THUNDER BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN (RAP)
Public Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting
October 18, 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.

 

Jim Bailey – Lakehead University (LU) Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Office
Frank Edgson – Thunder Bay Public Advisory Committee (PAC), Co-chair
Tony Gillies - EcoSuperior
Jean Hall Armstrong – Thunder Bay PAC, Co-chair
Richard Harvey – Township of Nipigon
Marek Klich – Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
Casey Ladouceur – ERCO Worldwide, Inc.
Ashleigh Marchl – Resolute Forest Products
Chris McEvoy – Lakehead University – Graduate Student
Curniss McGoldrick – Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
(MOECC)
Samuel Pegg – LU RAP Office
Bruce Pritchard – PAC Member
David Schnell – Public
Jan Schnell – Public
Mark Serediak – PAC Member
Kate Taillon – Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)
Carl Taylor – ERCO Worldwide, Inc.
Bruce Wade - Public
Michelle Willows – Lakehead University – Graduate Student
Nathan Wilson – Lakehead University – Graduate Student

1 

 INTRODUCTIONS
F. Edgson called the meeting to order and asked all participants to introduce themselves.
REVIEW OF MINUTES OF JUNE 7, 2017
The minutes of the June 7th PAC meeting were reviewed and accepted.
THUNDER BAY NORTH HARBOUR CONTAMINATION
Discussion of Questions/Answers Arising from June 7TH PAC meeting
On the behalf of the Remedial Action Plan Coordinating Committee, K. Taillon provided
an overview of the questions and answers that arose at the June 7, 2017 PAC meeting. A
list of these questions and answers is accessible at: North Harbour - Q/A.
K. Taillon provided additional information about question #1, stating that site ownership
is important. She said that the party responsible for cleanup is the site owner, in this case
Transport Canada. F. Edgson noted that Transport Canada had not been active in the RAP
process to date.
In relation to question #2, K. Taillon added that the Port Authority is considered an
arm’s-length Crown corporation and managers of the water lots in question in Thunder
Bay Harbour. She said Transport Canada would be the organization to identify the North
Harbour site for the Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory (FCSI).
In relation to question #3, J. Bailey said that funding for cleanup could be available once
a site was added to the FCSI. He added that the Port Authority contends that Port
Authorities are not eligible to have sites added to the FCSI. K. Taillon noted that this did
not mean that North Harbour could not be on the list, only that the Port Authority could
not be the applicant.
Richard Harvey asked if the Port Authority was fully aware of the implications and
liabilities associated with listing a site on the FCSI. K. Taillon suggested the Port
Authority and Transport Canada meet with the Secretariat of the FSCI to ensure they are
aware of relevant liabilities and issues.
K. Taillon responded to question #4 noting that the “Human Health and Ecological Risk
Assessment” (Franz Environmental Inc., 2013) identified ecological receptors (rather
than human health) as being at the greatest risk from contamination - particularly those
predator species which hunt the area. She noted that the Franz Report also identified
long-term risks to those who work and play at the site and those who consume fish from
from the site. She said the Franz Report points out that the site does not provide healthy
habitat for benthic organisms, or those organisms that consume benthic organisms. She
further noted that the site may also be contributing to elevated fish consumption
advisories for the inner harbour. C. McGoldrick commented that further work is planned

 

2 

 by MOECC to study fish contaminant levels in the Thunder Bay Area of Concern in
comparison to other locations on Lake Superior.
Regarding question #6, K. Taillon noted that Cascades had previously been involved as a
stakeholder and agreed to contribute 10% funding for cleanup, based on the duration of
their operation of the mill. Since no remediation project lead has been identified, K.
Taillon said that a formal agreement regarding specific monetary value of Cascades
contribution has yet to be determined.
Regarding question #7, K. Taillon noted that following Abitibi bankruptcy proceedings
(re-emerging as Resolute Forest Products) environmental liabilities remain in place for
some Abitibi sites across Canada but not others. She said the North Harbour site was one
where, due to the mill being previously sold, the environmental liabilities were no longer
in place. She also noted that as part of bankruptcy proceedings, some funds from Abitibi
were to be used to remediate the North Harbour site. She estimated these funds to be
approximately $400,000.
Regarding question #13, K. Taillon noted that the appropriate Transport Canada contact
was one Heather Osborne. K. Taillon said the PAC could reach out for possible Transport
Canada attendance at a future meeting. F. Edsgon and others voiced support for this
course of action and it was adopted as an action item
ACTION ITEM: J. Bailey to contact Heather Osborne to invite Transport Canada
representation at a future PAC meeting.
Regarding question #17, K. Taillon noted that the polluter pays principle is the preferred
approach for cleanup funding. She added that if the specific polluter no longer exists,
then some other funding arrangement could be pursued, such as a one-third federal, one
third province, one third industry approach. K. Taillon also added that North Harbour
contamination lies on federal land, or lake bottom, and that funding is available, once
placed on the FCSI.
K. Taillon explained that funding should not be considered the limiting factor, rather the
limiting factor was liability associated with the contaminated site. K. Taillon said it was
her understanding that if Transport Canada added the site to the FCSI, then they would be
acknowledging that they were custodians for the site, rather than the Port Authority being
custodians of the site. Through this process, Transport Canada, not the Port Authority,
would be accepting liability. K. Taillon said the Thunder Bay Port Authority, as the
manager of federal lands lying in the harbour, could cooperate with Transport Canada,
the owner of federal lands lying in the harbour, to access cleanup funds through the FCSI.
She noted that while this process would be cooperative, Transport Canada would be the
actual applicant to the FCSI. She added that political will to carry out a cleanup was
another key factor.

