I believe -- and I don't want to put words

20   in his mouth -- I believe he's interested more in the

21   engineering aspect of the components and I'd have to

22   refer to Don Shosky to speak to this.

23                    MR. SHOSKY:   Again, there's quite a bit of

24   confusion posed by the questioner on this particular

25   issue.   I don't think the issue is very clear at all, and
                                  492           STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1    I'm not sure what scientific basis it pertains to what

2    we're doing.

3                   But having said that, I am willing to go

4    through our existing data once I have a very clear

5    understanding of what the question is that we're

6    responding to, and I would be happy to take it as an
7    undertaking to provide the information if we have it.

8                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    Mr. Ignasiak, can you

9    explain why is it that you require this information?

10                  MR. IGNASIAK:    I think this is incredibly

11   important for a process like stabilization/solidification

12   and I understand that perhaps the team doesn't have this

13   information right now.   I am happy to provide this

14   information in order to ask the next question.   Is that

15   okay?

16                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    You're happy to provide

17   which information, I'm sorry?

18                  MR. IGNASIAK:    The information that I

19   asked for.   I have this information at hand, and in order

20   to ask the next question I would probably have to provide

21   the team with this answer.

22                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    You have the information

23   that you are asking for?

24                  MR. IGNASIAK:    Yes.

25                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Well, by all means share
                                    493            STPA QUESTIONED
                                                (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1    it with us.

2                     MR. IGNASIAK:   Yes.    The information is

3    quite striking, as a matter of fact.

4                     In terms of weight percent, essentially

5    the organic components account for almost 60 percent

6    versus 40 percent for the mineral components.      But really
7    if you look at the solidification/stabilization process,

8    you should not really look at weight percent, you should

9    look at volume percent.

10                    And I would like to bring to the attention

11   of the Panel and also to the attention of the Chair that

12   this is particularly true in case if you want to solidify

13   this material, because what you want to do ---

14                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    I'm just ask you -- I'm

15   sorry, Mr. Ignasiak, I must ask you to now move to your

16   next question.   You have stated what you believe to be

17   ---

18                    MR. IGNASIAK:   Okay.

19                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    --- the breakdown of

20   organic and inorganic.    And your next question is?

21                    MR. IGNASIAK:   My next question is, what

22   would be roughly the volume percent of organic components

23   versus inorganic components in this sediment?

24                    MR. SHOSKY:   Again, Madam Chair, we have

25   -- you know, I'm very familiar with a lot of different
                                  494             STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1    environmental processes.   I'm not sure how he's taken the

2    data and analyzed it in his own way, and I'm pleased to

3    hear him out on this but I'm having difficulty following

4    him.

5                   If this, again, is information that he

6    has, it may go faster if he just presents it.
7                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    Well, is this

8    information that you have?   But, in fact, we're mostly

9    interested in the questions that you ask and the

10   information that you elicit from the Chair at this stage.

11   I'm very happy to listen to your own information when

12   you're making your presentation.

13                  Now, time is kind of moving along.

14                  MR. IGNASIAK:     Yes.   Regardless of how you

15   calculate the volume percent, you will end up roughly

16   with about 60 percent of the organic components by volume

17   versus 40.   This is the average volume percent.

18                  My question is, how we are going to

19   encapsulate this 60 into this 40 percent in a solid sort

20   of a form?   Is that possible?

21                  MR. SHOSKY:   Over the last several days

22   we've gone over the stabilization process for a number of

23   times, I think I fielded most of the questions for our

24   side on that particular issue, and we've also done field

25   testing analysis on it.
                                  495              STPA QUESTIONED
                                                (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1                  My own experience with tar-like material

2    in a variety of different environments indicates to me

3    that I don't see anything here, in my professional

4    opinion, that could not be stabilized using the processes

5    that we are recommending now.

6                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     Mr. Ignasiak, your
7    question is referring to the organic content and the

8    success of solidification of materials where you believe

9    that the organic content is high?

10                 MR. IGNASIAK:     Correct.

11                 THE CHAIRPERSON:     Yes.    Do you have

12   another question for the Chair?

13                 MR. IGNASIAK:     I hope that I stated quite

14   clearly that the volume percent of the organic content of

15   sediment is about 60 percent and the volume of the

16   inorganic content of the sediment, including the cement

17   and the slab(?) added, is about 40 percent.

18                 My question was simple, how you can

19   encapsulate 60 percent by volume in 40 percent by volume?

20   If there is no answer at this point, I would be happy to

21   move to the next question.

22                 THE CHAIRPERSON:     Does the Chair have

23   anything further to add with respect to Mr. Ignasiak's

24   question?

25                 MR. SHOSKY:    We're not sure right now
                                   496           STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1    where he's getting that information from, and I answered

2    that question a moment ago explaining that we have -- I

3    personally have stabilized a lot of tar material that has

4    high concentrations of pure organic material and

5    inorganic material with cement at manufactured gas plant

6    sites, and again our testing has shown that that's an
7    acceptable technology for this location.

8                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    Mr. Ignasiak, are you

9    ---

10                   MR. IGNASIAK:   I would abandon under the

11   circumstances this line of questions and I would go

12   specifically now to those MGP sites which are presented

13   by the Chair in response to the Panel's questions, and I

14   am referring specifically to IR-42.

15                   MR. GILLIS:   Could you give us a moment to

16   open that IR response up, please.    Thank you.

17                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    Have you got that IR?

18   Mr. Ignasiak, you have two minutes left on this round.

19   You are welcome to come back, but two minutes ---

20                   MR. IGNASIAK:   Madam Chair, perhaps in

21   order to explore what I intended to explore right now, I

22   will perhaps stop at this point and come back in the next

23   round, if you don't mind.

24                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    That is probably a good

25   way to do it.
                                   497           STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1                  MR. IGNASIAK:     Thank you very much.

2                  THE CHAIRPERSON:      So, thank you very much.

3                  MR. IGNASIAK:     Thank you.

4                  THE CHAIRPERSON:      The next questioner I

5    now have on my list is Eric Brophy, and after Mr. Brophy

6    I have Duff Harper, if he wishes to -- so he'll be ready
7    to take the -- take a seat after Mr. Brophy.    If you'd

8    just press your ---


10                 MR. BROPHY:     Good afternoon, Madam Chair

11   and Panel Members.    My question is one of clarification.

12                 The EIS Guidelines, Article 9, Bullet 4,

13   "Human Health," what it directs the Chair to do is:

14                         "Assess health of residents of the

15                         areas affected by the project, employ

16                         appropriate qualitative and

17                         quantitative indicators regarding

18                         elements of health that may be

19                         affected by the project, to create

20                         baseline data."

21                 And I emphasize "to create baseline data."

22                 I posed that question to the Agency in a

23   written submission.   I asked, "Has this guideline been

24   complied with?", and their response was:

25                         "Yes.   The EIS contains two
                                  498            STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Mr. Eric Brophy)

1                          comprehensive human health risk

2                          assessments that quantitatively

3                          estimate the cancer and non-cancer

4                          risks posed by the execution of the

5                          proposed multi-year cleanup project."

6                   I would like to refer to the ATSDR Public
7    Health Assessment Guidance Manual.    I suggest they are

8    the leaders in the field of doing health assessments as

9    they work their way through the superfund states in the

10   -- sites in the United States.     They make a definite

11   distinction between risk assessments and health

12   assessments.

13                  On page 2-5 of that Guidance Manual it

14   defines -- and they are lengthy but I'll go into a bit of

15   it -- risk assessment.

16                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Excuse me.   May I

17   interrupt, Mr. Brophy.   So, as fast as you can get to

18   your question that would be very helpful, because this is

19   a period -- today is set aside for questioning rather

20   than presentations.

21                  MR. BROPHY:   I understand that, Madam

22   Chair, and I understand I have 20 minutes to do this.

23                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    You have 20 minutes, but

24   I'm just encouraging you to get to the question.

25                  MR. BROPHY:   I will do.
                                  499          STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Mr. Eric Brophy)

1                        "A risk assessment is defined as a

2                        qualitative and quantitative process

3                        conducted by EPA to characterize the

4                        nature and magnitude of risk to

5                        public health from exposure to

6                        hazardous substances, pollutants or
7                        contaminants released from specific

8                        sites.   Risk assessments include the

9                        following components; hazard

10                       identification, dose response

11                       assessment, exposure assessment and

12                       risk characterizations."

13                  That's a risk assessment.   Health

14   assessment.   As defined in ATSDR:

15                       "Health assessments are based on

16                       environmental characterization,

17                       information, community health

18                       concerns and health outcome data.

19                       Because of the nature of these

20                       databases, health assessments use

21                       quantitative as well as qualitative

22                       data, focus on medical, public health

23                       and toxicologic perspectives

24                       associated with exposure to a site.

25                       The health assessment specifically
                                   500           STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Mr. Eric Brophy)

1                          addresses community health concerns,

2                          e.g. sensitive populations, possible

3                          disease outcomes, and evaluates

4                          relevant community-specific health

5                          outcome data."

6                    That is the short definitions.   Again, I
7    refer you to the guidelines which states they are to do

8    an assessment to create a baseline data.

9                    I don't believe, in my humble opinion,

10   that a health risk assessment is specific to that

11   guideline.    I think what they are asking for is a public

12   health assessment as the Agency, ATSDR, does in the

13   United States, and that is a very comprehensive process

14   of putting together that health assessment.    I would like

15   some clarification.

16                   Have they complied with that guideline by

17   doing two risk assessments?

18                   MR. GILLIS:   I'll ask Dr. Magee to speak

19   to that, please.

20                   DR. MAGEE:    Thank you very much, Mr.

21   Gillis.   Yes, I'm aware of the distinction in the ATSDR

22   guidance between a risk assessment and a public health

23   assessment.

24                   We are here today to evaluate the human

25   health and environmental effects of a proposed project.
                                    501           STPA QUESTIONED
                                                (Mr. Eric Brophy)

1    It hasn't happened yet.   It's something that may or will

2    occur in the future.

3                     The gentleman is correct in describing the

4    elements of a public health assessment, but one cannot do

5    a public health assessment of a project that hasn't

6    happened yet.    All you can do before the fact to get
7    information about whether a project may proceed without

8    affecting human health is to do a human health risk

9    assessment.

10                    So, the gentleman is correct, we've done a

11   human health risk assessment and not a public health

12   assessment, but all you can do at this stage in the

13   project is to do the former and not the latter.

14                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    Mr. Brophy?

15                    MR. BROPHY:   I don't necessarily agree

16   with that, Madam Chair.   You can do a public health

17   assessment.    I was a member of JAG's Health Studies

18   Working Group.   We were working towards that end when we

19   were pushed aside in favour of the CLC committee.

20                    That process was delayed throughout the

21   life of JAG.    Health Canada, in their wisdom, decided

22   that we would not follow the Agency, ATSDR's, public

23   health guidance.   What they were doing was putting

24   together what they referred to as the "Sydney Model" that

25   would be used across this country for future sites.
                                 502             STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Mr. Eric Brophy)

1                  That fell in limbo.     Maybe Health Canada

2    can answer as to what became of that and what became of

3    the health assessment that this community was promised.

4    And, again, I emphasize the purpose of that guideline was

5    to create baseline data.   You need that baseline data ---

6                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     Mr. Brophy, I'm going to
7    -- I'm afraid I'm going to have to interrupt.    I'm going

8    to ask if you have any additional questions.    The

9    information you're providing us, the Panel definitely

10   would like to hear it, but this is not the day in which

11   we hear it.

12                 Do you have any -- and I know you are

13   going to be presenting to us.     Do you have another

14   question for the Chair or a question of clarification

15   around Dr. Magee's response?

16                 MR. BROPHY:   I do, Madam Chair.    Do you

17   not need baseline data in order to determine whether what

18   you are doing on the site is creating the health risks

19   that he so willing talks about?

20                 THE CHAIRPERSON:     And I would like to add

21   a question of clarification for my own purposes.      I don't

22   know whether I was following everything in the initial

23   question.

24                 The public health assessment, Dr. Magee,

25   you're suggesting that's something that takes place after
                                  503             STPA QUESTIONED
                                                (Mr. Eric Brophy)

1    a project is in place?   Is it not -- so it's not

2    equivalent to a baseline health status assessment?

3                   MR. DUNCAN:   Just for clarification, Mr.

4    Brophy was wondering about environmental baseline

5    associated with human health.      Section 5.9.6 of the EIS

6    does describe existing environmental conditions
7    associated with the community health and it's got a

8    number of parameters that are described there associated

9    with community health.

10                  Mr. Magee can talk specifically about

11   inputs to the risk assessment in terms of baseline that

12   was considered for the risk assessment work which he

13   described earlier, and I'd ask him to do that or answer

14   specifically the chairperson's question.

15                  DR. MAGEE:    Yes, thank you, Mr. Duncan.

16                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     While answering my

17   question, would -- if you could start with that, please,

18   and Mr. Brophy's question was the requirement -- what

19   kind of requirement for baseline health assessments is

20   required.   Is that right, Mr. Brophy?

21                  MR. BROPHY:   That's affirmative.    It's my

22   contention you need the baseline data, that's the

23   starting point for -- to determine whether people's

24   health is being affected throughout the cleanup.

25                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     Thank you.   Dr. Magee?
                                 504           STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Mr. Eric Brophy)

1                   DR. MAGEE:   Yes, thank you very much,

2    Madam Chair.   The terms "public health assessment" and

3    "human health risk assessment" certainly do have

4    different meanings.

5                   If we were in a town that had, let's say,

6    an operating plant -- you know, let's say it's a coke
7    oven, it's operating -- one could come in and say, "That

8    coke oven is operating today, let's do a public health

9    assessment."   That's assessing the impacts of the

10   situation that is at hand causing potential emissions.

11                  We don't have that for this situation.     We

12   are here in this situation to evaluate the health impacts

13   of a proposed project.   In that instance one does not do

14   a public health assessment, one does a human health risk

15   assessment which evaluates what the incremental risk

16   would be to human health associated with the proposed

17   activities.

18                  Risk assessment done north and south of

19   the border by provinces, states and federal governments

20   always is an incremental risk assessment.

21                  Now, the EIS, however, does go further.

22   My human health risk assessment stops with incremental

23   estimates of risk over and above the baseline.   So, when

24   we talk of cancer risk, for instance, that's the excess

25   lifetime cancer risk associated with the proposed
                                505            STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Mr. Eric Brophy)

1    activities.

2                  Everyone knows that regardless of which

3    community you go to there is a baseline level of human

4    health impacts going on from whatever sources.   Risk

5    assessment is always done to assess the increment that is

6    laid on top of that.
7                  Now, we did have a mandate to talk about

8    baseline conditions.   As Mr. Duncan has indicated, that

9    information is in that particular section of the EIS.    We

10   also have gone further and in our health risk assessment

11   defined, for instance, what the baseline level of cancer

12   risk is in the communities and then estimated the

13   increment and said, could you detect that increment.

14                 And my calculations which you can see in

15   the latter sections of the human health risk assessment

16   are that the estimated increment to the cancer rate is

17   less than one additional case.   As a matter of fact, it's

18   like something on the order of .0001 case over the entire

19   course of the project.

20                 So, whether the baseline is high, low or

21   medium, the project itself will not cause an increase in

22   cancer rates that one could detect.   It simply is so low,

23   it's lower than one additional case over a lifetime.

24                 THE CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you, Dr. Magee.

25   Mr. Brophy, do you have additional questions at this
                                 506            STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Mr. Eric Brophy)

1    time?

2                  MR. BROPHY:     No further questions, Madam

3    Chair, but I leave it to the Panel's judgment whether the

4    answers provided actually do answer to that requirement

5    of the guideline, and I thank you very much.

6                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     Thank you, Mr. Brophy.
7    Mr. Harper?


9                  MR. HARPER:     Thank you, Madam Chair.   I

10   should identify for everyone that I am a lawyer

11   representing certain area residents next to the Tar

12   Ponds/Coke Ovens Sites.   In that regard I have four

13   issues I'd like to address.

14                 Madam Chair, you had raised questions the

15   other day with respect to the issue associated with who's

16   responsible for the long-term liability associated with

17   the site, and my first question is, who is responsible or

18   liable for long-term monitoring of the off-site

19   contaminants after the 25-year period as set out in the

20   MOU?

21                 MR. POTTER:     I guess I'll have to refer

22   back to the MOA and the mandate provided to the Agency.

23   Our mandate is to manage and remediate the site that is

24   defined in the MOA, which includes the parameters or the

25   site limits that are identified.
                                  507          STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Mr. Duff Harper)

1                  We -- if I'm understanding the question,

2    we are not monitoring any off-site impacts because we've

3    not identified any off-site impacts that we're addressing

4    with our project.

5                  MR. HARPER:    Well, as a follow-up question

6    then, as I understood Madam Chair's questions they dealt
7    with concern over the integrity of the cap, for example,

8    and what would happen if the integrity was somewhat

9    compromised in the future.

10                 My question then would be, what protective

11   measures will be in place in the event that the cap

12   integrity is somehow affected in the future and/or there

13   are a determination that there is off-site contamination

14   that is occurring from that property, or from those

15   properties?

16                 MR. POTTER:    On the first question, the

17   MOA identifies that the long-term care, maintenance and

18   monitoring responsibility rests with the Province.

19                 Currently the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency has

20   a mandate -- our mandate right now is to essentially take

21   us to the end of the first 10 years to complete the

22   remediation portion.

23                 The long-term monitoring and maintenance

24   would, in all likelihood, fall with the Province and

25   remain there with probably some other agency or existing
                                 508           STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Mr. Duff Harper)

1    government department.

2                  The question about any off-site impacts

3    that may arise, if I've got that correct, is addressed in

4    the MOA, that if for some reason there is an unexpected

5    or unforeseen event, where that circumstance would arise

6    -- and I want to make it clear that, you know, the design
7    that we've put in place, the procedures, the cleanup, the

8    environmental engineering containment system, is all done

9    on the basis that we'll be controlling all of the

10   contaminants on our site and we do not expect that.

11                 As I say, in the MOA there are -- there is

12   a clause that does allow for the fact that if something

13   unexpected were to show up and were determined to be

14   coming from our site, there is a clause to address that

15   and it would reflect back on the parties to go back and

16   the two funding parties to address.

17                 MR. HARPER:   By way of clarification as to

18   what you just stated, Mr. Potter, I think you said long-

19   range maintenance in all likelihood would fall within the

20   ambit of the province after 10 years.

21                 Is it the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency, is that

22   going to be the agency that will be responsible for

23   monitoring for the 25-year period after the operation, or

24   will it be the province?

25                 MR. POTTER:   The Sydney Tar Ponds Agency
                                  509            STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Mr. Duff Harper)

1    is a special operating agency under the provincial

2    government infrastructure.   We are a provincial agency.

3                   Currently our mandate is essentially to

4    take us out to the first 10-year-period during the

5    remediation.   The agency may remain.   The agency may roll

6    into an existing government department.
7                   That responsibility may just simply be

8    taken over by a government department.    I can't speculate

9    in what will happen, but it all will remain within the

10   provincial responsibility.

11                  MR. HARPER:   So, at this point, is the

12   Sydney Tar Ponds Agency able to advise what entity or,

13   more particularly, what department within the province

14   will be responsible for the ongoing monitoring and

15   maintenance of this project after the 10-year operation

16   phases?

17                  MR. POTTER:   I think we should just

18   assume, for the purposes of the review, that the agency

19   will remain.   There's -- it could change, but for all

20   intents and purposes the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency will be

21   the ones responsible until that gets changed.

22                  MR. HARPER:   Madam Chair asked various

23   questions about whether or not the site was, in essence,

24   a walkaway site, I think that term was used, and her

25   concern was what would happen at the end of the 25-year
                                 510          STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Mr. Duff Harper)

1    period and whether or not there was the potential for the

2    structures that were in place to break down.

3                  My question is, are there, or will there

4    be, any additional monetary safeguards, i.e. bonds,

5    reclamation bond, something like that, in place to cover

6    ongoing maintenance costs or remediation costs of the
7    structure should it break down in the future?

8                  MR. POTTER:   Could you define "future"?

9                  MR. HARPER:   After 10 years.

10                 MR. POTTER:   The MOA speaks to the 10-year

11   period for the remediation and the 25-year maintenance

12   and monitoring period.

13                 MR. HARPER:   Okay, then let's go after the

14   25-year period as set out in the memorandum, would there

15   be any funds set aside for the potential breakdown of the

16   system after that date?

17                 MR. POTTER:   Our response yesterday was

18   that the best avenue for pursuing that would be with the

19   Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and Public Works

20   who are appearing, I believe, on Friday, and will be

21   addressing, I would suspect, that question.

22                 MR. HARPER:   Madam Chair, the next --

23   another issue I would like to address, in response to, I

24   believe it was, Health Canada's question this morning,

25   Mr. Gillis indicated that some of the sample analysis
                                 511            STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Mr. Duff Harper)

1    that was going to be taken, with respect to the air

2    monitoring of activities on the Tar Ponds sites and the

3    Coke Ovens sites, I believe he said included both real-

4    time sampling and sampling over a longer period of time.

5                  My question is, in response to the panel's

6    submission or IR-11, the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency had
7    indicated they will publish air-monitoring data within 24

8    hours of receiving it, and if that's the case, and yet

9    there is real-time monitoring going on, why is not the

10   data or why it is not the intent of the Sydney Tar Ponds

11   Agency to publish the data immediately upon receipt, and

12   why would they wait 24 hours before making it public?

13                 MR. GILLIS:   Could you give us a moment to

14   get IR-11, please.   I'm going to get Mr. Kaiser to

15   address that question.

16                 MR. KAISER:   Thank you.

17                 The 24-hour period is typically used for

18   date validation.   In other words, before we publish data,

19   and this is pretty standard, we would want to ensure that

20   the data has been validated and is correct before we send

21   it out for public distribution.

22                 MR. HARPER:   Well then could you then

23   explain to me what kind of data evaluation -- what the

24   process is to evaluate data based on real-time

25   monitoring?
                                   512           STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Mr. Duff Harper)

1                    MR. KAISER:   The process would differ,

2    depending on the type of instrument being used to collect

3    the real-time data.

4                    As well, there are steps that are needed

5    to both record and provide the data in a format where it

6    can be made publicly available, and for that reason, as
7    the data is moved through the chain, it must be validated

8    or ensure that it is correct before it goes for wide

9    distribution.

10                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    If I can just interject

11   with a question here, Mr. Kaiser, can you remind me, has

12   the panel been provided, and we probably have, with

13   information that explains exactly which parameters can

14   undergo real-time monitoring and which can't?    That must

15   be somewhere in the EIS.   Is it in the air quality

16   monitoring information you provided to us?    It's not a

17   trick question, I genuinely can't remember.

18                   MR. KAISER:   At present, I can't recall if

19   we have adequately covered the process in its entirety in

20   the submissions that we've made to the panel to date, but

21   what I can do is I can explain, if you would like, a

22   typical process that's followed when we undertake any

23   construction activity on the site.

24                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    No, that wasn't really

25   what I wanted at this point, though.    Maybe Mr. Harper
                                  513           STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Mr. Duff Harper)

1    wants that but I just wondered if there was a list of air

2    quality parameters that you will be monitoring, or which

3    ones can be monitored, by means of real-time monitoring,

4    that was all, and I thought you may have already given

5    that to us.   And if you haven't, then I'd be happy to

6    receive that later.
7                   MR. KAISER:   I'll certainly have to get

8    back to you as, depending again on the activity we are

9    undertaking, those parameters will change slightly.    So

10   it's not always the same parameter that we would monitor.

11                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    No, I can appreciate

12   that.   I was just interested in which ones can be

13   monitored in real time.

14                  I have been told that I have not been

15   clear in acknowledging exactly when undertakings are --

16   need to go into the record, so it's been hard for the

17   people doing the transcript.   So I guess that is that you

18   are -- this is an undertaking and that you will provide

19   us with a list of the air quality parameters that can be

20   monitored in real time.

21                  MR. KAISER:   Certainly, we will do that.

22                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Mr. Harper, sorry, I

23   took some of your time.   I'll give some of it back to

24   you.

