THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN (RAP) 
Public Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting 
 
June 7, 2017 – 7 p.m. 
Advanced Technology and Academic Centre (ATAC 3004) 
Lakehead University, Thunder Bay ON 
 

ATTENDANCE
 
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

James Arthur – Thunder Bay Field Naturalists 
Jim Bailey – Lakehead University (LU) Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Office 
Jacqueline Barry - Public 
Frank Edgson – Thunder Bay Public Advisory Committee (PAC), Co-chair 
Jean Hall-Armstrong – Thunder Bay PAC, Co-chair 
Gary Davies – Nature Conservancy of Canada 
Marek Klich – Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 
Carney Matheson – Lakehead University, Anthropology Department 
Curniss McGoldrick – Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate 
Change (MOECC) 
Reg Nelson – Lakehead University, Geospatial Data Centre 
John Parks – Damsa Integrative Resources Inc. 
Samuel Pegg – LU RAP Office 
Phil Poling – Superior Fine Papers, Inc.  
Lak Rappon – Public 
Manit Rappon – Lakehead University, Chemistry Department 
Ken Rusnak – Public 
Janice Rusnak – Public 
Alexiss Rusnak – Public  
Kathy Sakamoto – Thunder Bay PAC 
Mark Serediak – Thunder Bay PAC 
Rena Viehbeck – EarthCare 
Michelle Willows – EcoDivers, Thunder Bay PAC 
Nathan Wilson – Lakehead University 

 
 
 
 
 
 

1 

 INTRODUCTIONS 
 
J. Hall-Armstrong called the meeting to order and asked for introductions from the 
meeting attendees.  
 
REVIEW OF MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 2017 
 
The minutes of the April 12th PAC meeting were reviewed and accepted without 
objection. 
 
NORTH HARBOUR – Overview (presentation) 
 
Jim Bailey (Lakehead University – Remedial Action Plan Office) provided an 
overview of mercury and other contaminated material in Thunder Bay North 
Harbour including the location, extent, toxicity and potential next steps.  
 
It was noted that the entire extent of the contaminated material would likely not be 
remediated as it would cost prohibitive. Only the highest level of contaminated 
sediment and organic matter would be dealt with.  
 
Additional information and previous studies completed relating to the North 
Harbour are available at rap.infosuperior.com/northharbour 
 
NORTH HARBOUR – ERT Process and Roles and Responsibilities 
Curniss McGoldrick (Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change) 
presented an overview of the Environmental Review Tribunal process including the 
Director’s Order on the former Superior Fine Papers property (Case Nos. 11-214/11215/11-216/11-217/11-222/11-223) and the resulting settlement. Curniss noted that 
the ERT settlement decision was reached in 2013 in an effort to prevent impacts to 
Lake Superior which included the following requirements on the owner:  
 
1. Decommissioning of the sewage works (i.e. the lagoons) 
2. Removal of residual chemicals on the site including dredging of the lagoons 
3. Closure and decommissioning of the waste disposal facility (i.e., onsite 
landfill) 
 
To date she mentioned that the decommissioning of the sewage works had been 
mostly completed including the dredging of the lagoon and the majority of residual 
chemicals had been removed from the site. She mentioned that the closure and 
decommissioning of the waste disposal facility has not yet been completed. She 
noted that the closure of the waste disposal facility also included a 25-year ground 
and surface water monitoring program. 
 
She further clarified that this order does not cover the water lots which are owned 
by Transport Canada and operated by the Thunder Bay Port Authority.  In addition, 
 

2 

 she noted that any action to clean up the North Harbour cannot include the former 
mill property. One of the options to remediate the North Harbour as identified in the 
Cole Engineering Report (Option 4B) would have included the lagoons; however, 
with the ERT decision in place this is no longer a viable option.  She noted that all of 
the other options within the Cole Report are still possibilities.  
 
The roles and responsibilities of the different agencies with respect to the CanadaOntario Agreement were also discussed. 
 
NORTH HARBOUR - Discussion 
 
During discussion on the Thunder Bay North Harbour, the following questions and 
comments were made: 
Federally Contaminated Sites List 
• What is preventing the Thunder Bay North Harbour from being listed on the 
Federally Contaminated Sites list? 
• A question was asked about the Canada – US Binational agreement 
respecting the Great Lakes basin ecosystem (the Great Lakes Water Quality 
Agreement) and whether it included reference to resolution of Thunder Bay 
North Harbour contamination. An additional comment was made that if 
North Harbour was mentioned in the agreement, perhaps this could prove 
useful in assisting to have North Harbour added to the federal list of 
contaminated sites. 
• Is the Port Authority full aware of all the potential implications of being on 
the Federally Contaminated Sites list? 
• What are the health implications of fishing and other uses of the North 
Harbour area? 
• How is the contaminated sediment and solutions for North Harbour different 
than those for the Northern Wood Preservers (NOWPARC) project? 
 
Partnerships 
• Is Cascades involved in remediation discussions as an industrial partner? 
• Abitibi as an entity has evolved to become part of Resolute Forest Products; 
what are Abitibi’s environmental responsibilities? 
• At some time, there was a North Harbour Steering Committee which included 
Cascades, as well as Provincial and Federal partners; why was the PAC and, 
nearby business owners with a substantial financial stake in the outcomes, 
not included? 
• Out of respect for the Robinson-Superior Treaty, what is the involvement of 
the PAC with the Fort William First Nation? 
• Is there the possibility that the Public Advisory Committee or one of the 
subcommittees could assist by facilitating discussions amongst key 
stakeholders? 

 

3 

 •
•
•

Are the PAC Terms of Reference available on the InfoSuperior website 
(www.infosuperior.com)? 
Is it worthwhile to form a smaller group, or subcommittee, to act on some of 
these suggestions? 
Can we ask that a Transport Canada representative attend a future PAC 
meeting? 

 
Jurisdictional Challenges 
• Is the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) responsible if 
there is contaminated groundwater leaking into the harbour? (i.e., is this the 
Province’s responsibility?) 
• How did the issue of water contamination within the harbour become a 
separate issue from the land-based contamination? 
• A coordinated effort to identify a lead would be beneficial 
• Will the funding be the same scheme as other Great Lakes cleanup projects 
(i.e. one-third Province, one-third Federal, and one-third industry)? 
 
Ongoing Work 
• Are the recommendations of this Public Advisory Committee to be 
considered once a project lead has been identified? 
• If filling the knowledge gaps will not impact the outcome at all, then is it 
worth working on filling in these gaps? 
• Do we know what studies on mercury, or the North Harbour, are currently 
being undertaken or anticipated? 
• Are there any potential research opportunities for the North Harbour area 
such as phytoremediation options or alternative solutions? 
 
Earthcare representative Rena Viehbeck also noted that the Earthcare Advisory 
Board would be bringing a resolution to Thunder Bay City Council seeking formal 
resolution for action on North Harbour. 
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT IMPAIRMENT (presentation) 
 
Nathan Wilson (Lakehead University) provided an overview of the work he intends
to do over the summer to develop a habitat strategy for the Thunder Bay Area of 
Concern. This could include developing a list and rationale for various potential 
habitat projects as well as mapping these locations. 
 
ADOURNMENT 
 
F. Edgson adjourned the meeting at 9:08pm. Next meeting scheduled for fall 2017. 
. 

 

4