 

3 

 J. Hall Armstrong asked if Hamilton Harbour’s Randle Reef was put on the FCSI. K.
Taillon replied that it was not, because the Hamilton Port Authority, rather than Transport
Canada, owns the water lots in Hamilton Harbour.
F. Edgson provided a summary of an October 12th meeting he had attended with the Port
Authority and the City. He said that, in addition to himself, the meeting had been
attended by Tim Heney and Guy Jarvis of the Port Authority, Kerri Marshall, and Rena
Viehbeck from the City of Thunder Bay, and J. Bailey and Rob Stewart representing the
RAP Office and Lakehead University. F. Edgson said the meeting was held in hopes of
establishing a cooperative relationship amongst organizations which might assist in
affecting cleanup. He reported that the main topics of discussion at the meeting had been
the FCSI, an EarthCare resolution to Thunder Bay City Council seeking action on North
Harbour, and potential use of an environmental assessment as a vehicle to move forward
with cleanup. He reported that discussion had been positive, congenial and sincere. He
said that representatives of all organizations had agreed to meet again in a few weeks and
had also agreed that both ECCC and MOECC representatives should be invited to attend
the next meeting.
Richard Harvey noted that local municipalities are able to exert influence on the
provincial and federal levels of government in situations similar to that of North Harbour.
He added that public concern also causes the various levels of government to take action.
F. Edgson reported that a letter had been drafted to be sent to the Port Authority and
various ministries, seeking clarification on several questions related to North Harbour. He
said that as a courtesy, an advance copy of the letter had been provided to Port Authority
staff. He pointed out that J. Bailey of the RAP office had been contacted by the Port
Authority in response to the letter and been thanked for the “heads up.” F. Edgson
reported that the Port Authority had offered to meet to discuss the North Harbour
situation and that the Port Authority also hoped to have City of Thunder Bay
representatives attend. He said the meeting of October 12th resulted.
An early version of a letter re: lack of action on the North Harbour remediation was sent
by Frank and Jean on behalf of the PAC. The email sent by Jean with the letter to Guy
Jarvis was as a personal courtesy, on behalf of the PAC. The letter was not worded or
intended to be adversarial but intended to seek clarification and progress.
B. Pritchard said that the Port Authority was a commercial entity, with the mandate of
facilitating trade and shipping in the Port of Thunder Bay. He said he did not expect they
would become involved in a cleanup costing tens of millions of dollars, as this was totally
outside their mandate, to say nothing of their area of expertise. He said that in short, this
was an unreasonable expectation.
J. Hall-Armstrong expressed frustration at the amount of time taken to achieve resolution
to the North Harbour situation. She said she would like some direct answers from those
responsible and would send the letter in hopes of receiving these answers. J. Hall-

 

4 

 Armstrong noted that the letter handed out at the present meeting was an early draft
version and should not have been distributed. J. Bailey apologized for distributing the
draft.
STATUS OF BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRMENTS
J. Bailey (Lakehead University – RAP Office) provided the PAC with an overview of the
current status of the Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) in the Thunder Bay Area of
Concern, as follows:
Never Was Impaired:
• Tainting of Fish and Wildlife Flavour
• Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae
• Restrictions on Drinking Water Consumption, or Taste and Odour Problems
Not Impaired
• Restrictions on Wildlife Consumption
• Added Cost to Industry or Agriculture (2004)
Requires Further Assessment
• Restrictions on Fish Consumption
Pending Redesignation
• Degradation of Fish Populations
• Fish Tumours and Other Deformities
• Bird and Animal Deformities or Reproduction Problems
• Restrictions on Dredging Activities
• Degradation of Aesthetics
• Degradation of Phytoplankton or Zooplankton Populations
Impaired
• Degradation of Wildlife Populations
• Degradation of Benthos
• Beach Closings
• Loss of Fish Habitat
• Loss of Wildlife Habitat
J. Bailey also noted that next steps included broader public outreach and potential input
for those BUIs pending redesignation, beginning with
• Degradation of Aesthetics
• Degradation of Phytoplankton or Zooplankton Populations
• Fish Tumours and Other Deformities.

 

5 

 OTHER BUSINESS
C. McGoldrick informed those present that applications for the Great Lakes Guardian
Community Fund were being received until November 10, 2017.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting was scheduled for December 6, 2017. J. Bailey said that N. Wilson had
agreed to present a draft habitat strategy, meant to address RAP habitat objectives, at the
December PAC meeting.
ADJOURNMENT

 

6