25                  MR. HARPER:   That's fine, Madam Chair.    As
                                    514            STPA QUESTIONED
                                                 (Mr. Duff Harper)

1    a follow-up to that request, for those parameters that

2    will be monitored in real time, I would ask that there be

3    an explanation of what the validation process will be,

4    and why it will take 24 hours for those results to be

5    made available to the public.

6                     MR. KAISER:   We'll be happy to do that.
7                     THE CHAIRPERSON:    So we'll add that to the

8    original undertaking, make that one undertaking.     So

9    which parameters can be monitored with real time and what

10   your rationale is with respect to the time you will need

11   before you release that to the public, and whether there

12   is any of that monitoring that, in fact, could be made

13   available immediately.[u]

14                    MR. KAISER:   Certainly.

15                    MR. HARPER:   Thank you.

16                    I want to move to the PCB contamination in

17   the Tar Ponds.   In response to, I believe it's, IR-12,

18   the Chair indicated that the most thorough assessment of

19   the PCBs was contained in the Jacques Whitford 1996

20   report.   And I think Mr. Potter went on to indicate that

21   he was very confident that the agency knew all of the PCB

22   levels throughout the ponds.

23                    I reviewed that 1996 Jacques Whitford

24   report, and, from what I can gather, there are at least

25   five bore holes with levels of PCBs greater than 50 ppm
                                 515            STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Mr. Duff Harper)

1    at the greatest depth measured at the bore hole, and I've

2    identified the actual bore hole numbers in an Information

3    Request that I put forward in writing.   And I would

4    submit that the Jacques Whitford 1996 report has no

5    analysis of the PCBs below those specific bore holes in

6    which there was identified PCBs greater than 50 ppm.
7                  And my question, then, assuming my premise

8    is correct and I can explain where that came from, is, I

9    put it to the Tar Ponds Agency that it is possible that

10   the PCBs in the Tar Ponds have been underestimated.

11                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    The Public -- your

12   Public Comment, Mr. Harper, did you give us a number?    Do

13   you know the number?

14                 MR. HARPER:   I'm sorry, it was Public

15   Comment 35.

16                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    Thank you.

17                 MR. HARPER:   The specific reference to the

18   bore holes was identified in issue 3, and the bore hole

19   numbers were 7833, 7839, AB70, AB71 and AC09.   All of

20   those bore holes had the highest PCB -- sorry, had PCB

21   concentrations that exceeded 50 mgs at this deepest

22   depth, three of which the highest PCB concentrations were

23   at the deepest location.   There was no further sampling

24   below that.

25                 So thus my question, which is, is it
                                 516          STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Mr. Duff Harper)

1    possible that the PCBs in the Tar Ponds have been

2    underestimated?

3                  MR. GILLIS:   I'd ask Mr. Kaiser to answer

4    that question, please.

5                  MR. KAISER:   Thank you, Mr. Gillis.

6                  The discussion is or the points raised, I
7    guess, to a certain degree become moot because our

8    approach here will be to remove areas where the PCBs are

9    located, and we will do that by going right to till, and

10   we will, in that manner, remove all of the sediments that

11   contain PCB, even if there is a situation where there are

12   PCB concentrations below the depth to which the testing

13   bore hole was drilled.

14                 MR. HARPER:   Madam Chair, I thought there

15   was -- at least 11 percent of the PCB contaminant in

16   sediments greater than 50 percent were not going to be

17   removed, so I take issue with Mr. Kaiser's explanation,

18   and I would ask him again to answer the question.

19                 Whether it's moot or not, the question was

20   is it possible that PCB concentrations in the Tar Ponds

21   have been underestimated.

22                 MR. KAISER:   Just to correct my earlier

23   statement, I guess I did respond from the perspective of

24   removal and destruction of PCBs in the areas identified.

25                 As well, and as has been described many
                                  517           STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Mr. Duff Harper)

1    times over the past few days, we will be treating the

2    other sediments with S&S.    So we will also treat to full

3    depth.   So again, the treatment will take place right to

4    till and we will capture and immobilize any PCB sediments

5    there, as well.

6                   MR. HARPER:   Madam Chair, I would ask that
7    my question be responded to.

8                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    Can I ask the Chair if

9    you wish to add anything more to that answer in terms of

10   the question being are you confident that you know the

11   full extent of PCBs in the north and south ponds.

12                  I would also remind you that, as you know,

13   you have made an undertaking to come back to the panel

14   with the total quantity of PCBs, the mass, the total mass

15   of PCBs in the north and south ponds, and you could

16   provide additional information with that in terms of your

17   confidence level that that's about that figure that you

18   will be providing to us, if you can't answer that

19   question right now.

20                  MR. HARPER:   Madam Chair, I think more

21   specifically my question was, based on the research to

22   date is it possible that the PCBs in the Tar Ponds have

23   been underestimated as opposed to the confidence

24   associated with it.   That's a different question that Ms.

25   May asked.
                                   518            STPA QUESTIONED
                                                (Mr. Duff Harper)

1                    MR. KAISER:   At this point in time, we

2    have a very high degree of confidence in our

3    determination of the quantities, and we will respond to

4    the undertaking.

5                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    I have a question from

6    Dr. LaPierre.
7                    DR. LAPIERRE:   I would like to find out if

8    the areas identified are within the area identified for

9    the questioning -- that PCBs located at depth in sampling

10   are within the two areas that you propose to remove PCB

11   from, or are they from another area in the Tar Ponds.

12   Can you confirm where those bore holes are?    You may not

13   be able to do that now.

14                   MR. GILLIS:   We can certainly take that in

15   an undertaking.

16                   You have referred to specific bore holes

17   in your question.   Perhaps you could repeat those for us,

18   thank you.

19                   MR. HARPER:   Certainly.   The bore holes

20   that I referred to were -- again, this is from the

21   Jacques 1996 report -- bore holes 7833, 7839, AB70, AB71

22   and AC09.

23                   MR. GILLIS:   Thank you very much.

24                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    So we have an

25   undertaking from the Chair to provide information as to
                                   519            STPA QUESTIONED
                                                (Mr. Duff Harper)

1    the location of those bore holes and how they relate to

2    the two areas that are going to be removed, correct?[u]

3                    MR. GILLIS:   That's correct.

4                    MR. HARPER:   Madam Chair ---

5                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    Can I just take a

6    moment, please, Mr. Harper, I just have -- I'm sorry,
7    that was an issue unrelated.    Yes, Mr. Harper.

8                    MR. HARPER:   Thank you.   I guess I

9    understand there's a large degree of confidence

10   associated with the results as has been indicated.      I'm

11   not sure if my question has been answered.      I don't know

12   if I keep having to repeat it or not, but I leave it out

13   there, Madam Chair, that I put to you it has not yet been

14   answered, specifically as the possibility that the PCBs

15   in the Tar Ponds have been underestimated.      But I will

16   move on.

17                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    I'm prepared to add that

18   question -- to ask you if you will answer that question

19   as part of the undertaking to provide us with the

20   information of the total mass of PCBs.     Are you willing

21   to take that as part of that undertaking?

22                   MR. GILLIS:   We'll certainly provide some

23   statistical validation of that information as we go

24   forward which should address Mr. Harper's question more

25   specifically.
                                 520           STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Mr. Duff Harper)

1                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Thank you.

2                  MR. HARPER:   My next question therefore is

3    if the PCBs have been underestimated, how does that

4    affect the risk associated with the remediation of the

5    Tar Ponds and the Coke Oven sites?

6                  MR. GILLIS:   I'll ask Dr. Magee to address
7    that issue, please.

8                  DR. MAGEE:    Yes, thank you, Mr. Gillis.

9                  I can respond in two ways.   One is that in

10   the environmental evaluation area of endeavour, we never

11   know exactly what the true concentration is of any

12   constituent in soil or sediment or what-have-you, and so

13   one of the ways that we take that into account is to

14   always use the upper 95th confidence interval on the data

15   we have, and that's because we don't have 100 percent

16   surety that we know the mean concentration of any

17   constituent, so that gives us an extra level of

18   protection when we do our risk assessment work.    So

19   that's the first part.

20                 The second part is that we have modelled

21   the emissions of PCBs from all of the various excavation

22   and stabilization activities, and the risks are so low

23   that if the PCB concentrations were 100, 1000 or even, I

24   think, probably 10,000 times higher, the risk would still

25   be well within the project's significant levels.    So it
                                   521           STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Mr. Duff Harper)

1    makes no difference whatsoever.

2                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    Mr. Harper, even giving

3    you back some of the time I stole from you, that does

4    bring you to the end of -- a bit over 20 minutes.     Do you

5    have other questions?   Will you be coming back in the

6    second round?
7                    MR. HARPER:   I do.

8                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    All right.   Thank you.

9                    Debbie Ouellette is our next questioner,

10   and following Debbie it will be Marlene Kane, which will

11   probably just about take us up to 5 o'clock.


13                   My name is Debbie Ouellette, and I'm a

14   former Cedric Street resident, so I know what

15   contamination that comes off the site can do to a family,

16   but my concerns are they are monitors, real-time air

17   monitors.   That means that they pick up the

18   contamination, like right off -- right at the moment,

19   where -- a stationary air monitor means they're the

20   background levels if there's contamination that comes off

21   the site.

22                   I want to know if you can guarantee, in

23   writing, that these air monitors and real-time air

24   monitors will be on the whole time work will be done on

25   the Coke Ovens site and Tar Ponds for 24 hours a day and
                                    522             STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1    7 days a week.

2                     MR. GILLIS:   I'm going to ask Mr. Kaiser

3    to address this question, please.

4                     MR. KAISER:   As we have demonstrated in

5    the past, when we are conducting any construction

6    activity on the site, we will run the air-monitoring
7    systems, whether they be the real time or fixed stations,

8    in complete accordance with the regulatory requirements,

9    whatever they may be, because they will vary depending on

10   the activity.    But certainly our air monitoring system

11   will be very robust, and we will collect as much

12   information as we are required to collect.

13                    MS. OUELLETTE:      I'm sorry, that doesn't

14   answer my question.

15                    My question is when activity on the Coke

16   Oven site and Tar Ponds, when you decide to work on these

17   sites, will the real-time air monitors and stationary

18   monitors be on while work is being done.

19                    MR. KAISER:   Yes.

20                    MS. OUELLETTE:      For the 24 hour day period

21   and 7 days a week?

22                    MR. KAISER:   We will operate our air-

23   monitoring equipment when we are conducting construction

24   activities on the site.

25                    MS. OUELLETTE:      You're still not giving me
                                  523             STPA QUESTIONED
                                           (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1    a time limit, because let's say you disturb the cooling

2    pond -- they did that the other day and they certainly

3    didn't inform the residents first, which they ended up

4    with headaches and didn't know where they were coming

5    from -- there was a zincy smell in the air, which the air

6    monitors, did they pick up that smell?
7                   MR. KAISER:    It is correct that the other

8    day or actually a few days last week we conducted some

9    activity at the cooling pond.      We did run air-monitoring

10   equipment, we did not have any exceedences or any issues

11   whatsoever associated with that activity.

12                  MS. OUELLETTE:      That's the answer I knew

13   that you would give me, for the simple reason naphthalene

14   and ptyalin, under a cover of the Domtar tank, released

15   exceedents in the air monitors.     But why weren't these

16   air monitors on 7 days a week, 24 hours a day?     You only

17   put them on a certain time in that hour, so you have 45

18   minutes that you pick up nothing.     That could be a real

19   health hazard to the people living in around these sites.

20                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     And your follow-up

21   question is?

22                  MS. OUELLETTE:      We want a guarantee that

23   these air monitors -- our only protection, Mrs. Chair, is

24   that they rely on the monitors to tell us when the

25   exceedents leave the sites.   In the past, we've only
                                 524           STPA QUESTIONED
                                        (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1    found out maybe 2 or 3 days later, 7 days later, that

2    there was exceedents in the air monitors, and we have no

3    protection and we have no way of knowing, if they don't

4    take them to the lab till like 5 or 6 days later. So we

5    just want a guarantee 'cause that's all the guarantees we

6    have are these air monitors.
7                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Have you anything to add

8    to your reply with respect to the agency's commitments

9    that you'll be making to the community with respect to

10   when you'll be operating air monitoring?

11                 MR. KAISER:   If it would be helpful, Madam

12   Chair, I could try to explain to the group, and certainly

13   to the questioner, how the air monitoring is conducted,

14   and hopefully explain in enough detail that there's a

15   better understanding of why certain instruments do not

16   run continuously for 7 days a week or whatever length of

17   time.

18                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    Can you give a very

19   brief outline and then we'll go back to Ms. Kane (sic)

20   for her next question.   Can you do it very briefly at

21   this stage?

22                 MR. KAISER:   I believe so, yes.

23                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    Thank you.

24                 MR. KAISER:   When we conduct activities at

25   the site, we go into a construction mode where we bring
                               525            STPA QUESTIONED
                                       (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1    in the real-time equipment to make sure that as we

2    conduct those activities we do not create any

3    difficulties in the surrounding environment.

4                  As we have been doing for many years now,

5    prior to that, we have samplers that are at fixed

6    stations, that are located around our site, and they run
7    in accordance with what's called the National Air

8    Pollution Surveillance System, and it also follows those

9    protocols.

10                 What is going on now and has been going on

11   for quite some time is we collect data, and we compare

12   our data to both other areas as well as other activities.

13   That instrumentation typically runs on a 24-hour cycle

14   once every 6 days.

15                 As I've said, when we go into a stage of

16   construction activity, we bring in real time hand-held

17   instruments that are used up close, collect the

18   information as it's -- you know, as any emissions might

19   be created, and monitor what those levels are.

20                 We vary the type of instrumentation or the

21   parameters that we measure, depending on what we expect

22   to see from the construction activity.   Typically, we're

23   concerned about dust or total suspended particulate.

24                 As I've said, I guess, the two methods are

25   used, and they're used in a way that they tend to
                                526             STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1    complement each other so that we have a better picture of

2    what the ongoing conditions are at our site, as well as a

3    better picture of any impacts that we might create as we

4    do work on our site.

5                    So the reason that some monitoring

6    equipment isn't just turned on and left on is that
7    there's no particular value in approaching it that way.

8    All you're doing is generating a lot of data that you

9    can't necessarily compare to any particular activity you

10   might have undertaken at any particular time.

11                   We, of course, continue to proceed down

12   the road where we gather more information about our site,

13   and we gather more information about our activities, and

14   if we reach some point in time where, you know, we can

15   make changes in our approach that may give better

16   assurance to the community, we would certainly endeavour

17   to do that wherever possible.

18                   THE CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you, Mr. Kaiser.

19   Ms. Oulette, I apologise for referring to you as Ms.

20   Kane.

21                   MS. OUELLETTE:   That's okay.

22                   THE CHAIRPERSON:   Ms. Kane, I apologise to

23   you, as well.

24                   Would you like to ask another question?

25                   MS. OUELLETTE:   Concerning the air
                                  527             STPA QUESTIONED
                                           (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1    monitors, in the past -- I know how they work.     I

2    videotaped them when they weren't on, I videotaped when

3    they took down the byproducts building and the consultant

4    lied to me, he said they were on and they weren't on.

5                   A lot of the times when they've disturbed

6    the Coke Oven site in the past, we were victims of really
7    naphthaleney smells, there was benzene smells, there was

8    -- really at high amounts.   We took one sample of

9    naphthalene, the sample was 9,960, that was just one

10   sample, and we had tar-like smells every time they

11   disturbed the site.

12                  My concern is, if they put in an

13   incinerator and they only turn the air monitors on every

14   6 days, we have no protection the 5th day, the 4th day,

15   the 3rd day.   And this is why we need better protection

16   when they want to take quality and the air that controls

17   these sites.   We really need better purification than

18   that because ---

19                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     And do you need -- have

20   you another question -- like to get you to your question?

21                  MS. OUELLETTE:      My biggest concern was the

22   air monitors, and you still -- they're going to come on

23   every 6 days, sometimes every 12 days.     It's not good

24   enough for us any more because we do have health effects

25   that do affect the public and we don't have any
                                 528            STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1    protection.

2                  Now, when they start to serve in the Coke

3    Oven site and the Tar Ponds, and people end up getting

4    sick or they have rental properties, are the governments

5    going to step in and help these people, because people

6    are not going to want to move into the area or live in
7    chintzy apartments, or they don't want to live in their

8    homes when they disturb these sites.   Is the government

9    going to step in and help these people, because it

10   certainly did happen to me?

11                 MR. POTTER:     Madam Chair ---

12                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    Yes, Mr. Potter.

13                 MR. POTTER:     --- if I may respond, I

14   guess, in a general nature.   The Sydney Tar Ponds Agency

15   is very, very committed to air monitoring and emission,

16   odours coming off of our site.    I think it's safe to say

17   if there's one area that we spend the most time on it

18   would be air monitoring.   We work extremely closely with

19   the Provincial Department of Environment, Nova Scotia

20   Department of Health, the Medical Officer of Health,

21   Chief Medical Officer of Health, Health Canada.

22                 We spend a lot of time on protocols,

23   guidelines, criteria, procedures, methodologies.     We're

24   currently looking at, you know, expanding our

25   methodologies right now with some new technologies.
                                529             STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1                   We are making every effort we can to

2    ensure that air monitoring is a priority with the agency,

3    in all activities that we do on site.

4                   We recognize that yes, there will be

5    odours.   I think we've addressed that in some of our IRs

6    in the past that, you know, odours will be noticed during
7    the project, dust will be noticed during the project, but

8    the important aspect is that we make sure that we are --

9    have the clear set of protocols in place.   Those

10   protocols will identify when we take certain actions.

11   We've done that in the past with other projects we've

12   done on the site, and we'll continue to do that.

13                  I just want to re-emphasize that, you

14   know, it's a very big concern for the public, it's a big

15   concern for us, so we will address it appropriately.

16                  THE CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you, Mr. Potter.

17   Do you have any additional questions?

18                  MS. OUELLETTE:    The other day they put up

19   a slide and I really didn't understand.   It showed a

20   level of arsenic maybe 30, maybe 50, and then at the end,

21   when they -- I'm not sure if they burnt it, it was 89.

22   Like why would the arsenic level be higher?

23                  THE CHAIRPERSON:   This would be in

24   reference to metal contents in the bottom ash?

25                  MS. OUELLETTE:    It was a slide that they
                                 530            STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1    had put up, and I really couldn't see the numbers from

2    where I was at, but I was just wondering why the arsenic

3    levels would be higher.

4                  MR. GILLIS:   I believe that was with

5    respect to the bottom ash concentration buildup, is that

6    right?
7                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    It was a bottom ash

8    question, and it was, I think, some clarification, a

9    follow-up question with respect to an Information Request

10   that had gone forward from the panel, and you showed the

11   diagram and the table.

12                 MR. GILLIS:   I'll ask Dr. Brian Magee to

13   give the explanation for that.

14                 DR. MAGEE:    Yes, thank you very much.

15                 The plan is to take the sediment out of

16   the ponds, as we know, and to condition it to get the

17   consistency appropriate for a feed into the incinerator,

18   and also to control the moisture.

19                 When we add the bottom ash from the

20   incinerator, something like arsenic, just as an example

21   -- when it goes into the incinerator most of that arsenic

22   will end up, won't be combusted, it won't come out up

23   into the air because we need to control that.   Where it

24   will end up will be in the bottom ash which we will take

25   back and use to condition the next batch of feed
                                 531             STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1    material.    So we're looking to add a little but it levels

2    off.

3                     So the first two or three times you use

4    that incinerator bottom ash to condition the next batch

5    of the sediment, it goes up a little bit, a little bit,

6    and then after three or four or five different rounds
7    through the incinerator it stabilizes.

8                     It's the same arsenic, we haven't created

9    any arsenic.   It has to do with burning the organic

10   material which then makes the total volume of the

11   material that the arsenic is mixed with is now a lot

12   lower, right, because we burned the PCBs, we burned the

13   PAHs, that's been converted into CO2 and water and goes

14   out the stack.   So the arsenic is residing in a matrix

15   that is less massive, so that means the concentration

16   goes up.

17                    We're not creating arsenic, we're just

18   squishing it into a smaller space which makes the

19   concentration go up a little bit.

20                    MS. OUELLETTE:   That was my point, I said

21   here the arsenic level is higher, it's 89 -- like the

22   arsenic level, why would it be higher?

23                    Like I moved a whole house, a whole street

24   because of high levels of arsenic in my basement that

25   seeped in.   Like wouldn't this arsenic be a concern, a
                                   532             STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1    chemical that would bother people that if it was just

2    left in the air?

3                    MR. GILLIS:   I'll ask Dr. Magee to address

4    that question as well.

5                    DR. MAGEE:    Well, again, we're not

6    creating additional arsenic.     The total amount of arsenic
7    that's in all of the sediments that are going to be taken

8    up to the incinerator is fixed.      It's not going up.   What

9    we're doing is we're taking it up to the incinerator with

10   the PCBs and the PAHs.   It just goes along for the ride,

11   as it were.    It goes up to the incinerator, it drops down

12   into the bottom ash, it comes back in a truck and gets

13   put back in and stabilized.

14                   The concentration goes up a little bit

15   because we push the atoms of arsenic into a smaller mass

16   of total material by burning off the PAHs and the coal

17   finds and so forth and so on.       So it's the same arsenic

18   atoms are going up to the incinerator, being put in a

19   container and brought back and stabilized, no net

20   increase, no net loss, goes up, comes back, gets

21   stabilized.

22                   MS. OUELLETTE:      So you bring this back to

23   the Tar Ponds, is that what you're doing?

24                   DR. MAGEE:    I'm sorry, you'll have to

25   repeat that.
                                   533             STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1                    MS. OUELLETTE:      You're bringing back this

2    material to the Tar Ponds?

3                    DR. MAGEE:    Yes, that's correct.

4                    MS. OUELLETTE:      So arsenic levels in the

5    Tar Ponds could be really high, and then if you're going

6    to leave that open, isn't it going to be a health
7    concern?   Because it certainly was for me, but ---

8                    DR. MAGEE:    I'm sorry, you'll have to

9    repeat the question, I was being bombarded in three

10   directions.

11                   MS. OUELLETTE:      I'm just saying you're

12   going to bring back that high level of arsenic back to

13   the Tar Ponds, it's going to sit there, it's a health

14   hazard.    It's going to cause a health hazard in my books.

15   It certainly happened to me, but my next question would

16   be ---

17                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     Excuse me, just one

18   moment.    Could the Chair just clarify what happens to the

19   arsenic when it's returned in the bottom ash to the Tar

20   Ponds.

21                   MR. GILLIS:   Yes, and I'd ask Don Shosky

22   to explain the materials handling that the mass goes

23   through.

24                   MR. SHOSKY:   Thanks, Mr. Gillis.

25                   At the Tar Ponds location, the bottom ash
                                 534             STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1    or clean soil that comes down, that has the arsenic

2    concentrations that you're concerned about, goes into the

3    Tar Ponds, is stabilized with cement, which causes a

4    reaction to occur which allows that arsenic to not be

5    mobile.

6                     The materials, when they're placed in the
7    Tar Ponds will be placed in such a fashion as to minimize

8    dust and things of that nature to ensure that there are

9    not dust releases that may potentially contain arsenic.

10                    Those, there'll be mitigation control

11   measures in place which will keep that from happening, as

12   well as having the additional air monitoring for those

13   particular parameters.

14                    So the arsenic will be placed in an

15   engineered contained system and all along that process

16   dust issues and things like that will be controlled

17   through engineering controls.

18                    THE CHAIRPERSON:   Ms. Oulette, you've got

19   a couple of minutes left, so if you'd like to ---

20                    MS. OUELLETTE:   Okay.   Another one is

21   Frank's -- this was in his presentation the day that he

22   was saying it.

23                    You stated that the Domtar tank contains

24   coal tars, a product that you can buy at Canadian Tire.

25   This product, is it listed on the outside of the
                                    535             STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1    container that the material from the Domtar tank, that's

2    what you're going to use from these containers at

3    Canadian Tire?   Are you saying that they used -- the

4    Domtar tank, the material, you can buy this stuff at

5    Canadian Tire?

6                     MR. POTTER:   The reference was to the fact
7    that the coal tar material in the Domtar tank would

8    resemble typical coal tar emulsions that you would buy at

9    Canadian Tire for sealing a driveway or perhaps a

10   foundation wall, not identical but, you know, similar to

11   that type of material.   That was the reference in the

12   opening remarks on the Saturday morning.

13                    MS. OUELLETTE:      Yeah.   If the waste from

14   the Domtar is no worse than what we buy at Canadian Tire,

15   then why did it cost more money to ship 88 blue

16   containers by rail to be destroyed?

17                    Parker Dunham was supposed to let the

18   residents know where these containers went.         As yet, he

19   has told no one.   So Frank, can you tell me where the

20   final resting place where these -- the Domtar waste went,

21   and how it was destroyed.

22                    MR. POTTER:   The Domtar tank material has

23   been properly shipped to an approved licensed facility

24   authorized to destroy the material.          That material is

25   presently in the process of being destroyed.         Upon
                                   536             STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1    confirmation of certification of the material being

2    destroyed, we will notify people of the final outcome of

3    that.

4                    MS. OUELLETTE:      That was about a month or

5    so ago.   Like you know where it went, we just want to

6    know where it went and how it was destroyed.
7                    MR. POTTER:   It's being destroyed at a

8    licensed facility.   We will not ---

9                    MS. OUELLETTE:      Where?

10                   MR. POTTER:   --- identify the facility.

11   It's being properly destroyed at a licensed facility.

12   Upon completion of that destruction, we will notify the

13   residents of the outcome of that destruction.

14                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     Ms. Oulette, that does

15   conclude your 20 minutes, so I thank you very much for

16   your questions.   Do you have more questions, will you

17   wish to come back for a second round?

18                   MS. OUELLETTE:      I'm not sure yet.

19                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     All right.   Thank you.

20                   Marlene Kane.


22                   MS. KANE:   Good afternoon.    My name is

23   Marlene Kane.

24                   First of all, I'd like to know why is it

25   stated in the EIS that there are 120,000 tonnes of PCB
                                    537            STPA QUESTIONED
                                                (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    contaminated sediments when there has only ever been

2    50,000 tonnes of PCB contaminated sediment.

3                     THE CHAIRPERSON:     Could you clarify for me

4    why you're making that distinction?

5                     MS. KANE:   Yes, I'd like to know if any

6    further testing has been conducted to identify any more
7    PCBs that we don't know about.

8                     MR. GILLIS:   I'll ask Don Shosky to speak

9    to that with respect to some of the engineering

10   considerations that went into that number.

11                    MS. KANE:   Into 120,000 tonnes?

12                    MR. GILLIS:   That is correct.

13                    MS. KANE:   Okay.

14                    MR. SHOSKY:   Yes.   The reason that that

15   number went from 50 to 120,000 tonnes is there was

16   analysis made of sloughing factors that would occur

17   during the excavation process.       And as we stated earlier,

18   during the discussions earlier this week, there was a

19   commitment made by the Tar Ponds Agency to remove all

20   that material.

21                    Unfortunately, it doesn't come out as a

22   nice block of material, and you'll have some sloughing,

23   so that over-excavation of that material is a part of the

24   proposed plan for thermally treating that material.

25                    MS. KANE:   But PCB contaminated sediments
                                    538           STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    are defined after they've been excavated if they're over

2    50 ppm.   So if you anticipate that the dilution from

3    excavation will bring them below 50 ppm, then is it

4    accurate to state you will be destroying 120,000 tonnes

5    of PCB contaminated sediments?

6                     MR. POTTER:   I'm not sure, perhaps you
7    weren't here the other day, there was a question asked

8    about are we -- as regarding excavation and the blending

9    process, and the statement I made was that we were

10   committed to taking 120,000 tonnes of the sediment from

11   the Tar Ponds.

12                    I guess you're correct if we're really

13   careful about the language it's not 120,000 tonnes of

14   sediment contaminated with PCB, it's 120,000 tonnes of

15   sediment we have to remove to get the roughly 50,000

16   tonnes of sediment contaminated with PCBs above 50 ppm.

17                    MS. KANE:   Okay.   So it's not 120,000

18   tonnes of PCB contaminated sediments that will be

19   incinerated.

20                    MR. POTTER:   Correct.   We're incinerating

21   120,000 tonnes of sediment.     The summer, as you know, in

22   the way that the plume is, especially in the north pond,

23   we have uncontaminated sediment on top that, you know, we

24   will have to remove.   That will go to the incinerator and

25   yes, indeed, it wouldn't be classified as a PCB material
                                  539            STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    but it will be going through the process of being

2    treated.

3                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     If I can just add a

4    point of clarification.    Yes, the panel actually did

5    pursue exactly your questioning, and we were pursuing it

6    on, and we made reference to Public Comment 49 with a
7    series of questions there.

8                   MS. KANE:   I did hear those, yes.

9                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     You were there, so you

10   heard that.

11                  MS. KANE:   Yes.

12                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     And so I understand that

13   we got a clear statement from the The Chair that, in

14   fact, they will be taking all of that 120,000 tonnes

15   without testing -- it will be going without sampling, am

16   I correctly interpreting what you told us?

17                  MR. POTTER:   Yes.

18                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     Oh good.

19                  MS. KANE:   Considering the expense of

20   incineration, why are you now suggesting -- I mean, aside

21   from the PCBs, why are you now suggesting that you will

22   incinerate all excavated sediments, not just sediments

23   over 50 ppm?

24                  I realize you just kind of answered that

25   question, but I'm wondering, because it's not
                                 540          STPA QUESTIONED
                                           (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    economically responsible to incinerate this material

2    when, in fact, what you've stated there is only 3,500

3    tonnes of PCBs within that larger amount.    Would it not

4    be more responsible to try to remove the contaminants

5    from the 120,000 tonnes and dispose of them in a

6    different -- using a different technology?
7                  MR. GILLIS:   I'd refer this question to

8    Don Shosky, he'll talk about some of the engineering

9    considerations involved in doing just that.

10                 MR. SHOSKY:   When we reviewed our

11   situation out there in quite a bit of detail, in order to

12   excavate those areas out again we would receive a lot of

13   sloughing from additional areas, and we expect to have

14   additional materials that we would have to burn.

15                 The actual calculations of pure PCBs that

16   we found out there were pretty low, certainly less than 4

17   tonnes total, so it's around 3.8 tonnes of actual PCB

18   oils.

19                 So it's a conservative way to approach it,

20   the Tar Ponds Agency decided to do that.    There are

21   difficulties when you go through an excavation process to

22   -- in a sediment environment to segregate things.   As

23   you've suggested, there is a cost involved with that, and

24   when we did the evaluation we felt that that was an

25   appropriate assumption to make.
                                  541           STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1                   MS. KANE:   But other technologies, as

2    stated actually in the JAG workbook, which I think it was

3    called Considering Technologies, it talks about the

4    sediments being processed, for example, first by thermo-

5    desorption to evaporate off all the contaminants, and

6    then condense those evaporates.    They would then be
7    destroyed by another technology such as plasma or

8    hydrogen reduction or another suitable method.   Would

9    that not be more economically responsible if you're only

10   talking about 3,500 tonnes of PCB contaminated material

11   -- sorry, PCB material?

12                  MR. POTTER:   I guess we have to go back to

13   the -- I think we have to go back to the MOA again and

14   the project that's been defined and described and funded

15   through the MOA.   That's the project we've assessed.

16                  The EIS was subsequently required to

17   review again alternative means which we do address in the

18   EIS report.   The project that's before us today is the

19   project that identifies, you know, removal of the PCB

20   material, the 120,000 tonnes, the tar cell material, the

21   Coke Oven brook sediment, and taking that to the

22   incinerator, and that's the project we are focusing on.

23                  If you a have a question relative to the

24   EIS alternative means that we covered, the tables that

25   are in the EIS report, we could answer a specific
                                    542             STPA QUESTIONED
                                                 (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    question on that, but I'm not sure if I can answer the

2    previous question.

3                     MS. KANE:   Would that not just be a

4    question about alternatives, then, that certainly were

5    the #1 choice in the JAG workshop -- workbook

6    deliberations that took place within the community, 1754
7    respondents, that was option 3.

8                     THE CHAIRPERSON:      Ms. Kane, can I verify

9    your question with respect to alternative means of

10   carrying out the project -- sorry, alternatives to the

11   project, your question is about the economic feasibility

12   of those alternatives, is that --       I do have a question

13   from Mr. Charles.    Maybe we'll get him to answer -- to

14   ask it and maybe that will add to this as well.       Yeah,

15   just a moment.

16                    MR. CHARLES:   Am I mistaken, but when

17   you're taking that 120,000 tonnes out and burning it,

18   you're also burning PAH's are you not?       It's not just

19   PCB's that you're burning?

20                    MR. POTTER:    That's correct.

21                    MR. CHARLES:   So there would be some other

22   benefit ---

23                    MR. POTTER:    Yes.

24                    MR. CHARLES:   --- doing the 120,000

25   tonnes?
                                  543           STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1                   MR. POTTER:   Yes, there is.

2                   MS. KANE:   And I think my question would

3    be then, if you're going to destroy some of the PAH's why

4    aren't you destroying all of them?

5                   MR. POTTER:   I'd like to go back to I

6    think what was a previous question -- I think that's a
7    new question -- but I'd like to go back and have Mr.

8    Shosky try to address the previous question and we'll

9    come back to that question again.

10                  MR. SHOSKY:   I'm going to take a moment to

11   go through Public Comment 14 which was our response to

12   technology vendor about why their particular technology

13   was not selected for this project.   And I think it's

14   worth remembering at this point in time that this process

15   of selecting technologies has gone on for quite some

16   time.

17                  It started out with reviewing

18   approximately 100 different technologies for application

19   here.   It was narrowed down to 14, ultimately ten.   And

20   then reviewed again as part of the EIS efforts to come up

21   with the best possible solution.    So a lot of

22   technologies were reviewed in this process.    And through

23   that process I think that there was a narrow down of a

24   number of different options at the end which was narrowed

25   down to a few options which is what the EIS was based on.
                                    544           STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1                     So for the other technologies that are not

2    part of this, all I'll say is that an evaluation has been

3    performed on all those technologies and that the position

4    is is that based on our information that was the best set

5    of technologies put forward at this time.     Because it

6    started from a list of over 100.
7                     MS. KANE:   I'm not here to endorse the

8    technology.   I'm just suggesting if there'd be another

9    alternative that would be economically feasible.     Just as

10   an aside, the thermal desorption was a proven technology

11   during bench scale testing that was conducted by the

12   consultants and government.     If I could move on, then, to

13   my next point.

14                    MR. POTTER:   Madam Chair, I think there's

15   a question we're leaving out there.     The why not burn all

16   of the agents.

17                    MS. KANE:   No, I didn't say burn it.   I

18   said destroy, as was the JAG recommendation.

19                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    I confess, I have --

20   you're saying there's an additional question that you

21   have not been able to address yet?     I'm sorry, I've lost

22   it if there was one.

23                    MR. POTTER:   If Ms. Kane could repeat the

24   question make sure I'm clear on it.     If you just want to

25   repeat it.    I heard something about all of the PAH's.
                                 545           STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1                  MS. KANE:   Just in relation to what Mr.

2    Charles was saying, how there'd be an additional benefit

3    of destroying the PAH's as well.   I said well, you know,

4    if that's the case why would we not aim to destroy all of

5    the sediments in the Tar Ponds which is what the

6    community recommended.   That was their choice.
7                  MR. POTTER:   The -- I think I indicated in

8    the -- my opening on Saturday morning that that was a

9    consideration at -- that governments had contemplated.

10   The cost of removing and treating, destroying the

11   contaminants was estimated to be roughly, I think I said,

12   twice the existing cost of the project right now.   And

13   that the decision of the government was that there was

14   not a sufficient benefit to spending that extent of money

15   to accomplish no net benefit from an environmental point

16   of view.

17                 MS. KANE:   Thank you but I'm not quite

18   sure how you come to the conclusion that it's twice as

19   much because I've never seen how you've worked that out.

20   Is that available to -- for us to see how it -- how you

21   decided it was twice as much?

22                 MR. POTTER:   The RAER document was the

23   basis for generating those numbers.   There were, I think

24   as we responded in the past, other costs that we have to

25   add in for what we -- I think we referred to the term as
                                 546           STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    project costs that we've talked about in the past.   And

2    -- but the basis for generating those numbers to come at

3    the -- arrive at the roughly double the cost was

4    generated initially from the RAER work.

5                  MS. KANE:   So then can you provide the

6    detailed costing of how you arrived at that -- at the
7    cost being twice as much to remove and destroy all the

8    contaminants in the Tar Ponds?

9                  MR. POTTER:   Madam Chair, we're coming

10   back with another undertaking for costs.   We'll try and

11   incorporate some of those numbers in there so that it's

12   clear where that ultimate doubling factor comes into

13   play. [u]

14                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    Thank you very much.

15                 MS. KANE:   Thank you.

16                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    For clarity, that goes

17   -- that gets -- I think we should make this a new

18   undertaking just to be clear on the record.   So you're

19   undertaking to provide some more information on costs to

20   -- around the costing of removing and destroying all of

21   the sediments in the north and south Tar Ponds.

22                 MS. KANE:   The starting point for the

23   development of a criteria where the guidelines -- I'm

24   talking about, sorry, site specific target levels -- the

25   starting point for the development of the criteria where
                                  547          STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    the guidelines of the CCME, the SSTL's were finalized in

2    consultation with regulators and based on risk

3    assessments conducted as part of this EIS, speaking about

4    CCME, I'd have to read a few sentences just to clarify my

5    point.   In 1997 the Federal Government stated in

6    correspondence that:
7                        "Where the Federal Government

8                        contributes funds to a project

9                        or where Federal wastes are

10                       involved, projects will have to

11                       comply with existing Federal

12                       regulations and policies, except

13                       in instances where Provincial

14                       regulations, standards or policies

15                       are more stringent.   Therefore,

16                       as a minimum any CCME guideline

17                       will apply and JAG will build them

18                       into its criteria."

19                  In keeping with the Federal Government's

20   commitment to the CCME guidelines as a minimum, I'd like

21   to know why the SSTL's are not -- let me re-phrase that,

22   how much more stringent are your final SSTL's than the

23   CCME guidelines?

24                  MR. KAISER:   Perhaps it would be

25   worthwhile at this stage to sort of go over again the
                                548            STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    steps we took to arrive at the SSTL's and the purpose of

2    the SSTL's.   And I will do that briefly.

3                   We went out and did our site assessment

4    work.   We characterized our site quite fully.   We

5    determined where the contaminants were located.   We then

6    went out and did human health and economical risk
7    assessment work which determined based on the possible

8    receptors and the possible pathways what the risk is at

9    present.

10                  From that work the ERA and HHRA

11   information was turned into numbers that were listed as

12   our site specific target levels or SSTL's.   The SSTL's

13   are used to determine what remedy can be applied.     The

14   SSTL's are not clean up criteria.   We simply use the

15   SSTL's to say that okay, if we have a certain risk posed

16   by a certain contaminant on the site located at a certain

17   location that could come in contact with a certain

18   receptor, then we must address that risk.

19                  We addressed that risk by applying a

20   certain remedy.   If the remedy is effective then we

21   eliminate that risk.   For that reason, at the end of the

22   day when we apply the remedy to your site -- in other

23   words, when we go in and do land farming or capping or

24   SNS or incineration or whatever it is, we will eliminate

25   the risk and we'll also basically move beyond the SSTL
                                    549           STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    because it is not a clean up criteria.     So when we come

2    back and re-evaluate whether or not the remedy has been

3    effective, or in other words, we come back to see if we

4    have cleaned up or managed our site, we will not be

5    comparing to an SSTL.   We will compare to a criteria

6    number that will be given to us by a regulatory agency.
7                     MS. KANE:   Thank you.   In keeping with the

8    Federal Government commitment to the CCME guidelines as a

9    minimum, I'd like to ask why with regards to siting and

10   the incinerator at Victoria Junction, why you're not

11   using the 1,500 metres siting criteria which is required

12   for incineration facilities in the CCME guidelines?

13                    MR. POTTER:   Madam Chair, I believe I've

14   responded to this question previously but the response

15   was that we will address and follow all appropriate

16   regulatory requirements at the time of the licensing of

17   that facility.   The guideline again as I mentioned

18   before, we feel is not appropriate for this situation.

19   That the guideline that's being referenced is a 1992

20   document for permanent facilities and as I say we will

21   follow all appropriate guidelines and all appropriate

22   requirements of the regulatory agencies at the time of

23   permitting that facility.

24                    MS. KANE:   Have you taken into

25   consideration the mobile PCB -- I'm just curious -- the
                                   550            STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    mobile PCB incineration guidelines which are from 1990?

2                    MR. DUNCAN:   Just in summary, we did look

3    at a number of jurisdictions and regulatory requirements

4    associated with siting of temporary mobile PCB

5    incinerators.   In the siting study that was conducted as

6    part -- as appended to the project description, we went
7    through a number of legislation -- pieces of legislation

8    and jurisdictions that do speak to the siting of mobile

9    PCB incinerators.   And talked specifically about the

10   difficulty in finding standard references for siting

11   criteria associated with these types of facilities.

12                   The CCME requirements as indicated by Mr.

13   Potter were for a fixed permanent hazardous waste

14   facility which in this situation doesn't apply to the

15   facility that we're -- that's being proposed as part of

16   the project.

17                   MS. KANE:   Well, I'm not -- sorry.

18                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    No, do -- well, you have

19   come to the end of your 20 minutes.     I was about to ask a

20   question of clarification, however, based on that.     So I

21   will do that.   The mobile PCB guidelines, that's a

22   Federal set of guidelines that's been referenced, is that

23   correct?   And what circumstances did they apply?     Those

24   are regulations, are they not?      Not guidelines?

25                   MR. DUNCAN:   We're just doing a double-
                                  551            STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    check but we believe that the Federal PCB mobile

2    regulations that we're referring to talk about the

3    operations and -- of a PCB incinerator on Federal

4    properties.   That's the reference, I believe, that you're

5    making.

6                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    And it's your intention
7    that when you site the incinerator on the VJ lands that

8    those lands will not be Federal lands?    That's your

9    intention?

10                  MR. DUNCAN:   I think as Mr. Potter

11   indicated either yesterday or Saturday, that those lands

12   will be Provincial lands and under the jurisdiction --

13   the incinerator will be operated under the jurisdiction

14   and the requirements of the Nova Scotia Department of

15   Environment and Labour.

16                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    And that is the plan at

17   the moment but that's not -- there's not commitment at

18   the moment from the owner of those lands to transfer them

19   to the Province?   I'm sorry.   I know we're going over

20   some things you said yesterday and I don't always

21   remember it but just to get this clear.

22                  MR. POTTER:   There is a Letter of Intent

23   from the Province to the current land owner indicating

24   that we have an interest in having control of that

25   property when we get to the point of doing the
                                  552             STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    incineration there for I think purposes we've talked

2    about before, being able to have access and control of

3    the use of that land so that's correct, that's the extent

4    of it.    There's not been anything further than that?

5                     THE CHAIRPERSON:   Well, perhaps we might

6    explore with the -- with a provincial regulator how the
7    Provincial regulatory regime works different from the

8    Federal.   That might be of interest to the panel, I

9    think.

10                    Thank you very much, Ms. Kane.   That

11   brings us nicely to 4:58.    So we are now going to take a

12   break until 6:00.

13                    Can I, before you go, with the people who

14   are present, I'd just like to double-check who I have who

15   are still interested in coming back for a second round of

16   questioning.     Let me just go through them please.

17                    I understand not Environment Canada and

18   not Health Canada.    Am I wrong?   Environment Canada.   I

19   was wrong.   Yes, you're down for -- Health Canada?      Do

20   they wish to come -- do you wish to come back for a

21   second round?    Save Our Health Care Committee, yes.

22   Grand Lake Roads Residents, yes.     Sierra Club of Canada,

23   yes.   I see Mr. Ignasiak, yes.     Eric Brophy -- Mr.

24   Brophy?    No.   Mr. Harper, you said yes.   Ms. Ouellette

25   and Ms. Kane, yes.    And I will check with Ms. Hendricksen

1    on whether we have additional names.

2                  Thank you very much.     We'll see you again

3    at 6:00.


5    --- Upon recessing at 5:01 p.m.
























5    We, Janine Seymour, Philomena Drake, Sandy Adam, Gwen

6    Smith-Dockrill and Ruth Bigio, Court Reporters, hereby

7    certify that we have transcribed the foregoing and that
8    it is a true and accurate transcript of the evidence

9    given in this Public Hearing, SYDNEY TAR PONDS AND Coke

10   Ovens SITES REMEDIATION PROJECT, taken by way of digital

11   recording pursuant to Section 15 of the Court Reporters

12   Act.


14                        __________________________

15                        Janine Seymour, CCR

16                        Philomena Drake, CCR

17                        Sandy Adam, CCR

18                        Gwen Smith-Dockrill, CCR

19                        Ruth Bigio, CCR



22   Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at Halifax, Nova Scotia



                        PUBLIC HEARING


                      REMEDIATION PROJECT

                      JOINT REVIEW PANEL


                        V O L U M E     3
                (E V E N I N G   S E S S I O N)


HELD BEFORE:      Ms. Lesley Griffiths, MCIP (Chair)
                  Mr. William H.R. Charles, QC (Member)
                  Dr. Louis LaPierre, Ph.D (Member)

PLACE HEARD:      Sydney, Nova Scotia

DATE HEARD:       Tuesday, May 2, 2006

                 Mr. Frank Potter
                 Mr. Gregory Gillis
                 Mr. Shawn Duncan
                 Dr. Brian Magee
                 Mr. Donald Shosky
                 Mr. Wilfred Kaiser
                 Dr. John Walker
                 Dr. Malcolm Stephenson

                       Recorded by:
             Drake Recording Services Limited
                    1592 Oxford Street
                   Halifax, NS B3H 3Z4
        Per: Mark L. Aurini, Commissioner of Oaths
        I N D E X      O F   P R O C E E D I N G S

                                                           PAGE NO.


    Questioned   by   Elizabeth Beaton . . .   .   .   .   .   .   .   558
    Questioned   by   Environment Canada . .   .   .   .   .   .   .   562
    Questioned   by   CB Save Our Health . .   .   .   .   .   .   .   569
    Questioned   by   Grand Lake Road Res. .   .   .   .   .   .   .   580
    Questioned   by   Elizabeth May . . . .    .   .   .   .   .   .   592
    Questioned   by   Les Ignasiak . . . . .   .   .   .   .   .   .   608
    Questioned   by   Duff Harper . . . . .    .   .   .   .   .   .   618
    Questioned   by   Debbie Ouellette . . .   .   .   .   .   .   .   627
    Questioned   by   Marlene Kane . . . . .   .   .   .   .   .   .   634
    Questioned   by   Save Our Health . . .    .   .   .   .   .   .   648
    Questioned   by   Sierre Club of Canada    .   .   .   .   .   .   653
    Questioned   by   Les Ignasiak . . . . .   .   .   .   .   .   .   656
    Questioned   by   Eric Brophy . . . . .    .   .   .   .   .   .   657
    Questioned   by   Sierre Club of Canada    .   .   .   .   .   .   659

1    ---   Upon resuming at 6:02 p.m.

2                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    Ladies and gentlemen, I

3    would like to start our evening session.

4                   We are going to -- before we start --

5    resume our questioning, I have one piece of housekeeping

6    I'd like to carry out.   Mr. Potter, yesterday we -- the

7    Panel requested that you bring in one of the samples from
8    the solidification testing.

9                   Upon reflection, we no longer require this

10   undertaking, but we will be pursuing this issue with some

11   more questions for you on the physical properties of the

12   solidified material when we resume Panel questioning on

13   Tuesday, May the 16th.

14                  MR. POTTER:    We'll cancel the tractor

15   trailer.

16                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    We are going to resume

17   questioning.   We have one additional person this

18   afternoon who indicated that they had questions for the

19   proponent, and that would be Elizabeth Beaton.

20                  What I'm proposing to do, in order to --

21   is that I would ask Ms. Beaton to -- if she's prepared,

22   to go forward and ask her questions first, and then I'm

23   going to resume with a second round of questions from the

24   other interested parties.

25                  I'm afraid I'm going to cut the time to 15

1    minutes this evening so that we can get everybody in.

2    And I would ask everybody to move as efficiently as they

3    can, and I'd really encourage getting to the -- getting

4    to your question with as little preamble as is practical.

5    So, Ms. Beaton.


7                     MS. BEATON:   Yes, just I have three
8    questions.   I just came from Canadian Tire, where I

9    looked at the coal tar driveway sealer.     Are you aware

10   that the warning on that says, "Dangerous if ingested,"

11   in fact, it is fatal if ingested?

12                    MR. POTTER:   I suspect it probably would

13   say that, yes.

14                    MS. BEATON:   Thank you.   I was interested

15   in the laws regarding the transportation and storage of

16   dangerous substances.   Are there no laws in Canada

17   governing these?

18                    Because I have heard on the news several

19   times of instances where private companies have been

20   fined for transporting dangerous substances without

21   notifying the areas in which they were transported, and

22   equally so when they were stored without knowledge of the

23   public.   Can you enlighten me on this?

24                    MR. POTTER:   We fully intend to comply

25   with all necessary transportation of dangerous goods
                                   559           STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (Ms. Elizabeth Beaton)

1    requirements in terms of all the vehicles and materials

2    that we move around or off of site.

3                    We'll follow all applicable regulations

4    that are in existence and applicable to the activity

5    we're doing.

6                    MS. BEATON:   So that really raises two
7    other questions.   One, are you saying that the dangerous

8    materials have not yet been moved?    And surely you can

9    tell me in general what the requirements are for the

10   transportation and storage of dangerous substances.

11                   MR. POTTER:   I'm not sure if I'm following

12   the first part of the question about ---

13                   MS. BEATON:   Well, you said that you would

14   be following all of these regulations, and you spoke in

15   the future.    Does that mean that you have not moved the

16   dangerous substances from the Domtar tanks as yet?

17                   MR. POTTER:   We have on numerous occasions

18   moved material off the site, and we do follow the TDG,

19   transportation of dangerous goods, requirements for

20   placarding and labelling and all the necessary --

21   sometimes there's 17/18 documents per material that you

22   move.

23                   There's an extensive amount of

24   documentation with material when you do ship it, and we

25   routinely follow that, have done that in the past, will
                                 560            STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Ms. Elizabeth Beaton)

1    continue to do that in the future, wherever there's an

2    applicable transportation-related requirement that we

3    have to follow.

4                  MS. BEATON:   Okay.   Does the same apply to

5    storage?

6                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    I'm sorry, I'm not sure
7    I quite understand your question.

8                  MS. BEATON:   Well, for instance, if you

9    take a train load of dangerous substances to Quebec and

10   store it there for six months, are there any regulations

11   governing this storage, either provincial or federal?

12                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    I think your question

13   should be directed at the project that is under

14   assessment at the moment rather than matters relating to

15   Domtar, but ---

16                 MS. BEATON:   This is in relation to a

17   question and an answer that was in the previous 4:00 to

18   6:00 period in which they said that they would not be

19   informing anyone until the dangerous substance was

20   destroyed.

21                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    I agree that question

22   did go forward earlier.   That question actually doesn't

23   apply to the project that's under assessment or under

24   review by our Panel.   However, if you wish to give a

25   response with respect to that issue.
                                  561            STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (Ms. Elizabeth Beaton)

1                   MR. POTTER:   There is no obligation for us

2    under the regulations that requires us to publicly

3    identify the location or the approved facility we take

4    material to.   I guess I can't say much more than that.

5                   MS. BEATON:   Okay.   I hope that was noted.

6    In terms of the regulations, now, I'm a citizen, I work
7    at the university, I don't know a whole lot about many of

8    the things that were spoken of here, but do I understand

9    correctly that the CCME Guidelines are instituted to

10   protect citizens?   That's probably a "yes" or "no".

11                  MR. POTTER:   I guess in a broad sense, I

12   could say "yes" to that.

13                  MS. BEATON:   Yes.    Okay.   Since the

14   regulations governing the mobile incinerator will not

15   follow CCME Guidelines if, as you say, they do not apply

16   if at the time the incineration takes place, it will be

17   provincial law, what guidelines will you be following?

18                  MR. POTTER:   We will follow all the

19   necessary provincial requirements that the Provincial

20   Department of Environment and Labour requires us to

21   follow.   We will do that when we get to the point of

22   permitting the facility.

23                  MS. BEATON:   Could you please outline

24   briefly what these guidelines indicate?      For instance, if

25   it's not 1,500-1,700 metres, how many metres might it be?
                                 562            STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Ms. Elizabeth Beaton)

1    Would there be protective walls around it?    Would there

2    be notification when the incinerator is on?   I mean,

3    surely you have looked at what the regulations are.     If

4    you could summarize them very briefly for me.

5                  MR. POTTER:   The permitting that will be

6    taking place with the incinerator is going to be relating
7    to the operational aspects of the incinerator, and you

8    know, the provincial representatives for the DEL,

9    Department of Environment and Labour, will be making a

10   presentation, will be appearing at the panel hearings

11   later this week.   Perhaps that might be a good question

12   to forward on through to them.    I'm sure that question

13   will likely be coming up.

14                 MS. BEATON:   Okay.   So you're saying that

15   the guidelines only have to do with the safe operation.

16   Do you include the surrounding area in terms of that

17   safety?

18                 MR. POTTER:   Safety is paramount in

19   everything we do on this project.

20                 MS. BEATON:   Thank you.   No more

21   questions.

22                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    Thank you very much.

23   We're now going to go back to the top of the list, and

24   that would mean Environment Canada.

                                   563            STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Environment Canada)

1                    MR. HINGSTON:   Thank you.   And once again,

2    my name is Michael Hingston.

3                    Just a few more questions on the air

4    issues.    The first two will deal with IR-72, if you'd

5    like to compare that.   But in IR-72, when you discussed

6    cumulative effects, you estimated concentration as a
7    result of various activities noted, dust, diesel and

8    combined dust, diesel and volatile emissions.     It appears

9    from that that emissions from the incinerator were not

10   include in that.   Please correct me if I'm wrong.

11                   But also noting that in doing the

12   modelling for the incinerator -- it's in Section 2 of

13   Volume 4 of the EIS -- the isopleths did actually go over

14   with some concentrations -- the Coke Ovens and Tar Ponds

15   site that would have been in question in the cumulative

16   effects.   And the question is whether the emissions from

17   the incinerator have been included in any cumulative

18   effects assessment.

19                   MR. GILLIS:   I'll ask Dr. Brian Magee to

20   respond to that, please.

21                   DR. MAGEE:    Yes.   We have done a separate

22   cumulative effects assessment by looking at the

23   monitoring locations that are close to the incinerator,

24   which would of course have higher concentrations in terms

25   of the incinerator emissions, and we find that under
                                564            STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (Environment Canada)

1    baseline conditions, there are no exceedances of

2    criteria.   Under the projected emissions from the

3    incinerator, there are no exceedances.   And when we add

4    the two, there are no exceedances.

5                   We did not strictly add the incinerator

6    emissions to the tables as you are correctly noting
7    because they are vanishing small when you get to that

8    area.   We certainly could have added a line that would

9    put another number in at the fifth decimal place, but by

10   the time you get down towards the site where these

11   monitors are around the Coke Ovens and the Tar Ponds, the

12   emissions are so low -- I'm sorry, the ambient levels are

13   so low that they don't affect the answers at all.

14                  MR. HINGSTON:   And -- yeah, and I didn't

15   see it again -- correct me if I'm wrong -- I think it

16   would be useful to at least see that information

17   presented in the EIS.   Maybe it was but I think I had

18   missed that in putting that together.

19                  Just one other follow-up, I guess, with

20   the IR-72, and some of it does relate to the emissions

21   from the incinerator.   And when I looked at this, I had

22   actually taken sort of the whole list of pollutants from

23   the project, and a number of them were addressed in the

24   cumulative effects.   When I do look at sulphur dioxide

25   particulate matter, 2.5 microns and smaller; PM10
                                 565              STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Environment Canada)

1    particulate matter, 10 microns and smaller; nitro-

2    noxides, benzene, PCBs, none of these again were included

3    in the cumulative effects table.

4                  And again, just wondering, some of those,

5    I think, could have been answered because they're only

6    from the incinerator.   Some are actually identified in
7    emissions from the actual remediation activities in the

8    Tar Ponds and the Coke Ovens.     So I'm just wondering

9    whether all of these were also assessed for cumulative

10   effects.

11                 DR. MAGEE:    We include in the cumulative

12   effects assessment all those constituents for which we

13   either had measured or monitored data -- we need that --

14   and for which there were criteria that we could compare

15   against to see whether there was an exceedance.      If you

16   go back into the section on air quality in the EIS, there

17   are only a limited number of constituents that have

18   criteria that we can actually do that assessment.        So I

19   believe I'm correct in saying we did as many of them as

20   we could, realizing of course that there are some

21   constituents that we have emissions data for, but we

22   can't do that comparison.

23                 MR. HINGSTON:     Okay.   Thank you.   And just

24   one other question, I guess, for clarification.      I

25   believe it was yesterday, Dr. Walker mentioned his
                                   566          STPA QUESTIONED
                                           (Environment Canada)

1    discussion about the possibility of two incinerators.

2    And I think he had noted then something along the lines

3    that if there are two incinerators, they'd be based on

4    sort of two smaller incinerators.   I don't have the exact

5    wording.

6                    What I do note in Table IR-41-1 where the
7    possibility of two incinerators -- I think that's the

8    first place I had seen that -- it actually states the

9    possibility of one or two 10-tonne-per-hour incinerators.

10   And I believe the 10-tonne-per-hour is the actual design

11   number if there was one.   I'm just looking for

12   clarification, and I think in terms of air emissions,

13   that the crux of the matter would be whether one or two

14   incinerators with the total emissions from any number of

15   incinerators be there, would that be at or below the

16   numbers that were used in the assessment for the one 10-

17   tonne-per-hour incinerator.

18                   DR. WALKER:   Yes, thank you for the

19   question.    What we have predicated the EIS on is using 10

20   tonnes per hour of processed material.   Now, what may

21   happen is that at the incinerator site, in order to blend

22   it down to the correct moisture, the actual capacity of

23   additional blended material may bring it up.   However, it

24   is the intention that the 10 tonnes per hour of sludge be

25   destroyed.   And I think those words are used somewhere.
                                  567            STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Environment Canada)

1    It's 10 tonnes per hour of sludge, and that's -- anything

2    beyond that would only be the fill towards drying the

3    material to the proper consistency for treatment.

4                   MR. HINGSTON:   So again, if there are --

5    if there are two incinerators then for -- say, if they

6    were equal, they'd each be five tonnes per hour -- if
7    they were running together ---

8                   DR. WALKER:   Five tonnes per hour each or

9    sludge, yes.

10                  MR. HINGSTON:   Each.   Okay.   So a maximum

11   of ten tonnes per hour regardless of how many

12   incinerators you've got.

13                  DR. WALKER:   That's correct.

14                  MR. HINGSTON:   And the emissions from

15   separating it out amongst two incinerators would be the

16   same as if it was one larger incinerator.

17                  DR. WALKER:   That again is correct.

18                  MR. HINGSTON:   Okay.   Thank you.   That's

19   all I have.

20                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Thank you very much.

21   Just a question for my purposes.   Could you say something

22   about the possibility of two incinerators, what would be

23   the factors governing -- is this a possibility?     Is this

24   the only place in which the possibility of two

25   incinerators appears in this table?

1                  MR. GILLIS:   I believe so, but I'll ask

2    Don Shosky to respond to that, please.

3                  MR. SHOSKY:   I believe that that's the

4    only place it shows up in the discussions.   There is a

5    number of items that need to be considered when putting a

6    procurement for incinerators out on the market, and what

7    one of those considers is is the procurement of
8    incinerator services and allowing a fair and open

9    completion for vendors that have a variety of sizes so

10   that we could meet the other criteria of the proven

11   technology, track record, all the things we talked about

12   over Saturday and Monday.

13                 So that was one consideration.     Another

14   consideration was is that during the process of

15   evaluating the sludge for thermal treatment, as we talked

16   about over Saturday and Monday again, was the concept of

17   the feed stock material to ensure that the thermal

18   treatment plant would run efficiently under the best

19   operating conditions.   Some of those items included

20   moisture content, BTU value, levels of organic

21   contamination that's in the -- in the material to be

22   burned.

23                 We took a conservative analysis and made

24   sure that the materials that would comprise this feed

25   stock could be blended in such a fashion that could meet

1    that criteria, and under a couple of those sorts of

2    scenarios, another conservative assumption would be that

3    you'd be blending down at one to one.     In order to meet

4    production values over the course of time of the period

5    and the time schedules that we showed, it would require

6    us to burn 10 tonnes an hour of pure sludge or 20 tonnes

7    an hour of some mix at one to one which we believed would
8    be the worst case.

9                   Subsequent testing has shown that there is

10   a possibility that that blending would not need to occur,

11   which would mean that things could move along at a -- at

12   a routine rate with far less material handling.

13                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     Well that's kind of

14   interesting, and I may have some more questions later,

15   but I don't want to take time from the questions this

16   evening, so thank you.

17                  So our next questioner is Cape Breton Save

18   Our Health Care Committee.



21                  MS. MACLELLAN:      Thank you, Madame Chair,

22   for the extra time.   Because I went first the last time,

23   in fairness, I'm going to let Dr. Argo go first this

24   time.   And I do have some more questions if we do run out

25   of time, and if there's time at the end, perhaps we could
                                   570            STPA QUESTIONED
                                      (C.B. Save Our Health Care)

1    have more time.    Thank you.

2                    DR. ARGO:   Thank you very much.   Earlier

3    in the evening, I directed my questions to Mr. Potter,

4    and he re-directed them, but once again, I'll send it to

5    Mr. Potter.

6                    You propose to land farm the top
7    approximately 18 inches of the Coke Ovens.     If you turn

8    over the top 18 inches the first time, what was going to

9    be the final amount that you turn over after a season of

10   land farming?   My thinking here is that the process is

11   going to be something similar to ploughing, and in this

12   case, you're going to be digging down the first time

13   about 18 inches.

14                   We had the situation -- it seems to me

15   that as you open up the soil, you're going to be pulling

16   up less from down below, so I would like you to confirm

17   that you're not getting the last -- the full 18 inches of

18   turning over by the end of the season.     So does this --

19   if this is the case, then does this mean that deeper

20   contaminants will receive less treatment?     That's my

21   question.

22                   MR. GILLIS:     I'll ask Mr. Shosky to reply

23   to that question.

24                   DR. ARGO:   I'm sorry, Mr. Shosky, I was

25   trying to avoid getting you stuck with it.
                                  571            STPA QUESTIONED
                                     (C.B. Save Our Health Care)

1                   MR. SHOSKY:    Thanks for thinking about me.

2    Let me go through and explain the land treatment process

3    again, and we'll talk through that very briefly because I

4    know that there's a time limit on this.   As we discussed

5    over the weekend and on Monday, the idea of land farming

6    is to go in and treat just the top portion of the soil.
7                   We have projected that we will do that

8    over three seasons, three, quote, unquote, "construction

9    seasons," in Cape Breton, which is typically three months

10   -- I'm sorry, six months.    That material would be tilled

11   once or twice per month.    During that period of time when

12   the tilling were to occur, it would be to a depth of

13   approximately 18 inches.    There would be some slow

14   release fertilizers added to that material in order to

15   stimulate indigenous bacterial growth.    There will be no

16   sprayed-upon applications of bugs in a bottle or anything

17   like that.   It'll be the natural bacteria that's already

18   there.

19                  The moisture content will be monitored,

20   the soil will be turned enough twice a month in order to

21   adequately aerate it.   And as we discussed over the

22   weekend, for some of the PAH compounds that are available

23   in that soil, nice sunny days help to also break down a

24   lot of those PAH compounds.

25                  At the end of those seasons, the cap would
                                  572            STPA QUESTIONED
                                     (C.B. Save Our Health Care)

1    be installed over those areas and the deeper areas would

2    fall within the engineered contained system.    So if there

3    are migratable compounds, they would go towards the

4    ground water collection systems where they would be

5    pumped out if they were to move that far, and treated

6    using the water treatment system.
7                   DR. ARGO:   Thank you very much.     Mr.

8    Kaiser, a few minutes ago, before supper, you were being

9    a little bit obtuse in answering some questions from

10   Debbie Oulette, so I'm going to ask you a question today.

11   Do you understand the concept of latency.   I'm asking Mr.

12   Kaiser, and I want Mr. Kaiser to answer.

13                  MR. KAISER:   Perhaps it would be best if

14   you explain it so we have the same ---

15                  DR. ARGO:   Okay.   Mr. Kaiser ---

16                  MR. KAISER:   Could I interrupt for a

17   moment, please?

18                  DR. ARGO:   Mr. Kaiser, do you ---

19                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Excuse me.   Excuse me,

20   Dr. Argo.   I would just ask your questions to the

21   proponent, please, and they will determine who will

22   answer.   This is ---

23                  DR. ARGO:   Well, this ---

24                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    It's not appropriate to

25   be grilling one particular person.
                                573            STPA QUESTIONED
                                   (C.B. Save Our Health Care)

1                   DR. ARGO:   Madame Chair, the reason I'm

2    asking -- I'm directing this to Mr. Kaiser is that in

3    answering the question of Ms. Oulette, he didn't have --

4    show any comprehension of the fact that latency applies

5    in the case of a person exposed to dust or particulates,

6    not only to cancer but to dust and particulates.   A
7    person who is responsive to those particular substances

8    may react severely hours or even days later.   And that is

9    why the monitoring should be continued after the -- after

10   they have been actually doing the work.   It all comes

11   down to latency.

12                  THE CHAIRPERSON:   Yes.   That -- can you --

13   do you have a question coming out of that?

14                  DR. ARGO:   Yes, I certainly do.

15                  THE CHAIRPERSON:   Would you place your

16   question and allow the proponent to answer?

17                  DR. ARGO:   Yes.   This is a new question.

18   Since I've been here in Cape Breton since last Friday,

19   the wind has been nearly north.   Now, this could carry

20   the plumes from the Coke Oven when they were operating to

21   Ashby.   The Environment Canada reports from 1972 to '73

22   clearly show that large amounts of chemicals from the

23   steel mill operations are falling in Ashby.    Those plumes

24   will contain a wide variety of products that also fall

25   into Whitney Pier at the same -- when the wind isn't
                                  574            STPA QUESTIONED
                                     (C.B. Save Our Health Care)

1    right.   Those plumes fall on Mullen's Bank as well as

2    Ashby.   The coal that is stored on Mullen's Bank will

3    also be going into the ground.

4                   Now, we have been told repeatedly here

5    that Mullen's Bank is not going to be remediated, but if

6    Mullen's Bank and Ashby have been -- both been subjected
7    to the exposure from the steel mill and from the Coke

8    Ovens, my question then to Mr. Potter is why do you

9    continue to insist that Mullen's Bank and the people of

10   Ashby seem to be considered as unexposed.

11                  MR. POTTER:   The risk assessment for the

12   Coke Oven site for the Mullen's Bank property -- it

13   passed the risk assessment and there was no need to

14   address any further remediation on that portion of the

15   property.

16                  THE CHAIRPERSON:   Have you got a follow-up

17   question, Dr. Argo, for that?

18                  DR. ARGO:   Not at the moment, Madame.    You

19   said yesterday when the incinerator starts, the ownership

20   of the land will revert to Nova Scotia.   Will this allow

21   the more lax soil quality guidelines of Nova Scotia to

22   apply to the project?

23                  MR. POTTER:   The ownership of the land may

24   actually -- if it does transfer will transfer before the

25   incinerator would be operating there.   I can't respond to
                                  575            STPA QUESTIONED
                                     (C.B. Save Our Health Care)

1    lax requirements.   We will address all necessary

2    environmental regulations that the Department of

3    Environment and Labour does require us to meet.

4                   DR. ARGO:   My question originates from --

5    I've been asking this question since February of last

6    year.   In the case -- the standards -- the clean-up
7    standard, the soil clean-up standards in Nova Scotia are

8    considerably different from the soil clean-up standards

9    established by the CCME.   I'm wanting to know if that

10   change of ownership then means that the change -- that

11   the Nova Scotia standards are the ones that apply.

12                  MR. POTTER:    Soil clean-up criteria have

13   nothing to do with the placement of the incinerator on

14   the VJ site.   We will follow again the necessary

15   stipulations and requirements and regulations of Nova

16   Scotia Environment and Labour when it comes to siting and

17   operating that incinerator.

18                  DR. ARGO:   You're very good.   Does this

19   mean that Nova Scotia will accept a larger portion of the

20   liability of this project as the owner of the land?

21                  MR. POTTER:    Nova Scotia, as per the MOA,

22   accepts full responsibility for the ownership of the

23   land.

24                  DR. ARGO:   Excuse me, I was distracted.

25   Could I get your answer again, please?
                                   576            STPA QUESTIONED
                                      (C.B. Save Our Health Care)

1                    MR. POTTER:   As per the MOA, the Province

2    of Nova Scotia accepts complete responsibility for the

3    land.

4                    DR. ARGO:   And how does this interact with

5    the -- with federal funding, the federal/provincial

6    fundings that -- does this -- I thought that the
7    liability would be divided in respect of the way their

8    funding -- the proportions that they're funded.

9                    MR. POTTER:   I'd encourage a review of the

10   MOA.    The MOA -- I think I highlighted it earlier today

11   -- stipulates the responsibilities, the scope of the

12   work, the funding agreements, the long-term commitment

13   for maintenance and monitoring, all of which addresses

14   the point your raising.

15                   DR. ARGO:   Thank you very much.   I'll make

16   sure that I go after that.

17                   Once again, you propose to use slag as a

18   filler.   I assume it's from the mountain that we can see

19   outside the door.   What contaminants are in that slag

20   that you're going to use?     I'm thinking particularly here

21   of heavy metals.

22                   MR. GILLIS:   I would request that Don

23   Shosky speak to the engineering parameters of the slag

24   and then Dr. Brian Magee will speak to the Health Risk

25   Assessment that included some of that.    I'd ask Dr. Magee
                                   577            STPA QUESTIONED
                                      (C.B. Save Our Health Care)

1    to go first, please.

2                    DR. MAGEE:    Yes, I'd be happy to.    Yes, so

3    various heavy metals are present in the slag, as you're

4    well aware.   We have evaluated dust blowing from the slag

5    due to all of the operations.    We have tonnes and tonnes

6    of slag being dumped and stockpiled and pushed and moved
7    with standard EPA equations used to evaluate the

8    emissions from the slag, and the metals in that dust have

9    been modelled to the receptors.    Both workers and

10   residents and all of that is included in the Risk

11   Assessment.

12                   DR. ARGO:    Would you mind seriously

13   answering my question?   My question was what are the

14   heavy metals in the slag.     What are they and how much is

15   there?    Not your risk assessment.   What is there?    I'm

16   particularly interested ---

17                   THE CHAIRPERSON:   Dr. Argo, could you just

18   moderate your tone, please.    Simply ask your question.

19                   DR. ARGO:    Yes, if you'll just give me a

20   moment.   I have to look to a table.   I don't know those

21   numbers off the top of my head.

22                   MR. GILLIS:   In the intervening period

23   here, perhaps Don Shosky could talk about the engineering

24   work that he did associated with the slag, which may be

25   informative in this case.
                                  578            STPA QUESTIONED
                                     (C.B. Save Our Health Care)

1                   THE CHAIRPERSON:      Yeah.   I need to ask a

2    question too so that I know -- so that I can keep up to

3    speed with this.   Dr. Argo said that you're using slag as

4    fill.   Is that what you said?

5                   DR. ARGO:   I have read that it's going to

6    be used as filler.
7                   THE CHAIRPERSON:      What ---

8                   DR. ARGO:   I can't give you a reference.

9                   THE CHAIRPERSON:      Could you explain to me

10   what that might mean?

11                  MR. SHOSKY:    Yes.

12                  THE CHAIRPERSON:      Thank you.

13                  MR. SHOSKY:    During our -- we conducted a

14   stabilization report that the Panel asked for.      It was

15   quite a thick document that was provided as part of the

16   IR responses, I believe.   And in that document, there

17   were a number of various stabilization mixes that

18   occurred in that document.    All of them included at least

19   five percent slag material.   The five percent slag

20   material was primarily added in order to bring up the

21   structural strength of the sediments to be stabilized as

22   well as provide some additional improvement of the matrix

23   of the stabilized mix.

24                  The heavy metals that are in there are

25   described in this report in detail, so we can -- we can
                                  579            STPA QUESTIONED
                                     (C.B. Save Our Health Care)

1    provide that as necessary.   It would take me a minute to

2    actually go through each one of them for you.   But we

3    also ran the tests of the stabilized mix under an

4    aggressive leaching process called the TCLP analysis,

5    which is recognized as a way to analyze the leaching

6    properties that would occur from the stabilized mix.
7                   The metal concentrations that Dr. Argo is

8    interested in are certainly within this document because

9    we ran before and after tests of that material.   And at

10   this point, I'd like to go ahead and turn it back to Dr.

11   Magee.

12                  MR. GILLIS:   Just before Dr. Magee speaks,

13   I think it's important to point out that that slag

14   material is used commercially and used routinely in

15   various construction-related activities around the area.

16   So now I'll ask Dr. Magee to ---

17                  DR. MAGEE:    Yes, I have the data here.

18   While there are certainly more metals in the slag than I

19   have in this table, we focused our risk assessment on the

20   constituents of concern that were identified in the

21   previous risk assessments, and of those, the ones for

22   which we had data for the slag are arsenic, beryllium and

23   mercury.   So those are the ones that we quantitatively

24   included in the Risk Assessment.   I can give you the

25   upper 95th confidence interval on the mean if you'd like
                                  580            STPA QUESTIONED
                                     (C.B. Save Our Health Care)

1    those.   Is that a yes?

2                   DR. ARGO:    Please.

3                   DR. MAGEE:    Arsenic is five parts per

4    million.   That's milligrams per kilogram.    Beryllium is

5    17 parts per million.     Mercury is 0.01 parts per million.

6    Those are the data that were available to us.
7                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    I'm afraid that does

8    conclude the 15 minutes, so I'm afraid, Ms. MacLellan,

9    you lost out on the order of questioning there.    But if

10   we have some time at the end of the evening, we will --

11   if we can get in an extra question from going around

12   again, we will.   So thank you very much.

13                  MS. MACLELLAN:    Thank you.

14                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    The Grand Lake Road

15   Residents.


17      MARMON)

18                  MR. MARMON:    Thank you, Madame Chair.    I

19   guess for this evening, I'm the lone person for Grand

20   Lake Road Residents.

21                  In the initial talks on the incinerator,

22   we were told that the most stringent of guidelines would

23   be followed, whether the incinerator was mobile or

24   permanent.   What difference does it make if the property

25   proposed for the incinerator site is provincial or
                                  581          STPA QUESTIONED
                                        (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    federally owned.   With the influx of federal money, isn't

2    the 500-metre guideline to be followed when recommending

3    a site?

4                   And also, why would we assume that the

5    1992 1,500-metre difference be less in 2006?   Why would

6    you pick a site and assume that it's going to be less?
7                   MR. GILLIS:   I'm going to ask Shawn Duncan

8    to answer that question, please.

9                   MR. DUNCAN:   Thank you, Mr. Gillis.   In

10   reference to the CCME Guidance that speaks to the 1,500

11   metres with regards to siting of the facility, the

12   reference there is to a permanent fixed hazardous waste

13   facility.   In this situation where we've got a mobile PCB

14   incinerator that is there temporarily to burn a set

15   amount of material from one site, that -- those criteria

16   don't directly apply to this type of facility.

17                  What we did is we looked across a number

18   of jurisdictions and we -- there are requirements in

19   various jurisdictions with various criteria.   The closest

20   we were able to find within Canada is in Ontario where

21   there is a siting requirement for a mobile PCB

22   incinerator of a similar nature which is 250 metres from

23   residential areas or occupied residences.   We, in the

24   interest of being conservative, just from a screening

25   perspective, used the 500-metre setback from residential
                                  582           STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    areas or any other occupied areas as a setback.

2                   The next step which we did was to, once

3    these preferred sites were selected by STPA -- the two

4    sites, Phalen and Victoria Junction -- we evaluated them

5    very fully through a Human Health Risk Assessment and

6    Ecological Risk Assessment.   That -- it would -- CCME --
7    just to step back a bit, CCME is a risk-based guidance,

8    and what it does is it sets back standard criteria that

9    in the absence of any specific information, you'd default

10   to a setback distance.   What we've done is even though

11   these don't directly apply, we exceed the requirements

12   because we've done a full health -- Human Health Risk

13   Assessment for this facility and demonstrated that this

14   facility can operate quite safely and effectively in

15   those areas.

16                  MR. MARMON:    Yes, I understand what you're

17   saying, but at the initial start of this project, to ease

18   the concern of the residents where this proposed

19   incinerator was going to be placed, we questioned whether

20   a mobile incinerator would have less stringent guidelines

21   as compared to a permanent incinerator, and we were told

22   quite specifically that whether the incinerator was

23   mobile or permanent, there would be no difference in what

24   would be used as the guidelines.   Has that changed or ---

25                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    May I just ask a
                                    583          STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    clarification?   Who told you this or did this

2    undertaking?

3                     MR. MARMON:   Representatives from the Tar

4    Ponds.

5                     MR. SHOSKY:   I'll take -- answer your

6    question for you.   There is a couple of items that are
7    important when deciding on the siting of the incinerator,

8    and certainly setback is important, but probably of equal

9    or more importance are the actual operating conditions

10   that the incinerator were to run at after -- were to

11   follow during the course of operation.

12                    Given that there is a concern about the

13   proximity to population and things of that nature, there

14   are a number of items that can be -- happen during the

15   design phase that makes it a safer situation than relying

16   just strictly on a setback of a certain number of metres

17   away from residentials.

18                    Our proposal would be to go ahead and look

19   during the detailed design phase and include those extra

20   operating conditions that would enable it to operate as a

21   safe facility under the close proximity to the

22   population, including the air monitoring issues, the

23   additional air emission control systems -- things of that

24   nature would all be looked at during the design phase in

25   order to verify that it was being placed in a suitable
                                  584             STPA QUESTIONED
                                           (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    situation.

2                   MR. MARMON:   Actually, I'm quite glad that

3    you said that the exact standoff distance or whatever

4    you're calling it is not the critical factor, it's other

5    indicators that you would probably look at.

6                   With reference to Kilkenny Lake, I
7    understand that this lake, or the proposed site, is not

8    exactly in the watershed area as defined by a

9    municipality or a provincial government, but in the EIS,

10   there is a statement that Kilkenny Lake has been affected

11   by the previous VJ operation.      Now, my understanding is,

12   well that shouldn't matter here because we're outside the

13   distance where we should have a problem, but as you've

14   said, the standoff distance is not the important issue,

15   it's the facts that come up.

16                  And what I would like to ask is, if the VJ

17   site had an impact on a town water supply, why wouldn't

18   an incinerator in the same location have an impact on a

19   town water supply, whether that's 500, 1,500 metres or

20   2,000 metres away.

21                  MR. DUNCAN:   Yes, we -- we can't really

22   comment on the previous operations at Victoria Junction.

23   That's something that is certainly outside the scope of

24   the project.

25                  It certainly -- you know, it has been a
                                  585           STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    contributor to the local environment from a number of

2    perspectives, but what we've done for this project is we

3    did do -- associated with the proposed incinerator

4    activities, we did run the Human Health Risk Assessment

5    and Ecological Risk Assessment for Kilkenny Lake as well

6    -- actually, for all watersheds and receiving bodies in
7    the area.

8                   So Kilkenny was looked at specifically

9    from a potential effects -- environmental effect and

10   human health and ecological risk perspective from the

11   operation of the incinerator, and that was, again,

12   layered onto specific baseline information that was

13   collected, so we were able to capture previous historical

14   effects that may have occurred in those water bodies and

15   then layer on top of that any potential additional risks

16   that the incinerator operations may have had on those

17   receiving bodies as well.

18                  MR. MARMON:    But wouldn't the fact that a

19   previous industrial activity on a site that you propose

20   to put this incinerator set up sort of the red flag type

21   of issue?   You know, it's more or less a scientific

22   proven fact now that this area is close enough to cause a

23   problem with Kilkenny Lake.   Wouldn't -- is there any

24   evidence that perhaps Grand Lake and Kilkenny Lake are

25   connected by underground springs or whatever have you?
                                 586            STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    For some reason, Kilkenny Lake, which is upstream from

2    the brook that is on the proposed site -- the idea seemed

3    to be if it's upstream, it's not going to be affected.

4    But the previous site affected Kilkenny Lake.   Your

5    incinerator is -- you know, it's nice to say, "Well it's

6    not going to affect the water supply because our studies
7    don't indicate so," but there is a study already done

8    more or less when you say the VJ site had an impact on

9    that lake.

10                 MR. DUNCAN:     The reference is again in

11   relation to baseline conditions as described.   We can't

12   really speak to previous activities, whether it's a coal

13   washing facility or any other coal infrastructure or

14   development activities that are associated with a number

15   of sites around the region.   All we can capture at this

16   point is relevant baseline information that would include

17   any past historical effects on water courses and water

18   bodies in the area and ensure that through monitoring of

19   our activities, that we -- our predictions are validated

20   through the monitoring and that the predictions we make

21   in the EIS are valid through our predictions and

22   demonstrated through the modelling -- or through the

23   monitoring.

24                 MR. MARMON:     I don't mean to beat the site

25   location to death, but I am hoping to show that if the
                                    587          STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    preferred site is not suitable, then perhaps there's no

2    site that's suitable for an incinerator to handle this

3    material and we should look at other means.     But so far

4    I'm looking at a preferred site that doesn't meet the CCM

5    Guidelines of 1,500 metres, even though federal money

6    will be spent.    There is evidence that a water supply
7    could be affected by positioning an incinerator out

8    there.   Would you consider the VJ site still the

9    preferred site?

10                    MR. POTTER:   We're confident based on the

11   information we've reviewed that, you know, the Victoria

12   Junction Site is an appropriate location for the

13   incinerator.   We're quite confident of that.

14                    Based on all the controls and procedures

15   and mechanisms we'll put in place, the necessary permits

16   and approvals that will be required, we're confident we

17   can safely operate that incinerator on that location for

18   the three- to five-year period.

19                    MR. MARMON:   Earlier this afternoon Mr.

20   Shosky called the bottom ash from the incinerator clean

21   material.   I don't think any material that has heavy

22   metals, and in particular arsenic or whatever, would be

23   considered clean.

24                    But if this material is going to be hauled

25   by truck, what exactly would be the engineering controls
                                   588          STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    that would be put on that truck hauling this material?

2    And not just a matter of, "We would conform to all the

3    rules and regulations."   So far I've seen where some of

4    the rules and regulations aren't being conformed to, so

5    ---

6                    MR. SHOSKY:   The terms "bottom ash" and
7    "clean soil" are just terms of the trade for that

8    particular portion of the resulting treated material.

9                    The issues involved with the

10   transportation by truck from the incinerator site down to

11   the Tar Ponds for further stabilization and placement

12   back into the Tar Ponds or back to the tar cell, wherever

13   the final destination would be, would first require a

14   testing to verify that there are no PCBs remaining in the

15   treated material, the material then would have to be

16   wetted down to ensure that in the process of being

17   transported it would not become dusty.

18                   In order to ensure that that material

19   would not be dusty during transport the load would be

20   covered.   It would also involve the use of controls once

21   it got down to the stabilization site, in order to

22   stabilize the material again adding water and dust

23   suppressants.

24                   During the -- trucking would happen during

25   daylight hours when we have a full complement of crew
                                  589             STPA QUESTIONED
                                           (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    there, so that if an accident were to occur on the road

2    there would be a response team available from the

3    operating site to go clean up the problem and take

4    corrective actions immediately upon some sort of

5    accident.

6                   Those would be the techniques that would
7    be employed in order to move the material.    We would also

8    impose a tracking system so that a truck didn't get lost

9    between the incinerator site and its ultimate

10   destination.

11                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    I just have a question

12   from Mr. Charles, and then one more minute, Mr. Marmon.

13                  MR. CHARLES:   Dr. Shosky, I was under the

14   impression -- oh, sorry, Mr. Shosky -- I was under the

15   impression that bottom ash would be brought back to the

16   site by train rather than by truck and only fly ash would

17   come back by truck.

18                  MR. SHOSKY:    You're right.   I made a

19   mistake in that way.   The process by truck ---

20                  MR. CHARLES:   And you just read the note

21   telling you that, didn't you?

22                  MR. SHOSKY:    Yes, I did.

23                  MR. CHARLES:   Okay.

24                  MR. SHOSKY:    You got me shook up, Dr.

25   Charles, got me on the ropes.
                                 590             STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1                  MR. CHARLES:   I'm sorry, I don't mean to

2    do that.

3                  MR. GILLIS:    Could I ask Frank Potter to

4    make a comment here, if he could, please.

5                  MR. POTTER:    Mr. Marmon mentioned that

6    there was a problem with the previous operator at the VJ
7    Site and that there was problems that arose from, I

8    guess, predominantly trucking and issues on the highway.

9                  We are fully aware of that.     There was

10   what's called a significant dust problem getting tracked

11   out onto the Glace Bay Highway.   I believe -- my

12   understanding is that that was predominantly related to

13   how a contracting issue was addressed.

14                 We've promised and committed to the Grand

15   Lake Road area residents that we are fully aware of the

16   significance of, you know, dust and any material leaving

17   the site and we would not be operating in the same manner

18   that the previous operator operated the trucking of the

19   material.

20                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    Mr. Marmon, do you have

21   one very quick question to finish?

22                 MR. MARMON:    Yes, if I may.   The residents

23   of Grand Lake Road are a bit concerned that, you know,

24   even though we call this incinerator a mobile

25   incinerator, an incinerator that takes two years to set
                                  591            STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1    up and commission, in our opinion, is not a mobile

2    incinerator, it's more or less a prefab incinerator.

3                   We have some concerns that the operator of

4    that incinerator, when this project is concluded, would

5    apply for a permit to run permanently in that site.    And

6    we're just wondering -- all the questions and all the
7    results are based on a five-year term.   Shouldn't this be

8    based on a longer -- all our assumptions be based on a

9    longer term?

10                  Because there is that distinct possibility

11   that after five years things could change there, and even

12   though you guys probably wouldn't have control of what

13   goes on there after that, how could you stop somebody

14   from saying, "I'm going to issue you a permit because all

15   the work has been done for it, you guys did all the

16   assessments, there's no reason -- if I can burn five

17   years, why can't I burn 50 years?"

18                  MR. POTTER:   We will have total control

19   over that property.   It's necessary to make sure we can

20   do that very fact, that we can control the contractor.

21                  I will also refer you to the MOA which

22   specifically quotes -- and I haven't got the words right

23   in front of me, but it is a single-purpose incinerator

24   for one purpose only, the destruction of the PCB material

25   at the Tar Ponds.
                                  592             STPA QUESTIONED
                                           (Grand Lake Road Res.)

1                   Upon completion of that work the MOA

2    restricts us to no longer using that facility or that

3    site for that purpose.    We have no ability to keep that

4    facility there.   It will be a single-purpose facility

5    operating for up to three years, and, yes, perhaps it

6    might not be the full two years to ramp up and, you know,
7    the full two years to ramp down, perhaps if we can get it

8    done quicker we will, but it will not be staying on that

9    site.

10                  MR. MARMON:   Thank you, Madam Chair.

11                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     Thank you very much, Mr.

12   Marmon.   So, it's now Sierra Club.


14                  MS. MAY:   Good evening.    With only 15

15   minutes, I'd really appreciate it if Panel Members

16   responding could be succinct in responses, if possible.

17   I'll try to be succinct in my questions.

18                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     Do you mean Panel

19   Members or do you mean the Proponent?

20                  MS. MAY:   The Proponent, sorry, the Panel

21   Members of the Proponent.

22                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     I'd like you to know

23   that generally I do add a little bit if I speak, so you

24   do get your time.

25                  MS. MAY:   Yes.     Thank you.   I have two
                                    593           STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Ms. Elizabeth May)

1    quick questions, one for Mr. Shosky, one for Dr. Magee,

2    and then a series relating to PCBs.

3                     So, Mr. Shosky, earlier in response to Les

4    Ignasiak's questions you said -- and I hope I've got the

5    quote right -- "I personally have stabilized material

6    with very high content of organic materials."
7                     Could you tell us what's the highest

8    content of organic material by percent weight or by

9    percent volume you have stabilized and at what location

10   and how long ago the site was stabilized?

11                    MR. SHOSKY:   I've stabilized a lot of pure

12   tar products at manufactured gas plant sites all over

13   North America.   I've worked at a number of them.

14                    The reference I gave to the Panel is a

15   recent one that you're welcome to look in the State of

16   Massachusetts records about.     That's the most recent one,

17   and dating back for the last 12 or 13 years.

18                    MS. MAY:   Do I understand by "pure tar

19   product" that it would be 100 percent organic material?

20   I'm looking for a percent.

21                    MR. SHOSKY:   A hundred percent tar, water,

22   soil or a mixture of all of the above.     At the tar sites

23   it's soft and very difficult to have something that isn't

24   quite a mixture of different products.

25                    MS. MAY:   Thank you.   Dr. Magee, I wonder
                                 594            STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Ms. Elizabeth May)

1    if you could provide to the Panel -- so much of your

2    evidence relates to your professional expertise and your

3    modelling conservatism.

4                  Could you provide to this process the

5    names or some citation evidence -- not full volumes -- of

6    any health risk assessments you have prepared in which
7    you identified an unacceptable risk to public health?

8    Would that be possible?

9                  DR. MAGEE:    Yes, that would be about 99

10   percent of the hundreds of risk assessments that I have

11   performed.

12                 In almost all cases action of some sort is

13   required, either remediation at a waste site, or if it's

14   some sort of a proposed facility like a power plant I

15   tell them, "You can't operate that way, the emissions are

16   too high, the risk assessment doesn't work," and then

17   they go back and they'll lower the emission rates.

18                 MS. MAY:    So, you will provide citations

19   so that we can review those?

20                 DR. MAGEE:    I certainly can do that if I

21   am so instructed by the Panel Chair.

22                 MS. MAY:    I'd appreciate it, if it's not

23   too much trouble.

24                 THE CHAIRPERSON:     Dr. Magee -- sorry.

25                 MR. GILLIS:   Yes.   Just to be clear -- I'm
                                 595           STPA QUESTIONED
                                           (Ms. Elizabeth May)

1    a little bit familiar with some of the work that Dr.

2    Magee has done -- the end product of the project or the

3    outcome including his recommendations and what have you

4    includes the mitigation that is in place.

5                  And whether or not, to be quite frank,

6    you're going to find all the details of his
7    recommendation and the follow-up engineering in the

8    record, unless there is a very extensive public record of

9    that kind of discourse, I would frankly doubt it, because

10   the work that I've been involved with personally, even

11   with Dr. Magee, when those recommendations go forward the

12   changes are made and then the final project, as we went

13   through, is brought forward for the assessment, the one

14   including mitigation and changes.

15                 So, the ability to track the kinds of

16   information that I believe that you're after, I think we

17   might be looking pretty hard for something that might be

18   very difficult to find.

19                 DR. MAGEE:    May I just add one thing?

20                 MR. GILLIS:   Sure.

21                 DR. MAGEE:    My colleague just brought to

22   my attention that one such project is this project,

23   because when we ran the risk assessment through using the

24   Canada-wide standard for mercury we found that the fish

25   ingestion pathway risk for the toddler, who is the fisher
                                 596            STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Ms. Elizabeth May)

1    at Grand Lake, was, in fact, too high.

2                  So, I went back to the engineering team

3    and said, "We can't emit at the Canada-wide standard,

4    that's too high," and we lowered and told them that they

5    couldn't go over a certain level.

6                  MR. SHOSKY:     And just to follow up on
7    that, once those recommendations came to us we researched

8    the technologies, we changed the feed stock, the way the

9    mix ratios went into the incinerator, and also re-

10   evaluated the engineering controls that were placed upon

11   the thermal treatment unit.

12                 MS. MAY:   I accept it's too hard to find.

13                 The second question is, Dr. Magee, are you

14   aware of the conclusions -- and if you're not just say so

15   -- of a UK study published in December 2005, "The Health

16   Effects of Waste Incinerators, The Fourth Report by the

17   British Society for Ecological Medicine," in which they

18   identified confidence levels for health risk assessment

19   modelling at approximately 30 percent?   Is that a study

20   you're familiar with?

21                 DR. MAGEE:    I'm not sure about that study.

22   I have reviewed about 60 studies that have looked at

23   community effects around incinerators of various sorts

24   and I have those in a database.   I can check for you but

25   I can't tell you right offhand.
                                  597            STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Ms. Elizabeth May)

1                   MS. MAY:    Thank you.   Moving along to

2    questions related to ---

3                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    Can I just interrupt for

4    a second.   Is that something that you wish to place

5    before the Panel, that report?

6                   MS. MAY:    I thought the appropriate time
7    would probably be in evidence of our experts, if that's

8    -- that is the general trend here, that there is a

9    question of the confidence levels that one would place on

10   health risk assessments.

11                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    And you would then be

12   tabling it for the Panel?

13                  MS. MAY:    We will indeed.   Returning ---

14                  MR. GILLIS:   Could Dr. Magee just make a

15   comment to that, please, just to close down the ---

16                  MS. MAY:    I'd really rather he didn't.

17                  MR. GILLIS:   Madam Chair, is it ---

18                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Dr. Magee, do you want

19   to make a comment, please.

20                  DR. MAGEE:    It's just a quick comment.

21   The highest cancer risk that we've estimated even with

22   all of our conservative assumptions is tenfold less than

23   the project significance levels.   So, within 30 percent

24   we're great.

25                  MS. MAY:    In returning to the question I
                                 598            STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Ms. Elizabeth May)

1    was trying to ask before I could get my computer up here

2    before the break, we were asking about whether -- why the

3    JDAC recommendation had not been followed.

4                  And the specific JDAC recommendation to

5    which we refer is Recommendation 3 found in the JDAC

6    Report of August 2002:
7                          "Remedial actions should be limited

8                          to those that will be focused on,

9                          supportive of and consistent with

10                         future land use to be designated for

11                         each distinct area of the site or the

12                         site on a global basis.    Remediation

13                         should not be undertaken until future

14                         land uses are selected."

15                 Based on evidence so far in the last few

16   days, it seems that the STPA has deviated from this

17   recommendation.   I'm wondering if you could explain why.

18                 MR. GILLIS:    Could you -- could we have a

19   bit of time to get that recommendation in front of us?

20   I'd just like to make sure that we get the information

21   that's appropriate.   You're quoting from something and

22   I'd like to have it in front of the appropriate people

23   here to make sure that we get the context and everything.

24                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    Would you prefer to

25   table that and move on to your next question?
                                 599              STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Ms. Elizabeth May)

1                  MS. MAY:   I would, given the time pressing

2    on, as along as it doesn't get lost.

3                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Yes.   Please continue.

4                  MR. GILLIS:   Well, we can certainly ---

5                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Are you ready?

6                  MR. GILLIS:   No, I'm not ready.     We can
7    certainly look up the JDAC reference at another time.

8                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Yes.

9                  MR. GILLIS:   All right.

10                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    Yes, that's what I was

11   ---

12                 MS. MAY:   Okay.    Thank you.   Mr. -- of

13   course, I address this through the Chair to anyone from

14   the STPA consultant group, that 50 parts per million PCB

15   material will be left behind and stabilized, and I hope

16   this is one you can answer without having to pull the

17   report up.

18                 But there was a report, of course, by

19   JWEL-IT back in May 31st, 1996 and they concluded, at

20   page 41:

21                      "An expert legal opinion clearly

22                      indicates that in-situ containment of

23                      PCBs will not meet existing

24                      legislative requirements of either

25                      the Nova Scotia Environment Act or
                                  600          STPA QUESTIONED
                                           (Ms. Elizabeth May)

1                       the Canadian Environmental Protection

2                       Act."

3                   It goes on to suggest the Proponent could

4    apply for a variance to make in-site containment a viable

5    option.

6                   I'm looking for any update to the legal
7    condition and circumstances and requirements that would

8    make leaving contaminants and sediments in excess of 50

9    parts per million PCBs a legal -- legally acceptable to

10   the Province and the Federal Government.

11                  MR. POTTER:   I guess we'd have to go back

12   to the May 12, 2004 MOA which clearly outlines projects

13   which includes the project involving the remaining PCBs

14   in the site, and that's a project that was put together

15   by the two levels of government, so I would suspect that

16   that would be, if you wish, superseding the regulations

17   or documents you're referring to.

18                  MS. MAY:   Madam Chair, the MOA is not in

19   front of me but my recollection of it is that it

20   specifies the remaining parts per billion would be below

21   the 50 parts per million level and thus acceptable to be

22   left behind.

23                  MR. POTTER:   The MOA documents the project

24   that we've described with removing the PCB content, the

25   120,000 tonnes of sediment including PCBs above 50 ppm.
                                  601            STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Ms. Elizabeth May)

1                     That's what the document describes, that's

2    the basis of the project description, the extensive

3    reviews of all the information that's been in the EIS,

4    that that is the document, that that is the project that

5    we're looking at today.

6                     THE CHAIRPERSON:   Could I ---
7                     MS. MAY:   Madam Chair, I ---

8                     THE CHAIRPERSON:   Oh, I'm sorry?

9                     MS. MAY:   --- I went back and reviewed IR-

10   12 since the last break and although it wasn't clear in

11   that document, based on the evidence we've heard and by

12   inference and by looking at the charts of where we know

13   PCBs exceeding 50 parts per million have been identified

14   and knowing that some of those areas are not in the area

15   intended to be excavated, removed and incinerated, it now

16   appeared to me that STPA was making it clear in this

17   process that some pockets of hot spots of PCBs would

18   remain behind.

19                    So, having thought that was what you said

20   earlier, it certainly is what's evident on the various --

21   JWEL-IT map from 1996 and various other excavations and

22   delineations of PCB material in excess of 50 parts per

23   million.   I was just wondering, then are you still in a

24   legal snare?

25                    THE CHAIRPERSON:   I was going to suggest
                                 602            STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Ms. Elizabeth May)

1    that we bring this question forward to both federal and

2    provincial regulators.   Would you be -- the Panel could

3    bring that question forward if you are ---

4                  MS. MAY:   I'd be grateful for that, and

5    particularly if there is any question, which Mr. Potter's

6    last response seemed to suggest, that the current plan
7    was to remove all the 50 parts per million PCB-

8    contaminated areas, that would be, I think, important to

9    achieve clarity around this key question.

10                 There appear to me from the various maps

11   that are before us to be PCB contamination in excess of

12   50 parts per million that are not within the areas which

13   you plan to excavate and that seemed to be the inference

14   within IR-12, although admittedly it is not clear.

15                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    Do you wish to make a

16   comment to that or clarification?   My memory of IR-12 is

17   -- the follow-up to IR-12, are we talking about?

18                 MS. MAY:   Yes, Madam Chair.

19                 THE CHAIRPERSON:    Yeah.

20                 MR. POTTER:     We do have an undertaking to

21   come back with additional information on that IR-12, so

22   we'll hopefully address that at that point in time, but I

23   think it was fairly clear that we indicated that we are

24   not taking all of the PCBs.   The IR refers to 89 percent

25   above 50 ppm, but we will be coming with an undertaking
                                  603             STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Ms. Elizabeth May)

1    on that.

2                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     That was my

3    understanding, that you have been clear about that.     So,

4    I think your question should now move forward to the

5    regulators.   Do you have more questions?

6                   MS. MAY:   Yes.     In follow-up to questions
7    earlier placed by Marlene Kane, what is the difference

8    between the CCME and SSTLs?   And just to clarify, the

9    SSTLs are larger numbers than the CCME levels.

10                  If someone could just clarify that key

11   point between SSTLs and CCME levels.[u]

12                  MR. KAISER:    There are cases where the

13   SSTLs are higher and typically that is the case, but as

14   well we've taken an undertaking to do a comparative

15   between the SSTLs and the CCME guidelines and we will be

16   coming back with that information to the Panel.

17                  MS. MAY:   Thank you.    Moving on to a whole

18   new area of our geography of the Tar Ponds, I want to

19   explore with you the sludge material which is now buried

20   under slag, bearing in mind that the original shoreline

21   of Muggah Creek was quite a lot wider at its mouth and

22   that the contaminated materials from the Coke Ovens

23   travelled down into that estuary for many years and then

24   had slag piled up on top of them.     This is something that

25   I'm going to take as a premise but I have a citation, if
                                  604            STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Ms. Elizabeth May)

1    there's any difficulty.

2                   So, my question is, what is being proposed

3    for the PCB and PAH contaminated materials found under

4    the slag on the east side of the ponds, and how can we be

5    sure this material will not be released into the harbour?

6                   MR. POTTER:     The description of our
7    project as per the MOA does not address that property.

8    We -- our project addresses the contaminants in the North

9    and South Ponds, Coke Ovens Brook and the Coke Ovens

10   Site.

11                  MS. MAY:   So, you -- the Tar Ponds doesn't

12   include the part of the Tar Ponds under the slag, is that

13   clear?   Is that the answer?

14                  MR. POTTER:     Our site description is the

15   boundary line of the existing present day Tar Ponds.

16                  MS. MAY:   I just want to clarify if it's

17   possible to have as an undertaking in our original

18   application, intervenor request for information, I know

19   there were a lot of undertakings relating to PCBs.

20                  So, with your permission, Madam Chair, I'd

21   like to read our intervenor request that went forward

22   initially and see if the specific language could be

23   included in the undertaking.    There are quite a few of

24   them but this relates to the confidence level.

25                  And our original question, which we do not
                                  605              STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Ms. Elizabeth May)

1    feel was answered at this point and which the undertaking

2    could respond to ---

3                   MR. GILLIS:   Excuse me.      Could you give us

4    the specific reference so that we could find that and ---

5                   MS. MAY:   Yeah.    We labelled it 2.1.6 at

6    page 4 of our initial application for information in the
7    deficiency statement.   I'll read it again, if you like.

8                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     And public comment -- do

9    you know the public comment number?

10                  MS. MAY:   Public comment number?     I can --

11   49, I think.

12                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     No ---

13                  MS. MAY:   I'll double check but -- no, not

14   49?

15                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     --- you weren't 49.   Oh,

16   yes, you were 49.

17                  MS. MAY:   Thank you.

18                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     Is that right?   Yeah.

19   Sorry.

20                  MS. MAY:   Not 49?

21                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     46.

22                  MS. MAY:   I'll just -- I'll provide that

23   to you shortly, but if I could just read through it:

24                       "Provide the Review Panel with a map

25                       of the Tar Ponds showing the sampling
                                606               STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Ms. Elizabeth May)

1                         grid necessary to ensure with 95

2                         percent confidence that all hot spots

3                         of PCB-contaminated material in

4                         excess of 50 parts per million of

5                         volumes of 10, 100 and 1,000 cubic

6                         metres will be excavated given the
7                         existing data."

8                   That was the request, and the -- we also

9    requested to know:

10                        "...the maximum volume of any

11                        potentially remaining hot spot of

12                        PCB-contaminated material that may

13                        remain after proposed excavation

14                        given the current sample data."

15                  I will provide the original, as numbered

16   by the Panel, review process number for that information

17   request and request that that be folded into the work

18   you're doing on PCB contaminant undertakings for various

19   people before this process.

20                  THE CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you, Ms. May.

21   You're now out of your time, well out of your time

22   actually.   I wasn't paying attention.

23                  So, what I will do -- I'm not sure -- I

24   won't expect to get a response from you right now.     Would

25   you -- I'll ask the Proponent to look at that reference
                                 607            STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Ms. Elizabeth May)

1    and then come back to us and we'll also -- the Panel will

2    also take that under advisement, we will also look at it

3    and we'll settle something in due course.

4                  MS. MAY:   Thank you.

5                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Thank you very much.

6                  MR. GILLIS:     Madam Chair, if I may just
7    quickly?

8                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Um-hmm.

9                  MR. GILLIS:     I understand the latter part

10   of the question and we'll certainly look it up, but to be

11   with respect to identification of potential hot spots

12   remaining in the tar -- in the area after remediation is

13   completed, is that correct?

14                 MS. MAY:   There were two parts.   One was

15   the -- the first was to have the map, which we still

16   don't have, showing the sampling grid necessary to ensure

17   with 95 percent confidence that all hot spots of PCB-

18   contaminated material in excess of 50 parts per million

19   will be excavated, and then looking at the maximum volume

20   of a potentially remaining area of PCB-contaminated

21   material -- we call it a hot spot but we mean over 50

22   parts per million -- that may remain after the proposed

23   excavation, the maximum volume.

24                 MR. GILLIS:     That's what I understood.

25   Thank you very much for that clarification.
                                  608            STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Ms. Elizabeth May)

1                  MS. MAY:   Thank you, Mr. Gillis.

2                  MR. GILLIS:     Thank you.

3                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     Okay.   Thank you.   Mr.

4    Ignasiak?


6                  MR. IGNASIAK:    Thank you very much.     I
7    would like to continue with IR-42.    IR-42.

8                  MR. GILLIS:     Could we just have a moment

9    to bring that up, sir?

10                 MR. IGNASIAK:    Can I proceed?

11                 MR. GILLIS:     If you'd just give us a

12   moment to get it in front of us, it might make it a

13   little easier, that's all.    Okay, we have that now.

14   Thank you.

15                 MR. IGNASIAK:    Thank you.   My first

16   question is, could Mr. Shosky inform us as to whether the

17   site that he described for Elizabeth is actually in one

18   of those two tables or not.

19                 MR. GILLIS:     Excuse me, if I understand

20   the question, you're asking if the site that Mr. Shosky

21   referred to with respect to the very high percentage of

22   coal tar has been referenced in this table, is that

23   correct?

24                 MR. IGNASIAK:    That is correct.

25                 MR. GILLIS:     Okay.   Thank you.
                                    609          STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1                     MR. SHOSKY:   In putting together this

2    table we did not include listings for private clients.

3                     When the Panel asked me for the question

4    on a particular reference that pertained to use of this

5    technology in an estuary environment, the citing I gave

6    them was with the permission of one of my clients and it
7    is not on these tables.

8                     MR. IGNASIAK:   So, the answer is it's not?

9                     MR. SHOSKY:   That's correct.

10                    MR. IGNASIAK:   Thank you.   My next

11   question is, if we cannot know something about this

12   particular site perhaps I could start questioning about

13   MGP site Cambridge, Massachusetts.    It's also from

14   Massachusetts.   This is -- one, two, three, four, five --

15   fifth example in Table IR-42(1).

16                    MR. SHOSKY:   We're looking at that

17   citation.

18                    MR. IGNASIAK:   I'm looking at MGP site

19   Cambridge, Massachusetts that was remediated in 2001.

20                    MR. SHOSKY:   And the question is?

21                    MR. IGNASIAK:   And the question is, was

22   the solidification and stabilization in-situ a primary

23   remedial technology or not?

24                    MR. SHOSKY:   I would have to further

25   research that one.   That particular answer is not on this
                                    610           STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1    table.

2                     MR. IGNASIAK:   Okay.   I have to change my

3    next question.   Therefore, my next question will be, can

4    you give me any information as to what were the

5    properties of the soil and what was the content of

6    organics in this particular site which was solidified/
7    stabilized?

8                     MR. SHOSKY:   Basically, IR-41 -- or,

9    excuse me, IR-42 -- was specific in the nature of the

10   information that they asked for.     Without going through

11   and doing some more detailed research on this particular

12   location, I wouldn't be able to answer that question at

13   this time.

14                    MR. IGNASIAK:   Thank you.   Can I tell you

15   how it was really remediated, or is it really required?

16                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    Perhaps you would like

17   -- you have information about this site?

18                    MR. IGNASIAK:   Yes, I do have.

19                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    I would like you to

20   bring that forward when you make your presentation.        I

21   think that would be the most appropriate.     So, we'd be

22   very pleased to hear it, yes.

23                    MR. IGNASIAK:   Thank you.   I think that

24   those tables, IR-42(1) and IR-42(2), were essentially

25   producing sites -- showing sites which had more or less
                                  611              STPA QUESTIONED
                                                (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1    resembled -- which more or less resembled the Tar Pond

2    sediment.   Is that correct?

3                   MR. SHOSKY:     IR-42 is specific on its

4    request and we did the best to meet that request.

5                   MR. IGNASIAK:    So, essentially -- the

6    answer is essentially yes?
7                   MR. SHOSKY:     On a quick re-glance at the

8    table, the answer would be yes.

9                   MR. IGNASIAK:    Thank you.   I would like to

10   switch now to Item 3 in Table IR-42(1).      This is the

11   manufactured gas plant, MGP again, Columbus, Georgia.

12   Was the solidification/stabilization in-situ the primary

13   technology used on this site or not?

14                  MR. SHOSKY:     Again, without having

15   additional details at my fingertips, that would require

16   some research in order to answer that question.

17                  MR. IGNASIAK:    Thank you.

18                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Mr. Ignasiak, for my

19   clarification, when you ask if something was the primary

20   technology do you mean were they -- were the materials --

21   had they been treated beforehand by some other means?

22   That's what you mean?

23                  MR. IGNASIAK:    By some other means, by

24   some other remedial approach, yes.

25                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Okay.   Thank you.
                                  612             STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1                   MR. IGNASIAK:    My next question is

2    regarding Table 42(2), and this is regarding the second

3    from the bottom site, page 4, the former MGP site,

4    Appleton, Wisconsin.

5                   MR. SHOSKY:   Yes, I'm looking at that

6    reference.
7                   MR. IGNASIAK:    Okay.   It says here that

8    former MGP site, 26,000 cubic metres, and equivalent to

9    34,000 cubic yards, coal tar contaminated soil.      I

10   presume that it was solidified/stabilized?

11                  MR. SHOSKY:   Yes.

12                  MR. IGNASIAK:    Again my question is the

13   same.   Was that, the stabilization/solidification, the

14   primary technology or not?

15                  MR. SHOSKY:   Again, we would need to go

16   back to the detailed reference beyond this table in order

17   to answer that question.

18                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     Mr. Ignasiak, I do --

19   I'm beginning to get the drift that you have some

20   information about these sites that you wish to bring

21   before the Panel.   I think the most appropriate way to do

22   that is in your presentation.      Do you have ---

23                  MR. IGNASIAK:    Madam Chair, I will stop

24   asking questions on this subject, but if I can still use

25   some time I would like now to ask some other questions.
                                    613           STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1                     THE CHAIRPERSON:    Yes, please go ahead.

2                     MR. IGNASIAK:   It is my understanding that

3    the Proponent states that 17 to 20 psi is consistent with

4    industry standards for strength testing in solidification

5    projects.   Is that correct?

6                     MR. SHOSKY:   I went through a discussion
7    of that over Saturday.    Perhaps you weren't here when we

8    did that, and I'm glad to repeat it, or we could refer

9    him to the transcripts.   It depends on how much time you

10   want to spend.

11                    MR. IGNASIAK:   Well, I think my question

12   ---

13                    MR. SHOSKY:   Would you like me to give a

14   ---

15                    MR. IGNASIAK:   --- was rather simple.   Is

16   the statement that 17 to 20 psi is consistent with

17   industry standards for strength testing in

18   solidification/stabilization -- I'm asking for a

19   response, whether it is consistent or not.

20                    MR. SHOSKY:   On site-specific conditions

21   where it's appropriate that subsidence is a concern,

22   typically the range is between 17 and 21 psi.     We went

23   through a real detailed explanation of this on Saturday,

24   a couple of the Panel Members had discussions on it.

25                    We explained why 50 is there, because it
                                    614           STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1    varies with the depth of the location.     The entire reason

2    that the psi is a criteria is for issues regarding

3    subsidence.   Of course you can make it stronger in order

4    to support a much greater land use.

5                     MR. IGNASIAK:   Thank you, Mr. Shosky.   Can

6    I ask you -- well, can I address to the Proponent the
7    next question.   Is this correct that since 1991 the BEPI

8    is recommending that the minimum compressive strength

9    should be between 50 to 200 psi?

10                    MR. SHOSKY:   Again, I'll respond to that

11   question.   It's one we covered earlier in the hearings,

12   and that comes from a hazardous waste standard for

13   hazardous waste landfills which typically are much

14   deeper, thicker units quick which require a lot higher

15   unconfined compressive strength in order to support the

16   landfill which is usually quite deeper than the type that

17   we're looking at here so that it will not subside.

18                    MR. IGNASIAK:   Can I switch to a different

19   subject?

20                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    By all means.

21                    MR. IGNASIAK:   Could I ask what is a

22   typical average content of benzene in the sediment?

23                    MR. GILLIS:   If you would just give us a

24   moment, Dr. Magee can get that information for you.       Yes,

25   Dr. Magee, please go ahead.
                                  615           STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1                   DR. MAGEE:    Yes, I'd be happy to. [u]

2    This is Table 4-11 of Volume 5 where we have the upper

3    95th confidence interval for benzene in the four areas.

4    I can give you all four or I can tell you that they range

5    from 14 parts per million to 111.   Would you like all

6    four numbers separately?
7                   MR. IGNASIAK:   No, thank you.   Can you ---

8                   DR. MAGEE:    14 to 111 parts per million

9    upper confidence interval.

10                  MR. IGNASIAK:   14 to 111 parts per

11   million.   Do you have additional information on benzene

12   content in tar cell material in addition to this sample

13   that you estimated at 59 parts per million?

14                  MR. GILLIS:    I'll refer that question to

15   Don Shosky right now.

16                  MR. SHOSKY:    I believe that concentration

17   is coming out of our stabilization technical memorandum

18   that we put together and presented to the Panel.

19                  MR. IGNASIAK:   I believe that there is

20   only one value given of 59.    What I'm asking is, do you

21   have -- did you sample and did you get really a range of

22   benzene content?

23                  MR. SHOSKY:    For the tar cell material we

24   only took one sample of the tar that we stabilized at

25   that point, and I would have to go back into the
                                 616            STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1    technical memorandum in order to verify that it's 59

2    parts per million.   And I'd be happy to do that, but I'd

3    rather continue to go ahead and ask the question.     The

4    number is what it is.

5                  MR. IGNASIAK:   Thank you very much.

6                  MR. SHOSKY:   I mean, we did take an
7    analysis before sampling.

8                  MR. IGNASIAK:   Thank you very much.    I'm

9    satisfied with that.

10                 MR. GILLIS:   We have some additional

11   information here, if you would just give us a moment.

12                 DR. MAGEE:    Our risk assessment was

13   performed using all of the data collected historically

14   prior to that one sample and the upper 95th confidence

15   interval for benzene in the tar cell is 4 parts per

16   million historically.

17                 MR. IGNASIAK:   Thank you very much.    Is it

18   fair for me to say based on what I have seen in this

19   report that Mr. Shosky was just referred to a few seconds

20   ago, that the post-mix samples, all of them except for

21   one failed the TCLP eligibility test for benzene?

22                 MR. SHOSKY:   I would have to review that

23   document, but I don't believe that that's the case.

24                 MR. IGNASIAK:   Um-hmm.   Is it a fact that

25   the tar cell material failed the benzopyrene eligibility
                                   617             STPA QUESTIONED
                                                (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1    test for all samples and they exceeded the eligibility

2    test within a range of 27 to 1,700 times with respect to

3    benzopyrene?

4                    MR. SHOSKY:   Again, I would need to go

5    through to verify the claims that you're making.        I don't

6    believe that that was part of our conclusions.      I would
7    need to go in and look at the technical memorandum again

8    to verify that.

9                    MR. IGNASIAK:   Mr. Shosky, I have the

10   technical memorandum with me.       I can refer you to a

11   specific table there.

12                   MR. SHOSKY:   I have it with me as well and

13   we can look at it and take the time to do that.

14                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     Mr. Ignasiak ---

15                   MR. IGNASIAK:   If it will not take us more

16   time than about one minute, I'm ready to spare one minute

17   from my time.

18                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     Mr. Ignasiak, you have

19   about 30 seconds actually.

20                   MR. IGNASIAK:   Well, okay.    I leave ---

21                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     Are you able to ---

22                   MR. IGNASIAK:   I leave the discretion with

23   you and perhaps you can check it.      Thank you very much.

24   Thank you.

25                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     One moment, please.   We
                                  618            STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1    have a question from Dr. LaPierre.

2                   DR. LAPIERRE:   I guess the only thing, I

3    wouldn't want this information not to be tabled, so I

4    would ask if we could have the information from the last

5    three minutes of discussion tabled.   There's two specific

6    points that have been brought forth and I guess I would
7    like to see an answer to those two points.

8                   MR. GILLIS:   Certainly we will take an

9    undertaking to review the information as per Dr. Shosky's

10   comment -- or Mr. Shosky's comment, excuse me.

11                  MR. IGNASIAK:   Thank you very much.

12                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Thank you very much, Mr.

13   Ignasiak.   And just a note for the record that there is

14   an additional undertaking that has been made to provide

15   those items. [u]

16                  We will now take a break for 20 minutes

17   and we will resume at 10 to 8:00.    Thank you.

18   (20-MINUTE BREAK)

19                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Ladies and gentlemen we

20   will resume the last hour and ten minutes of our session.

21   And our next questioner is Mr. Harper.



24                  MR. HARPER:   Thank you, Madam Chair.   I'd

25   like to shift to the groundwater analysis that was done.
                                    619          STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Mr. Duff Harper)

1    I just want to have the STPA confirm that the groundwater

2    flows were determined via computer model.    Is that

3    correct?

4                     MR. SHOSKY:   Yes, that's correct.   It was

5    done by computer model along with actual monitoring

6    points to feed into the model, of course.
7                     MR. HARPER:   But you'd agree with me as

8    well that in the Environmental Impact Statement, more

9    particular at page 565 the statement is made that the

10   occurrence of buried infrastructure especially major

11   drains is expected to exert major control on the flow

12   field, not identified with the resolution available with

13   the model.   I guess you don't have to agree with me.

14   That's a statement that's in there.    My question then

15   becomes that -- well, Mr. Kaiser I believe, indicated

16   that several of the drains on the Coke Oven site are

17   quite deep and will not be removed.    My question then is

18   if the infrastructure and particularly the drains are not

19   removed and the model that was used to assess the

20   groundwater does not address the infrastructure, what is

21   the basis for the decision that the buried infrastructure

22   should remain on site.

23                    MR. GILLIS:   Mr. Harper, could you just

24   give us a moment to just review the context of comments

25   in EIS please.   Thank you.    I'd ask Don Shosky to address
                                 620             STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Mr. Duff Harper)

1    this.

2                  MR. SHOSKY:   I'd like to just make sure I

3    understand your question, so I'm going to go ahead and

4    paraphrase it if that's okay.     You're asking, No. 1,

5    whether or not there was a groundwater flow model used.

6    I answered that yes.   And then the statement that was
7    made in the EIS about the fact that the groundwater model

8    was not sensitive enough to pick up the underground

9    infrastructure pipe systems that are there.    That

10   statement is also true.

11                 We however, in looking at the control

12   features that were being in place as part of this project

13   in the overall groundwater control of the site felt that

14   the groundwater controls that we were putting in place --

15   and we had a map of that -- those structures was a

16   display model over a Saturday.    We believe that those

17   infrastructure pieces are contained within the engineered

18   contained system for the Coke Oven site.    If I believe I

19   -- if I haven't answered your question, please ask again.

20                 MR. HARPER:   Thank you.    Those control

21   measures, as I understood it included, at least around

22   the Coke Oven site, some vertical barriers which I

23   believe were sheetpiles.

24                 MR. SHOSKY:   Right now the concept is open

25   that it's either slurry walls or sheetpiles but the idea,
                                 621            STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Mr. Duff Harper)

1    of course, is to have an impermeable barrier that would

2    contain those flows.

3                  MR. HARPER:   But if the buried

4    infrastructure -- you would agree with me, would you not,

5    that the buried infrastructure represents a potential

6    preferred pathway for contaminants to migrate along.
7                  MR. SHOSKY:   Given the fact that most

8    buried infrastructure would have some sort of granular

9    material around it which would have a different

10   permeability than the surrounding soil, there would be a

11   tendency to have a preferential pathway there.    However,

12   remembering how those cutoff walls were set up in the

13   Coke Oven site, the idea is is that those structures

14   would be contained within the overall containment system

15   for the Coke Oven site.   Hence, cutting them off from

16   outside movement outside those barrier walls.

17                 MR. HARPER:   And my next question is how

18   deep are the containment structures going to go on the

19   Coke Oven site?

20                 MR. SHOSKY:   Would it be all right if I

21   take a moment to look that up.    If you have another

22   question, unless it's still related to groundwater, I'll

23   just take a moment to look that up for you.   I don't know

24   what it is off the top of my head.

25                 MR. HARPER:   My next question is still
                                    622          STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Mr. Duff Harper)

1    related to groundwater.

2                     MR. SHOSKY:   Okay, bear with me for a

3    moment please.   Basically the impermeable barriers are

4    placed into the till layer through the fill and into the

5    till layers and I can't give you a specific depth because

6    of the way the lithology is deposited there it varies in
7    thickness across the site where it needs to be installed,

8    depending on the thickness of the overlying fill

9    material.

10                    MR. HARPER:   Well, my concern and my

11   question then is, in response to Mr. Kaiser's

12   acknowledgement that the -- several of the drains are

13   quite deep -- I believe that was his statement -- and

14   will not be removed.   Is it your position that we have --

15   or we have your assurance that whatever barriers are put

16   in place will be put in place at a depth deep enough to

17   ensure that all drains that may be located that depth

18   will be blocked off?

19                    MR. SHOSKY:   Let's just walk through that

20   scenario for a second just so that it's clear on how this

21   would be approached from an implementation standpoint.

22   As I stated earlier, the intention is is to have an

23   impermeable wall around the majority of the Coke Oven

24   site.   And we had a drawing earlier on that.   And the

25   barrier would go down into the till which means that the
                                 623           STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Mr. Duff Harper)

1    fill material which has a much faster transmissivity of

2    water than the underlying till, any water that's trapped

3    in that fill material would back up against the internal

4    barrier.

5                  And let's just say for a moment that we're

6    going in the process of constructing this barrier wall
7    around the Coke Oven site and let's just say for example

8    we encounter a pipe during that process.   It would be

9    clear to me, having done a number of remediation projects

10   that that is a situation that would need to be remedied

11   at the time of construction to ensure that there would be

12   no underground piping that would extend beyond the walls

13   that we were putting in there because then we would have

14   validated -- or invalidated our containment system.

15                 MR. HARPER:   My question, though, is can

16   you assure us that you would go down deep enough so that

17   you'll catch all pipes that may be located at depth.

18                 MR. KAISER:   Perhaps I'll try to clarify

19   the statement that I made earlier in the day.   The -- I

20   guess the use of the term "quite deep" apparently has

21   created some difficulty.   When I made that statement what

22   I meant, I guess, in real terms was that some of the

23   drainage infrastructure on the Coke Oven site may be

24   covered by three or possibly more metres of fill.

25   However, the drainage on the site and most, if not all,
                                  624          STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Mr. Duff Harper)

1    of the drainage infrastructure does drain to Coke Ovens

2    Brook, to the existing elevations of Coke Ovens Brook.

3                   So for that reason, any of the drainage

4    infrastructure that's in place now that will not be

5    removed will continue to direct water to the existing

6    course of Coke Ovens Brook and even though the nature of
7    the brook will change as we go in and work, the actual

8    brook alignment that exists today will serve as a

9    drainage conveyance to the water treatment area.    And the

10   water that comes down the existing drainage water course

11   today will continue basically in that area.   So the

12   drains will continue to direct water as they currently

13   are doing.   It'll just be a lot less water because of the

14   cutoff wall and the realignment of the Coke Ovens Brook.

15                  MR. SHOSKY:   I think it's also important

16   to state that the infrastructure should be above the till

17   layer which if you think about it at the time this plant

18   was built and it was in operation, the technologies

19   involved us going very deep into the ground and removing

20   some of that harder till material, would have made it

21   more difficult for him to place that infrastructure so I

22   believe a lot of it would be above the till layer.

23                  MR. HARPER:   It's your belief, though?

24   You've not actually sampled the site to confirm that?

25                  MR. SHOSKY:   Again the validation is my
                                  625           STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Mr. Duff Harper)

1    opinion would be -- would come when the barrier walls

2    were installed and if those lines were encountered during

3    that time, appropriate corrective action would be taken.

4                   MR. HARPER:   Madam Chair, my next question

5    is, did the groundwater model address the possibility of

6    deep -- address the existence of deep bedrock fractures
7    and the possibility of contaminants moving off site

8    through those fractures?

9                   MR. SHOSKY:   We gave a verbal explanation

10   of the fractured bedrock system and how it would be

11   intercepted potentially below the Tar Ponds by moving

12   from the tar cell down towards the Tar Pond area.   I

13   would have to verify this but I believe that the model,

14   the groundwater model that was in use primarily focused

15   on the shallow systems.

16                  MR. HARPER:   And correct me if I'm wrong

17   but it's possible for the bedrock fractures to be in an

18   orientation different from a flow area that goes from the

19   Tar Ponds down -- sorry, goes from the Coke Ovens to the

20   Tar Ponds.   Is that not correct?   It's possible for the

21   groundwater fractures or the bedrock fractures to go in

22   an orientation other than that?

23                  MR. SHOSKY:   I gave an opinion on that a

24   day or -- it was an undertaking that we took on a day or

25   two ago and I think I gave that explanation yesterday
                                    626           STPA QUESTIONED
                                                (Mr. Duff Harper)

1    actually.    Whether you agree with it or not is another

2    story but the -- we did give what our opinion on that

3    was.

4                     MR. HARPER:   Yeah, I believe the

5    undertaking had to do about the hydrogeology connection

6    between the two.   But my question then becomes is, the 25
7    year monitoring that is to go on with respect to this

8    site after the operation, will it include groundwater

9    analysis, deep groundwater analysis?

10                    MR. SHOSKY:   The short answer is yes.   And

11   the longer answer is is that we have an undertaking that

12   covers the long-term monitoring.     That was given to us

13   yesterday, I believe, and we have an undertaking to come

14   back with a plan for the long-term monitoring so at that

15   point in time if you don't mind, we could discuss it

16   then.   It will list out the areas that are going to be

17   looked at over time.

18                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    Mr. Harper, I'm afraid

19   that takes you to the end of your 15 minutes.

20                    MR. HARPER:   Those are the end of my

21   questions.

22                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    Oh, well good timing.

23   Well done.   Thank you very much.    Our next questioner is

24   Ms. Ouellette.



2                     MS. OUELLETTE:      I'm back on the air

3    monitors again.   I guess that's my baby.       Did the hand-

4    held monitors ever show an exceedence of Naphthalene and

5    Toluene during the problems at the Domtar tank that led

6    to stoppage of the work?

7                     MR. POTTER:   The toluene definitely --
8    that's a definite no.   There was a situation where there

9    was a false reading for Toluene at one point in time.

10   But that was determined to be a lab issue which was

11   corrected and we changed our sampling procedures for that

12   parameter.   We don't seem to recall and we don't have the

13   data in front of us here to address the questions with

14   the Naphthalene so we can try to go back to some of the

15   data and look.    Maybe it's the lateness of the day but

16   the brain's starting to get a little thick.        I can't

17   recall off the top of my head if there was an exceedence

18   where we picked it up with the hand-held monitors.

19                    MS. OUELLETTE:      Okay.   What ---

20                    THE CHAIRPERSON:     So should -- excuse me,

21   should we -- you're going to come back with that as an

22   undertaking.   So to come back with information with

23   information about the -- what hand-held monitors

24   indicated with respect to exceedences. [u]

25                    MS. OUELLETTE:      What value are these
                                   628          STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1    monitors if they don't protect human health, if they fail

2    to detect a problem?   What I'm saying is if the hand-held

3    monitors didn't protect -- didn't pick up Naphthalene and

4    Toluene what value are these monitors in protecting human

5    health if there's a problem -- if they can't detect a

6    problem?
7                    We all know that Naphthalene exceeded the

8    guidelines at some point and we all know that Toluene was

9    also in the air that did -- and you just finished saying

10   that you're not sure -- or you don't know that they

11   didn't pick up the air quality at that time.    So I'm just

12   asking you, if they can't pick up these two contaminants,

13   what good are they for us?

14                   MR. KAISER:   Thank you.   The hand-held

15   instruments are said -- as I guess I tried to say

16   earlier, there are different instruments that are set up

17   differently depending on the parameter that you're trying

18   to measure.    For example, Naphthalene, you set up the

19   monitor, you collect information in regard to

20   Naphthalene.   In regard to your question, the actual

21   monitors are very helpful because when we see exceedences

22   show up, we get that information very quickly.    We make

23   changes to the work very quickly and we do stop the work

24   if there are exceedences that require us to stop the work

25   as we have done in the past.
                                 629             STPA QUESTIONED
                                          (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1                  MS. OUELLETTE:      My point is if there's a

2    smell in the air and we detect it, but yet the air

3    monitors -- hand-held monitors that are supposed to pick

4    up the real time air monitor, the sample, are not picking

5    it up, what do we rely on as a monitor?    What kind of

6    monitors are you going to have in place if they do not
7    pick up the exceedence that exists coming off the sites?

8                  MR. GILLIS:   I'd ask Dr. Magee to try and

9    shed a little bit of light on this.

10                 DR. MAGEE:    The nature of smelling odours

11   is complicated and it's not a -- it doesn't have a direct

12   link to human health.   When you can smell an odour, you

13   can smell it very often because the wind wafted in your

14   direction for just a few moments.    It might be a second,

15   it might be a minute, might be ten minutes, then it's

16   gone.

17                 Did someone smell the odour?     Well, we're

18   not saying no, they didn't smell it.    But you can smell

19   an odour for a very short period of time and not have any

20   consequences on human health.     The levels of Naphthalene

21   required to exert a health effect if you were to smell it

22   or have it -- you know, to take it in for a minute or two

23   or an hour are thousands of times higher than the levels

24   that you could breathe them.

25                 Are they that much higher than the levels
                                   630             STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1    that you want to breathe all day long every day, of

2    course not.   Those levels are much lower.      So just

3    smelling something doesn't mean that you've got any

4    adverse health effect.   That's what the longer term

5    monitors are there to help you with, the 24 hour

6    monitors.
7                    MS. OUELLETTE:      I understand that you're a

8    doctor and I don't know if you know the history of Sydney

9    or Frederick Street or where I lived but I can guarantee

10   you when we smelt Benzene coming off the Coke Oven site,

11   seven days a week, 24 hours a day, they certainly made my

12   family and the rest of the Frederick Street residents

13   very sick.    And when you tell me and you can sit there

14   and tell me that Naphthalene or Toluene doesn't affect a

15   person's health, I request that you do your homework

16   because it's well stated on any site when you look up

17   these contaminants, there are side effects.

18                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     Ms. Ouellette, if you

19   could move back to questioning please.        I think ---

20                   MS. OUELLETTE:      I will.   But that just

21   kind of upsets me when he tells me that there's no health

22   effects with these chemicals when I know different.

23                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     I understand that.

24                   MR. SHOSKY:   Could I take a moment to add

25   a little bit to the comments that have been made so far?
                                  631           STPA QUESTIONED
                                         (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1    I spent most of my career actually cleaning up hazardous

2    waste sites as opposed to sitting on panels with PhD's

3    and things of that nature.   There's a reason that we used

4    hand-held instrumentation as part of the everyday cleanup

5    activities.   That's to provide health and safety

6    screening for the workers that we have out there as our
7    first concern.

8                     If that material -- if those hand-held

9    instruments don't work properly, the guys are not wearing

10   their proper PPE, personal protection equipment, you can

11   imagine the type of lawsuits that are available for a

12   large clean up contractor.   So there's an emphasis on the

13   use and proper use of hand-held instrumentation.    And

14   controlling of odours during the function of a clean up

15   project.   Will there, in some cases, be some emissions

16   during that process, sure.

17                    But the reality is is that every effort is

18   typically made in order to minimize those odours,

19   particularly in urban areas because of all the issues

20   involved with surrounding people.   Most of us here notice

21   odours and we all have different sensitivities to all of

22   it.   We have the same problem with the workers that we

23   have.   They are monitored as part of their work.   Dr.

24   Magee's analysis has indicated that the workers are the

25   highest ones at risk.   And they will be wearing more than
                                  632          STPA QUESTIONED
                                        (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1    just hard hats and steel-toed boots.   We know that.

2                    We know, too, that there's a three or four

3    step air monitoring process in place where the workers

4    get monitored, the next level out is monitored and it

5    goes further out to the boundaries of the facility.     The

6    facility boundaries have been monitored now for quite a
7    number of years.   Those activities have gone on, detailed

8    monitoring takes place, usually when the work's

9    happening.

10                   At night when people leave they typically

11   put down tarps and odour control mechanisms so that when

12   they go to work the next morning, they can start working

13   and the odours over the evening typically are minimized.

14   You know, in most cases that is what has to happen.     With

15   most of the responsible clean up contractors that are in

16   -- that are still in business today that are doing this

17   kind of work.

18                   I thought I would add that because it's

19   not so much that nobody cares about other people or

20   anything like that.   I don't believe that -- I don't

21   really believe that that's the case.   I think people are

22   trying to do the best job they can and that they need to

23   probably focus on more site controls in order to minimize

24   the types of odours that are released -- that you're

25   experiencing.   Thank you.
                                   633             STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1                    MS. OUELLETTE:      Your magic word -- and I'm

2    glad you mentioned it -- was "the workers".      Between the

3    residents and the workers, we have a chain link fence.

4    That protects nobody.   They don't have a heartbeat.      We

5    have no protection, that's my point.      We don't wear

6    protective clothing.    We don't wear masks.    We wear
7    nothing.   But we do swallow the contamination that comes

8    off these sites.

9                    My next question is, Frank you stated that

10   there are 650 technical and scientific reports.      On your

11   website there's only 97.   Could you list them for me and

12   I'd like to have an e-mail on that, what they are.

13   Because if there's 650 reports, we didn't get to see

14   everything.    So can you send a list of them to me and I'd

15   like to see them?

16                   MR. POTTER:   We do often reference 650

17   reports.   It is impossible to put all those reports on

18   our website.   Reports go back a considerable period of

19   time.   They were not electric format -- electronic

20   format.    To go back and scan those and try to put them on

21   a scanned document becomes a very big document, so our

22   website, we just had to upgrade our website recently

23   because it has gotten so big, I think it's 10 Gig right

24   now, and we just had to buy a license for a larger

25   website because of our reports, the ones we do have.
                                  634             STPA QUESTIONED
                                           (Ms. Debbie Ouellette)

1                   We have a library.     We have a librarian.

2    I think she's actually here tonight.     If you'd love to

3    drop in the office, we'd be happy to see you.      You could

4    take a look at the information, the reports we have.        If

5    there's one that you'd like to look at, we could make it

6    available to you.
7                   MS. OUELLETTE:      Well, you mentioned 650

8    technical and scientific reports.     She should have a list

9    -- I just kind of want the list sent to me so I can go

10   over it.   Because there could be a lot of details that we

11   don't have that you have that we don't see that maybe

12   some experts might want to look at these issues.      Ninety-

13   seven reports tell us nothing if all the information is

14   not on your site.

15                  MR. POTTER:   We will supply a list of

16   reports to Ms. Ouellette.[u]

17                  MS. OUELLETTE:      Thank you.   That's my

18   questions.

19                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     Thank you very much, Ms.

20   Ouellette.   Ms. Kane.



23                  MS. KANE:   Thank you.    I would just like

24   to start off by clarifying something.     Earlier I stated

25   repeatedly that there were 3,500 tonnes of PCB's.      And I
                                   635          STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    was talking about pure PCB's, not contaminated -- not

2    mixed within the other sediments.    I should have stated

3    3.8 tonnes, not 3,500 tonnes.

4                    I stated that amount when I asked the

5    question about whether it's economically responsible to

6    incinerate 120,000 tonnes of sludge just to destroy 3.8
7    tonnes of PCB's, not 3,500 tonnes.

8                    So next I'd like to get back a little bit

9    to the guidelines you're using for the mobile/temporary

10   incinerator.    I'm not sure what you're calling it.   Your

11   plan's to operate the incinerator for at least three

12   years and that doesn't include the several years it's

13   going to take to commission the incinerator and another

14   year or so to decommission the incinerator.   Do you

15   anticipate first of all, that you will have to operate

16   the incinerator longer than three years?

17                   MR. GILLIS:   I'd ask Don Shosky to answer

18   that question relating to the performance of the

19   incinerators.

20                   MR. SHOSKY:   Currently right now there's

21   no intention to operate it beyond actually an operation

22   phase over the three years.    And I think it's important

23   to realize that people probably have in their mind that

24   oh, this incinerator's got quite an extensive shakedown

25   period of two years.   We're expecting that there's going
                                  636           STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    to be an awful lot of monitoring.

2                   There's going to be a lot of starting and

3    stopping, insurances that various bells and whistles are

4    working on it properly.    Can you drive up and pull up to

5    a site and get one up and running, there are some parts

6    in California and in the U.S. where that's possible,
7    where the permits are established.    But we know that this

8    is going to be an issue in this location and it's the

9    desire of the Tar Ponds Agency to do it right and take

10   the time to properly commission it.

11                  MS. KANE:   So you're saying you're going

12   to be tested for -- testing it for two years prior to its

13   operations for three years?

14                  MR. SHOSKY:    There's -- whatever that time

15   takes in order to make people feel comfortable that it's

16   operating properly and it runs through the proper testing

17   procedures.   It may take as long as two years.   That's

18   what I'm saying.   But before it's fully commissioned, you

19   know, if it only took a year, that -- then it would take

20   a year but if it took two years, that's the time that's

21   been allotted so far for that commissioning phase.

22                  MS. KANE:   Is that built into your Human

23   Health Risk Assessment, the additional two years?

24                  MR. SHOSKY:    I'll have to turn to Dr.

25   Magee for that because there's different parameters that
                                  637           STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    are affected in each of the various years of operation.

2                   DR. MAGEE:    We have performed the Human

3    Health Risk Assessment assuming that the incinerator is

4    running full tilt at -- for 365 days a year for five

5    years.   So certainly whatever we've evaluated there would

6    cover a short period of start up which would by the way,
7    be done with clean material.   Start up would be on fuels

8    and not on contaminated material from the Ponds.

9                   MS. KANE:    So what guidelines are you

10   using for this incinerator?    I don't know if we've

11   determined that.   You mentioned all kinds of different

12   guidelines but I'm not sure.   You -- according to the

13   commitment by the Federal Government you're to use CCME

14   guidelines as a minimum.    But it sounds to me like you've

15   been sidestepping that because you want to avoid the

16   1,500 metre set back which was required in the CCME

17   guidelines.

18                  Before you answer that, if -- I'd just

19   like to state -- sorry, Frank -- that the guidelines for

20   CCME mobile PCB destructions systems from 1990, they

21   state that the duration of operation at each site is

22   typically weeks to months.    But you're talking about

23   years which to me may be more of a permanent than a

24   mobile incinerator.   So I think we're -- anyway, sorry

25   I'll let you answer that.
                                    638           STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1                     THE CHAIRPERSON:    Can I ask for

2    clarification.   Are you asking what will be the

3    regulations under which this incinerator must operate?

4                     MS. KANE:   Yes.

5                     THE CHAIRPERSON:    Well, I would ask the

6    Agency to give a brief rundown but I think we're
7    obviously -- there's considerable interest in some areas

8    and we will be talking to both the Federal and Provincial

9    regulators.   And -- but pursuing some issues there but

10   carry on.

11                    MR. POTTER:   I guess I'll start by saying

12   that we're committed to operating the incinerator as

13   safely as possible.    We've modelled it in a very

14   conservative manner.   We're, you know, wanting to give

15   the community the assurance that we're going to make sure

16   this incinerator works properly.     We've stated in the

17   past that if it doesn't, the incinerator would stop

18   operating.    That's been our practice in other operations

19   we've had on the site.

20                    In particular to the question of the

21   regulations, again, you know, I don't want to keep going

22   back to the issue of the regulators but we will have to

23   sit with the regulators, describe the project in more

24   detail as we get closer to that final design and the --

25   you know, the tendering for the facility.     We will, at
                                  639           STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    that point, be working with them.    We can't indicate to

2    you what rules or what guidelines the relevant regulator

3    will apply.   That'll be something that they will have to

4    judge themselves.   We've -- we will just commit to

5    whatever the necessary regulatory requirements are put in

6    place for us, we will meet those.
7                   MS. KANE:   Thank you.   On to another

8    subject please.   In response to this -- I was asking

9    earlier about the SSTL's and how they were developed.     In

10   response to the Sierra Club question you stated that the

11   SSTL's are higher than the CCME concentration levels.

12   Given this, will you please explain if contaminated soil

13   over the CCME guidelines will remain at the site.

14                  MR. POTTER:   That was Mr. Kaiser I believe

15   that referenced that.

16                  MS. KANE:   Um-hmm.

17                  MR. KAISER:   We have earlier taken an

18   undertaking to come back and better explain this issue of

19   the comparison of CCME and SSTL's.   At this time, I'd

20   like to say that what I said earlier in response to a

21   Sierra Club question was that typically they would be

22   higher.   The SSTL's would be higher.   CCME is sort of a

23   multi-phased or multi-level approach.   You can either

24   accept the given criteria, the given number if you want

25   to.   Or you can use the protocols that are in the CCME
                                  640            STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    approach and do health risk assessments and determine

2    what the specific number for your site would be.

3                   It's for that reason and based on that

4    approach that we've gone and we've done Human Health and

5    Ecological Risk Assessments on our site based on the

6    significant amount of site characterization and site
7    assessment work that we've conducted here.    Which we have

8    a lot of confidence in.    We proceeded then, of course, to

9    determine what the SSTL's are for our site.   So it's not

10   atypical to use this approach to use the best site

11   information you have and determine through risk

12   assessment what numbers you should apply at your site.

13                  But again, I would like to clarify, the

14   SSTL's have been applied to select the remedy that we

15   will apply.   The actual criteria that may be applied

16   against us may yet be set by a regulatory agency and may

17   differ from what we expect we will apply.

18                  MS. KANE:   In developing them did you use

19   the soil sampling that was -- that took place in North

20   Sydney?

21                  MR. KAISER:   We did use some of the North

22   Sydney background information.

23                  MS. KANE:   Some of it.   Maybe you can

24   explain, when you come back with the detailed information

25   about the CCME as compared to the SSTL's which you used
                                    641           STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    and which you didn't use.      Because I'd like to move on if

2    I could.[u]

3                     MR. KAISER:   That actually is why I would

4    like to respond to the undertaking and be able to provide

5    a full explanation of what we did so that it would bring

6    the utmost clarity to the questions.
7                     MS. KANE:   Okay.   Is it possible to

8    include what the soil depths you used from North Sydney

9    sampling were?

10                    MR. KAISER:   I expect so, yes.

11                    MS. KANE:   Okay, thank you.   In relation

12   to -- in regard to IR-54, it says:

13                        "An unconfined compressor strength

14                        target of at least zero point one

15                        two to zero point one four MPA,

16                        megapascals, which is consistent with

17                        industry standards for strength

18                        testing on solidification projects

19                        was adopted as the relevant strength

20                        criteria and was met by the cement

21                        additives."

22                    This target level which you say is

23   consistent with industry standards for strength testing

24   is based on what end use?      Would it be recreational,

25   light industrial ---
                                  642           STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1                   MR. SHOSKY:   The unconfined compressive

2    strength standards that were referenced in there make the

3    land use available for recreational, light industrial

4    activities.

5                   MS. KANE:    Okay, how would it be known --

6    given that, how would it be known how light industrial
7    use would affect the cap and the underlying SS sediments?

8                   MR. SHOSKY:   That's a good question and I

9    think we got asked that question several times over the

10   last few days so I've noticed we've got a few more people

11   in the audience as well and it's worthy of mentioning --

12   discussing.   We had -- when you go into an area that has

13   been remediated and if you look at a lot of the

14   brownfield sites that are available today for

15   redevelopment, the idea typically is is that if there is

16   a capping containment system and somebody wants to put a

17   new use on top of it, what they may have to do in some

18   cases is upgrade the cap.    Or use some sort of

19   engineering controls on the building that they put in in

20   order to make sure that the original integrity of the

21   containment system, whether it's a cap or whether it's

22   walls or groundwater control systems are still in tact at

23   the end of those building activities.

24                  MS. KANE:    So you're suggesting a building

25   could be put on this property?
                                    643            STPA QUESTIONED
                                                (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1                     MR. SHOSKY:   With the proper controls

2    there's no reason why it wouldn't be.      It'd be better if

3    we knew sooner rather than later because we'd probably

4    want to increase the unconfined compressive strength.

5                     MS. KANE:   Well, yes because in relation

6    to your report, the Earth Tech report, 5.2, Table 7, the
7    Summary of Unconfined Compressive Strength, if you could

8    explain to me after the seven day compressive strength --

9    for one thing, first of all, there were 23 different

10   tests conducted in that table.       And of those 23, only six

11   of them have sufficient strength to use.      So 17 didn't.

12   For one thing.

13                    The other thing I'm wondering is seven day

14   versus 14 day compressive strength testing, for example,

15   in one test it was after seven days, one point two one

16   megapascals.    After 14 days it was decimal 98.    Does that

17   mean it's getting weaker instead of stronger?

18                    MR. SHOSKY:   Well, the short answer to

19   that questions is not necessarily.      But the longer answer

20   is that we have identified a number of potential mixes,

21   some pass, some fail which is the purpose of running

22   remediation tests, is to figure out what may work or what

23   may not work.

24                    Now what we have offered to do is take an

25   undertaking where we clarified some of the questions that
                                  644           STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    Mr. Ignasiak asked as well as if we could include your

2    comments in there, into that response, we would be happy

3    to do so.

4                   MS. KANE:   But there's only one and from

5    your table, your own table of testing there's only one

6    sediment sample from the North Pond that actually got
7    stronger.   The rest of them seem -- and I'm not sure

8    because I'm not used to, you know, looking at megapascals

9    and compressive strength but to me it just looks like

10   after a week instead of the cement setting and getting

11   harder, it's not getting harder.   It's getting weaker.

12   Is that what I'm reading here?

13                  MR. SHOSKY:   Well, there's always going to

14   be some sample variability which is why during the

15   detailed design phase there would be additional testing

16   run to validate the proper mix ratios of the additives

17   involved.   This initial technical memorandum that we gave

18   to the panel was the first step of several steps in order

19   to, you know, validate the various mixed criteria.   So

20   there will be additional testing done to validate the

21   appropriate stabilization mix ratios.

22                  What that report does tell us, it tells us

23   generally what works and what doesn't work which is what

24   it was intended to do.

25                  MS. KANE:   And most of it doesn't work.
                                    645            STPA QUESTIONED
                                                (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    Well, most of it doesn't work.       You only have one here

2    that does.

3                     MR. SHOSKY:   But again, it gave us an

4    answer to a part of the question and part of the

5    materials that you're looking at there when you look at

6    that are not all cement based materials.      There are a
7    variety of different types of materials that are readily

8    available in the Cape Breton area that were candidates

9    for testing.    We certainly didn't expect all of them to

10   pass and we know that there's going to be additional

11   testing in the future during the design phase in order to

12   nail down a mix ratio.   What it does tell us is that it

13   does work.

14                    MS. KANE:   To me, it tells me that it

15   doesn't work because there's only one out of 23 that

16   actually increased in strength after a week.      Anyway, not

17   to belabour that point, am I out of time or do I have

18   time for one more question?

19                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    You have time for one

20   more question.

21                    MS. KANE:   Okay, thank you.   I need my

22   glasses here.    All along, you've promoted the use of

23   augering to perform the solidification and stabilization

24   process as a method.   Now you're saying it would increase

25   potential for a secondary cracking making it more porous
                                    646            STPA QUESTIONED
                                                (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    and permeable.   So now you don't want to use it.

2    Instead, you're saying excavators can successfully SS

3    treat materials.   My question is, is how can you be

4    confident or more importantly, how can we be confident in

5    what you're now proposing if you've already changed your

6    mind since making your video?
7                     MR. SHOSKY:   Well, there's a number of

8    items that we can answer there.      No. 1, is that there's

9    been historically, more material stabilized using

10   hydraulic excavation equipment, traditional civil

11   equipment than there has been using auger systems.         It's

12   in my opinion and the opinion of the other people that

13   I've had review this that hydraulic excavation equipment

14   is the most preferred way to do it.       It's a shallow

15   application.

16                    It also provides the most economic benefit

17   to the community as far as not having to bring in some

18   specialized equipment or some special contractor from

19   outside Cape Breton.   That technology and that technique

20   puts Cape Breton companies to work in Sydney.      It's the

21   cheapest way to do that.     And it's the most appropriate

22   for this particular environment.

23                    MS. KANE:   Thank you.   Thank you very

24   much.

25                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    Thank you, Ms. Kane.    I

1    would like to just ask one quick question of

2    clarification.   Mr. Shosky you said that it would be

3    better -- with respect to potential light industrial use

4    on the Tar Ponds site, that it would be better to know

5    earlier than later because then you would increase the --

6    or you could increase the compressive strength.     Does

7    this mean that if the use were to occur after the
8    remediation were complete that you -- how would you --

9    you wouldn't go back in or the developer would not go

10   back in and increase the compressive strength.     They

11   would use some other method.     Could you just clarify that

12   for me?

13                    MR. SHOSKY:   That's correct.   They would

14   need to go in and probably install some deeper

15   foundations into more stable underlying layer like the

16   till layer which would be a much more robust item for

17   them to set their building foundations into.

18                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    And this would be

19   feasible with respect to the integrity of the whole

20   monolith and the whole containment system to do this?

21                    MR. SHOSKY:   Well, without knowing what

22   the exact nature of that building would be right now I

23   would only be speculating.     Engineering something like

24   that could be a challenge but without knowing what the

25   exact configuration or the usage of that building would

1    be it would be -- it's hard to say what exactly would

2    need to be done.

3                   THE CHAIRPERSON:     Thank you.   We do have a

4    little bit of time left before we close our session.

5    What I would like to ask, first of all, is if there are

6    anybody in the hall who has not asked a question who

7    would like to come forward and ask a question, then I
8    would probably ask that you just -- I request that you

9    just ask one question at this point.     I'm willing to go

10   back around my list for one question up until 9:00.      So

11   Environment Canada.   Save Our Health Care Committee, do

12   you have one more question you'd like to ask, a question

13   you didn't get a chance last time.




17                  MS. MACLELLAN:      Thank you very much for

18   the extra time.    If -- my question is concerning the

19   incinerator.   And the stacks.     First, I was wondering how

20   high the stacks will be and the particulate matter that

21   will come out of the incinerator.     And I know we've

22   talked a lot about monitoring but will there be monitors

23   on the stacks to monitor what comes out of the

24   incinerator?

25                  MR. GILLIS:   I'll ask Dr. John Walker to
                                    649             STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Ms. Mary MacLellan)

1    provide an answer to that.

2                     DR. WALKER:   Thank you.    The -- yes, there

3    will be monitors on the stack.       We've discussed the CM --

4    CCME guidelines a little bit or gone around a number of

5    times and the emissions for this incinerator were based

6    primarily on the CCME document.       And just for a very
7    brief background on that, that was an exercise by the

8    Federal Government together with the Provincial Ministers

9    of Environment to look at incinerators around the world

10   and the incinerators that worked.       And they said this is

11   guidance on how you can make it work.

12                    So they didn't say this is carved in

13   stone.   They said if you're going to design a system, if

14   you design it this way it will probably work fine.         In

15   terms of the emissions and the temperature, let me

16   clarify that for you as well.        The operating temperature

17   in the secondary combustion chamber for a PCB incinerator

18   is 1,200 degrees and the design standard for that

19   incinerator would be 1,300 degrees C.

20                    There are other temperatures.     There's a

21   temperature of the inlet to the particulate control

22   device of 140 degrees C.   That's the mixture that the --

23   any of the metals, the heavy metals maybe all -- are

24   condensed out.   And then the -- we used 120 degrees C

25   from the stack and the stack is 100 feet high.       I'm
                                650             STPA QUESTIONED
                                           (Ms. Mary MacLellan)

1    sorry, I'm belabouring the question a little bit, but the

2    stack is 100 feet high as we've envisaged it.   We fully

3    anticipate that it could be higher.   That it could be

4    different.   That it won't be that.   We fully anticipate

5    there will be a requirement, in order to obtain an

6    operating permit for another set of modelling data to be
7    submitted to Nova Scotia Department of Environment.

8                   In terms of what will be monitored there

9    is in the CCME document a very comprehensive list and --

10   except I can't quite read it.    The gassy submissions that

11   will be measured from the stack, according to CCME are

12   Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulphur Dioxide, CO which is Carbon

13   Monoxide, CO2 is listed but it's really not entirely

14   necessary.   Oxygen is necessary because you always want

15   to have an excess of oxygen in a hazardous waste

16   incinerator to make sure you have complete combustion and

17   total hydrocarbons.

18                  Now there are some other things that are

19   measured on an occasional basis and the reason is that

20   it's very difficult to measure some of these trace

21   organics on anything like a real time basis.    So during

22   the stack testing process there will be a team of five

23   people audited by someone from Environment Canada at the

24   Environmental Test Centre, River Road Laboratory in

25   Ottawa.
                                 651             STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Ms. Mary MacLellan)

1                  They will be on the stack and they will

2    use a fairly complex set of equipment to obtain about

3    four cubic metres of stack gas, scrub through some

4    substance and at the end of all that, they will wind up

5    with -- if it was operating at the limit of its -- of the

6    PCB range it would be collecting something, I believe
7    it's about five -- about half a nannogram, a half a

8    billionth of a gram.    So it has to be a very careful

9    procedure.

10                 That's why you can't do it all the time.

11   PCB's are very difficult to measure.    You can't do them

12   real time because they don't react which is why they're

13   used in the first place, ironically.    They don't react so

14   it's very hard to get a system that will respond to them.

15   So we anticipate that the stack testing will be performed

16   on commissioning.   The CCME calls for a commission

17   testing within six months of start up.    They call for

18   particulate matter in metals, chlorobenzenes,

19   chlorophenols, dioxins and feurons, PCB's, hydrochloric

20   acid or HCO and PH's.

21                 MS. MACLELLAN:      You mentioned dioxins.

22   Will there be a dioxin monitor on the stack similar to

23   those used in Europe since 1993?    Also this particular

24   ---

25                 THE CHAIRPERSON:     This does constitute a
                                 652                STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Ms. Mary MacLellan)

1    second question but do finish the question and a short

2    answer and then I will go to someone else please.

3                  MS. MACLELLAN:      Okay.

4                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     Oh, is that good.      Will

5    that be -- you've asked ---

6                  MS. MACLELLAN:      Well, it's all in relation
7    the stacks.

8                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     No, I understand but I'm

9    trying to be ---

10                 MS. MACLELLAN:      You know, if he would just

11   answer the part about the dioxin monitor.

12                 THE CHAIRPERSON:     Right.    Thank you.

13                 DR. WALKER:     I'm not familiar with real

14   time docks and monitor.   The same problem with dioxins.

15   You cannot measure them at that level.

16                 MS. MACLELLAN:      Have you investigated the

17   ones that they use in Europe?

18                 DR. WALKER:     We do dioxin testing all the

19   time.

20                 MS. MACLELLAN:      But with the dioxin

21   monitors as used in Europe?

22                 DR. WALKER:     If you can give me a

23   reference, I would be pleased to chase it.

24                 MS. MACLELLAN:      I will provide you with

25   that later.
                                   653             STPA QUESTIONED
                                              (Ms. Mary MacLellan)

1                    DR. WALKER:   Thank you.

2                    MS. MACLELLAN:      Thank you.

3                    THE CHAIRPERSON:     Mr. Marmon, do you wish

4    to ask an additional question?      Okay, thank you.   Sierra

5    Club, have you one question.     I'm sorry, I'm going

6    through the order of the ---


9       MAY)

10                   MS. MAY:   Just as a point of process the

11   area where we are is completely pitch black by this point

12   in the day and my eyes hurt.     The question I would like

13   to ask is in relation to our intervenor request found in

14   Panel No. 46 document, at page -- not page number but in

15   relation to alternatives, we -- our intervenor request

16   was 4.1.   To move through this quickly, I'll just for the

17   record, state that we do not believe that our request was

18   responded to adequately.

19                   The essence of it was whether the

20   Proponents' EIS specifically met the requirements of

21   7.1.3 of the guidelines to provide a complete analysis of

22   alternatives.   We've been referred several times to PC-14

23   as the response that we want which is the response to

24   public comment from Kipin Industries.      Knowing that we

25   are now anticipating an undertaking that will provide
                                  654            STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Ms. Elizabeth May)

1    some rationale for the very much demanded public analysis

2    of how the costs of various alternatives were developed

3    by the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency, I want to focus on

4    another aspect of how they determined which alternative

5    technology was acceptable, which emerges in PC-14 and it

6    is this.
7                   It appears at the last sentence of

8    response PC-14 that the competitive bidding process we

9    believe addresses the cost estimating questions.     My

10   question is, is it the position of the Sydney Tar Ponds

11   Agency that the alternative technologies under review,

12   those particularly that were preferred by the community

13   response process, could not be subjected to competitive

14   bidding.

15                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Do you need any

16   clarification on that question?

17                  MR. POTTER:   Maybe we can ask for

18   clarification on the question.     Just reading the text

19   here.   It reads "Both technologies are readily available

20   in the market and that criterion allows for a competitive

21   bidding process."

22                  MS. MAY:   And by both technologies in that

23   context, you're referring to the ones you chose,

24   stabilization and incineration.    So my question was, if

25   this was a criterion that was used to determine which
                                 655            STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Ms. Elizabeth May)

1    technology among many you determined were the -- was the

2    preferred technology which brings us to this EIS, was it

3    your position that the other alternatives were not

4    subjected to competitive bidding and were not readily

5    available in the market?

6                  THE CHAIRPERSON:     You mean, so I've got it
7    absolutely clear, what the other technologies -- the --

8    you're asking whether it would be possible to get

9    competitive bids on those other technologies?

10                 MS. MAY:     We've been referred to this

11   answer to explain -- well, we still don't think it

12   answers the inadequate treatment of other technologies

13   within the EIS but in searching for an answer as to why

14   the community preferred option was ignored by the

15   Proponent, we've been led to two things.    Their own

16   doubling of costs and then this other ---

17                 THE CHAIRPERSON:     Yes, right.

18                 MS. MAY:     --- rationale.   So I'm trying to

19   find out if it's their position that the alternatives

20   were not available on the market and not susceptible to

21   competitive bidding.

22                 MR. POTTER:    The evaluation of

23   alternatives -- other alternatives fell off because of

24   the evaluation process we employed.   It did not relate to

25   the competitive bidding process.   That wasn't the major
                                656             STPA QUESTIONED
                                            (Ms. Elizabeth May)

1    criteria for eliminating an alternative.

2                   MS. MAY:   I guess I'm baffled then.    We

3    were -- this was the answer you gave us.   There seems to

4    have been throughout this process a lot of mystery about

5    what went -- what changed between the community

6    preference not to have incineration and stabilization and
7    then being told this is what we were getting.    We've been

8    told that there were a lot of hidden costs and that's

9    going to be answered in an undertaking with a breakdown.

10   I guess I just don't understand why you told this was a

11   criterion if you now say it isn't.

12                  THE CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you very much, Ms.

13   May.   Mr. Ignasiak, one question.   Do you have one

14   question?   One.



17                  MR. IGNASIAK:   I have many, many more

18   questions but I will limit myself to one question.     I

19   would like to actually pick on what Mr. Shosky explained

20   to one of my predecessors in the response to -- oh, yes

21   in response to building this little structure.    If I

22   understand correctly, the suggestion was that there could

23   be additional soil added on top of that and subsequently

24   the structure would be put on top of that.   Well, I just

25   wonder -- my understanding is that the monolith will have
                                  657           STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Mr. Les Ignasiak)

1    unconfined compressive strength in the order of 17 to

2    20psi.   If you put additional pressure on that and

3    additional pressure of the building that will increase

4    the total pressure.    So that means that if you come to

5    about 20 the whole thing will collapse.

6                   MR. SHOSKY:   This is why we would look at
7    what the building looked like and the final design of

8    what that building would like -- would look like for the

9    future use in order to answer those questions.

10                  THE CHAIRPERSON:    Thank you.   Mr. Brophy

11   you have a question.



14                  MR. BROPHY:   I have a short two-part

15   question, Madam Chair.    I have here guidelines for mobile

16   polychlorinated biphenyl destruction system, CCME

17   guideline.   In regards to site selection it states

18   specific approaches in criteria for selecting and

19   improving sites should be stipulated by the lead

20   regulatory agency.    My first part of that question, then,

21   is who is the lead regulatory agency?

22                  MR. DUNCAN:   Just for clarification, there

23   is two processes I think we're referring to.    One is the

24   EA process where we talk about responsible authorities,

25   the Federal responsible authorities.    The recent changes
                                   658           STPA QUESTIONED
                                               (Mr. Eric Brophy)

1    to CEA don't designate a lead RA per se.    But I don't

2    know if that's what you're referring to in terms of EA

3    process.    I believe you're referring to a lead permitting

4    agency.    And I believe Mr. Potter had referenced earlier

5    we expect that the Nova Scotia Department of Environment

6    and Labour would likely issue the permit for the
7    incinerator facility.   That would be an industrial

8    approval permit.

9                    MR. BROPHY:   It's in the guidelines and

10   it's under Site Selection.    And it's followed by Siting

11   Criteria.   So I did expect you should know who the lead

12   regulatory agency would be when it pertains to siting of

13   incinerators.   The second part of the question, the

14   sentence I read continues, "The regulatory agency in

15   consultation with affected communities."    Do you intend

16   to consult with the affected communities around the site

17   that you, personally, have selected?

18                   MR. POTTER:   Yes, absolutely.

19                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    Thank you, Mr. Brophy.

20                   MR. BROPHY:   Thank you, Madam Chair.

21                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    Mr. Harper do you have

22   an additional question?   Thank you.   Ms. Ouellette, do

23   you have an additional question?    Thank you.   Ms. Kane,

24   do you have an additional question?    You do.



2       KANE)

3                   MS. KANE:    In IR-54 you said that no

4    benchscale or field testing has been completed to date on

5    potential volatilization of binding agents associated

6    with the SS process.   So I'm wondering, do you anticipate

7    potential volatilization or an increase volatilization
8    and if you do, volatilization of what?

9                   MR. GILLIS:   I'd ask Dr. Magee to respond

10   to that for you.

11                  DR. MAGEE:    In performing the Human Health

12   Risk Assessment, we of course had to estimate what the

13   emissions would be from all of the various activities

14   that might occur on both of the sites in all of the years

15   and obviously one of the major concerns would be what

16   would the emissions be when the pond sediments are

17   excavated and put on trucks and dewatered.   So we did

18   that.   We also needed to worry about emissions that might

19   occur during the stabilization and we do know that

20   stabilization with cement will cause a chemical reaction

21   that releases heat.

22                  With more heat whatever volatile

23   constituents are there would be likely to be emitted at a

24   greater degree than they would be at ambient temperature.

25   So we took the emissions estimates that we measured from
                                 660            STPA QUESTIONED
                                             (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1    our field experiment during excavation.   We looked in the

2    literature to see how hot stabilization might increase

3    the temperature to.    The highest value we could find was

4    50 degrees centigrade.   And we used a standard USEPA

5    equation to multiply our emissions by a factor to account

6    for the fact that we'd have a higher temperature.
7                  And that would be all the hydrocarbons,

8    Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, PCB's.    We

9    evaluated a whole manner of constituents in terms of

10   volatilization.

11                 MS. KANE:    So you're expecting an increase

12   in the volatilization during this exothermic reaction?

13   If that's the case, how will you protect the community,

14   the residents who live adjacent to the fences.    Because I

15   understand you're going to do all your excavation on the

16   Tar Ponds without enclosures.

17                 DR. MAGEE:    We do expect higher emissions.

18   We evaluated in our risk assessment emissions at a much

19   higher level during stabilization.   That's the basis of

20   our risk assessment.   And the risk assessment shows that

21   the level of volatile components in the neighbourhood are

22   low enough that the risks are well below project

23   significant levels.

24                 MR. GILLIS:    Could I ask Don Shosky to add

25   something to that, Madam Chair?
                                   661             STPA QUESTIONED
                                                (Ms. Marlene Kane)

1                    THE CHAIRPERSON:    Yes.

2                    MR. SHOSKY:   At the -- during those

3    activities over the last few days, we've also talked

4    about odour and mitigation controls that are going to

5    take place during the operations.    What Dr. Magee

6    analyzed was with no controls in place.     There will be
7    other odour control mechanisms that'll be in place,

8    either sprays or foams or tarping or a number of variety

9    of different things that can be done to eliminate odours

10   problems.

11                   MS. KANE:   And that will prevent the

12   volatilization during this exothermic reaction?

13                   MR. SHOSKY:   There are chemicals that get

14   sprayed on there.   Even simple water knocks down most of

15   those issues.   So there's a series of different odorants

16   that can be used in order to knock down any type of

17   odours and dust particles.

18                   MS. KANE:   And that won't affect the set

19   up of the cement even further, will it?

20                   MR. SHOSKY:   No, it will no.

21                   MS. KANE:   Thank you.

22                   THE CHAIRPERSON:    Thank you very much, Ms.

23   Kane.   That brings us to the end of these -- this

24   session.    I would like to thank everybody for

25   participating today.   Your questions -- you may have been

1    asking questions for your own purposes or to help you

2    prepare your presentations for your own knowledge, but I

3    want to assure you that the -- they have been extremely

4    useful to the panel.   We have learned a lot from

5    listening to your questions and listening to the answers.

6    And I appreciate your cooperation today.   It's been very

7    smooth, been excellent.   I also want to express our
8    appreciation to the Proponent.   You've gone through three

9    days of a barrage of questioning from us and from others

10   and I appreciate your patience and your sterling efforts

11   to provide us with the information now or later.    There

12   will be more questions I'm sure coming your way over the

13   next few days.   So thank you all very much.   We will be

14   resuming tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.   So you've got 12 hours

15   off.


17      (ADJOURNED TO WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2006 AT 9:00 A.M.)














6    We, Philomena Drake, Ruth Bigio, Sandy Adam, Gwen Smith-

7    Dockrill and Janine Seymour, Court Reporters, hereby
8    certify that we have transcribed the foregoing and that

9    it is a true and accurate transcript of the evidence

10   given in this Public Hearing, SYDNEY TAR PONDS AND COKE

11   OVENS SITES REMEDIATION PROJECT, taken by way of digital

12   recording pursuant to Section 15 of the Court Reporters

13   Act.


15                        __________________________

16                        Janine Seymour, CCR

17                        Philomena Drake, CCR

18                        Sandy Adam, CCR

19                        Ruth Bigio, CCR

20                        Gwen Smith-Dockrill, CCR


22   Tuesday, May 2, 2006 at Halifax, Nova Scotia



Shared By: